[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 30, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S478-S480]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ECONOMIC STIMULUS

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, the psalmist prayed:

       Do not cast me off when I am old. Do not forsake me when my 
     strength fails.

  That is really the question before us as we get to the economic 
stimulus bill, which is the bill that is going to send out rebate 
checks to Americans: Will the Senate cast off 20 million seniors? Will 
the Senate forsake 20 million of the neediest Americans?
  A vote for the Finance Committee substitute is a vote for 20 million 
American senior citizens who have worked hard all their lives, who have 
paid taxes for a lifetime. They contribute to the economy today. But 
the underlying House-passed bill would not give them a rebate check.
  The House-passed bill says no to 20 million American seniors. The 
House bill gives checks only to the more affluent seniors whose incomes 
are high enough that they pay taxes now. The House-passed bill would 
not give a stimulus check to seniors who are scraping by on Social 
Security income alone and have no tax liability. To state it 
differently, the House-passed bill says no to the most neediest 
seniors, not only 20 million American seniors, but the House bill says 
no to the 20 million American seniors who happen to be the most needy. 
These 20 million seniors have given a lifetime of labor. They have 
given a lifetime of service, and they have paid a lifetime of taxes. 
The House-passed bill would not give them a stimulus check.
  Think of a grandmother who needs money for food, medicine. America's 
economy is slowing down. Times are

[[Page S479]]

getting tough for her. Prices for food, gasoline, and home heating oil 
have skyrocketed right before our eyes. She has a harder time making 
ends meet. For many of our Nation's senior citizens, their only source 
of funds for these necessities is a once-a-month envelope from Social 
Security. Any Social Security beneficiary will tell that you she has 
not seen the amount of her check increased enough to cover today's 
rising costs. I am sure the benefits may be going up a little bit, but 
they clearly do not cover the increase in rising costs. Again, the 
Finance Committee package says yes to those 20 million American seniors 
who we believe should be included. They should also get a rebate check. 
The House-passed bill says no to those 20 million American seniors. It 
says to seniors who happen to be the most needy, no, we are not going 
to give you a rebate check. That is the basic reason why I believe the 
Senate Finance Committee package passed today is by far the better 
alternative.
  Just think, when Congress acts on an economic stimulus package this 
week, tomorrow, whenever it is, we should insist on that tax rebate for 
the 20 million low-income seniors who can use that money right now. A 
rebate for seniors is no feel-good measure. Obviously, it is the right 
thing to do. Rebates for 20 million more seniors will help the economic 
stimulus package work better. Why is that? Because seniors are among 
America's most likely to spend a refund right away and pump cash back 
into the economy.
  This chart basically demonstrates that. According to the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics, Americans over age 65 are responsible for over 14 
percent of all consumer spending. People over 65 spend 92 percent of 
the their yearly incomes. That is represented by the horizontal bar in 
blue, a little bit of purple over on the right. So people over 65 spend 
92 percent of their yearly income. People over age 75 spend 98 percent 
of their incomes. That is higher than any other demographic group over 
the age of 25.
  Seniors spend the money they receive. They have to, in most cases, 
spend the money they receive. It is the right thing to do, to give 
senior citizens access to that rebate check. Why exclude them? Why cut 
seniors out as the House does? That is not right. In addition, seniors 
spend the money they receive. Seniors over age 65 spend 92 percent of 
the money they receive, and seniors over 75 years of age spend 98 
percent of the income they receive. So seniors will spend that rebate 
check right away. That will make the rebate check all the more 
effective in helping the economy.
  The Senate needs to do the right thing by America's seniors and by 
the American economy. We should extend the tax rebate to 20 million 
American senior citizens living on Social Security. The Finance 
Committee substitute will help 20 million seniors who were left out of 
the House bill. The Finance Committee amendment will provide seniors 
with a rebate check of $500 and $1,000, if they are married.
  What is more, the Finance Committee amendment helps a quarter of a 
million disabled veterans with rebate checks. So far I have talked only 
about senior citizens. The House-passed bill does not give rebate 
checks to disabled American veterans. The House bill does not provide 
low-income disabled veterans rebate checks. That is, the House bill 
does not give rebate checks to a quarter of a million, and that is 
because they do not provide low-income disabled vets with rebate 
checks.
  The House discriminates against lower income seniors, 20 million 
American seniors. It discriminates against lower income disabled vets. 
It says no to a quarter of a million disabled veterans. We in the 
Finance Committee say, no, we should say yes to seniors. We should say 
yes also to disabled veterans who will get the same rebate check as an 
upper income disabled vet.
  What is more, the Finance Committee amendment helps people who have 
lost their jobs. Don't you think that is the right thing to do, help 
people who have lost their jobs, particularly as we are either in a 
recession or close to a recession? The Finance Committee amendment 
provides an additional 13 weeks of unemployment insurance, and high 
unemployment States will qualify for an extra 13 weeks. The House bill 
does not provide an extension for unemployment insurance. It says no. 
It says, no, I am sorry, too bad. If you have lost your job and your 26 
weeks is already up, which is the case for a higher proportion of 
America's unemployed today than at any other time in recent history, 
the House says, no, sorry. Even though you need the money, even though 
you would have clearly spent the rebate check, they say, no. The House 
bill doesn't provide that extension.
  There are almost a million more unemployed Americans than there were 
unemployed a year ago. The Congressional Budget Office found that 
unemployment insurance has a great bang for the buck. That is, people 
who are unemployed who receive their unemployment insurance spend it. 
In fact, economy.com, a company which analyzes these things--their 
person testified today or yesterday before the Budget Committee--found 
that each dollar spent on extended unemployment insurance benefits 
would generate $1.64 in increased economic activity. That is a good 
one. In straight economic terms, for every $1 spent, $1.64 is the 
result in increased economic activity.
  The bipartisan stimulus bill enacted after 9/11 included an 
unemployment insurance extension. President Bush signed that extension. 
Why don't we do it now? We all know what dire straits the economy is 
in. The Federal Reserve system cut the Fed funds rate another half 
percent. When you add it up in the last 4 or 5 months, 1 percent plus 
three-quarters plus another half, what does that amount to? That is a 
2\1/4\-percentage points reduction in the last several months. They are 
worried. But those rate cuts take time to work their way through the 
economy. An economic stimulus package has an effect right away. That is 
why we believe we should have components in the economic stimulus 
package which improve upon the House bill and give 20 million seniors 
rebate checks and a quarter of a million disabled vets rebate checks 
and also extended unemployment benefits.

