[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 19 (Wednesday, February 6, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S715-S725]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page S715]]
 RECOVERY REBATES AND ECONOMIC STIMULUS FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ACT OF 
                                  2008

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 5140, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 5140) to provide economic stimulus through 
     recovery rebates to individuals, incentives for business 
     investment, and an increase in conforming and FHA loan 
     limits.

  Pending:

       Reid Amendment No. 3983, of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 3984 (to amendment No. 3983), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance, with 
     instructions to report back forthwith, with Reid amendment 
     No. 3985.
       Reid amendment No. 3986 (to the instructions of the Reid 
     motion to commit), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 3987 (to amendment No. 3986), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, could the Chair explain the unanimous 
consent order under which we are operating?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 45 minutes, evenly divided, to be 
followed by 30 minutes, evenly divided and controlled by the two 
leaders prior to a cloture vote.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be allotted 
10 minutes to discuss the fiscal stimulus package.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object, I understand that the 
Senator's time will be charged to the Republican side.
  Mr. COBURN. Absolutely.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, we have heard a lot in the press, and we 
have certainly heard a lot from our own Finance Committee, and we have 
seen what the House passed in terms of the stimulus package.
  I think, once again, in our hurry to address a problem, we have not 
asked: Are we fixing the right problem, the problem in connection with 
the House leadership passing a bill that will spend $150 billion. One 
of the first questions we ought to ask is, Where is that money coming 
from, the $150 billion? Nobody can dispute the fact that we are going 
to borrow that from our grandchildren; we are going to go to the 
markets and borrow the money to stimulate our economy. Nobody will 
dispute the fact that there is very little payback into the Treasury, 
in terms of tax collections, from this stimulus plan.
  The facts as they are, we had an overheated housing boom. We can deny 
economic reality, but until we mark the market--the overinflated cost 
that has extended credit in our country--and recognize that is going to 
have to be paid for, we are not going to walk out of this slowdown we 
appear to be facing. The reality is that the model is the Japanese 
banking industry: When they refused to recognize the losses, what it 
did was impact their economy for 10 years. So the realities are that 
there has to be an economic price when we have an economic excess. Our 
job should be to make that as easy on our economy as we can, thinking 
about the future of our economy.
  Now, all the options that have been presented, when scored in the 
long term, have very little beneficial effect for the economy other 
than the psychology we are putting through. The reason it is important 
to discuss alternatives is because there is a way, which is proven in 
economics, proven in capitalistic societies, in free market societies, 
where you can generate stimulus and revenue back to the Government so 
that, in fact, you solve the right problem, the real problem, and you 
don't bankrupt your children further, which is what we are going to do 
whether we pass the House bill or the Senate bill. We are going to 
steal $150 billion or $190 billion from our grandchildren. I think we 
ought to think twice about that. Do we really, as senior citizens, want 
to steal $600, to $800, to $1,200 from our grandchildren for us today? 
Do we want to do that? Is there another way in which we can stimulate 
our economy without stealing from our kids and ultimately putting the 
money back in so that our children don't have to pay for this stimulus 
package? There is. There are a lot of economic theories and experience 
in this country that prove that.
  So let's talk some about what we should be doing that we are not. 
Instead, we are pandering to people, thinking they are going to get 
$600 or $800, and we don't have any idea other than to think a third of 
that money might have a stimulus effect, but it will have a negative 
effect in terms of what our kids have to pay back.
  One thing we can do is create certainty about economic 
decisionmaking. We can extend the Bush tax cuts. We can extend them so 
people will continue to make positive decisions based on a tax rate 
they know is there rather than one they know is going to go away in 2 
years, which will limit their investment.
  Second, we can lower corporate tax rates. We now have the second 
highest corporate tax rates in the world. That hasn't been part of any 
discussion. We know that when we lower corporate tax rates, we see 
increased investment, which increases the tax revenues for the country, 
and we also see economic growth. So there is a positive there, but it 
is not complete. There is a cost associated with that, but at least 
there is some feedback. But we have not considered that.
  We have not reduced the capital gains tax rate on corporations--the 
people who invest great sums of money on the basis of the fact that if 
there is a capital gain, if we were to lower that, they might invest 
more or they might recognize the gain they have today, consequently, 
even generating taxes. We can index capital gains for inflation. That 
creates a stable investment environment whereby business decisions will 
invest in capital, create jobs, which create salaries, which create 
income, which create tax revenue.

  We can markedly advance--much more so than we have done in this 
bill--depreciation schedules if we want to have an impact. We could go 
to full expensing for capital equipment forever. We don't have to stop 
it now. What that would do is create investment in capital goods in 
this country, which would create jobs, which would raise wages, which 
would create incomes, which would create tax revenues for the country.
  There are other things we can do besides just send money out the 
door. We can establish a repatriation window for corporate taxes 
overseas. The best way to not ever have to deal with this again is to 
have a corporate tax rate equivalent to what is going on in the rest of 
the world--have one at 25 percent instead of 35 percent so that we, in 
fact, are competitive worldwide, so that corporations don't refuse to 
bring income they have earned overseas back to this country because we 
have an excessive tax on it, so they decide not to do that.
  Finally, what we can do is make the Small Business Administration 
work. Seven years ago, the impact of Government regulation on small 
business was less than $4,000. It is $7,400 per employee. That is the 
impact of the Federal Government. That is not the taxes you pay, that 
is the impact of the regulations in terms of the cost impounded onto 
small business by the Federal Government.
  I will end with talking about the budget that was just submitted by 
the administration. We are going to spend probably $150 billion or $190 
billion, and we are not going to pay for it. We are not going to reduce 
any of the wasteful spending, including the inappropriate payments in 
Medicare, and there is another $40 billion in fraud. Medicaid has $30 
billion worth of fraud and another $7 billion in improper payments. 
Food stamps has $6 billion worth of improper payments, not counting the 
fraud.
  There is nothing associated with fixing what is wrong with the 
Government so that the American people get value from it. We are going 
to throw money at a problem rather than secure the future for our 
children and grandchildren. We can do better. We ought to do better. We 
should not say we are just going to throw money at the problem.
  Let's make long-term structural changes in the Tax Code that raise 
the opportunity for our children rather than lower it by putting debt 
on their shoulders. Let's make the long-term changes and tough choices 
of eliminating programs that aren't working

[[Page S716]]

