Greg Walden

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I was a small business owner with my wife for nearly 22 years and I served on a hospital board, and I support reforming the health care system. In fact, I have offered up legislation to do that and supported other bills, but the way that this process is being mismanaged and misrun today is not the way to do health care reform. There isn't the transparency the American people deserve and that is now being denied by those in charge. We are reading in the press that the Senate bill, with all of its barnacles on it, may pass this House without ever having a stand-up ``yes'' or ``no'' vote. That is outrageous. And what does that bill do and what do these bills do? They whack Medicare $500 billion. Thirty-eight thousand seniors in my district run the risk of losing the Medicare Advantage policies that they have. This is not the way to do health care reform. You should scrap the bill and start over on a bipartisan basis. I had two amendments to deal with rural health care issues adopted unanimously in the Energy and Commerce Committee, both of which, after the committee passed the bill out of the committee itself, were stripped out somewhere between the committee and the House floor, and the Democrats wouldn't even let me offer those amendments on the House floor again. Stop this process. Let's do it right.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. I will be happy to yield to my colleague.

Mr. WALDEN. Well, it's that season. The Christmas season is upon us. And I sort of felt like I must have been at the Nutcracker, because I haven't seen that much spin since the sugar plum fairies in the Nutcracker. Let's talk about jobs and the recovery. Let's talk about fact and fact. When the American Recovery Act, the stimulus, was raced through this floor on a totally partisan move, we were told to expect that with the stimulus, as you can see here in this chart to my left, that this is what would happen to unemployment. Now, remember, when the year started and President Obama took office and the Democrats claimed control of the Senate with a 60-seat margin, that can overrun any filibuster--60 seats--and a 40-seat margin here in the House means they are unparalleled in their power and control and ability to pass anything they want anytime they want and sign it into law. When the year started, unemployment was at 7.6 percent in January of this year. High, by national standards. No doubt about it. Highest it had been in many years. We were headed into a recession. No doubt about it. We'd been through unprecedented times. But we were told if the American taxpayers would just go out and loan the Congress, actually it's not the American taxpayers yet, it's our kids and grandkids that get to pay it back later. Right now we're going to the Chinese and the Japanese and the oil-producing countries and saying, Can you loan us the money? But that's the dirty little secret here. If you'll loan us that $800 billion, whatever it was, here's where unemployment will end up. It's going to just barely go up and come out at about 8 percent. Oh, and by the way, we were told by some of the Democrats who were all for this that if we didn't pass the stimulus into law, that unemployment would go clear up to here. Now let's look at what really happened. Many of us on the Republican side of the aisle said, That isn't going to work. Just throwing more taxpayer money you don't have, borrowing more money from foreign countries that already have loaned us more than they want to, and throwing that out in rapid succession may create a few jobs, but the long-term implications are dangerous for the future of this country because of debt. And you're not going to create that many jobs. Sure, in a year or two you can't help but create jobs, and we'll talk about some of those because a lot of them are created right here in the Washington, D.C. area, not out in real America, and are not sustainable. But we were told if we pass it, here's where we'll be with unemployment, at about 8 percent. If we don't pass it, gosh, we'll end up almost at 9 percent. So they rushed it through here. The stimulus rushed through here. And now what are we at? We're over 10 percent unemployment. That's the red line. You see, some of us on the Republican side of the aisle actually come out of the private sector. We actually have signed the fronts of payroll checks like I have and my wife has. For 21, almost 22 years we were small business owners. We took over a very small family business, got it out of debt, on its feet and we grew it in 20 years. We employed 15 to 17 people in small communities in Oregon. I know what it's like to be a small business owner and comply with the heavy hand of government regulation and the burdens of taxation and all the things that you all in government think ought to happen because you know best how to create jobs. What a farce that is. So we see what happens when you throw money at a problem: You waste it, and you don't create jobs. You see, Republicans did have an alternative. My friends and colleagues who were on the floor here earlier said that we had no alternative. Well, they know that's really not the case at all. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office evaluated both of our plans and said the Republican alternative would create twice the jobs at half the cost. Now, there are a lot of smart Christmas shoppers out there. Boys and girls, men and women, come closer. There are a lot of smart shoppers out there who look for bargains, and they say, If I could get twice the product at half the cost, that's a bargain. Unless you're the Democrat majority in the House and the Senate and downtown, then you want to spend twice as much and get half as much. You want to tell the American people, Pass my plan and I'll get you no more than maybe 9 percent unemployment, somewhere in the upper 8s. Actually, no, they said it wouldn't go above 8. That's right. They said it wouldn't go above 8. Whoa. It was at 7.6 and now it's at over 10. And let's talk about what happened to that stimulus. So how did they spend the money? There was an interesting report out in The Hill--$6 million borrowed from your kids and grandkids, actually borrowed from the Chinese, the Japanese, the oil-producing countries that buy our debt, and our kids and grandkids will get to repay this with interest. Six million of those dollars went to now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's pollster. I'm not making this up, folks. This is not a fairy tale. Two firms run by Mark Penn, current Secretary of State Clinton's former Presidential campaign pollster, received a total of $5.97 million in taxpayer funds from the Democrat stimulus that you heard created all these jobs, solved all these problems. Burson-Marsteller, a public relations and communications firm run by Penn, received the funding to advertise the analog to digital television switch in 2008, reportedly saving three jobs at the firm. Three jobs. $6 million. Of the $5.97 million, $2.8 million was also allocated to Penn's campaign polling firm, Penn, Schoen and Berland. At the end of the day, taxpayers spent $6 million to save three jobs. $6 million, three jobs. How many of you go home to your constituents and say, in a town meeting, Can you loan me $6 million, because I've got a brilliant way to create three jobs for Hillary Clinton's pollsters and public relations people to tell people in America that, by the way, you are going to switch from analog to digital on your TV which, by the way, they were very capable of figuring out on their own. We didn't need to spend the nearly $2 billion that was spent in the overall conversion effort to educate the public. They got it. They're smart enough to figure this stuff out. And if they're not, they've got 12-year-old kids that can figure out how to make the DVD not blink and the VCR not blink. But anyway, $6 million, two jobs. Two million on a dance theater. Oh, this one you'll like. Los Angeles Times. The Minneapolis city council recently voted to use Federal stimulus funds to convert a vacant, 99-year-old theater into a center