[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 23 (Thursday, February 5, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1617-S1676]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 1, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1) making supplemental appropriations for job 
     preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy 
     efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and 
     State and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Inouye/Baucus) amendment No. 98, in the nature of 
     a substitute.
       Murray amendment No. 110 (to amendment No. 98), to 
     strengthen the infrastructure investments made by the bill.
       Feingold amendment No. 140 (to amendment No. 98), to 
     provide greater accountability of taxpayers' dollars by 
     curtailing congressional earmarking and requiring disclosure 
     of lobbying by recipients of Federal funds.
       Grassley (for Thune) amendment No. 197 (to amendment No. 
     98), in the nature of a substitute.
       Baucus (for Dorgan) amendment No. 200 (to amendment No. 
     98), to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
     for the taxation of income of controlled foreign corporations 
     attributable to imported property.
       Ensign amendment No. 353 (to amendment No. 98), in the 
     nature of a substitute.
       Dodd amendment No. 354 (to amendment No. 98), to impose 
     executive compensation limitations with respect to entities 
     assisted under the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
       Barrasso amendment No. 326 (to amendment No. 98), to 
     expedite reviews required to be carried out under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
       Barrasso (for DeMint) amendment No. 189 (to amendment No. 
     98), to allow the free exercise of religion at institutions 
     of higher education that receive funding under section 803 of 
     division A.
       Baucus (for Boxer) amendment No. 363, to ensure that any 
     action taken under this act of any funds made available under 
     this act that are subject to the National Environmental 
     Policy Act (NEPA) protect the public health of communities 
     across the country.
       Baucus (for Harkin/Stabenow) amendment No. 338 (to 
     amendment No. 98), to require the Secretary of the Treasury 
     to carry out a program to enable certain individuals to trade 
     certain old automobiles for certain new automobiles.
       Baucus (for Dodd) amendment No. 145 (to amendment No. 98), 
     to improve the efforts of the Federal Government in 
     mitigating home foreclosures and to require the Secretary of 
     the Treasury to develop and implement a foreclosure 
     prevention loan modification plan.
       Baucus (for McCaskill) amendment No. 125 (to amendment No. 
     98), to limit compensation to officers and directors of 
     entities receiving emergency economic assistance from the 
     Government.
       Baucus (for McCaskill) modified amendment No. 236 (to 
     amendment No. 98), to establish funding levels for various 
     offices of inspectors general and to set a date until which 
     such funds shall remain available.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana is 
recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, to set the stage a little for today, to 
give Senators an opportunity to know the lay of the land, yesterday the 
Senate put in quite a long day, as we all know. By my count, we 
considered 28 amendments, we conducted 8 rollcall votes, and we 
accepted a number of amendments by voice vote.
  I want to highlight one amendment adopted, the Isakson-Lieberman 
amendment, which provides Federal income tax credit for home purchases. 
This amendment addresses one of the central points that Senators on the 
other side of the aisle have been raising, namely that we need to 
address the housing market.
  I might say, Senators on both sides of the aisle are concerned about 
the degree to which we are addressing the housing market. We adopted 
the Isakson-Lieberman amendment that does just that, and I am proud we 
accepted their idea.
  I want to clear up the record on the Cornyn amendment. Yesterday I 
raised a pay-go point of order against the Cornyn amendment. After the 
Senate failed to waive the budget provisions, the Chair ruled the 
amendment violated the budget.
  The budget rules require both the Presiding Officer and myself to 
rely on the Budget Committee to determine whether an amendment violates 
the budget. Budget Committee staff advised my staff and the 
Parliamentarian that there was a pay-go point of order against the 
Cornyn amendment. But in reality the amendment did not violate the pay-
go rules.
  I apologize to the Senator from Texas for raising that point of 
order. But as the vote to waive the budget was 37 in favor, 60 opposed, 
raising the point of order did not change the result and I hope my 
statement now will clear up the record.
  Looking forward, we expect another busy day today. I expect we will 
process a number of amendments. We may have rollcall votes throughout 
the day. We may well work late into the evening. But I have good reason 
to hope we might finish this bill this evening, and that is a goal 
toward which we are working.
  For the information of Senators, 14 amendments are now pending. Those 
amendments are: the underlying Finance-Appropriations Committee 
substitute amendment, No. 98; the Murray amendment No. 110; the 
Feingold amendment No. 140, regarding earmarks--I might add, the Murray 
amendment No. 110 is with respect to infrastructure--again, the 
Feingold amendment No. 140 is with respect to earmarks; Thune amendment 
197, that is a House Republican alternative; Dorgan amendment No. 200, 
runaway plants; Ensign amendment No. 353, substitute housing; Dodd 
amendment No. 354, executive pay; Barrasso amendment No. 326, 
environmental laws; DeMint amendment No. 189, religious freedom; Boxer 
amendment No. 363, environmental laws; Harkin amendment No. 338, auto 
trade-in; Dodd amendment No. 145, foreclosure mitigation; McCaskill 
amendment No. 125, CEO pay; McCaskill amendment No. 236, as modified--I 
think that is with respect to the inspector general.
  That is it so far. This morning we expect to hear from Senator McCain 
on his substitute amendment. Thereafter, we expect to hear from 
Senators Ensign, Wyden, and Cantwell about amendments they intend to 
offer. Once again, I ask Senators to let the managers know about 
amendments they intend to offer. The more we know, the more quickly and 
expeditiously we can proceed. A little notice helps a lot here.
  We had a great day yesterday. I expect another one today. Mind you, 
we must move quickly because the recession is so deep. Americans are 
depending on Congress to act. Let's act, let's get the job done. Other 
problems that are very important can be pushed off to later dates, but 
today let's get this bill passed and in conference with the House so 
the President can sign it and people can get some relief.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator has an urgent matter, I will be happy to 
yield.
  Mr. SANDERS. Thirty seconds.
  Mr. McCAIN. For 30 seconds.
  Mr. SANDERS. Will the Senator from Montana answer a question? We have 
an amendment with Mr. Grassley that we wish to bring up. Can we get it 
in order as well?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Senator, offer your amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.


                 Amendment No. 364 to Amendment No. 98

                   (Purpose: To propose a substitute)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask the pending amendments be set aside 
and ask consideration of an amendment that I have at the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page S1618]]


       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] for himself, Mr. 
     Graham, and Mr. Thune, proposes an amendment numbered 364 to 
     amendment No. 98.

  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text 
of Amendments.'')
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment I have is a product of a lot 
of work from a number of Senators on this side of the aisle. I 
especially thank Senator Martinez of Florida, a great leader on this 
issue, along with Senator Thune, Senator Graham, and many other 
Senators who have been involved in this discussion. This is an 
alternative we believe would truly create jobs and stimulate our 
economy. The total cost is around $421 billion.
  I wish, before I describe the amendment--and I know others of my 
colleagues want to discuss this amendment--I wish to point out it is 
very clear that public opinion in this country is swinging against the 
proposal that is now before the Senate and was passed by the other 
body. They are opposed because they see now in the Senate a $995 
billion package which could reach more than $1.2 trillion. Many 
Americans, certainly now a majority, do not see it as a way to create 
jobs and to stimulate our economy. They see it loaded down with 
unnecessary spending programs. They see it, very correctly, with policy 
changes which deserve extended debate and voting on their own, such as 
``Buy American'' provisions, Davis-Bacon, giving Federal workers new 
whistleblower protections. Some of these policy changes may be 
laudable, others are not, at least in my view, but all of them deserve 
debate and discussion rather than being placed in a piece of 
legislation that is intended to stimulate our economy and create jobs.
  I think it is time that we also understand how we got where we are. I 
have been around this body long enough to recognize that we are now 
entering the final phase of consideration of this package. Whether it 
be today or over the weekend or early next week, this bill will be 
disposed of one way or another by the Senate. So how did we get to 
where we are today, with a $995 billion package, at least, or $1.2 
trillion, or perhaps more than that, with a bill that probably would 
create, in the view of the administration--and I do not agree with it--
3 million jobs, which would mean that each job that is created by it 
costs the taxpayers $275,000. I do not think many Americans believe 
that each job created should cost $275,000 of their hard-earned tax 
dollars.
  In fact, the response my office is getting borders on significant 
anger when we talk about many of the funding programs that are in the 
stimulus bill. I will go through several of them later on, but $400 
million for STD prevention; $40 million to make park services more 
energy efficient; $75 million for smoking cessation. It is hard to 
argue that, even though these provisions, many of them, may be 
worthwhile, they actually create jobs. So we have strayed badly from 
our original intent of creating a situation in America to reverse the 
terrible decline and economic ditch in which we find the American 
economy, to the point we have had spending programs and policy 
provisions which have nothing to do with stimulating the economy and 
creating jobs. It may be Government--let me put it this way. It may be 
legislative activity, possibly, at its worst.
  We are offering today an alternative at less than half the cost that 
we think creates jobs and stimulates the economy. I remind my 
colleagues, despite the rhetoric about bipartisanship, this bill 
originated in the House of Representatives, as is constitutionally 
appropriate. There was no Republican input whatsoever. It passed the 
other body on a strict party-line basis with the loss of 11 Democrats 
and came over to this body, where in both the Appropriations and the 
Finance Committees, almost every Republican amendment was rejected on 
party lines.
  I appreciate very much that the President of the United States came 
over to address Republican Members of the Senate and Republican Members 
of the House. The tenor of his remarks I think was excellent. But the 
fact is, we did not sit down and seriously negotiate between Republican 
and Democrat. I have been involved in many bipartisan efforts in this 
body, for many years, that have achieved legislative result. The way 
you achieve it is not to come over and talk to a body. The answer is to 
sit down and seriously negotiate and come up with compromises which 
result in legislation which is good for the country.
  That has not happened in this process. Again, the American people are 
figuring it out. I am confident, because of the way this process has 
taken place, that gap, which is now 43-37, the majority of the American 
people opposing this package, will grow.
  A majority of the American people still believe we have to stimulate 
the economy and create jobs. I agree with them. But to spend $1.2 
trillion on it, and have no provision for when the economy recovers to 
put us back on the path of fiscal sanity and stability--as the 
amendment that I had last night was rejected; we got 44 vote--does not 
provide the American people with confidence that spending will stop at 
some time.
  One thing they have learned is that spending programs that are 
initially supposed to be temporary become permanent. They become 
permanent. That is a historical fact.
  So we have initiated nearly $1 trillion--many in new spending, some 
hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending--with no provision, 
once the economy has recovered--and the economy will recover in 
America--this is no path to balancing the budget. Instead, we laid a 
$700 billion debt on future generations of America in the form of TARP, 
we are laying $1.2 trillion additional in the form of this bill, and 
another half a trillion dollars in the omnibus appropriations bill, and 
then we are told there will be a necessity for another TARP, which 
could be as much as $1 trillion, because of our declining economy. Yet 
there has been no provision whatsoever, once the economy recovers, to 
put us back on a path to balancing the budget and reducing and perhaps 
eliminating--hopefully eliminating--this debt we have laid on future 
generations of Americans.
  I used to come down to the floor here, and have over the years, and 
argue against provisions in appropriations bills--which, by the way, 
has led to corruption. I notice there is another individual staffer who 
is being charged today, or yesterday, for inappropriate behavior with 
Mr. Abramoff.
  There used to be hundreds of thousands and sometimes thousands. Now, 
they are in the millions and billions, tens of millions and billions. 
My how we have grown.
  Do we need $1 billion for national security at the Nuclear Security 
Administration Weapons Activities to create jobs? We may need $1 
billion for National Nuclear Security Administration Weapons Activity, 
but to say it will create jobs and will stimulate the economy is a 
slender reed.
  There is nobody who appreciates more than this person the 
contribution that Filipino war veterans made to winning the Second 
World War. We are going to give millions of dollars to those who live 
in the Philippines. Do not label that as job stimulation.
  Smoking cessation is something that we all support. How does $75 
million for smoking cessation create jobs within the next years that 
would justify expenditures of $75 million?
  This body, in the name of increasing health care for children, raised 
taxes by some $61 billion, I guess it is, on tobacco use. So we now 
hope people will use tobacco in order to pay for insurance for 
children. But the fact is, $75 million for smoking cessation should be 
an issue that is brought up separately and on its own. And the list 
goes on and on and on.
  Our proposal--I am grateful for the participation of so many 
Senators--would allocate approximately $275 billion in tax cuts. It 
would eliminate the 3.1 percent payroll tax for all employees for 1 
year and use general revenues to pay for the Social Security 
obligation.
  It would allocate $60 billion to lower the 10-percent tax bracket to 
5 percent for 1 year. It would lower the 15-percent tax bracket to 10 
percent for 1 year. It would lower corporate tax brackets from 35 
percent to 25 percent for 1 year.

[[Page S1619]]

  We alarmed the world with the ``Buy American'' provisions which are 
included in this bill. The reaction has been incredible, and the fact 
is, jobs flee America for a number of reasons. But one of them is we 
have the highest business taxes of any nation in the world. We used to 
have among the lowest.
  So if we really want to create jobs in America and attract capital 
and investment for the United States of America, we need to lower the 
corporate tax bracket. We need to have accelerated depreciation for 
capital investments for small businesses. We need to assist Americans 
in need, there is no doubt about that. There are Americans who are 
wounded and are hurting today. It is not their fault.
  We need to extend the unemployment insurance benefits. That is a $38 
billion pricetag. We need to extend food stamps. We need to extend 
unemployment insurance benefits, make them tax free. That is a $10 
billion pricetag. And, of course, we need to provide workers with 
training and employment. That is a $50 billion cost.
  We need to keep families in their homes. We needed, and we did adopt 
last night, the $15,000 tax credit. But we also need to fund the 
increase in the fee that servicers receive from continuing a mortgage 
and avoiding foreclosure. We need to have GSE and FHA conforming loan 
limits. That is $32 billion. We also, by the way, need to do more in 
the housing area.
  You know, it is interesting in all of these spending proposals we 
have, there is not one penny for defense, not one penny. Obviously, we 
are going to have to reset our military. We need to replace the aging 
equipment that has been used so heavily in Iraq and will be needed in 
Afghanistan.
  We need to improve and repair and modernize the barracks, the 
facilities and infrastructure that directly support the readiness and 
training of the Armed Forces. We do not have that in the now $995 
billion package that is before us. Obviously, we need to spend money on 
military construction projects which will create jobs immediately. 
Those people who say that is not the case, I can provide for the record 
adequate information that many of our military construction projects 
could begin more quickly than those that are not on our military bases 
because of environmental and other concerns.
  We need to spend $45 billion on transportation infrastructure. There 
are grants to States to build and repair roads and bridges, including 
$10 billion for discretionary transportation grants, and $1 billion for 
roads on Federal lands. Public transit, obviously, we need to fund, and 
airport infrastructure improvements are necessary, along with small 
business loans. That is about $63 billion in our proposal.
  Finally, the American people believe, and I think correctly, spending 
is out of control in our Nation's Capital. We continue to spend and 
spend and spend. We not only have accumulated over a $10 trillion 
deficit, this will add another $1 trillion or more. I mentioned the 
TARP of $700 billion, all of which is being paid for--we are printing 
money in order to fund it.
  At some point we are going to have to get our budget balanced or our 
children and our grandchildren are going to pay the bill. I recommend 
that this body hear as much as possible from David Walker, former head 
of the Government Accountability Office, in the Congress of the United 
States. He paints a stark picture. In my view, it is also time that we 
establish entitlement commissions: one for Social Security and one for 
Medicare-Medicaid and make recommendations so we can act on what is a 
multi-trillion-dollar deficit in Social Security and over a $40 
trillion debt on Medicare and Medicaid.
  Unless we address these long-term entitlement issues, there is no way 
we are going to be able to prevent the majority of Americans' taxes 
from being devoted to those two programs. So we need to establish those 
commissions and we need to put them to work and we need to put them to 
work right away.
  Now, I am told there is general agreement. Why not do it now? Why not 
do it now? We also need better accountability, better transparency, 
better oversight, and better results. Among many disappointments we 
have over TARP, one was that we were told the Congress and the American 
people would have oversight and transparency, and they would know 
exactly how that initial $350 billion was being spent.
  The American people and Members of Congress have been bitterly 
disappointed as TARP shifted from one priority to another. Funds went 
to the automotive industry, which none of us had anticipated when we 
voted for and approved it. We need more transparency and accountability 
and oversight of how this, probably the biggest single emergency 
spending package in the history of this country, is being spent.
  I notice I have other Members here who wish to speak on this issue. I 
hope we can pass this alternative, some $421 billion, to what has now 
surged to over $1 trillion. It probably may not pass for the reasons of 
numbers, but if we do not sit down and negotiate and come up with a 
package that is more than a $50- or $60- or $80 billion reduction, when 
we are talking about $1.2 trillion, the American people will not be 
well served.
  They will not be well served by requiring Davis-Bacon, they will not 
be well served by requiring ``Buy American,'' they will not be well 
served by spending their hard-earned dollars on unnecessary programs 
that even though in the eyes of some may have virtue, have no or very 
little association with job creation and relief for Americans who are 
struggling to stay in their homes and either keep their jobs or go out 
and find a new one.
  I believe the United States of America will recover from the economic 
crisis. I have a fundamental faith, belief, that American workers are 
the most productive, the most innovative, and the best in the world. 
But they need some help right now. What they need is the right kind of 
help.
  I urge my colleagues, when you see the money that is being spent in 
the name of job creation and stimulus that is laying a debt burden on 
our children and our grandchildren, we need to have serious 
consideration of this kind of spending because it is not fair, not only 
to this generation of Americans but to future generations as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to respond to the Senator 
from Arizona, in particular on his amendment, but I also would like to 
respond in a most general way.
  Let's have the right starting point. Barack Obama has been President 
of the United States for 2 weeks and 2 days. He did not create this 
economic crisis; he inherited this economic crisis. This economic 
crisis we face in this country has brought down growth of our gross 
domestic product, which is the measurement of the value of all goods 
and services in the United States, to the lowest point of growth in 25 
years.
  Did Barack Obama create that? No, he inherited that. We know we have 
lost jobs, dramatic losses of jobs--500,000 in December, 600,000 in 
January. I do not know where this will end. Did Barack Obama create 
that situation? No, he inherited that situation.
  What led us to this point? Well, there are a litany of things to 
which you can point. Some of it goes back to the failed policies of the 
previous administration. When we identified the weakness in the 
American economy last year, President George W. Bush came to the 
Democratic Congress and said: I know the solution. It has been the 
solution all along. It will work again. We need tax cuts. If we can 
send $300 to every American citizen, the economy will recover. The 
Democratic Congress accepted George W. Bush's solution for the problem, 
enacted a program of tax cuts, $150 billion worth of tax cuts, sent the 
money to families across America, who I am sure appreciated it.
  How much did they spend? About 15 percent. They used the remainder of 
the money to put into savings and to pay off their credit cards. Well, 
for each family that was a blessing. It was helpful. From the viewpoint 
of the economy, it did not work. We continued to go downhill.
  This notion from the other side of the aisle that tax cuts solve 
everything has failed. It is part of the failed policies of the 
previous administration that have brought us to this moment in history.

[[Page S1620]]

  When President Bush was elected to office, he inherited a surplus in 
the Federal budget from the Clinton administration, a surplus. And he 
inherited the accumulated debt of the United States of America from 
George Washington until George W. of $5 trillion.
  What happened to the national debt under the Bush administration's 8 
years? It more than doubled. It more than doubled because the President 
insisted then in sending tax cuts to the wealthiest people in America 
and in waging a war without paying for it. We dragged ourselves deeply 
into debt with not only the complicity but the cooperation and with the 
enthusiastic approval of the other side of the aisle. That is where we 
are today, with a debt over $10 trillion, with an economy flat on its 
back, with the failed policies of the last 8 years creating the 
economic crisis we face today. President Barack Obama, in office for 2 
weeks and 2 days, did not create this crisis. But the people of America 
said last November 4: Do something about the way you are running the 
Government. Bring real change to this town. Find solutions to our 
problems and, for goodness' sake, work together. We are tired of all 
the squabbling on Capitol Hill between Democrats and Republicans. 
Finally, accept this challenge of setting the economy straight and work 
together.

  President Obama in 2 weeks and 2 days in office went to the 
Republicans in the House of Representatives asking for their 
cooperation and their assistance. When this measure of stimulus 
recovery was called in the House, not one single Republican 
Representative would join in that effort.
  Now it comes to the Senate, where we need 60 votes. We will need 
several Republicans to step up and hear the lesson from the last 
election and help us move forward. This is the measure before us. It is 
voluminous. It costs about $900 billion, a substantial sum of money. 
But it has been calculated to try to get the economy moving forward, to 
try to save and create 3 to 4 million jobs in America. It is about the 
jobs.
  Now we have a proposal from Senator McCain to spend less than half. 
What will that cost us--1.5 to 2 million American jobs. They are 
prepared on the other side of the aisle to accept what I consider a 
halfway response to a major American problem.
  Then they have their bill of particulars, their objections to this 
measure, President Obama's recovery plan. I have listened carefully and 
measured and added up their arguments against these measures. It turns 
out, if I could do this in a symbolic way, that their measures account 
for one page of this bill. Listen to the things they list that they 
find so objectionable. They account in dollar terms to about one page 
of this bill. Listen to what they have to say. Let's go into some of 
the particulars we have heard repeatedly. Smoking cessation, $75 
million. I happen to believe passionately in this issue, passionately 
because I lost my father to lung cancer when I was a little boy, 
passionately because I have fought the tobacco companies as long as I 
have been in public life, passionately because I know tobacco-related 
disease is the No. 1 killer in America. I believe in this. I have given 
my public career to it. But we decided, because of the objection to one 
page, to remove it.
  My message to the Republican side of the aisle is: Read the bill. 
Smoking cessation programs are no longer in the bill. That is a fact.
  Let me also note, Senator McCain said something which is not 
accurate. I want to call his attention to it, as he is in the Chamber. 
Senator McCain said there is not one penny for defense in this bill.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield for a question.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I was incorrect in that statement. I was 
only speaking about the reset. We need a lot more. I would like to 
acknowledge that I was incorrect in that statement.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator.
  Senator McCain suggests $4 billion in defense spending in his 
amendment. The bill contains $4.5 billion in defense spending already. 
I acknowledge that we all make mistakes, but we have done well by 
defense. We can do better, but we have not ignored our national 
security nor the men and women in uniform in this important stimulus 
package.
  Let me also say, there have been arguments made that we need more 
oversight in this bill. I don't want to waste a single taxpayer dollar. 
I want to make sure that money is well spent. I call the attention of 
Senator McCain and the Republican side of the aisle to page 9 of the 
bill. On page 9--and those that follow--there is item after item where 
we are providing additional funds to inspectors general in each of the 
departments to keep an eye on the spending in this bill.
  Let me read what it says:

       In addition to the funds otherwise made available, hereby 
     appropriated are the following sums to the specified offices 
     of inspectors general to remain available until September 30, 
     2013, for oversight and audit of programs, grants, and 
     projects funded up under this act.

  Oversight is important, but oversight is included in this bill.
  I heard Senator McConnell. I have heard Senator McCain. They object 
to the idea of making Government buildings more energy efficient. How 
shortsighted can they be? If you own a home, is it worth insulating the 
home, if it costs a little bit of money this year, knowing that it will 
save you money in heating costs for years to come? Would you put in 
thermal windows? Would you insulate your home? It is a practical 
decision made by families every day. When we suggest including money in 
this bill so that the Government buildings we pay for and the heat and 
air-conditioning in these buildings we pay for is done in an energy-
efficient way, it is ridiculed--in the words of Senator McConnell, 
``money to spruce up buildings.'' We are not talking about planting 
flowers, we are talking about energy efficiency. The notion that that 
is wasteful? Is it wasteful for your family if you get rid of the 
incandescent bulbs and buy fluorescents? No. It is smart. We need that 
kind of approach when it comes to energy.
  Then Senator McConnell criticized $70 million, using the money for 
research in climate change. There is at least one Republican Senator 
who calls climate change a hoax, but I think only one. Most of us 
understand something is happening in this world. The climate is 
changing and not for the better. Global warming is happening, and it 
changes weather patterns--hurricanes in months of the year when we have 
never seen them, storms we have never seen before. Should we just 
ignore this and say: Maybe God will take care of it or do we have an 
obligation to do something about it? Will it affect our economic 
future? Of course it will. They ridicule the $70 million in this bill 
for global warming and climate change. I don't understand that.
  Let me also say, Senator McCain has suggested in his bill that there 
will be $276 billion in tax cuts. I say to him, in the bill we have 
before us from President Obama, there is $370 billion in tax cuts 
already. Senator McCain is reducing tax cuts for American families. 
Does that make it a stronger bill, a better bill for revitalizing the 
economy? I don't think so.
  The bottom line is this: President Obama inherited the worst economic 
crisis in 75 years. It is the product of many factors, but it also 
clearly is the product of failed policies of the past. Returning to 
those policies over and over is the definition of insanity, to do the 
same thing over and over when it fails. That is what this amendment 
does. It returns to the same worn, unfortunately, unsuccessful concepts 
from the past.
  What President Obama brings us today is an opportunity to step 
forward, to work together and do something about this economic crisis. 
This bill not only provides a helping hand to the unemployed, giving 
them additional money each week, it provides an opportunity for many of 
them to have health insurance which they have lost when they lost their 
jobs. It provides a helping hand for the poorest among us who are 
struggling to get by in areas such as food stamps. It provides a safety 
net for the most unfortunate circumstances facing Americans. But it 
invests in good-paying jobs, too, building roads and bridges and 
highways, the infrastructure that builds the economy of the 21st 
century, making certain we invest billions of dollars into health care 
technology so we can computerize medical records so that we have better 
outcomes in medical care and so that it is a safer experience for

[[Page S1621]]

most Americans. There is more money as well in education. If we don't 
put money into education, how can we ever believe we are going to have 
the leaders we need tomorrow? There is more money for 21st-century 
libraries and laboratories and classrooms. Isn't that what we want for 
our children and grandchildren? There is money for energy research and 
energy efficiency so we can lessen our dependence on foreign oil and 
build this economy with homegrown energy. These are the things included 
in the Obama plan.
  This plan will fail without the help of Republican Senators. At some 
point, I am hoping that at least a handful of Republican Senators will 
say: We are willing to step forward and help.
  They have 1 page of grievances out of a bill of more than 900 pages. 
They should remember what one of the patriarchs and saints of the 
Republican Party, Ronald Reagan, used to say. Ronald Reagan used to 
say: If I can go into a negotiation and end up with 80 percent of what 
I wanted, it is a successful negotiation. Now we have Republicans, who 
say kind words about the Gipper, the former President, saying that 80 
percent isn't enough; 99 percent isn't enough. It has to be 100 
percent. If we can find one page of grievances in this bill, it is good 
enough for us to walk away from it.
  We cannot walk away from this crisis. We cannot walk away from this 
challenge. If there was ever a time for us to come together with a 
solution--not just a debate, bold action instead of tentative action 
which will accomplish half the job when we need to do the whole job, to 
bring about real change and reform--this is the day to do it.
  I encourage colleagues on the other side of the aisle, please don't 
let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Let's work together as the 
American people asked us to on November 4 and do something about this 
crisis. Let's not leave this effort on the floor of the Senate at the 
end of the day undone. Too many Americans are counting on us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The Senator from 
Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in an effort to get some order and move 
things along, I would like to lock in the order of speakers, continuing 
our practice of alternating back and forth. I ask unanimous consent 
that the next speakers recognized be the following Senators in the 
following order: Senator Kyl, Senator Sanders, Senator Thune, Senator 
Baucus, then Senator Graham--actually, Senator Grassley.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I am here to speak in favor of the Sanders amendment. I 
would like to speak right after him for a couple minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, with all 
due respect to the Senator from Vermont, we should stay on this 
amendment and have the speakers on this amendment, then move to the 
Sanders amendment. The pending business is my amendment before the 
Senate.
  Mr. SANDERS. If I may ask the Senator from Arizona, Senator Grassley 
and I will be pretty brief. I don't think we need more than 10 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. I am sorry, but I will object. We are on this amendment, 
and the regular order of the Senate is this amendment at this time.
  Mr. SANDERS. We would like some definitive time.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I will withdraw the request, and we will 
work that out while Senator Kyl is speaking.
  Mr. McCAIN. For the information of the Senator from Vermont, we have 
a number of speakers over here, so I am not prepared to enter into a 
time agreement on the debate on this amendment at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if the Chair would please notify me when I 
have spoken 4 minutes, I will be, in fact, that brief.
  The Senator from Illinois quoted the Gipper, Ronald Reagan. That 
always gets Republicans' ears perked up. When he said: I am always 
happy to take 80 percent; I don't need 100 percent--Republicans would 
be happy to take 80 percent. We would be happy to take 50 percent. In 
fact, probably most of us would be happy to take 30 percent. But so 
far, virtually every Republican amendment has been defeated.
  So when there is talk about the President ushering in an era of good 
feeling by having us down to the White House and talking to us and 
listening to us, that is great. We have all commented on our 
appreciation for the President's efforts. At some point, however, since 
Republicans do have some good ideas, that has to be translated into 
some of our ideas being a part of this bill.
  I think the American people agree with us. A Gallup poll, a week ago, 
said 38 percent of the people would pass the bill; 54 percent would 
either reject it or require major changes in the bill. We are 
reflecting the mood of the Republic.
  According to a Rasmussen survey, a poll from February 4: Support for 
the stimulus has fallen now to 37 percent; 43 percent oppose. Two weeks 
ago, 45 percent supported it. Last week, 42 percent supported it. Now 
it is down to 37 percent, and 43 percent oppose it.
  So that is the reason Republicans are standing before this body 
asking that--because the American people want major changes in it, 
because a majority now oppose it--we should not have to take 100 
percent or even 98 percent of the bill and then be accused of 
partisanship.
  Republicans have good ideas, and one of them is the amendment pending 
by my colleague from Arizona. Without going through all of the 
elements, since I am very limited in my time, let me just note one of 
the most important.
  The Democratic Speaker of the House has said over and over, this bill 
needs to be timely, targeted, and temporary. The Senator from Arizona 
is focusing on temporary. What he says, very briefly, is, when the 
economy begins to recover, then all of this spending that otherwise 
would be permanent should cease. So the amendment he has pending would 
require that once we have had two consecutive quarters of economic 
growth greater than 2 percent of inflation-adjusted GDP, then all of 
the stimulus spending would cease and the unobligated funds would 
return to the taxpayer. At that point, then we would need to reduce 
spending to accommodate the huge cost of this legislation.
  Now, that is a real test of where we are in this legislation. Is this 
a question of getting all of this spending we wanted for the last 8 
years and we are going to spend out the majority of that spending after 
the year 2011 or is this truly a stimulus bill that is targeted at 
getting the economy moving again, and once that happens, then the 
spending for the future under this legislation ceases?
  There are 34 new programs in this bill, new Government programs. 
There is $180 billion-plus on mandatory--in other words, permanent--
spending. That is not temporary. One of the things Senator McCain's 
amendment stresses is, let's focus on the temporary. Once we begin 
recovering, then stop spending all of this stimulus money.
  Mr. President, there is a reason Republicans want an opportunity to 
have our amendments debated and, hopefully, accepted, and that is 
because the American people have told us they want this legislation 
fixed. That is why I support the amendment of my colleague from 
Arizona, which will go a long way toward that end.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, later today I will be offering an 
amendment with Senator Grassley, which I think is an extremely 
important amendment, which, in fact, deals very fundamentally with the 
unemployment and job crisis facing this country. There is no debate the 
American people are furious at what happened on Wall Street, where a 
small number of executives have acted in an incredibly greedy manner, 
with extreme recklessness, and perhaps illegal behavior, in plunging 
our country into a major and very deep recession.
  As every American knows, we are losing huge numbers of jobs. What we 
are trying to do now on the floor of the Senate is do everything we can 
to prevent this country from falling into a deep depression. In the 
middle of all of this, in the middle of the greed and recklessness 
being shown by the major financial institutions of our country,

[[Page S1622]]

at a time when the taxpayers of this country are spending $700 billion 
on a bailout, when the Fed is lending out trillions of dollars, what we 
see is many of those bankers are providing huge bonuses to themselves. 
They are furnishing their offices in lavish ways. They are buying jet 
planes. They are doing all of these things which suggest to me they do 
not know what world they are living in; they do not know what is going 
on in America.
  I want to point out today, with Senator Grassley, another part of 
this terribly destructive behavior on the part of these financial 
institutions. During the last 3 months of 2008, the largest banks in 
this country--because of the economic downturn especially on Wall 
Street--have announced 100,000 job cuts within the financial industry 
itself. So 100,000 Americans are out on the street. What has been the 
response of Wall Street to the loss of 100,000 of their own workers? Do 
you know what they have done? What these banks have announced is they 
are requesting 21,000 foreign workers over the next 6 years through the 
H-1B program to fill those jobs.
  So let me repeat, Wall Street causes a crisis, causing millions of 
people to lose their jobs, including 100,000 in financial institutions 
as well, 100,000 people who on average were making quite good wages 
with decent-paying jobs. So what they are now trying to do is bring in 
foreign workers through the H-1B program, and they have requested 
21,000 H-1B visas over the next 6 years. Talk about adding insult to 
injury.
  The amendment Senator Grassley and I are offering is pretty simple. 
It is essentially saying there will be a suspension of the H-1B program 
for any institution that is receiving TARP funds for just 1 year. I 
would have gone further, but we are just going to make it for 1 year.
  Let me finish my remarks by quoting from a recent AP article just 
published on Monday. This is what the AP writes:

       Even as the economy collapsed last year and many financial 
     workers found themselves unemployed, the dozen U.S. banks now 
     receiving the biggest rescue packages requested visas for 
     tens of thousands of foreign workers to fill high-paying 
     jobs. . . . The major banks, which have received $150 billion 
     in bailout funds, requested visas for more than 21,800 
     foreign workers over the past six years for senior vice 
     presidents, corporate lawyers, junior investment analysts and 
     human resources specialists.

  Presumably Americans are unable to do these jobs.
  The article continues:

       The average annual salary for those jobs was $90,721, 
     nearly twice the median income for all American households. 
     During the last three months of 2008, the largest banks that 
     received taxpayer loans announced more than 100,000 layoffs.

  The amendment is pretty simple. I hope we will have bipartisan 
support.
  Mr. President, I see Senator Grassley standing, and I would be happy 
to yield for him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I support the amendment that has just 
been described by the Senator from Vermont prohibiting banks which get 
TARP funds from hiring H-1B guest workers for this year. I support the 
amendment because these companies should be hiring American workers 
during these tough economic times, particularly when there are so many 
qualified Americans on the streets looking for jobs. The American 
taxpayers who will be footing the bill on the stimulus money would 
agree with me. Banks that are getting taxpayer funds need to hire 
qualified Americans first before hiring foreign guest workers.
  Many banks participate in the H-1B visa program. Over 6 years, the 
banking industry has requested visas for over 21,000 foreign guest 
workers. The purpose of the H-1B visa program is to assist companies in 
their employment needs where there is not a sufficient American 
workforce to meet their technology and expertise requirements.
  I am very OK with an H-1B program if American companies cannot find 
enough qualified Americans to do certain jobs that need that particular 
expertise. Then we need to help those companies with those resources. 
However, H-1B and other worker visa programs were never intended to 
replace qualified American workers. We do not want to put Americans at 
a disadvantage. And now that many qualified, hard-working American bank 
workers are unemployed, banks that want to hire workers will not have a 
hard time finding what they need from the American workforce.
  I am concerned companies going through layoffs that currently employ 
H-1B workers will be retaining those guest workers rather than 
similarly qualified American employees. We hear announcements every day 
about companies cutting large numbers of jobs. Yet many of these 
companies continue to advocate for H-1B visas and apply for them.

  I am pretty sure these work visa programs were never intended to 
allow companies going through layoffs to retain foreign guest workers 
rather than similarly qualified American workers. I think in 
implementing layoff plans, companies should ensure that American 
workers have priority in keeping their jobs over foreign guest workers 
on visa programs. I recently sent a letter to Microsoft asking a series 
of questions about the makeup of their layoff plan and encouraging the 
company to ensure that Americans are given priority in job retention.
  Our immigration policy is not intended to harm the American 
workforce. I firmly believe companies going through layoffs that employ 
H-1B visas have a moral obligation to protect American workers by 
putting them first during these difficult economic times. So I plan on 
looking into this issue further and exploring whether legislation is 
necessary there.
  Again, I support the amendment Senator Sanders and I have put in. The 
bottom line is, employers should recruit qualified American workers 
first before hiring foreign guest workers. If banks are going to be 
getting TARP money from the American taxpayers, then they should be 
hiring American workers. I want to emphasize, once again, I am not 
against the H-1B program. I think when we do not have workers in this 
country, we need to keep it going, but it is how it operates. That is 
also why Senator----
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one moment?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. After one sentence. That is why I also support Senator 
Durbin and I working together on a reform of the H-1B program.
  Mr. President, I will yield the floor for a question or whatever the 
Senator might want.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
debate has concluded on the McCain amendment I be allowed to set aside 
the McCain amendment so I can call up the Sanders-Grassley amendment 
No. 306.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I feel constrained to object because there 
was an understanding, an agreement, that the Ensign amendment would be 
the amendment that would come up after the McCain amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Can we come up after the Ensign amendment?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I say to the Senator, let me work this out with you 
privately. I will find a way to accommodate the Senator.
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the McCain amendment. 
Before I speak a little bit to the amendment itself, I want to remind 
my colleagues why this debate is so important and why the McCain 
amendment is so important to this debate.
  Again, we are talking about a $1 trillion bill--$800 billion, up now 
into $900 billion. When you add in interest, it is $1.2 trillion and 
change. It seems as if every amendment that has been offered--we have 
had a lot of Republican amendments that have attempted to cut out some 
of the wasteful spending, eliminate some of what I think is probably 
most egregious about the bill, none of which has been accepted, 
ironically. Ironically, the only amendments that have been accepted so 
far have not decreased the size of the bill. They have added to the 
size of the bill. This bill has gotten bigger.
  I remind my colleagues--and I think it is important for the American 
people to tune in because we throw numbers around here in Washington in 
an abstract way: millions, billions, trillions of dollars--exactly what 
the dimensions are of what we are talking about.

[[Page S1623]]

  A trillion dollars: If you took one-hundred-dollar bills and lined 
them end to end, you could literally go around the Equator almost 39 
times; 969,000 miles of one-hundred-dollar bills lined end to end, 
going around the entire Earth right at the Equator almost 39 
times. That is what we are talking about when we talk about the 
dimensions of $1 trillion. I might also add that if we look at where 
this is coming from, we are borrowing. Let's be honest with the 
American people. We are borrowing this money from future generations. A 
lot has been said on the floor about who is going to get hurt if we 
don't do this, and I agree there are a lot of people hurting. 
Unemployment is high. Frankly, let's think about the people who are 
going to be hurting the most, and that is the next generation of 
Americans who are going to inherit this enormous debt we are passing on 
to them.

  To put it into perspective, between the Revolutionary War and Jimmy 
Carter's Presidency, the United States of America borrowed $800 
billion. From the entire time of the Revolutionary War to the Carter 
Presidency, there was $800 billion worth of borrowing. We are borrowing 
more than $800 billion for this one piece of legislation, not to 
mention what comes next. We know we have a $1 trillion catchall 
spending bill coming at us which is the first time that the 
discretionary appropriations bill is going to exceed $1 trillion. We 
know we are going to have a request for additional moneys coming from 
Secretary Geithner to stabilize the financial markets to the tune of 
several hundred billion dollars. We know there is going to be a 
supplemental spending bill request for the ongoing conflicts in Iraq 
and Afghanistan. Ironically, according to CBO, the bill that was passed 
previously on SCHIP actually leads to $41 billion of deficit spending.
  So all this spending we are doing, all this borrowing we are doing is 
being passed on to the next generation, and they are the people who are 
going to feel the brunt and the impact and hurt the most if we don't do 
the responsible thing here today.
  I think it is important that this particular amendment Senator McCain 
has put forward and a number of us are cosponsoring be heard and fair 
consideration be given because I think there are several things about 
it that differentiate and distinguish it from the bill we are debating, 
the Democratic proposal that is on the floor.
  One of the most important distinctions--and Senator McCain already 
mentioned it--is it comes in at less than half the cost: $421 billion. 
So we are talking about borrowing over $800 billion--all the time from 
the Revolutionary War to the Carter Presidency is the equivalent of 
what we are doing here--versus a much smaller approach and, in my view, 
much more fiscally responsible approach and, frankly, much more 
targeted. Because the criteria that has been laid out at the beginning 
of this debate for what makes sense in terms of a stimulus is it should 
be targeted, temporary, and timely. What we have before us is none of 
the above. It is slow, it is unfocused, and it is unending. Mr. 
President, $140 billion of this bill is going to be very difficult to 
shut off because it adds to the baseline as a lot of mandatory spending 
is included.
  I wish to also show my colleagues what the President's chief economic 
adviser, Larry Summers, said. He said this in the Financial Times on 
January 6 of this year: ``Poorly provided fiscal stimulus can have 
worse side effects than the disease that is to be cured.''
  Now, we have all talked about what is in this bill, and all the 
spending in it, including the $600 million for cars for Federal 
employees, the money that goes into the seven-point-whatever-billion-
dollars it is here that goes into Federal buildings--all good things. 
Senator McCain talked about smoking cessation. That is something we all 
support and believe in. But that ought to be handled in regular order. 
Those are not stimulus. Those are things that do nothing to contribute 
in the short term to creating jobs and helping get our economy back on 
track. In fact, the CBO said that 12 percent of the total amount in the 
bill we have before us would be spent in this year--2009--and less than 
half in 2009 and 2010, so much of what we are talking about is going to 
be pushed off into the future when it is not going to do anything to 
stimulate the economy.
  It does create some jobs--most of them are jobs here in Washington, 
DC--at great cost. For example, there are some jobs created at the 
State Department. The average cost per job created at the State 
Department according to this is over $1 million. On average, you take 
$900 billion and you divide it by about 3 million jobs, which is the 
estimate of what this would create, and we are talking about $300,000 
per job.
  Now, I might add that the average annual salary in my State of South 
Dakota is under $30,000. Imagine how difficult it is to explain to my 
constituents that we are going to borrow $1 trillion from their 
children and grandchildren to create jobs at a cost of $300,000 per 
job. That is an awfully difficult sell, particularly when they look at 
how a lot of this money is spent. We have some requests from mayors and 
city officials around the country, and these are all good things. I am 
not downplaying at all the importance of many of these projects, but 
there are requests here for 42 swimming pools, water slides, golf 
courses, all sorts of things that you can't argue we ought to be 
borrowing $1 trillion from our children and grandchildren to fund and 
to support. So it is important we have something we can be for and that 
does, in fact, create jobs; that does, in fact, add to the economic 
recovery, and that is fiscally responsible.
  I wish to point out, as Senator McCain mentioned in his opening 
remarks, some of the things that are in his bill. It is appropriately 
focused on housing because we believe--and I think rightly so--that 
housing got us into this recession and housing is going to lead us out 
of this recession. It is focused on getting dollars into the hands of 
the American taxpayers. The debate about whether you want to have 
government spend the money or the American people spend the money is a 
very simple one. I happen to believe if you allow the American people 
to spend the money, you get a much better return. When we get money 
back into the hands of Americans, they will help grow the economy. Two-
thirds of our gross domestic product is in the form of consumer 
spending. You provide incentives for small businesses which create two-
thirds or three-fourths of the jobs in our economy and that helps get 
the economy back on track. That is in this bill.
  Reducing marginal income tax rates from 15 down to 10, 10 down to 5, 
cutting the payroll tax in half for a year for employees gets money 
back into the hands of the American people so they can go out and help 
stimulate the economy and create jobs.
  It also, as was noted earlier, makes some changes with regard to the 
underlying bill where defense is concerned. We have some very serious 
needs. Senator McCain mentioned this in his remarks and he talked about 
the defense spending in his bill. There is some, frankly, defense money 
in the Democratic proposal--about $10 billion--mostly for military 
construction projects, but there is no money for reset. We have serious 
needs out there. Senator McCain's amendment adds $7 billion for reset, 
to repair military equipment and replace direct battle losses, 
including $6.5 billion for the Army, $600 million for the Marines, $62 
million for the Navy, and $83 million for the Air Force, which adds 
money for direct repair of military infrastructure and facilities. 
These are things that need to be done and can be done quickly that will 
put money to good use, that do create jobs and serve an important 
national purpose.
  Now, the other thing his bill does is it puts money in for 
infrastructure. Infrastructure arguably is something that does create 
jobs out there, if they are shovel-ready projects that you can actually 
get going quickly. I think that is a good use in a reasonable way, not 
adding all kinds of projects that you are not going to do for many 
years to come. But if you are getting money out there that actually can 
help fund projects that can get done in the short term, that is a good 
thing.
  Unfortunately, much of the money in the Democratic proposal, as I 
said earlier, isn't going to get spent out for years. I offered an 
amendment last night not to fund new programs, assuming it was going to 
take new programs a long time to get implemented and up and running. 
That amendment was defeated. The point of all this is to

[[Page S1624]]

do things that in the short term create jobs. So there is $45 
billion in the McCain proposal for infrastructure.

