[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 158 (Thursday, November 15, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11927-S11932]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ECONOMIC STIMULUS
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on Tuesday, we began debate about the
economic stimulus package. We know the economy is in trouble, and we
know we have to act. Clearly, by any standard, we face an economic
emergency that demands responsible action by Congress.
The American people want action by Congress too. They strongly
support our Democratic proposals to provide unemployment insurance and
health insurance to laid-off workers, and Federal assistance to States.
They know it's an emergency in the economy and they know it is an
emergency for the hundreds of thousands of men and women without
unemployment insurance or health insurance.
Yet, some of our colleagues in Congress oppose this action. Instead,
they support a bill that would retroactively repeal the corporate
minimum tax and give the largest corporations $25 billion in direct
payments from the U.S. Treasury. They don't think laid-off workers who
can't afford, or don't have, health insurance are an emergency.
Instead, they support spending $120 billion to accelerate the reduction
of upper income tax rates, 80 percent of which won't go into the
economy until after next year.
Our economy is in trouble. There is no denying it. Just ask the men
and women who have lost their jobs and have to tell their families
every week that they cannot find new employment. They will tell you how
hard it is to put food on their families' tables each week. They will
tell you how hard it is to watch their bills piling up with no end in
sight.
If that's not enough, look at the numbers.
Only 38 percent of unemployed workers receive unemployment insurance.
This figure is down from 75 percent in 1975. And, the figure is much
worse for low-wage workers. According to a new study by the National
Campaign for Jobs and Income Support, only 20 percent of unemployed
low-wage workers will qualify for benefits during a recession.
These workers are least likely to qualify for unemployment benefits,
and they are most likely to be laid off. They are struggling to keep a
roof over their families' heads and to afford food for their children.
We know that the number of hungry children has grown in recent years.
Unless we do more to help, the number will continue to grow.
Yesterday, America's Second Harvest released the largest, most
comprehensive report on the plight of hungry Americans. Last year, 23
million Americans, including 9 million children, sought emergency food
relief through America's Second Harvest. The current downturn in the
economy means that even more families are facing the difficult choice
between feeding their children and paying the rent, a choice no person
should have to make.
These findings demonstrate the dramatic rise in hunger and related
health problems among children. They demonstrate that current
unemployment benefits are not adequate to help working families during
the current economic downturn. We need to do more to see that families
can afford to put food on their tables. Our Democratic plan provides
unemployment benefits to 600,000 more low-wage and part-time workers
and increase these benefits by at least $25 a week.
The economy needs stimulus now. Workers need assistance now.
The best way to accomplish both of these goals is to get relief to
the families who need it the most. Economists across the country agree
that providing relief to low- and moderate-income families is one of
the most effective ways to stimulate the economy.
The Democratic plan would stimulate the economy right away, by
putting money in the hands of the people most likely to spend it--
dislocated workers and their families. We do that by strengthening the
unemployment insurance system, improving workers' ability to afford
health care, and providing a tax rebate for those who did not receive a
full rebate earlier this year.
Unemployment insurance is the Nation's first line of defense in an
economic recession. By putting UI trust fund dollars into the declining
economy, we automatically boost consumer spending in communities
affected by rising unemployment, while meeting essential needs of
households hurt by layoffs.
A recent study by the Department of Labor shows that every $1
invested in unemployment insurance generates $2.15 for the Nation's
economy. That same study estimated that unemployment insurance
``mitigated the real loss in GDP by 15 percent'' in the last five
recessions.
According to Joseph Stiglitz, ``we should extend the duration and
magnitude of the benefits we provide to our unemployed. This is not
only the fairest proposal, but also the most effective. People who
become unemployed cut back on their expenditures. Giving them more
money will directly increase expenditures.''
The Congressional Research Service agrees: ``Extending unemployment
compensation is, in fact, likely to be a more successful policy for
stimulating aggregate demand than many other . . . changes.''
The Republican plan will put very little money into the hands of
unemployed workers. It offers no guarantees of extended benefits in
most states. In fact, the States with the highest unemployment rates
are the least likely to receive help under that plan. Even for those
few workers who will be helped, the plan won't provide any benefits
until next spring. America's working families must not be left behind
when Congress acts on an economic recovery package.
We must also help families afford health insurance. It is also the
right thing to do for them, and it is the right thing to do for
economy. Providing health insurance for laid-off workers improves the
health of our economy. When a parent is forced to choose between health
insurance and food on their table, it is unfair for their family, and
it undermines the economy.