of dance instead of funding a solar energy panel manufacturing plant that would have created seven times as many jobs. Now my friends who were talking before me talked about the green energy jobs. Well, here was a perfect opportunity, with your Federal tax dollars, to create green energy jobs and the Minneapolis city council decided to put it into a dance theater instead. The dance project will cost $2 million and create 48 permanent jobs, according to the city. Interestingly, in the spring newsletter, the theater estimated that completing the project would actually only create 26 full-time and part-time permanent jobs. So in their spring newsletter, they said 26. Now it's reported at 48. The solar energy panel manufacturing plant, meanwhile, that was in competition for that stimulus money received less than $300,000, compared with the dance theater's $2 million, yet the plant would have created more than 360 jobs by 2011. But they couldn't do the right, what is it, minuet? They couldn't spin just correctly. They weren't, I don't know, maybe they didn't have the right tutu on or the right shoes or something. They only had $300,000. The dance theater got $2 million. Americans could have created 360 jobs in Minneapolis. They made that decision. Councilman Paul Ostroff was the single councilman voting against the Center of Dance saying ``the theater wasn't creating enough jobs to qualify for stimulus money, whereas, the solar energy plant clearly fit the President's goal. It was a home run. It was a home run.'' I told you a week or so ago about the $95,000 being spent to study Viking-era pollen in Iceland. Viking-era pollen in Iceland, $95,000. Having been a small business person I've helped create jobs, and I've watched every nickel. You do that when you're in real America. Not back here. When you're in real America and creating real jobs, and you're trying to get to something we call positive cash flow and maintain that, you watch every nickel. You don't let $95,000 go out the door to study Viking-era pollen in Iceland. You make sure that you invest every cent correctly and effectively. You don't just spend money rampantly. You don't throw it out the door. It's too hard to earn. And you're trying to grow your business. You're trying to expand your business. That's what the American way is about. My friend earlier talked as if the whole American recovery, the whole economy and the greatness that we have, originated because of some Federal programs in the Great Depression, the WPA the CCC. And certainly they left a nice footprint behind with some of our fantastic park lodges and buildings. And they did some wonderful work. That is not the essence of America's economy. It doesn't start and stop right here in these two wells, the Well of the House or there at the leadership tables. We are not the innovators and creators of jobs. That is out there in America. Ladies and gentlemen, in the real world, when somebody has an idea, they get a couple of people together who want to believe in that idea, and they put their money forward. They don't go take it from somebody like the tax man or woman does. They put their money at risk. And they say, if we do it a little better, a little smarter, we can be successful. We can create jobs. We can benefit from that. And by the way, it's our money at risk as private citizens. So, we're going to be real careful how that gets spent. We're not going to waste it on lavish offices and all these things. That's the real America out there. You know what I'm talking about, small businessmen and women. You go behind the counter and behind the wall, and they have a broken-down chair and a computer that's sort of wired together that they try and keep operating, and they have paper piled around. I have been in your offices. I had one of your offices. I can show you the pictures and the piles. I know what it's like to work day and night to make your idea successful. That is the American entrepreneurial spirit that works. And yet here in Washington under the party that's in power, they know no limit, no limit to Federal government involvement in your life. They know no limit to borrowing, spending, and believing that they should take over your health care. The Democrats want to put a bureaucrat between you, your insurance company, and your doctor. It's bad enough with the bureaucracy that's out there today trying to get health care. I paid for health care for our employees, my wife and I did, paid 100 percent of the premium. I know what those cost increases look like. We never could target enough to figure how much they would go up. And I want to do something to reform health care, and I have supported many proposals to do so. The irony is the plans coming out of this Congress, these plans however, increase premiums on employers, drive up the cost curve on those of us who are trying to figure out how to make health care more affordable. The Democrats' plan actually drives up the cost curve, drives up the premium, puts mandates on individuals and taxes on small businesses and will cost millions of jobs long term and make America less competitive. You don't think capital doesn't flow any more? You don't think we live in a global economy? For heaven's sakes. You don't think we need to be on our best game and have the most efficient process available to create jobs and run a business? No. I sit here in amazement. I have spent all-nighters in my business trying to make it work. I have struggled trying to pay the bills, get up early in the morning, trying to figure it all out, trying to cut your costs, trying to create your jobs, save jobs during tough times. We were in business 22 years. I have seen the good times, and we were successful in the end. I have seen the bad times, and I know what that's like. But I also know that it's important how you spend your money. FOX News reported recently the National Institutes of Health received $8.2 billion in stimulus funds. I'm all for the National Institutes of Health. However, NIH is conducting a $65,472 study on the relationship between HIV and sex in St. Petersburg, Russia. You think I'm making this stuff up, don't you? $65,472 to study the relationship between HIV and sex in St. Petersburg, Russia. I won't even go there. $700,000 on how taxes, trade, and politics affects tobacco sales in Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, and other nations in Southeast Asia. $73,000--you'll like this one--to study whether the Asian tradition of dragon boat racing will enhance the lives of cancer survivors--$73,000 to look at whether or not dragon boat racing enhances the lives of cancer survivors. Why don't we put it into screenings? Oh, that's right. This is the administration that says, women don't really need to do breast screenings nearly as often or maybe at all. That's a report that came out of this administration. How absurd is that? Put your money in dragon boat racing, don't do mammograms. This doesn't make sense to me. And I don't think it makes sense to Americans. We are looking at some of the other spending. How about this one: $67,726 in taxpayer money to send staff to a customer service seminar, the Green Bay Press-Gazette reports. The Oneida Bingo and Casino outside of Green Bay, Wisconsin, used a Federal stimulus grant to send their staff to a customer service seminar. The 2-day seminar was held at a local technical college to teach the casino staff how to handle confrontations with customers. These are the investments. Do you see why some of us, why every Republican voted against that stimulus? We knew it was going to be wasted. Now let's go to the Congressional Budget Office because they said in the first year or two you can't spend that much money and not create a few jobs, even though they are probably short term. So I give them that. What they look at after that, though, is the debt service cost that actually becomes in the out years, years 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, a debt drag on the economy. It will cost us jobs because you can't borrow $800 billion and not have to pay it back. Even the Federal Government needs to learn that lesson. Let's talk