  The other thing I will say, which I think is critical--critical--in 
this debate, because I said earlier that if we don't put some 
restraints or some safeguards in here, this is going to get--the 
spending is going to go on forever. Senator McCain's proposal includes 
a hard trigger so that when we recognize two consecutive quarters of 
economic growth, positive GDP, this funding terminates. It is a 
fiscally responsible approach. He offered a freestanding amendment last 
night that received 44 votes. I haven't seen any evidence in this 
Chamber yet that anybody here is serious about adding any measure of 
fiscal responsibility or sanity to spending $1 trillion of our 
children's and grandchildren's money.
  I think it is important that this amendment get a vote. I urge my 
colleagues on both sides to support this amendment, to try and do 
something that is fiscally responsible, that reduces the overall size 
of this, that addresses substantively the things in the bill--the 
shortcomings in the Democratic proposal--and do some things that 
actually will help stimulate the economy and create jobs. Senator 
McCain's proposal represents a much better direction in which to head. 
It costs a lot less, it does a lot more, so I hope my colleagues will 
be able to support it.
  One of my colleagues on the Democratic side got up a little earlier 
and said, Well, if it costs a little bit of money this year to do this 
or that, there isn't anything in this bill that costs a little bit of 
money. Everything in this bill costs a lot of money, and the people who 
are going to get hurt the most are the next generation who are going to 
be handed the bill.
  I hope my colleagues will, in fact, support the McCain amendment, and 
I yield the floor.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of the bill that is before 
us, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It is designed to save 
jobs, create jobs, and restore a sense of confidence and hope to the 
people of this country.
  We have seen extraordinary deterioration of the economy in this 
country. This morning, job figures released revealed an additional--
over 600,000 jobless claims. In the last two months, we have lost 
500,000 jobs in each of the two preceding months. We have to act 
decisively, dramatically, and with a scale that will have an effect on 
the overall economy. That is I think inherent in the proposal President 
Obama has sent us.
  I salute Senator Inouye, the Appropriations Committee chair, and the 
subcommittee chairmen and Chairman Baucus for their work in bringing 
this bill to the floor. We have to not only revitalize our economy but 
restore hope to the American people.
  President Obama has set out a very ambitious goal. He wants to 
weatherize 2 million homes. It is not only to put people to work in 
America with the skills of craftsmen and craftswomen, but in the future 
it is going to save us money. So this is not only an immediate response 
to a problem, but it is a long-term increase in our productivity and 
our ability to be competitive in a very difficult world economy.
  I have also introduced an amendment which I will not call up, but it 
would increase the weatherization funds and the LIHEAP funds and other 
funds, but I hope in conference we can raise those totals.
  We need these investments. This is the most perilous economic 
situation a President has ever faced since the 1930s. This is the 
inheritance of 8 years of poor policy. This is the inheritance of a 
huge increase in our national debt in the last 8 years. Under President 
Bush we have seen our national debt explode. That is the legacy that is 
facing the next generation of Americans today, and unless we revive 
this economy, this situation will deteriorate, it will not stabilize, 
and it will not grow. That is our challenge. It is a more difficult 
challenge today than it has been at any time in the last several 
decades.
  This is not a cyclical downturn. This is not an imbalance of supply 
and demand. This is not a situation where it will work itself out. We 
have to take decisive action, and that is a big part of President 
Obama's plan. Our crisis today has its roots in the last 8 years of 
mismanagement: an economic doctrine of tax cuts funded by deficit 
spending, skewed toward the rich, not toward working Americans; 
inadequate supervision of our financial markets; a lack of adequate 
risk assessment by financial institutions throughout not only the 
United States but the world; and the very difficult and costly and 
unfunded war in Iraq and operations in Afghanistan.
  We have to focus our attention on the present, but it is important to 
understand how we got here. President Bush inherited a $236 billion 
Federal budget surplus. His first order of business was to cut taxes 
which benefitted proportionately the wealthiest Americans, enacting 
three major tax cuts between 2001 and 2003. These tax cuts added to the 
national deficit, reduced our capacity to make much needed investments 
in infrastructure, education, and health care, and exacerbated income 
inequality. The median family income actually fell $2,000 between the 
year 2000 and the year 2007. Families lost $2,000 of their income, 
despite strong productivity and growth. Americans were working harder, 
being more innovative, more creative, and yet average families were 
losing income.
  In terms of jobs creation, the 2003 tax cut actually reduced job 
growth below the estimates the President was using to justify his tax 
proposals. As the wealthy thrived and corporate earnings skyrocketed, 
capital investments did not keep pace. Instead, many corporations 
decided to dole out handsome salaries and use their profits to buy back 
stock in pursuit of short-term boosts to share prices. This made the 
options these executives enjoyed that much more valuable.
  Corporate profits grew by 66 percent between 2000 to 2006, despite 
the fact that annual national investment in nonresidential structures--
largely commercial structures such as factories and office buildings--
fell by $130 billion or more than 30 percent. Overall investment in 
buildings, equipment, and software grew by less than 6 percent.
  Not only is there a fiscal deficit, there has been an investment 
deficit in the United States in the last 8 years.
  Over the past year, we have witnessed the long-term consequences of 
these failed economic policies. Since the start of the recession, in 
December 2007, the number of unemployed individuals has grown by 3.6 
million, and the national unemployment rate has risen to 7.2 percent.
  In Rhode Island, it is particularly difficult. We have an 
unemployment rate of 10 percent, second only to Michigan. We have lost 
a huge number of jobs. In fact, we have also seen a complementary 
increase in foreclosures; as people lose their jobs, their ability to 
pay their mortgages declines.
  The lack of oversight in the financial markets in many ways fueled 
the subprime mortgage crisis and led to the failings of Wall Street. We 
saw rating agencies deficient and negligent in judgment and lacking 
independence, which in turn led to a poor assessment of bond rating 
risk. Investment banks took advantage of this system reaping windfall 
profits through the creation of complex financial instruments, such as 
collateralized debt obligations, which hid underlying risk. All of this 
financial engineering did not provide opportunities and hope for 
working Americans.
  Throughout this process, where were the principal regulatory 
agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission? Simply put, 
they were asleep at the wheel.
  The environment of lax oversight and poor lending practices created a 
bubble in housing prices. The collapse of that bubble resulted in home 
loan defaults and falling housing values. The companies that owned 
these assets saw their value plummet. All of this is contributing to 
the dilemma and the crisis we see today. We are in a very dangerous 
situation, with weak housing markets, stagnant wages, impaired consumer 
spending, which leads to further erosion of housing prices and further 
erosion of the economy. It is a vicious cycle and we have to break that 
cycle. We have to do it with this legislation.
  We have seen a situation where Americans have to put off essential 
and important purchases, such as medicine, and they may have to defer 
education for their children. They have to make these very difficult 
choices. We have to make difficult choices. Spending on durable items, 
such as cars, appliances,

[[Page S1625]]

and furniture has plunged at a rate of 22.4 percent last quarter.
  We have to get the economy moving again. We are in a situation where 
this is not only our problem, it is an international problem. The 
global economy is in uncharted waters. According to the IMF, in 2009, 
economic growth across the world will fall to 0.5 percent from 3.4 
percent in 2008--the lowest rate since World War II. It is a worldwide 
phenomenon.
  In response, we have to act quickly and decisively to pass this 
legislation. It is estimated that with the plan President Obama has 
suggested, we can provide 13,000 additional jobs in Rhode Island. That 
will be good news.
  With banks failing, automakers on the verge of bankruptcy, and 
pervasive unemployment, the American people are rightfully asking us to 
respond, and do so quickly and decisively. We have to also recognize 
that this action is integrally related to the financial markets, the 
banking system, the financial system, and without increased consumer 
demand and increased consumer confidence they will fall further and 
require additional help. In order to provide support to financial 
institutions, in addition to the TARP funds, we have to pass this 
legislation to get people back into the marketplace. We also have to 
recognize that as we get the economy moving, we have to modernize our 
regulatory system. Our regulators need to have the tools and resources 
to get the job done. We have seen the problems with the unregulated 
hedge funds, private equity concerns, and the lack of enforcement by 
the Securities and Exchange Commission. That has to be changed. The 
American people will not tolerate business as usual. The first act is 
to get our economy moving forward. This legislation proposed by the 
President will begin to do that.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 78 percent of the 
funding in this bill could be spent in the next 18 months. This is 
timely; it is responsive.
  According to JPMorgan Chase economist Michael Feroli, the Recovery 
Act would add about 4 percentage points to the second and third quarter 
GDP growth. He recognizes that a lot of infrastructure projects we are 
proposing will take some months to get off the ground. The first major 
input will be the tax breaks, transfer payments, and State and local 
government aid. We will see a growth in terms of the GDP. We will also 
see the effect of this program taking hold in our economy. It is 
necessary to pursue this approach.
  This bill gets the most ``bang for the buck,'' with funding to 
modernize unemployment insurance, increase unemployment insurance 
benefits, and extend the existing Federal unemployment insurance 
extensions on the books to cover those recently laid off. It will 
provide immediate help to unemployed Americans and provide an immediate 
boost to consumer spending.
  Tax cuts comprise about one-third of this legislation. But unlike the 
Bush tax cuts, this legislation provides targeted relief to 95 percent 
of working Americans. An estimated 470,000 Rhode Islanders alone would 
receive tax relief. This is all extremely important.
  We also are going to make improvements to a whole range of 
infrastructure--roads, bridges, highways, public housing. All of these 
programs will receive additional attention. We are going to bolster 
State and local governments, because if we don't provide them 
additional resources, they will begin to cut back vital programs and it 
will be contradicting what we are trying to do at the Federal level. If 
they cut back, that won't help us move the economy forward. This 
assistance to State and local governments is important.
  Rhode Island is prepared to receive, under this legislation, $220 
million to help local school systems and communities pay for critical 
services, $46 million to improve local drinking water and sewer 
systems, and $132 million for road and bridge repairs. Right now, 
regarding the major interstate highways through Rhode Island all 
tractor-trailers are required to detour, get off the road, and drive 
miles out of the way through local streets and then get back on the 
highway; and at the same time it is required that the State provide 
State police officers in both directions 24 hours a day to ensure that 
they do that. That is inefficient. That is a waste of resources. If we 
can fix those roads and bridges, we can provide for a more efficient 
use of our highways and put the money more appropriately to generate 
jobs and productivity. That is one example.
  Also, there is going to be strict accountability and transparency in 
this proposal. Part of this legislation will provide for hiring 
additional auditors to track where the funds are going. There will be 
public acknowledgment of what projects are funded and the process of 
the projects.
  This legislation is absolutely essential. We have to do it. We have 
to move decisively, quickly, and I hope we can do that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, while we are debating this trillion 
dollar bill, we need to keep our eye on the ball. We have a preliminary 
study that I have referred to a couple times in previous debates by the 
Congressional Budget Office, which shows that jobs created by the 
economic stimulus legislation being debated in the Senate would cost 
the taxpayers between $100,000 and $300,000 apiece.
  These numbers should be contrasted to those under the January 
baseline of the Congressional Budget Office, in which there is no 
stimulus, that shows that the gross domestic product per worker is 
about $100,000. In other words, without the bill, the new analysis 
indicates that the cost of each stimulus job to be as much as three 
times more than jobs created without the stimulus bill.
  There has been a lot of talk about getting the most ``bang for the 
buck,'' but there is no talk about actually making sure it happens so 
that Americans get the help they need. Before Congress spends another 
trillion dollars, we ought to make sure we are getting our money's 
worth. I will reiterate a caution that I gave the other day. Before 
this bill passes the Senate, we ought to have the full analysis of the 
Congressional Budget Office that they said would take a few days to get 
done. We need to know what these jobs are going to cost so we get our 
money's worth. We are the caretakers of the taxpayers' dollars--tossing 
money at a program, when you figure that our gross domestic product 
would produce about $100,000 per worker--and we have in this bill these 
jobs costing up to $300,000 apiece.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to enthusiastically support the 
bill of my good friend and colleague Senator John McCain. Let me 
address one thing that was said. My good friend Senator Jack Reed said 
we are in this deficit problem because of the way George Bush spent 
money. I happened to look back at the last two Congresses. There was 
not an appropriation bill that Senator Reed voted against.
  The President cannot spend money; only the Congress can spend money. 
That is one of the reasons we are here today having alternatives 
presented; it is because Congress is in charge of the purse. There are 
objections and disagreements and different ways of looking at 
everything. I think most Members want to look at this legislation 
called a ``stimulus''--I call it a ``spending'' bill--and try to get it 
back to something that is targeted, timely and, more important, 
temporary. That is what Senator McCain's substitute proposal does.
  As a matter of fact, the differences we have today are over economic 
recovery. The question that Americans should ask is: Is economic 
recovery the result of how much Congress spends or is economic recovery 
about how targeted our spending is and how we use those dollars to 
leverage job creation and investments in job creation? I believe it is 
the latter. I believe we have to encourage investment.
  Senator Thune did a great job of talking about the trillion dollar-
plus on this bill--$900 billion plus in spending, at a very crucial 
time, plus interest, comes to about $1.2 trillion. I point out to my 
colleagues that several weeks ago, we appropriated $350 billion to the 
TARP. This week, I am convinced that this Senate and this Congress will 
hand to the President that $1.2 trillion spending bill. It is my 
understanding that appropriators plan to

[[Page S1626]]

come to the floor in the next couple weeks with an omnibus spending 
bill of a trillion dollars. It is also my understanding that the 
Secretary of the Treasury will suggest to the President that the 
administration come back to the Congress in the very near future to ask 
for at least a half trillion dollars in additional TARP money, meaning 
that over a 60-day period this Congress could spend almost $3 trillion.
  Let me put that in perspective. If you extrapolate that almost $300 
billion is the interest on this bill alone, that means that the 
commitment, the obligation, the debt to the next generation that we 
will do in this Congress over the next 60 days is almost a trillion 
dollars in interest. Ask yourself, can your children retire that debt 
over their lifetime, much less pay back the money we have spent?
  It is clear that the McCain proposal will fail. I hate to start a 
debate with an admission that that is going to happen. But when one of 
the key elements of this bill is rejected, with only 44 members 
supporting it, I think the die is pretty well cast.
  What was that key point of the McCain proposal? It simply said this: 
After two quarters of positive growth over 2 percent, adjusted for 
inflation against GDP, that an amazing thing would happen in 
Washington: we would stop spending money. If for some reason we still 
had money left out of the $1.2 trillion commitment, it would stop; that 
there is no longer a reason to fuel growth if, in fact, we have growth 
that is happening and that we would do a rescission on the rest of the 
money. In other words, we would pull back the commitment we made, and 
we would reserve that money for reduction of our debt.
  In addition to that, he said we will automatically go in and make 
sure that every new program that was created, 30-plus programs, were no 
longer there, they would be eliminated. For the people who follow 
inside-the-park way we do things in Washington, we would go to the 
baseline of spending and we would take all of that new spending out of 
the baseline so we did not automatically start next year's 
appropriations at a higher point, reflective of what is supposed to be 
targeted, timely, and temporary. It did not pass.
  More Members said: We understand we said we want it targeted, timely, 
and temporary, but we really didn't mean it on the temporary part; we 
want to expand permanently the size of spending for the Federal 
Government. When we do that in a deficit situation, we have compound 
interest. Just as many of us as we grew up understood and learned, 
compound interest was something we gained on deposits. This is compound 
expenses, obligations to future generations.
  What Senator McCain's substitute does is it focuses how much we spend 
and where we spend it.
  We have been criticized because Senator McCain's substitute proposal 
only spends a little over $400 billion. You have to ask yourself: Who 
came up with $900 billion? I haven't heard an economist saying: If you 
spend $900 billion, you will solve the economic crisis in America. This 
is a number that has been pulled out of the sky. It was constructed 
based on where people wanted to spend money.
  I compliment the chairman because last night he accepted--this body 
accepted by voice vote an amendment in Senator McCain's substitute 
which jump-starts housing again, and this bill was deficient on jump-
starting housing. I think this is a good amendment they accepted. It is 
part of the core of the McCain substitute.
  Part of the core of the McCain substitute, though, is also making 
sure we leave money in the pockets of the American people--$275 billion 
that has been proven over time to stimulate growth, to go into the 
economy, not targeted at rich people. We have had that debate way too 
much. It is targeted at individuals by eliminating the payroll tax for 
1 year going away. It is targeted at people at the 15-percent tax rate 
going to 10 and the people at the 10-percent tax rate going to 5. It is 
targeted at the individuals who have an income, who are likely to 
spend.
  I agree with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. What we have 
to do, in addition to stabilizing the financial markets, is get us 
participating in the U.S. economy again. This alternative proposal is 
targeted to leave that $275 billion in the pockets of the American 
people. It is targeted to put $50 billion into programs that help those 
who have been most affected by job loss, by the need to feed their 
families. It has targeted $32 billion to restart this housing market, 
and it has targeted $64 billion in a combination of infrastructure in 
communities across this country and our military installations and the 
reset of programs that are absolutely vital.
  Let me end where I started by saying that the single most important 
thing the McCain substitute does is it has a 3-year sunset. It says 
that in 3 years, everything goes away. If, in fact, this bill 
accomplishes what its author says it will, then we will not wait 3 
years, if you accept this spending proposal, because after two 
consecutive quarters of economic growth, everything would stop.
  I believe the American people deserve sunsets such as this. They 
deserve triggers in bills that say once we accomplish what we set out 
to accomplish and we all agree we need, let's stop it there. Let's not 
just consider because we authorized it to be spent that we are going to 
continue to open the spigot and the next generation suffers. We will 
not be here. I don't think there is a parent in America or a 
grandparent in America who is not willing to make sure the next 
generation and the next generation and the next generation has as good 
an opportunity as we had.
  I am going to tell you, Mr. President, over the next 60 days, we will 
spend, we will appropriate, we will authorize over $3 trillion. If we 
look at the portraits that are around the Senate and the Capitol, our 
forefathers would be turning in their graves today if they could. They 
did not even envision what a trillion dollars was, much less that 
Congress would talk about spending over $1 trillion in one bill or $3 
trillion in 60 days, almost a trillion dollars' worth of interest 
obligation to the next generation. But we are doing it like routine 
business. We are going to rush through this in less than a week.
  I remember when there was an energy bill in the Senate. We spent 3 
weeks, not stalling but debating different types of solutions to the 
problem. That is what we are doing today, offering substitutes, 
offering amendments. But the die is cast. They are not going to be 
accepted. As Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, said, and I think 
her remarks are embraced over here: We won; therefore, we have a right 
to do it exactly like we want to do it.
  It is time for bipartisanship. It is a time for compromise. 
Compromise is not ``take ours and not have yours heard.'' Compromise is 
also not ``you can offer all of yours, and we will just routinely 
object to them, vote them down.'' Who loses then? It is not me. It is 
not the minority. It is the American people. This is a debate that is 
worth having. It is a debate for the American people and for the next 
generation. So understand, if changes are not made, it is not that the 
minority lost, it is that the American people lost. What we are trying 
to do is targeted, it is temporary, and it hopefully is timely.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
speakers be recognized in the following order, honoring our time-
honored tradition of going back and forth: first, the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, Senator Inouye; second, Senator Graham; 
third, myself; fourth, Senator Alexander; fifth, Senator Schumer; next 
is Senator Coburn; next is Senator Cantwell; next is Senator Inhofe; 
followed by a Democratic Senator; followed by Senator Hutchison from 
Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, in the presentation of the bill before us, 
the Senator from Arizona singled out one group--Filipino war veterans--
and suggested that these were men from foreign countries and that we 
are providing funds for them. If I may, I would like to spend a few 
moments discussing this matter.
  On January 26, 1941, the President of the United States, Mr. 
Roosevelt, issued a military order through General MacArthur calling 
upon Filipinos to volunteer to serve in the Army, to

[[Page S1627]]

serve in the Navy, to serve in the Air Force, because the President 
sensed, correctly, that there was much instability and much violence in 
Asia. He felt the time had come for the United States to be prepared 
for any eventuality. As a result of that call, 470,000 Filipinos 
stepped forward and volunteered to serve in the military, under the 
command of General MacArthur.
  As we all know, on December 7, 1941, war came to our shores, to my 
State of Hawaii. Pearl Harbor was bombed, and then the forces of Japan 
began advancing toward the Philippines. The first major target was the 
Bataan Peninsula. The 14th Japanese Army surrounded the peninsula. That 
peninsula contained at that moment 80,000 troops. We all assumed that 
the 80,000 were American troops. No. About 18,000 were American troops; 
the rest were Filipinos. Yes, the majority of the troops in Bataan were 
Filipinos, but somehow, if you look at Hollywood on the Bataan death 
march, you hardly see a Filipino marching. Of the survivors of the 
Bataan, 15,000 were Americans, 60,000 were Filipinos. The march took a 
little over a month. They were not given medicine or water. By the time 
it ended, 54,000 survived. Very few Filipinos survived.

  Then we had Corregidor. The same thing.
  So in March 1942, the Congress of the United States--the Senate and 
the House--passed a measure thanking the Filipinos for their gallantry, 
for their heroism, and said: If you wish, you may become a citizen of 
the United States and get all the benefits of a U.S. veteran.
  The war ended, and in February of 1946, this Congress passed a bill 
rescinding, repealing that act of 1942. Believe it or not, it declared 
that the service the Filipinos had rendered was not Active Duty. I 
don't know what it meant by that. It was not Active service.
  The Filipinos have been waiting all this time. We have had measure 
after measure presented. We did so in the proper fashion, and we got 
filibustered, we got ruled out, and everything else.
  At this moment, out of the 470,000 who volunteered, 18,000 are still 
alive--18,000. The average age is 90. At this moment, while I am 
speaking, hundreds lie in hospitals on their death beds. And I am 
certain, while I am speaking, some are dying. Two weeks from now, we 
will have 17,000 surviving.
  I agree with the Senator from Arizona. This is not a stimulus 
proposal. It does not create jobs. But the honor of the United States 
is what is involved.
  It is about time we close this dark chapter. I love America. I love 
serving America. I am proud of this country, but this is a black 
chapter. It has to be cleansed, and I hope my colleagues will join me 
in finally recognizing that these men served us well. They died for us. 
They got wounded for us. And they deserve recognition.

  Incidentally, this bill doesn't contain a penny for the Filipinos. It 
recognizes them. And we will provide the money later.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Absolutely.
  Mr. McCAIN. Is the Senator aware of my strong support for the 
compensation that our great Filipino allies in World War II rendered to 
this Nation and to the country?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.
  Mr. McCAIN. And is it also clear that there are many wrongs that need 
to be righted through funding, including our own veterans, including 
hospitals, including medical care, including PTSD?
  Mr. GRAHAM. A long list.
  Mr. McCAIN. So does the Senator believe that compensation for that 
which is not under the label of stimulus to our economy and restoring 
our economy or creating jobs is not what is needed to be addressed in 
this bill?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I could not agree with the Senator from Arizona more.
  Mr. McCAIN. So could I finally ask the Senator, is there any question 
of anybody's patriotism or love of country or the outstanding and 
magnificent service rendered in World War II by our brave Filipino 
allies?
  Mr. GRAHAM. No.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator for answering my questions.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Now, Mr. President, if I may ask the Chair to let me know 
when I have used 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this is one of the most important 
decisions the Congress is going to make and that the new administration 
is going to make in the first 4 years of the Obama administration and 
the Democratic-controlled Congress.
  My good friend Senator Durbin, from Illinois, whom I look forward to 
working with in solving hard problems, came to the floor and said some 
things to which I would like to respond. Knowing that we are going to 
get this behind us one day and go on to other hard subjects, such as 
Social Security and Guantanamo Bay, and try to find some bipartisanship 
there, I would say that to talk about inheriting Bush's problems is 
relevant to a certain extent. But this is America's problem. And you 
can blame George Bush all you want, but he didn't write this bill. You 
all did. This is your bill, and it needs to be America's bill.
  Now, you may get three or four Republicans to vote with you, but let 
me tell you what the country is going to inherit if we pass this bill 
in terms of substance and process. We are going to lose the ability as 
Members of Congress to go to the public and ask for more money--let us 
borrow more of your money to fix housing--because this bill stinks. The 
process that has led to this bill stinks.
  The House did not get one Republican vote. Maybe every Republican is 
just crazy, but I don't think so. I think there are some Republicans in 
the House who understand we need a stimulus package and believe we have 
to do more than cut taxes. I believe we have to do more than cut taxes. 
But the reason you didn't get a Republican vote in the House is because 
Nancy Pelosi's attitude is: We won, we write the bill. Well, let me 
tell you, this ain't about one party winning, this is about America. 
And America needs the Congress and the new President to be smart and 
work together. We are not being smart. We are spending money on things 
that have nothing to do with creating a job in the near term, and the 
spending will go on long after this economic crisis is solved. It is 
not smart to say no to an amendment that would stop the spending when 
the economy gets back on its feet.
  I want the American people to know there was an amendment offered 
yesterday that said when the economy starts to grow again--2 percent 
over inflation for two quarters in a row--we are going to stop any 
spending that is left to be done in this bill and reevaluate where we 
go. If we don't have a trigger or some brakes, we will keep spending 
the money no matter what the economy is doing because there are some 
people in this body who cannot spend enough. Now, if you feel 
Republicans spent too much of your money, guilty as charged. But this 
is not the solution. This makes us look like misers.
  America believes--75 percent of the American people--that we need a 
stimulus. Almost 60 percent of the people believe this bill needs to be 
changed. Count me in that group. We need to be smart and we need to 
work together. We are doing neither. We are not working together.
  There are 16 of my colleagues in a room somewhere in the Capitol--5 
Republicans and the rest Democrats--trying to find a compromise. God 
bless them, but that is not the way you spend $800 billion. You don't 
get 16 people in a room trying to find a compromise to get to 60 votes 
and say that is good government.
  Ronald Reagan had a saying: If I get 80 percent of what I want, then 
I should be satisfied.
  Lindsey Graham is an 80 percent guy. I hope you believe that because 
I have tried to show you that I am an 80 percent guy, when you 
negotiate. There is no negotiation going on here. Nobody is 
negotiating. We are making it up as we go. The polling numbers are 
scaring the hell out of everybody and they are in a panic. They are 
running from one corner of the Capitol to the other trying to cobble 
votes together to lower the cost of the bill in order to say we solved 
the problem.
  This is not the way to spend $1 trillion. This will come back to bite 
everybody in this body because when we go

[[Page S1628]]

to the public and say: We need money to get rid of toxic assets that 
are clogging up the banking system, they are going to say: Why should I 
give you a penny more; look what happened with TARP and look what 
happened in this monstrosity of a bill. And I think, quite frankly, we 
are going to need to go back.
  But this $800 billion, $900 billion process has done little for 
housing and nothing for banking. So we are destroying the one thing I 
hoped we could regain: credibility, confidence, and trust.
  As to President Obama--nice man, great potential--he really has a big 
plate of problems. And I wanted to help him. I want him to succeed, 
where we can find common ground to make America succeed. I am begging 
him to get involved. Doing news shows and coming to lunch is not what 
Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill did to solve the Social Security problem. 
I know we have to act urgently, but I also know the public is not going 
to let us do this over and over and over.
  We need a timeout--not months; days, hopefully; not weeks--where we 
can get in a room, and not with 16 people but with the leadership of 
the House, the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, and the White House, 
to find a way to spend less and do more because this will not be the 
end of the spending required to get this economy back on its feet.
  There is so much in this bill--not 1 percent. There is $75 billion in 
this bill earmarked to the States that has no strings attached, and 
what has that to do with stimulating the economy? I know my State has a 
budget shortfall, but if we are going to take a bankrupt Congress and 
borrow money to give to States and take care of their economic 
problems, that is one politician helping another with their political 
problems, but it is not creating a job for you and your family.
  We are not being smart, we are not working together, we are making 
this up as we go, and we are losing the good will and the trust of the 
American people.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I wish to call to the Senator's attention two amendments 
that have been adopted, both of them initiated by Republican Senators 
and both of them now in the bill, the first by Senator Grassley and 
Senator Menendez in committee that added about $70 billion in cost to 
the bill--the alternative minimum tax relief. It is something we both 
support, but it clearly was an effort to engage Republican Senators in 
changing the bill in a positive way. The second amendment adopted 
yesterday was by Senator Isakson of Georgia relative to a tax credit 
for home purchases, and I believe the cost of that is $19 billion. 
Those two amendments account for $89 billion out of the $900 billion in 
the bill. So about 10 percent of the bill comes from Republican 
amendments.
  To suggest that we are not open to amendments from the Republican 
side, I would say to my colleague, I think we are trying. We could do 
more and we want to do more, but we don't want to lose what we hope 
President Obama is asking for here--something that will have a 
substantial and dramatic impact on the economy.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Senator for his comments. If you believe this 
is a good process, to spend $800 billion, we are on different planets. 
We are literally making this up as we go. If this is such a good 
process, why are 16 Senators meeting in a corner trying to figure out 
how to keep this from stinking up with the public? The idea that the 
markup lasted 1 hour 40 minutes and one amendment is accepted--is this 
the way we are going to solve Social Security?
  Look at this bill. This bill has to be done by tonight, and we are 
figuring out as we go what is in it. There is a COBRA provision in this 
bill. What is COBRA? Well, if you lose your job, there is an ability to 
maintain health care insurance through a program called COBRA. People 
are losing their jobs, and they may need COBRA benefits. The bill says 
we will pay 65 percent of the COBRA premium for anybody who loses their 
job. That makes sense to some extent, but what if you are the CEO who 
has been fired from one of these banks and you are worth $20 million? 
Should we pay 65 percent of your premium? That is not smart.
  Mrs. BOXER. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I think it is amazing that the Senator is 
holding up a bill--holding up a bill. Very theatrical. Did you ever do 
that when George Bush was President and he sent down a bill twice as 
big as that? Did the Senator ever do that? Because you can do that. 
That is theatrical. You can do that.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will put my ability to speak my mind to 
my party up against anybody, including you, Senator. I have been on 
this floor many times arguing with the past administration about 
policies I disagreed with. I don't recall you doing that a lot, but I 
don't question your motives as to why you are doing what you are doing.
  I am here today----
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GRAHAM. No, it is my time.
  I am here today to point out the fact that this is not 
bipartisanship. This process we are engaging in is not smart. We are 
not working together. We are about to spend $800 billion or $900 
billion and nobody has a clue where we are going to land, and we have 
to do it by tonight.
  So I am telling you right now that if this is the solution to George 
Bush's problems, the country is going to get worse. If this is the new 
way of doing business, if this is the change we can all believe in, 
America's best days are behind her.
  I want to meet you in the middle. I want to find a way to spend money 
beyond cutting taxes that will help people who have lost their jobs. 
But I don't want to throw a bunch of money into a system that is not 
going to create a job in the near term, knowing that I have to work 
with you and the Senator from Illinois to put money into the housing 
market because people are losing their houses; knowing that I have to 
come back and ask for more money from the American people to fix the 
banking system when we have done nothing with banking.
  There is plenty of blame to go around here. There is plenty of blame. 
If you want to look back and say this is all George W. Bush's fault, 
you can do that. I am choosing not to do that. I am urging this body to 
sit down in some methodical way, with a sense of urgency, to come up 
with a product better than this. I am urging a rejection of the 
mentality ``we won, we write the bill.''
  Now, if you want to do it this way, we are going to lose the ability 
to go back to the American people. The American people understand this 
bill is not working for them. The process we are creating is not 
working for them. I want to work with you to work for them. I feel shut 
out. Maybe it is just me. Maybe I am the problem. But I don't think so. 
I think people are figuring out pretty quickly that this Congress, the 
old one and the new one, is making this up as we go, and we are running 
out of good will. We are running out of capital. We don't need any more 
news conferences. What we need is getting more than 16 people in a 
room. We need to slow down, take a timeout, and get it right.
  I support the McCain amendment, but I am willing to do more. I am 
willing to spend more if it makes sense. I am willing to cut taxes more 
if it makes sense. But I know this: What we are doing in this bill does 
not make sense and we are not doing it together. We are going to miss a 
chance to start over again, I say to my good friend from California, to 
wipe out the past, and to start with a new way of doing business. What 
we are engaging in, in my opinion, is all of the wrong things of the 
past. There is nothing new about this bill or this process. Finally, 
America wants something more. America deserves something new. This is 
not it.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized, under 
the previous order.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, first I want to correct--I know it is a 
very minor mistake the Senator made--the markup of the Finance 
Committee took over 11\1/2\ hours, not 1\1/2\ hours, as the Senator 
represented.
  But, frankly, the main question is, how do we get people back to 
work?

[[Page S1629]]

How do we get our economy moving? That is the question.
  There are lots of ideas. A lot of people have spent a lot of time 
working, trying to find the best solutions--a lot of economists, a lot 
of experts. It is true we are in, probably, the deepest recession this 
country has faced since the Great Depression. That is true. It is also 
true the economy is much different now than it was back in the 1930s. 
That is also true. The banking system is different. We now have an 
international dimension. It is greater today than was the case back in 
the Great Depression. So, therefore, it is true to some degree we are 
kind of learning as we are doing. Nobody has all the answers--nobody 
does. Most of us working on this recognize that. All of us are doing 
the best we can, on both sides of the aisle. We are trying to figure 
this out and do the best we can with the resources we have and with the 
Government we have.
  Different people, of course, have different estimates. Let me tell 
you what the basic estimates are from the people I have talked to. They 
say there is about a $1 trillion gap between the potential American 
economy and the actual economy--about a $1 trillion gap. The real 
question is, how do we fill in that gap? What do we do to make sure the 
real economy matches up to the potential economy?
  There are three basic components, most people agree: One is to do 
what we can to unfreeze the credit markets. Banks are not loaning. It 
is an issue that has been discussed at length in the last many months. 
The question is, what do we do to unfreeze the credit markets in this 
country so banks start to loan money, start to loan money to 
creditworthy borrowers? That is one challenge, and that is the reason 
for all these programs, such as TARP.
  We can debate whether they are perfect. They are probably not 
perfect. But that is a part of the solution, do what we can to get 
banks to unfreeze the credit markets.
  Another component is housing. What do we do about all these houses 
where the mortgage is much greater than the actual market value of the 
house? The common term, it is called ``underwater.'' Estimates are 
between one in four, maybe one in five American houses is underwater. 
What do we do to help address housing? We are working on that.
  There are many features in this bill that address housing. For 
example, the $15,000 tax credit offered by the Senator from Georgia, 
Mr. Isakson, and the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, adopted 
by the Senate--that is going to help. It is a $15,000 tax credit for 
the purchase of a home. There are many other housing provisions enacted 
by the Banking Committee. Some are in this bill. Others are in other 
bills. Of course we have to go further.
  The third component is consumer demand. What can we do in this 
country to help people feel a little better about things so they can 
start spending--people can start spending some money? First, they have 
to have money, and that gets to jobs. We also want to encourage people 
to spend money so the economy starts to loosen up, and that also 
creates jobs. That is the problem to which the bill is addressed. That 
is the third component, which is basically on the demand side, to help 
people spend money.
  How do we do that? One way is to get measures passed to create jobs. 
It is bridges, it is roads and infrastructure, and so forth.
  Without being too simplistic, what has happened in this country in 
the last several years is, we have become way over leveraged. Banks 
have borrowed way too much. Hedge funds, private equity funds have 
borrowed way too much--leveraged maybe 30, 40 times. American credit 
card debt has gone up. Individuals have become overleveraged. 
Businesses have become overleveraged. When you borrow much more than 
your assets, clearly when times start to constrict a little, it is a 
huge problem to pay off your loans, to pay off your debt, especially 
when you are leveraged in an amount that is 40 times your assets. That 
is really a problem.
  That is what has happened in this country. So in a certain sense, 
while the private sector is deleveraging, the public sector is starting 
to leverage to fill the gap, to keep things going. That is the reason 
for the borrowing.
  We are all concerned about how far this is going to go, how much debt 
it will be. Will we be able to pay off the debt? Is it going to work or 
is it not going to work? The answer to that is, first, we have to spend 
to make things happen. I do believe, frankly, it is better to spend 
more than less because if we spend more, there is a psychology, in 
addition to an actual multiplier dollar effect, that there is light at 
the end of the tunnel, and we are going to find a solution--compared 
with being tepid, being timid, just putting our toe in the water a 
little bit. I think that is not a good idea.
  So the $800 billion--this bill is close to $900 billion right now. 
Some suggest maybe $800 billion is where we should end up. I think that 
would be fine. But will this help create jobs, this $800 billion? That 
is the basic question. And how do we fill the $1 trillion gap between 
the potential economy and the real economy? Most people I think, and 
most economists who are reputable, I think, will say that if we do 
nothing, that $1 trillion gap will double to about $2 trillion. These 
are rightwing economists, leftwing economists--there is a basic 
agreement among almost all economists that we have to spend some money 
to get things back on track again.
  I have a summary of a letter from the Congressional Budget Office--
released yesterday--trying to determine the effects of this bill on 
jobs. What is the effect of the bill we are considering on gross 
domestic product? Let me just give you some highlights. This is a 
letter from the Congressional Budget Office. It is a nonpartisan 
organization.
  Let me say, a lot of economists have their incomes paid for by people 
on one side of an issue or the other. That is one reason things get 
slanted sometimes. But this is the Congressional Budget Office. They 
don't make a lot of money, but these guys and women are very good, and 
they are public servants. They want to do this job. What do they say?
  They say between now and the fourth quarter of 2010, the number of 
jobs created under the underlying bill, plus the number of jobs saved, 
is in a range between 1.3 to 3.9; basically between 1.3 million to 4 
million jobs created and saved between now and the fourth quarter of 
2010. That is CBO's best estimate. Granted, there is a range. We don't 
have a precise number, but it is a range.
  The amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona cuts that in half. 
So let's cut it in half; the resulting range is 0.6 million jobs to 
about 2 million jobs, roughly. That is not close to beginning to fill 
the $1 to $2 trillion gap between the real economy and the potential 
economy.
  CBO also says that under the Senate bill, GDP would increase by 1.2 
percent to 3.6 percent by the end of 2010. The unemployment rate will 
decline between 0.7 percentage points and 2.1 percentage points. Let's 
take a midpoint. That is roughly a 1.5-percentage point reduction in 
the unemployment rate. The midpoint for the increase in GDP is about 
2.4 percent. And the midpoint for the number of jobs created or saved 
is about 2.6 million. It is 2.6 million jobs created or saved under 
this bill.

  Let me just read a sentence from the letter. The letter says:

       For all of the categories [of spending or taxes] that would 
     be affected by the Senate legislation, resulting budgetary 
     changes are estimated to raise output in the short run, 
     albeit by different amounts.

  That gets to my next point. Different dollars spent differently have 
different effects. They all are stimulative, some more stimulative than 
others. The letter goes on to say:

       . . . direct purchases of goods and services [by Uncle Sam] 
     tend to have large effects on GDP.

