Floor Statements

Let me thank my colleague for yielding, and thank the rest of my colleagues for participating in this discussion about the budget.

Before we get to the budget, you know, when I held those 1,100 pages up and indicated that no one had read the bill, it was pretty clear no one had because if someone had read the bill they would have realized there were 50 words in there that protected AIG executives, to make sure they were going

to get their bonuses; more proof that we ought to actually read what we pass here on the House floor.

The discussion, though, is about the budget. And I have seen a lot of things over the years that I have been in politics, whether it be a Township Trustee in West Chester, or in the State House, or the 18 years I have spent in Washington. But I have never seen a legislative document more audacious, more far reaching, and, frankly, more bizarre than the budget that has been submitted by President Obama, because it does spend too much. It is pretty clear, when you look at the giant increases in spending. But it is not just that it spends too much. It taxes too much. There are nearly $2 trillion worth of new taxes that are imposed on the American people in that budget. Whether it is the national energy tax, for those who would drive a car, or those who would produce something with electricity, or someone who would flip on a light switch, every American is going to pay a higher tax.

But even with all the spending and the much higher taxes, look at what happens. Look at what happens to our debt. Even after $2 trillion of new taxes, the national debt will double over the next 6 years under this proposal, more than what has happened in the 43 presidents that preceded President Obama over the last 220 years.

Now, there was a lot of criticism of President Bush, criticism of the Republicans, that we didn't have a big enough handle on spending. Frankly, I agree. We should have had a bigger handle on spending.

But having said that, over the next 6 years, President Obama's budget is going to make President Bush look like a penny pincher. And look at the debt. And what is going to happen here, with all of this debt that is piled on the backs of our kids and grandkids, means that in about 10 years, 70 cents of every tax dollar that comes to Washington is going to be used just to pay the interest on the national debt, just the interest. 70 cents of every dollar.

So what happens to our national defense? What happens to our Homeland Security? What happens to Medicare or Medicaid, Social Security and all of the other government programs that we have? There is not going to be any money for it, because all of the debt that is going to get built up, interest has to be paid on that debt and the fact is, it won't happen.

This budget, we need to start over. And I had a press conference earlier today where I suggested to the President, why don't we just start over? Why don't we sit down, as Democrats and Republicans, and build a budget that restores fiscal sanity and shows the American people we can work together for the good of our country.

We can't buy our way to prosperity. And that is what this budget seems to believe. And I would hope my colleagues would help each other understand the enormous debt that will be piled up if we allow this budget to go into effect.

And I yield back.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I caught a little grief 5 weeks ago when we had the stimulus bill on the floor. Remember the 1,100-page bill that no one had time to read and then no one did read? Obviously, the President didn't have time to read it either, because in that bill was this one sentence, this one sentence that made it clear that someone knew that these AIG bonuses were about to be paid, and they didn't want them stopped. So somehow in the dark of night, this one sentence was added to the bill so that AIG would pay these bonuses to their executives. This language wasn't in the House bill. This language wasn't in the Senate bill. This language showed up in the dead of night, and no one got to see it.

I'm wondering where did the language come from. Who wrote it? Who asked the conferees to put it in the bill? What conferees on the part of the House agreed to this? I'm looking for somebody to put their hand up. That's the whole issue.

This political circus that's going on here today with this bill is not getting to the bottom of the questions of who knew what and when did they know it? Somebody was responsible for drawing up this language. Someone brought it to the conferees. Someone brought it to the Democrat leadership, who wrote this bill in secret, and put this language in there. But we have no idea who it was.

Secondly, the bill that's before us attempts to recoup 90 percent of these bonuses. Why 90 percent? The American people are outraged. I'm outraged. And we just voted down an opportunity to bring a bill to the floor from our freshmen Members that said, real simple: We ought to get 100 percent of this money back. We can get 100 percent of it back because the Treasury Secretary has the ability to get it all back. The administration has the ability to get it all back. Why don't we just get it all back? And why are we bringing this bill to the floor today to give Members political cover when, in fact, the Treasury Secretary has the authority, the administration has the authority, to get all of it back? But, no, that got voted down. Our bill would have been a better bill.