On average, health insurance premiums for these families cost nearly
two-thirds of their unemployment insurance. That is why only 18 percent
of workers eligible for COBRA use this coverage. And millions of
workers are not eligible for COBRA at all.
This is no time to accept an increase in the uninsured. It is wrong
for families and wrong for hospitals, nursing homes, health care
workers and many others in the health care sector, which makes up one-
seventh of our economy.
The Democratic economic recover plan provides temporary health
insurance for workers who have been laid off in the slowing economy.
Currently, workers must pay 65 percent of their unemployment check to
purchase COBRA health insurance coverage. Our plan to subsidize COBRA
coverage would make health care affordable for all displaced workers.
States also could receive Federal Medicaid matching payments to cover
other laid-off workers who do not qualify for COBRA.
By protecting both workers eligible for COBRA coverage and increasing
the Medicaid matching payments, the Senate Democratic plan provides
meaningful health coverage for unemployed Americans while the
Republican plan will leave families behind. For unemployed workers who
are eligible for COBRA, the Senate Democratic plan provides health
coverage for 12 months during the economic downturn. The Senate
Republican plan provides enough for only 2 weeks of coverage. For
unemployed Americans who are not eligible for COBRA, the Democratic
plan again provides coverage for 1 year, while the Republican plan
offers no assistance.
The plan to provide unemployed workers with health insurance coverage
will also be good for the economy by helping to stop a decline in the
health care sector. If unemployed individuals who lack health insurance
forgo health care, the health care sector will be hurt during the
downturn. The health care system has been one of the most vibrant
sectors of the economy in recent years. It has been responsible for 30
percent of the real growth in gross domestic product and 45 percent of
the net increase in jobs in
[[Page S11928]]
the past year. A reduction in the purchase of health care services has
an effect on the economy similar to that of other reductions in
consumer spending, it dampens economic activity.
Finally, a federal stimulus package will do no good if States have to
make spending cuts or raise taxes. The current recession is already
having an impact on state budgets. In fact, 35 States have reported
budget shortfalls--a shortfall that already totals more than $15
billion and will grow to $30 billion if unemployment continues to
increase.
This means that states across the country will have to make drastic
cuts. In particular, they are cutting back on Medicaid. In fact, 20
States are already planning to cut Medicaid. At the same time, the
number of people on Medicaid is expected to grow by as much as 3
million during this recession, about 2 million of them could be
children.
If States cut Medicaid just as more people need it, we are going to
see an increase in the uninsured. Also, leading economists believe
substantial cuts in state Medicaid budgets would have dramatic ripple
effects on the national economy.
Our plan provides financial assistance to States to help avoid
devastating cuts in Medicaid, cuts that will hurt State economies and
reduce health coverage. States would receive $5.5 billion through an
increased Federal Medicaid matching rate, providing an immediate influx
of cash into States suffering from the recession-driven budget crisis.
The Senate Republican alternative is unacceptable. It fails to
address aid to the States, health care or unemployment insurance in any
meaningful way.
The Democratic plan is a fair balance between tax incentives and
spending incentives for the economy. The tax incentives in the plan
meet the three essential criteria for a stimulus: They will put money
into the economy now; they do not impose substantial new long-term
costs on the federal budget; and they treat fairly those who are most
in need.
Seventy percent of Americans today pay more in payroll taxes than in
income taxes. Yet many of them received no tax rebate earlier this
year. The rebate unfairly ignored these low and moderate income
families. A one-time rebate of payroll taxes to them now will
immediately inject $15 billion into the economy, placing the dollars in
the hands of people who are likely to spend them immediately.
Economists tell us that families with modest incomes are likely to
spend the extra money they receive right away on needed consumer goods.
Those with higher incomes are more likely to save it.
The Democratic bill also includes temporary, targeted tax cuts to
stimulate immediate business activity. These changes provide more
favorable treatment for new investments now, and they deserve to be
supported.
Because the tax cuts in the Democratic plan are truly designed to be
an immediate economic stimulus, they do not incur any substantial cost
beyond 2003. This point is vital to our economic recovery. Enacting new
permanent tax cuts which can trigger large long-term Federal deficits
would be counter-productive. Permanent new tax cuts, on top of the
nearly $2 trillion in tax cuts enacted earlier this year, would
actually hurt the economy now, by raising the cost of long-term
borrowing and discouraging the kinds of investment we need most today.