  The letter then lists the numerical stimulative effect of each 
category of new spending and tax cuts. For purchases of goods and 
services by the Federal Government, the multiplier effect is between $1 
and $2.50. The midpoint is $1.75. For transfers to State and local 
government used for infrastructure, the effect is about the same: 
between $1.00 and $2.50. For transfers to State and local governments 
for programs other than infrastructure, it is less, from 70 cents to 
$1.90 on the dollar.
  For transfers to persons who are receiving unemployment benefits the 
return on a dollar is higher. Transfers to

[[Page S1630]]

people who are unemployed are most likely to be spent, not saved. The 
return on a dollar is between 80 cents and $2.20.
  For Making Work Pay--that tax cut is a key feature of this bill--the 
multiplier effect is between 50 cents and $1.70 on the dollar. The 
midpoint of the return on the dollar is $1.10
  I might say, the effect for the 1-year patch to the AMT, the return 
on a dollar is between 10 cents and 50 cents. There is not a lot of 
multiplier effect for the AMT. And for the loss carryback business 
provisions, the multiplier effect is between zero and 40 cents.
  Basically, what CBO is saying is what a lot of us intuitively 
believe: a dollar spent on roads and bridges and infrastructure will 
have a pretty high effect. Dollars transferred to low-income people, 
such as dollars for unemployment benefits, also have a very large 
effect.
  Why do I say all this? I say this in part because I think it is 
helpful for us to know what the Congressional Budget Office believes. 
There are so many opinions here in Washington, it is just up to us to 
separate the wheat from the chaff, to listen to the music as well as 
the words, to try to read between the lines, to try to figure out what 
is really going on, and I think the Congressional Budget Office's 
estimates are a pretty good indicator.
  We are concerned about the long-term debt--clearly, we are. There is 
not a Senator here who is not concerned about the long-term budget 
effects of what we do. We don't know exactly what the long-term effects 
are going to be, but we are concerned about them.
  The President is going to have a fiscal summit on this very issue. He 
is inviting a good number of people; it will probably last 3 or 4 or 5 
weeks. It is obviously a concern to the President, and it is obviously 
a concern to all of us.
  Let's also remember the President is going to submit a budget 
sometime this month. It is going to be a blueprint for the President's 
programs and plans. Clearly, he is going to have to be thinking about 
the long-term debt too. Obviously, I think it will be very important 
for us to see what the President's budget is, and then to work with the 
Budget Committees, in this body and in the other body, to put together 
a blueprint and to try to get a handle on long-term debt.
  This amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, tries 
to get at this long-run debt problem by setting up two entitlement 
commissions. One is to address Social Security and the other is to 
address Medicare and Medicaid. I think on the surface that is 
interesting, but let's look at the facts. These entitlement commissions 
could make recommendations which Congress could amend but on which 
debate could be limited. The limit on debate greatly concerns me.
  And let's look at the basic entitlements people talk about. What are 
they?
  One is Social Security. Back in 1983, I think it was, the Social 
Security trust fund was about to go belly up. It was going kaput. I 
think there were enough funds in the Trust Fund that when added to new 
taxes coming in, full benefits could be paid for only 6 months. There 
was that little in the Social Security trust fund. The idea of a 
commission was raised. President Reagan called it together, it had both 
Republicans and Democrats on it. At the end, they agreed to do about 
the only thing they could do, and that was to cut benefits and raise 
taxes. That was put together based on a handshake between Tip O'Neill 
and Jim Baker.
  There was a famous telephone conversation--hey, Mr. Speaker, if you 
agree to lower benefits, we will agree to raise taxes. We will greet 
each other, shake hands on it, and neither will attack each other. That 
was the deal. They didn't attack each other. That is what happened: 
benefits were cut a little and taxes were raised a little. Again, there 
was the gun at the head of everybody, especially seniors, because 
Social Security was about to go belly up in 6 months.
  What is the situation today? Is the Social Security Trust Fund in 
dire jeopardy? No.
  The Social Security trust fund is solvent, all of the actuaries say, 
to the year--I do not know the exact date--2041, 2042, something like 
that. So I wonder. Sure, we should start early on things. But there are 
only two ways to make the Trust Fund solvent beyond 2041, to say 2090 
or 2100, and that is by cutting benefits and raising taxes.
  Now, when times are tough--we are in a recession right now--I do not 
know how wise it is to talk about raising taxes and cutting benefits 
for a problem that is not real, not now. Maybe in a couple of 3 years 
when the economy is doing better, then we could tackle the Social 
Security trust fund. I do not think it is wise to have an entitlements 
commission tackling Social Security at this point.
  What is the bigger problem? Medicare. That is the big problem. The 
Medicare trust fund is not going to last much longer, 6, 8, 9, 10 
years, something like that. And what is causing such a problem? We have 
such a problem because health care costs in this country are rising at 
such a rapid rate, close to two times the rate of inflation. And, as 
you know, we spend about twice as much per capita in health care in 
America than do people in other countries.
  So does an entitlements commission cutting Medicare make a lot of 
sense? Well, on the surface, yes. The costs have gone up, so the 
commission would cut Medicare. But the only way to cut Medicare is to 
cut benefits. I do not know if that is wise because health care costs 
are already such a problem for seniors and others today. Similarly, I 
don't know if it is wise to do a myriad of other things to the Medicare 
program that one might be able to do.
  My point is, an entitlement commission is not qualified to address 
health care reform. Health care reform is an incredibly important, 
incredibly complicated matter. If we get health care reform on track, 
that is, legislation to start to reform our health care system, that 
will include getting significant reductions in cost. That is the way to 
address Medicare. Health care reform includes coverage of 46 million 
Americans who do not have health insurance, it includes health care 
delivery reform, it includes a lot of reimbursement reform. There are 
lots and lots of ways we should embark upon to address health care 
reform.
  In fact, I asked the President yesterday about his agenda. After, 
this bill before us, we will probably get involved in some financial 
regulatory reform. The health care reform is one of his top priorities. 
He wants it done this year. And it has to be done this year, because 
part of economic recovery is health reform.
  Look how much in costs this health system is adding to the problems 
of individuals in our economy, because their costs are going up. And 
there are costs to companies that have to lay off people, not hiring 
people, to some degree because of health care costs, and certainly not 
increasing health benefits for employees. There also are costs to 
budgets for the States, localities, and the Federal Government.
  I suggest it is not wise, the provision in the McCain amendment, to 
set up a Medicare commission but, rather to tackle head-on health care 
reform. I do believe the President is going to announce a health care 
summit in the not too distant future as a way to get this going. 
Senator Daschle is all lined up and keyed up to get health care reform 
going. He wrote a book on it. I know the administration is dedicated to 
making sure that health care reform does not slip, that it is very much 
front and center.
  Another provision I want to touch upon in the McCain amendment which 
I think Senators should know about, because it has a real effect, is 
this provision: essentially, the McCain amendment lowers the tax in the 
10- and 15-percent brackets. So as a consequence of this McCain 
amendment, were it to be enacted, then people who pay income taxes 
today would pay less in incomes taxes. All Americans would--all 
Americans who pay income taxes, that is. Americans who pay income taxes 
would not necessarily in all brackets pay less because of the way our 
system is set up. Well, that sounds good. But what is of concern here?
  The concern here is about 49 million Americans who would get no 
reduction in their taxes, none. Who are they? Well, they are people who 
do not pay income taxes, who tend to be low-income people. The 
underlying bill before us reduces taxes for those people who

[[Page S1631]]

work. It is payroll tax related. If you work, under the underlying 
bill, you are going to get a reduction in your taxes, your income 
taxes. You will get a check basically, if you do not pay income taxes. 
And if you work, you get a reduction in your income taxes.
  There are 49 million Americans who will not receive a tax break under 
the McCain amendment but who do receive a tax break in the underlying 
bill. And those 49 million Americans are lower income people basically, 
because they are not earning enough to pay income taxes. They pay 
payroll taxes, because they are working, but they do not pay income 
taxes.
  I do not think that is fair. CBO and others point out lower income 
people, middle-income people who get a rebate or break will spend the 
money to stimulate the economy. Again, we are trying to address the 
demand side here in this bill, getting people to spend the money.
  Credit markets are one issue; housing is another issue. But this bill 
basically addresses the demand side. I think we do not want to shift 
dollars away from those 49 million people over to the higher income 
people as is accomplished in this amendment.
  The underlying bill has what is called an alternative minimum tax 
patch; that is, your alternative minimum taxes will not increase in 
2009 compared with what they may have been earlier. Basically it is a 
deflationary factor so you do not pay more.
  The underlying McCain amendment does not have that. In the McCain 
amendment, millions of people are going to end up paying more taxes 
because he does not have the so-called AMT patch or fix in it.
  My main point is this bill, according to economists, will help. We 
are, down the road, going to find ways--in the President's budget, 
fiscal summit, et cetera--to address the long-term debt questions. So 
we can only do things one step at a time. We cannot solve all of the 
world's problems in one bill. But we can take one bite of the elephant 
here, a pretty good bite, a good bite of the elephant here, that is 
going to help stimulate demand and help create jobs as we work our way 
through the economic recovery.
  Madam President, the Senator from New York was called away. I ask 
unanimous consent that after Senator Alexander speaks, the next Senator 
to speak will be Senator Cantwell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan.) Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, this morning a number of us went to 
the National Prayer Breakfast--I saw the Senator from North Carolina 
there--which is always a wonderful event. It was especially a good 
event today because our new President was there for the first time. I 
think we would agree that he got a tremendous reception. We prayed for 
him, we cheered him. We recognize he has become President at a 
difficult time in our Nation's history. And we want him to succeed. 
Because if he succeeds, our country succeeds, which is why this debate 
on this bill is so disappointing. This is the first big proposal by the 
new administration.
  One New York Times columnist said, it is the first test. And what is 
this about? We all know what is it about, the economy is in tough 
shape. Many people have lost their jobs. Homes are being repossessed. 
IRA accounts are lower. People are worried.
  So we are hoping that in this first test we--the President and the 
Congress--will get an A-plus, flying colors. What are we seeking to do? 
We are seeking to get the economy moving again. Is that not right? Is 
that not what this is about? Is that not what a stimulus bill is?
  We have got a bad economy. We have housing foreclosures. Whatever 
action we take, we want to get the economy moving again. And we want to 
keep in mind while we are doing this that we have a big debt in this 
country. I do not mean just the Federal Government has a debt, because 
it is a Government debt owed by the people of this country.
  USA Today the other day did an estimate that showed each of our 
American families has a share of about $500,000 of that debt and future 
obligations based on promises the government has already made. So the 
Alexander family has got a $500,000 share of that debt and future 
obligations. The Grassley family does. The Hagan family does. The 
Baucus family does. We each have that. So we have to keep that in mind.
  What shall we do? The Senator from Montana said, everyone seems to 
agree, we need to spend some money. And the proposal that has come 
toward us certainly does meet that test. It would spend $900 billion. 
And if you add the interest to that over 10 years, which is the way we 
usually think about things, that is $1.2 or $1.3 trillion.
  How much money is this we are talking about spending? Well, the 
former chairman of the Budget Committee, the Senator from New Mexico, 
Mr. Domenici, called me yesterday. He has been doing some figuring, and 
he figured it took from the beginning of the Republic when George 
Washington was the President until the early 1980s for the United 
States of America to pile up a cumulative debt of $850 billion.
  What we are proposing to do is to spend in this one bill, by the end 
of this week or next week, as much money as the debt this country piled 
up between George Washington's Presidency and Ronald Reagan's 
Presidency. That is a lot of money. According to the newspaper 
Politico, it is more than we have spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is 
more money than we have spent, in today's dollars, going to the Moon. 
It is more money than the Government spent on the New Deal in today's 
dollars. It is almost as much money as NASA has spent in its entire 
existence. We are proposing to spend that in this one bill, nearly $1 
trillion.
  The Senator from Montana said, well, we are all concerned about the 
debt. I wonder if we are if the first thing we are going to do is 
borrow $1 trillion. This is not money we have in the drawer here. It is 
not over here in the Senate cloakroom. It is out in the future 
somewhere. We are going to borrow half of it from the Chinese and other 
people around the world, and then somebody--us, our children, and our 
grandchildren--is going to have to pay it back.
  So what standards should we use if we are going to borrow some money 
to get the economy started, money that we are going to have to pay 
back, a lot of money? Well, the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, gave 
us a standard for what a real stimulus package is. Last year, when we 
saw the beginnings of this downturn and we acted in a bipartisan way to 
swiftly try to spend some money to be of some help, she said: It must 
be timely, targeted, and temporary.
  This is timely. But it is not targeted. It is not temporary, which is 
what I wish to talk about. Last night we had a chance to help make it 
more targeted and more temporary. Senator McCain offered an amendment 
to the Senate that said, we are for a stimulus package. We believe it 
ought to be targeted, for example, on housing and letting people keep 
more of their own money, and on plans and programs that will create 
jobs in the first year. That would be what we are for in terms of 
stimulus.
  But he said, let me make one other suggestion, and he offered an 
amendment to us which would say this: When the economy recovers, the 
stimulus spending stops. That was the McCain amendment. When the 
economy recovers, the stimulus spending stops. Because if what we are 
doing here is borrowing money from every American family and spending 
it with a hope that it helps the economy get going this year, once the 
economy gets going, has not the rationale disappeared for spending that 
money?
  We spend a lot of other money around here. We know that we have 
annual appropriations bills. We have got banks in trouble. We have got 
housing in trouble. So the McCain amendment said: After two quarters of 
a 2-percent increase in the gross domestic product, the money that we 
have borrowed to spend to get the economy going again stops.
  That got 44 votes. So this body has already decided that this is not 
a temporary stimulus bill.
  It is ongoing. So let no one think the trillion dollars proposed to 
be spent is temporary. Let no one think it is about stimulus. I guess 
every time you spend a government dollar, there is a little bit of 
stimulus, I suppose. But I asked

[[Page S1632]]

my staff working on appropriations to go over the $900 billion. Here is 
what they found. They said there is approximately $135 billion of 
spending that will directly create jobs, including building 
construction, road construction, locks and dams, environmental cleanup, 
and national cemetery repair. And only $53 billion of the $135 billion 
is spent in the next 18 months. If this is a bill about creating jobs 
this year, if that is the reason we are taking this extravagant debt 
and adding more to it than we spent in the entire New Deal in today's 
dollars, that is not very targeted. The bill is neither temporary nor 
targeted.
  What is our responsibility on the Republican side to deal with this? 
Our responsibility is to offer a better idea.
  Our President has said--and we agree--that one way we need to change 
Washington is that we need to work across the aisle to get results on 
big issues, results that work. That is why I am in government. I did 
that when I was a Republican Governor in Tennessee with a Democratic 
legislature. I believe I have a good record of bipartisan cooperation 
in the Senate, whether it is President Bush or President Obama. I 
worked with Senator Lieberman and now with Senator Barrasso and Senator 
Pryor to create a bipartisan breakfast every Tuesday morning. The 
Senator from North Carolina came to the breakfast the last 2 weeks. We 
have talked about the debt and how the entitlement programs--Social 
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--are creating a crisis in that debt. 
Social Security is a part of the problem. Medicaid and Medicare is a 
bigger part. Almost 70 percent of all the money we spend in the Federal 
Government within about 7 or 8 years will go to Social Security, 
Medicaid, and Medicare. That leaves only 30 percent for everything 
else. It also suggests that by the year 2015, we will be spending 100 
percent of our annual gross domestic product; it would take that much 
money to pay off our debt.
  Let me remind colleagues that the United States produces year in and 
year out about 25 or 28 percent of all the money in the world. So we 
are headed toward a situation where, in a few years, it would take 25 
percent to 28 percent of all the money produced in the world in 1 year 
to pay off the national debt of the United States.
  In a budget hearing the other day with Senators Conrad and Gregg, we 
asked the witnesses: What is the problem? How much debt can you have? 
They said: That is kind of general, but 40 percent is where the United 
States is, 40 percent of GDP. All of this we are talking about in the 
next few weeks may take us up to 60 percent. That is getting close to 
trouble. Eighty percent is trouble, and 100 percent is a big problem.
  Unlike the 1960s or the 1970s, when we owed our debt to ourselves, 
when it was much smaller, now we owe half of it to people around the 
world who may or may not want to continue buying our debt.
  Our debt has to be in our minds when we think about borrowing money. 
We need to apply the Pelosi principle to the stimulus. Temporary? No, 
it is not. Yesterday, 44 votes said yes. The rest said no, we would 
like for it to go on a long time. Targeted? No, it is not. Only $135 
billion out of $900 billion is aimed toward creating jobs. Only $53 
billion of that is spent in the next 18 months.
  So what can we do to improve this? On our side, we have a number of 
proposals to do that. The pending amendment of Senator McCain is one. 
The amendment by Senator Ensign, which will be voted on today, is 
another. The amendment by Senator Isakson that was agreed to yesterday 
is the third.
  Here is basically what we think we should be doing with this borrowed 
money: No. 1, we would fix housing first. We would reorient the 
stimulus bill away from spending money indefinitely, mostly on programs 
that do not create jobs in the first year, and spend it instead to 
restart housing because housing is what got us into this problem. 
Housing will help get us out of the problem. We have some specific 
ideas about doing that.
  Second, we would let the American people keep more of the money they 
have. That is stimulative. Letting them keep it permanently is the most 
stimulative thing we could do. Senator McCain proposes reducing the 
payroll tax and reducing the lowest level of income tax rates. Those 
are for working people, people who make less--not more--money.
  The third thing we would do is cut the size of the bill and focus it 
on those projects that create jobs now.
  When we say fix housing first, we mean, to begin with, the $15,000 
housing credit. If you want to buy a house during the year 2009, you 
get a $15,000 tax credit. That is real money. You can put it in your 
pocket this year, if you buy a house.
  The second thing we would propose is the Ensign amendment, which 
would lower mortgage interest rates for all creditworthy Americans. 
Forty million Americans could take advantage of a rate that would be 
between 4 and 4.5 percent. We would put a cap on it, so it would not 
cost taxpayers more than about $300 billion, but most economists with 
whom we have talked say it is more like $30 billion.
  What would be the value of a lower interest rate backed by the 
Treasury? It would mean, all across the country, instant jobs. People 
could borrow money. They would have incentive to do so because the 
average savings of someone who refinanced their home and got a 4- to 
4.5-percent interest rate would be approximately $400 a month for 30 
years, over the 30-year term of the rate. That is like a permanent tax 
cut. That money would be in their pockets. It could be spent. It would 
help stabilize the value of that home. That would help stabilize the 
value of homes on that block. That would put to work builders and 
contractors and plumbers and brokers and bankers. That would give banks 
origination fees so they could have income. And having income, they 
might have enough money and confidence to start lending. Then this 
economy could keep moving at a relatively small cost. That is what we 
mean by fixing housing first.
  Senator McCain and Senator Graham have in their proposals legislation 
to help those individuals whose homes are being foreclosed.
  If we could sit down in a bipartisan way and agree that we want to 
follow the Pelosi principle and make this temporary and targeted and 
that we should start by fixing housing first, I believe we could agree 
across the aisle to deal with housing and create instant jobs. We might 
have less debate about tax cuts, although the President has suggested 
that we reduce some middle-income taxes. We have suggested the same.
  The third thing would be, as Alice Rivlin, former Budget Director for 
a Democratic President, said: We really ought to have two bills. One 
would be a bill for long-term investments, many of which I fought for 
for years in terms of American competitiveness. They are good for the 
country but don't take effect right away. The other bill, which we need 
to move on quickly, would be those programs, such as road construction, 
building construction, locks and dams, and national park maintenance, 
that would create jobs today. Then we could come to the American people 
and say: Mr. and Mrs. America, you have a big debt, $500,000 per 
family, but we, across party lines, have looked at the situation. We 
need a stimulus. Perhaps it should be $400 billion or $500 billion at 
the start. But we will not start with how much we are going to spend; 
we are going to start with what can we do that would work.
  Fix housing first, lower interest rate mortgages, a $15,000 tax 
credit for home buyers, help for those in foreclosures. Next, keep more 
of your own money in your pockets. That is the payroll tax and cutting 
rates. Finally, we might spend $100 billion or $150 billion by 
accelerating Government programs we will have to do anyway and get 
those jobs coming this year. That would be a responsible, bipartisan 
way to go about this.
  This bill, as it is presently headed toward passage, is a colossal 
mistake. It is not temporary. It is not targeted. It is not primarily 
creating jobs. It is not a stimulus bill. It is mostly a spending bill. 
It is not money we have; it is money we are borrowing. It is a huge 
amount of money, more money in today's dollars than the Government 
spent on the New Deal, on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, on the war 
in Vietnam, almost as much as we have spent on NASA over its life, a 
huge amount of borrowed money not targeted. Although it is timely, we 
are rushing it through.

[[Page S1633]]

  I am disappointed. I had expected better. I have heard the President 
say he wants to work on entitlements. We take him at his word. We have 
had two straight Tuesday morning breakfasts where we have sat around 
the table and said: This is going to be hard to do. We trust the 
President to get in here with us, and we will figure this out. But this 
is a bill written in the House. It looks as if they just got down in 
the drawer, and every spending program they could think of for the last 
40 years that didn't pass, they stuck it in. It might be good 20 years 
from now. It might be good tomorrow. But it is in there.
  We won the election. We will write the bill. ``We won the election, 
we write the bill'' may technically work on a few pieces of 
legislation. But it will not help move our country forward. It will not 
be the basis for a successful Presidency. We won the election. We write 
the bill. This is easy, spending a trillion dollars. The majority just 
says: Hey, we have some money to spend. Let's grab all the programs we 
can think of and off we go. But what is coming is really hard.
  Next week, the Secretary of the Treasury is likely to tell us we need 
several hundred billion to deal with toxic assets in banks. I am one of 
six Republican Senators who voted to give the new President the second 
amount of $350 billion so he could have that in his pocket to deal with 
this crisis. But it doesn't increase my appetite to help with the next 
$400 or $500 billion if we are going to start out by wasting nearly a 
trillion on programs not needed to fix the economy today.
  And probably, since we are not dealing with housing in any 
significant way in this bill, the new administration may say: We 
decided we need to get housing going again. I think I would be inclined 
to say: Mr. Democratic Leader, Mr. President, that is what we said last 
week. But you said we had to pass a bill in a week. Why didn't we wait 
a week and see what the Treasury Secretary had to say about banking 
credits or about housing?
  Then the next week we have $900 billion on an appropriations bill. 
And then, as Senator Baucus has said--and he is exactly right--health 
care is coming down the pike. I can't figure out a way that the health 
care bill, even the one I cosponsored with Senators Wyden and Bennett, 
is not going to cost us a lot more.
  So why don't we put this all on the table and work across party 
lines? Technically, you don't have to do it. Technically, President 
Bush didn't have to have congressional approval to wage a war in Iraq. 
But he found and our Nation found that he would have a much more 
successful Presidency and we would have probably had a much easier war 
if we could have found some way to work together.
  I am disappointed with this, beginning on a stimulus bill that does 
not meet the Pelosi principle of timely, targeted, and temporary. It is 
a colossal mistake in the way it is headed. We should fix housing 
first. Let people keep more of their own money. Strip out the spending 
programs that don't create jobs now. Deal with them separately, and get 
in the habit of accepting each other's best ideas on dealing with the 
biggest problems. We stand ready to do that.
  We admire the new President and the tone he has set. We want him to 
succeed. This bill will not help our country succeed unless it is 
drastically amended this week.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I am on the floor to speak about the 
Cantwell-Hatch amendment. I would call it up, but I know there will be 
objection on the other side. I want to say that we will be asking for a 
vote on this amendment at some point in time. So for my colleagues to 
know, we will be demanding a vote on this issue.
  I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Levin, Brown, Alexander, 
Carper, Menendez, and Udall of Colorado as cosponsors of amendment No. 
274.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, we are here today to find ways to 
inject capital, confidence, and construction into our economy. That is 
why I have worked so hard collaborating with Senator Hatch and Senator 
Stabenow who is now on the floor now and I think Senator Hatch may come 
at some point later today--and with Senator Kerry and many stakeholders 
across the country to develop what is an economic recovery and 
reinvestment opportunity that leverages the incredible potential of 
plug-in electric vehicles.
  I would like to thank my colleague from Utah for his willingness to 
work across the aisle on what we think is one of the biggest economic 
opportunities for our country in manufacturing.
  If this stimulus bill is about figuring out ways to create tens of 
thousands of jobs and economic growth in the short term, and millions 
of sustainable jobs in the long term, then plug-ins are a big winner 
for the United States economy.
  According to a recent report by McKinsey & Company, the opportunity 
for electric vehicles could be a very attractive U.S. investment. They 
note that the total market for electric vehicles in North America, 
Europe, and Asia could be as much as $120 billion by 2030.
  I know President Obama recognizes this opportunity, that is not a 
surprise since he sat down with Senator Hatch and I in 2007 to actually 
write the original plug-in vehicle incentives bill.
  The President understands that plug-in vehicles are a game-changing 
technology. They can change the way we consume energy for our 
transportation needs. Instead of paying the exorbitant prices we were 
paying for gasoline, over four dollars a gallon just last summer, plug-
in vehicles will allow us to transform the electricity grid into a fuel 
source and be paying about a dollar a gallon for our fuel costs. That 
alone is probably the most effective way to help our Nation get off our 
overdependence on foreign oil.
  That is why President Obama, in his goals for his administration, has 
said he wants to put 1 million plug-in electric cars on the road by 
2015. This amendment helps make that a reality.
  Within a 3-year stimulus window, our amendment would allow people 
manufacturing plug-ins or their component technologies, such as 
batteries, to expense that capital investment. What we are doing is 
allowing that taxpayer to cover its cost, not by depreciating it over a 
long period of time, but rather to make its investment work faster in a 
short period of time. In other words battery technology and components 
become a more attractive investment in the United States.
  Our provision is very similar to what we are doing in the underlying 
bill with small business equipment and expensing. We are trying to say 
those investments will help create economic opportunity and stimulus 
right in the United States for small business. Well, here is a large-
scale opportunity as it relates to battery technology and components 
and we need to grab it before our international competitors do.
  As President Obama said of the stimulus bill:

       That's why this is not just a short-term program to boost 
     employment. It's one that will invest in our most important 
     priorities like energy and education, health care and a new 
     infrastructure that are necessary to keep us strong and 
     competitive in the 21st century.

  I could not agree with the President more, as I look at my State, the 
priorities of my constituents, to make sure we are creating stimulative 
activity, but we are also looking to those areas of our long-term 
future where our country can benefit the most.
  Manufacturing battery technology and components is game-changing 
technology. If we can create that kind of opportunity here at home, it 
will create tens of thousands of construction jobs, engineering jobs, 
manufacturing jobs, and not only in the near term, but lead to millions 
of jobs in the future. This is the type of investment we need to be 
putting in a stimulus package.
  Now, I know my colleague from Michigan is on the floor and that she 
is very interested in making sure the battery technology gets built in 
the United States.
  Ford, for example, announced that the cells for the battery system in 
its first series of plug-in hybrid production vehicles are going to be 
manufactured in Nersac. Now, Nersac is not some upper Midwest town. It 
is a city in France. I think they being manufactured in Nersac 
highlights the fact that if we do not act, our competitors will.

[[Page S1634]]

In fact, if we look at this issue, in the United States we are already 
pretty far behind. The United States does lead in the research and 
development of lithium-ion battery technology over countries such as 
China, Korea, and Japan, but they are the countries that are actually 
commercializing and producing the product using this technology.
  In fact, China has over 120 companies involved in the production of 
lithium-ion battery technology, and their battery manufacturing 
industry supports over 250,000 jobs already in this area.
  We, in the United States, have no comparable lithium-ion facility in 
our country--none. U.S. auto executives have taken a look at this 
situation and have said without homegrown suppliers here in the United 
States, the United States could become as dependent on Asian-made 
batteries as we currently are on Middle East oil. Now, if we are doing 
the R&D, why aren't we also advancing the opportunity to be a player in 
manufacturing?
  It is not only batteries. Asia has the engineers and manufacturing 
expertise and capacity to make many of these component parts. In fact, 
South Korea is a great example of seizing on this opportunity. A few 
weeks ago, their Prime Minister announced that South Korea will invest 
$38 billion over the next 4 years on environmental projects related to 
energy and the economy to create a million jobs.
  Now, we think of $38 billion compared to the package we have on the 
floor today. But $38 billion--for a country whose GDP is one-tenth the 
size of ours--that would be like the United States putting $400 billion 
to match South Korea's downpayment on a clean energy future.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, will my friend be willing to yield for 
a question?
  Ms. CANTWELL. Yes, I will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. Thank you.
  Madam President, I want to ask a question of the Senator from 
Washington State. But I first want to thank her for her vision. She has 
been the person who has understood this is more than just about 
research and development, that this is about actually putting assets in 
America, in jobs here in America through manufacturing. I thank her for 
her vision. It has been my honor and pleasure to work with you on this 
issue.
  But I am wondering if the Senator is aware, in fact, of other 
countries such as South Korea which certainly has been investing in 
this. But Germany, last summer, developed what they call the Great 
Battery Alliance. Japan created the first batteries. Ford Motor 
Company, in doing their first Ford Escape Hybrid, their first Escape 
HUV, while we are proud that was done in America, in fact, the battery 
came from Japan. So China, Japan, South Korea, Germany--India now has 
announced a manufacturing strategy.
  So I ask, as you look at this, if she has looked at those other 
countries as well?
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Michigan, and 
I thank her for her leadership on this issue as well, because she has 
been vocal in saying the United States needs to create manufacturing 
incentives in the plug-in area and to lead the future of the automobile 
industry here in the United States. So I thank her for her question. 
She is absolutely right.
  The United States has fallen behind. We have no battery production 
facilities in the United States. So we can pat ourselves on the back 
all we want about how we are leading in R&D in battery technology, but 
that is not translating into manufacturing leadership and homegrown 
jobs. The time has come when Americans and people around the globe 
believe we have to get off of fossil fuel and that the electricity grid 
holds great promise. The advent of these new battery technologies is 
allowing consumers to go an average of 100 miles per gallon. As my 
colleague mentioned, Europeans are already boost to their economies by 
promoting that kind of manufacturing. And I want to emphasize that our 
amendment does not say which companies would produce this battery 
technology. We are simply saying we should have some of this 
manufacturing in the United States.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I wonder if my colleague will yield 
for one more question.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Yes.
  Ms. STABENOW. I just came from a very large conference called the 
Blue Green Conference with about 2,500 people who are in town from 
environmental groups, labor organizations, business organizations, 
focused on exactly what the Senator is talking about. I wonder if the 
Senator is aware we have had people on the Hill actually supporting 
this wonderful amendment and arguing that, in fact, there are jobs, 
good-paying jobs, available from doing exactly what she is talking 
about? I wonder if my colleague is aware of the extent to which there 
is such a broad coalition of people across this country now supporting 
exactly what she is talking about?
  Ms. CANTWELL. I think the electrification of automobiles as an energy 
source is gaining a lot of attention. There is a growing understanding 
that building a smart grid and allowing plug-ins to fill up when 
electricity prices are cheapest and when there is a lot of unused 
electricity capacity, turning our cars into additional storage capacity 
makes a lot of sense. People believe we could create hundreds of 
thousands of jobs in the near future and that we would be able to 
benefit from that as a basis of an infrastructure.
  I look at China and think of the 250,000 jobs they have already 
created just in battery manufacturing. And that 120 companies are 
focusing just on manufacturing lithium-ion batteries. They have already 
created an economic opportunity, an edge for Asia in this marketplace 
that will continue to sustain them for the future in the automobile 
manufacturing industry.
  We are at a totally new day, where we should pause and reassess all 
new opportunities to strengthen our country, and yet we are not 
capitalizing on the economic opportunity that is going to fundamentally 
reshape automobile transportation for the better.
  I thank my colleague from Michigan for pointing those facts out and 
raising those questions because, again, she has been steadfast in this 
and understands this is about a manufacturing opportunity for the 
future of the United States as a manufacturing base. Whether those are 
foreign competitors, whether those are new domestic companies that have 
never been on the radar screen, whether they are the domestic 
manufacturers that are working hard to make the transition to this new 
opportunity, this amendment would address all of those.
  In conclusion, today the United States is home to about 35,000 less 
factories than in the year 2000. In that short period of time we have 
lost around 4 million manufacturing jobs. Clean energy technologies, 
and particularly electric vehicle manufacturing, is a keystone 
strategic opportunity that could help change that around. That is why I 
am offering this amendment with my colleague, Senator Hatch, and 
others, because it can be effective stimulus today, but pay long-term 
dividends for the future of the U.S. economy.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, at the center of our Nation's current 
financial crisis are our Nation's automakers and our homeowners. These 
are our two areas that we cannot afford to ignore, if we are to have 
any hope of an economic recovery.
  I would like to focus on our automakers. Some economists have 
remarked that as our automakers go, so goes our Nation. Other 
economists have complained that the auto industry has been too slow to 
modernize and too slow to prepare for the future.
  We all know that 97 percent of our vehicles run on gasoline and 
diesel. But what you don't hear often enough is that American 
automakers are actually poised to lead the world into the next era of 
vehicle technology. They are prepared to produce flexible, affordable, 
attractive, and long-range vehicles that run on an alternative fuel 
that is much cheaper, much cleaner, more abundant, and completely 
domestic. That alternative fuel is electricity from our electric grid. 
Other than natural gas, there is no other alternative fuel that comes 
close to having so many of these qualities.
  Last Congress, Senator Cantwell and I came together to introduce the 
Freedom Act, and with the assistance of Chairman Baucus and Senator 
Grassley, the committee's Republican ranking member, we were able to 
get major provisions of that bill passed into law, including tax 
credits for consumers who purchase the plug-in electric and plug-in 
hybrid vehicles.

[[Page S1635]]

  I was the author of the CLEAR ACT, which promoted hybrid and 
alternative vehicles and which passed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 
It was pretty clear at the time that the Japanese automakers had the 
jump on this technology. However, I was pleased to see that it didn't 
take too long for our American automakers to respond and to produce 
very good and very efficient hybrid electric vehicles.

  The next step of using electrons off the grid is a more revolutionary 
shift, because it will have a more dramatic impact on our Nation's 
dependency on oil.
  Many of my colleagues may not be aware that American automakers and 
American technology companies are poised to lead the world in plug-in 
electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. In the next 2 years, General 
Motors will be offering two new plug-in vehicles for commercial sale. 
These will be vehicles developed and manufactured right here in 
America. American lithium ion battery makers lead the world in 
technological advances, and are also ready to set up major 
manufacturing operations here on our shores. American companies also 
lead the world in electric motor technologies, ultra-capacitors, and 
other important electronic controller technologies.
  Senator Cantwell and I are offering an amendment that would ensure 
that this manufacturing stays here at home. In most cases, these 
American companies are prepared to begin manufacturing immediately. So 
this amendment is timely and goes to the heart and soul of the stimulus 
bill we are now considering.
  I personally do not believe our auto industry will survive on old 
ideas and past technologies. What could be more important in this 
stimulus bill than to assist the auto industry as it attempts to lead 
the world in a new era of vehicle technologies. I am very grateful to 
Senator Cantwell, and Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley for making 
this proposal a priority.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that after the 
order we have set up that following Senator Hutchison, the majority 
have time, then Senator Wicker have time, then the majority have time, 
and then Senator Hatch.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I have been listening to the debate this morning. I 
want to make one point. How did we get where we are? We have seen all 
this finger pointing. We have said that President Bush got us where we 
are, that we do not want to take responsibility for the fact he could 
not spend a penny we did not give him, and the vast majority--97 
percent of the majority--voted for every appropriations bill that came 
through this place.
  So when we point to other people, where we need to be pointing is to 
us. The vast majority of the majority party voted against every 
amendment. I offered over $10 billion per appropriations cycle on the 
bills. The vast majority voted against the cut. So I think if we are 
going to point to a pox on a house, it ought to come right here--the 
lack of responsibility, where we demonstrate with our actions every day 
we are much more interested in the next election than we are in the 
next generation.
  We heard Senator Alexander today talking about that it is not our 
money, it is the taxpayers' money, and we are going to have to pay it 
back. Nobody alive in this room today will pay back any of this money. 
Their children and their grandchildren will pay back this money.
  This bill is doing exactly the same thing we did to get into this 
mess. We are about to spend $1 trillion of money we don't have for the 
vast majority of the things in this bill that we don't need.
  Let me explain to the American people a little bit of the workings in 
the Senate. There is about $300 billion worth of spending in the bill 
we have on the floor that has been put in there so we won't have to 
make hard choices when it comes to the appropriations bills that come 
through this body this year. So we take $300 billion that we know 
should be in the regular appropriations bills and we put it in this 
bill so we don't have to use regular order. That gives us more room to 
do more Government spending, more interference in the lives of 
Americans without being responsible for it. When I say $300 billion, 
the real cost is $600 billion.
  It strikes me that if you were going to ask the American people how 
best to stimulate the economy and you are going to spend $1 trillion to 
do it, the best and smartest allocation of those resources would be to 
give the money back to the American people. In our wisdom, we think we 
know better than they do how to spend money. The thing that made this 
the greatest country in the world is this wonderful market capitalism 
that said people will serve their own best interests. We have the very 
ego to think we can decide for them.
  I think we need some stimulus--I don't disagree with that--but I 
don't think we need to do it right now. I think we need to fix the 
mortgage market and the housing market and the credit market before we 
touch any kind of stimulus. If we do a stimulus, the best stimulus we 
could do would be to give the money back to the American people and let 
them allocate it in ways they know are best for them individually. That 
proposal was rejected out of hand. Now, why would that be rejected? 
Because we have this false sense that Washington knows better. Well, I 
will tell my colleagues the predicament we are in proves we don't. We 
don't know better, we don't have a clue, when we bring a $900 billion 
spending bill to the floor and we have accepted one amendment to cut 
$246 million out of it and we have had votes--both voice votes and 
recorded votes--on less than 20 amendments, and we are told by the 
majority leader we have to finish so we can get to conference. This 
bill ought to have 1,000 amendments on it, if we are truly going to do 
the work of the American people. We ought to debate this bill line by 
line. I will not agree to any unanimous consent until the next 15 
amendments I have, have a scheduled time to be brought up so the 
American people can hear about all the stinky stuff that is in this 
bill.
  The biggest earmark in history is in this bill: $2 billion. There are 
tons of things that need to come out of this bill. As the American 
people have learned what is in this bill, their common sense--which is 
on a one-for-one basis a thousandfold greater than our common sense as 
Senators--is being totally ignored. That is why the people in this 
country routinely are rejecting this bill now. You can do all the 
promotion of it you want; you can use all the moveon.org; you can do 
all the Web sites you want, but when they smell a skunk--their 
olfactory senses are quite acute--this is a skunk. This bill stinks. 
This bill is the biggest generational theft bill that has ever come 
through this body. What I mean by that is we have a standard of living 
in this country that is 30 percent greater than anywhere else in the 
world, and it will guarantee, this bill will guarantee your children 
and grandchildren will lose every bit of that edge, every bit of it.
  So how did we get here? We got here by us thinking we knew better, by 
us ignoring the very principles that created this great country. Then 
we refused to admit it. We created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Then we 
blamed an administration when we tied their hands to fix it, and we say 
it is an administration's fault when it is our fault. We tried to 
socialize the risk so everybody in this country, even if they couldn't 
afford it, could have a home. Now what we are doing is we are going to 
charge our grandchildren to get us out of it when we were in a business 
where we never had any business. If you look at the enumerated powers 
of the Constitution, it gives us no authority whatsoever to do what we 
have done. So when we abandon the principles we were founded upon, we 
get in tremendously tall, deep weeds. That is where we find ourselves 
now.
  The idea that we can borrow more money we don't have to spend on more 
things we don't need and ignore the wisdom of the average American 
citizen on how best to spend their money is insane. Yet we have spent 
2\1/2\ days--that is all we have spent so far on a $1 trillion bill, 
2\1/2\ days--and have had 20 votes, and now we are told by the majority 
leader we need to hurry up. ``Hurry up'' is what got us in this 
trouble. We need a methodical explanation to the American people for 
every line that is in this bill--every line item. We need an 
explanation of why we are putting in Medicaid funds to bail out the

[[Page S1636]]

States at twice the level of what the Governors actually asked for. Why 
would we do that? Because we know better. In our ultimate wisdom, we 
know better? And while we are talking about the States, the worst thing 
we can do is bail out the States because we will be transferring our 
wonderful illogic to the States and saying you don't have to be 
fiscally responsible. That is what we are going to be telling them, so 
that in the future, they won't put in a rainy day fund, as Oklahoma 
has, and plan for the future and control their spending increases. No, 
they will say: Don't worry about it; the Federal Government will come 
bail us out.
  I am adamantly opposed to us transferring the absolute economic chaos 
we have created to the States. The States need to make hard choices 
now. We need to do what we need to do, which is fix housing, fix 
mortgages, fix the banking system. Then, when we have done that, which 
will fix all these other problems, then come with a real stimulus that 
allows the American people--the American people--much like what the 
majority of the McCain bill does--to decide how they are going to spend 
the money.
  Since we are so down on the business sector in this country that 
creates all the jobs, small business and large business alike, why 
don't we think about maybe having a competitive tax on our corporations 
that is competitive with the rest of the world. No. What do we do? We 
have one 10 percent higher than anybody else in the world. Yet it is 
business's fault we are in this mess. Nothing could be further from the 
truth. We are in this mess because Congress put us in this mess; not 
any President, not Bill Clinton, not George Bush, and certainly not 
Barack Obama.
  Let's be honest with the American people. Let's fess up: We don't 
know what we are doing. A $1 trillion bill was cobbled together in 4 
weeks with earmarks like crazy through it for every special interest 
group that is out there so we can look good to certain of our buddies 
and especially the ones who give us campaign contributions. That is 
what describes this bill, not an ethical, methodical, ``how do we fix 
the problem we have'' kind of scrutiny that is required. You cannot fix 
a problem until you know what the problem is, and the problem is us. We 
created this mess, and our actions created this mess.
  The President signed the children's health program. I am not opposed 
to a children's health program. I am not opposed to helping children 
get the health care they need. But this body rejected a way to do that 
which wouldn't have increased taxes $71 billion and would have covered 
every child. But, no, we are smarter than that because we want to tell 
people where they are going to get their health care and how they are 
going to get it. And then, when we can't afford it, do you know what we 
are going to do? We are going to ration it, just like every other 
country that has centralized control over their health care. Then what 
is going to happen to our cancer cure rates which are 50 percent higher 
than anywhere else in the world? They are going to be the same as the 
rest of the world: They are going to go down. Now we have comparative 
effectiveness that we want to put through that says the Government--
some Government bureaucrat is going to tell doctors how to practice 
medicine. That is in this too. We are going to have them tell us how to 
practice medicine. We forgot one thing on the way to the barn, and that 
is the practice of medicine is 40 percent art and 60 percent science 
and everywhere in the world, where they have a centralized government 
health care system, they have thrown out the art of medicine, which 
tends to deal with the whole person and how that interacts with the 
physical aspects of that person.

