On the recordFebruary 26, 2010
If he has a way to pay for this and wants to offer it as an amendment on the floor, we have given him the opportunity to do that. But for him to say he wants to dictate how this is going to be paid for from sources that, frankly, many of us believe are not realistic in any way whatsoever--he wanted to take the money from the Recovery and Reinvestment Act that has already been committed to construction projects and to tax cuts across America; he wants to take that money and reduce tax cuts for working families--I would vote against that. I think that is very shortsighted and would hurt the economy rather than help it. If he wants to make across-the-board cuts in appropriations bills, he ought to have an opportunity to offer that amendment, and he has had that opportunity. But he doesn't choose to do that. He wants to be guaranteed he will win. There are no guarantees you can win. There is a guarantee, because of his objection, that hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans will lose. Come Sunday night, they will have their checks cut off. To be told people have a beating heart and care about unemployed people and to cut off their unemployment checks just doesn't track. I don't think it is any comfort to these families to believe you care, but you are going to cut off their checks anyway. What point are we making--how hard we can be, how tough we can be? At what expense?…
Source
govinfo.gov




