Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I sit here and I listen to the majority leader, and it strikes me that in my four terms having served in this body, I do not think that there has ever been a time when there are two more divergent views of the direction in which we should take this country.

The news today demonstrated that the last quarter we saw a 6.5 percent shrinkage in the GDP in this country, two consecutive quarters of GDP shrinkage, more than any in 60 years. We've got serious, serious economic challenges facing us in America, Madam Speaker, and our priority should be to get this economy back on track, to get people back to work in America.

Right now, 650,000 people lose their jobs every month. If you do the math, that is about 15 people a minute lose their jobs. That's real. When you lose your job, you don't have a vision of how you can even get through the month or put food on the table.

That's where, Madam Speaker, I have difficulty with the budget being brought forward. Because if our primary responsibility here is to create an environment where the job creators can go back to work and put people back to work, this budget falls woefully short.

How can you say that we are helping the small businesses of this country, the true economic engines of America, when we are taxing them and making it more difficult for them to maintain the jobs they have got and increase their payrolls?

The other side may say, oh, there is only 3 percent of small business people that actually are impacted by higher taxes.

Well, 50 percent of the people that get a tax hike here are small business people. How can we expect our economy to rebound?

Madam Speaker, this budget creates so much uncertainty on the part of investors, on the part of families, I don't see how we are going to work our way out of these economic doldrums.

To say that the energy policy is going to create green jobs, that's great in theory. But I can tell you the cap-and-trade plan that's working its way through this House right now is going to result in a national energy tax imposing up to $3,000 per household every year. How can that help the working families of this country right now?

Madam Speaker, we can do better. We can work together to achieve meaningful savings for the taxpayers. We can get off of this spending spree and refuse to put $70,000 per added debt on every man, woman and child in this country.

Madam Speaker, we can do better. The Republicans stand ready to work with you in making sure that's the case.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to recognize the Town of Culpeper as it celebrates its 250th anniversary this Friday, April 24th, 2009.

The Town of Culpeper is located at the eastern base of the Blue Ridge Mountains in the Piedmont River Valley. It has a legendary history that dates clear back to the American Revolution when a group of local residents organized themselves as the Culpeper Minute Men Battalion in 1775 and were called upon to fight in the Revolution and throughout campaigns in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Both Confederate and Union troops occupied the Town during the Civil War. In fact, during the winter of 1863 and 1864, more than 100,000 Union troops occupied the town as its strategic railroad location made it an important supply station for both Confederate and Union troops. The town witnessed more than 100 battles during the war and many homes were used for military housing and hospitals.-

After the Civil War, the Town of Culpeper grew to become a thriving regional marketing hub. Even today the town continues to evolve. With a population of approximately 15,000, it has rebuilt itself to become a Virginia Main Street Community with a lively historic downtown. It was even named once as one of ``America's Top 10 Small Towns.'' While Culpeper was originally built as an agricultural economy, today it is an important crossroad for business.

Culpeper residents will celebrate and honor the town's heritage and 250 years of history with events and activities throughout the year, including a historic costume ball, picnics and parades.

Madam Speaker, please join me in congratulating the citizens of Culpeper as they celebrate the town's anniversary and wishing them the best for their continued growth and success.

I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin. First of all, Madam Chair, the American people are looking at us today to see if there is actually going to be a real connection between what this place is about and what people are going through every single day in the communities across this country.

Job number one for us is to get the economy back on track. And the way we do that is to promote job creation. There is, without a doubt, an attack on the job creators on the part of the budget being brought forward by the majority.

How in the world do we expect small businesses to create jobs if we're taxing small businesses? In fact, 50 percent of those individuals who receive a tax hike on the majority's budget are small businesses. And if you've got more employees, you've got higher taxes. That doesn't make sense.

Some of the other accusations are, How do you think you can bring the economy back by lowering taxes? Well, you know, how are we going to bring the economy back by just cranking up government spending? At best, what we do in government spending is redistribute wealth.

We need to get back to creating wealth, creating prosperity.

Madam Chair, there are two divergent views in this House today, there is no question about it. One, the majority's budget is about preserving the status quo, it is about investing in Washington. The other, in Mr. Ryan's budget, our alternative, is about promoting opportunity. It is about promoting what is best for small businesses and working families in this country.