  To me, it is deeply disappointing that we find ourselves where we are 
today. I don't think pointing fingers anywhere except back at ourselves 
accomplishes anything. Yet I have heard that three or four times this 
morning on the floor: It is somebody else's fault. No, it is not; it is 
our fault.
  The first thing to getting healthy as addicts is to admit we have a 
problem. We need to be in a 10-step program. That is what we need, a 
10-step program that will put us back on the board to where our 
Founding Fathers thought we ought to be and where the average American 
wants us to be. We are addicted to the ego of trying to run other 
people's lives. We are addicted to the ego of spending money, thinking 
we know best how to spend it. We are addicted to the ego that when 
somebody else has problems, we can always fix it. We can't always fix 
it. We can't fix all the problems that are in front of us today. The 
American people, through their own ingenuity and their own sacrifice, 
are going to have to make some hard choices. When we don't make hard 
choices, we are doubly guilty because what we have done is we have made 
the choices harder for them that they are going to have to make.
  My prayer--and it is a prayer--is that we would, as a body, drop the 
words ``Democrat'' and ``Republican,'' drop the words ``conservative'' 
and ``liberal,'' and that our goal would be what is in the most 
efficient, long-term, best interests of those of us who are here today 
and those who are coming.
  I ran a campaign to become Senator and the focus of my campaign, 
unfortunately, was we were about to find ourselves where we are today. 
I am so sorry I was right. I am so sorry I was right, but it doesn't 
take a lot of vision to see where we were going. Nobody has voted 
against President Bush and nobody has voted against more appropriations 
bills than me. It didn't have anything to do with party politics; it 
had everything to do with the future. Yet we find ourselves bogged down 
in debate.
  I wish to add one other thing. One of the reasons we have to get out 
of here is because we have Members who have booked hotels this weekend. 
Tell me how many people in America think that is an important reason 
for us to hurry up and finish this bill. There is no reason for us to 
hurry up, No. 1. There is no reason for us not to look at every area of 
this bill and make sure the American people know about it. There is no 
reason for us not to do what the average man would do, and that is make 
priorities.
  The other problem with this bill, which is extremely disappointing--
and I know it has to be to President Obama because he campaigned on a 
line-by-line look at the Federal Government to get rid of some of the 
$300 billion every year in waste, fraud, and abuse. That was one of his 
campaign issues. One of his campaign promises was to do competitive 
bidding on every contract over $25,000. There is not one mandate in 
this bill to force competitive bidding. That is one of the amendments I 
wish to offer, to force us to do competitive bidding. If we are going 
to pass this stinky bill, at least if we waste $1 trillion, we will 
waste it efficiently.
  When I look at my grandkids, as does everybody else in this country, 
we wish for the best for our grandchildren. I have to tell my 
colleagues this body has put the first shackle already on their future. 
When we pass this bill, we are going to put that lock around their 
other leg and we are going to put a padlock on it and we are going to 
throw away the key and we are going to hobble them away from the 
American dream.
  We are going to take it away. We are going to take away the very 
bright light shining on a hill. America, if you are listening, don't 
let this body do what it is about to do. It will ruin your children's 
future in the name of us knowing best rather than you knowing best.
  Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield, did the Senator see the AP 
News release this morning at 11:30 that the chairwoman of the 
congressional oversight panel for the bailout funds told the Senate 
Banking Committee that the Treasury, in 2008, paid $254 billion and 
received assets worth about $176 billion? I think everybody knows we 
passed TARP in a big hurry, just as this legislation has not gone 
through the hearings and the normal process. So, apparently, according 
to the chairperson of the congressional oversight panel for bailout 
funds, in 2008, our Treasury paid $254 billion and received assets 
worth $176 billion. It seems to me that is about $80 billion that the 
taxpayers lost.
  Mr. COBURN. Yes, the taxpayers lost $80 billion. I voted for the 
original TARP money because we were told that money was going to 
address the toxic assets, which is the problem we need to solve first.
  I spoke on the floor two nights ago using the corollary of treating 
symptoms versus treating disease. This bill

[[Page S1637]]

treats symptoms; it doesn't treat disease. I know several colleagues 
are waiting to talk.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lieberman). The Senator from Illinois is 
recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. I have two colleagues waiting to speak. Whoever goes 
first, I will ask for 2 minutes.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, isn't there a unanimous consent agreement 
that Senator Schumer goes next, then Senator Inhofe, and then somebody 
from the majority side, and then Senator Hutchison, and then somebody 
from the majority side, and then Senator Wicker, and then somebody from 
the majority side, and then Senator Hatch?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is correct.
  Pursuant to that order, the Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Illinois for 
a question.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank my colleague from New York. I would like to 
engage him. I listened carefully to Senator Coburn, my friend, a 
conservative Republican. I think that perhaps some elements of history 
have been forgotten. We don't want to dwell on the past, but those who 
don't learn the past are usually destined to repeat the mistakes of the 
past. When President Clinton left office, he left President Bush a 
surplus and he left him with a national debt, accumulated since the 
time of George Washington, of $5 trillion. Eight years later, when 
President Bush left office, he left President Obama--who has been 
President for 2 weeks and 2 days--with the biggest deficit in recent 
memory, $1 trillion, and a national debt that had doubled under the 
Bush administration.
  I ask the Senator from New York if he is familiar with the fact that 
the debt incurred under the Bush administration comes down to $17,000 
for every man, woman, and child in America, for the 8-year period of 
that administration? Is the Senator familiar with that fact?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague for the question. I am indeed 
familiar with that. I have to tell my colleague it sort of astounds me 
how there is sort of a role reversal. In the past, the Republican Party 
has been known as the fiscal-and-austere party, and we have been 
labeled--or accused of being--the tax-and-spend party. When President 
Clinton left office, there was a significant surplus, I believe close 
to $300 billion a year. When George Bush took office, he ruined that 
rather quickly. We now have the deep deficit he left President Obama. 
President Obama has agreed to deal with that deficit once we get 
through the economic crisis.
  Mr. DURBIN. The second question is this: There are complaints about 
this recovery reinvestment bill, which is currently at about $900 
billion over a several-year period of time. Isn't the Senator aware, 
and haven't we recently been briefed that we expect in the next 2 
calendar years $1 trillion less in spending by the American economy, 
and the amount we are talking about to try to put back into that 
accounts for less than half of what we know is lying ahead?
  If we are going to invigorate the economy, create jobs, and give 
businesses a chance and give struggling families a chance, $900 
billion, though it seems huge on its face, in comparison to the 
economic crisis we face, is at least proportional to the challenge.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I think my colleague answers the question right. A $2 
trillion shortfall in the economy is not just a number; it is millions 
of people out of work and tens of millions of families whose paychecks 
are squeezed, people not being able to go to college who deserve a 
college education by their grades, and it is small businesses going 
under. I say to my colleagues, there is a lot of talk about little 
items in the bill that are called ``pork.'' Take them out. Don't use it 
as an excuse not to vote for this bill. I daresay if we took every 
single one of those items out, we still would not get any more votes. 
It is nothing more than an excuse. We ought not to forget that.
  I was going to speak for 15 or 20 minutes. My colleague from West 
Virginia has been waiting. Is it possible for me to yield 5 minutes to 
him by unanimous consent and then return to me?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WICKER. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, then I will speak myself, even though I 
am not as articulate and intelligent as my friend from West Virginia.
  I wish to address a few topics. First, yesterday, the President 
correctly put some limits on excessive compensation payments being paid 
out by financial firms that received taxpayer funds. To me, it is 
plainly unacceptable, at a time when the American public is being asked 
to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out major institutions 
and trillions more to stabilize the financial system, that these 
institutions would turn around and reward the very same executives, 
many of whom created the current crisis.
  Let me tell you how the average American feels and why this issue 
generates such fervor. Very simply, the average American goes to work, 
works on the factory line, or sits at his or her desk, does nothing 
wrong, and all of a sudden they might be laid off or have their 
paycheck squeezed or their health benefits cut. They are saying: We did 
nothing wrong and we are suffering.
  Where is the shared sacrifice? Some of these top executives are 
continuing to be paid record amounts of money. Nothing bothers the 
American people more than when someone does something wrong and doesn't 
have to suffer for that, when they are doing nothing wrong and do have 
to suffer. So there is real anger out there. The people in the 
financial institutions ought to understand that. Some of the things 
they are doing, such as the junkets and the jet planes, show a tin ear. 
So President Obama did the right thing yesterday. Some people said that 
is Government interference. Hello. What about giving these institutions 
money? That is Government interference too.
  The President is not saying there should be limits on compensation 
for those who don't take the Government funds. He is simply saying if 
you are going to take Government funds, use them to get the economy 
going again by pumping money into the economy, lending to small 
businesses, individuals, and others rather than for jets or excessive 
salaries. So I salute the President, and I support what he did.
  I think, again, the people in the financial sector have to get with 
it. They have made big mistakes, the people at the top. Everybody is 
being hurt by those mistakes and the sacrifice ought to be, at the very 
least, shared.
  Second, I want to talk about something in this bill, which is tuition 
tax credits for college for families up to $160,000. I thank Chairman 
Baucus, Senator Grassley, President Obama, and many on both sides of 
the aisle who supported this provision. I have worked long and hard to 
make college affordable, particularly for middle-class families. It is 
not because they deserve it more than others. If you are wealthy, you 
don't need the help. If you are poor, the Government gives help. I 
would be very much against cutting the Pell grants in this package. But 
the families in New York--remember, New York salaries, at least in some 
parts of our State, downstate, are high. The family making $60,000 or 
$70,000, when they get hit with a $20,000 tuition bill, they are like 
poor because they are paying the mortgage, the taxes, and the other 
expenses, and all of a sudden this bill hits.
  During this recession, the most severe recession we have had since 
the Great Depression, there are literally hundreds of thousands of 
college students who deserve to stay in college, and hundreds of 
thousands more who deserve to get into college who will not go because 
their families don't have the money. When they don't go to college, or 
when they drop out of college, or they don't go to the college that 
best suits them because of financial reasons, not because of academic 
reasons, they lose, their family loses, and America loses as well. That 
is why I worked so hard to get this provision. It is a $2,500 tax 
credit, partially refundable, so it helps people making $40,000 and 
people making $80,000, as it should. It will help keep our human 
capital. This is very important. And I think President Obama showed 
wisdom in making sure there is a power grid that is more efficient that 
will help us in the future, and wisdom in making sure our health care 
has IT, which will help us.

[[Page S1638]]

  When you read the polls, the American people, once again showing 
their wisdom, are saying we would like to have longer term projects in 
here because when, God willing, we get out of the recession, we would 
like to have something to show for it, whether it is traditional 
infrastructure or new infrastructure, including IT and power grid. 
There is human capital as well. If somebody drops out of college 
because they cannot afford it, the statistics show they often never go 
back and we lose as a country. So preserving human capital during these 
difficult times is important.
  Again, this proposal has broad bipartisan support. It is not terribly 
expensive in the scheme of a $900 billion package. I hope we will move 
forward with it.
  Finally, the last thing I will talk about to my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle is this: I am utterly amazed at the lack of 
cooperation we are getting from so many, the lack of reaching out and 
trying to meet us part of the way. The bottom line is, we are in the 
most severe recession since the Great Depression.
  The great worry is that we go into what the economists call a 
deflationary spiral. It means prices go downward. Businesses put off 
any expenditures because they think the price is going to get lower and 
lower. The Depression was a deflationary spiral, plain and simple. 
Japan's 10 years of stagnation was a deflationary spiral, less severe 
as a depression but spiral down nonetheless. Unfortunately, the sad 
fact is that economists don't know how to deal with a deflationary 
spiral. If we get into one--which is not likely but possible--we don't 
know how to get out.
  So wise, sound economic policy would have us make sure this package 
is strong and gets money into the economy immediately. The kinds of tax 
cuts proposed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not do 
that by the admission not of Chuck Schumer but of a conservative 
economist such as Martin Feldstein. It takes longer for a tax cut to 
get into the economy, and particularly during difficult times people 
save a lot of the money. I am not saying we should have no tax cuts; 36 
percent of this package is tax cuts. Yet we hear from our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle that it is not enough. A, it works less 
well than the spending; B, you need a mix; and C, yes, we did win the 
election, and the American people are overwhelmingly for this.
  Frankly, I had expected, given that Senator Reid says we are allowed 
to have amendments and given that he has agreed with Senator McConnell 
that we should have an old-fashioned conference where amendments are 
offered by people on both sides of the aisle, we would get real support 
and cooperation.
  This bill has gotten more expensive. The two most expensive 
amendments were tax cuts proposed by Republicans, Senator Grassley 
along with Senator Menendez--Grassley was the lead here--proposed 
adding the AMT, $75 billion; Senator Isakson from Georgia, something I 
supported although I would like to see it narrowed and more focused, 
$19 billion. If you add those in, the tax cuts are rising, rising, and 
rising in terms of proportion, and still we do not see cooperation from 
the other side of the aisle.
  I would like to say to President Obama: Sir, you have bent over 
backward to listen to suggestions. We have tried as well. But it takes 
two to tango. Bipartisanship means two people tangoing. It does not 
mean you should get your way on everything or even half. A third, 40 
percent is pretty generous.
  I believe this package will pass because I don't believe the other 
side will want it on its doorstep that it failed. My Republican 
colleagues in the Senate do not have the luxury of their House 
colleagues of voting no and the bill would still pass.
  I am rueful and regretful that we have not seen more real bipartisan 
cooperation at a time when the American people want it, at a time when 
we need to act quickly, at a time when spending programs--anathema as 
they may be to some on the other side of the aisle--are the best way to 
get this economy going.
  I will say--and I am speaking for myself--that the real test here is 
not how many votes we get, as long as we pass it. That will long be 
forgotten. The real test is whether this proposal puts Americans to 
work and gets us out of the economic morass we are in--at least begins 
to get us out of the economic morass we are in. I, for one, would say 
do not decimate this package and make it ineffective to win over enough 
people so we have 80 votes. That is a distant memory, 80 votes. I know 
it was a hope of the President. Clearly, it is a distant memory. To get 
no votes in the House and to have as little support thus far as we are 
getting from the Republican side of the aisle shows how out of touch, 
frankly, my colleagues are with the economy and with the new world in 
which we live.
  I know what it is like. I came to Congress in 1980 when Ronald Reagan 
was elected to be President. Crime was ripping apart my working-class 
and middle-class district. I got on the Judiciary Committee and the 
Crime Committee. Do you know what I found when I got there? That the 
ACLU, an organization I generally support, was writing the crime 
legislation. They had a view. I respected that. I disagreed with it. I 
thought it was so wrong for the time, that you should lean so far over 
on one side that you might let hundreds of guilty people go free lest 
you convict one innocent person. When I saw that happen, I knew why 
Democrats had lost. I said the Reagan era was going to be dominant 
because we were out of touch.
  Mr. President, I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
they are just as out of touch today as we were then. The American 
people want action. They don't want an ideological adherence to no 
Government programs, no Government spending, tax cuts, particularly for 
the wealthy only. They want help with health care, they want help with 
education, they want help with energy independence. And while they 
certainly don't want a government to waste money and they certainly 
don't want the little porky things in this bill, the few--less than 
half of 1 percent--that should come out, they want the basis of this 
bill.
  I make a final plea to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: 
Get with it and help us. Don't stick to your narrow ideological 
philosophy that served you well in 1981 but doesn't work for the 
greatest recession we have had since the Great Depression. Maybe in the 
course of today, as we work through the amendment process, for the good 
of America and, frankly, for the good of your own party, others on the 
other side of the aisle will come over and truly work with us to get a 
stronger package that will create jobs and get us out of the recession.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Chair recognizes 
the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have several comments to make on two 
different subjects, one of which was broached by the Senator from New 
York. Before doing that, I would like to yield to my friend from 
Mississippi for no more than 2 minutes and then regain the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I was distracted. Is the Senator making a 
request?
  Mr. INHOFE. I was making a request to yield 2 minutes to my friend 
from Mississippi without giving up the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I object.
  Mr. WICKER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I assure my colleagues that I will not 
take long to ask this question. I had hoped my friend from New York and 
my friend from Illinois would engage in a colloquy and not have left 
the Chamber.
  Much was made in the discussion between the two Senators about the 
debt President Bush ran up during his administration. I don't know that 
it serves the debate very well to point fingers, but we might as well 
set the record straight for those of us who are paying attention.
  Congress spends the money, will my friend acknowledge? It is Congress 
that spends the discretionary funds around here, and it is Congress 
that sets the spending on autopilot in terms of the mandatory spending. 
The President

[[Page S1639]]

does not spend a penny without the consent of this Congress.
  I hope my friend will also acknowledge that there was not one time 
during the 8 years of the Bush administration when our friends from the 
Democratic side of the aisle came forward with their budget proposal 
and proposed a budget that would spend less than was spent by the 
United States of America. In fact, in every instance, our friends on 
the other side of the aisle proposed budgets that spent even more than 
we actually spent in the end.
  I just wanted to see if my friend agreed with that point. I thank him 
for allowing me to make that point.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the answer to the question of the Senator 
from Mississippi is yes.
  Let me make a couple comments.
  The Senator from New York talked quite a bit about this stimulus 
bill. I contend it is not a stimulus bill, and I will touch on that 
point in a moment. He was talking about coming here in 1980. I remind 
him that there are ways you can stimulate this economy. This bill does 
not do it. This bill spends money, astronomical amounts of money. It is 
just inconceivable that we could be thinking about it. Certainly, if 
you wind the clock back to 1980, no one ever talked in terms of the 
hundreds of billions of dollars we talk about today.
  I remind the Senator from New York that back in 1980, the timeframe 
he was talking about, we had a President who came in 1980 by the name 
of Ronald Reagan. He repeated something that was said by another great 
President, who was John Kennedy. Back during the time John Kennedy was 
President, they were getting involved in the New Frontier programs. 
They had a great need for increased revenue. This is a quote from John 
Kennedy. He said: We need to increase our revenue, and the best way to 
increase our revenue is to reduce marginal rates. And he reduced 
marginal rates, he reduced capital gains rates, and he reduced 
inheritance rates. That resulted in a massive increase in revenue.
  If you take the decade that is called the Reagan decade of the 
eighties, look at 1980, the total amount of money that came in. Revenue 
generated from marginal rates was $244 billion. In 1990, it was $466 
billion. The revenue that was generated almost doubled in a decade. We 
had the largest tax reductions, I believe, in the history of this 
Nation.
  Now we are looking at a bill that does not have that. It has two 
little, small things that might stimulate the economy in terms of 
depreciation in small business. The total amount does not even exceed 3 
percent of the bill.
  The area where I felt--and I know a lot of people disagree--we could 
do something to provide jobs for Americans, what should have a greater 
part of this, is road construction and infrastructure. But that did not 
happen.
  We are looking at something that right now has a total of $27 billion 
in highways, roads, and bridges. Certainly the occupant of the chair 
understands, having served for many years on the Environment and Public 
Works Committee, the great needs in this country. We have had several 
statements made by economists who have said that if there is a way we 
can provide jobs, do something that is going to have to be done for 
America, this is the time to do it. If you look at the total amount in 
this bill, out of some $900 billion, we are talking about $27 billion 
is all there is in that area.
  I say in responding to the comments of the Senator from New York, if 
he is talking about 1980 and what happened after that time, it is very 
clear that precipitated a decade in the history of this country where 
we had more revenue generated as a result of taxes being reduced than 
any other time in the history of the country.
  When we look at what is in this bill that would really stimulate, all 
the rest of it is spending. I am not going to start reading the list of 
the $650 million to have people change their TVs and all these things.
  There are two areas that would stimulate. One would be in the area of 
hiring people--road construction, providing jobs. In my State of 
Oklahoma, we happen to have a highway director who I think is the best 
one in the Nation. His name is Gary Ridley. He has identified just in 
my State some $1.1 billion of shovel-ready jobs. They already have the 
environmental impact statements. They are projects to get people to 
work tomorrow. Yet we cannot do that in this bill, and that is the type 
of thing we should be doing.
  If you add together the tax stimulus and the amount of work that is 
being done in terms of roadwork and providing jobs, that comes to 
somewhere around 7 percent of the total amount. What about the other 
$900 billion? I think it is absurd.
  The Senator from New York was talking about how Republicans did not 
respond favorably to the Pelosi bill on the other side. No wonder. It 
is the same type of bill we are looking at here. It actually had $3 
billion more for construction than this bill. I think they acted 
responsibly.
  I wish Republicans--and I hope this will be the case--would be 
willing to stand up and jointly, all of us, agree that this is not 
going to work and that there is a choice now. We do have a substitute 
that Senator McCain put forth. It resolves these problems. It has items 
in it that will actually stimulate the economy. I am hoping we will all 
be able to stick together. I would be very proud if the Republicans are 
able to do that.
  Now, that is not the reason I wanted to get the floor. I want to 
mention an amendment I have that has not been cleared yet. I compliment 
Senator Inouye. I visited with him, and even though it is something he 
said he wouldn't vote for, he would still not object to having it 
considered because he thinks it is very important. It has to do with 
Guantanamo Bay.
  On Monday, I was at Guantanamo Bay, and that was my third trip there. 
The first was right after 9/11. At that time I realized the statements 
that were being made about the treatment of detainees were not true; 
that a lot of the media had misrepresented it. Nonetheless, it is 
something that was out there and people felt this was something bad 
that was taking place in GTMO--Guantanamo Bay.
  I might mention that we have had that resource since 1903, and it has 
served us very well. Ironically, our annual lease is $4,000 a year, and 
we are getting all this for that amount. But I want to share with my 
colleagues here what we witnessed this past Monday--a few days ago.
  At this time, we are down now to 245 detainees. Of the 245 detainees, 
there are 170 of them where their countries will not take them back. In 
other words, what are we going to do with these guys? And by the way, 
even though President Obama came out in his first or second day in 
office and said two things about Guantanamo Bay--No. 1, we should cease 
all legal proceedings down there; and No. 2, close it within 12 
months--there is a very courageous judge down there who, I guess, felt 
the separation of powers in the Constitution meant something, so he 
said, no, we are not going to do this; we are going to continue with 
our trials for now. He is trying such people as Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, 
the brainpower behind 9/11, and four of his coconspirators; and Ali al-
Shihri, who is the person who was involved in the USS Cole tragedy that 
killed many people, including 17 of our brave soldiers. These are the 
types of hard-core people who are being tried there. These are military 
tribunals, and they need to continue. That is what the judge said, and 
he is continuing to this day.
  By the way, if we ended up starting to try those in our Federal court 
system, because of the rules of evidence and because of the nature of 
the terrorists and the testimony that would come up, they are 
estimating it would take about 12 months to build a courtroom--as it 
did down there--at a cost of about $10 million.
  So my concern is this: In the event we were forced to close 
Guantanamo, it would not work to do it at the present time until some 
solution comes up as to what we are going to do with all these 
detainees. Some of the detainees are clean, ready to go back, and will 
be transferred back. But we have about 170 where there is no place for 
them to go, even if we tried them and turned them loose.
  There has been a suggestion that if we close Guantanamo, there are 
some 17 military installations in the continental United States that 
would be able to accept some of these detainees and so that is where 
they would end up going. The problem with that is, I don't know of one 
Senator serving in here

[[Page S1640]]

who wishes to say it is all right to go ahead and put them in 
Mississippi or put them in Iowa or put them, in my case, in Oklahoma. 
One of the 17 installations happens to be Fort Sill, located in 
Oklahoma. We don't want that. You don't want them in West Virginia. So 
there is no reason for us unnecessarily to target ourselves in this 
case.
  I have to also say that anyone who believes people have been abused 
down there, all you have to do is go down. I have done tours of prisons 
all over the United States, as well as military prisons elsewhere. I 
can say without any doubt in my mind that I have never seen a prison 
where people are cared for better than they are there. There is one 
medical practitioner for every two detainees who are down there. The 
medical facilities even do colonoscopies for anyone over 50, if they 
want them. None of these detainees would ever have treatment like that 
back in their country of origin. The food they are getting is better 
than they have ever had before. So it is not true they are being 
abused.
  In fact, they have six camps, numbered from one to six, starting with 
those who have the least problems, to those who are ready to be 
returned someplace, and getting up to the real hard-core terrorists. 
Even in camp six, which is supposed to house the toughest guys, they 
are outside having recreation 3 hours a day. So people are not being 
abused there, and I think it is important that people understand that.
  That is not, however, where I am coming from on this amendment. I 
know for a fact, if we can get this voted on, it would pass. Those 
individuals who believe we should close GTMO are always very careful to 
say we have to figure out what we are going to do with the hard-core 
detainees down there, because we can't turn them loose. You can't bring 
them back and try them in our court system because the rules of 
evidence in a tribunal are different. You can't read them their rights 
when you are apprehending them--apprehending a terrorist. It doesn't 
work. In a tribunal, hearsay evidence is admissible, but it is not in 
our court system. So that is something that wouldn't work.
  So even though I think we should not close GTMO, now or ever--because 
I think it is a resource and an asset that we have in this country that 
we can use--for those individuals who feel we should at some point 
close it, I agree--and I can't find anyone who disagrees--that we 
should not close it until we determine what is going to happen to those 
110 to 170 detainees where they do not have anyplace to go.
  Let me explain my amendment, and it is No. 198, which I have not been 
able to bring up for consideration yet. It would prohibit the use of 
any of the funds that are in this stimulus bill--and the stimulus bill 
does have money that goes into modernizing and doing things for various 
penal institutions--toward preparing our institutions in the 
continental United States to accept these terrorist detainees and 
housing them in the continental United States instead of at GTMO.
  I think if you look very carefully at how simple this legislation is, 
it says:

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise being made 
     available to any department or agencies of the United States 
     Government by this Act may be obligated to expend it for the 
     following purposes. To transfer any detainee of the United 
     States housed at the Naval Station Guantanamo Bay to any 
     facility in the United States or its territories.

  Who is going to oppose that? Is there one person who would vote 
against that?

       Or to construct, improve, modify, or otherwise enhance any 
     facility in the United States or its territories for the 
     purpose of housing any detainee described in paragraph 1.

  Those are the guys who are down there--the bad guys; the terrorists. 
And thirdly:

       To house or otherwise incarcerate any detainee described.

  I know the Senator from Iowa doesn't want the detainees coming to 
Iowa; the Senator from West Virginia doesn't want them coming to West 
Virginia; I seriously question whether they want them in Ohio; and I 
certainly don't want them in Oklahoma. So that is all this is. It is an 
amendment that, should this bill pass--and of course if it goes to 
conference, I don't have any way of knowing what will stay in and what 
will come out--and I hope it does not pass when we vote on it tonight 
or tomorrow, or whenever that time is--but if it does pass, I want an 
amendment in it so that no one will try to transfer those detainees now 
down in Guantanamo Bay to any of the prisons in the continental United 
States.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Inhofe amendment would, in effect, 
prevent implementing the President's decision to close Guantanamo and 
undo the benefits to America's standing that have resulted from 
President Obama's decision.
  The Executive order signed by President Obama last month requires 
Guantanamo be closed within 1 year.
  The goal of closing Guantanamo has broad support. In this last 
presidential election, both candidates, then-Senator Obama and Senator 
McCain, supported closing Guantanamo.
  Last year, five former Secretaries of State, including Colin Powell, 
Henry Kissinger, and James Baker, called for closing Guantanamo. 
President Bush has said he would support closing Guantanamo, as did his 
Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, and Secretary of Defense Robert 
Gates.
  No one says that closing Guantanamo will be easy. To achieve this, 
the Executive order signed by President Obama sets up a Special Task 
Force to review the status of the approximately 250 detainees still 
held at Guantanamo and make recommendations on what to do with these 
individuals.
  Currently about one-third of the Guantanamo detainees have been 
cleared for release or transfer to a third country. The State 
Department is in the process of trying to find countries willing to 
take these detainees, where they will not be subjected to torture or 
persecution.
  For about another third of the Guantanamo detainees, the Defense 
Department has declared its intention to bring criminal charges and try 
these individuals. The military commission process is now under review, 
so it is not clear when these trials will resume or be completed.
  But we know, right now, that for a certain number of detainees 
currently at Guantanamo, we will need to continue to hold these 
individuals beyond the 1-year deadline for closing Guantanamo. These 
detainees are too dangerous to be released, and yet the Government is 
not able to charge them criminally.
  In some of these cases, the Government cannot bring charges because 
the evidence we have against these detainees is insufficient for 
purposes of a criminal prosecution. Or, we now know, in some cases the 
evidence may be inadmissible because it was obtained through torture or 
coercion. The policies of abuse approved by the Bush administration 
have damaged our ability to bring these individuals to justice.
  Those detainees too dangerous to release but unable to be tried, will 
continue to be held. We will need a place to house these individuals. 
The Defense Department has already reportedly begun reviewing 
facilities at military bases in the United States for that purpose. We 
should await the recommendations of the Special Task Force established 
by President Obama's Executive order on how to handle these difficult 
detainees.
  This amendment would undo the benefits of President Obama's action to 
close Guantanamo. It would harm America's standing and leave our troops 
less safe.
  It prejudges the review of the task force. It doesn't belong in a 
stimulus package.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Inhofe 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The distinguished Senator 
from the State of West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senator from Michigan, Ms. Stabenow, be the next Democratic speaker 
after the Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I might say there is already an order. It is all worked 
out, but I appreciate the Senator's statement. My understanding is that 
was the case. That was already agreed to.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. So I am reinforcing the truth?
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct.

[[Page S1641]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I will say very briefly that I am 
stunned by the speech from the Senator from Oklahoma. What he is 
basically saying--and I don't know whether he has ever been on the 
Intelligence Committee, but some of us have and have watched and 
studied interrogation and detention at Guantanamo, and a lot of other 
things for a very long time, and watched what happened under the Bush 
administration, and I choose not to get into that right now.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. No.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask the Chair, since I was directly referred to, am I 
not entitled to ask a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor, 
and he has declined to yield.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. What he is basically saying, in an extraordinary 
statement, is that there shall be no closing of Guantanamo. But then he 
is saying that if Guantanamo is closed, that there shall be no taking 
of prisoners from Guantanamo and putting them anywhere within the 
United States of America, thereby, No. 1, casting extraordinary 
criticism on some of the toughest, finest and, when necessary, very 
tough prisons in the United States, including in his State, my State, 
and many other States.
  But what he is really saying is he wants Guantanamo to stay open. And 
by saying that, what he is saying is he wants to create more people who 
hate the United States and more people who go to the cause of al-Qaida, 
and I find that an extraordinary statement, which he has every right to 
make and every right to believe with a full heart. I just don't run 
into a whole lot of people who know the situation who think like that.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I will not.
  Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the $87 billion in 
temporary, targeted Medicaid relief in this recovery bill. There is an 
undeniable link between health care and our economy, and that is 
obvious. The Federal investment of health care now a part of this 
economic recovery bill will go a long way to stabilize our economy. 
Health and economic stabilization, stimulus, or whatever you want to 
call it, are intertwined. Actually, leading economists have found that 
targeted aid of this sort--Medicaid--will generate increased economic 
activity of $1.36 for every dollar that is spent.
  But there are a lot more important things than that. Our economy is 
worse than it has been certainly in my memory. The tragedies being 
played out in West Virginia and other parts of the country are almost 
beyond belief. We sit here in constant session in the Senate and keep 
in touch with our States. We had another huge business close in West 
Virginia yesterday. The tragedies pile up, one after the other. People 
don't know where they are going to get their next meal. The human 
psychology begins to work and people begin to spiral downward, just as 
banks spiral downward. They begin to fold in on themselves. And when 
they fold in on themselves, they lose their confidence and then they 
aren't willing to try things, accept things, to take new steps. So the 
Medicaid money is incredibly important.
  It is getting very hard for people to put food on their table, and I 
think it is very easy for people to understand that Medicaid is part of 
the fabric of America. Hard-working families depend on Medicaid. Our 
families in West Virginia are hard working. Fifty percent of all the 
babies born in West Virginia are born under Medicaid. That is not the 
fault of the State of West Virginia, that is not the fault of the 
people of West Virginia, it is simply a reflection of the economic 
travails that face our State and that we have to deal with. We want to 
help them get back on their feet.
  So we have this $87 billion--and there are going to be attempts to 
lessen it--in FMAP. Estimates from the Government Accountability Office 
say local and State governments are facing $31 billion in deficits over 
the course of the next 2 years. I think, personally, that is modest, it 
is underestimated. I was a Governor. I went through the 1982-1983 
recession in West Virginia, where interest rates went up to 19 percent. 
It was a horrible time. We survived it. But State revenues often 
evaporate very rapidly during an economic downturn. One of the first 
things Governors sometimes do is to cut Medicaid. They sort of cut 
Medicaid because sometimes they think Medicaid is for people who are 
poorer than they are, and therefore somehow it isn't important, it is 
saying that some people are not as important, which is akin to saying 
some people are more important than others, depending on their income--
which is a philosophy sometimes that divides the two sides of this 
body.

  So I say this is important. There will be a variety of amendments 
brought up to cut it. They will cloak themselves in other words, which 
will be good, but their purpose will be to cut Medicaid, and when you 
are cutting Medicaid, you are cutting health insurance and all sorts of 
things that people need in times of tragedy. We are surely in a time of 
tragedy.
  Having said that, I simply note to the President, with his 
permission, that later in the day--I do have on file at the desk two 
amendments, one that would jump start something which is incredibly 
important in this country and that is having a GPS digitalized air 
traffic control system. We are the only country in the modern world--in 
fact we are behind Mongolia in this case--that does not have a 
digitalized GPS system, where you can downgrade inefficiency in 
landings and distances of planes apart from each other because of the 
precision.
  Our present system is an x ray, an analog. This system is an MRI. 
That is what we need. We don't have one. We have to start one. It is a 
job creator. I have discussed with my ranking member, Kay Bailey 
Hutchison, who has a different way of funding it, $550 million. We have 
to do that. We have to do that for safety in the skies. It is a job 
creator. We have thousands of airports in this country.
  I put my colleagues on notice that I plan to go to that. Also, we 
have to extend the FAA itself. Its authorization is going to run out. 
We need to extend it for a variety of reasons. I will not go into those 
at the present time. But the extension of FAA reauthorization is in the 
interests of every Republican and every Democrat in this body. I will 
be making a case for that, if given the chance, later in the day.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I know the distinguished chairman of 
the Commerce Committee has spoken, and we are working very hard on an 
amendment that would be an infrastructure amendment. It would be money 
that we want to spend now, but it will be spent in the future. I think 
if we have infrastructure requirements that we know we are going to 
need in the future and we can push them up for 2 years, that is a 
policy all of us can agree to. That is exactly what the distinguished 
chairman and I are working on.
  Senator Rockefeller and I know that modernization of our air traffic 
control system is certainly something we would like to be ahead of 
Mongolia in doing. But in addition to that, we want to make sure we 
have the efficiencies in the system. Not only will it create jobs in 
the next 2 years, but it will streamline the system, it will make it 
more efficient. Prices can come down for consumers and that will also 
help jump start our economy.
  I thank the chairman and I wish to talk now about the McCain 
amendment.
  I am so pleased Senator McCain has come up with an alternative. It 
will be a substitute for the bill before us. It strikes the balance. It 
is tax relief and increased Government investment in our economy so we 
will be able to jump start our economy in a fiscally responsible way.
  The bill before us is not the right approach. I could not possibly 
support the underlying bill. I do hope we can come together, though. 
Having the debate and hearing what people are saying on the outside, I 
think has made people realize, when we are talking about $1 trillion, 
we are not talking about a vacuum. We are talking about $1 trillion on 
this bill, we are talking about another $1 trillion of deficit this 
year, not counting the bill we are discussing today. The U.S. debt is 
$10.6 trillion already.

[[Page S1642]]

  We are approaching a tipping point whereby creditors are going to be 
increasingly unwilling to lend to our Government because they are going 
to be concerned about our ability to pay them back. Much of our debt, 
25 percent of our U.S. national debt, is held by foreigners. The 
Chinese Government, in particular, owns over $500 billion.
  We must consider having this much of our debt in foreign hands and 
whether borrowers will continue to buy our debt. What happens to our 
economy if they do not? What happens if they do? What would the 
interest rate be if all of a sudden they decide it is going to be more 
risky? Interest rates go up. What would inflation do to the economy we 
are in right now?
  If we are going to do this, we must spend every dollar so carefully. 
We must make sure every dollar we spend is stimulative. In fact, the 
bill before us, the underlying bill, one-third of it that is supposed 
to be stimulative is not going to be spent in the next 2 years. That 
means we would be spending money down the road to solve a problem that 
may not even exist down the road, and we will be increasing the size of 
debt without the stimulative effect.
  I refer to Alice Rivlin, who was the Budget Director in President 
Clinton's White House. She recommended we split the plan. She said 
implement the immediate stimulus now. As she acknowledged, we talk 
about the plans which may or may not have value at a later time. It 
doesn't have to happen right now. The McCain alternative has a better 
way to stimulate the economy, put money into the economy immediately, 
and it is a balanced approach. The McCain proposal will lower the 10-
percent bracket to 5 percent for 1 year; lower the 15-percent bracket 
to 10 percent for 1 year; eliminate the payroll tax for all employees 
for 1 year. It would lower the corporate tax rate from 35 to 25 percent 
for 1 year. Recognizing that we have the second highest corporate tax 
rate in the entire industrialized world, we want to encourage our 
corporations to hire people in America today.
  We need to look at tax cuts and the history we have had with tax 
cuts. Every time we have had big tax cuts in a depressed situation, 
they have stimulated the economy. They have worked. President Kennedy, 
President Reagan, and President Bush.
  Assisting Americans in need--the McCain alternative extends 
unemployment insurance benefits, extension of food stamps, extension of 
unemployment insurance benefits that are tax free until 12-31-2009; 
training services for dislocated workers. Certainly, we all will agree 
that is important.
  The McCain alternative goes to the heart of the problem, which is 
housing. The underlying bill doesn't address what caused this in the 
first place and that is the problem in the housing market. The McCain 
alternative provides a loan modification program, tax incentives for 
home purchases of up to $15,000, making the GSA-conforming loan limits 
extended at the higher levels to get more help for people who are 
struggling to make loans. This is a very important component.
  Last but not least, the spending part goes to infrastructure. It does 
not have all the programs in it that the underlying bill does, that we 
will be able to debate in the future. They may be good programs, but 
they are not going to create jobs.
  The McCain spending portion is on infrastructure and defense. I am 
the ranking member on the military construction subcommittee of 
Appropriations. We have a 5-year plan for the Department of Defense. 
They know what they are going to spend and what they are going to need. 
We have just had a ramp-up of troop strength to 90,000 more in our 
armed services, the Army and the Marines. We have to accommodate them. 
We have to build the housing, we have to build the training facilities. 
All those things are in a 5-year plan that normally we would take 1 
year at a time to build out.
  Why not take the 5-year plan and move it up to 2 years or 3 years? I 
have an amendment that will do that. But the McCain alternative puts $9 
billion into those exact types of military construction projects. That 
is a very important component because it will be jobs in America, it 
will be jobs that will benefit Americans, and of course it will be for 
the training and care of our military who are out there on the 
frontlines, protecting our freedom. What better kind of infrastructure 
building would we want?
  The McCain substitute has transportation infrastructure. We all know 
there are shovel-ready transportation projects ready to go all over our 
country--bridges, roads, public transit--something I certainly support, 
airport infrastructure improvements. Senator Rockefeller and I are 
going to try to increase that in amendments later on. These are the 
components of the McCain substitute I hope our colleagues will 
consider.
  The tax cuts have a history--if they are big enough and they can be 
felt--of stimulating our economy through the worst of times. All 
through history, they have done this. I hope we can support the McCain 
substitute. Or I will look down the road, and I will say, if the McCain 
substitute is not accepted by the majority of our colleagues, let's let 
that be the benchmark from which we will go. I do not think the 
majority of America believes that what is in the underlying bill is 
good for the short term nor is it good for the long term. I cannot even 
imagine putting so much debt into our system without the underlying 
stimulative effect that would bring in revenue to pay for that debt and 
thereby, perhaps, cause a much worse problem in our financial markets 
than we see today.
  I hope, during this debate we have had this week, we now will be able 
to see what the good parts of all the different plans are. I hope we 
can adopt the McCain substitute. If we do not, I hope it will be one of 
the components of a bill that will be written, that will have the 
support of many Republicans and many Democrats. It will be the best 
thing that could happen in our country if this bill passed on a true 
bipartisan basis. It does not give the confidence to our country, to 
have a plan that is passed just by the Democratic side of the aisle.
  Yes, Democrats won the election. No one argues with that. But 46 
percent of the people of our country did vote for Republicans, so if we 
have a balance here and America sees we are working together, I think 
that would be a good thing for the overall spirit in our country that 
is searching for bipartisanship. If we can come to a bill that would 
have tax cuts for every individual and businesses to be able to hire 
people, if we can fix the housing market by encouraging people to buy, 
if we can give spending plans for our infrastructure to the States so 
they would be able to hire people for bridges and roads and mass 
transit, if we can put our money into the Department of Defense, I know 
we could spend $75 billion in 3 years instead of 5 years, and I know 
the jobs would be in America and they would be for Americans.

  I think we have an opportunity. I hope we can come to some agreement 
that we can all be proud would be the best for our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
colloquy with the Senator from Montana for a brief period of time to 
talk about the disposition of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would say to my friend from Montana, we 
have two additional speakers on this side. If others desire to speak on 
the amendment, I ask them to come down or notify us right away.
  Then I understand there are amendments--there is a tentative proposal 
to have votes at 3:30. So other Members should come down and talk about 
their amendments that are pending.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I deeply appreciate the demeanor and the 
manner and the cooperation of the Senator from Arizona. He has an 
amendment he believes in strongly. Many Senators have spoken on behalf 
of his amendment; many have spoken in opposition to his amendment.
  But he has been very helpful in trying to work out a manner and a way 
and a time agreement where we can deal very expeditiously and fairly 
with the Senator from Arizona. My intent is to get a vote on the McCain 
amendment as soon as we possibly can. The Senator said there are a 
couple more speakers on his side who wish to speak. I imagine there are 
a couple on this side too.

