Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 16 (Thursday, January 31, 2008)

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 16 (Thursday, January 31, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S519-S526]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ECONOMIC STIMULUS

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to
talk about the economic stimulus package.
In the last several years, millions of Americans have seen their
primary source of wealth--their homes--plummet in value. As many as 2
million mortgage holders may lose their homes in this subprime crisis
we are seeing. Investors around the world are now very concerned about
the state of our economy. In my home State of Washington and across the
country, people are very worried. We see Americans losing their jobs,
we see them struggling to make ends meet, to buy groceries, to pay
their power bills, even to afford health insurance. With our markets in
decline, we have the opportunity now to give this economy a jump-start
and help prevent a full-fledged recession.
Experts are telling us that taking action now to stimulate the
economy by giving millions of taxpayers a rebate could help increase
production and lift employment. Businesses--especially American
manufacturers--need people to buy their products, and Americans need
money to spend on those. I believe a quick stimulus bill that gives
Americans some of their tax money back could make a real difference.
But we also have to ensure that whatever action we take, it is
temporary and targeted to where it can do the most good, and I am
optimistic we can do that.
I wish to thank our House colleagues for coming to a quick agreement
with the President on an economic stimulus package. Their proposal was
a very good start, and I wish to thank Chairman Baucus and Ranking
Member Grassley for getting to work immediately on a Senate plan. I
hope we can all agree to get a bill to the President by February 15 and
get this economy moving again.
In the last few days, I have talked with several economists who have
appeared before our Budget Committee. They have shared their analysis
of what Congress can do to prevent our economy from a full recession,
and I think the legislation that was passed by the Senate Finance
Committee largely meets their recommendations.
The Finance Committee bill would give middle and lower income
Americans a $500 rebate check. It ensures that seniors who receive
Social Security will get that rebate and, importantly, it extends the
rebate to ensure that our disabled veterans who would not have
qualified under the legislation at this point would get that rebate as
well. I think this is particularly important. It restores the income
cap so the rebates will go to the people who need it the most.

[[Page S520]]

Any bill we pass has to ensure the rebates are targeted at seniors
and working families. They are the backbone of our economy. They are
the ones who need the money most, and they are the most likely to spend
it. So you can be sure I will continue to fight any proposal that
changes those provisions.
But I wish to add a few words to underscore the importance of
including seniors in this bill. More than 20 million seniors depend on
Social Security for their income, and they spend 92 percent of it--a
greater proportionate share than all other adults--and seniors are
among those who are hurt the worst during an economic downturn because
of increasing health care costs. As our Finance Committee Chairman
pointed out, seniors have worked hard all their lives, they pay taxes
all their lives, and many of them still pay sales, property, and, of
course, other taxes. So leaving seniors out of any stimulus bill would
overlook their importance to our economy. It would make our stimulus
bill much less effective and, most importantly, it would be enormously
unfair.
I am encouraged by the progress we have made so far. I think a
temporary, targeted stimulus is the shot in the arm our country needs.
I have been pleased to see the President has been willing to work with
us in Congress. I also believe there is a great deal more we can and
should do that will help millions of struggling families and turn our
economy around over the longer term. I know many of my colleagues
agree. So I hope the President continues to see the value of working
with us on longer term investments that will pay off for years to come.
One of those investments that I have high hopes will get us back to
restoring our economy is a summer jobs program for teenagers. The
unemployment rate for teenagers has jumped in the last year. For all
teens, it is 17 percent, up from 13 percent in December of 2006. Among
African Americans who are ages 16 to 19, it is almost 35 percent as of
last month. Thirty-five percent unemployment for African-American youth
between the ages of 16 and 19.
A summer jobs program would have a number of immediate and long-term
benefits. We all know teenagers are likely to quickly spend any money
they earn, so of course it would provide an immediate economic
stimulus. But it also would work to begin to create a new generation of
workers. Research shows teens who get work experience earn more over
their lifetime.
Last November, I held a field hearing of my HELP Subcommittee on
Employment and Workplace Safety at South Seattle Community College. We
focused on the need to create a number of pathways, multiple pathways
to career success for our young workers. We had representatives from
the private sector, organized labor, and they all talked about the need
for a new generation of skilled workers, while students said they were
not getting enough information about career opportunities and options.
I heard about the real need for green-collar workers and the dire need
for skilled trade workers who drive our country's economic engines.
Quite frankly, attracting these young people to our labor force is
something I believe is vital to our economic future in this Nation.