America has always been more about opportunity. Yes, we want to promote security--financial security. But the way we do that is to promote opportunity.

I hear so many of the old, tired scare tactics coming from the majority: The Republicans--all they will do is ruin Social Security.

We have provisions in our document which say we hold Social Security harmless. The seniors are protected.

I hear from the other side that somehow we are cutting real money out of the budget. Well, you are darn right we are cutting real money out of the budget. What do you think the working families of this country are having to do every single day? They are having to tighten their belts. They are having to see about how they are actually going to make it through the month and pay the mortgage and pay the bills.

So, yes, our budget alternative reduces the borrowing that goes on, that borrows the money that we don't have. It reduces it by 21 percent. It lessens the spending by almost $5 trillion.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, it is high time that we become responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. As the gentleman from Wisconsin said, we owe it to the people that we represent. We owe it to the working families, to the small business people, to the single working moms out there who are worried about their jobs and the fact that investors are on the sidelines. We owe it to them to try and reinstill the confidence. We have got to set the example. The way we set the example is to be responsible. We have got to lay a path for the future and show that we are good fiscal stewards of the taxpayer dollars.

Mr. Chair, my wife currently receives compensation from a financial institution that would be covered by the provisions of H.R. 1664. I have determined that this constitutes a direct personal and pecuniary interest under clause 1 of Rule III of the Rules of the House and thus I will be answering ``present'' on any question related to H.R. 1664 put to the House or to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York for the purposes of announcing next week's schedule.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman if the House will begin the process of deliberating on the budget on Wednesday. Is that the planned day that we will have the discussion on the budget here on the floor; and, does he expect that debate to stretch over 2 days? And, again, if he could elaborate as to when the final vote on the budget is expected.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the further question. Does he anticipate a weekend session possibility?

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, further, I would ask the gentleman if he could tell us about the expected process of amendments, of substitutes.

How many substitutes should we expect your side to offer? Will the Blue Dogs have a substitute? Does this budget replace the budget of the Progressive Caucus that we usually see come to the floor? Will they have a need for a substitute? Just trying to get some idea, Mr. Speaker.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

And I could very easily tell him we will have one substitute from the minority side of the aisle, which is why I am asking how many we could expect from yours.

Mr. Speaker, I would reclaim my time.

I would ask the gentleman from New York, in reference to the D.C. voting bill, what are the latest plans for floor consideration on that? And, will a second amendment protection be added to that bill? I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

I would ask again, are we to expect a vote on D.C. voting next week as well?

I apologize to the gentleman; I didn't quite discern that. I thank the gentleman.

I would ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, about the FDA bill and the regulation of tobacco. And does he expect this bill to come to the floor next week? And in what form does he expect this bill to come, under a rule or as a suspension?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

I would like to yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

I thank the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman from New York about the schedule past the Easter recess and what we can expect to come to the floor following our return from recess.

I thank the gentleman.

I would like to ask the gentleman in reference to the budget that will be considered next week, that we now have a text of the bill out of committee, and the fact that really some of the implications of that bill still remain very unclear. Specifically, I would like to ask about the cap-and-tax scheme that seems to be continuing to circulate in the discussions in committee as well as publicly in the press, and whether the reconciliation instructions in the bill that came out of the Budget Committee refers to that, and whether we are going to be considering the impact of that scheme on the working families of this country, as they are having a difficult time as it is, as the gentleman knows, in his area, in particular, as it is hard-hit as the center of the financial world. Are our families going to have to expect that somehow the reconciliation tools will be used to impose a national energy tax that some have estimated will cost the average family $3,000 a year?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

I thank the gentleman.

At this time, I would like to again reiterate my thanks to the gentleman from New York, and I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

I would like to ask the gentleman that, in reference to his mention of the public lands omnibus bill, and that will be coming back to the floor, I would like to ask the gentleman, will our side, the Republicans, be given a motion to recommit or an opportunity to amend this bill?

I thank the gentleman.

As the gentleman knows, certainly there are procedures in place to waive the rules so that we can, on the minority side, have a voice in the passage of this legislation consistent with what President Obama has continued to say, which is that we should change the way this town works and continue to allow all sides to have a voice in what Congress does. I think, as we saw over the last week, evidence or results of rushing things through the House and disallowing our side to have a say in legislation may very well end up with wrong results. So I am saddened to hear that we will not be having an opportunity to offer an amendment to that bill.

