[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 29, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S419-S420]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            STIMULUS PACKAGE

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thought I would take a few moments to 
talk about this stimulus package that is sort of maybe making its way 
through the Congress.
  I was in my home State of Iowa this weekend, and a lot of people came 
up to me, from various walks of life, questioning whether we had lost 
all our sanity around here in terms of this stimulus bill.
  Well, as I probed and asked questions, it seemed everyone thought 
this idea of just sending a check out to everybody--when we are 
borrowing the money from our kids and grandkids--to do it did not seem 
to make much sense, especially if some of that so-called stimulus money 
is used to buy a flat-screen TV made in China.
  So we borrow money from China, we go into more debt to them--which 
our kids and grandkids and great-grandkids and on and on will have to 
pay for--so that people here can buy a consumer good made in China, and 
send the money to China. So whose stimulus is this? Is it for our 
country or is it for China? So people really rightfully question it.
  Now, they have heard that maybe we are going to send a check to 
everybody regardless of income, that Bill Gates--and God bless him; he 
is always the foil, I guess, for the wealthiest in our country--and 
people of that magnitude of income would actually get a check.
  I have to believe people are beyond laughing about this now. I have 
to believe the citizens of this country are scratching their heads and 
wondering just what are we doing.
  What I heard from my constituents in Iowa is that if you really want 
to do something in terms of the economy, first of all, you take care of 
those who are hurt the most, those at the bottom, and then you take and 
you invest money in the economic well-being of this country.
  So the more I talked to people about this issue, it became very clear 
to me that what we should be focusing on in the stimulus package--not 
what the White House has said and not even what the House said. I was 
not part of that agreement. I was not invited to those talks or 
anything else. It was only done by the Speaker of the House, I guess, 
and the minority leader of the House and the President. Well, there are 
100 Senators here, too, and we represent people. It would seem to me we 
should have some input into what this ``stimulus package'' is.
  So it is clear to me that just taking a bunch of money we borrowed 
from China--which our kids and grandkids have to pay back--and giving 
it in a check to everyone, just throwing it out there, is just throwing 
money at the problem. How many times have we heard around here: Don't 
just throw money at the problem. So if we have an economic slowdown, 
let's target--let's target--what it is we are going to put our money 
into.
  Now, first, you want to ask the legitimate question of, if you are 
going to spend a dollar, what gives you the most economic activity? 
What rolls around the most in the economy? What has the largest 
multiplier effect? Well, the Economic Research Service, the Moody's 
have all said that the biggest bang for the buck we could get is in 
food stamps--either a 1.73 or a 1.84 multiplier effect. It means for 
every $1 you put in, you are getting $1.84 more in economic activity. 
That is the highest. It dwarfs everything else. Here is a way we can 
actually do something about the economy, target money and help those 
who need help the most.
  We have had a constant erosion in food stamps, a 30-year erosion in 
the asset level. The asset level right now for a person who qualifies 
for food stamps in this country is $2,000. In other words, if you are a 
single parent with a couple of kids and you are working--maybe you are 
in a temporary layoff now with the economic turndown, but let's say 
while you were working you saved a little bit of money for that rainy 
day. We are always telling people to save money. It is good for you. It 
is good for your future. So maybe they saved a little bit of money. 
Well, if they saved over $2,000, they do not get food stamps. That is 
the same level it was in 1977. If it had kept pace with inflation, the 
asset level today would be about $6,000. So we have had that erosion 
now for 30 years. We have had 11 years of an erosion of the standard 
deduction, which is, without getting into the nitty-gritty of how it 
works, just a standard deduction for a family on food stamps, taking 
into account certain factors that comes out to be a deduction of about 
$130 a month. That is at the level it was 11 years ago. It hasn't 
changed. It was frozen at that level in 1996.

  The childcare deduction is now capped at $175, and it has been that 
way for 11 years. There has been no increase in the childcare 
deduction, even though we know childcare costs more money today than it 
did 11 years ago. So we have had great erosions. Couple that with the 
fact that since 2000, the number of people on food stamps in this 
country has gone from 16 million to 26 million.
  So while the economy may have been good for some people over the last 
5 or 6 years, it was good for people at the top. But if the economy was 
so darn good over the last several years, why did we go from 16 million 
on food stamps to 26 million on food stamps? Because for those at the 
bottom, the economy was not very good; thus, the widening gap between 
the rich and the poor in this country.
  So it would seem to make sense, if we are going to have some kind of 
``stimulus package,'' the first rule would be do no harm, and then 
target it so that it is effective. Ask the economists. They all say the 
best bang for the buck is when you put it in food stamps. So here is 
our opportunity, both to have some multiplier effects and to help 
stimulate the economy and do what really is morally right, what we 
should have done a long time ago, and that is to make sure the people 
at the bottom don't keep falling through the safety nets.
  So I say, I don't know what the Finance Committee is going to do. 
This is not in their jurisdiction. I understand. They can't do anything 
about food stamps; that is not in their jurisdiction. But when that 
bill comes up, and when we get it to the floor, I want everyone to be 
aware that we are going to have an amendment--and I will have an 
amendment on food stamps--to put a significant amount of money into 
food stamps, about a 20-percent increase in food stamps for the next 
year. That gives us 12 months.
  Now, why 12 months rather than 6 months or 7 months or 8 months? 
Well,