The House of Representatives passed, by the narrowest of margins, a
so-called stimulus package that will not stimulate economic growth in
the short term, and will not be affordable in the long term. It merely
repackages old, unfair, permanent tax breaks, which were rejected by
Congress last spring, under the new label of ``economic stimulus.'' The
American people deserve better.
The long-term cost of the House plan is too high, and less than half
of the dollars would reach the economy next year. The House plan offers
$46 billion in tax breaks to big businesses by permanently repealing
the corporate alternative minimum tax and by giving permanent new tax
cuts for multinational corporations. These provisions are an
unacceptable giveaway of public resources.
The alternative suggested by our Republican colleagues in the Senate
is also flawed. Their proposal to accelerate the reduction of upper
income tax rates would cost $120 billion over the next decade. Only a
small percentage of these dollars, less than one dollar in four, would
go into the economy in 2002. And these dollars would go to those least
likely to spend them. The result would be little immediate stimulus,
large long-term costs, and a grossly unfair distribution to the
wealthiest individuals in our society.
In fact, the House Republican proposal gives $115 billion in
permanent new tax breaks to wealthy individuals and corporations, while
the Senate plan would give them $142 billion in new tax breaks. Yet
each of the Republican tax plans provide only $14 billion for low and
moderate income families. Under the GOP plan, the tax cuts for
corporations and wealthy individuals are permanent, while the cuts for
working families are limited to just one year. The result is unfair,
and it won't provide the economic stimulus that the nation urgently
needs now.
Perhaps never before in history has our nation faced such grave
challenges. The tragedy of September 11 has touched us all. Together,
we witnessed a horror we could not have imagined, and bravery which
inspires us all. The tragedy may have shaken our basic assumptions
about the world in which we live. But, Americans have not retreated in
fear. Instead, they have risen to meet these new challenges. The spirit
of September 11 has compelled vast numbers of our fellow citizens to
ask what they can do for their communities and our country.
It is time for Congress to do its part to respond to the emergency we
face. We must respond to the economic crisis the Nation faces. As we do
so, we must show our dedication to America's best ideals. As we fight
for a safer society, we can also create a more just society at the same
time. September 11 has taught all Americans that we need to help each
other as never before.
We will not ignore the plight of millions of Americans hurt by this
tragedy and by economic forces beyond their control. As we work
together to get our economy moving again, we can also work together to
see that none are left behind.
We have a unique opportunity to give help and hope to every American
as we enact a stimulus plan that puts America back to work.
The American people are meeting this challenge, and we must
demonstrate to them that Congress is capable of meeting it too. The
test we face now is to pass a stimulus package that truly lifts the
economy, and lifts it fairly and responsibly. We do have an emergency,
and we must address it. The American people are watching this debate
closely, and they are waiting for our answer.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, President Bush has asked us to send him an
effective, anti-recession stimulus package. In the spirit of
bipartisanship and good faith, he proposed a series of provisions that
enjoyed both Republican and Democratic support. After much foot-
dragging, the Democratic majority has finally produced a bill.
Unfortunately, it appears to be nothing more than a collage of special
interest wish lists, from livestock assistance to new entitlements--
with very little if anything that will actually stimulate the economy.
It is fat on claims but thin on data. It struts around in the light
of day as a bipartisan package, but makes deals in the dark of night to
secure votes. The bill before us is an embarrassment to the Senate; it
is no good for our country, and it is certainly no good for our
economy. There may be many good political reasons for Congress to pass
an economic stimulus package, but when pet projects trump fiscal
prudence, we miss a historic opportunity to help the American people
during a time of great need. We must improve the incentives to work,
save, and invest--the real catalysts of economic growth--and the
Democratic bill fails on all three counts.
Instead, Democrats insist that increased Government spending serves
as the primary tool for boosting economic activity. But look what they
are spending money on--sugar beet disaster programs, rural
telecommunications infrastructure, and water-treatment and waste
disposal facilities. It is no mystery to leading economists, although
my colleagues across the aisle will tell you otherwise, that the better
approach is to lower tax rates and the tax burden on labor and capital
to improve
[[Page S11929]]
incentives for workers and business owners. This produces more jobs and
generates higher incomes, which in turn translate into higher
investment and consumer spending.
Democrats prefer to add new health-care entitlements and massive
pork-barrel spending items rather than accelerate tax cuts for
businesses and individuals. Given the amount of money that would be
spent under this bill, we would be better off passing no bill at all.