But the summer jobs program I have been talking about has another
benefit for our communities. Teens with jobs are less likely to commit
crimes or join gangs. A columnist for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer
wrote a story that caught my eye a few weeks back. It was about a 17-
year-old boy who had been killed in what police believe was a gang-
related shooting. The columnist, Robert Jamieson, interviewed some of
the boy's friends for the piece he wrote. One friend said the boy had
applied for nearly a dozen jobs, but couldn't get anyone to call him
back, so he turned to other means. Tragically, we lost him in a gang-
related shooting.
Tragically, too many of our young people face the same choice between
joining a gang or sticking with a discouraging job search. That story,
I believe, illustrates why a jobs program for young people is one of
the most important investments we can make in all our futures.
I wish to work with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to provide
the opportunities and the resources to ensure that this generation of
workers and the next have the skills employers need so we can compete
in the global economy.
I also believe we can create jobs and stimulate the economy by making
desperately needed investments in our infrastructure, including our
roads, bridges, levees, and mass transit systems across this country.
Investing in our infrastructure would create jobs and increase spending
on construction materials that would immediately infuse millions of
dollars into our economy. Do you know that for every billion dollars of
Federal spending on highways and transit, we create a whopping 47,500
jobs. That is putting people to work. Those investments would pay off
in the long term as well by helping ensure that our roads and bridges
and mass transit systems are safe and they are strong.
Finally, we have to do more to address the housing crisis itself that
has spread across this country. While the economy may be headed toward
recession, the housing market is in a depression. According to the New
York Times, the number of homes set for foreclosure is higher than at
any time since the Great Depression. We are seeing communities in this
country where people are literally abandoning their homes because they
cannot afford their mortgages, and they cannot find a willing buyer. In
this country, home ownership has always been a sign of prosperity, but
now, for millions of Americans, it has become a trap. With each and
every foreclosure, the foundation of every one of our communities
weakens as well.
There were warning signs more than a year ago that this crisis could
affect the entire Nation, but President Bush took a hands-off approach
and ignored the problem. Regulators failed to take aggressive action.
Now economists tell us the worst is yet to come.
Our economic strength depends on Americans having a safe and stable
place to live and raise their families. Our economy will not be stable
again until this housing crisis is corrected. We have to take action to
help prevent more drastic problems, and we have to ensure that this
situation can't happen again. Families facing foreclosure must be able
to get mortgage counseling or help in refinancing their mortgages.
The Finance Committee bill includes as well critical tax relief which
I support for businesses that were directly impacted by the home
building industry, which has, as we all know, now come to a standstill.
We must reform the lending system to prevent more families from losing
their homes. I think we should have two main goals.
First of all, we need to modernize the FHA to enable the Federal
Government to offer an alternative to nontraditional loans we have seen
explode in the past several years. Secondly, we need to ensure that
Government lenders can replace some of the worst subprime loans with
sound, traditional mortgages. I believe those investments will have a
positive ripple effect on the economy for years to come. I guarantee I
will be back on this floor many times over the next several months
pushing this Congress to take action.
The current economic trouble we face is a direct result of this
administration's failure to plan for the future and lead us in the
right direction. Similar to any family who prepares to balance its
checkbook, we have to take stock of our finances and get our books back
in order. American families understand how to live within their means.
When they sit down and work out their yearly budget, they consider all
their costs, decide how to invest in savings, and balance their
checkbooks. The Bush administration inherited a budget surplus, but
they squandered it with policies paid for by borrowing funds from
future generations of Americans.
By waging a war in Iraq and failing to be honest about the true costs
of that war, President Bush has racked up a mountain of debt with no
strategy whatsoever to pay it back. Instead of looking out for the
needs of everyday Americans, he allowed his friends on Wall Street to
take massive paychecks, while allowing predatory lenders to work
unregulated. At the same time, the Bush administration has failed to
invest in our roads, bridges, in health care, in education, in energy
independence, and in our safety here at home. These are things that
help our citizens get to work, stay healthy and safe, and these are
things that keep our economy stable over the long term. The longer we
go without addressing our

[[Page S521]]

crumbling highways, our skyrocketing health care costs or our
dependence on foreign oil, the higher the costs will be when we have no
choice and limited options to fix those problems. We saw that with
Katrina. We saw it with the Minnesota bridge collapse.
Every family knows ignoring the need to spend wisely on things you
depend on and failing to live within your means is a recipe for serious
trouble down the road. So while the economic stimulus we are working on
will do a lot of good in the short term, we have to insist that we deal
with the real causes of our economic problems. It is time to take a
lesson from American families: balance the budget, be honest about the
true costs of this war, and think seriously about how we move forward.
It is time to insist the Federal regulators who are supposed to watch
out for economic trouble actually do their jobs.
It is time to stop ignoring our needs right here at home. President
Bush has shown a willingness to work with Congress on this economic
stimulus package. I hope he continues to see the value in working with
us on the longer term policies that our economy and American families
badly need.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from Iowa is
recognized.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I will speak on the stimulus package.
Before I give a general overview of it, I want to say something about
one of the several mistakes, or oversights, that is in the House bill.
I don't mean to imply that these were known as oversights at the time.
But one stands out so strongly you wonder whether the House is
consistent in its approach to the issue of illegal aliens. I will speak
from the standpoint of my experience with the children's health
insurance bill.
You may be familiar with this phrase: ``Where you stand depends upon
where you sit.'' Nothing better illustrates that point than this debate
and the issue of rebates for illegal immigrants. We are told we must
pass the House bill and that changes are unnecessary. In other words,
somehow you assume the House of Representatives passed the perfect bill
and we ought to rubberstamp it. I disagree. I think the House bill
makes it too easy in several areas, but especially in the area of
illegal immigrants, to get rebate checks. According to Numbers USA, the
House bill could allow as many as 3 million illegal immigrants to
receive rebate checks. The House minority leader's spokesman was quoted
in the press as saying:

There is no language in the measure that would enable
illegal immigrants to receive a tax rebate.

There is no language whatsoever in the House bill that would prevent
an illegal immigrant from receiving one of these tax rebate checks. My
colleagues on the other side of the Rotunda should be quite familiar
with this line of reasoning, because they devoted countless times on
the House floor last fall trying to convince people that because the
SCHIP bill didn't explicitly prevent States from covering children up
to 400 percent of poverty, it must mean States can cover kids up to 400
percent of poverty.
The same folks who want us to believe the House bill is fine said we
hadn't done enough to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving
benefits in SCHIP, even though the SCHIP bill had this very language:

Nothing in this Act allows Federal payment for individuals
who are not legal residents. Titles 11, 19, and 21 of the
Social Security Act provide for the disallowance of Federal
financial participation for erroneous expenditures under
Medicaid and under SCHIP respectively.