Yes.

I thank the gentleman.

I think that the percentage would probably be reflected in the fact that there may be 17 or so Republican provisions in the bill out of 140 or so. So I wouldn't necessarily say, Mr. Speaker, that that would reflect what our side would amend or hope to amend the bill with. But I would like to ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that last week he was on the floor and he mentioned that a stem-cell bill will be coming to the floor prior to recess. And since the gentleman has not noticed the bill for next week, I would ask, Mr. Speaker, could the gentleman tell us if he expects it on the floor the following week?

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask further questions of the gentleman, as we have been told that the budget will be marked up next week, and I am wondering from the gentleman, number one, if he expects the budget on the floor the following week? In addition to that, I am curious, as are the Members on our side of the aisle, about the subject of your discussions with Chairman Spratt as to the direction of the budget. There has been a lot of discussion publicly as well as in these halls, about the proposed cap-and-tax proposal, where some economists, those from MIT and others, predict that if we are to provide for the cap-and- tax proposal, that it will cost American families at least $3,100 every year. That, to me, is a great cause for alarm, especially given the economic times and the struggle that the working families of this country are encountering.

It was also revealed this week that the number provided for in the proposed budget has underestimated the real cost of cap-and-tax. And if that is the case, that is even more alarming given the fact that if we are looking at an over $3,000 per family tax, what is it that we are doing if we are putting that cost on anybody who pays an electric bill, anyone who pays a gas bill, anyone who buys anything manufactured in this country? So I ask the gentleman if he is contemplating that the budget proposal that will come to the floor will have that in it.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I ask whether the gentleman can tell us as to the prospect for reconciliation instructions to be included in the budget. We have heard this week that the White House has told leaders on your side of the aisle to pursue health reform through reconciliation as well. And to us, this seems like a straight-up partisan approach, something I don't think that the American people are looking for right now, especially when it comes to items such as taxes and items like health care that everyone is concerned with. There is no distinction made between hardship on health care between Republican and Democrat.

So I would like to ask the gentleman, will the budget be coming through with reconciliation instructions?

And I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman would also share the attitude of discussing with us the direction, just as you indicate that the White House discusses but doesn't tell you what to do. So I like that spirit of cooperation.

I would ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, further, about any insight you can give us as to TARP 2 budgeting. As we all know, if we do not get the banking system fixed, we won't have the credit system fixed for the small businesses of this country, and we won't see the economy get back on the path to growth. So I would ask the gentleman, is he contemplating a number in the budget? Does your conversation with Chairman Spratt indicate what we could expect there?

And I will yield.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman further on that note about a markup in the Financial Services Committee. I take it to mean that the Financial Services Committee will be working on a piece of legislation, not necessarily aimed at a bank fix and making sure we can get the impaired assets out of the market, but instead, from what I hear the gentleman say, that it is a bill aimed at providing a structure for those businesses, those institutions receiving TARP funds.

I yield.

I thank the gentleman. And one additional question along those lines, Mr. Speaker, could we expect then the following week for that bill to be coming to the floor?

I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, we heard an announcement from the President of a plan to support small businesses. And as the gentleman knows, the Republican plan for stimulus was focused like a laser on the job creators, which are the small businesses of this economy. We know that 70 percent of the jobs come from small businesses, entrepreneurs and the self-employed. So we were very delighted to see the announcement--and I know the gentleman himself had some public comments to make, as well--lauding the move towards finally saying, if we are going to create jobs, we had better focus on small business. But my concern is, Mr. Speaker, that when you're talking about small business and the SBA, truly nine out of 10 small businesses in this country have not had any encounter with the SBA, nor do they intend to or want to.

I will tell the gentleman, in my district, I had a small business forum last week. I spoke to 25 small business people. What they are asking for is access to credit. They are looking for the banking system to work. They want their own community banks, not necessarily government strings attached to loans.

They also are looking for relief from the tax code. As we have noted on the floor several times, Mr. Speaker, the budget that was proposed by the White House actually impacts small businesses more than anyone else. In fact, 50 percent of those receiving a tax hike in accordance with the President's budget are small businesses.

