Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Bobby Goodwin's remarkable life of selfless service. I was deeply saddened to learn of his passing and honor his memory today on the floor of the people's House.

Bobby W. Goodwin was born in Flemingsburg, Kentucky on March 22, 1939 to the late Lawrence and Edith Goodwin. He was a graduate of New Castle High School, Class of 1958. A loving husband, father, and grandfather, Bobby leaves behind a wonderful family that will undoubtedly miss him.

A veteran of the United States Army, Bobby retired from the Ford Motor Company in Indianapolis after 35 years of service. He owned Goodwin Bail Bonding and admirably served the New Castle Police Department, being named Outstanding Police Officer of the Year in 1974.

Ever active in the community, Bobby served on the New Castle City Council and was a member of several organizations, including the local Republican Party, VFW and American Legion. At the time of his passing, Bobby served as Head Doorkeeper in the Indiana House of Representatives.

Though Bobby sadly has passed away, he leaves a strong legacy that will continue to serve as a powerful example to all who knew him. I offer my sincere condolences to his loving wife Ann Jo, daughter Kathie, and sons Michael, Gary, and Tony.

Last fall, like a majority of House Republicans, I opposed the Wall Street bailout because I feared we'd arrive at days like today, in part. House Republicans share the outrage of the American people that AIG would use taxpayer dollars to award executive bonuses during an economic crisis. But the Democratic bill brought to the floor today is constitutionally questionable. In its obviously transparent attempt to divert attention away from the truth, the Democrats in Congress and this administration made these bonus payments possible.

House Republicans believe the American people deserve 100 percent of their money back. House Republicans have proposed legislation that will deny AIG one more dime of bailout money until they have recovered all of the bonus payments from their employees.

Lastly, the American people deserve to know this whole outrage could have been avoided. The truth is that it was a Democrat Senator from Oregon, Ron Wyden, who authored thoughtful legislation that would have banned executive bonuses included in the stimulus bill, and it was-- late in the night, late in the process--removed.

Here's what he had to say about it. Senator Wyden told the Associated Press, ``The President goes out and says this is not acceptable, then some backroom deal gets cut and lets these things get paid out anyway.

``He said, `I think it's unfortunate.' He said we could have had a well-targeted message `which would have communicated how strongly the administration felt about blocking these executive bonuses,' but I wasn't able to convince them.''

``Even Senator Chris Dodd, the head of the conference committee for the stimulus bill said, `I didn't negotiate with myself. I wasn't trying to change it on my own. The administration had expressed reservations. They asked for modifications.' ''

The American people deserve to know that, thanks to the work of Senator Ron Wyden and Senator Olympia Snowe, we wouldn't be here today, because the stimulus bill would have banned these bonuses altogether. But that language was removed.

The American people deserve 100 percent of their money back. They deserve to know why House Democrats blocked efforts to ban executive bonuses. We deserve the truth.

Like a majority of Republicans in Congress last fall, I opposed this Wall Street bailout from the beginning because I feared both the intended consequences and the unintended consequences that would come and bring us to days like today.

House Republicans share the outrage of millions of Americans that AIG would use taxpayer dollars to award executive bonuses. But the plan brought to the floor today by the Democratic majority is a constitutionally questionable bill. It would enact a 90 percent tax on AIG employees and, the truth is, it's a transparent attempt to divert attention away from the fact that Democrats in Congress and this administration made these bonus payments possible.

House Republicans believe the American people deserve 100 percent of their money back. We have offered legislation that would deny one more dime of bailout money to AIG until they collect 100 percent of those bonuses back for the American people. But Democrats have blocked the Republican plan. And the American people deserve to know this entire outrage that has dominated the national debate this week could have been avoided.

Senator Ron Wyden, the Democrat from Oregon, authored thoughtful legislation in the so-called stimulus bill that passed the House. It was legislation that would have banned bonuses of this type but, to use his words, he said ``It was unfortunate that it was stripped from the bicameral conference committee.'' He said, ``We had an opportunity to send a well-targeted message that would have communicated how strongly the administration felt about blocking these excessive bonuses,'' but, ``I wasn't able to convince them.''