That was in our bill that passed last year. It is amazing how the
standard has changed. The same people who said the language I just read
wasn't good enough when we took up the children's health insurance
program are now saying no language whatsoever is fine.
The simple fact is the House bill allows illegal immigrants to get
rebate checks, plain and simple. It is important for us to fix that,
and I believe we will before the bill leaves the Senate. We should not
give rebate checks to people who have come to this country illegally,
and we should give the House of Representatives an opportunity to fix
this huge mistake that is in the bill they sent to us. I cannot imagine
why anyone on the House side would complain about our doing that after
all the uprising we had last fall about the Senate even considering the
language I read--didn't do enough to prevent people here illegally--
meaning illegal immigrants--from getting children's health insurance
program. My recent experience in negotiating with the House on the
issue of illegal immigrants and public benefits taught me that certain
folks seem to care quite a lot about that issue, except somehow it was
an oversight in this tax rebate bill.
I will quote from the debate on the SCHIP bill in the House of
Representatives of October 25 of last year. I will not actually quote
the Members by name. You can find it in the Congressional Record if you
want to know who said it, but it doesn't matter who said it. It was an
overwhelming opinion of people in that body--particularly Republicans.
One Member alleged that the SCHIP bill tried ``to give benefits to
illegal immigrants while we still have Americans unserved.'' He went on
to say, ``that is not right. This is not fair. This is not
democratic.''
Suppose I put ``tax rebates'' in there in place of ``benefits,'' and
paraphrase it this way, with the same quote: ``To give [tax rebates] to
illegal immigrants while we still have Americans unserved. That is not
right. This is not fair. This is not democratic.''
Well, let's go on. If it weren't right there in the SCHIP bill, it is
surely not right here in this tax bill. It is also not fair. We should
not leave some Americans unserved when it comes to rebates, such as
seniors and disabled veterans, as they did in the House of
Representatives, while we are going to let illegal immigrants get
rebate checks.
I want to give you another quote. This is also from the same day,
October 25:

I don't think our constituents want us to vote for a bill
that makes it easier for illegal immigrants to get tax-paid
health care.

That is the SCHIP bill.

I think this bill does that.

So if that were the case, then I would think that Member of the House
would not want to make it easier for illegal immigrants to get tax-paid
rebate checks.
Finally, here is a quote from September 25, 1 month before that, in
debate on the SCHIP program in the other body, from a Member who used
to chair one of the committees of jurisdiction over there:

What that means is that they want illegal residents of the
United States of America to get these benefits. This is what
the objection means. So for that reason alone, I would ask
that we vote against this bill.

``For that reason alone,'' he said--regardless of what else is good
about the bill, including the language the Senate put in, which was
meant not to give the SCHIP program money to illegal aliens. It still
wasn't enough. Yet now that tax rebate bill comes over from that very
same body and would let illegal immigrants get rebate checks.
So I say, for that reason alone, it is a reason for this body to defy
people in that body who said we should not have changed the Senate bill
one iota. To my colleagues on the House side, the shoe is now on the
other foot. The same principle that applied then should apply now. If
you felt strongly enough to stop the SCHIP bill over your concerns
about illegal immigrants receiving public benefits, then you certainly
should not object to the Senate repairing a bill you sent us that would
allow illegal immigrants to get a rebate check. You cared about it
then; you should care about it now. You said it wasn't right then.
Well, it is not right now. You said it wasn't fair then. Well, it is
not fair now. The Senate will fix it. It was a mistake that the Senate
will fix.

Let's get back to some history about the purpose of the Senate. For
anybody to think a bill would come over here from the other body
without fair consideration by this body, I have used this example
before, and I don't know whether George Washington actually said this,
but it has been in the history books so long that it is fact as far as
I am concerned. He was trying to demonstrate to people then about the
new Constitution and the purpose of the House and the Senate. He had a
cup of coffee on a saucer. The cup with the coffee in it was the House
and the saucer was the Senate. The hot coffee in the cup was a piece of
legislation, I assume. So what he did to explain the

[[Page S522]]

