Floor Statements

Mr. President, we have not seen all the details of the deal between House and Senate Democrats, but some of the early reports suggest this bill has only gotten worse. The President has asked for 40 percent in tax cuts; this bill falls short of that. But Congressional Democrats did make sure it contains billions in questionable, nonstimulative projects and the most highly touted tax cut in the original proposal now translates to $7.70 a week for middle-class workers.

This bill was meant to be a stimulus that was timely, targeted, and temporary. Unfortunately, it appears to be none of the above. Democrats in Congress have said this plan will help ensure long-term economic growth. Yet the CBO suggests that over the long term, this bill will result in an economy that either declines or remains flat. The only thing we know for sure about this bill is it will lead to more debt for our children--and that is just the beginning. This week, Congressional Democrats are handing the taxpayers a bill for $1.2 trillion. Soon they will spend $400 billion to finish spending from last year. We are being told to get ready for untold hundreds of billions for the financial industry.

Since taking over Congress and the White House, Democrats have been making up for lost time with a Government spending spree on the taxpayers' credit card. Even without this massive spending bill, the deficit continues to grow. Yesterday, Treasury reported that the first 4 months of the fiscal year, the deficit rose to $569 billion. That is nearly $500 billion more than the same period last year.

Let me repeat that. According to Treasury, we ran a deficit in the first quarter of this fiscal year that is nearly $500 billion more than the same period last year. You do not have to be Suze Orman to know this is not sustainable.

I know everyone involved believes their efforts will help strengthen the economy and create jobs. No one should doubt that everyone is trying to do the right thing. My concern is not with the motivation behind these efforts but the wisdom of these efforts. Everyone wants to help Americans get back on their feet, but we need to do it smartly. In my view and in the view of my Republican colleagues, this is not a smart approach. The taxpayers of today and tomorrow will be left to clean up the mess.

Mr. President, later today Members of Congress will join President Obama and the Lincoln Bicentennial Commission to honor the bicentennial of President Lincoln's birth. My good friend Senator Bunning has my gratitude for his work on the Commission.

The people of my State are rightly proud of the fact that Abraham Lincoln was born 3 miles south of Hodgenville, KY. And there are events across our State and others honoring this great man. And the ceremony later today will be an opportunity for us all to remember his life and service.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the NAACP on this, its 100th anniversary.

One hundred years ago, 60 men and women answered a call to promote social equality in this country. This effort brought together a diverse group of prominent Americans, including Kentucky native William English Walling, who signed a manifesto forming the NAACP. They chose February 12 as their founding date to honor the birth of Abraham Lincoln.

Since then, the NAACP has recognized the contributions of Americans who have made strides in eliminating prejudice.

This year, the NAACP will honor Kentucky native Muhammad Ali for a lifetime of contributions. When I was growing up in Louisville, I went to DuPont Manual High School. A young man who was then named Cassius Clay was in the same grade at Central High School. He was the most well known teenager in town by far. We all knew him as the local Golden Gloves champ.

His spirit of hard work and efforts to improve his community are being rightly honored by the NAACP this year, and Kentucky is proud that one of its own is being honored this week.

So to all at the NAACP, congratulations on this centennial. It is an opportunity to reflect on the efforts and accomplishments of those who worked so hard over the past century to advance your founding goals.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, yesterday the Senate cast one of the most expensive votes in history. We have heard a lot from our friends about the dangers of deficits over the last few years. Yet the Senate this week voted to spend more than $1.2 trillion, including interest, over the next 10 years. The projected annual budget deficit for this particular fiscal year is also $1.2 trillion. We are told, of course, this is just the beginning. We have known for weeks the Treasury Secretary is planning a financial rescue plan. We still don't know the cost. Apparently, the sticker shock would have been too much to take, 1 day after the Senate voted to spend $1.2 trillion on a stimulus--all of this on top of the $400 billion Omnibus appropriations bill we will soon vote on, which will bring discretionary spending for the Federal Government for the very first time to over $1 trillion this year.