about the debt, because I think that is the single biggest threat to our country's future, to my son's future, to your children's future, is this enormous theft, intergenerational theft I think Senator John McCain called it, where we're taking money from them. Actually we're just stealing their credit card, and we're using it like there is no necessity to ever pay it back, to buy things today that they get the bill for later. At $1.4 trillion, this year's deficit is more than three times that of a year ago. I want that number to sink in; $1.4 trillion dollars this year is triple what it was last year. Oh, and who was President last year? That's right, George W. Bush was. So they want to blame the prior administration. And certainly we all had our complaints at times with any administration. But the facts are these: $455 billion deficit at the beginning of this last fiscal year; this fiscal year, under Democrat control, House, Senate, White House, $1.4 trillion. As a share of the economy, it's 10 percent of gross domestic product. That is the highest level since World War II. Deficits, however, went up under both parties. That's why we need a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget. The great State of Oregon has had that in its constitution for as long as I can remember, and maybe since Statehood. And it has forced the State legislature and the Governor to make tough decisions to balance the budget. Sometimes I have agreed with those decisions, sometimes I haven't. Sometimes they've raised taxes and sometimes they've cut spending. But at the end of the day, they had to balance the budget. If you want to reform this Congress, you would require that this Congress, every time, and the President, regardless of party, has to balance the budget. You could have an exemption if you're at war or in times of emergency. I understand that the Federal Government has some unique roles to play. But this is spending with reckless abandon. This is out of control. Debt held by the public rose above $7.5 trillion, or over 50 percent of gross domestic product, the highest level of the share of the economy in 50 years. When Speaker Pelosi took over, it was at $8.9 billion--trillion dollars. Sorry. It's so hard to keep track of billions going to trillions. We used to--well, I think 100 bucks is a lot. When you're spending taxpayer money, we're talking billion, millions, forget it; billions, we don't even go there any more. We are now talking trillions. So when Speaker Pelosi took over, the national debt was $8.9 trillion. Now why does that matter? The House controls the purse strings of what gets spent. So whoever controls the House starts every spending bill. That's how the process works. It's simple civics. The House, the United States House of Representatives, this body, you men and women who are watching or here tonight know that that's how it really works. The President can veto it, but at the end of the day, it's the House and the Senate that get together. The Congress controls the purse strings. The House originates these things. So $8.9 trillion; the debt is now $12 trillion. Every man, woman and child in America is responsible for at least $39,000, and it's going up to $45,000. Under the President's budget, the debt is projected to double in the next 5 years, triple in 10. It will be roughly three- fourths the size of the entire economy by 2019. Now I want you to think about a debt that goes to $17 trillion, $18 trillion, $19 trillion, $20 trillion, and how you ever pay that back. When Republicans were in charge of the Congress and before the 9/11 attacks and the wars broke out, we actually paid down debt, half a trillion dollars worth. It was a proud moment for our country and for this Congress and for both parties. But it was really Republicans who drove it. We had a Democrat President. We worked in a bipartisan way to get it done, though. And the economy is strong. And we paid down debt. Now go with me on this. Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, get closer to that TV because we're going to go through some math here. I was a journalism major, not a math major, but I think I can figure this one out. Twenty trillion dollars is at issue here. To pay it off, presume that Congress would have to run a surplus of $1 trillion a year for a 20-year span and not spend it, actually apply it to paying down the debt. How many in this Chamber tonight think that's going to happen? Raise your--well, nobody raised their hands. Because nobody believes Congress will ever run a trillion dollar surplus under any condition and apply it to pay down the debt. That's why these issues today in our country's life are so critical, because we have taken our kids' and grandkids' and probably great grandkids' credit cards and spent like there was no reason not to. And they're going to get the bill. According to The Washington Post, when adjusted for the inflation, World War II, the Korean War, the interstate highway system, the Vietnam War, the race to the moon, and the Iraq War added up to $6 trillion. We are now at 12, and we are headed to 20. In comparison, the government will borrow $9 trillion over the next decade. Now, let's go to a bill that just came up in this House Chamber. It's called the omnibus. Whenever you hear that word, shutter your children's eyes and ears. Omnibus. It's really a bad thing. American families are hurting. Ten percent unemployment. Democrat leadership responds with a massive spending bill last Thursday. Last Thursday this came forward. And let me talk to you about that bill; 2,500 pages, nearly half a trillion dollars in spending, 5,000 earmarks on hundreds of pages, and we, under the Democrat leadership, we in the House of Representatives--do you know how much time we were given to read it? Now I'm not Evelyn Wood. It takes me a little more, I'm not a great speed reader. We were given 2 days to read the bill since the conference report was filed. Two days. Half a trillion dollars was spent. Two thousand five hundred pages, 5,000 earmarks, and we were given 2 days. The omnibus contained appropriation bills--$446.8 billion for those keeping track. So half a trillion, 12 percent over the combined funding levels for the same six appropriation bills last year. How many of you got a 12 percent raise? How many of you would just like to have a job? How many of you got a 12 percent raise? These six spending bills gave your Federal agencies a 12 percent increase in spending. Now, there will be those that will say, Oh, but it was for this, it was for that. Everything is wonderful when you're giving it away. Everybody wants to be Santa Clause. There's a big bag in the back of the sleigh parked right behind the podium here, I'm convinced of it. There are more presents than there are kids right now when it comes to this Congress; the problem is we don't have the elves' workshop at the North Pole. We've got kids at home and families at home who are unemployed trying to figure out how to make ends meet. You would think that this government was running a huge surplus and would be able to help them, but no, we're running a huge deficit that hurts jobs, takes away jobs, and they spend 12 percent more. Some of these bills, the Transportation-HUD bill was up 21.3 percent; State and Foreign Operations up 33.2 percent. In addition to the normal appropriations, the agencies funded in this omnibus received a total of $128.2 billion in supplemental funding in the stimulus bill that we heard about earlier. So when you heard about this stimulus, the American Recovery Act and how evil it was the Republicans didn't vote for it, remember where a lot of that money went; it went back into the government. It didn't go out into middle America. It didn't go out into rural America. Some of it did, certainly, but it did not go very far outside of Washington. So here is the final tally: The omnibus spending bill I just referenced brings new spending for nondefense, nonveterans discretionary programs to a level 85 percent higher than 2 years ago.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Does clause 6(a) provide for same-day consideration of the bill?