difference between the House and Senate is say this is the House of
Representatives writing a bill. Then he poured out the hot coffee into
the saucer. I don't know whether we do it anymore or not--I don't do
it, but I have seen it demonstrated that you can pour it out to cool so
you don't burn your tongue. He explained that the Senate's role was to
give deep consideration, to let the pressure that comes upon a body
that is elected for a 2-year period of time--a body that might be more
responsible to the transient will of the majority, that that transient
will of the majority needed to have a body to kind of rethink things,
maybe verify that what the House did was absolutely right, or maybe
verify that everything they did was absolutely wrong, or that a few
changes might be made. And then, after that, the Senate passes the bill
and it goes on its merry way to the President of the United States.
But I believe that people I have heard from lately, including, I
guess, even our own President of the United States, have said that
somehow the Senate ought to automatically take what the House did and
forget all about the historical purpose of the Senate, and be on our
way, with these mistakes in it--that a person who is illegally in this
country could get a rebate check, when I doubt, if we are taking the
needs of all of the people, that can help us revitalize this economy,
through rebate checks and through enhanced investment.
Madam President, I also came to the floor to discuss this bill
generally. I will start by thanking Chairman Baucus for his courtesy,
hard work, and patience in this legislative effort. As we have in the
past, we wanted to process the economic stimulus issue through the
committee. That process started shortly after this session of Congress
opened. We talked substance and process. We had discussions with the
administration, especially Secretary Paulson. We had discussions with
our leaders. We had two private meetings and took input from our
committee members. We had two hearings on an economic stimulus.
Our goal in the Finance Committee was a bipartisan economic stimulus
package. We both wanted a bipartisan economic stimulus package that
responded to the needs of Americans and business and would provide a
much needed boost for the economy. During this same period, the
President sent a strong message that Congress must act, and Congress
ought to act quickly to design a fiscal stimulus package aimed at
boosting the economy. The President said such a plan would provide a
``shot in the arm'' to keep the economy healthy.
Last week, the bipartisan, bicameral congressional leadership met
with the President. At that meeting, the Senate leaders more or less
yielded the legislative process and the substance of this important
question to the House and the Senate. In other words, Senate leaders
agreed that whatever package the House leadership and White House
agreed on would be treated as a fait accompli in the Senate. The Senate
leadership's sudden shift in direction caught Chairman Baucus and me by
surprise and, as I noted above, we had already engaged in the committee
process for several weeks.
We were fully engaged on a member and staff level. Many of our
members and staff brought to the table the experience from three
stimulus bills earlier this decade.
I respect the role of leaders here. My guess is Chairman Baucus and
two-thirds of the committee members who supported the bill yesterday
also respect the role of our leaders. Many in the leadership on my side
of the aisle worried about the problem that might arise if the Senate
had no role other than to rubberstamp the House bill. They are rightly
concerned about the Senate processing a bill, dragging it out, and
loading up the bill. Certainly, that is a reasonable concern.
Certainly, that is something we find happening often in the Senate. But
is that concern in itself so great that the Senate should abdicate all
of its legislative responsibility? Is that concern so great that the
Finance Committee members should have no say over legislation falling
within its jurisdiction?
In my almost quarter century of service on the Finance Committee, I
am not aware of any precedent such as this. I am also not aware of any
precedent on the House side. At the end of last session, some in the
House side might have complained about the outcome of legislation
favoring the Senate position. I am not, however, aware of a situation
where House leaders on either side virtually ceded their role in
legislating on a tax bill this important. As I said, I respect the
concerns of leaders about timing.
It comes down to this: The leaders' concerns with timing might weigh
against the question of the quality of the House bill. In other words,
is a ``take it or leave it'' House bill which passes quickly better
than a Senate bill which allows the Senate to work its will?
I have laid out the leaders' concern about timing. Now we question
the adequacy of the House bill. That is the other side of the balance
we need to strike. I know other members on both sides have asked
themselves the same questions, including Chairman Baucus. Chairman
Baucus makes the ultimate call. Even if I had decided the importance of
quick action outweighed the benefits of going through the committee
process, the chairman would have made the ultimate call to go ahead.
That was the call the chairman made back in 2002, and it was the call
he made this time.
In 2002, I disagreed on the substance, and we had a party line
markup, but the committee did process the stimulus bill. So to anyone
on my side who says my opposition would have stopped the chairman from
going forward, check the history books. It did not stop the committee
in 2002, and it will not stop it now.
The same outcome occurred in 2003, when I was chairman of the
committee and Senator Baucus was the ranking member. We went forward in
2003. This time we were able to proceed in a bipartisan manner, and
what did the committee process yield? Let's examine this side of the
question. Asked another way: Did the committee process improve the
House bill with Senate amendments?
One thing I heard loudly and clearly from Republicans was concerns
about suffocating income limits. The chairman heard me out and agreed
to eliminate them. Unfortunately, the support from the Republican side
of the aisle did not line up with the principle I heard from them that
they wanted included in the bill as a correction to the House bill.
On the chairman's side of the aisle, meaning the Democratic side of
the aisle, there was great controversy over taking those limits off. We
heard the uncapped proposal over and over defined as something
specifically benefiting Bill and Melinda Gates.
To those on the left, let me tell you there must be a lot of Bill and
Melinda Gateses out there. The reason I say that is $12 billion of
rebate checks is involved in going back to the House income caps. With
the amount of checks capped, it means there are millions of families,
not a few millionaires, who are being affected.
As I said, those facts did not move many on my side away from the
House bill that contains those caps, so I revisited the issue with the
chairman. The caps are back, but at a much higher level. They begin to
phase out at $150,000 for single taxpayers and $300,000 for married
taxpayers.
So we include a few more middle-income people. That is double the
House income limits, helping more middle-income people.
It is safe to say the higher income limits will aid a lot of
alternative minimum tax-paying families we hear about. From my
perspective, this is a big improvement over the House bill. So if you
support the Finance Committee bill, you are recognizing the burden
these taxpayers' families bear through the AMT. I don't want to hear
any more demagoguery about Bill and Melinda Gates getting checks
because there is not going to be any more billionaires getting checks,
no millionaires getting checks, no ``half millionaires'' getting
checks. But a lot of upper middle-income families who will not get a
check under the House bill will get a check under the Finance Committee
amendments.
Most on my side would consider these higher income caps an
improvement of the House bill. I particularly credit Senators Crapo and
Kyl for bringing up this point in our Finance Committee meetings.

[[Page S523]]

Some on the other side, especially those from high-income, high-tax
blue States, will quietly support this change as well but not echo it
because they don't want to face the chagrin of Members who think that
nobody on the Democratic side ought to be concerned about anybody who
has a little higher income.
At the other end of the income scale are 20 million low-income
seniors. I underscore that point, 20 million low-income seniors. The
House bill leaves them out entirely. The chairman's mark in the Senate
corrects that situation.
In the House bill, you will not find seniors with Social Security
income covered in this bill. You will find them covered in the Senate
bill.
Since we do not have the bill text yet--I am holding up the
chairman's mark--we made this happen by including Social Security
benefits as a qualifying income in the chairman's mark, and here is
what that mark says on page 3:

All eligible individuals are entitled . . . if they satisfy
at least two of the following criteria: The sum of an
individual's: earned income . . . and (2) Social Security
benefits must be at least $3,000.

That language is not in the House bill. Because that language is not
in the House bill, 20 million seniors would not have gotten checks--if
that House bill had been rubberstamped by the Senate.
During our committee process, many members discussed this defect in
the House bill. As a result of careful Finance Committee member
deliberations, we were able to improve the House bill.

Many disabled veterans do not get checks under the House bill. Here
again, the House bill does not cover disabled veterans. Under the
Senate bill, disabled veterans will be covered.
On page 2, the Finance Committee document says these words:

The provision modifies the chairman's mark to expand the
rebate benefit to disabled veterans.