Americans are wondering how we are going to pay for all of this. Judging by the market reaction to Secretary Geithner's announcement yesterday and the newspaper editorials this morning, it is clear everyone is looking for a little more detail. With that in mind, the importance of a thorough review of the administration's budget is all the more important, so we know the totality of what the administration is asking of taxpayers.

Any parent knows you don't buy a new car and plan the summer vacation before you set the family budget for the year. I think Americans would like to know exactly how the administration plans to pay for all these things in the context of all the normal annual spending.

In the 24 days Congress has been in session this year, Congressional Democrats have agreed to spend more than $50 billion a day. Americans know they have a limit on their spending. This week they are wondering what the Government's limit is.

Madam President, our new Secretary of the Interior has weighed in on developing American oil and gas resources located on our Outer Continental Shelf. As the process moves forward, it is my hope he will be mindful that hindering the growth of responsible domestic energy production means hindering an increase of American jobs at a time when many people are out of work. It also means hindering America's dependence on foreign oil, which has a direct impact, of course, on the price of gasoline.

Last summer, Congress heard from Americans, and I heard from countless Kentuckians, demanding a balanced approach to our energy problem that includes boosting American energy production as well as conserving what we already have. I hope the Secretary of Interior will keep the views of the American people in mind as we go forward.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to two heroic soldiers of the U.S. Army from my home Commonwealth of Kentucky, Gary and Jonathan Harris. Father and son, each was awarded the Silver Star for valorous acts in two separate wars.

The Silver Star is the Nation's third-highest award for gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States. Those rare few who receive it do so because of their display of selfless sacrifice and unparalleled courage under fire.

Jonathan Harris, a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter pilot holding the rank of chief warrant officer 2, came under attack near Gardez, Afghanistan, on July 2, 2008, while attempting to transport soldiers. His Blackhawk was attacked by the enemy with rocket-propelled grenades and anti- aircraft gun systems. Jonathan was able to relocate and land the burning helicopter in a nearby field and safely evacuate the passengers. He then contacted another helicopter to extract his crew.

During the evacuation, while helping escort his wounded fellow soldiers to the new helicopter, Jonathan exposed himself to gunfire while protecting his wounded men and killing at least one attacker. Only after every member of the crew, ground forces, and extraction team were safely onboard did CW2 Jonathan Harris himself get into the helicopter. Because of these heroic deeds, Jonathan Harris is the first aviator to receive the Silver Star since the Vietnam war.

Gary Harris, Jonathan's father, was a staff sergeant serving in Vietnam when he performed the acts of gallantry that would earn him the same medal as his son's. Gary was a squad leader on August 15, 1969, when he and his fellow soldiers came under intense mortar and rocket fire while on combat patrol. He instructed his men to return fire and moved them into a more strategic position.

During the battle, Gary ran across the field of combat to assist medics while ignoring the risk to his own life from the enemy's gunfire. He helped transport the wounded to the medical-evacuation helicopter, saving the lives of many.

SSG Gary Harris received his original Silver Star in the mail, never having the benefit of a formal ceremony--until now. This past November, Gary Harris was honored at a ceremony in Fort Campbell, KY., while Jonathan Harris received his award at the Combined Joint Task Force-101 Headquarters in Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan. They were able to view each other's ceremonies via video teleconference. At his ceremony, Gary Harris also received the Bronze Star Medal for his meritorious service in Vietnam as well as the Silver Star.

As is typical of so many of the brave men and women in uniform I have had the honor to meet over the years, both the father and the son insist that their own actions are not particularly remarkable. Each was quick to point to the other as more worthy of admiration and respect.

``For me, I feel like my grandfathers and my dad, those are the true heroes,'' said Jonathan Harris. ``I would like to think that something was passed on to me.''

Gary, on the other hand, recognized the value of the strong bond his son had with his fellow soldiers. ``These guys really stick together,'' he said. ``We did the same thing, but I don't think we were near as cohesive a group as they are. They are really gung ho about taking care of each other. . . . I know what it is like, every day facing death. It just tears your nerves all to pieces for a while.''