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you. So what you've heard there is a procedural action that has importance because it comes right in the point I'm talking about with the omnibus, where we had 2 days to consider a bill that costs American taxpayers half a trillion dollars. What is coming up next are the four ``go home'' bills. These are the four bills we've got to pass in order to wind things up before Christmas, and they will take these up tomorrow. I haven't seen them, have you? Have any of you? Nobody here has seen them. Maybe they have in the Rules Committee which just apparently has finished its work, but we haven't seen them. They will raise the debt. They will spend--well, I don't know. I'm told one of them is going to spend tens of billions of dollars; I don't know how much, don't know where. There will probably be a continuing resolution to fund the government because the Democrats, who control the House by a huge 40-vote margin, 41, the Senate with 60 votes, and the White House, even with that massive, overwhelming, powerful control, couldn't pass the budget bills by the time the fiscal year ended. Now, in America, in real America--that's the area outside the Beltway of Washington--if you don't pay your bill on time, what happens? What happens? You get an interest penalty. What happens? Somebody says, hey, you're behind on paying your bill. When it happens here, nothing happens--except it will come November of 2010, I predict, because I think Americans have had enough of what's happened here. But what happens here is they didn't do their work, they didn't finish the process, they didn't pass the budgets, they didn't meet the deadlines. So now we've punted into 2010 for the budget year we're already in. Both parties have done this. That's why we need to reform the process. But, hey, they control 60 in the Senate; that gets you past any filibuster, 60 votes. They control the House with a huge margin, and the White House, and not even with those margins, with single-party powerful control of both Chambers of Congress and the White House could they pass the budget bills. That's why you had the omnibus at the end of the week where they lumped six of them together and jacked up the spending by 10, 12 percent. So here's the final tally: The omnibus brings the new spending for nondefense, nonveteran discretionary programs to 85 percent higher than just 2 years ago; 85 percent higher spending by the Federal Government. You want to know where your money is going? Out of your paycheck, into this body, and out into the bureaucracy. So it should come as no surprise during this time--which tracks with the recession that has eliminated 2.9 million American jobs--the salaries of government bureaucrats have exploded. According to a story in USA Today, Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14 percent to 19 percent of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months. And you wondered where the money is going. Let's go back to the Republican plan because, once again, when it came to the deficit, a lot of us came out of the private sector, small business. Every business that makes jobs is a good thing, frankly, in America these days, but I happen to come out of small communities and represent a district that's 70,000 square miles of gorgeous country, high desert plateaus, forested mountain ranges, wonderful agriculture. We believe in renewable energy--hydro, wind, solar, geothermal. Renewable energy matters. It's a good thing. And Republicans actually have supported renewable energy--I have and will continue to as long as it's reasonable and doesn't jack up rates. But you look at what's happening right now with the Speaker taking a government jet over to Copenhagen with a whole bunch of Members of Congress. They're going to go to that climate change conference. Now, let's look at what happened here in this Congress when they passed the climate change bill, the global warming bill. I was on the committee that dealt with that legislation and it passed in pretty record time. It's a $700, $800 billion cost. But what does it mean to you as an individual American out there? Well, let me tell you. If that becomes law, it means the loss of probably 2 to 5 million American jobs because companies will look at all requirements and say either, I can't afford to continue to operate and I'm closing my doors, or I found a cheaper place to manufacture my product than the good old USA, so I'm going to go and open a factory in China or India that doesn't play by the same rules that this law has and I'm going to move my jobs over there. Sorry. Just one too many things. So for the average American, it means the loss of a couple million jobs. This is being done intentionally. They are passing this knowing what the estimates show from the National Association of Manufacturers, the Black Chamber of Commerce, and other organizations that have looked at this legislation, this cap-and-tax, cap-and-trade legislation. They've said, we've run the numbers; this is going to cost us a lot of jobs, puts new taxes on it. It is a huge, big Federal involvement in everything you and I do in this economy. But what else does it mean? If you're a consumer and you happen to live in the great Northwest and are a customer of Pacific Power, they've reviewed this legislation, they've run it through their power production model and out comes the data. The data on what the cap-and- trade that the Democrats passed, Speaker Pelosi's bill, would do to a Pacific Power customer in Oregon and the rest of their region is, in the first year your electricity rates, as high as they are today, will go up 17.9 percent. You know, maybe this is the year you do want coal in your stocking. 17.9 percent is what your electricity rates will go up. Now, that's bad enough. Maybe you have put in the fluorescent lights--and I think Oregon has been a real leader in that effort--to reduce your energy consumption, maybe you've weatherized and caulked, done all the things to reduce your energy consumption, maybe you just crank it back down to 67 instead of 68 degrees in the winter and not run air conditioning in the summer. You do everything you can. Maybe you can adjust for that. But here's what it does when you go to the gas station. There are estimates out there that say the cap-and-tax bill that Speaker Pelosi and others in this Chamber passed will drive up the cost of gasoline in America by 50 cents, 60, 70--some say as much as $1. Nobody really knows for sure until it takes effect. Explain this to me. This is like bad Santa. Explain this to me. This isn't the present I want. I don't want higher gasoline prices. Don't you think that had an effect on our economy? It certainly did on the families I talked to at Grants Pass and Medford and John Day across my district that commute great distances. You know, if you're a farmer or a rancher, you saw what it did to the price of your fertilizer when natural gas went up. You saw what it did when diesel went up to $5 a gallon. We should be accessing America's great energy resources, not importing them. We should be working toward new fuel-efficient vehicles and backing up that research. I actually drive hybrids on both coasts. I'm fortunate in that respect. I want to reduce my fuel intake and consumption, and I just don't like sending the money overseas where we get a lot of our fuel, frankly. I want to do my part. I am fortunate and able to do that now. A lot of people aren't; they're stuck. They can't buy a new car right now. They might not even have a job. My State is like the sixth highest unemployment in the country. I've got five counties that are lingering right at 20 percent unemployment. This is tough. Rather than access our great oil and reserves that--by the way, there are estimates that at the peak price of gasoline in this country, that America's great oil and gas reserves, if not blocked off by the Congress, the Democrat-controlled Congress, if we had access to those, it would produce a value of $60 trillion. Now, that was at the peak of the value of gas and oil, certainly, but let's say it's off by half and it's only $30 trillion. Remember that debt I talked about earlier, the debt that could be $20 trillion? What if we actually developed our own oil and gas resources in America, became less dependent on Hugo Chavez and Venezuela or some of the other countries that frankly aren't real friendly to us? What if we stopped funding some of the things they do that actually work against our way of life by not spending money on oil? What if we developed our own resources? And they will say, well, it will take you 10 years. Well, let's get started. That's my view. Let's get started. While we work on a transitional vehicle that doesn't have to use oil and gas, which I'm all for; but in the meantime, there are a lot of working Americans that have to take that pickup, hook up that horse trailer and go out and do their work on the cattle ranch. There are a lot of people hauling things back and forth so that our economy functions; $3, $4 and $5 diesel about killed them economically. So why don't we access our great oil and gas reserves? We should. And we generate revenue to the government that, if you had a fiscally responsible Congress, would use to pay down the debt and pay down the debt before our kids come of age and our grandkids come of age. That is the Christmas present I would like to see. That actually would be like sort of good Santa as opposed to bad Santa. Bad Santa says, we're taking away everything we have. We're going to rely on foreign