During careful Finance Committee deliberations, Senators Lincoln and
Snowe filed an amendment to ensure that disabled veterans would be
covered. The chairman incorporated that amendment into his modified
mark. Does anyone think this is an inappropriate improvement in the
House bill? I ask that of those who insist we rubberstamp this House
bill, if they do not have guts enough to tell Chuck Grassley that be
included, at least in their own mind, I hope they know they are wrong
by not including the disabled veterans by saying we ought to
rubberstamp the House bill. So the House bill, which some are insisting
cannot be improved by the Finance Committee, excludes 20 million
seniors and disabled veterans.
The House bill could also send checks to illegal aliens. That is
right. As I said before, I spent a great deal of time on this point,
for those who maybe missed the beginning. The House bill, which some
are saying is the best bill we can get and ought to be rubberstamped in
the Senate, is going to allow illegal aliens to get checks before we
take care of all the people.
Do my colleagues understand the House of Representatives passed a
bill to give rebate checks to stimulate the economy, making it possible
for illegal aliens to get checks but not 20 million seniors and
disabled people in this country who are here legally?
I wish to be specific on the modifications in the chairman's mark,
and here is again the document to which I am referring. On page 2, this
is what the document says:

The provision denies the basic credit and the qualifying
child credit to individuals if they do not include on their
tax return a valid taxpayer identification number for: (1)
themselves (and if they are married, their spouse) and (2)
any children for whom the qualifying child tax credit is
claimed. For these purposes, a valid taxpayer identification
number is defined as a Social Security number.

Continuing the quote:

If an individual fails to provide a correct taxpayer
identification number, such omission will be treated as a
mathematical or clerical error. As under present law, the
Internal Revenue Service may summarily assess additional tax
dues as a result of a mathematical or clerical error without
sending the taxpayer a notice of deficiency and giving the
taxpayer an opportunity to petition the Tax Court. Where the
IRS uses the summary assessment procedure for mathematical
and clerical errors, the taxpayer must be given an
explanation of the asserted error and given 60 days to
request that the IRS abate the assessment.

This provision uses current IRS verification techniques. It ensures
that the taxpayer getting the check is identified by the tax system.
During Finance Committee deliberations, Senator Ensign and his staff
raised this important issue. Senator Ensign filed an amendment that was
addressed in the modified chairman's mark.
The House bill has no such provision. Again--I am not going to keep
holding up these bills--we have the House bill without this provision;
the Senate bill with that provision. There is no language in the House
bill to address a problem Senator Ensign properly raised in the
committee. The committee bill improves the House bill by making sure
illegal aliens do not get a check.
The Finance Committee amendment also beefs up the business stimulus
package by adding additional years to the current law net operating
loss carryback rules. The Finance Committee bill adds extension of
unemployment insurance benefits. I know this was a big sticking point
in the negotiations between the House and the White House. In this
respect, I favor the House bill. My personal preference would be to
eliminate this provision. It, however, was a key issue for all the
Democrats. So in compromise--and we do not get anything done in the
Senate if we do not have some compromise; nothing is strictly
Democratic or strictly Republican, nothing can pass here except under a
process of reconciliation. So in compromise, the chairman has it worked
out, and it was essential that it be worked out.
I pushed hard for investment energy incentives, and the chairman
agreed with me in that respect. So the last piece of this compromise is
an expansion of investment incentives to seamlessly extend investment
incentives for wind, biomass, and other renewable energy projects. In
committee, these provisions caught some criticism, and I expect we will
hear more of the same during this debate. I will respond in detail when
those criticisms are given.
I compliment committee members on finding a bipartisan middle ground.
The committee stimulus package raises the caps on rebate checks,
expanding the benefits to more middle-class Americans, Social Security
recipients, and disabled veterans. It makes sure illegal immigrants do
not get checks. It also expands some of the business relief, and it
addresses unemployment. The energy investment incentives round out the
package.
I ask Members to go back to the basic question of balancing quick
action on a House bill--and that House bill being imperfect as I
pointed out in this debate--versus improvements that were made by the
Finance Committee. The House bill could be passed quickly without
improvement or we could finish the process in the Senate and add
improvements made by the Finance Committee. I would challenge anyone to
argue that none of the improvements made by the committee process are
important enough to finish the job in the Senate. I hope nobody comes
over and tells us that, for instance, it is OK to give rebate checks to
people who are here illegally.

Having made that point, Madam President, we could prove our leaders
right if we load up the bill in the Senate. So we ought to keep our eye
on the ball and not load it up because we want to get a stimulus
package passed. We don't want that to sink. Christmas is over, so let's
not make this the traditional Christmas tree that sometimes legislation
becomes.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from Wisconsin is
recognized.
Mr. KOHL. Madam President, today our country is facing difficult
economic times. Economic growth is slowing, consumers have maxed out
their credit cards and are cutting back on spending, and the value of
the dollar continues falling while prices for gas and food rise. Daily
we hear news about growing problems in the mortgage industry, forcing
our neighbors into foreclosure. In my State of Wisconsin, foreclosures
are up 27 percent from this time last year, and it will get worse as
more subprime mortgages adjust to

[[Page S524]]