Thirdly, our colleagues Mr. LaTourette and Mr. McCotter have introduced a resolution of inquiry to get all of the documents surrounding communications between the Treasury, the Fed, and AIG to understand who was in the middle of this conversation. People have known about this for months, and yet we just found out about it over the last 48 hours. So we want this resolution of inquiry to be passed by the committee. We want to get to the bottom of all of this. But in the meantime, do we have to have this political charade of bringing this bill out here? I don't think so.

I think this is a bad bill with bad consequences. We didn't see the bill until last night. Nobody in the committee marked it up, nobody debated it, and nobody understands the consequences of what we're about to do. How can we possibly vote ``yes'' on a bill like this?

Let me thank my colleague from New Jersey for yielding.

I can see that the political circus continues here with the second piece of legislation today.

I just want all the Members to know what the first paragraph of the ``Resolved'' clause is in this resolution. It says, ``Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring, that it is the sense of Congress that the President is appropriately exercising all of the authorities granted by Congress under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, and any other Federal law.'' Are you kidding me?

The Secretary of the Treasury has the ability to do this. Before he gave the last $30 billion--you know, that was the day after they reported a $61 billion loss, the Secretary of the Treasury decided they needed another $30 billion. And before he gave them the $30 billion, he couldn't have made clearer that no bonuses were going to be paid.

So I don't know how we can put this ``resolved'' clause in this phony resolution here so all Members can cover their rear-ends that they have come to the floor and they have voted to stop all of these bonuses going to these AIG executives.

This is a joke, and we ought to treat it as such. Vote ``no.''

I welcome my colleagues to St. Patrick's Day and I hope everyone has a happy one.

Madam Speaker, we are 2 months into this Congress, and Washington has done nothing to ease the economic challenges facing middle class families and small businesses.

We've watched the administration approve another $350 billion for more bailouts for the financial industry, and we've watched passage of a trillion-dollar ``stimulus'' bill, and then we've watched the passage of a $410 billion omnibus bill loaded with some 9,000 unscrutinized earmarks.

Soon we are going to debate the President's budget, a budget which spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much from our kids and our grandkids. This budget raises taxes on everyone, from middle class families to small businesses, to seniors and to schools. It even punishes anyone who would have the audacity to flip on a light switch thanks to a brand new $646 billion energy tax. This means less money in the family budget and more jobs being shipped overseas.

The American people are looking for real solutions that will help create jobs, rebuild savings, and create more investment in our economy. And in spite of what some disingenuous political operatives are saying, Republicans are offering better solutions.

So far this year, we've presented clear, superior alternatives to Washington Democrats' flawed proposals. We've asked the administration for an exit strategy to get the government back out of the private sector and get taxpayers off the hook for more billions in handouts to the financial sector. Our whip, Eric Cantor, and I personally delivered to the President an economic recovery plan that would create twice as many jobs as the Democrats' plan at half the cost. And we fought for a spending freeze as the majority fought for their bloated $410 billion omnibus spending bill.

Listen, the American people are fed up with what they're seeing here in Washington. Don't they deserve to keep more of what they earn as we try to get this economy back on track? Don't they deserve better solutions than the spending, taxing, and borrowing that they're seeing out of this Congress?

Republicans are offering better solutions, and we hope the majority will join us.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 120, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Let me thank my colleague for yielding and suggest that this continuing resolution we have on the floor today shouldn't be for the next 4 or 5 days; it really ought to be through the end of this fiscal year, which is September 30th of this year.

I know there are a lot of Members that have a lot of other issues that they would like to include in this, but the fact is that American families are hurting, small businesses are hurting around the country, our economy is hurting, and I think we can help our economy and we can send a strong signal to the American people by extending this spending freeze through September 30th.