Gary and Jonathan Harris are excellent examples of the brave and dedicated soldiers that make America's Armed Forces the best in the world. And clearly there is a strong sense of duty, honor and love of country that runs in the Harris family and has been passed on from father to son. Their spirit of service represents the very best of what Kentucky has to offer our great Nation.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing SSG Gary Harris and CWO Jonathan Harris for the many sacrifices they have made to our country. Kentuckians everywhere are honored to know and love such brave heroes.

Madam President, over the past several months, a series of frightening economic events have left many Americans without work and many more wondering when the bad news will end. A problem that began in the housing sector spread to the financial sector, triggering even more problems in industries that rely on credit. Major U.S. companies that many Americans never thought were vulnerable have laid off thousands of workers, some for the first time ever. Last month alone, 600,000 Americans lost jobs.

This was the situation when President Obama took office late last month. And, to his credit, our new President has committed himself to working with Congress to fix the economy, a top priority for both parties. A month before Inauguration Day, the President told us that bold legislative action would be needed. He also said repeatedly that he would be careful in spending the taxpayers' money.

The American people were ready to support an economic plan that would work and that wouldn't spend money we don't have on things we don't need. So were Republicans in Congress.

What many of us did not expect, however, was that President Obama wouldn't be the author of that plan. In an odd turn of events, the bold economic plan that President Obama called for ended up being written by some of the longest-serving Democrats in the House of Representatives-- and it showed. Tasked with writing a stimulus bill that was timely, targeted, and temporary, Democrats in the House produced an enormous spending bill that was none of the above.

Criticism of the House bill was fierce, so many of us expected that Democrats in the Senate would draft a much better bill. Unfortunately, those hopes turned out to be unfounded. Not only was the Senate bill more expensive than the House bill, it repeated the same mistakes: hundreds of billions in permanent Government expansion, wasteful projects that would have

minimal or no impact on job creation, and a staggering $1.2 trillion pricetag when interest costs are added.

As the Senate version was taking shape, a number of Senators expressed serious concerns. One Senator said he was, ``very committed to making sure that we get it scrubbed clean of many of these programs.'' Another said that, ``If there's wasteful or silly spending, or spending that does not, you know, create, jobs, that sort of stuff needs to be pruned out.'' Another Senator said, ``We are seeking not to let this thing get loaded up with all these other pet projects and pet programs.'' Another said, ``. . . it needs some work. It needs some surgery.'' And those were just the Democrats.

Concerns were so widespread that President Obama called a meeting at the White House with congressional leaders. After the meeting, many of us thought Senate Democrats would rethink their plan. They didn't. They dug in deeper. Republicans tried repeatedly to cut out the waste and bring down the total cost of the bill, and to refocus on the central problem of the housing market. Democrats resisted. They rejected an amendment that would have cut more than $25 billion in wasteful spending from the bill. They rejected an amendment that would have turned off spending on newly created programs--rather than let them live in perpetuity. They rejected an amendment that would have turned off spending once the economy recovers.

In the end, Senate Democrats produced a bill that fell so far short that a compromise emerged. But the compromise itself wasn't much better than the original House or Senate bills. Much of the spending was either permanent or unfocused. And many of the wasteful or nonstimulative projects that raised concerns in the earlier versions remained: hundreds of millions for Government cars and Government golf carts; $200 million to consolidate the Department of Homeland Security offices in Washington; $100 million for grants to small shipyards; nearly $1 billion to spruce up parks.

In every version of the stimulus we have seen, wasteful spending has attracted the most attention. But even more worrisome to many is the permanent expansion of Government programs. One estimate puts the cost of this expansion at nearly $1 trillion over the next decade.

Even the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which counts Obama economic adviser Paul Volcker and former Clinton Budget Director Alice Rivlin as directors, has been highly critical of this aspect of the bill. Last week, CRFB president Maya MacGuineas pointed out that many of the bill's spending projects squander resources. But even more troubling, she said, are the programs that aim to permanently expand Government. As MacGuineas put it, ``extending our borrowing beyond the economic downturn will make our already-dismal fiscal picture far, far worse.''