unaffordable higher interest rates. Working families around the country
are facing stagnant wages while prices rise, and their most important
investment--their home--is losing value.
In response to this bleak picture, the House and Senate have been
able to move quickly in a bipartisan way to try to head off a growing
economic storm. It is a rare moment these days when Senators set aside
their individual priorities and agree on legislation for the greater
good. But that is what has happened with the economic stimulus package
that we are currently considering. This package strikes a balance
between rebates, business needs, and immediate relief, and I am proud
to support the bill before us today.
The centerpiece of this legislation is a rebate of $500 per
individual and $1,000 per couple, with an additional $300 rebate per
child. This will provide effective and efficient relief for families
while jump-starting our economy.
We need to get this money into the hands of people who will spend it,
so I applaud the Finance Committee decision to include income caps.
Income caps ensure that recipients of the rebate--low- and middle-
income working families--will put the money back into the economy.
Finally, as the chairman of the Special Committee on Aging, I want to
voice my strong support for the extension of rebates to low- and
moderate-income seniors. The House-passed legislation would leave out
nearly 20 million elderly people from receiving the rebate, even though
they are facing the same rising prices as everyone else. Seniors living
on fixed incomes deserve to share in this rebate after paying taxes for
all their working lives.
However, this package is not perfect. I was disappointed to see
additional funding for food stamps was not included. As chairman of the
appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over food stamps, the
hunger and nutrition programs are something I take very seriously. The
strain this economy imposes on lower income Americans is abundantly
clear to me. Before we even understood we were headed toward economic
crisis, we increased WIC funding by some $600 million over the
President's request simply to feed the people already in the program.
And now that the crisis has become clear, how can we stand by and not
do more?
I hope the Senate will soon act to add an additional $5 billion in
food stamp funding. With the downturn in the economy, we all know even
more people will need a helping hand to put food on their family's
table. We should increase funding for food stamps this year because we
know there are families in dire need. And we should boost food stamps
because we know spending will stimulate our economy. Every dollar spent
on food stamps generates $1.73 in economic activity, and it happens
quickly. Eighty percent of all benefits are used within 2 weeks of
being sent out, and 97 percent are redeemed by the end of the month.
And we don't have to create a new mechanism to deliver this stimulus.
Adding food provisions to this package just makes sense.
I am pleased the Senate has come together quickly to move this
important package. We cannot delay, and we should not let this bill get
bogged down. We need to pass it soon so hard-working Americans get the
helping hand they deserve when they need it most.
Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. SNOWE. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, first of all, I thank the chairman of the
Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, and our ranking member, Senator
Grassley, for their combined tireless leadership in advancing a very
critical piece of legislation, the stimulus bill that has been passed
by the Finance Committee and will be considered by the Senate shortly.
I thank them for spearheading such an important initiative in a very
timely fashion. It is an issue of critical consequence to the Nation.
We know there is a decline in our economy. We are seeing the economic
indicators, which I will speak to shortly. There is no doubt that
across the board it is absolutely vital that we enact as quickly as
possible a stimulus package to begin to address the erosion we have
identified and that we have seen in our economy.
Again, I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking
member for working so quickly to address many of the issues raised on
this very comprehensive piece of legislation, understanding that some
of the issues that have been raised--even since the time in which the
House of Representatives had voted upon their package, they also
incorporated many provisions that I think are more targeted and will
strengthen the bill that passed in the House of Representatives and the
bill that had been negotiated between the House and the President.
I do think it is important for the Senate to have the opportunity to
have its input on this bill that is going to be so vital to America and
to our constituents and to make sure it is as precise and calibrated as
possible in order to rejuvenate the economy and, hopefully, to
galvanize some of the economic dimensions of our economy that have
taken a turn for the worse.
It is imperative that we act in a timely fashion. I think changing
the package and incorporating those issues that are also essential to
build upon the strengths of the legislation that passed in the House of
Representatives are not mutually exclusive. We cannot afford to stand
idly by as the economy continues to erode. That is why I think there is
a collective conclusion that we have to develop a package that can be
supported in both the House and Senate and will be signed by the
President.
The Finance Committee held a number of hearings recently on the
question as to whether to even have a stimulus package. I know there is
debate on both sides of the political aisle and among economists as to
whether it is essential. But the fact is, more than half of the
economists surveyed in this country believe there is a recession that
is imminent. So, obviously, we have a responsibility to take every
possible step and every possible measure that can avert or at least
mitigate the impact and the brunt of any recession.
Dr. Martin Feldstein, former chair of the Council of Economic
Advisors for President Reagan, expressed his support for a stimulus
plan. Last week, before the Senate Finance Committee, he said:

Because of current credit market conditions, there is a
risk that interest rate cuts will not be as effective in
stimulating the economy as they were in the past. That is why
a stimulus measure deserves our attention.

It certainly deserves our attention and our informed decisions, in
terms of what exactly should be considered in a stimulus package. No
doubt, time is of the essence--we all agree on that--in passing a
viable and effective piece of legislation. But our obligation, as well,
is to be deliberative on one of the issues that is of great consequence
to this country.
We have to develop the best possible package, building upon the
strength of the House measure, and it must be targeted to those who
need the support; and we need to rebuild the economy and, hopefully,
avert any potential recession. We have to strike the right balance
because, obviously, that will be central to averting a recession,
avoiding it, as we face a confluence of historic and unprecedented
economic indicators that are profoundly troubling.
We can anticipate more than $600 billion in resets in the adjustable
rate market in the spring, which is, of course, on top of all the
resets that have occurred recently. We are experiencing a housing
crisis. Recently, the Commerce Department indicated that the drop in
home prices is at the lowest since they began keeping records in 1963.
Likewise, the price of oil per barrel has now skyrocketed and spiked
recently to $100 per barrel. Gasoline is approximately $3 at the pump,
and we can anticipate, according to a report even of today, that it may
go as high as $3.50 per gallon. The number of long-term unemployed
today is nearly twice the rate of the unemployed immediately prior to
the recession of 2001 and 2002, when we extended unemployment benefits.
So we have seen the