Let's show the American taxpayers that we get it. Let's show investors in our American economy that we get it. Because clearly the bill that has been under consideration both here in the House and now in the Senate has a $30 billion increase over last year's spending and includes nearly 9,000 earmarks, and the way to put all of this to a stop is to just have a spending freeze. Let's show the American people we understand the pain that they are under and show them that we are willing to tighten our belt.

So when we have our opportunity to offer our motion to recommit at the end of this process, there will be an extension of that date through September 30th, with some increases for those in police departments and the FBI and other law enforcement jurisdictions, and it is something that I think is a responsible way forward. I would encourage my colleagues to support the motion to recommit.

Let me thank my colleague for yielding, and, Gay, congratulations and thank you for 32 years of service to the House. We, as Members, are fortunate to have a lot of professionals who help us do our job and help our country do the job that they sent us here to do, and whether they work in the Parliamentarian's office like Gay, whether they work here on the floor, in committees or in our personal staffs, we're very fortunate to have people such as yourself help us do the job the American people sent us here to do.

And I just wanted to rise today and say thank you. Thank you for 32 years. God bless your soul for putting up with all of us for 32 years, but we're glad you did.

Thank you.

Let me thank my colleague from California for yielding.

And I think all of my colleagues know that American families and small businesses are struggling, they're tightening their belt. And what are we doing here? We're bringing nine appropriation bills to the floor all wrapped into one big bill, 8 percent over the amount spent last year, including some 9,000 earmarks. I just think this is out of control.

This is exactly what the American people want us to change. And after spending all kinds of unnecessary money in the so-called ``stimulus'' bill, now we see these big increases in the bill before us. And that's why my Republican colleagues and I suggested that we ought to have a spending freeze. Let's just freeze spending for these agencies at last year's level. But our request for an amendment to have such a debate and vote was denied, and so here we are in a position of having to oppose this bill.

One of the more hideous provisions in this bill is the effort to eliminate the District of Columbia Scholarship Program. Back when I was chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, I worked on a bipartisan basis to help establish this program, and in the agreement that was reached, provided additional money to D.C. schools for IDEA and for title 1 in exchange for a $15 million program to help our poorest students here in the District of Columbia who are trapped in some of the worst schools.

Now, this program has helped thousands of students here in the District of Columbia. I was at a school on Monday that has students there who receive money from the D.C. Scholarship Program. Their parents are engaged in their schools, their parents like their schools, and the kids are doing well. And yet, because this provision was never debated in committee, it was never debated in subcommittee, and we didn't see it until 2 days ago and somehow it showed up in this bill, would seek to make clear that the end of this program is going to occur at the end of this school year.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, most of you know that I have a real passion for making sure that all kids in America have a chance at a decent education. None of us would be here if we had not had a chance at a decent education. And we know some of the worst schools in America are actually right here in the District of Columbia. And for those parents who have taken advantage of this program and allowed their children to go to real schools, schools where they're cared for, schools where they get an education, to suggest that we ought to eliminate this program is an abomination. I am adamantly opposed to this provision and opposed to this bill, and would urge my colleagues to send a loud and clear message that we should vote ``no.''

The President campaigned against this type of legislation, this number of earmarks. And I would hope that the President would veto this bill because Republicans in Congress will be here to uphold his veto of this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, the American economy needs help. Our neighbors, our friends, our constituents, they're hurting. And there's not a Member in this body on either side of the aisle that doesn't understand that. And I think everyone in this Chamber on both sides of the aisle understands that Congress needs to act and we need to act now to help American families and help small businesses and to help bring more confidence back to our economy.

The question is, how do you do that?

The President, when he outlined his desires for this bill, summed it up pretty simply when he said, ``This bill needs to be about jobs.'' I don't think there is anybody in this Chamber that disagrees that this bill needs to be about jobs, preserving jobs in America, and helping to create new jobs and helping to get our economy rolling again.