The Republican minority strongly supports the President's proposal, and
has crafted a bill that reaffirms his principles for economic recovery.
As such, criticism of the Republican bill is direct criticism of the
President, because it is his bare-bones proposal we introduced. To my
Democratic friends, I say, don't take refuge in calling Republicans
partisan; if you object to our bill, criticize the President--it's his
proposal. The truth is: he's right, and you're wrong.
The American economy is starved for business investment. The
President's proposals are designed to stimulate business investment. My
Democratic friends say rich people don't spend, only poor people do.
Now that is real voodoo economics. Alternative Minimum Tax relief for a
business provides money for reinvestment. Neither rich people nor
corporations hide their money in a mattress. They invest it, which does
. . . what? It creates jobs. What do we need to do today? Create jobs.
And what happens when we do that? People have more money to spend. I
would rather people have a job than an unemployment check. I would
rather they spend their paycheck than an unemployment check.
I recently read an article in which a key Democratic political
operative said, in effect, we will stand with the President in the war,
but on the domestic front, we'll use issues to our political advantage.
Righting our economy is critical to our war effort. We shouldn't be
playing politics with it.
So let's stop the political games. Time is short. The President has
asked us to produce a bill for him by the end of the month, and the
minority intends to do so. We have already come a good distance toward
the other side. It is time for Democrats to do the same, and converge
upon what the President and the American people think is best.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Economic
Recovery and Assistance to American Workers Act. This legislation is
about security, economic security and physical security. This bill will
help us achieve two national priorities: homeland defense and economic
recovery.
I have four principles for economic stimulus. First, any measure
should have a strong, immediate impact. Next, economic recovery
provisions should be temporary--sunsetting within one or two years. The
overall package should be fiscally responsible to ensure long-term
interest rates are not negatively affected. And, lastly, the proposal
should be focused on those who need the help the most.
I also have four principles for homeland defense legislation. First,
it must give law enforcement the tools they need to prevent attacks.
Next, it must give first responders the tools they need to respond to
an act of terrorism. Also, it must improve security of our
infrastructure. Lastly, it must provide for greater public information,
since information is the antidote for panic.
The legislation we're considering today meets my principles.
Our Nation is fighting a war against terrorism. This war is on two
fronts: in Afghanistan, and in every community in America. Our military
has the right stuff to defeat our enemies. They have honor, courage and
patriotism. They also have the best training, best intelligence, best
equipment.
Yet on the home front, our communities are foraging. They are forced
to choose between keeping communities safe from drug dealers and other
thugs, and keeping key infrastructure safe--like bridges, power plants
and stadiums.
I recently held a hearing in the VA-HUD Subcommittee to hear the
mayors perspective on homeland defense. What did we learn at the
hearing? We learned that our local governments are on the front lines
of homeland defense. We learned that they are responsible for the
protection of our infrastructure, including our bridges, tunnels, and
mass transit as well as our first responders, our police and fire
fighters.
Yet their resources don't match their responsibilities.
What will happen if we don't pass this homeland security bill?
Costs are shifted to local governments who must forage for funds from
local programs. That means higher local taxes and lower security across
our Nation.
What does this legislation do? It provides the resources we need to
secure our homeland. Local law enforcement is essential to our fight
against terrorism. They are our front line of defense. There are
650,000 local police officers and only 11,000 FBI agents. This
legislation will provide $2 billion that will go to states to be used
for counter-terrorism training for police to train them to prevent and
respond to terrorist attacks and for new equipment.
Our firefighters are our protectors. We must protect the protectors.
Simply put, that means making sure they have the equipment they need to
save lives. Yet fire equipment is very expensive. A new fire engine
costs $300,000. A new rescue vehicle costs $500,000. A suit of
protective gear for our firefighters costs $1,000 and wears out
quickly.
Each year we provide funds for grants to local fire companies, but
the funding has been spartan and skimpy. Over 30,000 fire companies
requested almost $3 billion dollars worth of equipment this year,
including $400 million just for personal protection equipment. In
Maryland, 198 fire companies applied for funds so far this year, and
yet only 5 received funding.
Clearly, we need to do better.
Even before the tragedy of September 11th, I was fighting for our
firefighters. We were able to increase funding for the fire grant
program by 50 percent to $150 million in the VA-HUD bill. The Homeland
Security bill does even better by providing $600 million for our
firefighters.
