[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 177 (Wednesday, December 19, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13676-S13678]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     THE ECONOMIC STIMULUS PACKAGE

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the session is about to end. I would 
like to call to the attention of colleagues one proposition that I hope 
comes before the Senate before we adjourn. That is the so-called 
economic stimulus package. You might call it an economic security 
package.
  Nothing I say is going to in any way detract from the working 
relationship that I have with Senator Baucus as chairman of the Senate 
Finance Committee.
  Maybe in this instance we did not reach an agreement involving he and 
I having complete agreement on a final product. There were other 
factors that came into play that maybe kept those negotiations from 
being one-on-one negotiations where people could freely negotiate and 
reach an agreement as you should in a conference. But all of this 
discussion, plus other forums I have been in with Senator Baucus as 
chairman of that committee, have been very cordial and productive 
sessions, even when they have not come out with a product.
  I only wish that when the stimulus package comes to the floor I have 
the privilege of doing as we did last spring defending that package, 
along with Senator Baucus, with the two of us working together to get 
it through the Senate. Hopefully that can still happen. It may not 
happen, but it doesn't mean that Senator Baucus has not worked hard to 
help that happen. Hopefully, we can continue next year to do some 
things in other areas that fall within the jurisdiction of the Senate 
Finance Committee that will bring bipartisan bills to the Senate floor 
for successful passage by the Senate.
  Probably what we are ending up with here, instead of what might come 
out of the conference committee which I was referring to in my work 
with Senator Baucus, is kind of a hybrid that involves some individual 
negotiations and some people who aren't even on the Senate Finance 
Committee, which has jurisdiction over most of the product. But this is 
a bill that is going to be introduced in the House. It is my 
understanding that it is a bill in which I will have some input, and 
the White House, and a group in the Senate called the centrists, a 
bipartisan group of Democrats and Republicans who might call themselves 
kind of middle-of-the-road types. It is an economic stimulus package 
presumably passing the House and coming to the Senate. I hope people 
will see it as a very rich proposal that will help displaced workers 
and give a boost to the economy.
  Since September 11, we have focused on dislocated workers and 
unemployed people who have been hurt. But there are also a lot of 
people who are working and who are in anguish over what the future 
holds for them. Even if they have very good jobs, that might be the 
case because things aren't the same since September 11.
  When we talk about an economic security package, even though we might 
tend to concentrate on the dislocated workers, we are concerned about 
all workers because people have some questions about the future. 
Because of what happened on September 11, they see the future a little 
differently with a little less security than they did prior to that 
time.
  An economic security package addresses the needs of people who are 
working as well as people who are dislocated. It does what we can to 
help those who are dislocated through troubled times. But it also is 
meant to give some confidence to those who are working and to beef up 
the economy so we will be able to find jobs for people who are 
dislocated.
  We are in a state of war. We don't know how long that state of war 
will be there. But it is not going to end when we find the last Taliban 
in Afghanistan, or the last al-Qaida member. It isn't going to end when 
we find bin Laden and other leaders responsible for what happened on 
September 11. How long the war is going to go on I do not know. But it 
is not over.
  We are talking about America being in a state of war since September 
11.

[[Page S13677]]