So with that in mind, and given that the gentleman has applauded the move on the part of the White House to help provide relief to small businesses, I would ask the gentleman if there are any plans to include tax relief for small businesses in the majority's budget as it works its way through committee and then to the floor next week?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, how I would respond to that is let's take a step back and look at sort of the events that transpired that led up to the need for today's vote on the AIG bonus payments, okay. I think that the events if we follow them teach us a lesson.

The stimulus bill that included a provision prohibiting the government from disallowing the bonus payments was in that 1,100-page bill. I think it is fair to say, Mr. Speaker, no one in this House read the bill in its entirety. Nor did the public have its right to know realized. I think that ought to give us the sense that we need to be much more deliberative and open about this process.

These ideas, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman is proposing to help small business, most of which we probably do agree on, but, frankly, the better way to ensure success and a positive result is to have an open process where we all have the ability to offer our ideas, that the ideas and the policies are not just handed down from the majority leader or the Speaker's office and imposed upon the will of the people of this country.

So I would just reiterate to the gentleman that if we can see our way forward to allow the minority the ability to offer up real, positive alternatives if we disagree, it would all behoove us to work in that fashion. We can end up avoiding the type of result that came from the rushed way that so-called stimulus bill passed this house.

I thank the gentleman. How I would just respond before I yield back my time is that there was a stronger bipartisan vote in favor of our substitute than there was in support of the actual bill that passed. I think that we can take that as a signal that this House ought to be open, ventilated, and available for debate.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, there are 3 weeks remaining prior to the 2-week Easter recess. Since the last recess, this House and Congress have sent a $410 billion spending bill to the President. We have passed a bill imposing housing cramdown, and we just voted on a water quality bill, as well as one celebrating Pi Day.

I would ask the gentleman if he intends to use the next 3 weeks to try and focus on the fear that exists out

there on the part of so many Americans about their jobs, and whether we can commit to focusing on preserving, protecting and creating jobs over the next 3 weeks?

I yield further to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

I would ask the gentleman, given this budget that he intends to bring to the floor, and the fact that, frankly, we feel that budget has an Achilles' heel, which is it increases taxes on the primary job creators in the country, which is small business. Can the gentleman tell us if there are other bills that are specifically focused on helping small business people get back into the game, so that instead of just raising taxes, redistributing wealth, we can actually focus on job creation, wealth creation, and get back on the road to prosperity?

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the gentleman's attention to several news reports lately that have alluded to Chairman Obey and others in the majority caucus preparing a second stimulus bill.

I know the chairman was quoted in CongressDaily this morning as saying that it is spectacularly unreasonable to expect to see the stimulus package that we passed produce any action any time soon.

Further, we see that the economist, Paul Krugman, thought and has written that the first stimulus bill that passed has failed because it didn't spend enough.

Now we know that the economist, Mark Zandi, has met with the Majority Caucus this week and said that the stimulus that passed would fall short of the goals that were originally put out there to create 3.5 million jobs.

So I have asked the gentleman, should we expect in the House for there to be another stimulus bill and, if so, would you include some of the Republican proposals that were in our plan that were focused on job creators, focused on small businesses, entrepreneurs and the self- employed?

I yield further to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to, for the record, set it straight. My comments were that if we are going to get serious about focusing on job creation, yes, I would support a bill that would provide relief to the small business people of this country, so we can get the entrepreneurs back into the game of putting capital to work so we can not only save the jobs that we have got, we can begin to create new ones for our families and our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman if he would respond to some of the reports that there may be a bill dealing with stem cell research coming to the floor next week, and whether he could confirm that and, if so, what is the substance of that bill.

I yield further to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the gentleman is aware, as all of us are, about the tremendous job losses that we have experienced in America of late, 650,000 plus jobs just last month.

There is an announcement yesterday that we all read about, that the card check bill was introduced. Along with that introduction, there was a new nonpartisan study that was published that predicts that passage of card check legislation will result in the immediate loss of 600,000 jobs.