Senator Dodd, the chairman of the bicameral conference committee, said the administration expressed reservations about the language. They asked for modifications.

The truth is that Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate were in the room when this language was struck that made these bonuses possible.

The American people deserve to get 100 percent of their money back. They deserve it to be done in a way that doesn't give offense to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Let's do what's right for the American people, and let's speak the truth.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in the midst of an enormous amount of national outrage. I sensed it yesterday when I was in Anderson, Indiana, meeting with my constituents, meeting with small business leaders at a forum. Now much in the media today is focused on the frustration over a large business, specifically AIG, that received tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer money and now has been busy paying bonuses with it to the tune of over $150 million and has been passing out that money to foreign corporations. That outrage is very real and I agree with it. The American people are tired of bailouts. I voted against the Wall Street bailout last fall, defied a President of my own party, because I simply believe we can't borrow and spend and bail our way back to a growing America. And it seems that much of the public has now come to the conclusion that this notion that we can bail out every failing business in the country is a deeply flawed notion. But I also heard an enormous amount of outrage in my district yesterday about this administration's budget.

The truth is the more the American people look at the President's budget plan, the more they realize that it spends too much, it taxes too much, and it borrows too much, and we have to do better.

I heard yesterday from a constituent by the name of Ted Fiock, who runs and owns Anderson Tool and Engineering Company. He talked about the increasing cost in his business, saying, ``The cost burden is just insane right now. We're not doing well. We're struggling. We're in a survival mode right now.'' You can imagine his frustration and even, I would perceive, outrage when I explained to him that 50 percent of the Americans who will be paying higher taxes under the President's budget are actually small business owners just like him. The President said it would just affect Americans who make more than $250,000 a year, but according to the most reasonable estimates, more than 50 percent of the Americans that file taxes over that amount are actually small business owners just like Ted filing as individuals. Raising taxes on small businesses, especially during these difficult economic times, is not a prescription for recovery. It's a prescription for economic decline. I also shared with Ted and others the President's plan, the so-called cap-and-trade energy tax. Under the administration's budget, there would be a new energy tax that could cost every household, let alone every business, up to $3,128 a year for using electricity, driving a car, relying on energy in any way.

The President's budget simply taxes too much. And as I explain the metes and bounds in this budget today, the outrage about AIG's bonuses, the outrage about bailouts has suddenly met its match. I think the more the American people look at this administration's budget, the more they know we can do better, and we must do better. It's time for this Congress to embrace the principles of fiscal restraint and policies that will get America growing again, and Republicans are prepared to bring those ideas forward.

It's St. Patrick's Day, Mr. Speaker, and my Irish grandfather would want me to do nothing short of acknowledging that and wearing the green. But I have to tell you, with the headlines about bailouts, the President's budget for $3.5 trillion and more spending and more taxes to grow government and pay for more bailouts, it's enough to get my Irish up.

Reality is that when the American people are taking a closer and closer look at this administration's budget, they know three things. This President's budget spends too much, it taxes too much and it borrows too much.

Believe it or not, in these times when the American people are saying enough is enough on big government spending and bailouts, this administration is poised to raise taxes on small business owners. Fifty percent of Americans who file taxes above the level the President wants to raise them are actually small business owners filing as individuals.

The average American household will pay $3,100 more with the President's new energy tax. And with the President capping charitable giving, charities in this country, churches and synagogues and the like could lose $9 billion this year alone.

Enough is enough. We have to say no to the President's budget and give the American people a budget that is strong and diverse and restrained and committed to growth as they are.

Mr. Speaker, today, I was unexpectedly detained in my district due to a flight delay and missed three votes. If present, I would have voted: ``yea'' on H.R. 987; ``yea'' on H.R. 1217; and ``yea'' on H.R. 1284.

Mr. Speaker, during these difficult times, families and small businesses across the land are making hard choices to make ends meet. Sacrifices are being made everywhere, except in Washington, D.C.

While Americans are finding ways to cut back, the Democrat Congress and our President have gone on an unprecedented spending binge, bailout after bailout, a $1 trillion stimulus bill. Yesterday, the President signed an omnibus spending bill with an 8 percent increase in spending and 9,000 earmarks. And to make matters worse, the administration has proposed a massive Federal budget that spends too much, borrows too much and taxes too much, and the American people know it. Even a distinguished colleague on the Budget Committee said recently: ``This is not an easy budget to market, for sure.''