But the bill that was supposed to be about jobs, jobs, jobs has turned into a bill that's all about spending, spending, and spending.

This is disappointing. The American people expect more of us. They expect to have something that's going to work for them. And my opposition to this bill isn't the fact that we're doing a bill--we need to act. But how?

When you look at some of the spending of this bill, it will do nothing about creating jobs in America. Tell me how spending $50 million for some salt marsh mouse in San Francisco is going to help a struggling auto worker in Ohio. Tell me how spending $8 billion in this bill to have a high-speed rail line between Los Angeles and Las Vegas is going to help the construction worker in my district. Or how about the family who called me about the fact that the bread winner in the family's hours are going to be cut from 40 hours to 20 hours. Can't hardly make his payment. What's it do for him? Absolutely nothing.

And so, my concern about this is that we have to have a plan that will work for the American people, work for families, work for small businesses, and help get our economy going again. I don't think this bill does it.

I hope this bill works, I really do, for the good of our country. But my concern is that the plan that's outlined will not do what we want it to do.

That's why Republicans came to the table with what we thought was a better idea, a plan that would create twice as many jobs as the bill that we're debating at exactly half the cost. But our ideas weren't considered. We weren't allowed in the room, we weren't allowed to participate at all. And all of the talk about bipartisanship that we've heard over the last several months went down the drain.

Now, my Democrat colleagues know I know how to be bipartisan, even when we were in the majority. I've worked with many Members on the other side of the aisle to bring bills to this floor that truly were done together. But we would usually start at the beginning of the process.

Not only were we not included at the beginning of the process, we weren't even included at the end of the process.

And it's not about us being excluded. It's about our ideas to help make this economy better, our ideas about how to give American families and small businesses the ability to keep more of what they earn to help their families, to help their businesses, to create more jobs. That's what the American people want. They don't want more spending on a couple hundred million dollars to get the country ready for some national health plan, money that's going to go to the bureaucracy. They want to know how their budgets are going to be helped. And unfortunately, they're not.

If all of that wasn't enough, here we are with 1,100 pages--1,100 pages--not one Member of this body has read. Not one. There may be some staffer over in the Appropriations Committee that read all of this last night--I don't know how you could read 1,100 pages between midnight and now. Not one Member has read this.

What happened to the promise that we're going to let the American people see what's in this bill for 48 hours? But no, we don't have time to do that.

We owe it to the American people to get this bill right. We owe it to American families, we owe it to small businesses, and we owe it to ourselves to get this right so that we can, in fact, help our economy. I don't believe this is the way to do it.

It's disappointing the way this process has worked and the outcome that we've got. And I'm a big believer that we shouldn't come to the floor and talk about process, but bad process leads to bad policy. And that's what we have here, in my view. Bad policy that will drive up, drive up the debt and put all of this cost on the back of our kids and our grandkids and their kids.

I hope it works, but I surely have my doubts.

So I'm going to vote ``no.'' I'm going to vote ``no,'' and I'm going to hope, I'm going to hope that the next time that we get into a major piece of legislation on this floor, that you will include us. You will include our ideas.

I said on the opening day that Republicans would not be the party of ``no,'' that we would be the party of better ideas. And I'm committed to bringing better ideas to the floor, and let's debate those better ideas.

Our tax policy, fast-acting tax policy that helps American families and small businesses does, in fact, create twice as many jobs. Twice as many jobs. Because we want the American people to keep their money to invest in their family and their small business. We're not interested in growing the size of government.

I asked my colleagues yesterday in our conference, ``Think about the first time you ran for Congress.'' The freshman Members, they can remember this because they just did it. For me, it was 18 years ago. But I can tell you what I said 18 years ago: that I would come here to fight for a smaller, less costly, and more accountable Federal Government. This is the epitome--the epitome--of what I came here to stop.

And I don't think there is one Member of Congress who came here to pass an $890 billion bill--if you add interest on it, about $1.1 trillion--of spending to help grow the size of the Federal Government and to do very little to help American families and small businesses.