imports for oil and gas. We're going to jack up your electricity rates. That's not Christmas like I know it. I want a real Christmas, where we put people back to work in the private sector, not trying to figure out something about Viking era pollen in Iceland--that's where some of your stimulus money went--or jobs that last a day or two or a week or two and then go away and get counted as if they're permanent. I want permanent, family-wage jobs. This country can get back on its feet if we get this Congress out of the way. But as I talk to business people, I hear time and again, I can't keep pace with the change coming out of Washington. You're changing everything related to energy. I don't know what those costs are going to be, I don't know where you're headed, I don't know how I'm going to deal with that. And then health care takeover by the Federal Government, same sort of thing. Is the government going to run all this? Am I going to run all this? What's that going to cost me? Am I going to pay a penalty? There's another couple million jobs projected to go away with the government takeover of health care. And the debt. People who do have some money and want to invest in a start-up company are sitting on the sidelines because they don't know what is going to happen on tax policy. Do the tax reductions that spurred a very strong economy go away or do they stay? Do people who have some level of wealth lose it all to the Federal Government on New Year's Day of 2011? Do their kids get to continue the family farm or family business, or does the tax man show up with the undertaker? That's the choice. That's the choice. It doesn't have to be that way. We can create real jobs in this country. Let me tell you about the other real jobs you can create, and that is in the great Northwest woods. Now, you have heard me on this floor before advocate for bipartisan legislative changes, changes in the law that have achieved broad support in this Congress to allow us to go out and be good stewards of our Federal forests. Teddy Roosevelt created these forests in 1905. He began that process with the great forest reserves. He said in a speech in Utah that the purpose of these reserves was twofold: to make sure that we had good clean water for agriculture, and that we had timber for homemaking, homebuilding. Now, those are the two purposes he outlined in a speech in Utah at about that period. Those are the purposes. Now, we know we have evolved since then. Clearly, though, we have not evolved from wanting good, clean water, healthy green forests. We do need lumber. The choice that the liberals have made in this government and in this Congress is away from active management to locking things up and calling it management, calling it preservation. As a result, you have forests across the West that are overgrown and choked. They can't breathe. You are standing on their air hose. Meanwhile, you have all this ladder fuel building up underneath them because for 100 years we have suppressed fire. Smokey Bear worked, convinced us we can go stop forest fires. We spend tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars, whatever the figure is every year to fight fire. It's over half, I believe, of the Forest Service budget now goes to fight fire when we should be doing the work on the ground to prevent fire. We should get these forests back into balance, get that ladder fuel out of there. It used to burn up naturally, but we started fighting fire, we allowed it to grow up, and we quit managing. The outcome is like your yard when you never prune or clean or weed or mow or do any of that. It just becomes a mess and out of balance until something catastrophic happens. The catastrophic thing that happens is fire. Fire is the great equalizer of the forest. It is the biggest clear- cutter out there, and it is devastating when there is such a fuel load as exists today. The fires burn and they release enormous amounts of carbon, not only carbon dioxide but also all kinds of pollutants into the atmosphere, including particulates that are equivalent to vast volumes of automobiles on the highways. Now, you are not going to stop every fire. Nature has a wonderful way of continuing to participate in the management process. We can get out and protect our watersheds and we can put people back to work, because this really is about jobs, jobs in the woods. In my district, where we have 20 percent unemployment or nearly so, and it is probably actually higher than that in some areas because people have given up--we are sixth in the country with unemployment-- the policies of the Federal Government on Federal land have been so over the top that we have lost the jobs. We have lost the mills. In some communities, they are close to losing hope. Nothing this Congress has done has helped them in a measurable, sustainable way. Last week, my colleague from Washington State, Brian Baird, who, unfortunately, just announced his retirement from this body, he and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin from South Dakota, Walt Minnick from Idaho, Cathy McMorris Rodgers from Washington State and others who care about our great forests, offered up legislation to take a successful law we passed in a bipartisan way and expand it out over what they call condition class 2 and 3 forestlands and allow our professional scientists, biologists, geologists, hydrologists, all the people involved in forest management to get out there, get unshackled from the courtroom and the computer, get away from the lawsuits and, well, the litigation, the lawsuits, and get out and actually do what they were trained to do. Get our forests back in shape. Protect the watersheds and the environment. Put people to work. I mention that we use lumber in this country. This is a carbon sink right here, this podium. This is wood, you know that. This is wood. This is a carbon sink. This was a tree once. What we do now is we put off limits our Federal forests for active management and harvest, for the most part. Instead, we import wood from countries that have virtually no environmental, enforced environmental rules. As a result of that, we just shift the problem and make it worse somewhere else. Rather than responsibly managing our forests, we let them go up in smoke. We have catastrophic, destructive wildfire that does terrible damage to our watersheds and habitat, kills firefighters, kills people in their homes, burns up their homes. There is so much we could be doing if we got an economic model that works. It's not just because we don't spend enough Federal money. You know, one of the things that drives me over the top, over the edge, off the cliff, is when people say to me, If I just had more government money or more government employees, I could solve that problem. We are at a debt load that is unsustainable. Not every problem demands a government solution from Washington, D.C. In fact, we should be more creative than that. You know, spending somebody else's money isn't that hard. In fact, you can throw it away, as we have seen with a lot of the stimulus money. Throw it away, the causes and programs that study in pollen from Vikings. I have got to find out about those Vikings with pollen. I don't know if they used Claritin or not, but something was going on there. You can throw money out the door, flush it away. Those of us who have been in the private sector, small business, know that every dollar is hard to get. Making a profit ain't easy; it's tough. That's why you are so tight with your funds. You know that the good times come and the good times go. If you are successful enough, you try and set aside a reserve for those bad times. Yet, in this Congress, oh, my gosh, it is out of control in terms of the spending and the deficits. You know, the omnibus that passed last week, the bill that spent a half a trillion dollars, we had 2 days to even think about it. It's just not the way to legislate. It's not responsible. It's not becoming of this body. It is not how we should operate, regardless of which party is in control. Right now, the Democrats are in control, so they get the glory and they get the responsibility, and it needs to change in terms of how we operate. My colleague, Brian Baird from Washington State, and several Members on both sides of the aisle supported an effort to get it some reform that said we should change the rules of how this House operates so that the American people, the Members of Congress, and the press could see legislation on the Internet, the great equalizer of information, on the Internet at least 72 hours before it comes up for a vote on this House floor. We are talking 72 hours. Now, I think it ought to be 2 or 3 weeks, by the way. Remember, this omnibus spending bill was 2,500 pages. Nobody in here read it before they voted on it. I voted against it, by the way, because I think it's irresponsible. I wasn't alone. I think every Republican voted against it, just like we did against the stimulus. This stuff is not responsible, folks. There are alternatives we have offered, not on that one, because I don't think we were allowed to, but certainly on the others. On health care and on energy and on creating jobs, we have offered real alternatives, and we will talk more about those in subsequent evenings. This notion that we should have 72 hours should be bipartisan. I say to my colleagues, I guarantee you, if that resolution to change how we operate in this assembly were to come up for a vote and it said we get 72 hours, these bills go on the Internet for 72 hours so the whole world can read them