  The Finance Committee amendment helps American businesses that need 
help. The Finance Committee amendment would extend what is called the 
carryback period for net operating losses from 2 years to 5 years. Why 
is that important? Generally, a cyclical business has some profitable 
years followed by loss years. During loss periods, the company will 
carry back the net operating losses for the lost years to the prior 
profitable years. They will file a quick refund claim. The quick refund 
claim acts as a cash infusion and allows the company to survive the 
loss period. The House bill doesn't take care of that. The housing 
industry would greatly benefit from an increased carryback period.
  This whole economic downturn was sparked by a so-called subprime 
problem, the housing problem, a glut of houses. And the expanded period 
would allow builders to avoid selling land and houses at distressed 
prices.
  Additionally, it would enable less costly financing, improving 
business conditions for an eventual return of the housing market. The 
expanded period would give the housing industry cash to meet payroll. 
That is not a bad thing to do when we are in an economic downturn. That 
would stop additional job losses. The National Association of 
Manufacturers has written us in the committee in support of the Finance 
Committee's net operating loss proposal because they know it is the 
right thing to do to help maintain jobs.
  These are all good reasons to vote for the Finance Committee 
substitute. It would help disabled veterans. It would help unemployed 
Americans. It would help businesses struggling with the business cycle. 
It would help 20, I think the figure is 20 million American senior 
citizens. I start where I began. I repeat this point because it is so 
important. The biggest difference between the Finance Committee 
substitute and the underlying House bill is 20 million seniors. A vote 
for the Finance Committee substitute is a vote for those seniors. Keep 
this in mind: 20 million, right here. That is the number of seniors to 
whom we would give rebate checks because it is the right thing to do, 
to add 20 million to the House-passed bill, which does not give rebate 
checks, which is clearly the wrong thing to do.
  Senators should not cast off seniors. Senators should not forsake 
them. Rather, let us recognize their lifetimes

[[Page S480]]

of labor, recognize their key role in stimulating the economy. Look at 
our senior citizens. They are the real salt, the rock of America. Our 
mothers and fathers and grandfathers, most of them passed through the 
Depression era. Some are a little old for the Depression era, but they 
have values that are so important for our country. They are the people 
who paid taxes all their lives. They worked all their lives. They 
provided service to so many of us and our families and to other 
neighbors in the community. Let us recognize their key role in 
stimulating the economy, and let us pass the Finance Committee 
substitute for those 20 million American seniors.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________