I'd suggest that you vote ``no.''

Let me thank my colleague from Michigan for sponsoring this resolution.

I rise today to congratulate our colleague and my friend, John Dingell, as the longest serving Member in the history of the United States House of Representatives. And while we've heard this said, I think, in some way before, it's not the fact that Mr. Dingell is the longest serving man or Member of the House, it's the fact that he's been a giant of a man over all these years.

I know I've only been here 18 years and 2 months, but early on in my congressional career, I had a chance to work with Mr. Dingell. And over the course of my time here in Washington, he and I have developed a very close friendship. And his word is his bond. Whether he's with you or against you, you never have to have any doubts about where John Dingell is.

And we've been on the same side, thankfully, many times. But even when we're in opposition to each other, it's not as though we are opposed to each other. We maybe have different ideas about which way to move ahead, but he really is someone that is revered by all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

And it is my honor as the Republican leader, John, to come here today and to say thank you and congratulations.

Madam Speaker, let me thank my colleague from California for yielding.

Today, earlier, President Obama held a town hall meeting in Fort Meyer, Florida. He discussed the need to create more jobs for Florida families and families across our country. This has been one of our shared goals since the outset of this process. And that's why House Republicans have crafted a plan that creates the most jobs in the shortest period of time. In fact, our plan would create 141,000 more jobs for Florida families than the package that's under consideration.

And overall, it would create twice as many jobs, some 6.2 million jobs in all, at half of the price of the bill that's moving through Congress.

And don't just take my word for it. This is based on the methodology used by President Obama's own nominee as chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, Dr. Christina Romer.

How? How do we create all of these jobs? We encourage investment and create jobs by letting families, small businesses, home buyers and job seekers keep more of what they earn. Unfortunately, the House and Senate bills take us in a different direction.

We already know that they rely on slow-moving, wasteful spending here in Washington, but there's more.

The plan that's currently on the table tries to take advantage of the crisis in our economy to enact a series of liberal policy proposals that have nothing to do with economic recovery. It discourages Americans from working, loosens welfare reform's work requirements, and encourages more Americans to become dependent on government programs. And through a proposal called Comparative Effectiveness, it aims to put the Federal Government in charge of some of the most important life and death decisions that families face.

The bill is supposed to be about creating jobs, not about reversing welfare reform or letting government ration out America's health care options.

There is still time for both parties to work together to craft a bill that puts job creation first and foremost. But I think it's up to the majority to help make that happen.

Republicans want to work in a constructive way to help families during this economic crisis, and we want to answer the President's call for bipartisanship and his call for a plan that creates jobs first and foremost. The bills being considered don't do that.

We do believe that our economy is in a crisis. Families and small businesses are hurting, and the government must act, but we must act in a prudent way that does what we all want to do, and that's to preserve jobs in America and to create more jobs in America.

Unfortunately, the plans that we're seeing don't do that. The plan that we put on the table for consideration would, in fact, create 6.2 million jobs over the next 2 years, twice as many jobs as the bills being considered at half the price tag.

It's time to work in a bipartisan way to solve this crisis, and I would urge my colleagues to listen to our ideas and work with us on behalf of the American people.

I want to thank the Speaker and thank my colleagues who are here today to congratulate Miami University on their 200th anniversary. I have nine Miami grads that work for me on my staff. Clearly, you heard from Mr. Ryan, and Mr. Driehaus, you will hear from soon, who are esteemed graduates of Miami of Ohio, as is Senator Maria Cantwell.

There will be a lot of nice things said about Miami, but it truly is quite an accomplishment for this university to have had such a successful run over the last 200 years. Miami of Ohio is in my district. It's probably the most difficult place to get to in my district. And I can only imagine how difficult it was in the early 1800s to find Oxford, Ohio.