The Homeland Security bill provides $4 billion for our nation's
bioterrorism preparedness and response needs. Our country's ability to
recognize and respond to a bioterrorist attack depends on a strong,
coordinated public health system. This bill gives state and local
public health departments additional resources to prepare for this new
germ warfare. State and local public health departments have already
been stretched thin. This bill gives them the resources to detect,
respond, and contain a possible bioterrorist attack.
This bill recognizes the important role the CDC plays in a public
health emergency. It expands CDC's laboratory capacity so public health
officials can quickly and accurately identify a suspected biological
agent.
To prepare our Nation for a bioterrorist attack, this bill upgrades
State and local public health departments; expands laboratory capacity
and surveillance at the State, local, and Federal level; and trains
first responders to recognize the signs and symptoms of a bioterrorist
attack. The bill also improves State and local communications systems;
ensures that hospitals and emergency rooms have the expertise and
equipment to handle a surge in patients from a bioterrorist attack;
increases our nation's supply of antidotes and vaccines against
possible biological agents; and, provides significant new resources so
that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can protect the safety of
our nation's food supply with more inspectors and additional tools.
Investments in the fight against bioterrorism will help in our
battles against infectious disease and antimicrobial resistance. Our
nation's public health system is on the front lines of this new
biological war. This bill will make sure they are combat ready and fit-
for-duty.
Our Coast Guard used to focus on drug and migrant interdiction, and
search and rescue. Today, it's primary role is national security by
keeping our ports safe, patrolling around power plants and under
bridges, and searching suspicious vessels.
This bill provides $177 million in operating funds. These funds will
be used to improve training, and allow for increased patrols without
forcing the Coast Guard to cut back on it's other missions.
Terrorists look for weaknesses. We can not let them find these
weaknesses on our nation's railroads. We must ensure the safety of all
the components of our rail system. This means providing
[[Page S11930]]
tunnel security which means preventing people from entering tunnels. It
includes terminal safety--the fact that most terminals are intermodal,
bringing together different forms of transportation which means that
it's hard to screen passengers. It means providing bridge security and
the protection of track switchboards.
Why is railroad security so important? Because each day, 350,000
people ride on our railroads. That's over 20 million people a year.
Forty percent of all freight is transported on our rails which is more
than any other mode of transportation.
A terrorist attack on our rails could result in a catastrophic loss
of life and paralyze our economy. Amtrak is ready and willing to
improve rail safety, but it must also address its critical
infrastructure needs.
For example, the tunnels that run through Washington, Baltimore, and
New York accommodate trains that carry roughly 350,000 people a day.
These tunnels don't meet minimum safety standards. They do not have
proper ventilation, and there is not adequate lighting.
Rail safety requires Federal help. Yet Federal support for Amtrak has
been cut by eighty percent in the last three years eighty percent.
Annual appropriations for Amtrak is frozen at $521 million. That's only
about half of what Congress authorized in the TEA-21 bill.
What does this legislation do? It enables Amtrak to enhance security
of their overall network by providing $300 million and enabling Amtrak
to upgrade it's most dangerous tunnels by providing $760 million for
tunnel safety.
As stated before, I have four principles for economy recovery. These
principles have been widely adopted. When I compare the different
proposals for economic recovery to these principles, the answer is
clear.
The Economic Recovery package proposed by Senator Baucus meets my
principles and provides real and effective measures for economic
recovery.
This package provides real economic recovery that benefits working
Americans who have lost their jobs, helps businesses recover from the
recent attacks and the economic downturn, and provides real the boost
that this economy needs.
The Economic Recovery bill will provide tax relief to nearly 44
million working Americans who were left out of the last round of
rebates. This bill will provide the same $300 checks to individuals or
$600 checks to married couples who tend to pay only payroll taxes.
These are the people who live paycheck to paycheck. These are the
working Americans who will benefit most from a rebate check.
Often times, these hard working Americans have trouble making end
meet. This Democratic proposal will help them make ends meet thus
ensuring that the vast majority of these rebates will actually be spent
which will help provide the real boost this economy needs.
The Democratic proposal also contains provisions that would help
businesses invest in the new equipment and infrastructure needed to
rebuild, would help small businesses acquire new equipment, and would
provide rebates to companies quickly.
The Economic Recovery bill will also help unemployed working
Americans by providing a 13 week extension of the period during which
they can collect unemployment insurance, by increasing the amount that
unemployed workers can collect, and by including more displaced workers
in the unemployment insurance program.