[[Page S525]]

long-term unemployment rate jump significantly.
We have had an unemployment rate that surged most recently, in the
short term, from 4.7 percent to 5 percent in 1 month alone. Obviously,
we don't know what to anticipate in future months. That is why it is so
critical to have the stimulus package in place.
Most troubling is what the Commerce Department indicated yesterday:
that a growth in the gross domestic product has slowed to .6 percent in
the fourth quarter of last year, for an annualized rate of more than
2.2 percent for 2007. That happens to be the slowest annual rate of
growth in 5 years. So there is no question that we must use the fiscal
tools at our disposal to mitigate the impact of a slowing economy and,
hopefully, avoid any potential recession.
One of the economists who appeared before the committee--Dr. Jason
Furman of the Brookings Institution--echoed as much when he said that
``a well-designed fiscal stimulus in the form of increased government
spending or tax reductions, has the potential to help cushion the
economic blow.''
So the package agreed to yesterday in the Finance Committee, in my
view, meets this challenge and achieves those goals. It is well-
balanced, effective, and it will stimulate the economy through some key
provisions that I think are essential, in terms of addressing the
problems we are facing. One is the refundable tax rebate, of course;
that is, to spur the buying power of all Americans across the board,
but most especially low-income and senior consumers, which is
important.
The House-passed package doesn't include a benefit for senior
citizens. It doesn't include the more than 20 million seniors on fixed
incomes. They would not benefit from the stimulus package enacted in
the House of Representatives. It doesn't include an extension of
unemployment benefits which, again, I might add, economists have
identified as one of the surest ways to impact the economy. You will
have the most affect on spending almost immediately--in fact, some
economists have said within 2 months, as opposed to the rebate, by the
time it passes the Congress and is signed by the President, but also
because of the length of time it takes to distribute it. Even under the
most efficient means possible, we will not feel the effect of it until
the spring or later midyear. So then it would take a while to really be
absorbed into the economy so that an extension of unemployment benefits
would become essential and pivotal. In fact, the Congressional Budget
Office said it has the greatest amount of cost-effectiveness and the
least amount of lag time before it is felt in the economy, it has the
maximum amount of impact on the overall economy in terms of its
effectiveness, and it has the most certainty about the impact it will
have on the economy to spur economic spending.

Finally, we have an extension of the energy tax incentives. People
say we should not have the energy tax incentives in this legislation.
Yet it is interesting to note that it would create more than 100,000
jobs, by industry estimates, by the end of the year--100,000 jobs. The
whole goal and focus of this legislation is to create more jobs, and if
we know definitively there are provisions that will create more jobs
immediately because of pending projects, then doesn't it make sense to
include them in this legislation? It will spur economic activity or
spur consumption, and it will reduce our dependency on imported oil.
Investment incentives for small businesses will also be included in
this legislation to work in conjunction with other initiatives through
job creation by providing for expensing for small businesses so they
can write off more of their capital investments or be able to use the
extended carryback of operating losses and extending that period from 2
to 5 years so they can reach back further. They have their choice of
incentives, whatever works for a company. They may be in a struggling
situation, and they can write off their losses of current years against
their profits of past years. It makes sense to put these provisions and
incentives in one single package that will help to spur the economy.
In addition, of course, is the bonus depreciation as well--another
dimension of economic investment that can make a difference in serving
as a catalyst in our economy.
Finally, in this legislation, we include a provision that was omitted
in the House of Representatives package, and that is one that would
make sure our disabled veterans benefit from the stimulus package,
benefit from the rebates.
I thank my colleague, Senator Lincoln, for initiating this amendment.
I joined her in that effort in the Finance Committee because we thought
that was a major omission, to exclude more than 250,000 of our Nation's
service disabled veterans because their compensation is not taxable. We
wanted to make sure they should be able to participate in the stimulus
plan. Our disabled veterans deserve to be part of the rebate plan, and
this package makes sure that happens. I appreciate my colleagues on the
committee who supported this pivotal provision.
This legislation casts a wide economic net, and that makes it more
equitable, especially to the most vulnerable among us in America. It
doesn't merely represent sound economics to propel this stimulus, but
it is also in greater alignment with Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke,
who said that a fiscal stimulus package should be implemented quickly
and structured so that its effects on aggregate spending are felt as
much as possible in the next 12 months or so. The measure we will be
considering and debating does affect the aggregate. It does ensure that
its impact is felt as much as possible, and it does so on a more
accelerated timetable.
The tax rebate incorporated in this legislation is obviously central,
and the refundability makes it all the more effective. That is why I
was a strong advocate in ensuring that refundability was part of the
stimulus package, that it certainly had to be included to make sure the
low-income and middle-income Americans and households would have the
ability to have the benefits of any rebate because it would also make a
difference in stimulating our economy because two-thirds of consumer
spending is really what drives our economy. It is the economic engine.
We depend on consumer spending to drive our economy. So the
refundability portion is very important because it will make sure those
people who benefit from this rebate are ones who also need this rebate.
They need it to pay for the necessities of daily life, given spiraling
costs in terms of oil, food, and gasoline. We want to make sure we can
mitigate the impact of this declining economy and the rising costs in
their households.
When we had various witnesses before the committee, we talked about
the effectiveness of the refundable tax rebate. In fact, the Hamilton
Project, which was conducted by economists at Brookings Institution,
noted that a one-time tax rebate equal to 1 percent of the GDP, which
is about $140 billion in today's economy, and directed at households
likely to spend money would boost the level of GDP by 1 percent or more
for two consecutive quarters, increasing the annualized GDP growth rate
by about 4 percent in the first quarter of the effect.
So if the aim of this bill is to arm American consumers with
additional money to stimulate consumer spending, it is integral that
this benefit is extended to the 20 million working families and the 20
million seniors who were omitted from the House bill who are more
likely to spend the money that will be included in the stimulus
package.
The package which is before the Senate which was enacted by the
Finance Committee will be absolutely vital to low-income Americans and
to seniors who otherwise would not have benefited from the package
which was enacted in the House. So, again, the Senate Finance Committee
package builds upon the provisions that were incorporated in the House
legislation and are strengthened in the package that was marked up in
the Senate yesterday.
I think it is absolutely critical that we make sure no one is left
behind when it comes to benefiting from this rebate that is directed at
low-income and middle-income households because they are the ones who
are most likely to spend this rebate because of the driving costs of,
as I said, oil and food and the daily necessities of life.