Still, some Democrats continue to defend the bill. Asked about its apparent lack of focus, one veteran Democratic Congressman said, ``So what.'' One Senate Democrat called $16.4 billion in the bill ``a trifle.'' Another Democrat Senator said that by inserting a $3 billion project of his own, he was just ``fiddling at the edges.'' Another said that $50 billion was ``not going to make the difference to the economy.'' Most people cringe at a 50-cent increase in the cost of bread. Senate Democrats shrug at taking $16 billion from the taxpayers for a project they can't even assure us will work. In an economic downturn, we should care more about how we spend their tax dollars--not less.

America is in the midst of a serious economic crisis. At some point, however, we will all have to face an even larger crisis: We have a $1.2 trillion deficit. The national debt is approaching $11 trillion. Soon we will be voting on an omnibus appropriations bill that will cost another $400 billion. This week, Secretary Geithner is expected to propose another round of bank bailouts that could cost up to $2 trillion. Including interest, the bill before us will cost $1.2 trillion.

Americans are asking themselves ``Where does it end?'' They want to know how we're going to pay for all this. They are worried. And they should be worried about a bill so big that it is equivalent to spending more than $1 million a day for more than 3,000 years. This is an enormous amount of money.

The President was right to call for a stimulus, but this bill misses the mark. It is full of waste. We have no assurance it will create jobs or revive the economy. The only thing we know for sure is that it increases our debt and locks in bigger and bigger interest payments every year. In short, we are taking an enormous risk with other people's money. On behalf of taxpayers, I will not take that risk.

The administration is clearly worried about the risks of spending this much money. Over the weekend, the Treasury Secretary decided to postpone an announcement on the use of the remaining TARP money and an entity that would absorb toxic assets from troubled banks.

Yesterday, the Democrat majority in the House postponed a leftover appropriations bill from last year that would bring 2009 spending to more than $1 trillion for the first time ever. It may seem overwhelming to do all of this at the same time. But, in my view, we need to lay all of this spending on the table at once, rather than trickle it out in an effort to hide the true costs.

We need to be straight with the American people.

Last year, the national debt was about $10 trillion. The interest payments on that debt totaled about $450 billion. At the same rate of interest, the debt we're about to take on from this stimulus, the bad bank legislation, and the appropriations bill could cost an additional $250 billion per year in interest payments.

That's about $700 billion next year in interest payments on the debt alone--more than we spent last year on defense, military construction, Veterans hospitals, and Homeland Security combined--$700 billion with nothing to show for it, $700 billion just to keep the creditors from knocking on our door. The interest costs on the stimulus bill alone will cost us $95 million a day, every day, for the next 10 years. Most people know what it is to charge a little more on the credit card than you should. They should know that their Government is about to charge a lot more on the Nation's credit than it can afford--and that it is counting on the taxpayers to cover the cost.

This is serious money, all of it borrowed, and all of it spent on the hope that it will help lift the economy.

All of us want to strengthen the economy and create and save jobs. Republicans believe the best way to do it is to first fix the problem, which is housing. Then we need to let people keep more of what they earn. Throughout this process, Republicans have been guided by the belief that the desire to ``just do something'' shouldn't be an excuse to waste tax dollars. That is why we proposed a plan that was more focused on the problem and which didn't waste money--in short, a plan that was timely, targeted, and temporary. Sadly the bill before us is none of these things, despite the good intent of the President. Obviously, I will be voting against it, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam President, this week marks the 99th anniversary of an organization that has assisted in the moral and civic formation of millions of American boys.

By training young men in the skills of self-reliance, and inculcating in them the virtues of patriotism, volunteerism, and the importance of moral character, the Boy Scouts of America has strengthened our families, our communities, and our Nation beyond measure.

Eleven of the twelve men who have walked on the Moon were Scouts. More than one-third of all West Point cadets are Scouts. Several U.S. Presidents dating back to Teddy Roosevelt have been Scouts or Scout volunteers. And at least four of my Senate Republican colleagues are Eagle Scouts.

This week we recognize the valuable contributions of this fine organization, and we celebrate its traditions.