I am sure that many will ask how does this help the economy recover?
These Americans do not even have a paycheck to live on anymore. But
they still have to meet their basic needs of food and shelter. For
example, the average unemployment benefits in Maryland are about $950
per month, the average rent in Baltimore is about $500/month, and the
average grocery bill for a family is about $475. Thus, under the
current benefit levels families are falling behind and could not
continue their health care which costs at an estimated average cost of
$ 650/month in my State.
Unemployment Insurance is an essential part of the valuable social
safety net. In every recession over the past thirty years, unemployment
insurance has been extended. It is absolutely crucial to continue this
good practice. The Democratic proposal would also expand the
eligibility of those qualifying for benefits. For example, this would
allow working mothers to look for part-time work.
The Economic Recovery proposal would also increase benefits by 15
percent or at least $25 a week. This is enough for a couple of bags of
groceries or two tanks of gas.
President Bush has a proposal that would address unemployment
benefits. But the devil is in the details. The Democratic plan helps
the 3.2 million already unemployed workers left out by the Bush plan.
Under the Bush proposal, about 25,000 to 30,000 more Marylanders would
have to lose their jobs and wait until March 2002 before Maryland's
workers would qualify for any extensions under the Bush proposal.
The Economic Recovery bill provides guaranteed benefits to workers
laid off prior to September 11 who may be having difficulty finding
their next job. It would extend benefits to part-time workers, low-wage
workers, and would help most hospitality and airline workers that have
been especially hard hit.
The Economic Recovery bill would also help provide health care to
displaced workers who have lost their jobs since September 11th through
the coming year. So that just because they temporarily lose their job
they do not also lose their health care.
The economic recovery bill provides a 75 percent COBRA subsidy for up
to 12 months for workers to continue health insurance through their
former employer's plan. It allows States to cover the remaining 25
percent of the premium for low-income workers.
For unemployed workers who are not eligible for COBRA, it gives
States the option to provide Medicaid coverage for these workers for up
to 12 months. These proposals are temporary; they end on Dec. 31, 2002.
Under the Democratic Economic Recovery plan, unemployed workers will
get the health care they need, temporarily, and this will help
stimulate the economy. Unemployed workers with health insurance will
have more money to spend on other items because they won't have to pay
high out-of-pocket health care costs.
For example, a mom or dad in Prince George's County can afford to buy
a refrigerator to replace the broken one or buy school clothes for
their growing child because they did not have to pay lots of money to
take their child to the emergency room for a severe earache.
Unemployed workers will spend money on health care because if you
have health insurance, you are more likely to go to the doctor to get
the treatment you need.
Finally, the Democratic proposal temporarily strengthens the Medicaid
safety net when unemployed workers will need it the most. States across
the country are facing budget shortfalls and are considering Medicaid
cuts at the same time more unemployed workers will need health care
through Medicaid. This provision provides additional resources to
states so that states don't have to resort to serious cutbacks in their
Medicaid program in order to balance their budgets this year. This
provision is important to Maryland and has the strong support of the
National Governors' Association.
During times of crisis, our Nation comes together. We have seen that
since the terrible events of September 11th. The terrorists thought
they would cripple us, but they have only made us stronger. We want to
help those in need.
Yet volunteers and philanthropy cannot take the place of public
policy. The Economic Recovery and Homeland Security bill puts our
values into action to help our fellow citizens to get back on their
feet and to protect our citizens from the evil acts of our enemies.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on a matter that
should be intertwined with any economic stimulus package that passes
this Chamber--providing airline depreciation on the sale of new and
refurbished aircraft.
The aviation industry and the industry's employees have been hit
especially hard in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. The
economic woes reach far beyond slumping ticket sales and the layoff of
airport personnel. These difficult times are stretching to
[[Page S11931]]
the heart of the aviation industry, to the companies that manufacture,
reconstruct, and refurbish aircraft.
By providing a depreciation allowance for the aviation industry, we
will avert the loss of more jobs in this major industry.
Kansas is a state that has a tremendous interest in the aviation
industry. Boeing, Cessna, Raytheon, and Bombardier, which all have
major plants based in Wichita, employ tens of thousands of Kansans.
While the airline bailout package will go a long way toward preventing
immediate mass layoffs, it is not doing enough to ensure that the sale
of aircraft will rebound from their current lulls.