effectively, or let's refine programs that are wasteful, not efficient, 
and loaded with fraud. Let's eliminate the wasteful programs that 
account for $150 billion of money spent each year. Let's get rid of the 
$30 billion in waste at the Pentagon. Let's get rid of the $3 billion 
we spend every year maintaining buildings the Pentagon doesn't want. We 
don't have a way to get rid of them, but we don't have the courage to 
change the law.
  There are all kinds of ways to save a couple hundred billion dollars 
a year, but it means you have to ruffle some feathers. It is time we do 
that and do the hard work, rather than the easy work.
  Thank you for the opportunity to speak in terms of what I think is a 
long-term way to resolve this economic trough we appear to be facing. I 
am not confident we are going to do it the right way. I think we are 
going to do it the politically expedient way, which helps people get 
reelected but doesn't fix the real problem. To me, to my regret, that 
is a sad misnomer for this body.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, the book of Leviticus teaches: ``Rise in 
the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly, and revere your 
God.''
  Today, the Senate can show respect for America's elderly. Today, the 
Senate can extend needed stimulus checks to 20 million seniors whom the 
House left behind.
  America's seniors have earned the right to get stimulus checks, every 
bit as much as other Americans. They worked hard all their lives. They 
paid a lifetime of taxes. They contribute to the economy.
  And seniors can use the money. And because they can use the money, 
seniors are excellent targets for economic stimulus checks. Because 
they can use the money, they will spend it quickly.
  Americans over age 65 spend 92 percent of their incomes. Households 
headed by a person over age 75 spend 98 percent. That is higher than 
any other group over the age of 25. And that means that a check sent to 
a senior will have a greater bang for the buck in terms of helping the 
economy.
  The Finance Committee amendment would help 20 million seniors who 
were left out of the House bill. The Finance Committee amendment would 
provide seniors with rebate checks of $500. The underlying House bill 
would not help those 20 million seniors.
  And the Finance Committee amendment would also provide rebate checks 
for 250,000 disabled veterans who receive at least $3,000 in nontaxable 
disability compensation. The Finance Committee amendment would make 
them eligible to receive the same $500 rebate as wage earners and 
Social Security recipients. The Veterans Administration would 
distribute the rebate. The House bill would not provide rebate checks 
to disabled veterans who don't pay taxes.
  And the Finance Committee amendment would provide an additional 13 
weeks of unemployment insurance. And high unemployment states would 
qualify for an extra 13 weeks. The House bill does not provide an 
extension of unemployment insurance.
  Almost a million more Americans are unemployed today than were a year 
ago. And 69,000 additional unemployed workers filed claims for 
unemployment insurance just last week.
  CBO found unemployment insurance to have a big bang-for-the-buck. It 
acts quickly to boost the economy.
  I heard my friend from Oklahoma. Frankly, all of the big ideas and 
great ideas are ideas we cannot address at this point. We have to act 
now, immediately. The President wants us to act now with the stimulus 
package. The House wants us to act now. We in the Senate have to act 
now; that is, we have to get some rebate checks out to the American 
people so they can spend those checks, those dollars, and prime the 
economy.
  The Chairman of the Federal Reserve System has done his part by 
lowering interest rates to help keep our economy from going into 
recession, to help keep our economy from falling into high unemployment 
rates, because we are facing a time of slow growth, primarily due to 
the problems in the housing markets, the subprime problems, which 
cascade into securitized loans and which, frankly, were peddled in a 
way that caused a lot of investors in our country to not know, frankly, 
what they were investing in.
  The Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, Mr. Bernanke, also wants 
this package now. He knows what he is talking about because he is, 
after all, probably the best economist in this country at the moment. 
The Chairman of the Federal Reserve System is saying that, in addition 
to lowering rates, we should have the stimulus package passed.
  We on the Senate Finance Committee did improve upon the House-passed 
bill. We decided not to replace it but improve upon it, so that any 
changes we make can be easily folded into the House-passed bill, and 
get the final product on the President's desk very quickly. Nobody 
wants to hold up the stimulus checks or hold up stimulating the 
economy. So I am quite confident we will get this resolved quickly, 
with improvements.
  The research organization economy.com found that each dollar spent on 
extended unemployment insurance benefits generates $1.64 in increased 
economic activity.
  Don't forget, we passed a bipartisan stimulus bill after 9/11, and 
that contained an extension of unemployment insurance. The President 
signed that bill. We should do the same now.
  Further, we are adding a provision--it sounds technical, but it is 
simple--that would extend the carryback period for net operating losses 
for companies from 2 years to 5 years. Very simply, the bonus 
depreciation and expensing provisions help companies that make a 
profit--many companies during this low economic growth time are not 
making money--it seems fair they be included in the stimulus package, 
and that is why it is very important that provision be enacted.
  This provision will help the housing industry, especially 
homebuilders, from going belly up. There were a lot of loans made that 
should not have been made. The more we can show to the American people 
that we are thinking about them, that we are trying to add a stimulus 
to the Nation's economy, the better, including showing to the housing 
industry that by making a change in the tax laws they can carry back 
current losses to earlier profitable years so they can make payrolls 
and not have to go belly up.
  I might add, we also in the Senate Finance Committee package--the 
House does not do this--tighten up provisions that make it extremely 
difficult for illegal aliens to get these rebate checks. That is very 
important. It is not in the House bill. We have that provision in the 
Senate bill.
  Finally, this is clearly the right thing to do. It is clearly right 
that 20 million seniors and about 250,000 disabled veterans be included 
in the rebate check program. We do that in our bill. There are some 
other provisions, but that is the core of what we are doing here.
  Clearly, the House will accept these changes, there is no doubt about 
that. The President can sign it, and we can get this rebate program up 
and going. We can get it passed very quickly.
  I yield to the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, for 6 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I rise to outline my reasons for 
supporting the Senate Finance Committee stimulus package.
  I have reviewed various proposals carefully. Clearly, the House-
passed package is simply unacceptable. I predict that the House would 
not pass that bill again now that its flaws have been revealed. By 
denying rebates to Social Security recipients and veterans, yet giving 
it to illegal immigrants, the House has produced something most 
Americans would reject.
  I understand that in the rush to produce the package, the House may 
not have completely vetted each and every provision. So when I say it 
is simply unacceptable, I believe the way I have outlined what probably 
happened is true. They did a terrific job in a short period of time. It 
is just that the product, unfortunately, had to go somewhere else, it 
had to come here, and in coming here the good staff and others had to 
look at it in its entirety again, and they found what I described and 
the chairman of the full committee described.

[[Page S717]]

  I say to the chairman of the full committee, I am not on this 
committee, but I follow it, and I know what is in the final package.
  Yesterday, the Institute for Supply Management reported that business 
activity in the nonmanufacturing sector of our economy contracted. That 
is the part of the economy that has been holding everything together. 
It had not been contracting; now it has. The level of that key 
indicator is now at its lowest level since 2001. Right after the 
terrorist attacks of September 11, the stock market dropped 370 points 
and investors continued to move into ultrasafe areas, such as 
Government bonds.
  Last week and earlier this week, we had more information about a 
devastated housing industry and the announcement of bankruptcy of a 
major home building firm. Last Friday, the Government reported that the 
Nation suffered a decline in job creation for the first time in 4 
years.
  In short, we clearly face the possibility of a recession. Worse, this 
recession may dovetail with the present near freeze in credit markets. 
And when that happens, none of us knows how these two things may 
interact and what it may bring to us.
  A prudent person would do as the House has done and has been proposed 
by the Senate and pass a stimulus package that will get money into the 
economy as soon as possible and will target particular sectors 
especially hard hit.
  The question isn't whether we should have a stimulus package. The 
question is, which do we prefer? The first thing to look at is the 
cost. The Senate Finance Committee package, as amended, will cost $158 
billion. The House-passed package was $146 billion. In a $14 trillion 
economy, a difference of $12 billion is insignificant, almost a 
rounding error in an economy clearly the size we have. Both packages 
cost about the same.
  Second, it seems to this Senator that speed is the important 
ingredient. Therefore, if we invoke cloture on the Senate Finance 
Committee package before us, we can move quickly and move toward a 
Senate-passed package.
  Third, I believe the Senate Finance Committee bill spreads the 
rebates, including veterans and Social Security recipients, and making 
sure no illegal immigrants receive the rebates.

  Fourth, the committee recommendations will give a strong boost to 
housing and home building through its net operating loss provisions. We 
cannot ignore the weight that the collapsing housing market and home 
building sector have had on our economy and loss of jobs.
  It used to be common knowledge that you would not have a robust 
American economy without a robust home building sector accompanying it. 
That may still be true. We have had a robust housing economy until now.
  Finally, I believe the passing of the energy tax provisions in this 
Senate Finance Committee proposal as soon as possible is important. We 
can pass the provisions by invoking cloture, not waiting until later in 
the year to try to pass them on a different vehicle.
  I have concluded that I will support cloture on the Senate Finance 
Committee proposal, recognizing that a conference with the House is 
likely and that both Chambers will be able to fine-tune the ultimate 
package and get it quickly to the President. I hope that is the case. 
The House had its turn. We will now have our turn. Then there will be a 
conference which will have to be called in any event, but they will now 
be operating under the gun, meaning getting something done quickly or 
they will lose all credibility.
  I am hopeful I have chosen the right path. I know it is a difficult 
one for many who think I should do otherwise. I respect all of them, 
but I made my decision on what is best for New Mexico and what is best 
for America as I see it.
  I thank the chairman for yielding me time. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I commend and thank the Senator from New 
Mexico. He is making a courageous decision. More often than not, when 
somebody makes a courageous decision, it clearly is the right thing to 
do. It is easy to not make the courageous decision. Sometimes it is 
hard to make a courageous decision. He is making a courageous decision. 
I thank him and I know the people of New Mexico are proud of him for 
standing up and doing what he is doing.
  The Senator from Arizona seeks recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, first, let me say that one of the points 
made by my dear friend from New Mexico is backward. We need to deal 
with this issue in a speedy fashion. There is one point that unites 
everybody with regard to this stimulus package: If it is not done 
quickly, its stimulative effect diminishes effectively, and there is a 
point at which it will not have the stimulative effect people would 
like. Therefore, speed is of the essence.
  One of the points about the Finance Committee package is, of course, 
if it were to pass, we would have to go to a conference committee 
between the House and the Senate which would obviously delay this 
process. I don't know how long it will take to get to conference or how 
long a conference committee will take, but it could be a lengthy 
process taking us beyond the February recess which means that, clearly, 
we will be talking about weeks to get this bill to the President.
  Were we, on the other hand, to follow Leader McConnell's advice and 
reject the Senate Finance Committee package and move to a modified 
version of the House-passed bill, we could get that to the House which 
could pass it, send it on to the President, and be done with it. That 
can all happen, frankly, by the end of this week.
  In terms of the issue of speed, it would behoove us to reject what 
has been called the Christmas tree package out of the Senate Finance 
Committee which substantially raises costs, spends more money, is much 
more complicated than it would be to take up the House-passed bill 
which can be done more quickly.
  I don't mean to be pejorative when I talk about a Christmas tree, but 
that is pundits talk about a bill that starts out relatively small, but 
because Members have favorite adds to make to it, which is another 
favorite pundit phrase, things we like to add to the bill, we end up 
with a bill that started out small but ends up looking like a tree with 
a lot of ornaments on it.
  Remember when Speaker Pelosi and Leader Boehner and the President 
struck the agreement they did that passed the House with 38 negative 
votes, there was a recognition this needed to be done quickly and 
cleanly.
  There were just three working parts to this legislation. Members of 
the House had a lot of other great ideas. There are a lot of other 
items they would have wanted to put on it, but their leaders convinced 
them to get bipartisan support. It was very important to keep the 
package trimmed down to the point where Secretary Paulson believed it 
would actually benefit the economy and not add extraneous spending and 
elements.
  What happened when the bill came to the Senate Finance Committee on 
which I sit? I haven't added it up, but some have said there is $40 
billion in additional costs, in additional spending, and I will talk 
for a moment about some of that spending. Those who are concerned about 
adding to the deficit need to be concerned about the additional cost of 
this bill. Some of that spending has to do with some tax credits for 
various kinds of businesses that have no stimulative effect whatsoever 
and are being done to either please certain legislators or to find a 
vehicle for something.
  For example, there is something like $100 million that is owed to 
some coal companies in the United States. They have not been able to 
find a legislative vehicle to get the money appropriated so they can be 
paid their $100 million. So this was thought to be perhaps the right 
kind of vehicle to do it on.
  Apparently they are owed $100 million and we need to send it to the 
coal companies, but that has nothing to do with stimulating the 
economy. It is payment for a past debt for a court case. But one of the 
Members wanted it in this bill and, as a result, it got put in the 
bill. That is not a stimulus package for the American people.
  Then there was a group of tax breaks. What are some of the tax breaks 
for businesses? One is a tax break so we can build more efficient 
homes. One of our problems in our economy is we have a glut of housing 
on the market right now. So we are going to make a tax break so folks 
can build more