and understand them--and, by the way, give us input of what may be wrong in them before we vote on them. That's a concept that's novel. If that resolution were brought to this floor and the yeas and nays were called for, I doubt there would be a dissenting vote. Does anyone in here think there would be a dissenting vote? Nobody would want to go back to a town hall and say, No, you shouldn't have 72 hours to read the bills. You know, I began to ask this question when we were taking up the cap-and-trade bill, cap-and-tax bill, the global warming and climate change bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee, the administration Cabinet secretaries who came before us to tell us the great, wonderful nature of this legislation. I asked a simple question of every single witness that came before us: Have you read this bill? Have you read this bill? With one exception, and that person was right at the last hearing we had the last day and I think maybe saw it coming, everyone said, Well, no. Well, no, I haven't really read the bill, but I know the concept. We ought to have at least 72 hours to read the bills. That ought to change. Now, I know when I filed a discharge petition, and that goes in a box over here--or, actually, not in a box. They keep track of it over here on a ledger. All it takes is 218 Members of the House, which is a simple majority, to go sign that petition and then it comes up for a vote. But the Democrat leadership in the House has made it very clear to their Members not to sign the petition. Only six of them have. I commend those for standing up for what's right for this body and this process and for the American people, those six who signed it. The others have buckled at their knees, apparently, and refused. They have walked away. It's available today to be signed, tonight, tomorrow, when we come back in January. The American people are watching. They know that this would be a good thing. They know that this would be a good thing. I see we now have the omnibus which has arrived. When we talk about 2,500 pages of spending, this is it. This puppy is 2,500 pages of spending. This is what the Congress was given 2 days to work its way through. This is half a trillion dollars. Have you ever seen half a trillion dollars? This is it, right here, half a trillion. Come on down, we will get it half price, half a trillion dollars. Do you wonder why the deficit is so big? No time to consider this thoughtfully, thoroughly, rush it through. Rush it through, 2,500 pages. The stimulus, the Recovery Act that spent $787 billion. You know, I told you we had 2 days to consider this omnibus spending bill, 2 whole days, count them. When the stimulus bill passed in February of this year, the House was given 12 hours to review it, 12 hours. It was 1,073 pages, 1,072 pages, spent $787 billion. Remember, that's where that Viking pollen study in Iceland comes from, or the sidewalk around a casino or sending casino workers to sort of sensitivity training. Don't be so rough on the slot machine. Be nicer to the craps table. I don't know. Cap-and-trade, passed in June; $846 billion is the cost of that bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 1,428 pages, 1,428 pages, 16\1/2\ hours to consider it. Oh, by the way, they dropped a 309-page amendment at 3 o'clock in the morning. Now I am going to tell you, nothing good happens at 3 o'clock in the morning. Nothing good happens at 3 o'clock in the morning. You can get hit with a golf club at 3 o'clock in the morning, 309-page amendment, 3 o'clock in the morning, 16\1/2\ hours for consideration. The health bill, introduced July 14, 12:51 in the afternoon, $1.28 trillion. Remember, we are talking T's now. Forget hundreds, thousands, millions, billions. We are now, in this Democrat-controlled Congress, talking trillions. With 1,026 pages in the committee upon which I serve, the Energy and Commerce Committee, we were allocated a whopping 14 hours and 9 minutes before we started voting on that bill. Remember, I am including the all-night hours, all-night hours. According to a newspaper here on the Hill, actually, The Hill, Democratic leaders have waived transparency rules at least 24 times to rush votes this year alone, 24 times. Twelve of those bills were available for less than 24 hours. This omnibus bill back here, half a trillion in spending, just this last week passed 221-201, no Republicans voting for the bill. Increased funding for Federal agencies, 12 percent. Some as much as 33, some as much as 21. The final tally for this omnibus new spending for nondefense, nonveteran discretionary programs took it up to a level of 85 percent higher than 2 years ago. Eighty-five percent higher than 2 years ago. The debt up $1.4 trillion. The deficit this year, $1.4 trillion, in 1 year. It wasn't that many years ago, and, of course I'm getting older, I think it was in the eighties; so it's been some 20 years, I think our whole national debt was only a trillion dollars, which was an enormous amount then. Now it's going up by more than that annually. This is a freight train without brakes. This is a runaway train that's headed off a cliff, and it's going to take Americans with it if we don't put a stop to it. You cannot continue down this path. You cannot continue down this path. We tried to figure out how some of this money has been spent. The press is doing its job. The New Orleans Times-Picayune. Details: Louisiana has seven congressional districts. So Louisianans visiting recovery.gov, that's the Web site where all this stuff is posted so there's great transparency and accountability. Remember, this was the Web site the President and the Vice President, Joe Biden, said by golly, you're going to see it all out there. So Louisianans visiting recovery.gov found themselves just skeptical but truly puzzled to see nearly $5 million was listed as headed to Louisiana's Eighth Congressional District. There are only seven. Not eight; seven. That site also listed the 12th, the 26th, the 45th, the 14th, the 32nd, and, my favorite, 00. I don't know if that's 007 or if it's--I don't know. According to Ed Pound, Director of Communications for recovery.gov, the site relies on self-reporting by recipients of the stimulus money. This is oversight? This is transparency? I mean, this is a government that can't figure out who's going to the White House for dinner that's spending your money, and this is transparency. Pound said information from FederalReporting.gov has been simply transferred to recovery.gov. And no one checks to verify its accuracy or to take note of the fact that Utah doesn't really have seven congressional districts; it has three. South Dakota has one, not 10. Pound: ``We're not certifying the accuracy of the information. We know what the problem is and we are trying to fix it,'' he said. Asked why recipients would pluck random numbers to fill in for their congressional district, Pound replied, and this is my favorite, ``Who knows, man. Who really knows. There are 130,000 reports out there.'' Somebody should know. It's your money. Well, again, it's not really your money yet because we borrowed it. Congress borrowed it from the Chinese, the Japanese, all kinds of lenders, oil-producing nations that we pay exorbitant prices to for the crude oil because we don't access our own resources here. They're the ones doing it. Talladega County, Alabama, claimed to have saved or created 5,000 jobs from only $42,000 in stimulus funds. That's 5,000 jobs, $42,000 in expenditures. Now they're efficient. That would be $8.40 a job. Now there are some cheap places to work, but I don't even think Alabama is paying their people $8.40 a job, though; so there's something wrong there. Belmont Metropolitan Housing Authority in Ohio reported 16,120 jobs saved or created for $1.3 million. Now, that is efficient too. So congratulations to Belmont. That's $80.64 a job. Folks, the government is not the creator of jobs, not jobs that are sustainable, because you have to take money away from those who have it to redistribute it, and it's not being done very efficiently, affordably, transparently, or with accountability. And how long do these jobs last? I want jobs created out in the private sector that fund the government, and by that I mean if you have a vibrant private sector, people are paying taxes. If businesses are making a profit, they're going to pay a tax, pay a lot of tax. Individuals earning a salary, earning a wage, they're paying tax. Ask them. That's what funds government. It's not the other way around. And that's the difference between many of us in this body is there are those who believe every problem needs a Federal solution regardless of what it costs now or in the future. That's why you need a balanced budget, a requirement in the Constitution to keep both parties in check. We need to get this house back in order, and I mean the global house, the U.S. itself, how money is spent, how it's allocated, what we do with it. This is obscene. It really is. All I see is just one government takeover after another. Now, is there room to do more oversight where it's necessary, fix markets where they're broken? Yes. Will we debate how far you go in that? We should. But we should do that in an open and thoughtful manner. I've served on some nonprofit boards, a hospital board, a business association board, and we'd have vigorous debates, but we always did it with the notion of common good. We'd bring what we had to the table, and we would try to find a solution. I thank you, my colleagues, for letting me share those comments with you tonight.