[[Page S1643]]

  I cannot tell the Senator we will definitely have a vote as soon as 
those four speakers speak. It is my intention to have that vote. I do 
not know if I can arrange that at this point yet. But plan B would be a 
series of amendments beginning a little later in the day--not much 
later, approximately 3:30. And the amendment offered by the Senator 
from Arizona will be the first amendment. His amendment would come up 
first. Then votes on other amendments would come up later.
  My first preference is to vote earlier. If we cannot do that, then 
the whole package begins at 3:30 with the Senator first.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would like for my colleagues to conclude the debate, 
since we have been on it since 9:30 this morning. I understand the vote 
may be set for this and other amendments at 3:30. But unless there is 
someone who wants to speak on this amendment, the Senator from 
Mississippi and the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, are the only ones 
additionally who want to speak on it.
  I would encourage my colleagues who want to speak on other amendments 
to come to the floor because there will apparently very likely be a 
vote on at 3:30.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I do not see the Democratic Senator. She 
is not here to speak. I will go down the list. I think the Senator from 
Mississippi should be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Leahy.) Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I do want to speak on behalf of the McCain 
amendment and, regrettably, against the underlying legislation. We all 
understand the reason we are having this debate. Without exception 
every person in this Chamber is convinced we need to act to jumpstart 
our economy.
  People across the country are facing hardship. More than 860,000 
properties were repossessed by lenders in 2008, more than double the 
figure for 2007. American manufacturing is at a 28-year low. Mr. 
President, 1.9 million jobs were lost during the last 4 months of 2008. 
The economy shrank at a 3.8-percent pace at the end of the last 
calendar year, the worst showing in a quarter century. The unemployment 
rate now stands at 7.2 percent, 7.6 percent in my home State of 
Mississippi, with many States even less fortunate than mine.
  These figures are a sobering reminder of how much we have at stake. 
But that is also why we need to ensure that we get this right. Part of 
the reason I voted against the bailout last September was that I 
thought it was rushed.
  The Senator from Arizona acknowledged it was done in a hurry. We were 
told if we did not act in a matter of days, the world, as we knew it, 
might come to an end. I think there are many Members of this body who 
now wish we had taken more time to ensure that the TARP legislation was 
done right.
  Let's learn from that experience. The bill we are debating this week 
is an unprecedented bill. Its magnitude is a staggering $1.2 trillion 
over 10 years. As a matter of fact, when I came over here to wait my 
turn, I was handed a legislative notice. Actually the bill now has a 
net impact on the deficit of $1.273 trillion, including $389 billion in 
debt service. That means the interest on this bill is almost four-
tenths of $1 trillion.
  I want to take a moment to put into perspective that amount of money. 
Many of us in the Chamber have heard these examples over the last few 
days, but they are worth repeating to the American people. I can assure 
my colleagues that the American people are beginning more and more to 
listen to this debate.
  The entire Vietnam war had an inflation-adjusted cost of $698 
billion. This bill is 1.2 trillion. Our involvement in Iraq has cost 
$597 billion. This one piece of legislation is over $1.2 trillion. 
FDR's New Deal, which many have tried to compare to this plan, pales in 
comparison, with an estimated 2009 inflation-adjusted cost of $500 
billion, less than half the amount of this one piece of legislation in 
current dollars.
  On top of this massive spending request, let's also remember we are 
being told, should this legislation pass, the President will then send 
to the Hill another $500 billion package to prop up the financial 
sector.
  For those of us keeping score, that would be close to $2 trillion in 
spending when we factor in the cost of the interest. All of that is in 
addition to the $700 billion bailout bill passed last fall. It is hard 
to get a firm grasp of the magnitude of this spending.
  I will say what other colleagues have said: If you began spending $1 
million per day on the day Jesus was born, and you spent $1 million per 
day every day since that time until today, you would still not have 
spent anywhere near $1 trillion or, to put it another way, if you have 
$1 trillion in one-hundred-dollar bills, if you connected all of those 
one-hundred-dollar bills end to end, they would encircle the earth 40 
times to get to $1 trillion.
  Back in my home State of Mississippi, it has been reported that this 
package could mean $1 to $2 billion in projects for our State. What 
that means, though, when compared to the magnitude of the bill, is that 
as little as one-tenth of 1 percent of this spending would make it back 
to my State in projects.
  One-tenth of 1 percent return is not a good investment for 
Mississippi taxpayers, and it is not a good investment for American 
taxpayers, essentially when, as the Senator from Texas pointed out, 
this money will have to be borrowed from China or other foreign 
governments, if we can persuade them to continue lending us the money.
  It will need to be paid back by future generations. The Congressional 
Budget Office reported this week that the per-job cost of this plan, 
even if the jobs created are what we are being promised, the per-job 
cost of this plan is from $100,000 per job to $300,000 per job.
  Now, when you take into consideration the fact that the average 
Mississippian earns $31,000 per year, it is hard for me to stand here 
and tell hard-working people back in my State that the most efficient 
use of their tax dollars is to spend up to $300,000 to create one 
additional job for Americans.
  But that is what our own budget office tells us this bill will do. 
That is not the best use of American taxpayer dollars. We need to get 
this right. The American people deserve a maturely considered plan. As 
Thomas Jefferson reminded Americans in his day: Delay is preferable 
to error. Let's not rush into doing this the wrong way because 
generations of Americans, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, 
will pay for our mistake.

  It has been pointed out on this floor today, and it is worth 
mentioning again, that we Republicans are not alone in expressing 
grave, profound concerns about the enormity of this spending plan and 
the effect that it will have on the United States.
  President Clinton's former Budget Director, Alice Rivlin, agrees. She 
recently testified we should not rush to spend the amount of money this 
bill will spend on projects with slow spend-out rates.
  She said:

       Such a long-term investment program should not be put 
     together hastily and lumped in with the anti-recession 
     package.

  And hastily put together is what this program is.
  Alice Rivlin, President Clinton's Budget Director, went on to say:

       The risk is that the money will be wasted because the 
     investment elements were not carefully crafted.

  These are the words of the Budget Director under President Bill 
Clinton.
  Now, $1 trillion is a terrible thing to waste; $1.273 trillion is a 
terrible thing to waste. Members of the news media understand this too. 
The Washington Post's David Broder, who has covered Congress for more 
than 40 years, a respected journalist, wrote on Sunday regarding this 
plan:

       So much is uncertain, and so much is riding on it that it 
     is worth taking time to get it right.

  Yet we are told we need to vote this evening. We need to try to vote 
today or tomorrow on this, the largest spending bill ever in the 
history of the United States. In order to get it right, this package 
needs to be laser focused on getting workers back to work, getting our 
housing market out of the gutter, and doing so in a way that does not 
waste taxpayer dollars.
  The Democratic leadership in this Congress said only recently that 
this package should be targeted, temporary, and timely. I could not 
agree more. Unfortunately, as this package stands today, it could more 
accurately be described as slow, unfocused, and

[[Page S1644]]

unending. Americans have real concerns over some of the spending 
contained in this package: $20 million for the removal of fish 
barriers; $70 million to support supercomputing activities for climate 
research; tens of millions to spruce up Government buildings in 
Washington, DC; $25 million to rehabilitate off-road ATV trails; $600 
million for new Government vehicles; $150 million for honey bee 
insurance. The list goes on and on.
  My friend from New York said, a few speakers back: If you want to 
take this pork out, take it out. We can take it out with his vote and 
with the votes of his colleagues, but we cannot do it alone. If he says 
take it out, and he will join us in doing that, then we are getting 
somewhere.
  These projects may have merit, but what do they have to do with 
creating jobs immediately? There is a process for considering those 
types of projects, and this emergency stimulus package is not that 
vehicle.
  I was pleased to hear the President speak recently acknowledging the 
good ideas Republicans have and saying he wants to make sure Republican 
ideas are incorporated in this package. So what are those ideas and why 
do I support the McCain substitute?
  First, we need to trim the unnecessary spending that doesn't 
immediately put people back to work. Second, this package needs to get 
right to the housing problem because housing is what caused the 
situation we are currently in. Then let's focus more on targeted tax 
breaks for the working class and for the job creators, the small 
businesses. The President initially said 40 percent of this package 
should be made up of tax cuts. Regrettably, we are no longer close to 
that goal.
  Senator McCain has proposed an alternative plan that does all of 
these. His substitute plan costs half as much, thankfully, and offers 
focused spending and effective tax cuts. It eliminates the 3.1-percent 
payroll tax for all American employees for 1 year. It lowers the two 
lowest marginal tax rates for 1 year.
  We also need to accelerate depreciation for capital investments made 
by small businesses for 1 year. We need to improve tax incentives for 
home purchases. We need to improve early investment in national defense 
and military infrastructure priorities, jump-starting the economy while 
making Americans safe, and mandatory deficit reduction after two 
consecutive quarters of economic growth greater than 2 percent.
  If the stimulus package works and the economy begins to grow for 6 
months in a row, then we need to rein in this unbelievably large 
spending bill, declare victory, and then start working on a plan to pay 
for it. We also need to establish an entitlement commission to review 
Social Security and Medicare.
  I was delighted yesterday when the Isakson amendment was agreed to, 
doubling the current first-time home buyer tax credit to $15,000 and 
expanding it to cover all properties and home buyers. It is a small 
start--it is nowhere near the place we need to be--but I congratulate 
the Senate for taking that step.
  This is an important debate, perhaps the most important debate we 
will have this year. The President was right when he said that 
Republicans have good ideas. I hope, as the President said, we can 
incorporate those ideas into this legislation. I hope we can make this 
package much smaller and much more targeted to jobs and housing. That 
is what more American people are beginning to say as they are becoming 
familiar with the details of this plan.
  If we pass anything close to the current proposal and go to 
conference with the House, does anyone really believe the final product 
will be less expensive? If we pass the McCain proposal and cut in half 
the price tag of this bill and go to conference with the House, it is 
my hope and prayer that conference committee can report a package we 
can support in an overwhelmingly bipartisan manner, that can bring 
about confidence in the American people and make us all proud.
  It is time to redirect this package. We need to make it targeted, 
timely, and temporary. We need to do it today. We have an opportunity 
to strengthen this legislation so that it doesn't waste taxpayer money, 
so that it actually puts people back to work quickly and puts families 
back into homes and Americans back to work. The American people deserve 
to have us do this right.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, before talking about a very important 
amendment introduced by Senators Cantwell and Hatch--and I commend them 
for their leadership on this very important amendment about jobs in the 
future--I believe we are at a critical point. We have seen job loss 
within the last 8 years like we have never seen before. In fact, in the 
last year, we lost 2.589 million jobs. It is accelerating every month--
500,000 last month, 500,000 the month before. We are seeing new numbers 
that show acceleration of job loss. Unfortunately, that has come as a 
result of action and inaction in the last 8 years.
  We are at a pivotal point. Do we use the same policies of the last 8 
years or similar ones or do we do something new? Do we focus on a 
different strategy of investment, focusing on the demand side of supply 
and demand, creating jobs, putting money in people's pockets to pay the 
bills, and grow the middle class of this country? That is what this 
package is about. It is a change.
  I understand there is a disagreement and an honest debate of 
philosophies that occurs in the Senate. I totally understand that 
colleagues who have been promoting an approach for 8 years with 
President Bush would come forward with the same kinds of proposals on 
tax cuts and other approaches, most of those around tax cuts that are 
very supply-side oriented. I understand that is their philosophy, that 
is their approach. They believe that is what should happen. With all 
due respect, that has not worked. We are talking about over 2.5 million 
jobs lost last year. Critically important to me in Michigan, we have 
lost over 4.1 million manufacturing jobs in the last 8 years. We have 
had no manufacturing strategy, no focus on good-paying middle-class 
manufacturing jobs.
  In this package, we are going to change that. One of the important 
ways--and there are multiple items in the bill I will mention--relates 
to an amendment that will be coming before the body, hopefully today. 
It was offered by Senators Cantwell and Hatch, and it speaks to the 
future. I am proud to be a cosponsor. It focuses on manufacturing the 
vehicles, the plug-in electric vehicles that we know we need to get us 
off our dependence on foreign oil, to address global warming, and to 
create jobs.
  We have done a great job on R&D. We are investing in this package as 
it relates to battery development and research and development. We are 
doing a better job all the time on demonstration projects. We have 
passed tax incentives for consumers. The question is, Where will the 
vehicles be made? Where will the battery technology be made? That is 
the piece that has not been happening.
  I am proud that the first hybrid SUV was made by an American company, 
Ford Motor Company. They made the Ford Escape hybrid. But they had to 
buy the battery from Japan. Now we see batteries coming from Korea. We 
want the jobs making those batteries in America. That is what this 
amendment is about.
  A123, which is a leading battery company, asserts that an investment 
of $4.6 billion over the next 5 years in batteries and electric 
vehicles will create 29,000 direct jobs and 14 million square feet of 
new U.S. plant capacity. Of the newly created jobs, it is estimated 
that about 80 percent would be in the advanced battery industry or in 
the supply chain.
  I am extremely supportive and pleased to be involved in this 
particular amendment. I also appreciate the fact that it does something 
incredibly important. In this horrible economy we find ourselves, where 
capital is not available for startups or for mature manufacturing 
companies that are turning to a green economy, this makes sure that 
companies in a loss position, that we need to grow the economy and 
create jobs, will also participate in creating the new electric 
vehicles. This is the future. Shame on us if we do not make these 
investments

[[Page S1645]]

now and we go from dependence on foreign oil to dependence on foreign 
technology, which is, frankly, where we have been headed in the last 8 
years. This recovery package changes that. The Cantwell-Hatch-Stabenow 
amendment is a very important addition to it.
  More broadly, let me say that we know we need a change, and we need 
action now from the policies that have put us where we are. We have 
over 11 million people who want to work and who are out of work. Right 
now, we have more people out of work than there are jobs available. We 
are in a situation where we have to focus on creating jobs. That is 
what this recovery package does.
  What we are talking about is making sure we are rebuilding the middle 
class. That is not a slogan; that is a reality. We have been losing the 
middle class because we have been losing good-paying jobs. Too many 
families find themselves in the middle of this economic tsunami, and 
they are asking us to focus on jobs and those things that will allow 
them to pick themselves up, to work, pay the mortgage, put food on the 
table, send the kids to college, and have the American dream we all 
want for ourselves and our children. That is what this is about.
  This package is about jobs rebuilding America, jobs that leave 
something behind for the taxpayer--a safer bridge, better roads, better 
water and sewer systems, the ability for small businesses to connect 
with high-speed Internet so they can sell their products around the 
world, the ability for hospitals to cut the cost of health care by new 
technology and to move ahead for the future. Jobs rebuilding America 
are essential to this package.
  Secondly, it is jobs and a new green economy. We know that one of the 
next things we will have to tackle is what we do about the incredibly 
serious threat of global warming. There is a way to do that that 
creates good-paying jobs in America by focusing on the new green 
economy. That is the new green revolution.
  It was 101 years ago when the Model T Ford rolled off the line. At 
that time, we created a revolution, people being able to move, to be 
more mobile with vehicles. We started a revolution that created the 
middle class. This is now a time for that next revolution.
  When Henry Ford created the Model T, he also started another 
revolution, which was paying his workers enough so they could buy the 
vehicle. He knew that good-paying jobs were part of the equation. You 
could build automobiles, but if nobody could buy them, it wouldn't 
matter. He understood the demand side of supply and demand. He doubled 
wages to $5 a day so his workers could buy the vehicles.
  This package focuses on workers having money in their pockets so they 
can buy things to get this economy going again.
  In the green economy, it is exciting to see what we have been able to 
do. Last year on the floor we passed in our budget resolution a green-
collar jobs initiative which I was proud to author. Other than the 
retooling loans, we were not able to fund the rest of it. This package 
funds the green-collar jobs initiative with $2 billion for grants for 
advanced batteries. It focuses on green-collar job training.
  It focuses on weatherization and energy efficiency for buildings, 
which we know create 40 percent of energy usage.
  It focuses on creating a smart grid to improve the security and 
reliability of the electricity grid. If everybody in the United States 
had an electric vehicle made in America and they plugged it in, we 
would totally destroy the electric grid. We don't have the capacity. In 
this bill, we look to the future and say: We want the vehicles. We want 
the fuel efficiency. We want to stop those carbon emissions. And we 
better make sure we have a grid that allows that to work. So that is in 
here as well. So it is about right now, and it is about where we want 
to go in terms of jobs in so many different areas.

  We are talking about loan guarantees and grant programs and tax 
incentives that combine to create a picture of a future that is based 
on a green economy and is based on good-paying jobs in America.
  I wish to make sure the 8,000 component parts that go into a wind 
turbine--somebody told me it was 1,200 parts, and then somebody said, 
no, it is 8,000 actually--8,000 different parts in one wind turbine. I 
wish to make sure those are manufactured in this country, not just that 
we use the wind energy, which is important, but 70 percent of the 
economic activity in using wind energy comes from manufacturing the 
parts. We do that pretty well in Michigan, as well as, I know, around 
the country. But we are pretty proud of our skilled workforce which 
knows how to make things, manufacture things, develop things, engineer 
things. The green economy and the incentives in this recovery bill 
focus on creating those kinds of jobs, and it is very exciting to see 
where we can go.
  We also know there are people who right now we need to be focusing on 
to make sure we have support for our States and communities so they can 
keep police officers on the beat, schoolteachers in the classroom, and 
keep jobs--very important jobs--in public service we all benefit from 
every day. That is in this package.
  There are a tremendous number of people who are hurt, and certainly I 
speak for people in our great State who work hard every day and have 
been caught in the middle of this economic crisis. We have not seen 
much in the last 8 years to recognize the hurt families are going 
through and to help them through what we hope will be a temporary 
situation.
  Unemployment compensation benefits are increasing as well. Help for 
families to be able to keep their health insurance is in this bill. Job 
training and help for people who have lost their jobs because of unfair 
trade practices is in this bill. Help to put food on the table for 
families is in this bill.
  This is a very important economic recovery package that focuses 
ultimately on making sure we are creating jobs in America. That is what 
this is about. It is all kinds of jobs, that is for sure. There is not 
one silver bullet. It is all kinds of jobs. But it is about creating 
jobs, creating opportunities, looking to the future, disregarding the 
policies that have not worked, saying: Do you know what. We are not 
going to do that anymore. The same things that have been proposed that 
relate to what has happened in the last 8 years, we are not going to do 
that anymore. We cannot afford to do that.
  We are in a crisis. We need to act boldly, smartly, and now. This 
bill does that. This is about creating jobs in America. I hope we will 
join together in a strong bipartisan vote to get it done.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from Utah.


                           Amendment No. 364

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the 
distinguished Senator from Michigan.
  I rise in support of the substitute offered by the distinguished 
Senator from Arizona. As usual, John McCain does not mince any words. 
He says what he believes, and in this particular case, what he is 
trying to do is make this bill better and also to make it bipartisan so 
it would have an overwhelming vote, including mine. But I cannot help 
but express concern about the misguided direction we are headed toward 
in stimulating our economy if we go with the bill the majority has come 
up with, even as amended.
  Our new President recently told the Washington Post:

       The tone I set is that we bring as much intellectual 
     firepower to a problem, that people act respectfully towards 
     each other, that disagreements are fully aired, and that we 
     make decisions based on facts and evidence as opposed to 
     ideology, that people will adapt to that culture and we'll be 
     able to move together effectively as a team.

  Now, I make decisions based on ``facts and evidence as opposed to 
ideology.'' That is what our President said.
  To me, that means we must do what is necessary and what will be 
effective, and I could not agree more with President Obama's statement. 
Unfortunately, in this bill, my friends on the other side of the aisle 
have not followed the President's leadership and at a time when such 
leadership is critical.
  There is no doubt we are in a serious recession. There is widespread 
agreement that quick action is necessary to stop our economy's downward 
spiral. The facts are conclusive and Democrats and Republicans all 
agree economic conditions are severe. Both commonly accepted 
definitions of ``recession'' have clearly been met, and we

[[Page S1646]]

have seen a constant decline for all economic indicators.
  Our current economic condition: GDP has declined at 3.8 percent, 
unemployment at 7.2 percent. Manufacturing is at a 28-year low. We had 
the worst January in over a quarter of a century. These are very 
important indicators. I could go on, but we are here today to look 
toward the future, to look toward recovery and reinvestment.
  Moreover, I am not here to cast blame as to how we got here. Both 
sides are guilty of making poor decisions on shaping our economy. But 
today is critical. We need, as the President has stated, to put aside 
our ideological differences, focus on our economic condition, and make 
decisions based on what the facts and the evidence indicate will be 
effective.
  We cannot afford to waste more American taxpayer dollars. We cannot 
afford to advance political dogma at the expense of doing what is 
right. We cannot afford to make a trillion-dollar mistake.
  If we are going to spend billions to stimulate the economy, we had 
better get it right. The central question is whether this enormous 
spending-and-tax bill would be effective, or will be effective, in 
turning around the economy, preventing further layoffs, and creating 
new jobs. If it will do what is needed, it is worth the money, and we 
must pass it immediately.
  While both sides of the aisle agree about what we want to achieve, we 
disagree about the means and how to achieve them. Despite popular 
Democratic belief, Republicans are not trying to block the stimulus 
package. We are trying to improve it, and the distinguished Senator 
from Arizona has some great ideas and has improved it considerably. 
While Senate Republicans have tried to offer our ideas to the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we have largely been excluded from 
helping formulate this bill.
  The February 2 Los Angeles Times editorial, titled ``The Nation Needs 
Jobs, Not a Political Agenda,'' correctly points out this stimulus 
package--the largest stimulus since World War II--could and should have 
been crafted to garner extensive Republican support.
  Instead, the stimulus is a hodgepodge of liberal-targeted spending 
projects with a few decent ideas thrown in to try to appease 
Republicans. The majority of the bill is aimed at promoting mostly 
public-sector jobs for short-term projects, such as building roads and 
infrastructure.
  A large fraction of the proposed stimulus package is devoted to 
infrastructure projects that would spend out very slowly, not with the 
speed needed to put the economy on the path to recovery in 2009 and 
2010. While some of these public jobs are necessary, we also must 
provide incentives for private sector jobs. Furthermore, the stimulus 
needs to take effect immediately and not continue to provide a stimulus 
once the economy has turned around.
  While President Obama has said he believes Government spending 
provides the most ``bang for the buck'' and that there is ``near 
unanimity'' among economists that Government spending will help restore 
jobs in the short term, I must respectfully disagree. I believe, as do 
many economists, that our problems cut much deeper than what temporary 
Government spending will be able to cure.

  Harvard economics professor Martin Feldstein, president emeritus of 
the National Bureau of Economic Research, wrote in a recent Washington 
Post article:

       The fiscal package now before Congress needs to be 
     thoroughly revised. In its current form, it does too little 
     to raise national spending and employment.

  Gregory Mankiw, another Harvard economics professor and the former 
chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, notes in a 
New York Times op-ed that each dollar of Government spending increases 
the gross domestic product by only $1.40, while a dollar of tax cuts--
or tax relief, I would prefer to say--raises the gross domestic product 
by about $3.
  This is based on a study conducted by Christina and David Romer, then 
economists at the University of California, Berkeley. Christina Romer 
will now serve as the chair of President Obama's Council of Economic 
Advisers. President Obama, there is not ``near unanimity'' among 
economists that Government spending delivers the most ``bang for the 
buck''--indeed, not even among your own top economic advisers.
  Democrats have stressed they believe we need solutions that are 
temporary, targeted, and timely. Beyond spending for expanding 
Government projects, there is serious wasteful spending in this bill. 
The current bill provides up to $500 for individuals and up to $1,000 
for families in the so-called Make Work Pay tax credit, which would 
encourage work at the margin only for people who produce and earn less 
than $8,100 per year.
  Studies show that in the past, these rebate checks do not stimulate 
the economy. For instance, studies of the 1975 rebate--and earlier tax 
changes--suggested that only 12 percent to 24 percent of the rebate was 
consumed in the quarter it was received. Moreover, it is estimated that 
only 15 percent of last year's rebate checks was put back into the 
economy. Based on these estimates, of the $142 billion that would be 
allocated through the ``Making Work Pay'' tax credit--through that tax 
credit--the average of only $24 billion would find its way back into 
our economy. That is after an expenditure of $142 billion.
  Now, this is what it says: The Democrats' Stimulus Plan. Make Work 
Pay tax credit. Make Work Pay--the cost is $145 billion. Only $24 
billion will be put back into the economy. These are important 
estimates.
  Well, is this the most effective way to spend taxpayer money? The 
Make Work Pay credit is a refundable credit. Anyone who works would be 
eligible to receive up to $500, even if that person never paid income 
taxes. There are other refundable credits in this bill as well, 
including a provision increasing the refundable portion of the child 
tax credit.
  But the bill also creates a new category of tax credit bonds called 
``Build America Bonds,'' in which a State or a local government could 
elect to receive a direct payment from the Federal Government equal to 
the subsidy that would otherwise have been delivered through the tax 
credit. Whom are we kidding? This is nothing more than an innovative 
way of delivering more spending through the Tax Code. The majority 
wants to claim these are tax cuts, but these are not tax cuts. This is 
spending. I ask my colleagues: What is wrong with using the 
appropriations process for spending? Some of these projects may fit the 
appropriations process well, but they do not fit in a stimulus bill 
such as this and especially one where the American taxpayers are called 
upon to spend so much.
  Beyond these so-called ``tax cuts,'' we see even more spending for 
State and local governments. Until recently, my friends on the other 
side of the aisle have promoted their ideology to the extent that House 
Speaker Pelosi suggested that contraception will stimulate the economy 
because it is a cost-saving measure for the State and Federal 
governments. Even though this measure has been taken out, the bill 
includes plenty of other Government-expanding and ideology-promoting 
projects. State aid will only fund temporary projects that would need 
to be funded later down the road. Conversely, spending in the private 
sector would create permanent jobs that would give people more to spend 
and would lead to even more permanent job creation.
  Look, it is not just Republicans sounding the alarm over this bill. 
Even the very liberal San Francisco Chronicle has characterized the 
bill as a wasteful grab bag of spending. For example, this bill could 
make available billions of taxpayer dollars to leftwing groups, such as 
the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, commonly 
known as ACORN. The plan further establishes 32 Government programs at 
a cost of well over $136 billion.
  There is a difference between permanent tax cuts and short-term 
stimulative spending. If we base this bill on measures we know will 
work, it should include a proper balance of both permanent tax cuts and 
short-term spending. Instead, this bill is tilted toward government 
spending either through appropriations or tax expenditures. Less than 3 
percent of this bill contains business tax relief. How do we expect to 
create jobs in the private sector when you spend that little on the 
people who can create the jobs?

[[Page S1647]]

  I wish to turn my attention to the health care provisions contained 
in this package. As I have said before, health care reform is not a 
Republican or Democratic issue; it is an American issue. When we are 
dealing with 17 percent of our economy--and that is what the health 
care economy is--it is imperative that we address solutions in an open 
and honest, bipartisan process. Although the congressional Democrats 
and the administration have given a great deal of lip service to 
bringing change and bipartisanship to Washington, let us all remember 
that actions speak louder than words.
  I am mostly disappointed the Democrats have decided to use the 
stimulus legislation to address health care reform in a partisan and 
piecemeal fashion. Health information technology is a perfect example. 
It is an area of consensus that should have been part of the 
comprehensive and bipartisan health care reform dialog.
  Last Congress, Senator Mike Enzi and I worked very closely with 
Senators Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton on the Wired For Health Care 
Technology Act which resulted in a bipartisan bill that was unanimously 
approved and reported by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and 
Pensions, or HELP, Committee. While the stimulus package before the 
Senate contains provisions on health information technology--that is 
health IT--it does not resemble that bipartisan bill we introduced and 
passed unanimously out of the committee last Congress. The most 
important difference is that these provisions do not represent a 
bipartisan agreement because Members on both sides of the aisle were 
not involved in the discussions.
  Secondly, the stimulus bill undermines the work of former Health and 
Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt and the Bush administration by 
federalizing the National eHealth Collaborative. While I believe the 
Federal Government should play a role in this area, it should not take 
over such an initiative. The intent of our legislation, and the intent 
of Secretary Leavitt, was to encourage a partnership between the 
private sector and the Federal Government to improve the quality and 
efficiency of health care. The stimulus legislation dissolves this 
public-private partnership.
  Finally, the stimulus bill provides $1.1 billion for clinical 
comparative effectiveness, including a $400 million slush fund to be 
used by the Secretary at his discretion. Once again, this is a topic of 
bipartisan interest and concern that should have been discussed in the 
context of comprehensive reform.
  We have not even discussed the overall cost of this bill. When 
interest is included, the almost $900 billion Senate version reaches 
close to $1.3 trillion. That is enough to give every man, woman, and 
child in America $4,000, or every person in my home State of Utah 
$480,000. Indeed, $1.2 trillion is more than the cost of the New Deal 
and the Iraq war combined in today's dollars. The interest alone would 
be costlier than the Louisiana Purchase or going to the Moon adjusted 
for inflation--in fact, four times the cost adjusted for inflation and 
time--than the Louisiana Purchase.
  The bill is estimated to cost $1.3 trillion with interest. The 
congressional budget authority has estimated that the stimulus bill 
will produce between 600,000 and 1.9 million new jobs by 2011. That 
means it would cost anywhere from $700,000 to $2.1 million to create 
one job. That is absurd.
  To make this bill economically stimulative, we must make decisions 
that will be effective. Our economy began this downturn when our 
housing market collapsed. No stimulus will work unless we address the 
root of the problem. Some of my Republican colleagues are proposing to 
add the Fix Housing First Act which would refinance and lower fixed 
rate, 30-year mortgages for primary residences and provide a $15,000 
tax credit for all homebuyers. I support this idea because it would 
encourage people to buy houses and would help homebuilders, and it 
would put a lot of people to work. In addition, we have offered a 
proposal to permanently lower the corporate income tax rate which again 
would give the corporations in this country the ability to hire a lot 
more people, expand their businesses, and do what should be done. We 
need to enact tax relief that will help save and create jobs now.
  I believe one way to truly stimulate the economy is by making the 
research tax credit permanent. If we lifted the quota on H2B people--
these are generally highly educated people, educated in our country, 
who are forced out of our country to go home and compete with us, where 
otherwise they would stay here and help us be more competitive than we 
are. For too long, companies have been waiting on a short-term basis to 
see whether this vital tax credit will be extended for yet another year 
or two. When 80 percent of the research credit is based on salaries and 
wages, I doubt that anyone in this Chamber could honestly say that 
making the research tax credit permanent would not provide a great deal 
of bang for the buck.
  We should also look at middle-class tax relief by lowering the 15-
percent bracket to 10 percent and the 10-percent bracket to 5 percent, 
increasing the capital loss deduction and lowering the capital gains 
rate to encourage investment which would lead to job creation. I think 
I have the right to say these things because I was one of the original 
supply siders in the Reagan administration. Not only did we have the 
arguments that if we reduced taxes, we will have less revenues, not 
only did that turn around, but we had many more revenues that were 
planned or contemplated because we did reduce those taxes.
  The fact that 11 Democrats and every Republican voted against this 
bill in the House is evidence that bipartisanship did not prevail. The 
reason it did not prevail is that there was too much spending in the 
legislation and not enough incentives to spur job growth and economic 
development. For this stimulus package to be effective, it should 
incorporate ideas from both sides of the aisle. We should be focusing 
on incentives that are permanent and broad, not temporary and targeted. 
We owe this not only to taxpayers today, but also to future generations 
of taxpayers who will be saddled with this trillion dollar spending 
bill--$1.3 trillion. In short, we owe it to every American to craft a 
bipartisan stimulus package that will rouse the economy instead of 
coming up with a partisan bill that produces little and provokes 
American anger.
  Again, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, I wish to thank the 
distinguished Senator from Arizona for the work he has done in trying 
to come up with a reasonable compromise on this approach that will 
create many more jobs at much less cost, and for his willingness to 
stand on this floor and the guts he has to be able to take on all of us 
as colleagues in the Senate to try and do what is right.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wish to speak as well on the bill we are 
debating from a couple of different vantage points. One is on the bill 
itself and what is confronting the American people and our economy. 
Secondly is an amendment I will speak of briefly.
  I think in a broad sense we are at a point now where we are getting 
close to the point at which we will vote on the bill itself--the 
recovery bill--the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We have heard a lot 
of debate and discussion about parts of this bill that people don't 
like--and there is no reason why we shouldn't debate those points of 
contention--but I think we should also step back and look at what is 
going to work from this bill and why this bill is so essential to our 
economy.
  The bad news is that this bill is not being debated and these 
amendments are not being voted on in a vacuum. The reason why we are 
debating this bill is because we have about the worst economy that we 
have seen since the 1930s, at least the worst economy in more than a 
generation. That is without question. I know the Presiding Officer as 
well as others know how bad this is in our own States. I know from the 
people in Pennsylvania whom I talk to and the stories and accounts that 
I read about our economy, it is graphic. I won't go through all of it, 
obviously, but if you look at it from the unemployment rate, it is more 
than 7 percent nationally. Some projections are that if we don't take 
strong decisive action very soon, that number could go up to 10 
percent--numbers we never would have imagined even 6 months ago. In 
Pennsylvania, our unemployment rate is a little less than

[[Page S1648]]

that. As of December--the State numbers tend to lag by a month or so--
we were about 6.7 percent, but a month earlier it was 6.2. In our State 
in November we lost more than 27,000 jobs. In December we lost another 
27,000 jobs. We saw the numbers today on claims for unemployment, help 
for unemployment claims. The number is going way up: well over 650,000 
people in this week's tally.

  We can also look at it from the vantage point of a budget. 
Pennsylvania has a budget where they have to balance it every year, as 
virtually every other State. Governor Rendell has worked very hard over 
the 5 years he has been in office to target investments in priorities 
such as education and health care and job creation and creating new 
sources of energy, but at the same time he has done that, he has also 
made sure that he has tried to hold the line on spending. Despite all 
of that effort, revenues are collapsing. In a State such as ours we are 
facing almost a $2.5 billion shortfall. The rainy day fund, which has 
been built up to three-quarters of a billion dollars, has been 
decimated or will be in the next year.
  So we need action, and we need it very soon. We should vote on this 
bill this week, I believe. We can't wait any longer. We shouldn't wait 
another month or two to continue to debate strategies that we know will 
work, even with a bill that is imperfect.
  But what are we talking about in this bill? We are talking about 
helping people get through this recession with unemployment insurance, 
which also has a jump-starting effect on spending and job creation. We 
are talking about health care for people who have lost their jobs so 
they can take care of their families. We are talking about assistance 
to States so that States don't have to jack up State taxes and so that 
local school districts and local communities don't have to increase 
their taxes exponentially because we won't help them.
  Some people want us to do nothing, and doing nothing right now I know 
means one thing: It means much higher local and State taxes over the 
next couple of months. We can't allow that to happen. People are paying 
too much already across the country. It has tax cuts that are prudent 
and targeted. It has investments in health care IT which will pay 
dividends short term with jobs and long term with better health care 
outcomes and better quality. It invests in science and technology. It 
invests in clean drinking water and better ports and rails, better 
energy strategies, housing, school modernization--the whole range of 
strategies that we know will create jobs in the short run, but will 
also have a strong impact on our economy.
  So we should move forward and we should make sure we do the right 
thing now, and the right thing is to act and to pass a piece of 
legislation which may be imperfect, but we should emphasize what is 
working.
  One note about two amendments, and then I will conclude. Senators 
Specter, Leahy, Dodd, Schumer, Kerry, and I have an amendment which is 
a smart idea for housing. We know that with the leadership of Chairman 
Dodd, the chairman of the Banking Committee, last year we passed very 
good legislation to deal with our housing and economic recovery, the 
so-called HERA Act, which helped to allocate dollars--$4 billion--last 
summer in emergency assistance to State and local governments to use 
for the rehabilitation of abandoned and foreclosed properties across 
the country. What we are asking for in this amendment--the amendment to 
the recovery bill--is to say that an additional $2.25 billion which is 
already in the bill for the neighborhood stabilization program will 
allow some flexibility in how those dollars are spent so that under our 
amendment, it permits up to 10 percent of the funds to be used for 
foreclosure prevention, which we are not doing enough on right now. It 
also allows States that are receiving the minimum allocation under the 
stabilization program to use their funds to address Statewide concerns. 
Finally, it sets aside $30 million for legal assistance for low and 
moderate income homeowners and tenants related to home ownership, 
preservation, home foreclosure prevention, as well as tenancy 
associated with home foreclosures. So it is a prudent amendment to this 
important legislation.
  But when we step back from the bill overall--and I have amendments as 
well on stronger oversight--there are lots of ways we can improve it 
today and tomorrow, as we did over the last couple of days. But in the 
end, we need to vote, we need to pass this bill and make it as strong 
as we can. The worst thing we could do in a terrible economy right now 
is to say, Well, it is not a perfect bill, and we are going to hope 
that things work out. If we don't pass a bill, State and local taxes 
are going to go through the roof, our economy will fall further into 
the ditch. We have to get this economy out of the ditch, create jobs, 
and begin to grow our economy once again.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, through the Chair, I ask the chairman of 
the Finance Committee if I would be allowed to ask unanimous consent, 
not for a time agreement, but for an agreement on the order of speakers 
on our side, going back and forth with the majority, so that they would 
have an idea of the order.
  Mr. BAUCUS. If Senators wish to speak, they can come to me and we 
will set up an order. The Senator from Nevada is next, then Senator 
Kohl, then Senator Chambliss, then Senator Dodd. We are down that far 
already. Hopefully, we can get an agreement to start voting very 
quickly.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, without a doubt, the collapse of the 
housing market is at the root of the economic crisis we are facing in 
our country. Every single American is being affected by this.
  A few short years ago in Nevada, housing prices were through the 
roof. If you were in the market for a home, you had to act quickly and 
you had to plan on being in a bidding war. For a while, it seemed there 
were more realtors and mortgage brokers than blackjack dealers in Las 
Vegas.
  The housing storm blew through many communities in our country at 
high force, and the aftermath has been brutal. If you do not live in an 
area with a lot of foreclosures, let me describe the situation. You 
drive home from work to find one home--or maybe several homes--in your 
neighborhood with a dead lawn. That is the first sign. Then the ``For 
Sale, Bank Owned'' sign pops up on the lawn. But the most painful part 
is when you find out how much the foreclosed home down the street from 
yours is going for. It is part of the reason consumer confidence is at 
such an all-time low. When you find out that the biggest investment you 
personally have, the property that gives you leverage in this economy, 
is worth less than what you bought it for, it creates a sense of panic.
  Much worse off are the people who have lost jobs, have been unable to 
pay their mortgages, and soon found themselves losing their homes. 
Nevada leads the Nation in foreclosure rates, so these stories are 
reality for too many of my constituents and too many other families 
across the United States.
  If we don't figure out a way to get this housing market back on 
track, nothing we do in the name of economic stimulus will matter. It 
has to be our number one priority. If we can fix the problem--and the 
problem is housing--then we have a chance to fix our economy.
  To do that, we absolutely must increase home sales and decrease 
foreclosures. It sounds like an impossible task in light of the current 
economic climate, but if we do not succeed, our economy will continue 
to crumble under the weight of the failed housing market. We really do 
not have a choice.
  I have a plan that will jump-start the housing market and breathe 
life back into our economy. It is very simple. A lower mortgage rate 
will provide more than 40 million households in the United States who 
are creditworthy or who have a Fannie Mae- or Freddie Mac-backed loan 
with what amounts to a $400-a-month tax cut for the next 30 years.
  Here is how it works. American homeowners would be able to refinance 
their current mortgages or finance the purchase of a home for somewhere 
between 4 and 4.5 percent. Homeowners who hear about this proposal 
immediately begin to do the math. You can literally see their eyes 
light up as they realize how this will benefit them. Imagine saving 
$400 per month on a

[[Page S1649]]

fixed-rate, 30-year mortgage. This will save $150,000 over the total 
term of their mortgage. That $400 a month will make a huge difference 
in the budgets of most families.
  By the way, think of the stimulus effect. If you send a one-time 
check of $500 to somebody, they will be unsure whether that is going to 
be there in the future. Remember, we did this last year and found out 
what happened: people spent only 12 cents out of every dollar. It did 
not help the economy that much. It just added to the deficit. Instead, 
people saved the money because they saw tougher economic times ahead. 
They paid down some of their credit card debt, but they didn't go out 
there and spend it in the economy to generate economic activity. So 
just think of what a family could do with the kind of savings my 
amendment would provide. That is almost $5,000 per year that you could 
count on for the next 30 years. You could build that into your budget 
and you could increase your economic activity with that.
  Now, banks would issue these Government-backed lower fixed-rate 
mortgages on primary residences, and they would be available between 
now and the end of 2010. This new lower rate would be based on the 
historic spread between the rates of the 10-year Treasury bill and the 
30-year fixed-rate mortgage. We have limited the cost of the program to 
$300 billion. But the economists who have looked at this think the cost 
will be dramatically less. If you multiply this out across the country, 
it is over $6 trillion in savings for the American people over the next 
30 years. So the Government invests $300 billion, and Americans save, 
over the next 30 years, $6 trillion. That is a pretty good return on 
our investment, I would say.
  It is also time to expand the current tax credit for first-time home 
buyers. We need to encourage every potential creditworthy homebuyer to 
jump into the market. We should expand the existing credit to cover all 
homebuyers and cover all properties, not just vacant or foreclosed 
properties. That is why I strongly supported Senator Isakson's proposal 
to increase the credit to $15,000. Well, since our proposal is a 
substitute, we have actually incorporated the Isakson proposal for up 
to $15,000 for those who will buy a home. They will be able to claim 
that against their taxes either in one year or take 50 percent each 
year for the next 2 years.
  We need to have people staying in their homes. The onslaught of 
foreclosed properties in Nevada and across the country is a significant 
hurdle to economic recovery. They bring down property values and drag 
down consumer confidence.
  Privately securitized mortgages are at the core of the problem. These 
are mortgages that were originated without a guarantee from one of the 
government-sponsored enterprises. They account for more than 50 percent 
of the foreclosure starts despite accounting for only about 15 percent 
of all the outstanding mortgages. So my bill, the Fix Housing First 
Act, includes temporary incentives for privately held, securitized 
mortgages to be modified. That would allow homeowners facing 
foreclosure to pay lower monthly payments and to stay in their homes. 
It also provides temporary legal protection for those who do loan 
workouts in good faith. These two steps eliminate the economic and 
legal barriers that are currently preventing many homeowners from 
modifying their loans. This will have a huge impact on families who may 
be slightly underwater on their loans but who are anxious to stay in 
their homes.
  Unfortunately, more than 860,000 properties were repossessed last 
year alone. That means that nearly 1 million families lost their homes. 
It was easy for a while to blame irresponsible homeowners for taking 
out risky loans and gaming the system, but the cancer caused by the 
housing crisis has spread to every aspect of our economy--the financial 
markets, employment, the auto industry, retailers, State budgets, and 
local budgets. The list goes on and on.
  If we want to heal our economy, we have to start first with housing. 
My proposal--by the way, I call it ``my'' proposal just because I 
happen to be the lead author. Many people have worked to put this 
proposal together. Our proposal will fix housing. It is the most 
comprehensive of any of the pieces of legislation out here. It is the 
most comprehensive piece of legislation to fix the housing crisis in 
the United States. But along with addressing the housing market, we 
also need to do properly targeted tax relief for families and small 
businesses.
  The underlying bill has some good proposals in it. They are, 
unfortunately, a small part of the package. But we have incorporated 
some of those good ideas into our amendment. If there is a good idea 
out there, let's do it in a bipartisan fashion. That is the way we 
should have done this bill in the first place. That is what the 
President called on us to do. Unfortunately, the Democrats in the House 
of Representatives decided to cut Republicans out of the process, and 
the Democrats in the Senate decided to cut Republicans out when we were 
crafting this bill. It is unfortunate, but that is what happened. It is 
not too late, though. We can sit down and take good Republican ideas 
and take good Democratic ideas and help the American people out of this 
terrible economic morass we are in.
  I believe American taxpayers deserve a break. American families, 
especially working-class families, need a tax break. So what we have 
done in our bill is taken the two lowest marginal rates and we have cut 
them. The 10-percent bracket would be cut to 5 percent, and the 15-
percent bracket would be cut to 10 percent. The average combined 
benefit of these cuts for middle-class families would be about $3,200 
per year for each of the next 2 years.
  As I mentioned before, we also need to give small business a major 
boost. Small business creates 80 percent of the jobs. We need to 
encourage small businesses. It is not Government that grows us out of 
every recession, it is small business. That is why this engine of our 
economy needs some fuel.
  Extending bonus depreciation, eliminating capital gains taxes for 
startups and certain small businesses, and investing in broadband 
access are all measures that will spur job creation and help get this 
country back on its feet.
  Finally, the Fix Housing First Act eliminates the laundry list of 
wasteful spending items in the current stimulus bill. There is also a 
large list of spending items that some of us may support. Many are new 
spending programs. But at a time when our country is facing a fiscal as 
well as a financial crisis, if we are going to have new programs, we 
ought to eliminate old, wasteful programs. The underlying bill does 
none of that.
  Mr. President, Americans are hurting right now. So many have lost 
their jobs, lost their homes, and they need help. They need us. We have 
a role to play here. We need to put confidence back into consumers 
across America so they can start getting back involved in the economy. 
They understand that a $1.2 trillion spending bill is not the answer. 
That is why we are seeing support of this bill go down in the polls 
each day.
  By the way, the bill is not getting smaller. Each day we vote on 
amendments, it gets larger and larger and the interest on the bill gets 
larger too.
  So I challenge my colleagues, if you do not like the approach we have 
taken, let us sit down and do it right. Consider the TARP funds that 
were spent. We were told if we didn't do it that week, the whole 
economy was going to collapse. When we rush things through, we make 
mistakes. And we have seen the mistakes with the TARP fund. You see the 
headlines all the time: $20 billion in bonuses for executives who took 
money from TARP. And there are all kinds of newspaper stories here and 
there about the abuses committed with TARP funds. Let's not make the 
same mistake by rushing through this bill. There is an artificial 
deadline that has been set on this bill--and that is exactly what it 
is. Should we act quickly? Yes. But doing something wrong quickly does 
not make it right. Yet that is what some people seem to be saying.
  I urge us to do what is right for the American people, and let us 
join together as Americans and figure out what we need to do. Let us 
take good ideas from both sides and let us help fix the American 
economy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The Senator from Wisconsin.