[[Page S718]]

homes to put on the market to add to those that already exist, as well 
as commercial buildings.
  There has been a lot of talk about the rich getting too much in this 
package. One of the tax breaks is to remove the income limit for people 
who can now, under the Finance Committee bill, take a tax break for 
investments they have made in marginal oil and gas wells. Maybe that is 
a good idea. I don't know. But it clearly has no place on a stimulus 
package.
  My point is that the Finance Committee did a variety of things which 
Members wanted done. They may or may not represent good policy, but 
they have nothing to do with the stimulus and simply add costs to this 
bill. Remember, this is all borrowed money. So it takes us further into 
a deficit situation.
  One of our colleagues on the committee pointed out that these energy 
tax breaks actually are part of a larger bill, which I support, called 
the extenders package and, indeed, that is true. What is the extenders 
package? The extenders package is a package of legislation that each 
year we pass without question to ensure that various kinds of tax 
provisions remain in the Tax Code, such as the research and development 
tax credit and a variety of provisions such as that. I asked for 
unanimous consent to offer that in committee and it was rejected. We do 
know, however, for a certainty, that is going to pass this Congress. So 
these energy provisions, even to the extent people want them, are going 
to become law, but they don't have to be put in the stimulus package to 
drag it down.

  The other big expense added in the Finance Committee was the 
extension of unemployment. The Secretary of the Treasury and other 
people in the administration will tell you, in their view, this 
stimulus package could add anywhere from a half percent to three-
quarters of a percent of growth to the GDP, if it is done very quickly 
and very cleanly. However, adding the unemployment extension, $30 
billion or so to it, would eliminate the effect of a stimulus that 
otherwise would be provided. So the irony is that by adding the 
unemployment compensation extension provision here, we actually remove 
whatever stimulative effect there is in the bill, and we are right back 
to a bill that ends up, as I said, looking like a Christmas tree.
  Right now, unemployment nationwide is 4.7 percent. We have never 
extended unemployment benefits when unemployment was at that low a 
level. It has always been in the neighborhood of 6 percent or above, 
maybe a little below that, that has caused us to extend unemployment 
benefits. So there may well come a time, if we can't get the economy 
moving in the way we want it to, that there would continue to be stress 
in the employment sector and people might actually begin losing more 
jobs, in which case we might have to extend it. But the best way to 
prevent that from happening is to do sensible policy in the meantime to 
try to obviate that situation. And the Secretary of the Treasury and 
the President and the House of Representatives clearly believe the best 
way to do that would be to pass the stimulus package that doesn't have 
this additional $30 billion in unemployment extension added to it.
  The final point I wish to make is that there is some concern that 
there are politically popular things in the Finance Committee package 
and it is hard to vote against those politically popular things. I 
think the Senator from Montana made a good point a moment ago in 
reference to a different matter, that when you do something as a matter 
of conscience, and it is hard to do, usually it represents good policy. 
This is a case where the House of Representatives was willing, on a 
bipartisan basis, under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and Leader 
Boehner, to put together a package, with the administration, in the 
kind of bipartisanship our constituents would like to have us engage in 
more often, in order to pass a bill quickly, that could be sent to the 
President quickly, and they did that even though I am sure many of them 
were tempted to add all kinds of other politically popular things to 
it. Now the attention turns to the Senate, and are we acquitting 
ourselves as well? I daresay not, if this Christmas tree package from 
the Finance Committee is adopted on the Senate floor. Instead, our 
constituents will look at us as the folks who slowed it down; we added 
a bunch of spending to it.
  The American people are already skeptical that getting a $500 or $700 
rebate check is going to help stimulate the economy. But clearly they 
are going to look at the additional spending, the increased hit to the 
deficit, and wonder whether we were simply acting in a political way 
rather than in a way best for the country.
  So my view is we would be far better served to do what is the best 
policy, and that is to reject the Senate Finance Committee package as 
too much, more than the traffic can bear in this case, and to go back 
to the version of the House of Representatives, which would be modified 
ever so slightly, to send it back to the House to immediately pass it 
and on to the President and get this done.
  My personal view is the kind of spending that is involved in the 
Finance Committee package will actually act to the detriment, not to 
the benefit, of stimulating the economy, and that is why it should be 
rejected.
  In a few moments, we are going to have a chance to vote on this, and 
I hope my colleagues will vote no on the motion for cloture to bring up 
the Finance Committee-passed package of the stimulus bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I have a number of Senators seeking 
recognition.
  I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas, Ms. Lincoln; 2 
minutes to the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown; 2 minutes to the Senator 
from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan; and 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, a special thanks to the chairman for 
all his hard work.
  As we look across this great Nation, we all understand our economy 
needs some help, and that is why the Senate Finance Committee quickly 
took up the economic stimulus package which the House and the 
administration had put out there. I have to give an incredible 
compliment to our chairman and ranking member, Chairman Baucus and 
Senator Grassley, who went about this in such a thoughtful way, making 
sure there was no pride of authorship but recognizing what we had to do 
was to improve on this bill, to improve on what the House had done in 
such a hurried fashion, in order to be sure we didn't leave people out. 
This is very thoughtful with respect to the economy and the long-term 
debt issues out there, to keep a package that was small and reasonable, 
yet was comprehensive for the task that it had.
  The package Speaker Pelosi and President Bush put together was a good 
start, but, unfortunately, there were some very important changes that 
needed to be made, and most notably some very hard-working and 
deserving Americans were disqualified from the stimulus rebate under 
their proposal: our seniors living on Social Security income and our 
disabled veterans. Why in the world would we want to leave behind this 
group of such important Americans--fabrics of our American family, 
people whose backs this country was built on and protected by--20 
million seniors and at least a quarter of a million veterans who we 
know should qualify? The fact that there are disabled veterans who 
might qualify for that rebate is certainly reason enough to make sure 
we go back and get it right. I have no idea why the other side would 
not want to do that.