So I would ask the gentleman, number one, when he expects to bring that card check bill to the floor, and if, in the interim, if he is considering that if the Senate is to act, and we are to act in these economic times, why would we be doing that if we know, through nonpartisan studies issued, that it's a job killer? Why would we be bringing that to the floor?

I yield further to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

For the record, any democracy has also in it the elections that afford one the right to a private or secret ballot, which this bill completely takes away from the workers of this country.

Not yet, Mr. Speaker. I would say again that our economy is not just built on consumerism, our economy is built on investments and, frankly, the rebuilding of this economy will take place with job creation. And if we know that card check is a job-killer, folks across this country have got to be scratching their heads right now, wondering what in the world is Washington doing passing a piece of legislation that has been proven to kill jobs, not promote jobs.

I thank the gentleman.

One remaining question, Mr. Speaker. Can the gentleman inform us as to whether the public lands bill will be brought back up under a rule in this House.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman regarding the schedule going forward if he could tell the House what the timing would be on bringing the so-called card-check bill to the floor.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that we have in this House passed in prior Congresses that bill. As the gentleman knows, there are plenty of new Members here that have not had a chance to vote on that bill. So if I hear the gentleman correctly, we will await Senate action prior to any House action.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask the gentleman for the anticipated timing on the public lands bill and when the gentleman thinks that he will bring that to the floor.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I would also point out to the gentleman from Maryland, there has been a lot of discussion lately, certainly on the part of the White House, the President, about his plans for making sure of the security of our troops in Iraq and his announcement of the withdrawal timeline. I know that the Speaker has also spoken out on this issue, seeming to have somewhat of a different position than the White House on this. I know the gentleman himself, I believe, has said that he is in agreement with the President. We support the President, Mr. Speaker, in his decision to listen to the commanders on the ground.

I would note that in Congresses past we certainly have had a number of resolutions based on a timeline for withdrawal of our troops, and would ask the gentleman, is he anticipating any type of resolution of disapproval of the President's announcement?

I thank the gentleman on that.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman just in the context of the budget discussion that is ongoing obviously here on Capitol Hill in Congress and at the White House, there are some unanswered questions as far as the Republican Conference is concerned as to the direction of this budget that the leader sees coming through the House.

Obviously there have been some discussions about charitable giving that the gentleman himself has raised concerns regarding and that I have extraordinary concerns about taking away incentives to help support our charities in such a tough economic period, and was wondering if the gentleman could comment on whether he felt that the House budget that he will bring to the floor would reflect our concern that perhaps we shouldn't be throttling back on people's giving to charities.

I thank the gentleman for that answer and just would like to underscore our concern that as he knows and we have discussed as late as today at the President's summit on health care at the White House, these are extraordinary times. We have tough choices to make.

Families are out there struggling to make ends meet. And the President has continued to say that we will provide tax relief for working Americans. We will provide tax relief to 95 percent of the American people.

The trouble, Mr. Speaker, that we're having is when we hear members of the President's administration talk about the President's desire to see cap-and-trade legislation pass through this House, and the admission on the part of officials in the administration that that legislation would produce $1,300 worth of additional tax to every household in this country, if we do the math, with the Make Work Pay Program, and even if one was able to get the maximum relief under that program, that's an $800 relief for a household. You do the math, we still are at a point where you have a $500 deficit in each household, if every one of those were to be able to receive the maximum relief.

So I would ask the gentleman, as far as the overall sense of the budget that he will bring to the floor, are we really going to deliver on this tax relief? Or are we going to try and address this cap-and- trade program, which has now been admitted to be an extra tax that will outweigh any tax relief under the Make Work Pay Program?

I yield.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman again, and would say that, again, our priority must be on, as he has said in the past as well, must be on this economy. It must be on maintaining, protecting and creating jobs. And we believe, as the gentleman knows, on this side of the aisle, that the way to do that is to focus on small businesses, to ensure that we're not adding burdens to the real job generators, which are our small businesses.

So if we're talking about bringing this budget forward and talking about PAYGO, as the gentleman has referred to, I know last year we passed the stimulus bill, and the gentleman indicated that we waived PAYGO back then for tax relief. I know that Members on our side of the aisle would certainly be supportive of any bit of relief we could give to those small businesses.

But, Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the gentleman again, in the context of where we're operating now, and the fact that the Dow Jones dropped another 280 points today, and the fact we've not gotten from the White House and the administration a plan for the bank fix. We don't know the direction that the TARP funding is going. We have a sense from some of the statements made in the Budget Committee and others this last several days, that the TARP money has been all committed. And if so, is there any indication, do we know how much more money will be impacting this budget?

Because, Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the gentleman how he expects this House to produce an honest budget if we do not know the plans of this administration, which will occur, I'm sure, imminently in their request for more assistance and more money towards the banking problem.

And I yield.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, outside the walls of Congress, America is paralyzed by a suffocating crisis of confidence. A virus that began in the credit and housing markets has spread to infect the broader economy. Small businesses are hunkered down. The promise of retaining or of finding a solid job slips further out of reach for America's workers.

With this stimulus package, Congress has a responsibility to re- instill lost confidence, and it has an obligation to focus our efforts like a laser on the creation, preservation and protection of sustainable jobs. That is why the bill we are voting on today represents a fundamental dereliction of duty on the part of this majority. This legislation will not put people to work right away, nor does it contain the time-honored incentives for work, investment, innovation, and job creation that are proven to stimulate growth.

This week, I spoke with a struggling business owner in my district. How could I tell him I am voting for a bill that gives more money to projects like Federal Government cars than it gives to businesses like his. This bill is loaded with wasteful deficit spending on the majority's favorite government programs. We need jobs, not mountains of debt to be paid by our children. We can do better. We proposed a plan on our side that did do better. It created twice as many jobs at half the cost.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Michigan.

Madam Speaker, today I have the distinct honor of inviting for the opening prayer a man for whom I have tremendous respect, Pastor Al Lynch. Pastor Lynch, who is here with his wife Susan and his son Matthew, serves as the St. Andrew's United Methodist Church in Henrico County, Virginia. He has a passion for public service, in particular in the public safety arena, where he has been appointed chaplain of the Henrico County Sheriff's Office. His years of contributions to the greater Richmond region have left a profound imprint on our community, and we are all grateful for his service.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

And let me respond to the last statement from my colleague on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Obey, that that is not the way things happen. We were invited to the White House because the President felt it appropriate to reach out to us to take into consideration our proposals. We submitted to him in person a Republican economic recovery plan. Yes, it was more weighted for tax relief. Yes, it was, in a reduced way, a spending formula, because at the end of the day what any stimulus bill should be about is preserving, protecting and creating jobs, period. And as the President said last night, there is a lot in this bill that people may like. But do you know what? He also said the plan is not perfect because it was produced in Washington. This President came to this town and was elected because he said he was going to deliver on change.

Madam Speaker, I would say if we are serious about a true stimulus bill, let's get down to business. Let's provide small business tax relief because they create 70 percent of the jobs in

this country. Let's not embark on a spending spree that is the biggest spending spree in the history of this country.

Madam Speaker, I know that the subject of this particular piece of legislation has to do with campus safety, and I know we are all concerned about campus safety. In fact, this is a separate bill relating to campus safety, which makes the point, Madam Speaker:

If you look at the current proposal dealing with our economy and the economic ruin that families are facing, there is $6 billion allocated in that bill to colleges and to universities. That gives me great cause for concern. What in the world does that have to do with stimulating our economy and with allowing families and small businesses in this country to get back on their feet?

Again, I would say to my colleague and friend from Virginia, as well as to the gentleman from Texas, that the bill on the floor does have to do with college campus safety. That is where a $6 billion allocation appropriation to colleges and universities should belong, not in a stimulus bill.

Listen, the people of this country are expecting Washington to finally clean up its act and to respond accordingly so that we can get our economy back on track. In fact, the latest Gallup poll that was taken this weekend shows that only 38 percent of Americans support the congressional Democrats' spending bill. Speaker Pelosi's bill in this House contains billions of dollars of continued Washington spending in the same old fashion. It has got plenty of pork in it. It has got $137 billion while creating 32 new Federal programs.

I would say that some of these programs have laudable goals. There is no question that we need to address so many things going on in this country. Right now, though, the priority is this economy, and when we are talking about a stimulus plan, a stimulus plan should be focused like a laser on the preservation, on the protection and on the creation of jobs. Again, it may not be bad that we are looking to spend more money in terms of helping safety on our college campuses, but that belongs in a separate bill, not in a spending bill aimed at stimulating this economy.