But it is one of the most beautiful campuses in the country. They have a great record of achievement, and their graduates have gone on to do great things in all fields of endeavor.

And so I am proud to have Miami of Ohio in my district, and I am proud of my colleagues here who are Miami grads, and proud of my staff, who came from such an esteemed university.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Miami University for its 200 years of commitment to extraordinary higher education. There are 9 Miami graduates currently working for me, so I can tell you firsthand how well educated Miami students are. Miami is a student-centered university deeply committed to student success, building great student and alumni loyalty, and empowering its students, faculty, and staff to become engaged citizens who use their knowledge and skills with integrity and compassion to improve the future of our society. Miami University is the 10th oldest public university in the nation, and is located in my district in Oxford, Ohio.

Poet Laureate Robert Frost once referred to Miami as ``the most beautiful college there is.'' In addition to distinctions for the campus' beauty and first-rate facilities, Miami University is cited annually by national college rankings as being one of the nation's best values among public universities. According to Business Week magazine, Miami's Farmer School of Business is ranked among the nation's top 5 percent of undergraduate business programs, ranking 8th among public universities and colleges. Miami is also named as one of the ``Public Ivies,'' offering ``an education comparable to that at Ivy League universities at a fraction of the price.'' Miami provides the opportunities of a major university while offering the personalized attention found in the best small colleges.

Furthermore, Miami has a retention and graduation rate that exceeds the national average for undergraduates, students of color, and athletes, and has the highest graduation rate in Ohio. Much of Miami's success is owed to its stellar faculty. As nationally prominent scholars and artists, Miami's faculty contribute to the university, their own disciplines, and to society. In fact, while a faculty member at Miami, William Holmes McGuffey, ``School Master to the Nation,'' wrote and compiled the first 4 McGuffey Eclectic Readers.

Additionally, Miami recognizes the opportunities for personal and professional growth that living and studying internationally brings. With its own campus in Luxembourg, Miami consistently ranks among the top 25 universities and colleges in the nation for the number of undergraduate students who study abroad. These abroad opportunities have enabled countless Miami students to develop a broader perspective and keener understanding of the world as they contribute to society.

Miami alumni have a history of profound service to the United States, including a President of the United States (the Honorable Benjamin Harrison); 9 U.S. Senators, including sitting Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA); and 31 U.S. Representatives, including sitting Members, Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Congressman Steve Driehaus (D-OH). In addition, Miami students and alumni have achieved the pillar of their professions including a Poet Laureate, Pulitzer Prize winners, a National Teacher of the Year, and renowned journalists. As the nation's oldest university newspaper, the Miami Student has offered students the opportunity to develop their interests and skills in journalism since 1826.

Miami is also committed to creating an environment that teaches student-athletes to excel in their chosen endeavors. In fact, Miami is one of only 4 universities and colleges to generate both a United States President (the Honorable Benjamin Harrison) and a winning Super Bowl quarterback (Ben Roethlisberger). Miami alumni include a National Football League Rookie of the Year, National Football League Super Bowl Champions, National Basketball Association World Champions, National Health League Stanley Cup Champions, Major League Baseball World Series Champions, and Olympic gold medalists. Known as the ``Cradle of Coaches,'' Miami has produced an unparalleled number of nationally prominent collegiate and professional coaches, 18 of whom have been recognized as national ``Coach of the Year,'' including Paul Brown (Cleveland Browns), Walter ``Smokey'' Alston (Brooklyn/Los Angeles Dodgers), Woody Hayes (Ohio State University), Bo Schembechler (University of Michigan), and Vicki Korn (Miami University).

In addition to athletics, many Miami students also participate in Greek life. As the Alpha Chapter for 5 national Greek organizations (Beta Theta Pi, Sigma Chi, Phi Delta Theta, Phi Kappa Tau, and the Delta Zeta sorority), Miami University is known as the ``Mother of Fraternities.'' Greek life at Miami offers students the ability to engage in philanthropic activities and offers leadership opportunities that help prepare the students for their future.