Looking at the challenges we face today, it is clear that men of character are needed as much today as they were when the Boy Scouts of America was incorporated in the U.S. in 1910. And as long as young boys put on the Scout uniform, we can expect those challenges to be met.

Mr. President, we had an opportunity to hear the initial or, as we call it, the maiden speech of the new Senator from Idaho, and I wanted to be on the floor to listen to his words. This is a great opportunity to welcome him to the Senate and to encourage all our colleagues to read what he had to say about this massive spending bill we have before us.

I think his views were right on target, and I congratulate him on his first speech.

Mr. President, I have a brief opening statement, and then I will be happy to confer with the majority leader after that, if he is available.

From the very first moment of this debate, there has been strong bipartisan agreement on one thing: the original version of this bill was too big and too unfocused to work. The President, Senate Democrats, and just about every single Senate Republican agreed this bill needed a massive overhaul.

One Democratic Senator said he was very committed to making sure we get it scrubbed clean of many of these programs. Another Democrat said: It needs some work; it needs some surgery. Virtually everyone agreed this bill lacked focus, didn't create enough jobs, had too much permanent Government expansion, and was just way too expensive with the national debt already reaching frightening new dimensions.

The morning papers suggest that, in the Senate, these bipartisan concerns persist, and so do the concerns of most Americans. The more the American people learn about the bill, the less they like it. Americans realize a bill which was meant to be timely, targeted, and temporary has instead become a Trojan horse for pet projects and expanded Government.

We have a $1 trillion deficit. Our national debt exceeds $10 trillion. Soon we will vote on an Omnibus appropriations bill that will cost another $400 billion, bringing the total to $1 trillion for appropriations this year alone--a new record. The President is talking about another round of bank bailouts that could cost as much as $4 trillion. When you include interest, the bill before us will cost nearly $1.3 trillion.

At some point, the taxpayers will have to pay all of this back, and they are worried. Americans can't afford a trillion-dollar mistake, however well meaning the intent. At this point, that is what many of us think this bill would be.

Republicans are ready to support a stimulus bill. That really hasn't been in question. But we will not support an aimless spending spree that masquerades as a stimulus. The economy is in terrible shape. Millions are out of work. This morning's unemployment numbers are a further sign of the severity of the crisis. But putting another $1 trillion on the Nation's credit card isn't something we should do lightly. We need to get a stimulus but, more importantly, we need to get it right.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time remains on the Republican side?

I will be the lead-off speaker. Then Senator McCain will follow me. I ask unanimous consent that he control the balance of our time after that.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding athlete from my home State of Kentucky, Joe Blanton, who was a pitcher for the Philadelphia Phillies 2008 World Series Championship team.

Blanton, who played baseball at Edmonson County High School in Brownsville, KY continued his baseball career in the Commonwealth by playing for the University of Kentucky. He was drafted by the Oakland Athletics after college and was traded to the Phillies during the All- Star break this past summer.

Recently, the Daily News in Bowling Green, KY, published an article detailing Mr. Blanton's journey and accomplishments. I will ask to have the full article printed in the Record.

I also ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Joe Blanton for his accomplishments in the 2008 Major League Baseball postseason. Kentucky is proud of his success, and we look forward to seeing more of his prodigious athletic talent on the baseball diamond in the years ahead.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the article to which I referred printed in the Record.

There being no objection the material was ordered to be printed in

Mr. President, briefly, I didn't see the article the majority leader is referring to, but I will say again publicly today what I said publicly yesterday and privately to him as well. We are pleased with the way the amendment process is being handled. We have many additional amendments to be offered today.

The majority leader said earlier in the week, and I certainly agree, that we know that the final vote will meet the 60-vote threshold. But regardless of what the article may have said, my view is we proceed as we did yesterday, get as many votes as we can in, and later in the day we can discuss what the endgame might be.

Now, the effects of the economic crisis are inescapable. Every day we hear about some of America's most venerable companies slashing jobs. The longer we wait, the worse this crisis could become. But action simply for the sake of action is always unwise. What is needed is the right action. The stimulus plan that Democrats in the House and Senate have proposed is not the right action.