  This is not the only thing we intend to do to stimulate the economy, 
but it is the jolt we need. The Senator from Oklahoma was worried it 
was the only thing. No. No one thinks this is the only thing we are 
going to do. We are going to follow with a farm bill, which will put an 
immediate stimulus into our rural areas. We will be looking at the 
energy tax package and a host of others--No Child Left Behind, which 
has been underfunded a tremendous amount.
  The Senate Finance Committee took action quickly to address the 
inequities of the Pelosi-Bush package, and I am glad they did. The 
chairman and

[[Page S719]]

ranking member did an excellent job, and I hope my colleagues will 
recognize we have a one-time shot at making sure the Americans 
understand what it is we are doing: stimulating and jolting the economy 
and making it fair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I appreciate the words of the Senator from 
Arkansas. They are good words.
  We have an opportunity to both jump-start our economy and solve the 
problems staring us right in the face. It is the difference between 
investing in our Nation's economy and investing wisely in our Nation's 
economy. Of course, we should invest wisely.
  We have an opportunity to put money into the pockets of almost every 
American or just some Americans. We can exclude retirees, we can 
exclude disabled veterans, or we can include them. Obviously, we should 
include them.
  The Reid amendment incorporated in the Finance Committee proposal 
sends rebates to the homes of 21 million senior citizens, 250,000 
disabled veterans, and thousands of unemployed who don't get a dime in 
the House bill.
  Now, some decided they wanted to label this bill a Christmas tree. It 
is always what you do if you don't like the provisions in something. 
Anyone who thinks it is Christmas morning in these households is sadly 
mistaken.
  The Reid amendment is inclusive and sends money to individuals who 
will spend it. In a stimulus package, you stimulate the economy, and in 
times of recession you help those who have been hardest hit by the 
recession. It is smart and it is right.
  The Finance Committee package provides extended unemployment benefits 
for those who are looking for jobs in a sluggish economy. Thousands of 
Ohioans lost their jobs not because they wanted to, but they have lost 
their jobs and they are looking for some help as they try to return to 
the workforce. Economists have confirmed that is the most potent 
strategy for stimulating the economy. You put money into the economy to 
stimulate the economy, you particularly put money into the pockets of 
those who will spend it--disabled veterans, senior citizens, and 
unemployed workers who need extended benefits. It makes sense and it is 
the right thing to do.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are required from time to time to make 
tough votes in the Senate, but this isn't one of them. This is not a 
tough vote. The question is, Shall we try to stimulate the economy? The 
answer, clearly, is yes. I think most people feel we should do that.
  So then, if we are going to give a rebate, some kind of rebate to 
people who should get the rebate, perhaps we should think of it in 
terms of a family sitting around a supper table and they are talking 
about who is going to get this rebate. So somebody says: Well, you know 
what, let's make sure grandpa and grandma don't get it. Let's not give 
grandpa and grandma a rebate. They don't need to be in it. And by the 
way, Uncle Carl is unemployed. He doesn't need it. He ought not get a 
rebate. Or Cousin Ralph, he is a disabled veteran. He is not going to 
need a rebate.
  Do you think any family sitting around a supper table would make 
those choices; that they are going to throw grandpa and grandma off the 
train and the disabled veteran who served this country and put his life 
on the line?
  So here is the deal. We are told by some: Well, you know, they 
haven't earned income, so, therefore, they are not going to qualify for 
this rebate. Oh, really? You haven't earned your Social Security check? 
Seems to me that is a lifetime of earning. You didn't earn your 
disability payment? You earned it by putting your life on the line for 
this country.
  So let's include the 20 million people who are senior citizens, many 
of whom live near poverty trying to stretch their reasonable income--in 
many cases a very small income--through the month to pay for both food 
and medicine. Let's include senior citizens, let's include veterans who 
are being paid veterans disability, who otherwise would not be 
included.
  And let's do what we have always done during economic downturns: 
Let's extend unemployment benefits. That is the economic stabilizer we 
have always used. Let's do the right thing and vote for the finance 
bill and move it into conference. Let's do that now.
  This is not a tough vote. We know what the right thing is.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, for 8 years, I served as the chief 
prosecutor for Minnesota's largest county, and we had something we said 
when we were working on white-collar cases. We said: Follow the money. 
Follow the money. Is it going where it is needed? That is what I ask 
today. I would say with the Senate finance package it is.
  I hope that as Congress works on this package, we will work to 
redirect the money to new priorities for America. At the same time, the 
urgent need for America to get our economy moving forward again is deep 
and it is long. I saw it last month, when I was touring around our 
State, visiting 47 counties, visiting solar panel factories down in 
southern Minnesota, up at a turkey processing plant, and I can tell you 
people want to move forward with this economy, but they feel our 
Government has not been supporting them. That is why we put together 
the Senate stimulus package, which is targeted, which is temporary, and 
which is going to be timely.
  I know we are all going to get this done, but I believe it is very 
important we not neglect the seniors, 600,000 seniors in Minnesota. I 
have always believed this is a country where we wrap our arms around 
the people who have been there for us--our seniors and disabled 
veterans. When these guys signed up for war, there wasn't a waiting 
line. Why would we put them at the end of the line when we are looking 
at these rebate checks?
  So I believe it is important we move forward with the Senate finance 
package, which does some very good things, as the Presiding Officer 
knows, for the State of Colorado, to promote energy--renewable energy, 
and wind and solar--and I wish to move forward with it. But I believe 
that long after these rebate checks are cashed, we are going to have to 
change it for the long term. This means rolling back those tax cuts for 
the wealthiest people, making over $200,000 a year, investing in our 
infrastructure, and moving this country in the right direction.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, let us remember that the stimulus 
package we are considering is a plan agreed to by the Democratic 
Speaker of the House, the Republican leader of the House, the President 
of the United States, and about 400 Members of the House. It is one 
that is timely, targeted, and temporary which will help people keep 
more of their own money and help small businesses to have more money to 
create jobs.
  What began as a package to stimulate the economy in the House of 
Representatives has become an excuse for spending money in the Senate. 
That is why I hope we will reject the Senate Finance Committee 
proposal. It is too expensive, spends too much money, and it doesn't 
stimulate. The goal should be to move quickly, to show the American 
people we can act in a bipartisan way and get a good result that is to 
their benefit. The Finance Committee proposal does not do that.
  I spoke with Senator McConnell, who suggests we simply amend the 
House bill by adding the seniors and the disabled veterans and send it 
back, send it to the President, and show the American people we can 
move promptly to give a boost to the economy.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Reid and Senator Baucus 
for their leadership in getting stimulus legislation to the floor so 
quickly. It is not a moment too soon. In recent weeks, the many warning 
signs of a troubled economy have turned into loud alarm bells that we 
cannot ignore.
  Last week's worrisome GDP figures show that economic growth has 
ground to a near halt. Savings are plummeting. Debt is rising. The Fed 
has cut short-term interest rates more rapidly

[[Page S720]]

than at any time in its history. For the first time in years, we are 
losing more jobs than we are producing. It is clear that we are facing 
an economic crisis that will present enormous challenges in the months 
and years ahead.
  This crisis will affect every man, woman, and child in our country, 
but it will be particularly hard on the millions of families who are 
already struggling who are having trouble finding work, heating their 
homes, and paying the mortgage. For these families, a recession isn't 
just part of the business cycle--it's a life-altering event from which 
they may never recover.
  Already far too many families are on the brink. Unemployment has 
skyrocketed more than 7.6 million Americans are looking for work but 
can't find a job. Foreclosures are rising 200,000 families each month 
are at risk of losing their homes. Bankruptcies soared by 40 percent 
last year, and experts predict they will rise even faster in 2008.
  Our actions today are vital for the entire economy, but they are most 
critical for these struggling families. Our decisions will help 
determine whether they keep their homes, whether their teenagers stay 
in college, and whether their children go to bed hungry.
  The current recession is a major turning point for our country. We 
have to choose a path out of this crisis, and the path we choose will 
determine the kind of America we will be for years to come. Do we 
choose to help some, or do we choose to help all? Do we choose a path 
of shared prosperity, or a path that leaves countless hardworking 
families behind?
  These are questions of basic fairness, and the American people 
understand fairness. They don't want to see their friends and neighbors 
who are struggling get left behind. They want us to do what is right 
for all.
  Today we have the opportunity to take a few basic steps forward to 
demonstrate our commitment to a fair economy.
  First, we have to tackle unemployment. It is clear that no matter 
what we do to boost economic activity, we will continue to have a 
significant unemployment problem for at least the next 2 years. Goldman 
Sachs predicts that the national unemployment rate will rise to 6.5 
percent by the end of 2009. Many States around the country are already 
struggling with high unemployment. Michigan's unemployment rate is 7.6 
percent. South Carolina's is 6.6 percent. Ohio just hit the 6 percent 
mark as well.
  Workers who lose their jobs are having much more trouble finding work 
now than before the last recession. Today, 18 percent of workers have 
been looking for a job for more than 26 weeks, compared to only 11 
percent in 2001. This problem is affecting workers across the economic 
spectrum even those with college educations and years of experience 
can't find work. There are nearly two unemployed workers for every job 
opening across the country.
  Because it is becoming much harder to find a job, many more families 
are finding that our unemployment insurance system doesn't provide 
enough support. Across the country, 37 percent of workers are running 
out of benefits before finding a job, and more will follow as the 
recession deepens. Mr. President, 2.6 million people ran out of 
benefits in the year ending in October of 2007 that is far more than 
before the last recession.
  These shocking numbers represent real hardship for millions of 
hardworking people across the country. It is all too easy for a job 
loss to turn into a financial crisis, and many families never fully 
recover. In the last recession we saw the real impact of unemployment 
on working families parents cutting back on spending for their 
children, or even pulling older children out of college to cut back on 
expenses. We saw teenagers who should be in school forced to take jobs 
to help support their families.
  To prevent this downward spiral, we must act immediately to shore up 
the safety net for families struggling to find work. These workers have 
paid into the system for years. It is wrong to abandon them when they 
need our help the most.
  The Senate bill is a major step forward. By extending unemployment 
benefits for up to 13 weeks, and providing as much as 13 additional 
weeks of benefits in high-unemployment States, we provide an immediate 
boost for our economy. And, at the same time, we help working families 
weather the storm.