[[Page S1650]]

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, for months, news about our sinking economy 
has dominated. The facts are staggering. We now have a 7.2-percent 
unemployment rate. Upwards of 1 million good-paying manufacturing jobs 
were lost last year, and consumer confidence is at or near an all-time 
low. Last week brought more bad news. In the last quarter of 2008, the 
economy shrank by the most in 26 years.
  At the same time, we now well know about the irresponsibility of some 
financial executives who helped to create this crisis and who are now 
benefiting from Government assistance. While countless families 
struggle to make ends meet, some Wall Street executives rewarded 
themselves with bonuses totaling more than $18 billion last year. Such 
outrageous rewards during an economic downturn are without 
justification, and they draw a harsh contrast with the rest of America.
  Each week without a response from our Government will make that 
contrast more pronounced--more jobs lost and more families hurting 
across the country. This is not a partisan issue. Economists agree that 
Government needs to act and act now.
  I support the package before us, but I do have some reservations. The 
pricetag on this bill is enormous, and it is true some of the cost is 
in long-term investments such as in education, health care, and energy 
efficiency and independence, which some argue is not immediately 
stimulative. This is a case, however, where the sum is greater than the 
parts. Ultimately, this legislation contains what our economy needs to 
get back on track.
  The legislation before us combines tax relief, investments in 
infrastructure, and assistance to State and local governments, all 
aimed at putting people back to work and jump-starting our stalled 
economy. With $342 billion in targeted tax relief, the bill will help 
middle-class families. Families in Wisconsin, for example, will get on 
average a tax cut of $900 just this year. And the bill provides 
important tax incentives and benefits for businesses to save jobs and 
stimulate growth.
  The bill before us also includes funding to get people back to work 
while rebuilding our Nation's crumbling infrastructure. For Wisconsin, 
the bill funds more than $537 million in highway improvements and 
includes more than $218 million for school modernization.
  The bill also takes into account the needs of agricultural and rural 
communities, funding rural water and waste disposal and farm operating 
loans.
  Also, the bill provides for our neediest citizens, those who are hit 
hardest by this downturn, through increased funding for Food Stamps, 
WIC, as well as food banks.
  I am pleased the bill includes funding for two of my priorities--job 
training and the COPS Program. Job training is at the core of what this 
legislation is about: putting people back to work. The $1 billion of 
funding in the bill will retrain countless workers and prepare people 
for new job opportunities.
  In addition, the bill includes nearly $4 billion for Federal and 
State law enforcement programs. These programs have a track record of 
reducing crime, and the additional funding will create jobs quickly.
  In some ways, this bill is tough to swallow. I understand why there 
are those who may well vote against this bill who argue that it is too 
much money. And I understand there are 100 Senators here and each one 
of us would craft this bill differently. But even those voting against 
the measure would certainly agree that during this time of enormous 
stress on our economy and throughout our land, we cannot afford to do 
nothing. We are in an economic crisis and doing nothing is not an 
option. Indeed, before the final vote, there may well be some 
modifications to this bill. But we need to vote for a recovery package 
similar to the one before us today.
  I wish to talk briefly about an amendment I have filed that would 
provide $30 million to the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program. 
The amendment is offset. I am hopeful this amendment can be included in 
a managers' package. The amendment has the support of Senators Snowe, 
Stabenow, Brown, Whitehouse, Levin, Sanders, Schumer, and Wyden. MEP 
makes small- and medium-sized manufacturers more competitive by helping 
them implement the latest technologies. In 2007, MEP business clients 
reported over 52,000 new or retrained workers, increased sales of $6.8 
billion, and over $1 billion in cost savings. As a longtime supporter 
of the MEP Program, I believe this would be a critical addition to the 
bill. A healthy manufacturing sector, as we all know, is the key to 
better jobs, increased productivity, and higher standards of living.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of an 
amendment to the stimulus bill that Senators Kohl, Brown, Levin, 
Sanders, Stabenow, Whitehouse, and I are introducing. The amendment 
will restore funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, 
to the level included in the House-passed bill. It ensures that $30 
million currently contained in the bill for the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, NIST, go specifically to the MEP to continue 
its critical operations on behalf of small and medium-sized 
manufacturers nationwide. This would not increase the size of the 
stimulus bill; rather, it would simply reallocate funding to the MEP.
  If our goal in this stimulus is to create and retain jobs, then there 
is no better program to fund than the MEP. Administered by NIST and 
with centers in every State, the MEP provides our Nation's nearly 
350,000 small manufacturers with services and access to resources that 
enhance growth, improve productivity, and expand capacity. At a time 
when our economy is suffering its worst downturn since the Great 
Depression, the MEP's work is crucial to helping those manufacturers be 
stronger long-term competitors both domestically and internationally. 
This will, in turn, allow them to create good-paying high-skill jobs.
  As co-chair of the Senate Task Force on Manufacturing, I have seen 
firsthand the effect our country's manufacturing industry has on the 
vitality of our economy. By directing $30 million to the MEP, we will 
be sending a clear signal to small manufacturers that they will 
continue to play a vital role in reinvigorating our economy. I urge my 
colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.


                           Amendment No. 189

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I wish to speak on my amendment that 
protects religious freedom on college campuses. I start by asking 
unanimous consent to add Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming and Senator Jim 
Bunning of Kentucky as cosponsors of amendment No. 189.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, for 2 or 3 weeks now, we have been told 
time and time again by colleagues and the President that we need to 
move our country forward, set aside our differences, our ideology, 
remember what unites us, and come together. But the people who are 
writing our legislation today have not gotten that same message. I will 
talk about it in just a moment.
  This morning, I had the pleasure of sitting with a number of my House 
and Senate colleagues, along with about 3,000 other people from all 
over the world, people of faith, and heard President Barack Obama 
address the National Prayer Breakfast. The President said many great 
things, but one of them was this:

       The particular faith that motivates each of us can promote 
     a greater good for all of us . . . I don't expect divisions 
     to disappear overnight . . . but I do believe that if we can 
     talk to one another openly and honestly, then perhaps all 
     rifts will start to mend and new partnerships will begin to 
     emerge.

  We heard President Obama, as well as the former Prime Minister of 
Great Britain, Tony Blair, say faith gave us tools to solve problems 
that could not be solved without faith. This is a beautiful message, 
and I think we all know it is true.
  Then we come here and find a provision in this massive spending bill 
that would make sure that students could never talk openly and honestly 
about their faith. The fact is, any university or college that takes 
any of the money in this bill to renovate an auditorium, a dorm, or 
student center could not hold a National Prayer Breakfast there any 
longer because of what is written in this bill.

[[Page S1651]]

  This bill provides funds to modernize, renovate, repair facilities on 
college and university campuses, both private and public. But there is 
a phrase in there, a couple of lines that says the facilities that 
accept these funds cannot be ``used for sectarian instruction, 
religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or in which a 
substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in 
a religious mission.''
  Keep in mind that a prayer has been called by our courts to be 
religious worship. What this means is students cannot meet together in 
their dorms, if that dorm has been repaired with this Federal money, 
and have a prayer group or a Bible study. They cannot get together in 
their student centers. They cannot have a commencement service where a 
speaker talks about their personal faith.
  What this means to universities is legal risk, threats of lawsuits 
from the ACLU if they allow any religious activity on a campus that has 
taken any of this money. It is not just the particular facilities. This 
money can be used for electrical wiring, plumbing, and sewer systems 
that affect every building on campus.
  This language has been written by very smart lawyers to do what they 
try to do, and that is intimidate the free speech of traditional 
freedom-loving Americans. My amendment would just simply strike this 
language and affect no other parts of the bill.
  The National Prayer Breakfast could not be held in a building 
renovated with funds from this bill. The Campus Crusade, a fellowship 
of Christian athletes, Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, Catholic and 
Jewish student groups who are meeting on campuses all over the country 
today could no longer meet in buildings that use funds from the bill we 
are talking about today. Classes on world religions or religious 
history, academic studies of religious texts could be banned by 
facilities that are renovated by this bill.
  What about a group of teachers or professors who want to start a 
meeting with a prayer? What about chaplains on campus? What about 
private Bible study in a student's dorm room? What about a campus that 
wants to bring a Billy Graham or Rick Warren to speak? Would they be 
barred from campus? Would the college be sued by the ACLU? What if one 
of us, a Member of Congress, went to speak at a college graduation and 
shared a little bit about the faith in our life, would that college be 
sued?
  The people who wrote this bill want to create risk and liability and 
put a chilling effect on religious freedom in our country. The most 
important thing for us to consider is what is this nonsense doing in 
this bill in the first place? The courts have decided this issue. 
Religious groups have the same freedom as nonreligious groups. This has 
nothing to do with the economy and even less to do with stimulus.
  Keep in mind, this bill did not write itself. Someone around here 
thinks it is a good idea to discriminate against people of faith, to 
deny them educational opportunities and access to public facilities. 
Someone is so hostile to religion that they are willing to stand in the 
schoolhouse door, like the infamous George Wallace, to deny people of 
faith from entering any campus building renovated by this bill.
  This cannot stand. It is in hard times that our society most needs 
faith. It provides the light that no darkness can overcome. This 
provision is an attempt to extinguish that light from college campuses, 
from the lives of our youth.
  In the words of the President today:

       Faith . . . can promote a greater good for all of us. Our 
     varied beliefs can bring us together to . . . rebuild what is 
     broken [and] to lift those who have fallen on hard times.

  Our culture cannot survive without faith, and our Nation cannot 
survive without freedom. This provision is an assault against both. It 
is un-American, and it is unconstitutional, intolerant, and it is 
intolerable. It must be struck from the underlying bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support my very simple amendment, a few lines 
that just strike this provision that has already been decided by the 
courts that has no place in this bill. I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. President, how much time do I 
have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time allocation.
  Mr. BAUCUS. There is no time.
  Mr. DeMINT. I yield all of it then.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, can we propound the unanimous consent 
request? It has not been cleared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first, I commend our good friend and 
colleague from Montana. He has been on the Senate floor it seems 
endlessly over the last several weeks with a number of bills--SCHIP and 
now this stimulus package and others. I commend him and his staff for 
the tremendous job they have been doing. It is a lot of hard work. They 
have been very patient with all of us. Senator Inouye as well, and his 
staff on the Appropriations Committee. They have done a good job as 
well.
  I have two amendments that will be offered at some point later today. 
I wish to take a couple minutes to describe each of them since we will 
have limited time during the series of votes that will occur to 
describe them in detail.
  The first amendment I will be offering, along with Senator John Kerry 
who offered to be a cosponsor of this amendment, involves the 
mitigation on foreclosure issue.
  It was exactly 2 years ago the day after tomorrow that I held my 
first hearing as Chairman of the Banking Committee on the foreclosure 
issue. At that time we had a hearing on this issue. I warned at the 
time, as did several of my colleagues on the Committee, about the 
serious mounting problems with the threats to the residential mortgage 
market in the country and what this could likely do to our economy if 
we didn't put a tourniquet on this beginning hemorrhage in the 
residential mortgage market.

  At that time, Martin Eakes, who is President and CEO of the Self-Help 
Credit Union and the Center for Responsible Lending, predicted at that 
hearing there would be over 2 million foreclosures in the United 
States. This was in February of 2007. The reaction from the Mortgage 
Bankers Association and other industry groups was immediate and 
definitive that day. No way, they said. They accused Mr. Eakes of 
crying wolf and exaggerating the problem.
  Well, the industry was half right. Mr. Eakes and the consumer 
advocates were very wrong. We weren't facing 2 million foreclosures. We 
now know we are facing 8 million foreclosures 2 years later. And of 
course we are all painfully aware of the condition of our economy 
today, the worst since the Great Depression, going back 80 years; and, 
unfortunately, getting worse every day, with 20,000 jobs a day being 
lost in our country, and somewhere between 9,000 and 10,000 homes being 
foreclosed.
  When we wrote the TARP program in the fall of last year, one of the 
major provisions was to mitigate foreclosures. Regretfully, very little 
has been done on that issue, and today we still see the mounting 
foreclosures in our country. In fact, last summer, we passed the Hope 
for Homeowners legislation. This amendment I am offering today does two 
things: one, it makes it possible for the Hope for Homeowners bill to 
work better than we intended it would back in July by eliminating 
several provisions in that bill, or at least modifying, including 
lowering the future equity that homeowners must share from 50 percent 
to 25 percent of the original price; reduce the upfront and annual 
premiums charged to borrowers under that program; provide incentive 
payments to servicers who participate in the program; and allow for 
bulk sale of mortgages at discounts to promote a higher volume of loan 
modifications. Now, these ideas will increase participation, which has 
been almost nonexistent. With these modifications, there are many who 
believe we will see a substantial increase in people taking advantage 
of that program.
  The second part of the amendment is one that would require within 15 
days of the enactment of this legislation to develop a program in 
consultation with the Chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation, the Chair of the Federal Reserve Board, and the Secretary 
of HUD to develop a program to mitigate additional foreclosures. We 
would require and devote no less than $50 billion of the TARP fund--not 
of the

[[Page S1652]]

stimulus package, of the TARP funding--to go to a loan modification 
program. And the program, I would point out, is expected to prevent at 
least 2 million foreclosures in the country.
  The amendment does not dictate any particular loan modification plan. 
I think we owe the administration, which has committed to moving on 
this matter, the ability to develop the best plan they are able to. So 
I leave it up to them to decide how this can be done. I am particularly 
attracted to the plan Sheila Bair at FDIC has promoted, but I know 
there are other ideas. But at least here we would commit $50 billion of 
that $350 billion to do something that will require and mandate that we 
begin to deal with this problem.
  I don't know of anyone who believes today that if we don't deal with 
the foreclosure problem we will not get to the bottom of our economic 
crisis. I have been saying it for 2 years. We had 30 hearings in the 
Banking Committee, of the 80 we held in meetings on this subject 
matter, and witness after witness, regardless of ideology or political 
stripe all said the same thing: We have to deal with the foreclosure 
issue.
  Today, with 8 million homes in jeopardy, 9,000 a day being lost, we 
finally I think have to say with some certainty that if we are going to 
be using this next tranche of $350 billion, we have to dedicate $50 
billion of it to foreclosure mitigation. So in addition to the 
modifications to the Hope for Homeowners, the amendment would also 
require that $50 billion be spent of the TARP program on this issue.
  The second amendment I will be offering deals with executive 
compensation. Now, let me say right at the outset, this issue can be 
trivialized, if we are not careful. I think a lot of attention has been 
paid to this issue because, obviously, it is infuriating to people when 
they watch taxpayer money go into an institution and then they read 
where top executives walk away with multimillion dollar bonuses or 
contracts. It absolutely is more than infuriating to people when they 
read about it and hear about it. The problem is, if you don't do 
something about this, we are never going to be able to build the 
confidence and optimism people need to feel about the larger part of 
this program. So a tremendous amount of heat and understandable anger 
is focused on executive compensation.
  Again, I emphasize that I think there are other issues we need to 
deal with, but in order to deal with and build some support for them, 
we have to deal with the executive compensation issues. This amendment 
does so. I realize this is painful for some, and I am not suggesting 
everyone who has been receiving bonuses or excessive compensation is 
necessarily an evil person at all. Quite the contrary, in many cases 
they are good people. But there needs to be a sense of reality that if 
you are literally dumping billions of dollars into these institutions 
to try to save them, when in many cases the very people who mismanaged 
these operations are walking away with millions of dollars in 
compensation. You can begin to understand why people in this country 
are so angry.
  Let me describe a few of the major provisions regarding this. The 
amendment would ban bonuses, retention bonuses, and incentive 
compensation for some of the most senior employees at TARP recipient 
firms. It would authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to increase the 
number of executives ineligible for such compensation if he deems it to 
be in the public interest.
  Secondly, this amendment is not only about the prospective TARP 
recipients, it also requires the Secretary of the Treasury to conduct a 
retroactive review of past bonus awards, retention awards, and other 
compensation that TARP recipients paid to employees. If the Secretary 
determines any payments were excessive and inconsistent with the 
purposes of TARP or otherwise contrary to public interest, the 
amendment directs the Treasury to seek to negotiate a reimbursement to 
the American taxpayer.
  Currently, shareholders of public companies may offer proposals on 
executive compensation, but it takes an initiative by the shareholders. 
We apply that provision now to TARP recipients. Under this amendment, 
it would require the TARP recipient of the company to automatically put 
a proposal on these cash bonuses and compensation on its annual proxy 
statement to shareholders without requiring shareholders to make a 
prior request or formulate the proposal. Such proposals would call for 
an advisory shareholder vote on the company's executive cash 
compensation program. This ``say on pay'' vote would enable 
shareholders of TARP recipients to voice their views. And as the owners 
of the companies, I think they ought to be heard on these matters.
  Thirdly, under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, we included 
a clawback requirement, which allows the TARP to recover any bonuses or 
incentive compensation paid to an executive based on reported earnings 
or other criteria later found to be materially inaccurate. This 
amendment expands the number of senior employees who would be subject 
to this clawback as well.

  As former SEC Chairman Bill Donaldson wrote not that long ago, and I 
quote him:

       People with targets, and jobs dependent on meeting them, 
     will probably meet their targets--even if they have to 
     destroy the enterprise to do it.

  This amendment ensures that isn't the case for companies receiving 
TARP funds. First, it would prohibit any compensation plan that would 
encourage the manipulation of reported earnings. It would also create a 
compensation committee composed entirely of independent directors--not 
only monitoring the objectivity of compensation awards but evaluating 
compensation plans and their potential risk to the financial health of 
the company. Finally, the amendment would require the chief executive 
officer of the TARP-receiving company and the chief financial officer 
of the company to certify compliance with these requirements. We have 
required that under Sarbanes-Oxley, and I think in this area we ought 
to do it as well.
  There will be those who think these are excessive, but unfortunately, 
what we have seen is excessive. If we are going to convince the 
American public that what we are trying to do is in their interest, 
then we have to be certain when it comes to these matters.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to be supportive of this. It is broad, it 
is far reaching, it gives the Secretary additional powers, but it 
allows us to deal with these issues in a comprehensive fashion.
  Unless we do this, I will tell you that I think it will become 
virtually impossible to get this Congress, either body, to support any 
additional funds of this nature that may very well be needed. Unless we 
start to calm the anger of the American public over how some of these 
dollars are being used, we are never going to succeed in that effort.
  So while it is not a significant portion of the money overall, it is 
a significant cause of the lack of confidence, and therefore I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment when it is offered. The first 
amendment is on housing, and this one is on executive compensation.
  I apologize for taking a little longer. I know other Members wish to 
be heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was going to respond to Senator DeMint's 
amendment, but I see Senator Thune on the floor, and we are trying to 
alternate from side to side. It will take me about 10 minutes, but I 
yield to him.
  Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield to me for one comment. We are 
still working on a UC for setting up votes, and for the benefit of my 
colleagues, we think it is roughly sometime shortly after 4 p.m., but 
we haven't completed the unanimous consent agreement as yet. But for 
the information of colleagues, we are working on a series of 13 votes 
at least.
  Thanks.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask Senator Thune if he wants to proceed 
first.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I guess my understanding is--and it wasn't 
locked in, in the form of a unanimous consent request--that we were 
going to ping-pong back and forth with speakers. I have an amendment I 
wish to speak to, if that is okay with the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, does the Senator from Illinois wish to 
speak after Senator Thune?

[[Page S1653]]

  Mr. SCHUMER. No, I do.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak after whoever speaks on that side, after the next 
Democrat speaks.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Frankly, Mr. President, I think the next speaker should 
be you.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I will go with that.
  Mr. BAUCUS. You are on. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Well, no, Mr. President. First up is Senator Thune.
  Mr. President, if the Chair could tell us--I believe Senator Thune is 
going now, then a speaker on the other side, and then I will go after 
that speaker.
  Mr. BAUCUS. That will be fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 197

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise to speak today in support of my 
substitute amendment, which is No. 197. This amendment has been modeled 
after the substitute amendment that was offered by the Republicans in 
the House of Representatives.
  I think the big question we have to ask, and the question before the 
House is, if we are serious about doing something for this economy to 
recover and to create jobs, what is the best and most effective way to 
do that? We have in front of us a proposal that emphasizes more heavily 
government spending and doing it through government programs. What I 
have chosen to offer to my colleagues here in the Senate is an 
opportunity to vote on something that does it in a different way. It 
allows the American people to spend the money that we use to infuse the 
economy with dollars that hopefully will grow the economy and create 
jobs.
  Our Nation has lost millions of jobs over the last several months. 
Families are hurting and businesses are struggling to survive. As our 
Nation weathers this turbulent economic time, we do have this decision 
to make: Should the Congress take hundreds of billions of tax dollars 
and invest them in an expanded Federal Government or, on the other 
hand, should Congress return tax dollars directly into the economy in 
the form of tax relief, which will create jobs and economic 
opportunity?
  The response the Democratic majority has put in front of us is to put 
more money into Federal agencies, to renovate Federal buildings, and 
buy new cars for Federal employees. I believe we ought to follow a 
different path and let the people of this country keep more of their 
hard-earned dollars and let them decide how best to spend, save, 
invest, and to turn this economy around.
  People know better how to spend their money than unelected 
bureaucrats here in Washington, DC. And tax relief, not government 
spending--reductions in taxes for the American people--will create jobs 
and get us out of this recession. This is what President Kennedy knew, 
this is what President Reagan knew, this is what I believe the American 
public, with their lackluster response to the $1 trillion spending 
program in front of us, knows as well.
  This substitute amendment does several things. It shifts, as I said, 
the focus from government spending to meaningful tax relief in four 
ways: First, it provides tax relief for individuals and families; 
second, tax relief for small businesses--the job creators in our 
economy; thirdly, it provides housing assistance; and, finally, it 
provides temporary assistance to those who are dealing with the current 
recession.
  Now, first, the bill provides meaningful tax relief for working 
taxpaying families. Under the ``Making Work Pay Credit,'' the tax 
provision in the bill--the majority bill--7 million households are 
going to receive a check from the government that is larger than both 
their payroll tax and their income tax liability. In other words, 
rather than a one-time credit, what my amendment would do is reduce the 
lowest two marginal income tax rates for years 2009 and 2010. 
Essentially, the 10-percent rate would go down to 5 percent and the 5 
percent rate will go down to 10 percent. This is a real tax reduction 
and will benefit all income taxpayers in this country.

  In total, there are 100 million taxpayers who would receive, on 
average, tax relief of $1,250 per filer each year. Married couples 
could receive up to $3,400 in lower taxes each year.
  Consumer spending accounts for 70 percent of our gross domestic 
product. As consumer spending declined for a record 6 months in 2008, 
it is no surprise that our economy contracted over the same period of 
time. If we want to spur consumer spending, we should not implement 
single shot policies like a one-time credit, and we certainly should 
not pour hundreds of billions of dollars into Government programs. 
Instead, the best way to stimulate consumer spending is an immediate 
meaningful reduction of marginal income tax rates.
  With respect to small businesses, the second part of this bill 
focuses on small business tax relief. Small businesses, as I said, 
create up to 80 percent of all new jobs and represent 99 percent of the 
27 million businesses in the United States. If we want to create new 
jobs, we should start with helping small business, not expanding 
Federal bureaucracies. This amendment expands small business bonus 
depreciation and expensing to encourage investment in this current 
year, which is when we need it the most. The amendment expands the net 
operating loss carryback period, permitting businesses to carry back 
their operating loss deductions for 5 years rather than 2.
  Several of these provisions, granted, are included in the underlying 
bill. This amendment, however, provides an additional $47 billion of 
small business tax relief. My amendment includes a new provision that 
would allow small businesses to deduct 20 percent of their business 
income. This provision significantly reduces the tax burden on small 
businesses which would allow them to continue to hire and retain hard-
working Americans. This provision would also allow small businesses to 
maximize their earnings and increase in value, which will also give 
them better access to credit markets and another critical component to 
a recovery.
  Small businesses are the backbone of our economy and, unbelievably, 
only 2 percent of the total in this bill, the underlying bill, the 
majority bill, is dedicated to tax relief for small businesses. The 
lack of small business incentives in this bill, in my judgment, is a 
serious flaw, and my amendment seeks to improve it substantially.
  I also understand people are hurting on account of the economic 
downturn. Across America we have hard-working men and women who are 
being layed off because of no fault of their own. Today they are 
sitting at the kitchen table wondering how to make ends meet.
  Earlier this year, Congress acted to extend unemployment insurance to 
provide a safety net for those who are in need. My amendment would 
extend the expanded unemployment insurance provisions through the end 
of this year. Additionally, the amendment would eliminate the income 
tax on unemployment insurance. This is an automatic increase in the 
real benefit of unemployment insurance to those who derive it. It never 
made sense to me that individuals would pay taxes to the Government to 
fund unemployment insurance and, once they are unemployed, receive the 
benefits and then have to pay taxes on the benefit as well. This 
amendment would correct that. It would also make health care more 
affordable for the self-employed and other families without employer-
provided health insurance because, for the first time, this amendment 
would provide an above-the-line deduction for health insurance costs.
  Finally, with respect to the housing market, this amendment addresses 
our housing market prices. The housing market is what led us into this 
recession. In fixing the housing market, we will help lead us out. My 
amendment would extend the $7,500 home buyer tax credit through 
December 31, 2009, while expanding the benefit to all primary 
residences. This amendment would eliminate the complicated recapture 
rules which currently require home buyers to pay the Government back if 
they claim this credit. In the end, this provision would help stimulate 
the faltering housing market and encourage responsible home ownership.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, there are some real 
issues associated with the decision we make about whether to stimulate 
the economy with Federal spending, with Government spending or with tax 
relief. I wish to read for you a couple things the CBO has said:

       Reductions in Federal taxes [would] have most of their 
     effects . . . in 2009 and 2010.


[[Page S1654]]


  That is the very period we are targeting to provide the greatest 
economic stimulus and hope of job creation.
  They also stated: ``Purchases of goods and services, either directly 
or in the form of grants to States and local government, would take 
years to complete.''
  They go on, it will be ``difficult to properly manage and oversee a 
rapid expansion of existing programs.''
  Finally, they say: ``[M]any of the larger projects initiated would 
take up to 5 to 7 years to complete.''
  If we want to approach this problem with a solution that delivers 
assistance quickly, that is quick hitting, that gets money into the 
economy quickly, that creates jobs quickly, the way to go about doing 
that is not to have the Government spend the money, to have it come out 
of Washington, send our money to Washington, have the Government take 
more money out of the economy, and then decide how to spend it here. It 
is to get money into the hands of hard-working Americans and small 
businesses, where the real power for job creation exists.
  Interestingly enough, this legislation, the amendment I offer, was 
run through an analysis that was used--it is a methodology that was 
developed by the President's chair of the Counsel of Economic Advisers. 
Her name is Dr. Christina Romer and Dr. Jared Bernstein, the adviser to 
the Vice President. This was a methodology they used back in 2007, that 
considers the multiplier effect of various policy decisions and fiscal 
decisions that are made by the Congress. What they suggested in that 
analysis is, if you reduce taxes on the American public, you get a 2.2 
multiplier in terms of GDP. My amendment reduces taxes as a percentage 
of our gross domestic product by 2.8 percent. If you take that by their 
multiplier 2.2, you get 6.1 percent in GDP growth as a result of 
cutting taxes.
  If you go on further, they suggest that for every 1 percent increase 
in GDP, you get three-quarters of a percentage change in jobs. So if 
you take the 6.1-percent growth in GDP and multiply it by .75 you get a 
4.6-percent increase in the number of jobs. You take the full size of 
our workforce today, about 133,876,000 employees, and you plug in that 
4.6-percent increase and you get a job growth increase--a job increase 
over the course of the next 2 years, as a result of making these 
changes in tax policy, of almost a 6.2-percent increase in jobs.
  The proposal we have before us suggests they could get up to another 
3 million jobs, perhaps, from this. But I suggest, if we can create 
double that amount, 6 million jobs, as a result of reducing taxes, it 
is a much better solution for our country to get our economy back on 
track and is also done at a lot less cost. The overall cost, according 
to CBO, of my amendment, is about $440 billion, compared to the $900 
billion it will cost for the proposal the Democratic majority has in 
front of us; twice the jobs at half the cost. That sounds like a 
solution that makes a lot of sense. It makes a lot of sense to the 
American people, who understand clearly you do not send your money to 
Washington and hope the Government can spend it to create jobs. The way 
to create jobs is to get money back in the hands of the American 
people, back in the hands of small businesses. That is what will lead 
us to that growth in gross domestic product, the expanding economy and 
the job creation associated with that. Twice the jobs for half the 
cost. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. It is a much 
better approach to dealing with what is a very serious economic crisis 
for this country. I think the American people believe that. I hope my 
colleagues in the Senate will support it as well.
  Let me say, the cosponsors on this amendment are Senators Kyl, 
DeMint, Johanns, and Hatch. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the stimulus proposal 
advanced by my friend and Republican colleague from Nevada, Senator 
Ensign. His plan is to have the Government provide fixed mortgages at 4 
percent to all creditworthy Americans.
  Senator Ensign has stated publicly he believes the Government should 
seek to help stabilize the housing market during these tumultuous times 
and, as my colleagues all know because I have been speaking about it 
for months and months, I completely agree 100 percent that we have to 
stabilize the housing market.
  I have been told the Treasury, under the leadership of Secretary 
Geithner, is working on a plan to get mortgage rates down. It is a good 
idea. But the plan of Secretary Geithner is completely different from 
the plan offered by Senator Ensign and others. Geithner's plan is a 
plan--I haven't seen the details. I look forward to supporting it. But 
it is different from this plan which I must oppose in a very serious 
way.
  Let's start from the beginning. We in Washington sometimes seem to 
forget that the root cause of the financial and economic turmoil we are 
now experiencing, and that is the worst most of us have ever seen, 
except those who lived during the Great Depression, is the inability of 
homeowners to make their mortgage payments on time. Whether it is 
because they lost their jobs or suffered unexpected medical costs or, 
as was too often the case in recent years, because they were targeted 
by predatory mortgage lenders and given a loan they couldn't afford or 
because they reached too far on their own, there are a large number of 
homeowners who are staring into the abyss of foreclosure. Of course, 
all Americans know we are now facing potentially the worst economic 
crisis since Herbert Hoover was in office.
  On the positive side, I wish to applaud my Republican colleagues, 
both for embracing the idea of a big stimulus proposal--this is 
certainly big--and for recognizing the critical importance of helping 
at-risk homeowners. Those are good. But when you look at the specifics 
of this plan, you know it is one you cannot support. I don't care 
whether your ideology is Republican or Democratic, liberal or 
conservative. Unfortunately, the proposal offered fails miserably at 
either stabilizing the housing market or at providing an effective 
stimulus. It does so at an unthinkably large cost and risk to the 
American economy.
  The cost of this program is, to put it succinctly, through the roof. 
For fiscal conservatives to advocate it, I am quite surprised.
  The Republican proposal is light on details, but it appears to offer 
all Americans who qualify for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac conforming 
loans, an interest rate of 4 percent. This is very important. This is 
not just for new home purchases but also for refinancings as well. So 
anyone who owns a home can refinance at 4 percent, Freddie or Fannie-
supported loans.
  The bottom line is, this idea will be prohibitively expensive and may 
jeopardize the credit rating of the United States of America. It is 
that serious. The Republicans themselves say they will cap the 
program's cost at $300 billion--$300 billion for this one program. What 
does this even mean? Do they mean the total size is $300 billion? If 
that is so, it works out to about 2.5 percent of mortgages in America, 
giving only a tiny handful of Americans an enormous windfall. Mr. 
President, 2.5 percent get this break, 97.5 percent do not.
  More likely the Republicans mean that the program's total losses will 
be $300 billion, a figure which can only be gotten by using the same 
Enron-style accounting that got us into this mess. This is not a 
realistic or even possible figure, when you consider how much risk the 
Government will end up shouldering. Currently, Fannie and Freddie have 
more than $5 trillion in outstanding conforming loans, all of which 
would qualify for refinancing under the Senator Ensign-Senator 
McConnell plan. You can bet that most Americans who qualify will take 
this offer. Who wouldn't? After all, what homeowner out there would not 
refinance into a 4-percent mortgage?
  So the Government would be the owner of over $5 trillion in 
mortgages. You are telling me anyone can guarantee that the Government 
would lose only $300 billion on this plan? If you believe that, I have 
a hedge fund I would like you to invest in called Madoff Securities, 
LLC.
  Even if the Republican plan costs $300 billion, it recklessly exposes 
the country to enormous financial risk. No matter how rosy the 
estimates may be of how much this program will cost in the long run, 
the fact remains, in the short run, we have to come up with the

[[Page S1655]]

money to finance these new mortgages, potentially more than $5 
trillion. Where will the new money come from? From issuing new debt. 
Does anyone believe the United States, for this one program, can issue 
$5 trillion of new debt and not jeopardize the dollar, in the midst of 
the worst crisis in our lifetimes?
  I believe as much as anyone in the strong creditworthiness of our 
country. We can and will repay all of our debts, and investors around 
the world know this. That is why U.S. debt is sold at a low rate. But 
add $5 trillion to the debt in a short period of time and see what 
happens. After 8 years of tax cuts, wars, adding another $5 trillion 
could break the back of the U.S. dollar. The odds are all too high that 
could happen. Do you know what then will happen? We will all be in a 
world depression immediately. This program cannot work.
  If the Republican plan were able to reverse our housing slide, then 
it might make sense. But even at its goal, it fails. Why? It does not 
correctly identify the problem, which is that there is an oversupply of 
housing right now that is made worse each month by the glut of 
foreclosures occurring driving down home prices.
  Now, you tell me, you are in your home, you pay your mortgage, you 
now have an absolute right to refinance at 4 percent, and you are 
staying in the same home. How does that reduce the glut of housing on 
the market? How?
  Furthermore, it does not address the vast majority of homes at risk 
for foreclosure, the 70 percent that are underwater, where the amount 
owed on the mortgage exceeds the value. Underwater mortgages are high 
foreclosure risks no matter what the mortgage rate is. You can have a 
4-percent rate, a 1-percent rate, an 8-percent rate, and if you do not 
have enough income to pay your mortgage, you are not going to pay it.
  So the second problem or the third problem with this is it does not 
make it any better. If you owe $400,000 on a $300,000 home, as millions 
of American homeowners across the country do, you will not even qualify 
for this plan, you are not even eligible for refinancing. So it does 
not get at the problem. Not only does it cost a fortune, but it does 
not get at the problem because the proposal is vastly skewed toward 
refinancing rather than toward the purchase of new homes. It will not 
stimulate housing demand much at all. If you are a new homeowner, you 
may take advantage of the 4-percent rate or you may continue to wait 
and see if home prices bottom out. But if you are a current homeowner, 
you are going to refinance no matter what. Now, what about it has a 
stimulus?
  Clearly, this is not a housing plan. It is a way to put money into 
people's pockets--something I am not against--through the refinancing 
of mortgages. But will this provide the economic shot in the arm we 
need to get our economy back on track? Unfortunately, there again, the 
answer is no. We know that most people, when given tax cuts during a 
downturn such as this, do not respond by spending money but by saving 
it and paying down their debt. The poor and the working class spend 
more of the tax cuts they receive; they are less likely to be able to 
use this program. The program targets its largesse at homeowners who 
hold mortgages of up to a value of $625,000, and the more expensive 
your home, up to that limit, the more money you get back. So, 
ironically, the people getting the most money back are the people less 
likely to spend and stimulate the economy. It is highly inefficient.
  Furthermore, guess who is going to take a big slice of this money--
the bank that would do the refinancing. Everyone knows points. We all, 
when we have gone for a mortgage, hate points. Points mean you have to 
pay $5,000, $10,000, whatever. So the final point is, while we are 
putting money in people's pockets, which is an admirable goal, we are 
letting every bank doing the refinancing take a big cut on points. If 
you have a $150,000 mortgage you are going to refinance, about $1,000, 
$2,000, $3,000, depending on the bank, will go to them. So even if this 
is not a housing stimulus, which we know it is not, even if it is a way 
to get money into people's pockets at a cost of at least $300 trillion 
and an immediate outlay of $5 trillion, why are we giving every bank in 
America that does the refinancing a cut? That makes no sense. It is 
done willy-nilly.
  With all due respect, I wonder at the depth of the thinking that went 
into putting this proposal together. Perhaps if it were limited to 
first-time home buyers, perhaps if the bank's points were limited, 
perhaps if we would say there would be an income limitation because 
another problem with this is multimillionaires--this is another point: 
If you make $5 million a year, you get the reduced rate and the Federal 
Government pays for it. Do we want to give multimillionaires the 
ability to refinance? So perhaps if there were income limitations. So 
the nub of this idea might be supportable. The way it is put together 
here on paper, because it costs so much, because it is not going to 
stimulate housing, because it is a very inefficient way to get money 
into the economy and get the economy going, because the banks take a 
cut, and because very wealthy people can apply for this, who do not 
need any help, it makes no sense to enact it now.
  What I would suggest to my good friend from Nevada is this: Take the 
nub of this proposal and go back to the drawing board and refine it. 
The administration is coming up with a housing proposal next week. We 
will work on housing. We have to. And then you can have your proposal, 
we will see what their proposal is--which I believe is significantly 
different, although the intention, at least for home buyers, is to 
bring mortgage rates down--and maybe we can come up with an agreement 
or a compromise. But to vote for this plan now with its high cost, lack 
of an income limitation, money that goes to the banks right off the 
top, and lack of ability to move the housing market--this amendment 
should not and cannot pass.
  So I would urge my Republican colleagues to come up with a new, 
better plan that gets to the root of the housing crisis, and then we 
can begin to work on solutions. We certainly need to tackle the 
problem. We need to tackle it on the demand and the supply side. But 
the demand side needs to be targeted at ways to boost new home 
purchases only, not extend refinancing to all of them. On the supply 
side, we need to adopt measures that will efficiently prevent 
foreclosures and reduce the excess supply of homes, enhance FHA-insured 
lending, bankruptcy reform, and the extension of FDIC loss mitigation.
  I am confident we can come up with a good plan that is more targeted, 
less costly, and that will begin to get us out of the housing morass. I 
would hope that my colleagues again scrap this proposal, go back to the 
drawing board, and, after we finish the stimulus, work with us in a 
bipartisan way to produce that result.
  I yield my remaining time back to my colleague from Montana, the 
chairman of the committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4:30 this 
afternoon the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendments 
listed in this agreement and in the order listed; that no amendment be 
in order to any of the amendments covered under the agreement prior to 
a vote in relation thereto; that prior to each vote, there be 2 minutes 
of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that after 
the first vote in the sequence, the succeeding votes be limited to 10 
minutes each: McCain amendment No. 364, and that the amendment be 
modified with the change at the desk; Dorgan amendment No. 200; 
Feingold-McCain amendment No. 140; Dodd amendment No. 354; DeMint 
amendment No. 189; Harkin amendment No. 338; Dodd amendment No. 145; 
McCaskill amendment No. 125; Ensign amendment No. 353; McCaskill 
amendment No. 236, as modified, and that a further modification be in 
order if cleared by the managers; Thune amendment No. 197; Boxer 
amendment No. 363, as amended; and Barrasso amendment No. 326.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is not my intention to object. I simply 
wanted to engage in a brief colloquy with the leader.