First, it is too costly. Including interest, the proposal before us comes to a staggering $1.3 trillion, a figure that makes most people's head spin. It includes billions in wasteful spending and it increases permanent Federal spending. Let me say that again: This bill, which is supposed to be temporary, timely, and targeted, increases permanent Federal spending by nearly $300 billion, locking in bigger and bigger deficits every year.

Apparently, the authors of this bill couldn't resist inserting scores of long-cherished pet projects. That is how you end up with $70 million for climate research, tens of millions to spruce up Government office buildings here in Washington, and $20 million for the removal of fish passage barriers in a stimulus package, as I indicated earlier, that was supposed to be timely, temporary, and targeted.

The President said Sunday night we need to ``trim out things that are not relevant to putting people back to work right now.'' It seems some in Congress haven't been listening. The bill's remaining defenders say it contains a number of projects essential to our long-term economic health. But with millions of struggling Americans learning to live with less, Congress needs to resist the temptation to load this bill with unnecessary spending that doesn't create jobs or which only touch on the problems that demand long-term planning and serious thought.

Yes, now is the time to act. But it is not the time to act foolishly. This week, Republicans have tried to improve this bill in a number of ways. One goal was to cut out the waste and bring down the total cost. So far, Democrats have rejected these efforts. Yesterday, they said no to cutting $25 billion from the bill. That used to sound like a lot of money, but in the context of this bill, it was a relatively paltry amount. They said no to turning off spending on newly created programs, and they said no to turning off spending once the economy recovers.

In fact, throughout this entire debate, the two parties seem to have been guided by two different philosophies. The Democrats, it seems, decided on a random dollar amount of about $900 billion and have spent most of their time either defending it or adding to it. Republicans, on the other hand, have thought all along that what we needed to do was to identify the core problem first and then see how much money it would cost to fix it.

In our view, and in the view of most economists, the root problem of the current crisis is housing--housing. It just so happens that fixing that problem would cost a lot less than $1 trillion. In his op-ed in this morning's Washington Post, the President wrote that in this debate we can ``place good ideas ahead of old ideological battles, and a sense of purpose above the same narrow partisanship.'' I couldn't agree more. But this bill doesn't do either one of those things.

Republicans remain committed to working with the President and with our friends on the other side to address this crisis. We agree something must be done, but it will require a lot more

work. Today, Republicans will present in greater detail our ideas for making this stimulus work. Our friend and colleague, Senator McCain, is here now to explain his proposal.

Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me add briefly, it strikes me that one of the core problems in spite of the new President's popularity with Americans is, there is a growing discontent among the public, as illustrated by the Gallup poll, which 4 or 5 days ago indicated roughly 53 percent of Americans thought this particular proposal was a good idea, and it is now down to 38 percent a mere 5 or 6 days later.

The American people have serious questions about the composition of this package. I think virtually everybody on our side of the aisle believes that some action by the Government is necessary. We have heard from a lot of economists who are thought of as conservative economists who think that action is necessary.

The question is not doing nothing versus doing something. The question is the appropriateness of an almost trillion dollar spending bill to address the problem. I agree with the majority leader. We ought to continue talking. Hopefully, there is a way to restart the process in a way that would be more fundamentally bipartisan in nature. We hope that conclusion can be reached in a positive way for the American people sometime in the near future.

I know we would all rather be voting than talking. Republicans are no less interested in doing the right thing for the country than Democrats are. I don't question the motives of our friends on the other side of the aisle, and I know they don't question ours. We have some serious differences about what we ought to do. Those discussions have been ongoing, and we will continue them throughout the evening and maybe well into the weekend until we get some kind of consensus about what is the most appropriate thing to do to help jump- start our ailing economy.

Mr. President, will the majority leader yield for an inquiry?

Then am I correct in assuming we would continue to process other amendments tomorrow----

Because there are a number over here, and I understand you have some as well--while these discussions are going on?