Well, I say respectfully to my colleagues, the problem with the President's budget is not marketing, it is content. The American people want Congress to do what they are doing, make sacrifices, be there for our neighbors and embrace fiscal discipline and responsible plans for growth; not a Federal budget that spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank my good friend for his strong leadership on this issue on the floor of the Congress.

After months of runaway spending here in Washington, D.C., on bailouts and on a so-called stimulus bill, and now the majority is beginning to talk about another stimulus bill and no doubt more bailouts, in the midst of all of that, the incoming administration has presented its budget, more than $3 trillion in spending and higher taxes.

I come to the floor today to congratulate the gentleman and my colleagues for their strong statements today. But the American people deserve to know the President's budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much.

The President's budget spends too much, it taxes too much, and it borrows too much; and Republicans in Congress have a better solution.

In the coming weeks, the American people will hear from this floor, hear on the airwaves of America, and see in print a careful exposition of each of these points: about the extraordinary spending, the extraordinary increase in taxes that have just been described, taxes that will impact in the energy tax every household in America, every business in America.

The gentleman points to the President's comments made here on this floor, that only Americans with joint filings over $250,000 a year would experience higher marginal rates under his plan. But that leaves out two thoughts. Number one is that more than half of the American people that file tax returns in excess of $250,000 a year are actually small business owners filing as individuals. Raising taxes on small business owners in a recession is a prescription for economic decline. But there is another tax increase, and that is the energy tax increase the gentleman was just referring to.

For the average American household, the energy tax increase could impact several thousand dollars per year on every homeowner, every renter, every small business. It will fall under the category of cap and trade and climate change, but the American people need to be prepared to count the cost as the President moves his budget forward. Higher energy taxes, higher taxes on small businesses, and higher taxes on contributions to charities.

By one independent estimate, American charities and nonprofits, including educational institutions, religious institutions, charities that serve the underserved community, some estimates indicate that the President's tax increase could cost charities in this country $16 billion per year.

The President's budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much. Republicans have a better solution. We will be bringing those arguments and that solution to the American people in the weeks ahead.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

In a week that has already been overcome by a blizzard of legislative activity and news, I rise for two reasons today; number one is to commend the gentleman from New Jersey, whose passion for human rights, for human dignity, for the sanctity of life is in high relief on the floor today. I commend the gentleman for coming to the floor and bringing his passion and his knowledge to this issue in the wake of a profoundly disappointing decision by the President of the United States of America. So I commend the gentleman.

My second point is to simply say that what was most disappointing to me about the President's decision in authorizing the use of taxpayer dollars to fund research that involves the destruction of human embryos is that it seemed to me, Madam Speaker, to be a moment where the President and his party were putting ideology over science. I say that grounded in the notion that that was an accusation that was leveled at those of us on the side of life in the last 8 years, those of us who believed that we ought not to use the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use it to fund research that involves the destruction of human embryos for scientific purposes. But we were told that we were putting ideology--presumably our pro-life views--over science. But actually, science overcame the debate when, in 2007, nearly 7 full years after President George W. Bush had signed his executive order, and years after Republican majorities in this Congress had authorized tens of millions in increased Federal funding to the National Institutes for Health for ethical adult stem cell research, science came through.

As the gentleman just referred, the extraordinary breakthroughs of not one, but two scientific research teams in 2007 found that adult stem cells could be converted into stem cells that essentially were identical to embryonic stem cells through a process called induced pluripotent stem cell procedure. Now, this was a miracle of science. And I remember full well, I remember seeing a report on all the major television networks that said that science has rendered the debate over destructive embryonic stem cell research moot. It seemed as though science had stepped into one of the most difficult and contentious issues of our times and it had taken it off the table.