[[Page S1656]]

  It is my understanding, Mr. Leader, that it is your desire to move to 
a vote on those particular amendments you have outlined here this 
afternoon and this would not cut off the opportunity for Senators to 
continue to offer amendments. Myself and Senator Snowe--we have 
developed, for example, a bipartisan proposal.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there will be ample opportunity to offer 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would 
propose to modify the unanimous consent agreement by noting that the 
time between now and 4:30 be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator accept the modification?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the request is agreed to.
  The modification to amendment No. 364 and amendment No. 363, as 
modified, are as follows:


                   modification to amendment no. 364

                      DIVISION C--OTHER PROVISIONS

                        TITLE I--TAX PROVISIONS

     SEC. 10001. REDUCTION IN SOCIAL SECURITY PAYROLL TAXES.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Employee taxes.--The table in section 3101(a) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:

``In the case of wages received during:              The rate shall be:
2009........................................................3.1 percent
2010 or thereafter.......................................6.2 percent''.

       (2) Self-employment taxes.--
       (A) In general.--The table in section 1401(a) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ``In the case of a taxable beginning
                after:                           And before:                             Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 31, 2008....................  January 1, 2010................  9.3
December 31, 2009....................  ...............................  12.40''.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (B) Conforming amendments.--
       (i) Section 164(f) of such Code is amended adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Special rule for 2009.--In the case of taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2008, and before January 1, 
     2010, the deduction allowed


                     amendment no. 363, as modified

       Insert at the appropriate place:


                                findings

       The National Environmental Policy Act protects public 
     health, safety and environmental quality;
       When President Nixon signed the National Environmental 
     Policy Act into law on January 1, 1970, he said that the Act 
     provided the ``direction'' for the country to ``regain a 
     productive harmony between man and nature'';
       The National Environmental Policy Act helps to provide an 
     orderly process for considering federal actions and funding 
     decisions and prevents ligation and delay that would 
     otherwise be inevitable and existed prior to the 
     establishment of the National Environmental Policy Act.


                               Section 1

       I. Adequate resources within this bill must be devoted to 
     ensuring that applicable environmental reviews under the 
     National Environmental. Policy Act are completed on an 
     expeditious basis and that the shortest existing applicable 
     process under the National Environmental Policy Act is 
     utilized,

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand.) The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. I will speak for a couple of minutes about what the 
Senator from Montana talked about, the Congressional Budget Office 
report today. Basically, it says that this present legislation before 
us, the stimulus package, would increase employment at that point in 
time by 1.3 million to 3.9 million jobs. I did the math on that, and 
1.3 million jobs by the end of 2010 comes to $680,769 per job. If the 
most optimistic estimate of 3.9 million new jobs created between now 
and the last quarter of 2010, it is only $226,923 per job.
  Interesting comments by the Congressional Budget Office, which says 
on page 5:

       In principle, the legislation's long-run impact on output 
     also would depend on whether it permanently changed 
     incentives to work or save. However, according to CBO's 
     estimates, the legislation would not have any significant 
     permanent effects on these incentives.

  They go on to say:

       CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would 
     reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net.

  That is easy to understand because we will be paying interest on a 
huge debt of multitrillions of dollars as a result of this legislation.
  As the CBO says:

       To the extent that people hold their wealth as government 
     bonds rather than in a form that can be used to finance 
     private investment, the increased debt would tend to reduce 
     the stock of productive capital. In economic parlance, the 
     debt would crowd out private investment.

  Again, what we are doing is mortgaging our children's and our 
grandchildren's futures.
  The President today said:

       They [talking about those of us who support my amendment] 
     are rooted in the idea that tax cuts alone can solve all of 
     our problems.

  They are rooted in the idea that tax cuts alone can solve our 
problems. I urge someone to tell the President of the United States 
that we have $421 billion of tax cuts and spending in this proposal, 
and spending that is meaningful and creates jobs, not loaded down with 
porkbarrel projects and certainly not one that approaches over $1 
trillion on future generations of Americans.
  We ought to change Washington. We ought to change the way we are 
conducting this legislation, especially in partisan, nonconsultative 
fashion. If the leadership can peal off two or three Republicans, that 
is an accomplishment they will make, but it is not bipartisanship.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 6 minutes to the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, the Senator from Hawaii.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, when we began this process in November, 
the Appropriations Committee worked with the incoming administration 
and our partners in the House to identify the primary goals for 
legislation that would help America regain its financial footing.
  Based on those discussions, we identified one overwhelming priority--
putting as many Americans as possible back to work as quickly as 
possible. We also identified two further fundamental priorities: 
assisting the States so they would not face insurmountable budget 
crises that would in turn force significant layoffs at a time when they 
are facing unprecedented demand for services; and making the right 
investments that will not simply create temporary jobs, but will repair 
and strengthen our physical and cyber infrastructure, so that this 
Nation has the foundation it needs to enable strong economic growth for 
years to come.
  I have listened to the debate over the past 2 days, and I fear that 
we are losing sight of the key goal.
  Several of my Republican colleagues have suggested that the measure 
pending before us will spend $888 billion and produce 3.5 million jobs, 
so that each job created costs $255,000.
  However, they don't take into consideration how investments in roads, 
bridges, railroads and other mass transit systems will actually cut 
back on one of the most wasteful expenses that Americans deal with each 
and every day--traffic congestion.
  According to the Texas Transportation Institute:

       Gridlock costs the average peak period traveler almost 40 
     hours a year in travel delay, and costs the United States 
     more than $78 billion each year. At a time when fuel is 
     increasingly costly, traffic jams are wasting 2.9 billion 
     gallons of gas every year.

  Also, it is important to remember that the cost of labor when it 
comes to construction projects like roads and bridges is, I believe, 
around 15 percent. The rest of the budget goes for supplies like steel 
and concrete, the costs of acquiring rights-of-way, the drafting of 
plans and, of course, the costs of necessary planning and environmental 
impact studies.

[[Page S1657]]

  Another form of construction contained in this bill is sewer repairs. 
Let me give a specific example. This bill recommends $125 million, to 
be matched at 100 percent with local funds from ratepayers, to continue 
implementation of the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority 
Long-term Control Plan.
  The Water and Sewer Authority has identified up to 40 specific near-
term activities that would create more than 250 jobs. Under the logic 
that is being used by some of the opponents of this bill, this would 
equate to some $500,000 per job. This is terribly misleading. What 
about the costs of tunneling, the cost of the pipes, the cost for all 
of the heavy equipment, insurance costs, and many more, I am sure.
  With due respect to those who oppose this bill, the cost of a 
construction job is not the cost of labor. If we are to have an open 
and honest debate on the merits of this legislation, let us at least 
start with the facts.
  Our objective here is not to create make-work jobs for 1 year having 
people count paperclips. Our goal is to create real jobs that will last 
for many years and that will in turn create more jobs. Our goal is to 
ensure that America will remain the strongest economy in the world for 
many years to come.
  While our short-term tactic is to pass a bill that will have an 
immediate stimulative impact and help us through the current crisis, we 
must not lose sight of the fact that our short-term tactics can have a 
long term impact--rebuilding our infrastructure and adapting to new 
technologies today that put us back on track to being competitive in 
the global economy for generations to come.
  Reinvesting in the infrastructure that underlies our Nation--roads, 
mass transportation, sewers and sidewalks--is not glamorous, but this 
investment puts Americans to work building for the future.
  I stand by the original vision of this bill--create jobs, support 
State and local governments, and invest in our basic infrastructure. 
These are the priorities that will ensure that America emerges from 
this crisis stronger and better able to compete in the global economy.
  During the past 2 days opponents of this bill have spoken about the 
primacy of tax cuts over all other policies. They have spoken of the 
need to cut spending on programs that create jobs now, good jobs, real 
jobs, jobs that preserve the environment, improve education, and lead 
us toward true energy independence.
  And opponents of this bill have spoken about cutting programs that 
provide a lifeline to those who have been hit the hardest by this 
crisis.
  One thought comes to my mind. This bill is about change, and their 
opposition is about simply responding to the biggest crisis since the 
Great Depression with more of the same.
  More of the same hasn't worked for the past several years. It is time 
to act, and to pass this measure.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I remind my colleagues to support the 
McCain amendment on which I spoke earlier. I also rise to say a word 
about the Thune amendment which deserves our support. According to the 
economic models developed by the President's economic advisers, this 
proposal would create twice as many jobs for half the cost, about 6.2 
million new jobs for $480 billion, as opposed to the alleged 3 to 4 
million jobs for $888 billion under the Democratic proposal. One of the 
best parts is a 7-percentage-point rate cut for small businesses done 
exactly the way we did for corporations under the FSC/ETI bill. This 
would apply to businesses with fewer than 500 employees, precisely the 
kind of businesses that create jobs.
  Finally, it contains a provision that expresses our policy that the 
United States should not increase its marginal income tax rates while 
the unemployment rate is above the level of 2008, and taxes should not 
be increased to pay for the impact this stimulus will have on the 
deficit which we know is large. That is precisely what caused the 
second half of the Great Depression and slowed down the economic 
recovery in Japan.
  I urge colleagues to support the McCain amendment and the Thune 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. May I ask how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 6 minutes 4 seconds and 24 seconds.
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise in support of the McCain 
amendment and in opposition to the underlying bill. I was listening to 
my friend from New York talk about the housing amendment that Senator 
Ensign has offered, and he now speaks in opposition to that, but he 
supports a proposal that is coming from the administration next week 
that aims to try and fix the housing issue. I ask my friend from New 
York, where was he last week when, as a member of the Finance 
Committee, he voted out the underlying bill that does absolutely 
nothing to fix the housing issue? What got us into the economic 
downturn we are in today is the housing crisis that got worse and worse 
and continues to get worse every day.
  What they are now talking about doing from the Democratic side is 
proposing a housing fix next week, and the details of which are not 
known by anybody. They are also saying that we need to spend $800 
billion, $900 billion, whatever the size of this bill is now, and we 
need to spend the $500 or so billion dollars that Secretary Geithner is 
going to come for relative to TARP III, plus whatever hundreds of 
billions of dollars are relative to the housing fix, plus the trillion 
dollars in the omnibus bill, which is laying out there, that we 
understand has already been approved and is going to be coming forward.
  The American people ask one simple question: When is all of this 
spending going to stop? We have had many worthy amendments to this 
underlying bill. I commend the majority leader for allowing both sides 
to bring forward amendments. The problem is, as these amendments have 
come forward, the size of the bill has grown. That is the problem. The 
problem is, we are now seeing both sides of the aisle come forward with 
amendments that operate on a top-down basis, where we have the base 
bill that spent some $919 or $920 billion. The numbers are so 
astronomical we tend to forget, but it is right at $1 trillion. The 
amendments are seeking to reduce that number. Rather than doing that, 
which is a poor way to do business, the McCain amendment is a 
substitute for that base bill. It is a bottom-up approach to try to fix 
the crisis.
  It does so with three simple components. First, the housing issue is 
what got us into this crisis. Unless we fix the housing issue, all of 
this $1 trillion the folks on the other side of the aisle are proposing 
to spend will be spent for naught. In the McCain amendment, we directly 
address the housing issue. The Isakson amendment is in there. There are 
other provisions relative to housing that are going to allow this 
market to turn itself around and the free market to operate. If we 
clear out this inventory of foreclosed homes as well as incentivize the 
purchase of other new homes, housing construction can begin once again.
  Second, the McCain amendment is going to increase jobs. It is going 
to do so in a direct way. It will increase jobs by reducing the 
corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. There will be more 
money in the pockets of corporations so they can expand their 
businesses, which will automatically create jobs. Again, there is 
nothing in the underlying bill that directly focuses on increasing 
jobs. The other thing from a tax standpoint in the McCain amendment, 
which is going to go toward stimulating the confidence of people as 
well as the market itself, is the temporary elimination of payroll 
taxes so that when every hard-working American gets their paycheck--
whether it is weekly, biweekly, or monthly--it will be bigger. They 
will have more money in their pockets, which we know that they so 
desperately need.
  Thirdly, there is a compassionate part to this bill. There is a large 
number of Americans out there today who have lost their jobs through no 
fault of their own. They are hard-working men and women who were doing 
a good job but, because of this crisis, they have lost their jobs. They 
need help, and they are looking to the Federal Government. There is an 
extension of unemployment benefits in the McCain

[[Page S1658]]

amendment. That is the right thing to do.
  Lastly, as we have talked about this bill, there is one issue that 
has not been talked about, one issue that has not been mentioned by the 
folks on the other side, and that is, here we are, once again, after 
raising the debt ceiling in recent months, once again we are seeing the 
debt ceiling raised by almost a $1 trillion. What are we going to do 
next week when the Treasury Secretary's proposal comes down on TARP III 
and on housing which the Senator from New York mentioned? What are we 
going to do when the Omnibus appropriations bill comes down, either 
before the break for President's Day or afterwards? Will we have to 
raise the debt ceiling once again?
  I go back to the question I asked at the start, which I hear time and 
time again from people in Georgia: Senator, when is the spending going 
to stop and there be some focus on trying to make sure we grow jobs as 
well as fix the housing issue?
  I urge passage of the McCain amendment and opposition to the 
underlying bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 24 seconds remaining.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Montana.


                           Amendment No. 140

  Madam President, I oppose the Feingold amendment which would require 
that any allocation of funds in an appropriations bill have a prior 
authorization. There is only one authorization bill that passes here, 
and that is the Defense authorization bill. There are no other 
authorization bills that pass.
  This amendment represents a massive shift of power to the executive 
branch. It is not a transparency amendment. We did that last year. This 
is a shift-of-power amendment which should be defeated.
  Under this amendment, while all earmarks identified in the 
President's budget could be funded in our appropriations bills without 
authorization and not be subject to the proposed point of order, 
congressional projects that are not authorized would require a 
supermajority vote in order to be included in the legislation. This 
becomes more extreme because that disparate treatment of Presidential 
and congressional projects even applies when a Senator seeks to offer 
an amendment subject to a rollcall vote during debate on the Senate 
floor.
  The President's budget each year includes many earmarks to direct 
spending for targeted projects. The President uses his budget to target 
Federal expenditures to local areas for projects he supports, most of 
which are not specifically authorized. Under this amendment, Congress 
would have to meet a higher standard, a super majority in the Senate, 
in order to do the same thing.
  This amendment clearly weakens Congress's power of the purse. The 
vast amount of funding levels for programs in appropriations bills are 
the same as those in the President's budget. However, this amendment 
provides that if an allocation of some of the program funding is 
rejected on point of order, the overall program funding amount will be 
reduced, although it is just as likely, and probably more likely, that 
Congress merely intended to have the relevant agency allocate that 
funding, thereby keeping the overall funding amount the same instead of 
allocating it by congressional earmark. The amendment states over and 
over again that if the point of order is sustained, the unauthorized 
appropriations shall be stricken from the bill or amendment; and ``any 
modification of total amounts appropriated necessary to reflect the 
deletion of the matter struck from the bill or amendment shall be 
made.''
  For example, assume that $100 million is allocated in the President's 
budget for a State assistance grant program, and an appropriations bill 
includes a provision to direct that $2 million of this funding go to a 
specific city or project. If the $2 million allocation is stricken, 
only $98 million would remain, so even if it were the intent of 
Congress to provide $100 million for these grants, the funding would be 
decreased.
  The requirement for prior authorization means that Congress could 
only allocate funds for projects if Congress were to take up every 
Congress authorization bills covering all Federal agencies and 
programs. In the absence of such authorization bills, all 
appropriations initiated in Congress would be ``unauthorized 
appropriations'' subject to a point of order. Congress would be able to 
appropriate funding for programs and priorities proposed by the 
President, but Congress would not be able to fund congressional 
programs or priorities that are not included in the President's budget, 
or even to shift funding between programs in the President's budget, 
because all such appropriations would be ``unauthorized.'' The result 
would be a serious weakening of Congress's power of the purse.
  At present, the only Senate committee that enacts an authorization 
bill every Congress is the Armed Services Committee, which I am 
privileged to chair. So under this amendment, Congress would 
essentially severely weaken its power of the purse over all Federal 
agencies other than the Department of Defense.
  It may be the intent of this amendment to force other Senate 
committees to go through the same process that the Armed Services 
Committee goes through to enact an authorization bill every Congress. 
But I want to warn my colleagues: this is not an easy process. The 
Armed Services Committee spends most of every year reviewing hundreds 
of programs and activities in the Defense budget on a line-by-line 
basis. Subcommittee and full committee hearings and markups take weeks. 
Our bill then generally consumes about 2 weeks of Senate floor time. 
There is nowhere near enough floor time available to enact every 
Congress the dozens of authorization bills that would be necessary to 
replicate this authorization process for all of the civilian agencies.
  Moreover, as currently written, this amendment would very likely 
create a point of order against congressionally initiated Defense 
appropriations, even if those appropriations are specifically 
authorized in our bill. The reason is that the amendment provides that 
an appropriation is not considered to be authorized unless the 
authorization has already been enacted into law or passed by the 
Senate. There has not been a case in recent memory in which our Defense 
authorization bill has been enacted into law before the Senate took up 
the Defense appropriations bill.
  While the amendment makes an exception for authorizations that have 
already passed the Senate, it makes no exception for authorizations 
that have already passed the House. That means that a point of order 
would lie against all House-initiated items, but none of the Senate 
funding items, in a Defense appropriations bill. If the Senate were to 
sustain the point of order, we would be in the position of sending a 
bill back to the House which funded all of our priorities and none of 
theirs--a bill that could not possibly be approved in the House.
  The bottom line is that this amendment, if enacted, would make it 
difficult for Congress not only to establish its own spending 
priorities with regard to the civilian agencies and programs that are 
not subject to an annual authorization process, but even with regard to 
the Defense agencies and programs that are subject to such a process. 
This would include items on the unfunded priorities list submitted to 
Congress by the Joint Chiefs of Staff each year. This list, which in 
the past has included items like MRAPs and body armor, reflects the 
highest priorities of our uniformed military. Congress would place a 
major obstacle on itself from exercising the power of the purse, 
placing itself in the position of approving or disapproving programs in 
the President's budget without the power to establish its own 
priorities without a super majority.
  In 2007, Congress passed meaningful ethics and lobbying reform which 
included strong earmark reform to ensure transparency in the process by 
providing greater disclosure and requiring information on earmarks to 
be available to the public online. These disclosures allow the public 
the opportunity to know where their tax dollars are being spent and 
will help ensure the quality of the projects which are funded.
  The sponsors of this amendment have asserted that this amendment 
would

[[Page S1659]]

build on and strengthen those reforms. But this amendment goes way 
beyond that and places extensive hurdles for congressionally directed 
spending. I don't believe that the executive branch has a monopoly on 
the wisdom of spending Federal dollars. I believe that the elected 
representatives of the people in Congress are often in a better 
position to decide where the people's money is spent than the 
administration's political appointees in Washington.
  This is not a transparency amendment. We brought all earmarks into 
the full light of day in 2007. This amendment attacks the very heart of 
Congress's constitutional power of the purse. I urge my colleagues to 
vote against this extreme and unworkable measure that would enhance the 
spending power of the President and weaken the congressional power of 
the purse. It is not a transparency measure. It is an extreme power-
shifting amendment.


                           Amendment No. 364

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 
364 offered by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the stimulus package would be a disaster 
for our children and our grandchildren. According to CBO, it would 
create 1.3 million to 3.9 million jobs between now and the end of the 
year 2010. That is a huge expenditure. It has fundamental policy 
changes, and it is the biggest spending bill probably in the history of 
this country.
  We have legislation which creates jobs, which cuts taxes and spends 
on infrastructure, more on Defense and the reset, and I believe that is 
the best for this country.
  Madam President, we all know we have to stimulate this economy and 
create jobs. The question is how you do it: profligacy versus, I 
believe, a mature and responsible approach to reversing and saving our 
economy.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, it goes without saying we are now living 
in extraordinary times. This country has not seen a recession as bad as 
this--there are many people who have lost their jobs, as we have seen--
since the Great Depression. Extraordinary times require extraordinary 
actions.
  It is true no one knows exactly the precise prescription, how to get 
the economy back going again. But this underlying bill is certainly the 
best efforts of some of the brightest people to try to find that 
solution. Economists all say--all say--we need to do something like 
this to get us going.
  With the gap between the real economy and the potential economy 
always about $1 trillion, if we do not pass this legislation, we will 
probably lose another $1 trillion. The underlying bill is much better 
than the alternative. The alternative is basically: Don't do it. If we 
do not do it, gosh, the jobs lost--what you see now, as bad as it is, 
is just going to pale in comparison to what otherwise is going to 
happen.
  So I urge us to stick with the underlying bill, not adopt a 
substitute which has not been thought through, not aired, but, rather, 
let's stick with the program we think is going to work.
  Madam President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment 
violates section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I move to waive the applicable portion 
of the Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 40, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 45 Leg.]

                                YEAS--40

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                                NAYS--57

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Gregg
     Kennedy
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 40 and the nays are 
57. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected, the point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.


                           Amendment No. 200

  Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes of debate 
equally divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 200 offered by the 
Senator from North Dakota.
  The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Dorgan 
amendment be temporarily set aside so the next vote will be on the 
Feingold-McCain amendment and Dorgan will be following that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 140

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, this amendment establishes a new 60-
vote point of order against unauthorized earmarks on appropriations 
bills and requires recipients of Federal funds to disclose their 
lobbying expenses. Opponents argue this point of order does nothing 
about so-called Presidential earmarks or earmarks on authorizing bills. 
I am happy to consider a proposal targeting those things, but taxpayers 
aren't going to buy the excuse that I voted against it because it 
wasn't tough enough.
  Last year, President Obama said:

       We can no longer accept the process that doles out earmarks 
     based on a Member of Congress's seniority rather than the 
     merit of the project. We can no longer accept an earmarks 
     process that has become so complicated to navigate the 
     municipality or nonprofit group has to hire high-priced D.C. 
     lobbyists.

  My colleagues, if we want to do something about earmarks, vote for 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator's time has 
expired. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to the Senator 
from Hawaii.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, we should keep in mind that there are no 
earmarks in this bill before the Senate. Therefore, this amendment is 
not relevant.
  No. 2, we should keep in mind the Constitution gives the power of the 
purse to the Congress, and it is our job to use this power responsibly. 
We have already put procedures in place to make the process transparent 
and to hold Members accountable for their spending decisions.
  But most importantly, we should keep in mind that if an item has not 
been authorized by September 1, 2009, and it is moneys that had been 
appropriated, that money is taken out. Keep in mind that, as of this 
moment, the Intelligence Committee has not had authorization bills for 
the last 3 years.

[[Page S1660]]

The same goes for many other committees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I understand all time has expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 32, nays 65, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 46 Leg.]

                                YEAS--32

     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kaufman
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Risch
     Sessions
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich

                                NAYS--65

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Gregg
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 140) was rejected.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 200

  Mr. BAUCUS. I believe under the previous order the Dorgan amendment 
recurs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. There is now 2 minutes 
equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 200 
offered by the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we have cleared this amendment on both 
sides. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to substitute 
amendment No. 138, as modified, requiring economic impact reports for 
my amendment No. 200 for purposes of the previous order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


          Amendment No. 138, as Modified, to Amendment No. 98

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 138, as modified, 
be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 138, as modified, to amendment No. 98.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide for reports on the use of funds made available 
    under this Act and the economic impact made by the expending or 
           obligation of such funds, and for other purposes)

       Strike subtitle C of title XV of division A, and insert the 
     following:

        Subtitle C--Reports of the Council of Economic Advisers

     SEC. 1541. REPORTS OF THE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS.

       (a) In General.--In consultation with the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget and the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, the Chairperson of the Council of Economic Advisers 
     shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and House of Representatives quarterly reports based 
     on the reports required under section 1551 that detail the 
     impact of programs funded through covered funds on 
     employment, estimated economic growth, and other key economic 
     indicators.
       (b) Submission of Reports.--
       (1) First report.--The first report submitted under 
     subsection (a) shall be submitted not later than 45 days 
     after the end of the first full quarter following the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Last report.--The last report required to be submitted 
     under subsection (a) shall apply to the quarter in which the 
     Board terminates under section 1521.

                  Subtitle D--Reports on Use of Funds

     SEC. 1551. REPORTS ON USE OF FUNDS.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Jobs 
     Accountability Act''.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given 
     under section 551 of title 5, United States Code.
       (2) Recipient.--The term ``recipient''--
       (A) means any entity that receives recovery funds 
     (including recovery funds received through grant, loan, or 
     contract) other than an individual; and
       (B) includes a State that receives recovery funds.
       (3) Recovery funds.--The term ``recovery funds'' means any 
     funds that are made available--
       (A) from appropriations made under this Act; and
       (B) under any other authorities provided under this Act.
       (c) Recipient Reports.--Not later than 10 days after the 
     end of each calendar quarter, each recipient that received 
     recovery funds from an agency shall submit a report to that 
     agency that contains--
       (1) the total amount of recovery funds received from that 
     agency;
       (2) the amount of recovery funds received that were 
     expended or obligated to projects or activities; and
       (3) a detailed list of all projects or activities for which 
     recovery funds were expended or obligated, including--
       (A) the name of the project or activity;
       (B) a description of the project or activity;
       (C) an evaluation of the completion status of the project 
     or activity; and
       (D) an analysis of the number of jobs created and the 
     number of jobs retained by the project or activity.
       (d) Agency Reports.--Not later than 30 days after the end 
     of each calendar quarter, each agency that made recovery 
     funds available to any recipient shall make the information 
     in reports submitted under subsection (c) publicly available 
     by posting the information on a website.
       (e) Other Reports.--the Congressional Budget Office and the 
     Government Accountability Office shall comment on the 
     information described in subsection (c)(3)(D) for any reports 
     submitted under subsection (c). Such comments shall be due 
     within 7 days after such reports are submitted.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by Senator 
Inouye and Senator Cochran. It is a simple amendment. A voice vote will 
be satisfactory. I think it has been cleared on both sides.
  It simply asks for reports about who is receiving this money we put 
out in an economic recovery program. Did you receive the money? How did 
you use the money? And how many jobs do you believe were created with 
the money? I hope the full Senate will agree with those objectives.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. We accept this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, has amendment No. 200 been withdrawn?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has not.


                      Amendment No. 200 Withdrawn

  Mr. DORGAN. I ask that amendment No. 200 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Vote on Amendment No. 138, as Modified

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask for a vote on amendment No. 138, as 
modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
138, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 138), as modified, was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 354

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2 
minutes of debate equally divided on Dodd amendment No. 354.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I may not need the full minute. This is the 
amendment dealing with executive compensation. There are a number of 
proposals. This is one that would set some limits, basically allowing 
for some reaching back if, in fact, TARP businesses are found to have 
violated

[[Page S1661]]

various provisions of law. It would allow the Secretary to negotiate 
resources to come back if there has been excessive compensation.
  I say to my colleagues, our colleague Senator Vitter in the Banking 
Committee made a point I wish to repeat. This is not the single most 
important issue. In fact, it could be trivialized. We all appreciate 
when we talk to our constituents about the TARP program, many of our 
constituents are so angry with what they see in executive compensation, 
it is difficult to have a conversation about the larger questions. We 
are trying to deal with this issue in a thoughtful way that does not 
impinge upon their ability to compensate people, but simultaneously we 
are not reading about compensation going to executives where billions 
of dollars have gone to those companies abusively.
  This amendment is to deal with that particular problem. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have no opposition to the amendment and 
again recommend its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 354.
  The amendment (No. 354) was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 189

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to the previous order, the next 
amendment is DeMint amendment No. 189.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, are we considering the DeMint amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I encourage all my colleagues to listen 
for a moment. This is a very simple amendment that strikes some 
language that should not be in this massive spending bill. It is 
language that discriminates against religious freedom on college 
campuses.
  Right now in the bill, any college campus that uses these funds to 
renovate a student center, a dorm, an auditorium, cannot allow prayer, 
any religious activity, or worship. This is not language that should be 
in this bill. This is an issue that has been decided by the courts.
  Arbitrary language is going to create doubt and risk and liability 
which will put a chilling effect on religious freedom on campuses.
  The only thing most of us need to know is that the ACLU opposes this 
amendment. Any freedom-loving American should know they should vote for 
this amendment if it is opposed by the ACLU.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the provision in the bill states that 
Federal funds cannot be used to support facilities in which a 
substantial portion of the functions of the building are involved in a 
religious mission.
  I say to the Senator from South Carolina, this language has been in 
the law for 40 years. It is the result of three Supreme Court 
decisions.
  Mr. DeMINT. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. No, I won't. It was signed into law in the Higher 
Education Reauthorization Act signed by President Ronald Reagan, 
President George Herbert Walker Bush, and President George W. Bush.
  The DeMint amendment is opposed by the Jesuit universities. We have 
struck a balance here helping religious schools on buildings that are 
not primarily for religious functions. We will continue doing that and 
continue honoring our Constitution's establishment clause.
  I hope everyone will support me in opposing the DeMint amendment and 
stand by the language that has been time tested and approved by the 
Supreme Court in three separate decisions.
  Mr. DeMINT. May I correct a mischaracterization?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 189.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 47 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                                NAYS--54

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Gregg
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 189) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 145

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dodd amendment 
No. 145 be taken out of this tranche. We will arrange another time, 
with the assistance of the Republicans, to determine when to vote on 
this. What we are trying to do, Senator Conrad wants to have another 
amendment go before this one, and Senator Dodd has consented to do 
that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator Dodd 
wants his amendment to go in the next group of amendments.
  Mr. REID. That is right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Chair.


                      Amendment No. 338--Withdrawn

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 
338, offered by the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I still believe we need a strong auto 
industry in this country. I think the best way to do that is to get 
people to buy cars. The best way to do that is to give low-income and 
moderate-income individuals and families the wherewithal to buy those 
cars. That is what this amendment was about.
  However, I must say, in the current desire to reduce the size of the 
bill, I am going to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment, 
but it will come back at some time in the future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The amendment is withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 125

  Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes equally divided 
prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 125, offered by the 
Senator from Missouri, Mrs. McCaskill.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we are prepared to accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 125) was agreed to.

[[Page S1662]]

                           Amendment No. 353

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 
353, offered by Senator Ensign.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Will the chairman of the Finance Committee mind if I go 
second so I can answer any of the charges that may come out?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I would rather the proponent go first.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I would rather the chairman of the Finance Committee go 
first.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield my time to the Senator from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. My colleagues, it is a great idea to help with housing. 
Listen to what the amendment of my friend from Nevada does. It costs 
between $300 billion and $1 trillion. Second, it applies to people of 
any income. Do you want to have the Federal Government spend its money 
to give a multimillionaire a break on their mortgage? Third, the banks 
take a cut. Every time there is a refinancing, there are points. If we 
want to give people money, don't let the banks take a cut. Fourth, it 
does nothing about the housing market because, A, most of it will go to 
refinancing--people who are in a home stay in the home--B, the people 
who really need help do not qualify because they do not get Fannie, 
Freddie, or FHA.
  It doesn't help housing, it costs a fortune, it helps the banks, and 
it is one of the most expensive things before us. If you are a fiscal 
conservative, there is no way you can vote for this.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, that is absolutely incorrect. The mortgage 
interest we target is between 4 and 4.5 percent. Right now in the 
market, it would be between 4 and 4.5 percent. We capped the program at 
$300 billion. It is impossible to do what the Senator from New York 
said because we put a cap on it. It could cost no more than that. The 
Treasury cannot authorize any more than that.
  Regarding the second untruth he just spoke--this amendment is not 
just for millionaires. These are for homes that are not above the 
conforming loan limit, so it is no home over $729,000. Only homes under 
that would qualify for it.
  We have over 600 organizations that build homes in this country--
plumbers, cabinetmakers, homebuilders, and everything else--that 
support this amendment. This amendment will get the housing industry 
going in the country.
  And it is not just about lowering interest rates--another untruth 
said by the Senator from New York. We also do foreclosure mitigation 
because we help modify loans for those homes that are underwater right 
now. There are tax credits for businesses to get the economy going. We 
fix housing first, and then we get the economy going.
  I urge a ``yea'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, if Senator Ensign prevails on his 
amendment, I will seek to further amend his amendment. I would offer 
the Grassley amendment patch amendment. The amendment would be in 
identical form to my amendment adopted in the Finance Committee markup.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Nevada has 
expired.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending 
amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act of 1974.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I move to waive the applicable provisions with respect to 
my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second. The question is on agreeing 
to the motion. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 35, nays 62, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 48 Leg.]

                                YEAS--35

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--62

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bunning
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Gregg
     Kennedy
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 35, the nays are 
62. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having not voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the vote has been reported?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, for all Members, everyone should be advised 
we are going to be working late tonight. We have a lot of work to do. 
We are going to work to get a solution. We are going to work within the 
broad outline that President Obama has given us, a program that has the 
wide support of the American people.
  If necessary, we are going to work through the night. I repeat, we 
are going to work until we get it done. There are a number of Senators 
working in good faith to try to come up with a proposal that will pick 
up a number of Republican votes. There are a number of Republicans 
working in that group--I do not know how many but as many as eight 
Republican Senators--trying to come up with a proposal they believe 
would improve this legislation.
  As I have indicated to each of those Senators individually, we would 
be happy to take a look at this. If it is in keeping with what I 
believe everyone is trying to do; that is, to improve this legislation, 
of course we will take a look at it, and we will take a good positive 
look at it.
  This legislation is very important. The reason we need to work 
through the night is, I cannot imagine what would happen to the 
financial markets tomorrow if it was reported that this bill would go 
down. This bill is not only important to our great country, it is 
important to the world. We are the largest economic machine in the 
world by far.
  People a lot of times refer to Japan and the trouble they had in the 
1990s. But, remember, their economy, even though theirs is the second 
largest economy in the world, it is a very small economy relatively 
speaking compared to ours. So around the world, everyone is looking at 
what we are going to do tonight.
  I want to make sure everyone understands that everyone is working in 
good faith. This is a very large piece of legislation. I understand why 
people would want to change it, and certainly we are in the process of 
trying to do that with these multitude of amendments that have been 
offered.
  We will finish this. We have about four votes left in this tranche. 
Then we will move on to others. On the Democratic side, we have more 
amendments lined up. I am sure the Republicans have more lined up on 
their side. But I would hope everyone would work in good faith to move 
forward on this legislation.
  If at the end of the day people cannot vote for it, that is a 
decision people will have to make. But I want everyone

[[Page S1663]]

within the sound of my voice to understand that what we do here is 
extremely important not only to the people in Las Vegas, Reno, and 
Nevada but all over this country and the financial capitals of the 
world.
  The small towns all around the world are looking to see what we do. 
It is not a pleasant picture to think what would happen if this 
legislation, which was put together--I have used the term before--in 
good faith by President Obama and his people, is, in effect, turned 
down.
  Now, we have never said you have to rubberstamp what we have done. 
That is why we started on Monday a process of amending this 
legislation. A lot of amendments have been offered. A lot of them have 
not been accepted or approved, but a number of them have. A couple of 
them that were approved I really did not like very much. But this is 
what the legislative process is about. Legislation is the art of 
compromise, consensus building. That is where we are. So it is 6:15 
tonight. I would hope in the next 12 hours we can have a piece of 
legislation that we can feel good about after having worked on it for 
these many hours that we have.
  I failed to say one thing. I extend my apologies to my friend. One of 
the things I wanted to say is, Senator McConnell, the Republican 
leader, has been very open with me. We have had a number of meetings 
during today. He has been very understanding of some of the problems I 
have. I am understanding of some of the problems he has.
  I want the Record to reflect he has been very cooperative. I 
appreciate that very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me add briefly, it strikes me that 
one of the core problems in spite of the new President's popularity 
with Americans is, there is a growing discontent among the public, as 
illustrated by the Gallup poll, which 4 or 5 days ago indicated roughly 
53 percent of Americans thought this particular proposal was a good 
idea, and it is now down to 38 percent a mere 5 or 6 days later.
  The American people have serious questions about the composition of 
this package. I think virtually everybody on our side of the aisle 
believes that some action by the Government is necessary. We have heard 
from a lot of economists who are thought of as conservative economists 
who think that action is necessary.
  The question is not doing nothing versus doing something. The 
question is the appropriateness of an almost trillion dollar spending 
bill to address the problem. I agree with the majority leader. We ought 
to continue talking. Hopefully, there is a way to restart the process 
in a way that would be more fundamentally bipartisan in nature. We hope 
that conclusion can be reached in a positive way for the American 
people sometime in the near future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am probably different than most every 
Senator. I wish we could outlaw polls. I think they are one of the 
things that hurt the body politic. I don't believe in them. I don't 
watch what they say. I don't care about them. But I can read them. We 
were all present at a meeting yesterday where in-depth polling has been 
done on this. The polling for President Obama's package, as of 
yesterday, was approved by nearly 70 percent of the American people. I 
don't know what the Gallup poll is, but it should underscore what I 
said about polls. Everybody forget about the polls. Forget about them. 
Do what we think is good for the American people based on what we are 
hearing from constituents, constituents rich and poor, big businesses 
and small businesses. If we listen to them, we have to come forward 
with a robust package in keeping with the needs of the country.
  I appreciate the comments of my friend, the Republican leader. We are 
all working to do the best we can. We have some disagreement as to what 
the right thing to do is. I hope we will not be determining what we do 
based on a poll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I know we would all rather be voting than talking. 
Republicans are no less interested in doing the right thing for the 
country than Democrats are. I don't question the motives of our friends 
on the other side of the aisle, and I know they don't question ours. We 
have some serious differences about what we ought to do. Those 
discussions have been ongoing, and we will continue them throughout the 
evening and maybe well into the weekend until we get some kind of 
consensus about what is the most appropriate thing to do to help jump-
start our ailing economy.
  Mr. REID. I have stated clearly and unequivocally that I believe 
those eight Republicans who are--I think that is the number; I haven't 
been in on the meetings--working very hard to try to come up with an 
alternate proposal, I appreciate that. Does that mean the other 33 
Republican Senators aren't working in good faith? Of course they are. 
But I very much appreciate those Republicans who are openly trying to 
come up with something different. All of us are trying to do the right 
thing for the American people. There isn't a single Senator who has 
come to this floor who hasn't said that this economy is in deep trouble 
and we have to do something to fix it. My comment was, I hope we can do 
that. That is the reason I have said we have to work through the night. 
Because if we don't and the Friday financial markets look at us not 
having been able to accomplish anything, it is a bad day not only for 
America but the rest of the world.


                 Amendment No. 236, As Further Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 
236, as modified, offered by the Senator from Missouri, Mrs. McCaskill.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we are prepared to accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I understand there is a further 
modification at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is further 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 236), as further modified, is as follows:

       On page 3, line 22, strike ``2010'' and insert ``2011''.
       On page 3, line 23, insert before the period ``and an 
     additional $17,500,000 for such purposes, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2011''.
       On page 41, line 4, strike ``2010.'' and insert ``2012.''
       On page 41, line 21, strike ``2010'' and insert ``2011''.
       On page 47, line 8, strike ``2010'' and insert ``2011''.
       On page 47, line 26, strike ``2010'' and insert ``2011''.
       On page 60, line 4, strike ``2010.'' and insert ``2011, and 
     an additional $3,000,000 for such purposes, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2011.''.
       On page 77, line 19, strike ``expended.'' and insert 
     ``September 30, 2012, and an additional $10,000,000 for such 
     purposes, to remain available until September 30, 2012.''.
       On page 95, line 12, insert before the period ``and an 
     additional $5,000,000 for such purposes, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2012''.
       On page 105, line 4, insert ``SEC. 505 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR 
     GENERAL. For an additional amount for ``Treasury Office of 
     Inspector General for Tax Administration'', $7,000,000 to 
     remain available until September 30, 2012, for oversight and 
     audit of programs, grants and activities funded under this 
     title.''
       On page 105, line 24, strike ``2010'' and insert ``2012''.
       On page 116, line 21, strike ``2010.'' and insert ``2011, 
     and an additional $7,400,000 for such purposes, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2011.''.
       On page 127, line 14, strike ``2010'' and insert ``2011''.
       On page 137, line 8, strike ``2011.'' and insert ``2012, 
     and an additional $15,000,000 for such purposes, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2012.''.
       On page 146, line 12, insert before the period ``and an 
     additional $10,000,000 for such purposes, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2012''.
       On page 149, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For an additional amount for the Office of the Inspector 
     General, $1,000,000, which shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2011.
       On page 214, line 19, strike ``2010'' and insert ``2011''.
       On page 225, line 6, strike ``2010'' and insert ``2011''.
       On page 226, line 23, strike ``2010'' and insert ``2011''.
       On page 243, line 6 insert ``, and an additional 
     $12,250,000 for such purposes, to remain

[[Page S1664]]

     available until September 30, 2012'' before the colon.
       On page 263, line 7, insert ``, and an additional 
     $12,250,000 for such purposes, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2012'' before the colon.
       On page 733, line 2, strike ``expended'' and insert 
     ``September 30, 2012,''.

  Mr. BUNNING. May we understand what the modification is?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, there was an omission of money for the 
inspector general at the IRS. The modification adds the money for the 
inspector general at the IRS.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
236, as further modified.
  The amendment (No. 236), as further modified, was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 197

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 197 offered by the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, with my amendment we get more with less, 
more job creation at less cost. What this amendment would do is 
substitute the underlying bill with an amendment that consists 
primarily of tax relief for families and small businesses. Specifically 
the legislation would provide $444 billion of tax relief, more than the 
tax relief contained in the Senate stimulus bill. It provides $34 
billion in spending which is $598 billion less than the underlying 
bill. According to the economic models developed by the President's 
economic advisers, this proposal would create twice as many jobs for 
half the cost. It would create 6.2 million new jobs at $480 billion, 
compared to the 3 million or so which, with the latest from CBO, may be 
a lot less than that under the Democratic proposal. I urge support for 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. It is more for 
less--more tax breaks for upper income Americans, less tax breaks, in 
fact, no tax breaks for low-income Americans; 49 million Americans will 
get no tax benefit under this amendment, and 49 million Americans do 
get some tax benefits from the underlying bill. It eliminates the rest 
of the substitute--nothing for energy, nothing for education and the 
other parts of the bill. I urge rejection of the amendment.
  I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 
311(a)(2)(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable provisions 
under the Budget Act with respect to my amendment and ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 37, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 49 Leg.]