If we provide a depreciation allowance equal to 40 percent of the
adjusted basis for the qualified property acquired by those purchasing
aircraft, we will provide a strong incentive for individuals and
corporations to increase their purchases from the aviation industry. In
so doing, we would provide an immediate boost to the economy, while at
the same time providing security for aviation-industry employees beyond
the 1-year period of the airline bailout.
Moreover, it is important that we extend this depreciation allowance
to include not only new orders, but also aircraft that have been
purchased or taken in a trade and refurbished or reconstructed, and
sold to a third party.
By taking such steps, production orders will increase, and we will be
able to ensure that hard-working Americans have jobs beyond the time-
table of the airline bailout package.
This is good for America. It is good for Kansas, and it is something
that I will be working to see implemented as part of an economic
stimulus package.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I was hoping to make a statement yesterday
on this important subject, but I was tied up chairing the Agriculture
Committee in consideration of our new farm bill. I would like to speak
briefly on the subject of bioterrorism and the economic stimulus/
homeland security proposal considered by the Senate. The defeat of this
legislation on a budget point of order was especially disappointing to
me because it included a crucial $4 billion initiative to combat
bioterrorism. Senator Specter and I worked closely with Senator Byrd to
develop this funding proposal, which is a comprehensive plan to better
protect Americans from anthrax, smallpox, and other bioterrorism
threats.
I have the privilege to chair the appropriations subcommittee which
funds our health programs. Our subcommittee has for the past several
years provided increased funding to combat bioterrorism. We have made
real progress as a result. However, much more remains to be done. To
determine what additional steps are necessary, our subcommittee has
held three hearings during the past 2 months.
We heard from our top Federal officials, including the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, the head of the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, and head of FBI bioterrorism efforts. We also heard
from distinguished State and local officials and top scientists from
the public and private sectors. Their testimony made clear that we are
not adequately prepared for this threat. We do not have enough vaccines
to respond to an attack. Our public health system has been allowed to
decay, and needs more help to detect an outbreak quickly, to treat a
large number of infectious patients, and to vaccinate large parts of
the country.
As I said before, to put the state of our public health system into
military terms, our troops are ill-trained, our radar is out of date,
and we are short on ammunition.
The plan we developed and which was included in the stimulus package
is a thoughtful, bipartisan approach. It closely follows the 7 point
plan I outlined last month. It provides more than twice the resources
of the President's to bolster our Nation's defenses against a
bioterrorist attack.
In contrast to the President's plan, our proposal prioritizes funding
to ``first responders'' at the State and local level. We have put the
bulk of the funding, $1.3 billion, into improving our public health
departments, beefing up local lab capacity and expanding the Health
Alert Network. We desperately need to make these investments if we want
to quickly identify, track and contain a bioterrorist attack should we
ever be confronted with one. The President's plan neglects this vital
piece of our response system.
Our proposal also includes funding for the production of enough
smallpox vaccine for every American should that ever be necessary. As
we have seen in recent press reports, the administration's request is
too low to produce enough smallpox vaccine for all Americans.
We also allocate $116 million for research on new vaccines. Earlier
this month my subcommittee heard testimony from Dr. Fauci at NIH about
the promising future of antivirals against smallpox. The
administration's plan devotes no money to developing these new drugs.
Our plan also provides more money than the President to bolster the
work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We need to
upgrade their overburdened lab capacity and their disease surveillance
systems.
It also includes $650 million to improve safety and to safeguard our
animal disease labs.
I would like to thank Chairman Byrd for the opportunity to work with
him on this important funding package. Our Nation's public health
system is now the front lines in our war against terrorism; it should
be prepared accordingly.
I believe that we cannot leave this year without addressing the
bioterrorism threat. Whether our package is included in the stimulus
plan or another appropriations bill, we must get it done.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the stimulus
package we recently considered in the Senate, and the disturbing new
definition of patriotism that was associated with it. As I think most
of my colleagues are aware, the bill we considered was laden with
rewards for wealthy donors. Now, I think these days we would hardly be
able to recognize a stimulus package, or any kind of emergency
spending, if it weren't loaded down with provisions designed to benefit
special interests. This practice certainly isn't new. But what is new,
is the attempt to cloak these giveaways in a kind of patriotism.
A recent Washington Post editorial quoted a lobbyist for
PricewaterhouseCoopers, who has been pushing tax breaks in the bill
that would profit clients such as GE and IBM, saying that it would have
been ``irresponsible'' and even unpatriotic for him to behave
otherwise.