  Economists agree that extending unemployment benefits is a powerful, 
cost-effective way to stimulate the economy. Every dollar invested in 
benefits to out-of-work Americans leads to a $1.64 increase in growth. 
That compares with only pennies on the dollar for cuts in income tax 
rates or cuts in taxes on investments.
  I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in supporting an 
extension of unemployment insurance benefits. It's an essential 
solution that will jumpstart our economy and help families in crisis 
get back on track.
  Unfortunately, jobless families are not the only ones facing tough 
times. Millions of families today are facing a ``perfect storm'' of 
high costs and low wages. Every bill that comes in the mail just adds 
to the flood, until everyone ends up completely overwhelmed.
  Working families are being swamped by the extraordinary increase in 
the cost of living. On President Bush's watch, the price of gas is up 
73 percent. Health insurance costs are up 38 percent. College tuition 
costs are up 43 percent. Housing costs are up 39 percent. Yet in the 
face of these skyrocketing costs, employees' wages have been virtually 
stagnant, rising only 5 percent. Family budgets can no longer make ends 
meet, and families across the country are feeling the painful squeeze.
  In the face of these economic pressures, workers are struggling to 
keep their families warm. The winter has been bitterly cold in many 
parts of the country, and the cost of heating oil is rising so rapidly 
that it is impossible to keep up. Since last year alone, the price of a 
gallon of heating oil has increased by more than 40 percent. A typical 
household may have to spend $3,000 or more on heating oil this winter.
  Our Senate HELP Committee held a field hearing on fuel assistance in 
Boston last month. One of our witnesses was Margaret Gilliam, a senior 
citizen taking care of her grandchildren in Dorchester. She has already 
spent $4,000 on heating oil this winter, which is nearly as much as she 
spent all last year, and there are still 6 or more weeks of winter to 
go.
  She told us that she tries to make each Social Security check stretch 
by asking her fuel company to deliver just 50 gallons at a time, 
because she can't afford to pay to fill her tank. Most often, heating 
oil companies will not deliver less than 100 gallons.
  Even for those fortunate enough to have fuel assistance under LIHEAP, 
the benefits will cover less than a third of these costs. Most 
households won't get any help at all--of the 35 million households 
eligible for fuel assistance nationwide, fewer than 6 million receive 
these benefits.
  The high cost of basic essentials forces families to make impossible 
choices between paying for fuel, paying for groceries, paying for 
health care, or paying their mortgage. If parents choose to keep their 
children warm and fed, they risk losing their home. The lack of even a 
small amount of assistance--just an extra 100 or 200 gallons of fuel 
oil--can mean the difference between security and homelessness.
  There are simple steps we can take to end this ``perfect storm.'' One 
of the most important is the provision in the Senate bill providing 
additional home heating assistance for families struggling to stay warm 
this winter. Mr. President, $1 billion in additional LIHEAP funding 
will help 2.8 million families pay their heating costs and make it 
through the winter. Helping families meet this basic need is also one 
of the quickest ways to jumpstart the economy. An increase in LIHEAP 
benefits takes as little as 2 weeks to get to the pockets of working 
families.
  This year, we provided a significant increase for LIHEAP. But it is 
far from enough and we still have a long way to go to get to the 
program's authorized level of $5.1 billion.
  It has been said that some people know the price of everything but 
the value of nothing. How else can you explain the administration's 
latest budget request which cuts the program by 22 percent?
  LIHEAP represents a tiny fraction of 1 percent of the entire Federal 
budget.

[[Page S721]]

Yet it does so much for those most in need.
  Programs like LIHEAP are the best economic stimulus money can buy. 
But even if they werem not, we would still have an obligation to 
support them--simply because it is the right thing to do.
  Finally, there is widespread agreement that we need to put money into 
workers' pockets to encourage consumer spending that will boost our 
declining economy. The Senate bill includes a tax rebate to do just 
that.
  In order to create an effective stimulus, any tax cut must be 
designed to give the money to those who are most likely to spend it 
immediately--middle and low income families who are strapped for cash 
because of these dramatically higher costs.
  These families are the ones who need the help the most, and the 
dollars they receive from a one-time tax cut will be quickly spent. The 
money will be used to buy things they need but currently cannot afford. 
In contrast, wealthier taxpayers already have the money to purchase 
what they need. A tax rebate for them is much more likely to be 
deposited in their saving accounts than spent. Unless the tax cut is 
spent, there will be no increase in economic activity generated.
  That is precisely what the rebate proposal in the Senate bill will 
do--provide direct assistance to the millions of working families who 
are feeling the squeeze of this economic downturn the most. They work 
the hardest, and they deserve our help. They are also the ones who will 
spend the money most quickly, for necessities they otherwise couldn't 
afford.
  The Senate package also includes needed relief for seniors and 
disabled veterans. Both of these populations live on fixed incomes. 
Rising prices means a choice between buying food or needed medication. 
These Americans have sacrificed so much and worked so hard to build up 
our country, and they deserve our best efforts to help them weather the 
storm.
  In all of these respects, the Senate bill makes major improvements 
over the measure passed in the House of Representatives. It is fairer, 
and it produces a greater stimulus effect by paying low and moderate 
income workers the same size tax rebate that more affluent taxpayers 
would receive. It also extends the tax rebate to include 20 million 
retirees struggling to make ends meet. The Senate bill will provide 14 
billion more dollars in tax cuts to households with incomes below 
$40,000. That is the best way to get the American economy moving again.
  There is no question that every family in America is struggling in 
today's economy, and that they face difficult times ahead. But today we 
have a choice about how to move forward. Do we do what it easy, or do 
we do what is right? Do we go part way or do we do what it takes to add 
dignity to the lives of all of America's working families?
  I hope that each and every one of my colleagues will listen to their 
conscience, do the right thing, and support the kind of stimulus that 
will help all Americans achieve better days ahead.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, first I would like to thank Senate Finance 
Committee Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley for their prompt 
action in developing this economic stimulus package. Last week, the 
House passed an economic stimulus package. Although it was not perfect, 
it did provide us with a solid foundation from which to build a 
comprehensive bill in the Senate. I believe the Finance Committee 
proposal that is before us today makes a number of crucial improvements 
to the House version. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote to 
invoke cloture on the Finance Committee economic stimulus package.
  The Finance Committee package was designed in a bipartisan manner to 
improve upon the House bill, not to add ``pet projects'' or so-called 
``goodies.'' Our goal is not to delay the passage of an economic 
stimulus bill, but to provide a package that will provide a genuine 
stimulus that is targeted to Americans who need our help the most. 
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Senate 
package would not delay, but accelerate the delivery of a stimulus.
  The Finance Committee makes improvements in the following areas: 
structure of the rebate; business tax incentives; housing; unemployment 
insurance; and funding for LIHEAP. Low-income families should not 
receive a smaller rebate just because they do not have taxable income. 
These families need our help and economists that testified before the 
Committee have pointed out the potential for this investment to truly 
aid in kick-starting the economy. The Finance Committee will provide a 
$500 rebate to all eligible singles and $1,000 to married couples.
  The Senate Finance rebate is structured in a manner which will allow 
senior citizens receiving Social Security benefits without taxable 
income to be eligible for the rebate. Senior citizens are facing the 
same increases in food and energy prices as are other Americans and 
cannot be left out of the package. Many seniors in Massachusetts live 
on fixed incomes. They struggle to pay their medical and heating bills.
  Unfortunately, 20 million seniors were left out of the tax rebate in 
the House-passed stimulus bill. When we are contemplating distributing 
stimulus checks broadly across most American families, it would just be 
wrong not to include 20 million seniors of the Greatest Generation.
  Not only does the House passed economic bill exclude seniors from 
rebates, it excludes 250,000 disabled veterans who do not file a tax 
return. There is no valid reason to leave out those who were wounded 
while serving their country.
  As Chairman of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 
I am pleased this economic stimulus plan includes two tax provisions 
which Senator Snowe, who serves as the ranking member of the Committee, 
and I believe will help small businesses. The first provision doubles 
the amount of business purchases that a small business can write-off 
from $125,000 to $250,000 for 2008. This will provide an incentive for 
small businesses to purchase more equipment and expand their business.
  The second provision expands the carryback period for net operating 
losses, NOLs, from 2 to 5 years. This targeted provision will help 
businesses address losses. By allowing NOLs to be carried back for a 
longer period of time, business owners will be able to balance out net 
losses over years when the business has a net operating gain, helping 
small businesses with their cash flow. Any action we take to foster 
their growth benefits our economy as a whole.