I would say that the Members on our side of the aisle continue to want to work with the majority to try and craft a bill that delivers results. President Obama was elected partly due to the hope that he instilled in so many Americans that he would change the way that Washington works, that we finally in this town would be accountable to the people who pay the taxes so that we could deliver the results and so that we could deliver on job creation and on opportunities for our children and for the next generation.

Madam Speaker, the bill that passed this House last week does not rise to that standard, and I implore the Speaker and her colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work with us. We have put forward a plan that involves real stimulus, that is very focused on the folks--on the entrepreneurs, on the small businesspeople and on the self-employed-- who actually do create the jobs in this economy. We need to provide them with relief. We need to provide relief to the working families--to the taxpayers who are suffering under this heavy burden for which they have got to pay every single day that they are at work.

Madam Speaker, again, I urge our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work with us so that we can arrive at a bill that provides true stimulus and that delivers results.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Virginia Society of Certified Public Accountants as they celebrate 100 years of service to the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The Virginia Society of Certified Public Accountants (VSCPA) was established on October 6, 1909. It now represents more than 8,300 CPAs working in private businesses, government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and educational institutions, to name just a few. The VSCPA has 10 chapters across the Commonwealth of Virginia that offer networking, education and other opportunities to get involved in local communities.

They created an Educational Foundation in 1984 to attract future CPAs and promote accounting careers to Virginia students through undergraduate and graduate scholarships, financial literacy grants and other awards and recognition programs.

CPAs play a unique and vital role in the success and growth of business, the soundness of government operations, the excellence of higher education and the protection and confidence of investors in the Commonwealth of Virginia, as well as the rest of the United States.

Because of their contribution to the accounting profession, we are honored to recognize the VSCPA as they commemorate their centennial year.

I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan.

As the economy sinks further into recession, all of us understand that this House needs to take concrete action to lift us and help lift America's families out of this crisis. We Republicans support this alternative because we believe it is a true stimulus bill. It does not take us headlong into soaring debt and lead to future tax increases. This alternative is based on the premise that if we're going to pass a stimulus bill, it has to be focused like a razor's edge on the protection, preservation and creation of jobs.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot support the majority's alternative, although we do understand that this is a work in progress, although we do understand, and we've spoken with the President, who says he has no pride of authorship. He wants us to continue to be part of the process. He wants this to be a stimulus bill.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is not that. With the amount of spending in this bill, we could dedicate it solely to job creation. Much of what the other side has continued to say and continues to promote perhaps may be laudable goals and good programs. But when you have $136 billion of additional new programs in this bill, you have got to ask, how stimulative are these new programs? What about the small businesses, the entrepreneurs and the self-employed that are out there who don't want more government programs? They just need a break. They need to know their government will not keep borrowing money and laying debt onto our children to the tune of trillions of dollars a year. They want meaningful incentives so they can get back off the sidelines, put capital to work and create jobs.

Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Budget Office has already opined several times on the lack of stimulus in the majority's bill. In fact, some estimates say only 12 cents on the dollar could arguably be stimulative. Mr. Chairman, there are additional voices who have spoken out, Democrats and Republicans, Christine Romer, the incoming head of the Council of Economic Advisers for the Obama White House, says in her analysis, if it is applied, as we have applied it, as some of the folks who have used her analysis in her formula on to your bill, that our alternative creates twice as many jobs at half the cost. And that is what we ought to be about in this House is trying to figure out how we can do things that work at less cost to the taxpayer.

I also say, Mr. Chairman, Alice Rivlin, the economic expert from the Clinton administration, she also opined and said, You know what--the majority's bill has terrific amounts of spending in it. And they may be laudable. But they're long-term investment programs. So she says we need to separate out these long-term investment programs from what is stimulative.

We have regular order in this Congress so that the American people can participate, we can be deliberative and we can get it right on the long-term programs. Right now, Mr. Chairman, we ought to be about protecting the jobs that are out there and creating new ones, again, focused like a laser.

The Republican plan does this without all the spending and waste. And we can create the jobs at half the cost.

Mr. Speaker, I object and would like the resolution to be read.