Because of these scientific breakthroughs, it would no longer be necessary to even consider using Federal taxpayers to fund research that destroys human embryos because--and the gentleman, I'm sure, will correct me, having forgotten more about this issue than I've learned-- but I believe scientists found that by introducing a virus into adult stem cells, that they would convert into that highly dynamic mode, they would be induced to take the form of pluripotent stem cells, which scientists have long desired--and have, through private funding, appreciated the opportunity--to do research for the purpose of finding cures and therapies. And so it is not casually that I come to the floor today to say that I believe when President Obama signed an executive order authorizing the use of taxpayer dollars to fund stem cell research that involves the destruction of human embryos, that this administration was putting ideology over science.

I didn't hear a word this week about induced pluripotent stem cells. I heard no reference--I'm happy to stand corrected, Madam Speaker--but I heard no reference by the administration or any of its spokesmen, or by the President, to those extraordinary scientific breakthroughs which obviated the need to use my tax dollars and the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans to fund research that destroys human embryos.

So as I prepare to yield back to the gentleman, I come to the floor with really a heavy heart. I mean, I believe the sanctity of life is a central axiom of Western civilization. I believe that ending an innocent human life is morally wrong. But I also believe it is also morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of pro-life Americans and use it to fund abortion overseas or to fund research that involves the destruction of human embryos at home. But I found a new layer, Madam Speaker, of wrongness; it's also wrong to do it when it's completely unnecessary. It's wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use it to fund research that destroys human embryos when science itself, in the last year and a half, has made it completely unnecessary to do so. And so it was a moment where this administration put ideology over science.

My hope--and, frankly, my prayer--as we enter into this brave new world that could result in embryonic farms, that could result in ultimately setting us on a path where therapies are developed and, therefore, stem cells need to be cloned, we will no doubt hear, it is my hope and my prayer that science will continue to march forward and will overtake the practice of ideology in this Capitol and reaffirm the principle that human life is sacred, we ought not to use taxpayer dollars of pro-life Americans to destroy nascent human life, and most especially, when it is not scientifically necessary to do so to achieve the extraordinary advances that are taking place.

I commend the gentleman, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak.

After months of runaway spending at the Federal level on bailouts, so-called stimulus bills, and big government spending in last year's budget, just last month President Obama unveiled his budget, a more than $3 trillion blueprint for even more spending.

At a time when middle class families and small businesses are making sacrifices, Washington continues to spend trillions of dollars on bailouts and new government programs. One independent estimate suggests that the Federal Government will have to hire 250,000 new bureaucrats just to pass out all the money. And the President's plan includes the largest tax increase in history. The majority of his tax increases will hit small business owners. And the new national energy tax will cost every American household up to $3,100 per year.

The chairman of the Budget Committee, the Democrat, John Spratt, said, ``This is not an easy budget to market for sure. The reason? Well, the President's budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much, and the American people know it.''

Madam Speaker, we come to this well at a very difficult time in the life of our Nation. American families are struggling under the weight of this recession. Millions of Americans are watching as their life savings are evaporating before their eyes. My own family has been touched by the hardship in the housing crisis and by job loss. So I come to this floor with a sense of urgency, and it is a sense of urgency that was confirmed this morning with the jobs report and a startling reality.

But in the midst of these very difficult times, the American people are rising to the occasion. As we speak in this well this morning, millions of Americans are doing in their small businesses, in their family farms and around their kitchen tables what this Congress should be doing. They are finding places to save. They are putting off expenditures that they don't have to make this year to make sure they make ends meet for the priorities in their lives.

Yet this Congress, by this massive omnibus bill, is going on with spending as usual. An 8 percent increase in Federal spending, the largest increase in a single year since I was in high school in the 1970s, apart from those months following September 11th, is not what the American people expect to see this Congress doing.

``Spending as usual'' with thousands upon thousands of earmarks and special projects is not what the American people expect from this Congress during these difficult times. Madam Speaker, they want to see the Congress doing what they are doing, and that is making careful decisions, practicing fiscal discipline and setting aside ``business as usual'' to confront these challenging times.

And so I rise today to say, let's not just do this continuing resolution for a week but, as others have said, for the rest of this year, let's freeze Federal spending in virtually every area of the government. Let's say no earmarks in the Year 2009.

And it's not a value judgment on the Members who've made those project requests. I, myself, don't request projects of that nature. But it is to say, Madam Speaker, that in these difficult times, we have to do what every American family, every small business owner and every family farmer is doing, and that is making sacrifices and practicing discipline.