  At the Real Estate Roundtable earlier last week, Treasury Secretary 
Paulson said, ``the U.S. economy is undergoing a significant housing 
correction. That, combined with high energy prices and capital market 
turmoil caused economic growth to slow rather markedly at the end of 
2007, as reflected in the gross domestic product numbers.'' The GDP 
fell from 4.9 percent in the third quarter of 2007 to only 0.6 percent 
in the last quarter.
  A strong economic stimulus package needs to address the root of the 
problem--the housing crisis. The unexpected losses on subprime 
mortgages and the breadth of the exposure has created uncertainty in 
the economy. Homeowners facing higher interest rates on the subprime 
adjustable-rate mortgages, ARMs, and lower housing prices are having 
trouble refinancing. Approximately 1.7 million subprime ARMs worth $367 
billion are expected to reset during 2008 and 2009.
  Owning your own home is the foundation of the American dream. Home 
ownership encourages personal responsibility, provides financial 
security, and gives families a stake in their neighborhoods. According 
to the Mortgage Bankers Association's National Delinquency Survey, 
there were roughly 2.5 million mortgages in default in the third 
quarter of 2007--an increase of about 40 percent when compared to the 
same quarter in 2005.
  A few weeks ago, I held a roundtable discussion on the economy in 
Massachusetts. Jim Harrington, the Mayor of Brockton, MA, told me that 
his city had 400 foreclosures last year and expects 400 more this year. 
In the City of Boston, there were 703 foreclosures in 2007 after just 
261 in 2006. The dramatic increase in foreclosures in cities across the 
nation are lowering revenues and making it more difficult for them to 
respond to the housing crisis.
  The Finance Committee amendment includes a provision to provide $10 
billion for mortgage revenue bonds. This provision is based on a bill 
introduced

[[Page S722]]

by Senator Smith and myself. It passed in the Finance Committee by a 
20-1 vote. It is also important to note that President Bush, during his 
State of the Union Address, asked the Congress to provide additional 
authority for mortgage revenue bonds and included a similar provision 
in the budget for fiscal year 2009.
  Specifically, this provision would provide $10 billion of tax-exempt 
private activity bonds to be used to refinance subprime loans, provide 
mortgages for first time homebuyers and for multifamily rental housing. 
This provision will help families retain affordable housing. The 
housing crisis also affects rental housing because many families who 
lose their homes will move into rental housing.
  With the additional mortgage revenue bond authority, States and local 
governments could rapidly escalate demand for housing and stimulate the 
economy by increasing the flow of safe, non-predatory mortgage loans. 
In 2006, State and local governments financed 120,000 new home loans 
with MRBs. With the additional $10 billion in funding, States and 
localities can match that amount and finance approximately 80,000 more 
home loans.
  According to the National Association of Home Builders, every 
mortgage revenue bond new home loan produces nearly two, full-time 
jobs, $75,000 in additional wages and salaries and $41,000 in new 
Federal, State and local revenues. Also, each new home loan results in 
an average of $3,700 in new spending on appliances, furnishings, and 
property alterations.
  Separate from mortgage revenue bonds, the Finance Committee extends 
unemployment benefits by thirteen weeks through the end of 2008. In 
December alone, the national unemployment rate shot up from 4.7 percent 
to 5 percent and half a million more workers joined the ranks of the 
employed. Labor statistics released last week show the labor market is 
faltering. In the past month, our economy lost 17,000 jobs. We need to 
extend unemployment benefits now. When it takes longer to find a job, 
current unemployment benefits are not adequate.
  Extending unemployment benefits is one of the most effective ways to 
stimulate the economy. Families struggling to make ends meet after 
losing their paycheck will spend the benefits quickly. Every dollar 
spent on benefits leads to $1.64 in economic growth. In addition, 
unemployment benefits will reach workers about two months before rebate 
checks start to be delivered.
  Finally, the Finance Committee package has been modified to include 
an additional $1 billion for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program--one of the most effective programs to help low-income 
Americans struggling with rising energy costs. According to economist 
Mark Zandi, an increase in LIHEAP funding should be part of a stimulus 
bill. Increased LIHEAP funding will eliminate the need for families to 
choose between food and energy costs--a choice no family should ever 
face.
  Home heating prices in Massachusetts are 44 percent higher today than 
they were just 1 year ago, and thousands of families will have 
difficulties paying their heating bills this winter. Massachusetts 
families will be able to benefit by approximately $22 million from this 
proposed increase in LIHEAP funding.
  Mr. President, once again, I would like to thank Chairman Baucus for 
his efforts in developing this important stimulus package. I ask all my 
colleagues to support this amendment so that more seniors, small 
businesses, homeowners, and hard working families struggling to make 
ends meet can get the assistance they deserve.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we have come down to the crucial vote on 
whether we are going to greatly improve the House stimulus bill. In a 
few minutes, all Senators will have to undergo that balancing exercise 
I referred to last week.
  On one hand, you have the legitimate concerns on the part of the 
House, White House, and Senate Republican. Leadership. That concern is 
that a wide open Senate process would slow down and complicate a 
straightforward House bill. Those who hold this view correctly point 
out that the House bill was the product of tough negotiations.
  The White House and House Republicans made concessions in that 
negotiation. Likewise, House Democrats made concessions in that 
negotiation. Supporters of the House bill emphasize the need for speedy 
action to send the signal to workers, investors, and business people 
that the Federal Government is responding to the slowing economy.
  On the other hand, are concerns about the substance of the House bill 
and a truncated process that limits the role of the Senate.
  It comes down to this, Mr. President. The leaders' concern with 
timing must be weighed 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' concerns about timing. Now, we question 
of the adequacy of the House bill. That is the other side of the 
balance we need to strike.
  Let's examine this side of the question. Asked another way, did the 
committee process improve the House bill with a Senate amendment?
  I think everyone would have to answer yes. That is, the Finance 
Committee amendment is an improvement over the House bill. Twenty 
million seniors will get the checks. Over 200,000 disabled veterans 
will get the checks. Illegal immigrants will not be entitled to checks. 
These improvements to the rebate structure were the direct result of 
deliberations in the Finance Committee. They were contributions by 
members on each side. We improved the business stimulus provisions as 
well.
  Our goal was a bipartisan economic stimulus package. The committee 
worked its will and improved the bill. The committee bill responded to 
the needs of Americans and business and, if enacted, would provide a 
very much needed boost for the economy.
  The best proof of this point is the concession by opponents of the 
Finance Committee bill that the House bill must be changed on the 
structure of the rebate.
  Before you vote, I ask Members to go back to the basic question of 
balancing quick action on the House bill versus improvements made by 
the Finance Committee.
  The House bill could be passed quickly without improvements. Or we 
could finish the process here in the Senate and add the improvements 
made by the Finance Committee.
  If cloture is achieved on the Finance Committee amendment, then we 
will have a different challenge.
  We must not load up this stimulus package else further or it is 
likely to sink. Our leaders are right that we need to act quickly.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in a few moments we are going to have 
an extremely important vote. Nineteen days ago, the President first 
proposed an economic stimulus package and implored the Congress to act. 
It was impressive to see the Democratic Speaker of the House, the 
Republican leader of the House, and the Secretary of the Treasury of 
the Bush administration all together having worked out an important 
stimulus package that we believe will help our economy.
  Then in an apparent jolt of nostalgia from last year, Senate 
Democrats decided to co-op a bipartisan proposal produced by the House, 
to put together a carefully crafted political document coming out of 
the Finance Committee.
  It may be a good proposal in some respects. I am sure it contains a 
lot of what is appealing to Members. But the point here was to try to 
do a targeted, temporary jolt to our economy, and to try to astonish 
the American people by doing it on a bipartisan basis, rapidly.
  This package will not achieve that result. There is an opportunity, 
however, to do that. First, we must defeat the Reid proposal, and then 
there will be an opportunity to adjust the House proposal in a way that 
is acceptable to the Speaker of the House, the Republican leader of the 
House, and the