Mr. President, according to news reports, President Obama called congressional Democrats down to the White House the other night to talk about treating this bill more like a stimulus and less like a free-for-all. I commend him for the effort, and I appreciate it. But after yesterday, it looks like they might need a little stronger medicine.

The day after meeting with President Obama, Democrats offered several amendments, and every single one of them added to the total cost of what is already nearly a $1 trillion spending bill--$11 billion here, $25 billion there, another $6 billion somewhere else. In other words, real money. By the end of the first day of debate, the Democrats had added more than $41 billion to a bill that just about everybody else in America already thought was way too large.

On this side, Republicans offered some amendments too. All but one of them, however, sought to reduce the cost to the taxpayer. The President has tried to set some priorities. Unfortunately, Democrats keep throwing more money on top of an already incredibly bloated bill. At some point, we are going to have to learn to say no. If we are going to help the economy, we need to get hold of this bill. Making it bigger isn't the answer.

The President seems to recognize the problem. Last night, he repeated his call for discipline and restraint in a letter from OMB Director Peter Orszag. Its message was clear: The Nation is in a financial crisis and this bill should be stripped of everything that doesn't aim to solve the crisis. As Mr. Orszag put it:

We need to recognize that this recovery and reinvestment

plan is an extraordinary response to an extraordinary crisis.

It should not be seen as an opportunity to abandon the fiscal

discipline that we owe each and every taxpayer in spending

their money and in keeping the United States strong in a

global, interdependent economy.

This bill needs to be cut down, and we should start with permanent spending increases, which only increase the deficit from here on out. This is a permanent spending bill that has been slipped into a bill that was supposed to be timely, temporary, and targeted. Many of these additions may be very worthwhile, but they still don't belong in a stimulus bill. So the first thing we need to do is to make a distinction between what grows the economy and what doesn't. Anything that doesn't ought to be cut out. That is what the President said Monday night, that is what he repeated last night; that we need to be, ``trimming out things that aren't relevant to putting people back

to work right now.'' Add up the interest payments and the total nonstimulus spending in this bill and it is in the hundreds of billions of dollars. That is completely unacceptable. So there is plenty of room to cut wasteful spending. As Mr. Orszag said in his letter, the President is ``insistent that the bill not include any earmarks or special projects.''

Another target-rich area is all the spending for new programs that claim to create new jobs. What people don't realize is how much it costs to create some of these jobs. Analysts have gone through some of the new programs and here is what they have found: $524 million for a program at the State Department that promises to create 388 jobs here at home. That comes to $1.35 million per job. Let me say that again-- $1.35 million per job; $125 million to the DC Water and Sewer Authority. That comes to $480,000 per job; $100 million for 300 jobs at USAID. That is $333,333 per job. That is just a few. Surely there are more efficient ways to create jobs with taxpayer dollars than this.

So there is plenty of room to cut in this bill. It is time we started doing some of it. America is already staring at a $1 trillion deficit. The bill before us, in its current form, will cost, with interest, $1.3 trillion. Soon we will vote on an Omnibus appropriations bill that will cost $400 billion. The President is talking about another round of bank bailout funds that some say could cost as much as $4 trillion.

This isn't monopoly money. All of it is borrowed money that the taxpayers will have to pay back at some point. I think we owe it to them to lay all these things out on the table now so America can see what it is getting into. I think we owe it to the American people to show some restraint on the bill that is before us.

Republicans have a number of better ideas for making this bill simpler, more targeted, and more directly beneficial to workers and to homeowners. We have been sharing those ideas for the last week.

Economists from both sides of the political spectrum recognize that housing is at the root of the current downturn. We believe we should fix this problem first before we do anything else--certainly before we build a fish barrier, spruce up offices for bureaucrats or build a water slide. I mean, let's get serious. We can either talk about fixing the problem or we can take immediate action to help 40 million Americans stay in their homes or buy a new one. That is our choice.

We need to act now, and soon we will be voting on a Republican better idea to do that. But first there are plenty of areas in this bill we can cut, even before we consider some of the good Republican ideas that President Obama has said he wants to incorporate into the final bill.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.