I urge my colleagues in both parties to join the minority today in supporting our motion to recommit. It's a motion that would essentially freeze all Federal spending, say to historic increases in spending in these difficult times, no to earmarks, and say yes to the practiced values of millions of Americans in these difficult days.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act.

It's legislation that really will punish those who played by the rules, lived within their means, by forcing them to subsidize Americans who made irresponsible choices. This bill also throws good money after bad.

If the HOPE for Homeowners Program was intended to help 400,000 borrowers, the American people deserve to know that to date the program has assisted 43 borrowers, not 43,000, not 430, 43. The President said it was his goal to, quote, eliminate government programs that are not performing. We could start with the HOPE for Homeowners Program.

More than anything else, Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing a disturbing pattern here in Washington, one that rewards bad decisions at the expense of people that have made right choices. We saw it in the bailout of Wall Street under a prior administration and continued under the new one.

We saw this with the so-called stimulus bill that was designed to stem the rising tide in this economic crisis but was nothing more than a wish list of spending priorities put on the backs of our children and grandchildren. But today we should note more than 90 percent of Americans are paying their mortgages on time and meeting their financial obligations, even in these difficult days, let me say with authority as we consider this bill.

People back in Indiana don't want a handout. They don't want to turn a blind eye to people who, through no fault of their own, found themselves in loans in which they should not have been engaged, but Hoosiers don't want to be put on the hook for a handout for people who knowingly made bad choices.

These are tough times. We should all be willing to make the sacrifices necessary to weather this economic storm, but we to begin by reaffirming the principle of personal responsibility.

The bill before us fails this essential standard. Rewarding bad behavior will not solve our problems, it will only worsen them. We should reject this bill. We should pursue the kinds of policies that put personal responsibility first and ultimately create the incentive for Americans who have invested in their homes and in their lives to continue to expand and prosper.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him and all of my colleagues who will speak here this evening for taking the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to come to this floor and talk about facts.

Facts are stubborn things. And it seems like we're living in a time right now of soaring rhetoric. But the facts underpinning the Democrat budget are jarring, and they represent a fundamental departure from the course of American governance.

And we need to talk about those things. I mean, the American people understand that the Federal budget is, in itself, the way a party and an administration lays out its vision for the future of the country. The American people deserve a budget that is fiscally responsible and puts jobs first. And as has been said on the floor before, the budget offered by this administration and supported by our Democratic colleagues in the House fails on both

counts. The American people know we can't borrow and spend and bail our way back to a growing economy.

And history has shown that the policies that are embraced in the Obama budget will actually take our country not out of recession, but very likely deeper into recession. The last President of the United States to raise taxes during a recession was Herbert Hoover, who managed, by his deeply flawed judgment and policies, to take a strong recession in the 1920s and turn it into a decades-long depression in this country. And yet here we stand again at a crossroads in our Nation's history when so many families are hurting, so many small business owners are struggling under this economic downturn.

Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his typical eloquent insight. We are not paying attention to history. We are not learning from the candid comments like the Secretary of the Treasury under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who realized at the end of America's lost decade of the 1930s that they couldn't borrow and spend their way back to a growing nation. And yet here we are again.

But I hasten to add, not only are we piling on our children and grandchildren a mountain range of debt to pay for--beginning with the stimulus bill, and now the omnibus bill, and now the President's budget--a transformation of government spending priorities along liberal lines, but they intend to pay for it, in part--because we're talking about record deficits. Even if the President hits his deficit reduction mark in 4 years, it will still be a half a trillion dollar deficit, which I remember Democrats decrying during Republican control of the Congress. But beyond all that, they're going to pay for it, in part, with tax increases on small business owners and family farmers.