I also think it is important to extend the unemployment benefits, as
I said

[[Page S526]]

earlier. The fact remains that the unemployment rate for the long term
is twice as high as it was in the recession in 2002. We included
extension of unemployment benefits. After all, if the purpose of this
package is to put in place the fiscal tools to make sure we can do
everything within our power to avert a potential recession, then we
have to make sure these tools are absolutely in place to make sure we
can avoid a potential decline in our economy that leads to a recession.
In my home State alone, the case for an extension is undeniable. As
the State department of labor reported, the announced layoffs for
February and March are up an unconscionable 75 percent over the layoffs
that occurred in December and January. Unemployment is increasing,
certainly in my State. We have seen it reflected in the recent numbers.
We have no way of knowing the extent to which it will get worse, but we
do know by all accounts and certainly by the economic indicators, by
the general consensus of economists, that a recession is a potential,
that it could potentially be imminent in the short term. So all the
more important to put in place a provision to extend unemployment
benefits because it will have the maximum effect in our economy to
impact direct spending. Also, I think it is important that it will
stimulate the economy. In fact, Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy said that
every dollar spent now on unemployment will result in an infusion in
the economy of more than $1.64 cents.
So the beneficiaries of this extension certainly will be those who
have been unemployed for the long term, who have seen their benefits
expire. If they have already exhausted their 26 weeks of benefits, they
will have an additional 13 weeks. For those high-unemployment States,
which is triggered at 6 percent or more, they will then get an
additional 13 weeks of benefits. It would provide an immediate infusion
of cash through a very reliable mechanism that is already in place to
the people who very likely will spend that money on consumer goods.
The fact is that long-term unemployment is twice as high today as it
was in 2001 and the 2002 recession at a time when oil was only $25 a
barrel, and today we have seen it is almost $100 a barrel. We cannot
afford to ignore this potentially dire situation which this long-term
unemployment rate poses. That is why I think it is absolutely important
that we do everything we can to ensure that a stimulus package includes
the extension of unemployment benefits.
I also am pleased that we have energy tax incentives, as I said
earlier, as well. Energy production tax credits will be extended in the
first quarter of this year. By all industry estimates, it is indicated
that we could create more than 100,000 jobs. I know in my own State of
Maine, with some of the investments that have already been made in wind
power, for example, there is more than $1.5 billion worth of projects
that are pending, that are waiting for this energy tax credit.
We know that in the final analysis, we are going to enact an energy
tax credit that will cultivate the renewable sources of energy we need
to generate in this country so we can reduce our dependency on foreign
oil. What better way to do it than through tax credits. We know they
have worked, and we know that later this year we will be considering
these energy tax credits to extend them. So why not extend them now if
we are certain it is going to create jobs? As I said, by industry
accounts, the experts have estimated that more than 100,000 jobs will
be created as a result of these tax credits.
So it is unquestionable in terms of the benefits economically, it is
unquestionable in terms of the benefits to our energy security and our
independence, which is inextricably linked to economic security and
progress. I do not think anybody in this Chamber can believe that
lessening our dependence on oil and lowering its price per barrel,
which these approaches will facilitate, will not prove to be an
immediate boon to our economy. So these incentives are necessary, in my
opinion, because they also address the root causes of our current
downturn.
I hope, in the final analysis, when we get to the question of a
stimulus package, we will also include financing for low-income fuel
assistance.
Two years ago, I advanced a billion-dollar initiative in increasing
financing for low-income fuel assistance. At that time, heating oil was
$2.44 a gallon. Today, our families, households are paying an
inconceivable, incomprehensible increase of $3.45 a gallon--nearly
$3,000 just to get through a winter. The average resident in the State
of Maine uses about 850 gallons to 1,000 gallons, so that cost is near
$3,000. The eligibility income for low-income fuel assistance is
approximately $13,000. It takes more than a quarter of their income to
pay for heating their home--more than a quarter of their income, of the
$13,000. It is absolutely inconceivable that any family could live on
$13,000 and pay more than a quarter of their income toward home heating
oil that continues to rise as we speak when we are talking $3.45 a
gallon.
It is only right we fund this indispensable program. We have provided
some increases. It is clear we need to do more, and what better way to
stimulate the economy and to ensure households have the benefit of an
increase in low-income fuel assistance than providing it as part of the
stimulus package, particularly at the time of crisis for households in
the cold weather regions of this country. I know there will be an
amendment offered at the time we are considering the stimulus package.
Finally, I wish to mention as ranking member of the Small Business
Committee that there are two vital provisions, as I said earlier,
regarding small business expensing and the extending of the carryback
period of operating losses from 2 to 5 years. They are critically
important initiatives because they certainly will be a great catalyst
for the generation of jobs in America. Small businesses are the key to
job creation in this country, key to our economy. They are responsible
for creating two-thirds of all new jobs in America. They represent 99
percent of all of our employers. They represent half of the employees
in this country, so they are pivotal to the success or failure of our
economy. The more we can invest in small business, the more we will see
the benefits in terms of job creation. That is indisputable by any
measurement, by any account; that they are able to create the kind of
jobs directly that benefit our economy, benefit the people we
represent, and they can make that investment quickly.

That is certainly true when it comes to expensing, where they will be
able to write off up to $250,000 in this initiative, where they will be
able to use bonus depreciation, for example, and other important
investments for capital incentives, and also as well for the carryback
period, in extending and reaching back to 5 years. Any one of these
initiatives or in combination is going to be absolutely vital to
helping generate new jobs in our economy and helping to mitigate the
downturn in our economy.
The gravity and the urgency of our economic situation cannot be
overstated, and it unquestionably requires swift and decisive action.
So I hope at the time we consider this stimulus package, there will be
strong support for the initiative that passed the Senate Finance
Committee.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I understand the leaders may well be
coming to the floor here in the next few minutes, and certainly when
they arrive I will defer to them for the business about which I know
they will want to inform the Senate.

____________________