[[Page S723]]

President of the United States, thereby achieving an early signature.
  So I will offer, along with Senator Stevens, after the Reid proposal 
does not achieve cloture, an amendment to the House-passed bill that 
will deal with Social Security, with veterans, and with the immigration 
problem. And with regard to the veterans piece of it, one of the 
deficiencies of the Finance Committee or Reid proposal is that it does 
not cover the widows of veterans. That omission will be corrected in 
the proposal I will offer.
  So if we want to provide this stimulative effect for the widows of 
veterans, a way to do that, and the way to do it in a proposal that 
will be signed by the President of the United States, approved by the 
House of Representatives on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis, is to 
approve the McConnell-Stevens amendment.
  Now, let me say, Senator Stevens and I don't have any pride of 
authorship. If it will help us get this job done, if it will help us 
get this job done, we can call it the Reid-Obama-Clinton proposal as 
far as I am concerned. The goal is not so much to claim credit as it is 
to astonish the American people and do something on a bipartisan basis 
and do it quickly--do it quickly.
  People will be astonished, and we think the markets and others around 
the world will watch in amazement to see that, on a bipartisan basis, 
the U.S. Government can do something effective and fast. So I would be 
more than happy to change the name of the amendment if that would make 
it more palatable.
  We have no particular pride of authorship. This whole path we are 
going down started out on a bipartisan basis; I was hoping we would end 
it on a bipartisan basis. As far as the credit part of it is concerned, 
we can all take credit, we can go upstairs to the gallery together, 
Senator Reid and I, side by side, and say: We came together. We did 
something for the American people.
  The House can simply take this up--we know; the majority leader of 
the House said today, he implored us, the majority leader, not to load 
up this bill with too many extras that would imperil the bill.
  He was referring, of course, to the package upon which we will be 
having a cloture vote shortly. So the way forward is clear. Let's 
defeat the proposal that we know will not be accepted by the House, we 
know will not be signed by the President. Let's modify the House bill--
we can call it the Reid-Clinton-Obama bill as far as I am concerned--
and get it back over to the House. We have their assurance they will 
take it up, pass it, and send it to the President for his signature. 
But first we must defeat the Reid-Finance Committee package.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the President of the United States returned 
from the Middle East 2 weeks ago tomorrow. I had a conversation with 
him on the telephone, with the Speaker, and a number of other people.
  At that time, the decision was made that the President would hold off 
on any statement he would make on specificity on Friday following that 
Thursday, and that we should sit down and see what we could work out 
with his Secretary of the Treasury.
  We did that. A decision was made, as I have said on this floor on a 
number of occasions. This decision was made because of the House rules 
compared to the Senate rules, that this would be a bill that would come 
from the House. That bill has come from the House. I have never in any 
way disparaged it.
  But it is not something that does not need fixing. That was the whole 
purpose of the House working on it and then we are working on it. So 
any intimation by my friend, the Republican leader, that whatever the 
House came up with we would just put a big stamp of approval on it does 
not speak well to the history of this body.
  We have an obligation to do what we think is best to stimulate the 
economy. We have done that. What we have done is not a political 
document. It is a piece of legislation. Now, from what I have heard 
from my friend, it appears that they would agree, by unanimous consent, 
the bill that is now the House bill--what I understand they would be 
willing to add to that is language that would prevent undocumenteds 
from drawing the benefits of those rebates. They would also be willing 
to accept senior citizens as listed in the Senate Finance bill, 21.5 
million of them; wounded veterans, 250,000 of them; and the widows of 
those veterans.
  It sounds good to me. I would be happy, and I ask unanimous consent 
at this stage. Are they willing to accept that, to add that to the 
package that we now have? That is, add the widows to the package that 
is now before the body? I agree we can add widows. I ask unanimous 
consent that that be the case.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Would the majority leader restate his unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. REID. The Senate Finance package that is now before the Senate, I 
ask unanimous consent that we add to that widows of the veterans.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this is 
what has been going on all week: adjustments to the package in order to 
play political games.
  Now, with all due respect to my friend, the majority leader, we are 
going to have an opportunity to fix this problem on the widows of 
veterans at a later date.
  We do not have to fix it on this first vote. How many different times 
do they want to change it? They originally told us they were going to 
give us the paper last Thursday night. It kept evolving and evolving 
and evolving. We will have a chance to fix this problem.
  The first opportunity would be the amendment that Senator Stevens and 
I intend to offer. Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. That is somewhat unusual. It appears the changes as have 
been suggested by my friend--I wanted to be cooperative and say that is 
a good idea.
  You can flip open any newspaper, tune in to any news program, tune in 
to any radio show, and you are bound to hear from professors, 
economists, analysts, and pundits debating about the state of our 
economy. It used to be a lot of them were asking: Are we in a recession 
now? Not too many are asking that now. They believe we are in a 
recession. But they do ask continually how deep will it be; how long 
will it last.
  Those questions are valid and appropriate. But they are asked by 
those who spend their lives thinking about the economy, not by those 
who spend their lives working in the economy or building the economy, 
to those Americans working harder than ever who end up with less.
  There is no doubt the state of the economy is not good. Millions of 
working families are trying to make their paycheck stretch until the 
next paycheck, as their gasoline, heating, and grocery bills skyrocket, 
of course, medical bills are never able to be paid.
  They know how our economy struggles. Millions of senior citizens are 
living on incomes that are fixed but face living costs that are 
anything but fixed. They know how our economy struggles. Small business 
owners are facing rising health care costs for their employees and 
greater difficulty finding capital to grow. They know how our economy 
struggles.
  Millions of homeowners are in foreclose or face it soon; 37 million 
people. In California, foreclosure rates have gone up more than 300 
percent; Florida, 250 percent. We could go through a long list of 
problems. But they are difficult. The housing market is in big trouble 
as these people watch their dreams and their security come crashing 
down. They, too, know how our economy struggles. It affects everyone.

  I did a TV show down here with the mayor of the city of Fernley, NV.
  Mayor, how is the economy?
  He said: It is tough.
  They just had a levee break and a Bureau of Reclamation project has 
been there for a long time. You know, the water came and covered homes 
for 2 miles. Some of it was 8 feet deep. With the state of the housing 
market so bad, a lot of people are saying: I don't think it is going to 
do any good to rebuild my home. I don't think I can borrow the money to 
fix it up or I can't make the payments.
  It is fair to say that President Bush will not be remembered as a 
good steward of our economy. When he took office, there was a surplus 
over the next

[[Page S724]]

10 years of some $7 trillion. As Senator Conrad mentioned at a 
presentation earlier today, in his 7 years, he has run up the debt. 
That is gone. The surplus is gone. He has run up the debt by more than 
$3 trillion. We have now spent about $750 billion in Iraq. Every penny 
of it has been borrowed. But even this President understands the urgent 
need for action, and we need to do that.
  To his credit, President Bush called on Congress to pass an economic 
stimulus plan. House leaders, Democrats and Republicans, working with 
the White House, came together to craft a bill that serves certainly as 
a good starting point. That was always what it was supposed to be. But 
notably the House plan sends rebate checks out to the American people 
some time in probably May or maybe even June. They can't do anything 
with the rebate checks until the income tax returns are filed. 
Americans will use that money to pay their bills, to buy books and 
clothing for their children, or perhaps to make a long overdue repair 
of homes or cars or pay a doctor bill. Democrats, Republicans, we all 
agree, if we give the American people the money, they will spend it.
  Last week the House sent the bill over here. In the Finance 
Committee, Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley put their heads 
together, one Democrat and one Republican, and made a good bill far 
stronger.
  Here are some of the things they did that we are going to be voting 
on in a little while. Through bipartisanship, this Finance Committee 
package sends stimulus checks to 21.5 million senior citizens who would 
get nothing from the House bill. The bipartisan Finance Committee 
package sends checks to 250,000 wounded, disabled veterans who were 
left out of the House plan, veterans unable to work because of the 
sacrifice they made for our country. The bipartisan Finance Committee 
package extends unemployment benefits for those whose jobs have fallen 
victim to this economy which is on this down spin.
  The Department of Labor recently told us that the economy lost 
thousands of jobs in January, on top of the millions who are already 
unemployed. The House bill doesn't extend unemployment benefits, and 
economists tell us that is one of the most effective ways to stimulate 
the economy.
  The bipartisan Finance Committee plan helps both small and large 
businesses. Small businesses will have a greater ability to immediately 
write off purchases of machinery and equipment, and large business will 
receive bonus depreciation, an extended carryback period for past 
losses to recoup cash for future investments. The bipartisan Finance 
Committee package addresses the housing crisis by adding $10 billion in 
mortgage revenue bonds that can be used by States to refinance 
mortgages. The reason I focus on this is the President of the United 
States in his State of the Union Message said:

        . . . and allow state housing agents to issue tax-free 
     bonds to help homeowners refinance their mortgages. 
     (Applause.)