[[Page S420]]

first of all, we have a farm bill in which both the House and the 
Senate addressed some of these longstanding problems in the food stamp 
structure. I don't know when that farm bill is going to get passed. The 
President has threatened to veto it. We will get it done sometime. 
Sooner or later we will get this farm bill done--hopefully, in the next 
month or so. But then the changes that have to take place to change the 
system so we can begin to increase the asset level, take the cap off of 
the childcare deduction, and then take a standard deduction and factor 
in inflation for that, that takes time. We will not get it done right 
away. I think it would be the height of cruelty to say to people who 
need this food and who need food stamps that we are going to increase 
it for 6 months and then we are going to take it away. Now, at least if 
you get a rebate--as I said, I am not in favor of all of these checks 
going out, but if you are going to get a check, you can save it for a 
rainy day or you can do something like that. But with food stamps, you 
can't do that. So if you get food stamps, and we say, OK, we will 
increase your food stamps, you can buy a little better protein, you can 
eat a little bit better for 6 months, and then we are going to cut it 
off.
  Keep in mind that right now, under our Food Stamp Program, the amount 
of money a person gets per meal on food stamps is $1--$1--$1. Have you 
ever tried eating a meal for a dollar? Try it sometime.
  So what we are talking about is not lavish living. We are talking 
about giving people just the basic necessities. So, again, this is our 
chance to do something that is morally right and at the same time 
target our help in stimulating the economy.
  Second only to that would be increasing unemployment benefits. People 
who have been unemployed for a long time need to have it extended, to 
have their unemployment benefits extended. That also has a big 
multiplier effect. Also, close on the heels of that in terms of 
benefiting the economy is the money that we use to build our 
infrastructure; that is, the roads and the bridges, the school 
buildings, the sewer and water systems, government buildings. It would 
be things like community development block grants that we put out to 
our cities and communities to do construction projects.
  So it seems to me, again, if we are going to put money out there, 
this is what we ought to be doing. We have billions of dollars of 
construction that is needed to be done in this country on school 
buildings, classrooms, bridges--need I mention Minnesota--highways. Our 
highway system is falling apart, that great interstate highway system 
that we built, and I worked on when I was in high school, well over a 
half a century old. Keep in mind when it was built, we didn't have the 
truck traffic then that we have today. So we need to put money into the 
infrastructure. Those jobs are ready to go by May. By the time these 
checks would get out they are talking about, you would have people 
starting to go to work.
  The benefits of putting money into an infrastructure project are 
multiple. There are multiple benefits. First of all, the work is done 
locally. You can't outsource it to India or China. Obviously, if you 
are going to build a schoolhouse, you have to hire people locally to do 
it. So the work is done locally.
  Secondly, almost all of the materials used in any kind of 
infrastructure project, whether it is cement or reinforcing rods or 
whether it is carpeting or doors or windows or lights, heating and air-
conditioning systems, drywall--you name it--almost all of that is made 
in America. Maybe not all of it, but the vast majority of it is made in 
this country. So the ripple effect throughout our economy is great when 
you do an infrastructure project. You put people to work. Most of the 
materials and stuff you buy are American made.
  Third, once you do this, you have something of lasting good to our 
economy, something that helps the free enterprise system function 
better.
  When our roads and highways are plugged up with traffic and it can't 
move, that hurts business. When we don't have adequate clean water and 
sewer systems for communities, businesses can't locate and, therefore, 
operate efficiently. When we don't have the best schools in America 
with the best facilities, the high-speed hookups to the Internet, when 
we don't have schools which are the jewel of a neighborhood--the best 
thing that kids would ever see in their activities during the week 
would be the school--not the mall, not the theater, not the sports 
arena but their school. What if that was the nicest thing in every 
neighborhood? I tend to think that would help our teachers to teach 
better, our recruitment of teachers, and give kids more incentive to 
study. But it provides a lasting benefit for this country. So mark me 
down as one who is--I am just more than a little cautious and maybe a 
little bit more conservative on this idea of sending everybody a check. 
I think people would be better off and our economy would be better off 
if we did those three things: Do something on the food side for the 
people who are hardest hit in our economy, extend unemployment 
benefits, and put a slug of money into infrastructure.

  That is what we ought to tell President Bush. That is what we ought 
to tell the White House. That is our program. That is the Democrats' 
program for this country: to put people back to work, not just to send 
everybody a check, but let's give everybody a job. Let's give them jobs 
out there that will build our country. The multiplier effect on that is 
enormous. But if you are just going to send somebody a check, that is 
it. They might just tend to buy something made in China or Japan or who 
knows where else. That is just not the best thing for our long-term 
economy and not for what we want to do in this country.
  So, once again, it seems as though we look for short-term solutions 
to long-term problems. Our long-term problems are the infrastructure of 
this country and the fact that we don't have a good job base for people 
in this country--long-term problems. We are importing more and more and 
more from overseas. I listened to the President last night in his State 
of the Union message when he talked about how exports are up. He didn't 
mention how much more imports were up over exports. He just didn't even 
mention that. We are in hock to China up to our eyeballs, and it is 
getting worse not better. So we are going to send everybody $500 and 
tell them to go spend some money on things probably made in China.
  So, again, I don't think we ought to roll over. I don't think we 
ought to block anything. But I think we ought to come up with a package 
that does something for our economy. The things I just outlined I think 
will do more for our economy than sending everybody a $300, $500, or 
maybe a $1,200 check.
  Lastly, I see there is some talk about sending everybody a check--no 
income limit. Well, I thought the income limits in the House were too 
high: $75,000, $150,000 for a couple, so you could get up to 1,200 
bucks. I just don't think that is logical, and I don't think it is 
healthy. I don't think it is good for our country. I don't think it is 
good for the long-term health of our economy.
  So I hope we can work together in a bipartisan atmosphere to come up 
with a package that is not just throwing money at the problem but 
targets it, and targets it to those areas that will be effective in 
putting people back to work, helping people at the bottom of the 
ladder, and providing for the long-term economic underpinning of our 
country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.

                          ____________________