Patriotic to push for a taxbreak for major corporations? I never
thought I'd see the day. But here we are, in the midst of the war on
terrorism, trying to stop a deepening recession, and we were faced with
a stimulus package that was designed to reward wealthy interests, but
did very little to boost the economy. And now, to add insult to injury,
we've been told that this isn't merely pork barrel politics, but that
it is downright patriotic. I find that appalling, and I'm sure many of
my colleagues did as well.
Because today this country is brimming with real patriotism, and I
think many of us draw strength from that shared sense of pride in our
country. But some versions of the stimulus bill were nothing to be
proud of.
At this moment I believe that we may well need a stimulus package.
But that's not what we were considering; instead we were faced with the
same kind of pork-barrel spending we have seen year in and year out,
except that now these provisions were dressed up in red, white and
blue. That kind of opportunism, at a time like this, is an affront to
the American people, and it should be unwelcome in this Chamber.
The stimulus bill, and in particular, the House-passed version of the
bill, represents a lost opportunity for the Nation, and I think the
American people have the right to ask what went wrong. How, at a time
when the Nation needs a strong stimulus package, did we end up with
this pile of pork? And when I say pile of pork, I'm being kind. The St.
Louis Post Dispatch called it chicken manure. From time to time I like
to Call the Bankroll on legislation, and talk about the potent mix of
money and influence that results in the kind of legislation that's
before us today. I think it's appropriate to review the donations given
by the interests that could reap such tremendous benefits from this
bill.
[[Page S11932]]
According to information from Common Cause and Citizens for Tax
Justice, just 14 corporations alone would reap a $6.3 billion windfall
from the retroactive repeal of the alternative minimum tax in the
House-passed package. Enron, which has given more than $3.7 million in
soft money from 1991 through 2000, will get an estimated $254 million
refund under this bill. Chevron Texaco, which gave more that $3.6
million in soft money over the last 10 years, will get an estimated
refund of $572 million. General Electric gave $1.3 million, and they'll
get $671 million. And this list goes on. Billions upon billions of
dollars being funneled back to big donors at a time when more and more
Americans are out of work, lacking health care coverage and struggling
to pay their bills.
The House package also gave a temporary tax break to multinational
corporations on some profits from their foreign operations. As the
Washington Post pointed out, ``it's hard to see how this measure, which
would encourage firms to keep money outside the country, would do
anything to stimulate the American economy.'' This measure rewards some
of the biggest donors in the banking, investment and life insurance
industries. Some of the biggest donors in these industries include
Merrill Lynch, which has given more than $2.2 million in soft money
over the last 10 years, and Citigroup, which has given more than $2.1
million during the last 10 years, according to Common Cause.
The House-passed package even included Medical Savings Accounts,
which soft money donor Golden Rule Financial Corporation and other
insurance interests have lobbied for for many years. Golden Rule gave
just shy of $1.3 million in soft money in the last ten years.
The stimulus bill should have been an opportunity to stimulate the
economy; instead it turned out to be a chance for special interests to
add the provisions they've been pushing for all these years. Wealthy
interests haven't hesitated to take this difficult period for the
country and exploit it for their own gain. And if this version of the
bill ever passes, they will reap an enormous financial windfall.
In the last few months, the Nation has endured a great deal, and we
will continue to face enormous challenges. As a Congress, we must
address the issues before us with the kind of integrity that these
challenges will demand. But we can't meet those challenges when the
legislative process is hobbled by the clout of special interests. The
stimulus bill was a sobering example of a bill that went through that
process, and fell far short of its goal.
The stimulus bill was a missed opportunity that the Nation may pay
dearly for down the road. We've missed an opportunity, but we don't
have to miss another one. I hope when Congress returns next year, we
will rise to meet the next challenge before us: getting campaign
finance reform to the President's desk. The Nation is closely watching
our work here, more now than ever in the wake of September 11. And
bills like the stimulus package would make any American wonder whether
we are truly conducting the people's business on this floor. We must
restore integrity to legislative process, and restore the people's
faith in us and what we do.
I think we can start by voting against this bill, if it comes to us
in a form like the House-passed bill. But we must do much more, we must
abolish soft money and shut down the issue ad loophole, and it can't
wait another year. Campaign finance reform should be one of the first
orders of business when we return next year. The American people are
looking to us for leadership, and I believe that this Senate can
provide that leadership. We can show the American people that we have
the courage and leadership they seek, and we can start by making
campaign finance reform the law of the land.
____________________