Miami alumni have gone on to lead some of our most august corporations such as AT&T, Inc., Proctor and Gamble Co., the J.M. Smucker Company, and the United Parcel Service of America. As the largest employer in Butler County, Ohio, Miami University serves as an economic powerhouse Southwest Ohio, the state of Ohio, and the nation with an economic impact of over a billion dollars per year to the state of Ohio.

On February 17, 2009, Miami will celebrate its bicentennial. I congratulate Miami for the university's profound achievements and unwavering commitment to liberal arts education and the active engagement of its students in both curricular and co-curricular life that has continually attracted and produced some of the nation's brightest faculty, staff, and students. I wish Miami the very best in the future.

Madam Speaker, President Obama said from the outset that we need a bipartisan plan that creates jobs first and foremost. House Republicans are prepared to work with our new President on a plan that does just that. Why? Because Americans are looking for real solutions to the legitimate economic problems facing families and small businesses around our country.

Americans like Dan, a constituent of mine, who worked for 30 years for a company in my district. He was laid off last month when his company downsized. His wife e-mailed me recently saying, and I will quote, ``We struggle, but we manage to pay our mortgage, not spend more than we have, and we have learned to cut back. Please stop the insanity of more taxpayers' money going out in the `stimulus' handouts.''

This is the first time that this couple has contacted my office. They didn't contact me because of the burdens they are facing. They contacted me because of the burdens this trillion dollar-plan will place on future generations. This couple has two college-age sons, both who were aspiring to have advanced degrees. In addition to the debt they will incur for their education, she's very concerned about the debt their sons will have to shoulder as a result of our actions.

Madam Speaker, there are men and women like this couple all across our country who deserve better than this $1 trillion handout. It creates too few jobs, piles too much debt on our children and grandchildren, and includes too much wasteful spending.

In short, I don't believe that it meets President Obama's standard, a standard where he wants to preserve and create new jobs in America, as do Republicans here in this Congress.

My colleagues and I, I think, are offering a better solution--an economic recovery plan that will create twice as many jobs as the plan proposed by the House Democrats last week, in half the time and at half the cost. This fast-acting tax relief lets families, small businesses, homebuyers, and job seekers keep more of what they earn and, in fact, does create twice as many jobs.

After Wednesday's vote, President Obama said, ``I hope that we can continue to strengthen this plan before it gets to my desk.'' Well, on behalf of the couple that contacted me in my district, and millions of other Americans, let's hope that the Senate can do a better job and, when we get to conference, have a bill that really will help American families and small businesses create new jobs in America and heal our ailing economy.

Let me thank my colleague from Michigan for yielding and congratulate him and our Republican whip, Eric Cantor, for the proposal that they have on the floor.

I think that the plan that we have on the floor, our alternative, is rooted in the principle that fast-acting tax relief will create more jobs in America than a lot of slow-moving government programs. The bill that we have on the floor, the underlying bill, has as an example 32 brand new government programs that spend $136 billion.

Now, we all know how long it takes to get a new program up, the bureaucracy that has to be hired, before we could ever get that money out into the economy. We also know there is a lot of other spending in this bill that while it may be well-meaning, it may be well- intentioned, we know it is not going to create jobs. And sending 300 plus million dollars to the Center for Disease Control to do whatever is not going to create new jobs in America. We are going to build bigger bureaucracies.

Or, we could talk about the $650 million that is going to be spent with digital TV coupons. Now this looks like a slush fund to me because about 94 percent of the old TVs that need these boxes to receive signals have already been purchased; so only about 6 percent of the TVs in America actually need these boxes. So that would be about $30 million, $40 million, maybe $50 million. What is the other $600 million going to be used for?

The point is, is that the underlying bill, while it certainly has some good provisions, has a lot of wasteful spending, a lot of slow- moving government spending in it.