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I assume that that is the rule coming out of the Rules Committee that provides for same-day consideration of four pieces of legislation. Would that be correct? Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. WALDEN. Could I ask a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, consistent with the House Republican Leadership's policy on earmarks, to the best of my knowledge the requests I have detailed below are (1) not directed to an entity or program that will be named after a sitting Member of Congress; and (2) not intended to be used by an entity to secure funds for other entities unless the use of funding is consistent with the specified purpose of the earmark. As required by earmark standards adopted by the House Republican Conference, I submit the following information on projects I requested and that were included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, H.R. 3288. Account: Transportation & Community & System Preservation Project Name: 5th and 6th Street Reconstruction, OR Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: City of Redmond, 716 SW., Evergreen Avenue, Redmond, Oregon 97756 Project Location: Madras, Oregon Description of Project: H.R. 3288 appropriates $779,200 for the 5th and 6th Street Reconstruction project located in Redmond, Oregon. According to the requesting entity, funding would be used to remove and replace existing pavement surfacing and sub-grade material and restore the street section to minor arterial standard. According to the City of Redmond, this is a valuable use of taxpayer funds because it will encourage local use and the 5th/6th Street Couplet cannot be properly maintained without reconstruction, as the existing condition cannot accommodate additional maintenance treatments. Account: Surface Transportation Priorities Project Name: U.S. Highway 97 and J Street Intersection Project, OR Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: City of Madras, 71 SE ``D'' Street, Madras, Oregon, 97741 Project Location: Madras, Oregon Description of Project: H.R. 3288 appropriates $681,800 for the U.S. Highway 97 and J Street Intersection Project located in Madras, Oregon. According to the requestor, funds would be used to modernize and realign the intersection of J Street where it bisects U.S. Highways 26 and 97 within the city limits of Madras, Oregon. According to the City of Madras, this is a valuable use of taxpayer funds because it will improve transportation safety and efficiency, create and preserve jobs, and enable further economic development. Account: Surface Transportation Priorities Project Name: Brett Way Extension, OR Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: City of Klamath Falls, 500 Klamath Avenue, Klamath Falls, OR 97601 Project Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon Description of Project: H.R. 3288 appropriates $292,200 for the Brett Way Extension, OR Project located in Klamath Falls, Oregon. According to the requestor, funds would go towards closure of an unsafe intersection located at Summers Lane and the South Side Bypass and the extension of Brett Way from Summers Lane to Homedale Road, as well as installation of water line and sanitary sewer, construction of a bridge over an existing canal, and elimination of a uncontrolled rail crossing on Summers Lane. According to the City of Klamath Falls, this is a valuable use of taxpayer dollars because it would open access to the underutilized airport industrial park area as well as provide much needed alternate access to the airport. Account: Economic Development Initiatives Project Name: For the reconstruction and construction needs of facilities which are critical to the local economy Legal Name and Address of Requesting Entity: Pendleton Round-Up, 1114 SW Court Avenue, Pendleton, OR, 97801 Project Location: Pendleton, Oregon Description of Project: H.R. 3288 appropriates $487,000 for the Pendleton Round-Up and Happy Canyon Facilities Improvements located in Pendleton, Oregon. According to the requestor, funds would be used to construct the Centennial Grandstand facility to replace an aging structure that has outlived its useful life and to complete the reconstruction of the four-phase project at Happy Canyon. According to the Pendleton Round-Up, this is a valuable use of taxpayer funds because this project would preserve a world renowned rodeo and Native American cultural event.