 The Congress of the United States has addressed that and has given the 
President the backing that our Constitution demands from a partner in a 
war act, as Congress is a partner in that.
  We need to remember that we are in a state of war and that things 
aren't the same. The Senate ought to respond as if we were in a state 
of war.
  I think one of the ways to responsibly respond is for the Senate to 
vote on the economic security or economic stimulus package. I hope the 
Senate majority leader will let his caucus vote the conscience of the 
individual Member. I hope there isn't any attempt to put the position 
of the party ahead of the good of the country in the closing hours of 
this session so we can pass this bill.
  It is time to finish our work, but it is also time to do the people's 
business. There is nothing more important right now than responding to 
the needs of the people of our country in a time of war when there is a 
great deal of anxiety and anguish about the future, not only among the 
dislocated but among those who are even working.
  We are in the position of finishing the last of the appropriations 
bills. It is time to help the dislocated workers and those who are 
working and create jobs for the employed to give a shot in the arm to 
the economy.
  I believe the White House centrist agreement is bipartisan and 
bicameral and is a product that ought to be brought before the Senate 
after it passes the House.
  Remember that this isn't something coming to the Senate just on the 
spur of the moment in the sense that there is a rude awakening and we 
ought to do something about the economic situation and pass some 
stimulus. The President recommended it in early October when he 
proposed a program of accelerated depreciation, tax reduction, tax 
rebates for low-income people, enhancement of unemployment 
compensation, and help for the health care needs of the unemployed. The 
President did that. It wasn't the President who started it. There were 
lots of meetings held by Senator Baucus with Democrats and Republicans, 
and maybe meetings with only Democrats. We held separate Republican 
meetings in early October on whether or not we ought to have a stimulus 
package. We sought the advice of Chairman Greenspan.
  There was some question in late September or early October when these 
meetings were being held about whether or not we needed an economic 
stimulus. But it was just a matter of a couple weeks until the 
President, probably on his own, made a determination and a proposal to 
Congress.
  Parallel with that, there was a growing conclusion within both Houses 
of Congress and both parties that an economic stimulus package was 
needed. So we have been working in this direction for a long period of 
time.

  There is a product before us now that is bicameral and bipartisan. 
Partisanship has been evident in this body, by the Senate Finance 
Committee voting out a bill on party-line votes, bringing it to the 
Senate, and finally coming to the determination that that partisan bill 
could not pass. It is not because everything in it was wrong but just 
because partisan legislation does not get through this body. You have 
to have some bipartisanship in order for a product to successfully 
clear this body.
  So we have now a further compromise. It is not the President's 
proposal. We have gone way beyond what the President wanted to do in 
some of these areas. It does not have some of the baggage of a bill 
that previously passed the House of Representatives had, such as, for 
instance, the retroactive alternative minimum tax, where there is a lot 
of money just coming out of the Federal Treasury back to corporate 
America. It has many of the things the Democrats wanted and many of the 
things the Republicans wanted. But it is going down the same road now 
because it is bipartisan, bicameral, and it is coming to the Senate.
  As to things such as accelerated depreciation, there are some changes 
in the alternative minimum tax that reflect the realities that 
accelerated depreciation will not work if there are not some changes in 
the alternative minimum tax. It speeds up tax brackets for middle-
income taxpayers by reducing the 27 percent bracket down to 25 percent, 
and doing it January 1, 2002, instead of January 1, 2004, and January 
1, 2006.
  We recognize the needs of stimulating the consumer demand by tax 
rebates to low-income Americans. We increase unemployment compensation 
by 13 weeks. We have, for the first time in 70 years, a very dramatic 
change in the social policy of this country for unemployed people by 
providing health insurance for unemployed people. That is welcomed by a 
lot of Republicans. And it ought to be welcomed by a lot of Democrats. 
So I want to describe that.
  I would also like to take an opportunity to clear up the record on 
press conferences that are being held by my friends in the Democrat 
leadership. Too often it is said, in a disinformation way, that what is 
really holding this up is that Republicans do not want health benefits 
for dislocated workers.
  I think I have just now said, in this new policy--the first in 70 
years; the biggest social change in the policy for dislocated workers 
in 70 years--that we support this. It is part of this package. So why 
would anyone say that Republicans do not care anything about health 
benefits for dislocated workers?
  The President proposed it early on--not in a way I thought was very 
workable, but he proposed spending money on it. We have a package that 
has $23 billion of such benefit in it. In fact, it is a package with $2 
billion less which helps more people than what some of the Democratic 
proposals would do.
  So if you can help more people for less of the taxpayers' money, 
isn't that good? And isn't it good, too, that there is agreement that 
it needs to be done? I do not think it is fair for people in the 
Democratic leadership to say Republicans are against helping with the 
health benefits for unemployed workers when it has been in every one of 
our plans and even the President was the first to propose it.
  I think the bipartisan, bicameral provisions that are coming before 
the House and Senate within the next 48 hours represent a genuine 
compromise. Not only does it provide an unemployment insurance 
extension of 13 weeks, but it also has Reed Act transfers--more money--
to the States for them to spend for enhancing their own----