As the gentleman just described very eloquently, the American people deserve to know a couple of facts. Seventy percent of Americans work in small businesses in this country and in places like Indiana; 70 percent of people get up and go to work every day in a small business. More than 50 percent of the American people who file income tax returns at or above the level that the President intends to raise taxes are small business owners filing their taxes as individuals. And so we ask the question, Mr. Speaker, of the American people looking in, do you think raising taxes on your employer at the small business where you work is a pathway to recovery in America? Is it going to make your job more secure or less secure? Leave aside the so-called cap and trade bill, but raising the utility rates, the electrical bills for every homeowner in America, every business in America----

Let me say as I close, I want to thank the gentleman for leading this hour of debate and say that there are two things that Republicans believe we ought to be doing. Number one is, we ought not to be growing the Federal budget beyond any reasonable expectation of the American people. We shouldn't be engaging in the runaway spending of the so-called stimulus bill, the omnibus bill and the President's budget. We ought to be doing what every family farm, every small business, every working family is doing, and that is finding places to save, finding places to cut back. And then, as the gentleman said, we ought to be doing what John F. Kennedy did, we ought to be doing what Ronald Reagan did, we ought to be doing, as a country, what this Congress and George W. Bush did after the Towers fell, and that is, not giving Washington more money of ours to spend, but giving working families, small business owners, family farmers more of their hard- earned tax dollars to keep and spend. That's the pathway to prosperity.

The President's budget, the Democrats' plans are a pathway to increased recession and hardship for the American people, and we must reject them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Omnibus Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2009. During these challenging economic times, American families and small businesses every day are making sacrifices to make ends meet, and this Congress should be doing the same.

With all of the talk about fiscal responsibility in this Chamber last night and across Capitol Hill, it is time for our Democratic colleagues to put our money where their mouth is. Republicans are willing to come together and work across the aisle and make the hard choices necessary to put our fiscal house in order. But today, instead of doing that, we're passing one more massive government spending bill.

The Republicans believe Congress, instead, should immediately freeze all Federal spending at existing levels. No 8 percent increase in the Federal budget that's included in this bill. No earmarks. Let's just do what every American family is doing right now. Let's find the savings, let's hold the line on expenses, and let's make it through these difficult times.

The $410 billion spending bill that we're considering today that the majority has brought to the floor includes billions in wasteful spending, thousands of pork-barrel projects, and an 8 percent increase in funding for government programs. It's the largest increase in discretionary spending since the years of the Carter administration, with the sole exception of the days following 9/11. The largest increase in discretionary spending in a single year since the time I was in high school.

And there's provisions in this bill that undermine historic pro-life safeguards enshrined in our long-standing policy and law: $500 million for family planning organizations, language that guts the Kemp-Kasten provision preventing funding going to organizations that support coercive abortion and forced sterilization, and reduction of funding for community-based abstinence.

And it's earmarking as usual in this bill. There's $1 million to research the red snapper in Florida, $1.9 million for the Pleasure Beach Water Taxi project in Connecticut, and $2 million for promoting astronomy in Hawaii. I ask, Mr. Speaker, are these projects really necessary in these challenging economic times?

House Republicans and millions of Americans are saying enough is enough. Let's do what every American family, what every small business and family farmer is doing in these difficult times: let's hold the line on spending. Let's set aside this massive new omnibus spending bill, and let's pass immediately a spending freeze and begin the process of putting our house in order.

Let's say ``no'' to an 8 percent increase in federal spending, ``no'' to 9,000 earmarks, and let's say ``yes'' to fiscal discipline and reform, and let's say ``yes'' to an immediate freeze on all Federal spending.

This Congress should do no less and make no less sacrifice than every other American family is making in these difficult days.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the omnibus spending bill.

Mr. Speaker, during these challenging economic times, American families and small businesses are making sacrifices to make ends meet, and Congress should do the same.

With all the talk about fiscal responsibility in Washington, D.C., it is time for our Democratic colleagues to put our money where their mouth is, and Republicans are willing to come together across the aisle and make the hard choices necessary to put our fiscal house in order.

Judging from what is scheduled to come to the floor tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, it looks like the majority just doesn't get it. Just slightly over one week after passing a $1 trillion so-called stimulus bill, Democrats in Congress are planning to pass another big spending bill, $410 billion, 9,000 earmarks as usual, the largest increase in discretionary spending since the Carter administration.

House Republicans and millions of Americans are saying enough is enough. Let's do what every American family, what the every small business is doing. Let's freeze Federal spending immediately and come together to get this Congress' house in order.