Mr. WALDEN

Mr. WALDEN. That would be this chart here.

Mr. WALDEN. We yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. WALDEN. No, it doesn't. I think that's the issue. And we had an alternative that created twice the jobs at half the cost in America. Twice the jobs at half the cost. Clearly, we want to get people back to work. There are alternative ways to do that that Republicans have put forward on health care reform. We haven't even talked about tort reform that would save $68 billion. Get rid of the junk lawsuits and get access to affordable health care out there. There are ways--and as a former small business owner, I can tell you--to create jobs in the market out there. Bike paths to Taco Bells is not a sustainable economic recovery model. $95,000 for research on Icelandic Viking-era pollen seems a little outrageous at a time when we're running record reported deficits. I know we're about to run out of time here. I'd go back to my colleague from Louisiana if he has got any final comments because, you know what? All of this has gotten past Joe.

Mr. WALDEN. Beyond that, Republicans have asked for an investigation of this. It's pretty silent on the Democrat side of the aisle. This is a clear example where there has been a conspiracy to avoid the Freedom of Information Act, to discourage dissenting viewpoints from being included. All you have to do is go through the 3,000 emails. And as the ranking Republican on the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee, our Republican staff is doing that as we speak, and it's phenomenal what they're finding in terms of this sort of concerted, conspiratorial effort. And I don't use those terms lightly. It appears to be a real conspiracy when you've got a lead scientist emailing out to other scientists in the United States saying, Destroy this data, delete this email, get rid of this, and then you discover that the actual temperature data that were gathered from the sites has been destroyed. They took those data and then they ran them through their own model of what they think it should look like and then they destroyed the original data, which means nobody else can go back and use those original data to test and replicate whatever it is they model. And then there are these emails about let's try and discourage people from getting published in this magazine because we don't think they're with us on this, or whatever. I mean, the American people are going to see transparency. They don't want to--I don't know of too many Members in here who sent out pamphlets in their campaigns that said, Send me to Congress and I'll raise the cost to turn on your light switch, yet that's what they voted for with that cap-and-trade. They voted for 3 million jobs to go overseas.

Mr. WALDEN. Republicans are.

Mr. WALDEN. And we know that his stimulus plan that passed by the Democrats hasn't worked. Now they're coming back with stimulus II, we read, that may be $300 or $400 million more of borrowing and spending. And you're creating bike paths to Taco Bells and checking on Viking pollen air in Iceland. This is crazy. Now, the scientist you referenced there, Jones, I believe that he has been the recipient of tens of millions of dollars for his research of American taxpayer research money from the Department of Energy.

Mr. WALDEN. You're talking about the emails and the conspiracy.

Mr. WALDEN. Which will drive jobs out of this country.

Mr. WALDEN. This government, this Federal Government, Democrats have run the House for the last 3 years. The House controls the purse strings. The Congress does. The President can put forward a budget and they end up signing the bills into law, but it's the Congress that controls the purse strings. Under this administration, the Federal Government will run deficits in excess of $700 billion every single year for the next 10 years. Now, the highest deficit, the highest 1-year deficit prior to this administration was $459 billion, which was high, but it was coming down. Now it's $700 billion and higher for the next decade at best. Now, that racks up to what? What do they figure? A $20, a $17, $20 trillion debt at the end of 10 years. So let's figure out how you pay that off. Let's say it's $20 trillion by the time they're done. Well, how about this? The Congress runs a trillion-dollar surplus for 20 years and pays down the debt. How many in this Chamber believe this Congress, or any Congress for that matter, is going to run a trillion- dollar surplus and apply it to paying down debt? I see no hands going up. So then you're going to drive inflation. You're going to inflate your way out of debt. And that's the fear I have, having been in small business, knowing a lot of small business people. That means higher interest rates, higher inflation, a return to Carternomics. You remember when Jimmy Carter left office we had double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates, and the economy went in the tank. That's what portends from this enormous deficit. I'd yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. WALDEN. Or that thinks you're going to stand there at the vending machine with the lineup of Twinkies and you're going to read the ingredients list and the calorie list, and that's going to dissuade you from buying that Twinky that you have found the vending machine to get.

Mr. WALDEN. Actually, you are healthy eater.

Mr. WALDEN. I mean, come on--$387,000. I loved this one, too, $4 million for a new bike path trail in Massachusetts so people can get to the North Hampton Taco Bell. Do you think I'm making this stuff up? So there's a new slogan that Taco Bell has come out with: ``Bike to the border.'' The problem is, we all know with Massachusetts, before it's built, you know, they're going to make it a crime to eat a burrito and ride a bike at the same time. You can't eat a burrito and ride a bike at the same time. No taco chips, no salsa, nothing on that bike. And forget the cheese if it's not from a free-range dairy cow. I mean, this is $4 million for a bike path to the Taco Bell.

Mr. WALDEN. And maybe we need to ask Lesko where the free government money went. He seems to know. He's on television all the time. Ask Lesko, where's the money, free government money? How about this one: West Virginia requested $387,350 from the so- called stimulus to hire two State coordinators and an assistant to encourage private land owners to grow ginseng and shiitake mushrooms on their private forest lands. Now, I have nothing against ginseng or shiitake mushrooms, for that matter, or farmers. With three staff and $387,000 in Federal money they hope to contact 160 landowners. That works out to $2,377 per contact to reach out to 160 farmers, forest land owners, to say, Hey, you guys want to grow some ginseng and shiitake mushrooms out there under the trees? This is your Federal tax money, $387,350 for West Virginia. I thought with all of the paving that goes on there--well, we won't go there.

Mr. WALDEN. For 49 people pushing and one steering. How many people does it take to push a lawnmower?

Mr. WALDEN. A single lawnmower. Well, maybe it's a push mower. A big push mower.

Mr. WALDEN. And I will yield to my friend from Ohio, but before I do that, maybe this one didn't get past Joe. Maybe he approved it, I don't here. But it says here that the Sacramento Bee reported $25,000 of stimulus money, to provide five free concerts in the Sacramento area. I like concerts. I have gone to a concert. I have an iPhone. I've got headphones. I have my iPhone here. It would be cheaper to lend my iPhone probably than the $25,000. But here's one of the programs. It is the kitchen review. Now, you gentlemen I know are students of philharmonic and its programming. The kitchen review where audiences can imagine, ``the life of a pot, a lid, a broom, and a dishrag.'' Twenty-five thousand dollars so that you can imagine--this reminds me of the Johnny Carson skit, you know, Carnac, the Magnificent. What do a pot, a lid, a broom, and a dishrag have in common? This is insane. Now, the executive director did say the money will give 10 of his musicians a good long week of work. Now, I don't know about you guys, but when I hear of jobs--I was a small business owner for 22 years. I created jobs, I maintained jobs, small company. I know what it's like to sign the payroll check. If I created a job, I expected it to last more than one week. Most of us I think see these numbers and think, Oh, they created a million new jobs or whatever they're claiming, 640,000 jobs. And then we find it was a roofing project that lasted 2 weeks. It was the life of a pot, a lid, a broom, and a dishrag concert in Sacramento for free. They gave a long week of work. Now, that is not going to bring about economic recovery. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. WALDEN. But I thought nobody gets past Joe?