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the Chair's understanding that the time 
allocated in morning business to the Senator from Iowa has expired.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I am not sure I was aware of it or I would have asked 
permission to go beyond that because I know all the previous speakers 
spoke longer than 5 minutes and the gavel was never rapped. So if that 
is the case----
  Mr. BIDEN. I have no objection to the Senator continuing his speech. 
I am wondering how long he is likely to speak.
  Will the Senator say roughly how long he is going to speak?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I think now that I have spoken this long, I would say 
about 10 minutes.
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. We give more money to the States if they want to 
improve even more their unemployment benefits. We are giving a 60-
percent tax credit for health care tax for unemployed workers, 
including people who can use it to extend COBRA insurance benefits.
  States will have the ability to address problems such as part-time 
workers. There is a modest proposal to accelerate income tax rate 
reductions in the 27-percent bracket.
  I am sure there are a lot of Members of this body, particularly those 
who voted against the bipartisan tax bill last spring, who are not 
going to want to speed up, from 27 percent to 25 percent, the reduction 
of that tax rate. Somehow there is an insinuation that if you do that, 
you are helping the wealthy. I want my colleagues to remember that this 
benefits a single taxpayer earning as little as $27,051 and going up to 
$65,000. And then, for a married couple, that would kick in at $45,201, 
going up to $109,000.
  For people making $27,000, where this bracket starts, or for married 
couples making $45,000, these are not rich people or rich families. 
What we are talking about is a 2-percentage-point tax cut for these 
folks.
  So is there anything wrong with a single person paying $770 less in 
taxes or a married couple paying $1,281 less in taxes if they fall into 
this income tax bracket that we would call middle income?

[[Page S13678]]

  It seems to me it is fair, but, most importantly, it is meant to be a 
stimulus. This is something that middle-of-the-road Democrats and 
Republicans support. This is part of the original centrist package.
  We also have a 30-percent bonus depreciation. That is something that 
was in everybody's package, Republican or Democrat, House or Senate.
  We have also a 5-year net operating loss carryback. That was not in 
the President's package. That was not in the Senate Republican package. 
That was in the Senate Democratic package.
  On corporate alternative minimum tax, there is no repeal, no 
retroactivity, like was lambasted when it came out of the House that 
way. There is no corporate AMT repeal, retroactive or otherwise, in the 
White House-centrist package. There are some well thought out reforms 
that cost about one-twentieth of what the House bill did on alternative 
minimum tax. That is a very major movement. That is why the centrists 
support this compromise.

  The White House-centrist package extends expiring tax provisions by 2 
years.
  Finally, the White House-centrist package includes bipartisan tax 
relief proposals for victims of terrorism and business in New York 
City. These are much needed, and they are urgent matters. I believe the 
Senators from New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut ought to find it 
inviting that these things are in there for their constituents and 
support this package.
  Let's get the record straight. Let's have a good debate. Let the 
votes fall where they may. I can't help but ask our distinguished 
majority leader, Senator Daschle, to give the people what they want--a 
bipartisan economic stimulus bill with the largest aid going to 
dislocated workers in a generation.
  It is clear that the people and the President don't want stalling, 
don't want muddling, don't want delay and, most important in this state 
of war we are in, don't want partisanship.
  I urge the Senate majority leader to do the right thing: End this 
session by delivering a bipartisan priority. By doing it, we put the 
people's business first. If I were the majority leader, I would not 
know how to explain to the American people, as I returned home to the 
State of Iowa to enjoy the holiday season there with my family on the 
farm at New Hartford, why millions of Americans are desperately waiting 
for the Senate to pass an economic and job security bill that has been 
in this body for the last 2 months. If I were the majority leader, I 
don't know how I would explain to the people of Iowa, how I could look 
my constituents straight in the eye, and all of my taxpayers and all 
the small business owners of Iowa, and explain, by not passing this 
bill, how I would choose politics ahead of people.
  It is time to get the job done. There is still time to do it. If 
people are allowed to vote their conscience and not have the 
restriction of party, we can get the job done, I believe.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________