When I gave Ms. Pelosi the gavel on the opening day as Speaker of the House, I told her the Republicans would not come to the floor and just be the party of ``no''; that we would try to be the party of better ideas. And last week when we had the SCHIP bill on the floor, we brought a proposal out here which we thought was a better idea. Today, in this debate, we think that we have a better idea.

President Obama has made clear that he believes that the goal here should be to preserve jobs in America and to create new jobs in America. And I think that the proposal that we have that puts more money back in the hands of American families and small businesses, that helps homeowners and people who want to buy a home, that takes away the tax liability for those who are unemployed and getting unemployment insurance, that this bill in fact will be better for the American people, that better meets the goal that the President himself has outlined.

And we want to work with the President. We have made clear to him that he has reached out, and we are reaching out to him, because at the end of the day, the American people need a plan that works. We all know our economy is in a difficult strait. We all know that people are losing their jobs, tens of thousands of them, every week. And so we have to act and we have to help our ailing economy. The question is, how do we do it best? And we believe this fast-acting tax relief is the way to get it done.

Then we find out today that our proposal will create 6.2 million jobs over the next 2 years, about twice as many as the underlying bill and at about half the cost.

Remember, at the end of the day this bill that we are going to pass is not being paid for by taxpayers today; it is going to be paid for by our kids, our grandkids, and their kids. We have to be cognizant of the debt that we are putting on them. And so I would urge my colleagues to support the Republican substitute, support a bill that will create 6.2 million jobs, twice as many as the underlying bill at about half the cost.

Let me thank my colleague from North Carolina for yielding, and say to my colleagues that we all understand the severe economic consequences that we are dealing with. American families are short of cash, some are losing their homes, others losing their jobs, other fighting to keep their jobs. And this became very apparent last September when the Treasury Secretary and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve came to the Capitol to outline how serious the consequences were of the tightening of the credit markets and the consequences from that for our Nation's financial institutions.

I worked with the gentleman from Massachusetts and the other leaders to craft a bill to help provide that money so that our economy could be saved. But, I have got to tell you, I have been disappointed ever since.

I have raised questions in October, November, and December, about how this money was being spent, who was getting the money, under what conditions, and the kind of transparency and accountability that we thought we were going to have, but we didn't have.

And so now, here we are, where they are looking for the second half of the $700 billion of financial rescue, and I as a Member who supported that decision because I thought we had to do it for our economy, and I would do it again, but, my goodness, I can't stand here as a Member of Congress and vote to release the second half of this money without knowing what happened to the first half of it; and, what is the need for the second half; what are the dire consequences if we don't do the second half of this money? And, if there are dire consequences, what is the administration's plan to actually spend this next $350 billion?

I, as a Member, don't know any of that. And so how can I be responsible to American taxpayers in approving the second half of this money without answers?

Yesterday, the gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, passed a bill that does bring more transparency and accountability to the process. Also, in the same bill, it should be noted, expanded the ability for the Treasury Secretary to spend this money on foreclosures, on autos, and almost anything they want to do with it, which causes me great concern.

But there will be some more transparency. But I don't have it today. Nobody can tell me where the first $350

billion went. Nobody can tell me what the conditions were. Nobody has outlined why we need the second half, nor what their plan is to spend it. And I think at the end of the day we have a responsibility, a responsibility to the American people, who pay the bills, who pay the taxes.

At some point, somebody has got to pony up the money for the financial rescue. Somebody has got to pony up the money for the trillion-dollar economic rescue plan that is moving through this body. It won't be us. It will be our kids, their kids, and their kids who pay for this.

And so, at some point in this process, while we are trying to help American families, small businesses, entrepreneurs, and the self- employed, get the economy going again, somebody has to pay the bill. And I have great concerns that we are stacking debt on top of debt on the backs of our kids, and it's not fair. It's not fair to burden them. Frankly, I don't think that we can borrow and spend our way back to prosperity.

And so, for me, the answer is simple. My vote today will be in opposition to the second half of this money until the questions that have been posed are answered.