  We stood and applauded when he said this. That was the right thing 
for him to say. It is the right thing for us to do. That is what we 
have in our Senate Finance package, something the President called for 
in his State of the Union Message. Why should we be criticized for 
trying to improve the House plan because the President asked for it and 
we agree with what the President asked for?
  The bipartisan Finance Committee package includes an extension of 
energy efficiency and renewable energy incentives to create jobs, lower 
energy bills, and help begin to stem the tide of global warming.
  The Arizona Republic Newspaper, a newspaper not known for being 
leftwing, said in an editorial recently: The economic stimulus package 
from Congress needs some power, renewable power. The plan should 
include an extension of tax credits for renewable energy sources such 
as wind, solar, geothermal. We get a 3-for-1 impact: creating jobs, 
diversifying our energy supply, and reducing pollution. These aren't 
new tax credits. They are existing ones that are serving us well. Last 
year nearly 6,000 megawatts of renewable energy came on line. That 
injected $20 billion into the economy. That is what we have in this 
legislation. It is good legislation. It is important legislation.
  The amendment I have submitted adds two bipartisan measures to the 
committee's bill. One is an amendment to increase loan limits for 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as FHA-backed mortgages which will 
help more homeowners refinance and reduce mortgage interest rates. The 
other provides funds for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, 
LIHEAP. These funds will help low-income families--and there are lots 
of them--afford their heating bills which are skyrocketing even as big 
oil reports record profits. Shouldn't we do this? Last quarter Exxon 
made more money than any company in the history of the world. They had 
a net profit of over $40 billion in one quarter. This effort to get 
individuals and companies investing in renewable energy is important. 
That is what is in this bill. We should not be criticized for this.

  What the bipartisan Finance Committee accomplished, they took a good 
plan and made one much better--better for seniors, for veterans, for 
working families, for business, for our economy. They did it in a 
bipartisan manner. This isn't a Democratic package. It is a bipartisan 
package. They did it quickly. They did exactly what the Senate is 
supposed to do.
  The stimulus plan before us tonight is smart, targeted, and it is 
effective. That is why it is supported by the AARP, Families USA, 
Alliance for Retired Americans, National Association of Manufacturers, 
American Home Builders Association, National Council on Aging, union 
groups, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Easter 
Seals, and on and on. There is lots of support from lots of different 
organizations, scores of them. I have only hit a few of them.
  The Republican leader and members of his caucus should have come to 
the Senate floor to congratulate Senators Baucus and Grassley, as these 
groups did. After this was done, these groups made hundreds and 
thousands of phone calls to thank the Finance Committee for doing this. 
It was the right thing to do. This is not a partisan measure, and that 
is why these groups--many of these groups traditionally don't support 
Democrats--like this. It is bipartisan.
  I am happy that a majority--and we will find out if there are 60--of 
this Senate approves of this package, a significant majority. We hope 
we will get 60, 61 votes. Time will tell. But the Record should reflect 
that a majority of the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, supports this 
bipartisan measure we got from the Senate. And it is interesting to 
note that as to this perfect plan we got from the House, the Republican 
leader said he would like to change it. So the House plan obviously 
needs to be improved. It needs to be improved because of language 
dealing with undocumented people. It needs to be improved because of 
seniors and veterans, which the Republicans admit. The House plan 
couldn't have been that great if they accept those changes.
  This is a good piece of legislation. That is why I am happy and 
satisfied that a majority of the Senate approves what the Senate 
Finance Committee did. Secretary Paulson, whom I have enjoyed working 
with, said this morning that the Senate Finance Committee bill is 
``coming to the trough.'' My friend the Republican leader said these 
are pet projects. The majority of the Senate, Democrats and 
Republicans, disagrees with that. They do not think that seniors and 
veterans are pet projects. And if they are pet projects, I plead 
guilty, because they are my pet projects. Seniors are my pet project. 
Veterans are my pet project.
  I have not served in the U.S. military. But during my entire career 
as a Member of Congress, I have bent over backward because of the 
sacrifices made by people such as Dan Inouye and Chuck Hagel and many 
others in this body and around the country. I do everything I can to 
have veterans as my pet project. And they are. And the vast majority of 
the Senate agrees with that.
  So I think Secretary Paulson should retract what he said. This is not 
coming to the trough. We are coming to help people. We are coming to 
help veterans, seniors, people who are unemployed. Maybe my friend, the 
Secretary of the Treasury, has never been unemployed. Maybe he thinks 
those checks are not worth anything. We know the Secretary of the 
Treasury is a very

[[Page S725]]

wealthy man. People who are on unemployment benefits, without 
exception, are not wealthy. They are people who were depending on a 
check to come when payday came. Payday came, and they had no job. The 
unemployed are a pet project of mine. I would say that the unemployed 
don't have the advocates, the lobbyists that a lot of other groups 
have, but they are as important.
  Is it a pet project to help businesses weather the storm of this 
downturn? I don't think so. Is it a pet project to help people pay for 
their heating bills? And if there is something negative about that 
term, I plead guilty. Is it a pet project to help families avoid 
foreclosure? If the answer is yes, we know that a majority of the 
Senate is in favor of these pet projects. We know that a majority of 
the Senate supports these pet projects and will defend these projects.
  I hope there are enough of my friends on the other side of the aisle 
who will step forward and do the right thing and support this 
bipartisan plan that will help stimulate the economy.
  I am not naive enough not to know that when this bill leaves here, 
whatever shape it is, it goes to a conference with the House. The 
President will be heavily involved in that. It will have the stamp of 
approval of the House and the Senate. But pressure is building, and 
that is why a majority of the Senate of the United States believes that 
this Senate stimulus package is a good piece of legislation. We have 
already established tonight, through the words of the Republican 
leader, that the House package is far from perfect, because he has 
acknowledged that he wants to change that. If we stand together on this 
bill--and Senators Baucus and Grassley have stood together--we can 
achieve something today that will make our economy stronger and make 
the American people proud that we have not forgotten the unemployed, 
that we have not forgotten the military folks who have given so much, 
and the seniors.
  I still often want to call my mother. I used to call my mother every 
day. She was a Social Security recipient. I know I can't call my 
mother, even though I want to on many occasions. But I do know that if 
she got this check like we are trying to give her and others similarly 
situated, she would spend that money if she were alive. She would have 
that money spent in a matter of a few days. So this is the right thing 
to do.
  The Senate should feel good that right now a bipartisan group of 
Senators, Democrats and Republicans, reported a bill out of the Senate 
Finance Committee and, after having done so, a bipartisan group of 
Democratic Senators and Republican Senators have joined together to 
say: Let's give the economy a boost. That is what this legislation will 
do.
  Our time has expired, or it will in a minute or so.
  Mr. President, as usual, we have people who want to get out of here 
and people who want to stay here. So we are going to wait until the 
time expires. So I will ask that we have a quorum call. There is just a 
minute or so left.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             cloture motion

  Under the previous order, pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays 
before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on amendment No. 3983 
     to H.R. 5140, the economic stimulus bill.
         Herb Kohl, Max Baucus, Mark L. Pryor, Byron L. Dorgan, 
           Robert Menendez, Jon Tester, Christopher J. Dodd, 
           Barbara A. Mikulski, Joseph I. Lieberman, Frank R. 
           Lautenberg, Daniel K. Akaka, Sheldon Whitehouse, 
           Benjamin L. Cardin, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Richard 
           Durbin, Claire McCaskill, Harry Reid.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call is waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 3983, offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, to 
H.R. 5140, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 58, nays 41, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 8 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--41

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Reid
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     McCain
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 58, the nays are 
41. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by 
which cloture was not invoked on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to reconsider is entered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, first, let me express my appreciation to 
everyone who took my calls, who listened to Democrats and Republicans 
asking them to vote for this very important stimulus package. It was a 
good debate. The American people would have been better for having done 
this, but I appreciate the bipartisan nature of this vote. Fifty-nine 
Senators joined together to do what they thought was the right thing 
for the country.
  I will have before the evening is out, in fact shortly, a 
conversation with the Republican leader in the immediate future this 
evening to let him know what I intend to do in the near future and not 
so near. So pending my conversation with the Republican leader, I note 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________