                                YEAS--37

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--60

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Gregg
     Kennedy
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 37, the nays are 
60. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 363, as Further Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 
363, as modified, offered by the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, just for the information of all Senators, 
these are two amendments that are paired: the Boxer amendment, which 
the Chair just stated, and also the Barrasso amendment No. 326. It is 
our understanding those two amendments will both be voice-voted. 
Senator Boxer will speak about her amendment, and Senator Barrasso will 
speak about his. But the thought is, these are two paired amendments on 
roughly the same subject. We hope to have a voice vote on each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I think I can explain this 
amendment in 2 minutes, and then we can take a voice vote.
  I thank Senator Barrasso. He and I have a little different view on 
the importance of the National Environmental Policy Act in relation to 
this bill. Late last night he offered an amendment to essentially 
pretty much waive the protections of that act from this bill. Needless 
to say, as the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, 
I was concerned about the amendment. He and I have had extensive 
discussions, along with our staff, and we have reached an agreement on 
the way to proceed tonight.
  So, Mr. President, I am going to begin by carrying that out by 
sending a modification of my amendment to the desk that Senator 
Barrasso has approved. So if I might do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 363), as further modified, is as follows:

       Insert at the appropriate place:


                                findings

       1. The National Environmental Policy Act protects public 
     health, safety and environmental quality: by ensuring 
     transparency, accountability and public involvement in 
     federal actions and in the use of public funds;
       2. When President Nixon signed the National Environmental 
     Policy Act into law on January 1, 1970, he said that the Act 
     provided the ``direction'' for the country to ``regain a 
     productive harmony between man and nature'';
       3. The National Environmental Policy Act helps to provide 
     an orderly process for considering federal actions and 
     funding decisions and prevents ligation and delay that would 
     otherwise be inevitable and existed prior to the 
     establishment of the National Environmental Policy Act.


                               Section 1

       1. Adequate resources within this bill must be devoted to 
     ensuring that applicable environmental reviews under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act are completed on an 
     expeditious basis and that the shortest existing applicable 
     process under the National Environmental Policy Act shall be 
     utilized.
       2. The President shall report to the Senate Environment and 
     Public Works Committee and the House Natural Resources 
     Committee every 90 days until September 30, 2011, following 
     the date of enactment on the status and progress of projects 
     and activities funded by this act with respect to compliance 
     with National Environmental Policy Act requirements and 
     documentation.

  Mrs. BOXER. OK. I also thank--in addition to Senator Barrasso for 
working with me on drawing this up, I

[[Page S1665]]

would say, perfecting this amendment--a lot of the groups out there who 
have been very worried and working and calling all my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 
minute, if I might.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record the list of these organizations, from the League of 
Conservation Voters to the American Lands Alliance; and there is even a 
group from Alaska that got involved.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Tiernan Sittenfeld; Legislative Director; League of 
     Conservation Voters; [email protected].
       Marty Hayden; Vice President, Policy and Legislation 
     Earthjustice; [email protected].
       Pamela A. Miller; Arctic Program Director; Northern Alaska 
     Environmental Center; P[email protected].
       Anna Aurilio; Director, Washington DC Office; Environment 
     America; [email protected].
       Randi Spivak; Executive Director; American Lands Alliance; 
     [email protected].
       Mike Daulton; Legislative Director; National Audubon 
     Society; MD[email protected].
       Emily Wadhams; Vice President for Public Policy; National 
     Trust for Historic Preservation; [email protected].
       Will Callaway; Legislative Director; Physicians for Social 
     Responsibility; [email protected].
       Colin Peppard; Federal Transportation Program Manager; 
     Friends of the Earth; CP[email protected].
       Sandra Schubert; Director of Government Affairs; 
     Environmental Working Group; [email protected].
       Sharon Buccino; Director, Land Program; Natural Resources 
     Defense Council; [email protected].
       Leslie Jones; General Counsel; The Wilderness Society; 
     [email protected].
       Sara Kendall; DC Office Director; Western Organization of 
     Resource Councils; [email protected].
       Mary Beth Beetham; Director of Legislative Affairs; 
     Defenders of Wildlife; MB[email protected].
       Adam Kolton; Sr. Director, Congressional and Federal 
     Affairs; National Wildlife Federation; K[email protected].
       Eli Weissman; Director of Government Relations; American 
     Rivers; EW[email protected].
       Nat Mund; Legislative Director; Southern Environmental Law 
     Center; [email protected].
       Elizabeth Thompson; Legislative Director; Environmental 
     Defense Fund; ET[email protected].
       Ann Mesnikoff; Washington Representative; Sierra Club; 
     Ann.M[email protected].
       Mike Clark; Interim Executive Director; Greenpeace; 
     [email protected].

  Mrs. BOXER. I conclude by saying what I do in this amendment is to 
say that adequate resources within this bill must be devoted to 
ensuring that the applicable environmental reviews under NEPA are 
completed on an expeditious basis, and that we require a report every 
90 days just to make sure these projects are moving forward with the 
protections of NEPA but no undue delays.
  So with that, I would ask for a voice vote, if I might.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 363), as further modified, was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 326

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 326, offered by the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Barrasso.
  The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I appreciate the modifications of the 
amendment by Senator Boxer. The Boxer amendment rightly states that we 
should try to expedite NEPA. I appreciate the improvements she has made 
to that.
  My amendment, which I urge Members to support, is amendment No. 326, 
offered by Senators Enzi and Vitter and Crapo and Risch and Bennett and 
Roberts as well as myself. The amendment is a practical, moderate 
solution to a real problem, as every school, road, bridge or dam funded 
under this bill will require compliance with the National Environmental 
Policy Act.
  The Congressional Budget Office and countless business leaders agree 
we must address NEPA in this legislation. My amendment would not waive 
NEPA, it would only require that it be completed in 9 months. I 
appreciate Senator Boxer's efforts to do this in an expeditious way. 
This amendment goes further and says 9 months. If projects are truly 
shovel ready, this should be no problem.
  This amendment prevents bureaucratic delays and will put people to 
work. I am asking my colleagues to vote in favor of amendment No. 326 
and I would appreciate a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 326) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. As clarification, the Boxer amendment that was 
agreed to was as further modified.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.


                 Amendment No. 176 to Amendment No. 98

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be set aside to call up amendment No. 176.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 176.

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To require the use of competitive procedures to award 
  contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements funded under this Act)

       On page 431, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:


              prohibition on no-bid contracts and earmarks

       Sec. 1607.  (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to make any payment in 
     connection with a contract unless the contract is awarded 
     using competitive procedures in accordance with the 
     requirements of section 303 of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253), section 
     2304 of title 10, United States Code, and the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none 
     of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
     Act may be awarded by grant or cooperative agreement unless 
     the process used to award such grant or cooperative agreement 
     uses competitive procedures to select the grantee or award 
     recipient.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is a straightforward amendment. What 
this amendment says is that all the money we are going to spend in this 
bill, the American taxpayers are going to get value.
  I am not going to win the debate on this bill. We are going to spend 
somewhere between $750 billion and $1 trillion, but the one thing we 
ought to be able to assure the American people is that when we go to 
spend the money, they are going to get value for it. This is an 
amendment that says there will be competitive bidding on all the 
contracts, all the agreements so we get real value. As malodorous as 
this bill is in terms of the spending that is not going to produce the 
first job, the one thing we ought to make sure of is that the American 
taxpayer is protected.
  What we know from 40 hearings in the Federal Financial Management 
Subcommittee is the biggest problem we have in the Government today, 
besides waste, fraud, and abuse, is the fact that many of the 
Government contracts, in violation of Federal law, are never 
competitively bid. That does a couple things. One is it puts people who 
are connected to the Government in line to get a contract that is not 
necessarily the best value for our country. Whether that is lobbying 
here or lobbying at the executive branch, what we know is that at least 
$50 billion a year right now is wasted because we don't do competitive 
bidding.
  All this amendment says is that if you are going to spend the money, 
if it is greater than $25,000--which is what President Obama has asked 
us to do--you competitively bid it. You don't play favorites; you make 
sure we get great value.
  So my hope is nobody can find a fault with this agreement and this 
amendment that would say in common sense:

[[Page S1666]]

Everybody out there who is in business who is going to do something 
such as that, spend any significant amount of money, is going to get 
value for what they pay on their money. Every household is going to try 
to do that as they try to make decisions on how they spend money. So as 
we spend $900 billion on the items that can be let for contract, we 
ought to insist that there is competitive bidding.
  What do we know right now in the Federal Government as far as waste 
where we have not competitively bid? Here is what we know. We spend as 
a government $64 billion a year on IT contracts--on IT contracts. The 
vast majority are not competitively bid. Some people may say: Well, 
that is no problem. Well, when you hear that 40 billion of them are in 
trouble, way outside the cost that we thought things were going to 
cost, what we see is the American taxpayer doesn't get any value when 
it comes to IT purchasing in the Federal Government. Whether that is 
the Pentagon, whether it is Homeland Security, whether it is the Small 
Business Administration, whether it is the Department of Energy, we get 
no value because 50 percent of the money we spend on IT ultimately gets 
wasted because we don't competitively contract it and competitively bid 
it.
  Out of this $900 billion, there is somewhere around $400 billion of 
that which can, at one point or another, be competitively bid. To not 
competitively bid it says, first of all, we are not going to be able to 
spend it to create as many jobs as we would like if, in fact, we don't 
get value when we competitively bid it. So my hope is the chairman will 
consider this amendment take it under advisement. I would also relate 
that even in spite of the fact that sections 303 of the Federal 
Property and Administrative Act, 10 U.S. Code 2304 all require it, the 
Federal Government doesn't do it. Last year, in the Consolidated 
Federal Funds Report, the Federal agencies issued $1.2 trillion in 
financial assistance in 2008.
  Mr. President, $400 billion of that was in grants, so that means 
grants need to be competitively bid; $453 billion in contracts and $22 
billion in direct loans. A large portion of that was never 
competitively bid.
  I will shorten the time I spend on this amendment. I ask for its 
consideration, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 359

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the pending amendment be set aside so that I may call up amendment No. 
359.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Udall] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 359.

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To expand the number of veterans eligible for the employment 
                  tax credit for unemployed veterans)

       On page 485, strike lines 23 through 26, and insert the 
     following:

       (I) having been discharged or released from active duty in 
     the Armed Forces during the period beginning on September 1, 
     2001, and ending on December 31, 2010, and

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, as I rise today, our Nation 
is in the midst of a deep recession. Families across America are losing 
their homes and business owners are being forced to close doors. In my 
home State of New Mexico, local workforce solutions offices are 
besieged with calls from people who need help. Customer service centers 
are cutting jobs and parents can't pay for their kids' school lunches.
  Our responsibility is to act, and we must do so with the 
accountability and oversight the American taxpayers deserve.
  For months, I have been advocating for an economic recovery package 
that puts the American people first, one that is carefully targeted to 
create jobs and stabilize our economy by making the long-term 
investments economists have said we need now. For years we have 
neglected to make the needed investments in energy and in conservation, 
infrastructure, health care, and so much more. Today we have the 
opportunity to change course. We have the opportunity to make these 
necessary investments and help shore up our economy at the same time.
  I wish to thank Chairman Inouye and Chairman Baucus for their hard 
work in bringing this bill before us.
  Make no mistake, the package we have before us is not perfect. There 
are many improvements that, after all the hours of work and all the 
hours of debate, could make it better. I rise to bring forth one more 
improvement we can make now.
  Today I am offering an amendment which both helps address our current 
economic crisis and takes care of the very individuals who have been 
fighting for us: our veterans. My amendment, which I am proud to be 
joined in offering by the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, Ms. 
Landrieu, will help ensure that our veterans returning from Iraq and 
Afghanistan are remembered as we push for job creation in our country.
  The current language in the substitute amendment provides a tax 
incentive to employers hiring veterans who have been discharged from 
the armed services in 2008, 2009, and 2010. I strongly applaud this 
amendment and thank Chairman Baucus for his leadership on this issue. 
However, the numbers show veterans discharged before the years included 
in the underlying language are also struggling to find employment. In 
fact, in September 2007, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that of 
those veterans who served in our military since September 2001, 6.1 
percent were unemployed. As we know too well, since the study was 
completed in September of 2007, the economy has only worsened.
  Therefore, I offer this amendment to expand the tax incentive to 
employers to include veterans discharged from the armed services 
between September 2001 and December 2010, including veterans of 
Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Those soldiers 
leaving the military after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, serving 
with great distinction and honor, are finding themselves back in a 
shrinking workforce. Yet we know from study after study that these men 
and women have substantial capabilities in technology, mathematics, 
management, crisis response, and so many other areas that are critical 
to employers. Expanding the tax incentive to cover employers who hire 
any veteran who has served since September 11 will help ensure that we 
do not leave these veterans out of our recovery package. It ensures 
that employers are encouraged to hire these men and women and put them 
back to work for our Nation.
  The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America are strongly supportive 
of this expansion. I urge my colleagues to join me in adopting it 
today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. It is Senator Coburn's time or another Republican 
amendment. Senator Coburn should be recognized; then Senator Sanders 
after that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 309

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank the chairman 
for his kindness. I agree we should be going back and forth.
  Whatever we do with this bill, we ought to determine what is most 
important and what is least important. When we take $900 billion and 
are about to spend it, we ought to do that in a way that again promotes 
value. We as a body oftentimes are resistant to make hard choices; I 
know that, but every family out there in our country today is making 
hard choices.
  I found it peculiar, when this bill came to the floor, that it didn't 
include a prohibition that was in the House bill. Somewhat strange. 
What was in the House bill, which was passed by the House and agreed to 
by the House, was a prohibition on any funding to pay for aquariums, 
zoos, golf courses, swimming pools, stadiums, parks, theaters,

[[Page S1667]]

art centers or highway beautification projects. Somehow, strangely, it 
was left out of the Senate bill.
  So I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside to 
call up my amendment No. 309.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 309.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To ensure that taxpayer money is not lost on wasteful and 
                       non-stimulative projects)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. LIMIT ON FUNDS.

       None of the amounts appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used for any casino or other 
     gambling establishment, aquarium, zoo, golf course, swimming 
     pool, stadium, community park, museum, theater, art center, 
     and highway beautification project.

  Mr. COBURN. What this amendment does is it prohibits stimulus funding 
to pay for casinos, museums, aquariums, zoos, golf courses, swimming 
pools, stadiums, parks, theaters, art centers or highway beautification 
projects. I am not necessarily against those, but if we are going to 
spend money, we ought to spend money on the highest priority things 
first, not the finer things that we can't afford.
  We cannot afford to spend a penny on a museum right now with the 
trouble we are in. We cannot afford to spend a penny on a golf course 
with the trouble we are in. We cannot afford to spend a penny on 
theaters or art centers or highway beautification. Those are not a 
priority. Plus, most of those won't generate near the jobs as if we 
were spending it on something more substantive. There are billions of 
dollars in this bill for various grant programs for State and local 
governments, for supposedly local shovel-ready projects. How do we know 
that? Because the U.S. Conference of Mayors has a wish list of shovel-
ready spending projects entitled Main Street Recovery Ready-to-Go 
Infrastructure Report. It includes billions in questionable and 
wasteful projects that should never be funded by the taxpayers, even if 
we had extra money--which we don't--and certainly should not be funded 
at this time, with the limited dollars we have and the way we are 
funding. We are not borrowing--no, we are stealing this money from our 
grandkids.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr COBURN. I will.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, let me ask my distinguished friend and 
colleague from Oklahoma this. We all know we have to address the 
problems we face in our economy. It is becoming a crisis. The majority 
leader said that, the minority leader said that, and everybody who has 
offered an amendment has said that. But it seems to me we have 
fundamental differences with the President of the United States, who 
called some of our concerns picayunish in an op-ed in the Washington 
Post, and with our colleagues across the aisle, as to what constitutes 
an effective stimulus. The Senator from Oklahoma is introducing an 
amendment that I wish more Members could listen to--and they should 
because it would be in their best interest.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is offering an amendment that introduces an 
overdue criteria not only regarding whether the mayors' wishlist, and 
the programs he is going to enunciate, fit the role of a stimulus, but 
public outrage? These are the kinds of things that become fodder on 
late night talk shows, and we could do that--we could sort of do a late 
night talk show. We could go back and forth and he would mention a 
project and I would say: Do you mean there is money going for that? But 
I will skip all that and congratulate the Senator regarding his 
amendment.
  Can the economy be best revitalized through a massive and 
unprecedented increase in Government spending? Or is it better to 
pursue progrowth policies that put money more directly into the pockets 
of families and businesses?
  There is no question, I can answer that. Putting money back in the 
pockets of American families and businesses stimulates the economy. 
When they have additional money in their pockets, they can use that 
money as they see fit--to save, to purchase a home or a car, to make an 
investment or hire workers. So I think what the Senator from Oklahoma 
is trying to do--I know what he is trying to do and what I am trying to 
do in asking him to yield, which is to urge my colleagues to take a 
hard look, please, at the spending in this bill. We have already asked 
you to do that. There have been many amendments to do that. Ask 
yourselves: Is this stimulative? Do the programs in this bill truly 
promote economic stimulus? Do they create jobs? Do they put meaningful 
dollars directly in the pockets of families and businesses to encourage 
the economic growth of our country, or does the bill simply spread the 
money around to many Federal programs, or Members' requests, in the 
hope that such spending will solve our economic problems?
  If we cannot honestly demonstrate the stimulative effect of the 
programs in the bill, then it is clear to me that taxpayer dollars 
would be best spent elsewhere or, better yet, returned to the 
taxpayers.
  With all due respect to President Obama, in the article he wrote for 
the Washington Post, the op-ed, these matters are not picayunish--they 
are not.
  The economic stimulus mantra from last year--targeted, temporary, and 
timely--which should also apply to this year's effort, seems no longer 
to be the drumbeat of the majority. I don't know if the Senator is 
aware, but one estimate is that this bill would cost $2,700 for every 
man, woman, and child in the United States. While this bill is touted 
as creating or conserving jobs, some of the costs of the proposed job 
creation in the bill are truly astounding, not picayunish.
  A program at the State Department would create 388 jobs at a cost of 
$524 million. There are others that create jobs that would cost 
$480,000 per job and $333,000 per job. I know the Senator from Oklahoma 
is interested in that because that is the very kind of thing he likes 
to bring up to make us adhere to our job responsibilities.
  I know Oklahomans are outraged, and I know Kansans are outraged at 
this reckless spending, when the vast majority of them live within 
their means, pay their bills, and make their mortgage payments on time. 
Where is their benefit under this bill? Where is their $333,000 or 
$480,000 job?
  Many constituents who have contacted me have said, ``Just send me a 
check.'' They are very concerned that their tax dollars are not being 
used wisely here and that this bill won't get the job done. That is 
what the Senator from Oklahoma is trying to accomplish.
  The bill is not targeted. The appropriation portion of the bill 
spends taxpayer dollars on everything from smoking cessation programs, 
all-terrain vehicle trails, and $600 million to buy new cars for new 
Government employees.
  Again, these matters are not picayunish. As the spending in this bill 
grows, it has become a honey pot for every conceivable special interest 
group in this unprecedented environment of national crisis. I am 
concerned that we are well on our way to federalizing State and local 
governments, as many elected officials are setting up what I call 
``bucket commissions.'' Our Governor in Kansas is doing that, and 
others are as well. I know we have problems in Kansas, and I know they 
have problems in Ohio, and I know they have problems in Oklahoma. But 
they are coming to Washington to fill these buckets. People have 
actually lobbied for and want the projects the Senator from Oklahoma is 
talking about. If you want a new county jail, don't pass a bond issue; 
ask for it in the stimulus. If you want a Frisbee park--I am not making 
that up--don't ask local taxpayers to foot the bill; ask for it in the 
stimulus.
  With this Federal honey pot and the lure that is now out there to 
come to Washington and make funding requests--and some requests do have 
merit; I won't quarrel with that. But this is not the right time or 
place for them. Another danger here is that Federal money too often 
becomes Federal control--Federal intervention further into the daily 
lives of Americans. You hear a lot about that back home.

[[Page S1668]]

  To all of those who hear the siren song lure of coming to Washington 
and obtaining free stimulus money, with apologies to Homer:

     Circe warned all those lured by the siren songs and to too 
           many who ignored the warning and ended up on rocky 
           shoals:
     Once he hears to his heart's content, sails on a wiser man.
     Like as Vlisses wandering men,
     In red seas [or in the case of this stimulus, red ink] as 
           they pass along.
     Did stoppe their ears with wax as then,
     Against the suttle Mermayds [or shall we say Senator's 
           stimulus song.]
     So shall their crafty filled talk,
     Here after find no listing ear.
     Like Circe, I byde them go back and walk,
     And spend their words some other where.

  Again, with apologies to Homer, with this siren stimulus song that we 
sing, those attracted by the lure will bring themselves and all 
taxpayers to rocky shoals.

  We are currently in the throes of February cold, with only 
Valentine's Day as a respite. This bill will have its first effect 
amidst the winds of March. Those projects that my distinguished friend 
from Oklahoma is trying to bring to the attention of the Senate will 
come true in the winds of March. My colleagues and taxpayers all, 
beware of the Ides of March. Under this massive spending bill, the 
taxpayer will become Caesar and the Government will become Brutus. ``Et 
tu, Senator Brutus''--a role no Senator should wish to play.
  While some funding requests may be worthy of Federal dollars, such 
decisions should be made as part of the annual appropriations debate, 
rather than circumventing that important process by adding funding to a 
bill that is intended to provide short-term stimulus to the economy.
  This bill is not timely, I say to my friend from Oklahoma. CBO 
estimates that only 15 percent of this stimulus package will be spent 
in 2009, and only another 37 percent spent in 2010. The remaining part 
will be spent in 2011 and beyond. That means that less than half of the 
money will be spent by the end of next year. This is not the immediate 
relief families and businesses desperately need now to help get the 
economy back on track. Rather than looking at more Federal spending and 
programs to fix our economy, we have tried to redirect this spending to 
tax relief. We need to return to families more of their hard-earned 
dollars and allow businesses to keep more of the money they earn, so 
they can reinvest and grow their businesses. This is particularly true 
of small business. Unfortunately, only $21 billion, or 3 percent of 
this bill, goes to small business. I know the Senator from Oklahoma 
certainly cares about small businesses. They are the Nation's job 
creators. How can we call this an economic stimulus bill, when only a 
fraction of this bill is going to help small businesses?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I forgot what the question was.
  Mr. ROBERTS. We had seven questions, and I am going to have one, and 
then I will cease and desist.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has the floor. He 
yielded for a question.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am trying to find a fair way to go back 
and forth here.
  Mr. COBURN. Does the Senator have another question?
  Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, I do. We have had before us--and more to come, I 
think--well-thought-out alternatives to meet the commonsense test. As I 
said before, we have had amendments to strip out billions in spending 
in the bill that will not stimulate the economy. It is my understanding 
that the Senator's amendment deals with smaller programs and, as I have 
indicated, the public reaction to these programs and these relative to 
the stimulus package are unbelievable, is that not true?
  Mr. COBURN. That is true.
  Mr. ROBERTS. We have and will have amendments to provide permanent 
tax relief for middle-income taxpayers. Is anything in there having to 
do with that?
  Mr. COBURN. No.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Basically, we have considered amendments to address the 
problems in the housing market, to fix housing first. Does anything on 
that list have anything to do with fixing the housing market?
  Mr. COBURN. No.
  Mr. ROBERTS. These suggestions would improve this bill. Can we 
improve it, I ask the Senator from Oklahoma, to provide the right 
incentives to stimulate the economy and create private sector jobs?
  Mr. COBURN. Yes.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Let us beware of the Ides of March and the siren songs 
of the stimulus, I say to the Senator from Oklahoma. I thank him for 
doing an outstanding job to warn the majority of the sand trap they are 
getting into with these projects. Would the Senator not agree?
  Mr. COBURN. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yielded for a question. The 
Senator from Oklahoma has the floor.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I thank my fine friend from Kansas for 
those questions.
  As I was saying before I was interrupted for a question, the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors has a wish list. I would do the same thing. But I 
want my colleagues to hear what is going across the legislatures of all 
the States right now: How much of this money can we get so we don't 
have to do the hard job in our legislature right now to make cuts we 
need to make? How much of this money can we get?
  They just happened to have 31,000 requests totaling $73.2 billion. I 
thought the American people would like to hear what some of them are 
because I guarantee you, we will fund them. We are going to fund them. 
If this bill passes, we are going to fund them unless we accept this 
amendment.
  How about $192.6 million for 12 projects directed to stadiums, 
including $150 million for a Metromover extension to Marlin Stadium in 
Miami, FL, where their average attendance is less than 45 percent, less 
than 16,000 fans? Is that a priority for the country right now? It is 
not a priority. Unless we agree to this amendment, that kind of stuff 
is going to get funded.
  How about $87 million for 56 projects on paths? Right now, when we 
are stealing $1 trillion from our grandchildren, is it a priority for 
this country to build bicycle paths? Tell me that is a priority. Tell 
the American people that is a priority.
  How about $700,000 to plant 1,600 trees along the sidewalks in 
Providence, RI? Is that a priority? Because once this bill moves out of 
here, it is out of your control, and the bureaucrats are going to grant 
it based on the pressure you put on them, not on a competitive basis 
but based on what greases the skids the most.
  How about $500,000 for eco-friendly golf course improvements in 
Dayton, OH? We like that one?
  How about $8.4 million for a brandnew polar bear exhibit at the zoo 
in Providence, RI? Is that really a priority? When we are in this kind 
of trouble, we are going to be building zoos? That is what the Senate 
says we should do with this money, allow zoos to be built?
  I like this one: $6.1 million for corporate jet hangars in 
Fayetteville, AR. Those are the kinds of jobs we want to create? We 
want to create that kind of program?
  How about $100,000 to rehabilitate a skateboard park in Alameda, CA? 
We are going to take $100,000 from our kids to rehabilitate a 
skateboard park. That is what the American people want us to do with 
this money to put people to work?
  How about the Sunset View Dog Park in Chula Vista, CA? Just half a 
million dollars. That is on this list.
  If we do not accept this amendment, then tons of this stuff is going 
to go through--low priority, not high priority job creating but 
everybody's wish list in the country. When they heard this bill was 
first coming, every city across this country said: Well, what can we 
get? When you run a country that way, you can expect to get these kinds 
of requests.
  In this request is a new museum for Las Vegas, a mob museum. We will 
spend $50 million on a mob museum? That is really a priority right now 
for American citizens, especially their grandchildren who are still in 
the womb who are going to come out owing $500,000 as soon as they hit 
the ground? If we do not add this amendment to this bill, tons of stuff 
just like this is going to be included.
  Let me tell you the other justification for this. One of the best 
functioning things we have is a library and

[[Page S1669]]

museum grant-seeking body. They have done a wonderful job through the 
last few years, except when we earmark around them, which we do 
routinely every year. But they go through an ordered process.
  What is going to happen is this is going to go around the ordered 
process again, and we are going to take away competitive grants. They 
are the only agency in the Federal Government that 100 percent follows 
up on every grant. They know the quality of the grants they give, and 
they never give another one if it was not quality. They make people pay 
back if it was not quality. There is nothing in this bill that will 
require us to get back the money from people who abuse the process.
  In the next appropriations bill--probably the one that is coming in 
the next week or so--we are going to have well over $100 million for 
museums. I guarantee you, it is probably in the omnibus that is coming. 
I bet you we have $100 million in there in spite of this $900 billion 
bill. I guarantee you we have $100 million in it. Maybe by me 
mentioning it we will not have it when it comes to the floor. I don't 
know.
  There is nothing in here that would say, if you are a highly endowed 
museum, you cannot get this money. Are we going to give the same amount 
of money to any museum, even when several have $1 billion or $2 billion 
in endowment? There is no direction in this bill. None.
  The golf course industry in the United States boasts approximately 
12,000 golf courses. There is no prohibition in this bill that any of 
this money will not be spent building golf courses. Again, if you don't 
believe me, ask your 6-year-old grandchild: Do you think we ought to 
borrow your future to pay for a golf course in this country right now? 
There is no prohibition on that. It is going to happen. We all know it 
is going to happen.
  To go back to the mayors' wish list: $5 million for golf course 
renovations in Shreveport, LA; $1.2 million for a new golf park 
restoration in Brockton, MA; $1.5 million to replace the golf clubhouse 
in Roseville, MN; $2.1 million for Forest Park and urban golf 
renovation in St. Louis; $3 million for golf clubhouse replacement in 
Lincoln, NE; $500,000 for an environmentally friendly golf course in 
Dayton, OH; and $3 million for renovation of a golf course building in 
Hawaii.
  I know it is hard to put a bill such as this together, and I am not 
meaning to be overly critical, but I believe that unless we put a 
prohibition on what the money can go for, the money is going to go for 
low-priority items. I think it is reprehensible that we would not put a 
limit on the worst tendencies of local governments, the worst 
tendencies of State governments, and our own worst tendencies to spend 
money, especially when it is 100 percent borrowed; that we would not 
limit ourselves, that we would not put a choke chain on us to make sure 
we don't allow projects to go this way.
  I have talked about this long enough. I appreciate the indulgence of 
the chairman.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.


                     Amendment No. 306, as Modified

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Grassley for his 
cosponsorship of this amendment. I ask unanimous consent to set aside 
the pending amendment so I may call up the Sanders-Grassley amendment 
No. 306 with the modification that I send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Does the Senator from 
North Dakota have an objection?
  Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object, is there an order that has 
been entered with respect to the offering of amendments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. There has been a general understanding, after Senator 
Coburn spoke on his amendment, Senator Sanders would be able to call up 
his amendment. After Senator Sanders, Senator Cornyn will call up his 
amendment. Then Senator Feingold is after that, and then a Republican 
amendment after that.
  I would like to, frankly, get a consent agreement fairly soon to at 
least vote on a small number of amendments--say, four, five 
amendments--get that out of the way, and while we are voting on those, 
we can figure out how we get the rest of the amendments processed.
  Mr. CONRAD. Is it possible to get on this amendment train? Senator 
Graham and I have an amendment. He is the lead, so it would be a 
Republican amendment.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I want to be right after the end of the list you just 
gave.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont still has the floor. 
The Senator from Vermont has the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. I reserved the right to object. I will not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], for himself, and 
     Mr. Grassley, proposes an amendment numbered 306, as 
     modified, to amendment No. 98.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To require recipients of TARP funding to meet strict H-1B 
   worker hiring standard to ensure non-displacement of U.S. workers)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. HIRING AMERICAN WORKERS IN COMPANIES RECEIVING TARP 
                   FUNDING.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Employ 
     American Workers Act''.
       (b) Prohibition.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, it shall be unlawful for any recipient of funding under 
     title I of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 
     (Public Law 110-343) or section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act 
     (12 U.S.C. 342 et seq.) to hire any nonimmigrant described in 
     section 101(a)(15)(h)(i)(b) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(h)(i)(b)) unless the 
     recipient is in compliance with the requirements for an H-1B 
     dependent employer (as defined in section 212(n)(3) of such 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(3))), except that the second sentence 
     of section 212(n)(1)(E)(ii) of such Act shall not apply.
       (2) Defined term.--In this subsection, the term ``hire'' 
     means to permit a new employee to commence a period of 
     employment.
       (c) Sunset Provision.--This section shall be effective 
     during the 2-year period beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Baucus and his staff for 
working with us on what I believe are significant improvements to the 
original amendment Senator Grassley and I offered. This amendment has 
been cleared by both sides with a modification. This amendment, as 
modified, would simply require recipients of TARP funding to meet 
strict hiring standards to ensure nondisplacement of U.S. workers.
  I thank Senator Grassley for working with me on this amendment. I 
yield to him. If not, Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is not a sufficient second. The yeas and nays have not been 
ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont still has the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I was wondering if we could voice vote this amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Yes, that will be fine.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, 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. BAUCUS. 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. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendments be called up for consideration: Coburn No. 176 and 309; 
Sanders No. 306, as modified; Cornyn No. 268; Feingold No. 486; Baucus-
Grassley 404; Grassley 297; and Harkin 397; that no amendments be in 
order to the amendments prior to a vote in relation thereto; that the 
time until 8 p.m. be for debate with respect to these amendments; that 
at 8 p.m. the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the amendments in 
the order listed, with 2 minutes equally divided for each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, that is very unfortunate. The reason for 
the objection is unfortunate because of the amendment Senator Grassley 
and I

[[Page S1670]]

are offering. We are going to have to work this out because I am not 
going to allow the quorum call to be called off until it is worked out.
  This is about the Trade Adjustment Assistance benefits. Basically, at 
this time in our history, with a recession going on, with unemployment, 
it is extremely important that American workers who lose jobs on 
account of trade be given a break and they get some benefits, including 
health benefits.
  The objection, I have been told, is basically because there are some 
Senators who want to tie this amendment--the Trade Adjustment 
Assistance amendment--to either passage of or a date certain on which 
we would take up the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. I think that is not 
a good thing to do, and the reason is, the more the Colombia Free Trade 
Agreement is tied to Trade Adjustment Assistance, the more it will 
engender opposition to the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
  I personally favor the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, and I also very 
respectfully suggest that the circumstances under which that agreement 
could be brought up are a lot better if Trade Adjustment Assistance is 
already passed and into law because that will enable more people in the 
country, particularly folks who are concerned about being potentially 
laid off, to have some comfort here with the Trade Adjustment 
Assistance. Then it is easier for this Congress to bring up the 
Colombia Free Trade Agreement. I suspect the President is going to be 
bringing up free trade agreements. I respectfully say that he almost 
has to. Perhaps some of these may need to be negotiated, but clearly 
the United States of America is going to enter into free trade 
agreements, and the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, in my judgment, is 
one that should be agreed to and adopted.
  So I say to my very good friend from Arizona, who I think is the one 
primarily objecting to this provision, that if he would withdraw his 
objection so we could at least get the Trade Adjustment Assistance 
passed, then I will work with him to find a way at an appropriate time, 
when the time is right, to bring up the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. 
But to tie it to a date or to make a connection is going to, with all 
due respect, make it more difficult for the Senator to accomplish his 
objectives.
  Mr. President, without losing my right to the floor, I ask if the 
Senator from Arizona has a question--but without losing my right to the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to respond to Senator Baucus.
  First, I think the staff on the majority and minority side are 
attempting to put together a tranche right now of perhaps six--four 
amendments, two on both sides?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Eight amendments, including this one.
  Mr. KYL. Well, I will complete my thought. They are trying to put 
together a list of at least four amendments that would be equally 
divided.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Right, four and four.
  Mr. KYL. And what I suggest is that we proceed on this basis and not 
try to interject the TAA process, because I think that will cause this 
to grind to a halt here. We can discuss, as I told you, the appropriate 
proceeding on TAA. I am certainly not trying to tie proceeding to TAA 
to a date certain to vote on Colombia, but I do think it is appropriate 
that a plan be worked out, with the President, as you have noted, and 
the Members of Congress who are concerned about this to try to find a 
way to go forward, as we originally did, so everyone can be assured 
that both Trade Adjustment Assistance and the Colombia Free Trade 
Agreement can proceed to a successful conclusion.
  Now is not the time to negotiate that, and that is why I object to 
the idea of going forward with this at this time. In order to keep this 
process moving forward tonight, and get as many of the Democratic and 
Republican amendments up and voted on, I suggest we keep proceeding as 
we have been, in good faith, and not confuse it with this extraneous 
issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, 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. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 176

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to table Coburn amendment, No. 176. 
I ask that be the pending amendment, and I move to table that 
amendment, the Coburn amendment, No. 176.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 1, nays 96, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 50 Leg.]

                                YEAS--1

       
     Voinovich
       

                                NAYS--96

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Gregg
     Kennedy
      
  The motion was rejected.


                             FMAP Increase

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Finance 
Committee, Senator Baucus, for his inclusion of an important provision 
regarding State eligibility for the FMAP increase in this bill. If it 
were not for this provision, my State of Rhode Island may not have been 
eligible for the relief because a State law effective on July 1, 2008 
changed eligibility, but the change was not implemented until the 
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, approved a waiver on 
October 1, 2008. The timing of the State's decision, not the approval 
date by CMS, should be the controlling factor.
  I ask the chairman, does section 5001(f)(1)(C)(ii) of the bill 
specifically address this situation?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Yes. That provision specifically addresses the unique 
circumstances of Rhode Island. It should not matter when CMS is able to 
make a change in a waiver. What matters here is that Rhode Island had 
clearly determined that it would make the eligibility change on July 1, 
2008. The decision to do so was made well in advance of congressional 
consideration of an FMAP increase, so Rhode Island has not been trying 
to game the system. Under this provision, Rhode Island will certainly 
be eligible for the FMAP increase.
  Mr. REED. I agree and again thank the chairman.


                             emr technology

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, as you know, H.R. 1 provides critical 
incentives for the adoption of meaningful EMR technology. Adoption of 
this technology is essential to improving care and reducing costs.

[[Page S1671]]

  Michigan hospitals have been at the forefront of critical advances in 
health information technology such as e-prescribing and developing an 
Electronic Medical Record. In fact, its ambulatory sites have been 
paperless for almost 5 years. Many of my hospitals are spending 
significant resources in this difficult economic environment to convert 
their hospital records to electronic format and upgrade EMRs to contain 
Clinical Practice Guidelines.
  Section 4201 (a)(1)(C) of the bill seeks to prevent double payments 
by excluding certain physicians who practice substantially in hospital 
settings and use hospital-owned EMR equipment. To clarify the intent of 
this section, the bill lists specific examples of hospital-based 
professionals to be excluded. This makes sense.
  But I am concerned that this language may also inadvertently exclude 
many physician group practices associated with hospitals may not 
qualify for EMR incentives under H.R. 1. The way the provision is 
drafted may many outstanding medical groups such as the Billings Clinic 
in your great state from receiving incentive payments because they are 
classified as ``provider-based'' entities. Because of this designation, 
I am concerned that HHS may consider such professionals as ``Hospital-
Based Eligible Professionals'' who are prohibited from receiving 
incentive payments under this section of the bill.
  I am sure it is not our intent to exclude such physician group 
practices from incentives. I hope the Chairman will work with me and my 
staff to ensure that Congressional intent will be carried out and early 
champions of HIT are eligible for EMR incentives in the H.R. 1.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Stabenow for raising this 
issue with me. It is not our intent to exclude those early EMR 
champions from HIT incentives in the Stimulus bill. My staff and I will 
work with you to clarify our intent, which is to reward early adopters 
of HIT like integrated health systems.
  Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Chairman and look forward to working with 
him on this important issue.


             Investing in Home and Community-Based Services

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to briefly discuss the 
important subject of home- and community-based services for older 
adults and individuals with disabilities with my distinguished 
colleague Senator Baucus, who--along with Senator Inouye--is doing a 
commendable job of leading the Senate's discourse on the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator. I would be pleased to enter into a 
colloquy with the Senator from Wisconsin on this subject.
  Mr. KOHL. As you and many other Senators are aware, home- and 
community-based services, or HCBS, are critically important to millions 
of older and disabled Americans who rely on Medicaid, which today is 
our country's most important publicly financed system for nursing home 
care and home-and community-based services. But there is a critical 
difference in the legal status of these services. Under Federal law, 
nursing home services are a mandatory benefit that must be offered by 
all States to all individuals who meet stipulated eligibility criteria. 
In contrast, HCBS services are not a mandatory benefit. Rather, they 
are offered by States under waiver programs granted by the U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services for limited time periods and 
for limited numbers of individuals.
  States across the country have obtained multiple HCBS waivers over 
the last 20 or so years. These HCBS programs tend to be extremely 
popular, often because they provide a considerably wider array of 
nonmedical support services than are otherwise offered under the 
Medicaid statute.
  The State of Wisconsin has invested a great deal of time and effort 
in their waiver programs, many of which have been very successful. 
Nevertheless, because waiver programs are capped in terms of the number 
of beneficiaries who can be enrolled, there has been substantial growth 
in the size of waiver waiting lists, which in Wisconsin reached an 
unacceptably high level of more than 11,000 people. Many other States 
also have large waiver waiting lists.
  Concerned about the State's high level of unmet need, Wisconsin has 
embarked on a program to try to eliminate waiver waiting lists and also 
absorb the projected increase in demand for services during the next 
decade. This program is called Family Care, and it is a good example of 
how a State can take on the challenge of organizing long-term care 
services more cost-effectively. Other States are undertaking planning 
efforts as well. I am pleased to say that recent research has found 
that States that began expanding their HCBS programs in the mid-1990s 
experienced initial upfront costs as their level of services expanded, 
followed by a leveling off of costs--with the result that aggregate 
spending was controlled.
  We have reached a critical juncture with regard to the development of 
HCBS services. In the context of the stimulus package we are now 
considering--which provides States with an additional $87 billion in 
Medicaid funding--I believe we should urge States not to reduce these 
popular and needed services but, rather, to maintain and strengthen 
them. Does the Senator from Montana concur?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator for the question. My State is making 
an investment in home- and community-based services for individuals 60 
years and older, and I applaud these efforts. In 2007, the legislature 
established the Older Montanans Trust Fund that will enable more 
individuals to access these services in the long run. As the population 
ages, there will be greater pressure on the long term care system, and 
States like Montana face additional challenges responding to the needs 
of seniors and individuals with disabilities in rural and frontier 
areas. I join the senior Senator from Wisconsin in urging my 
colleagues, along with State programs, to carefully monitor HCBS 
services and spending, not to reduce the commitment to these very 
valuable and needed services.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an amendment that I have 
filed to address some important renewable energy issues that should be 
resolved before the Congress sends the final economic recovery plan to 
the President.
  I do not plan to force it to a vote because I have great confidence 
that we will be able to work out most, if not all, of these issues 
satisfactorily in conference and with the new administration. That is 
provided we can get enough votes to move this critical bill through the 
Senate.
  As my colleagues know, the recession has hit every sector of the 
economy hard. The growing renewable energy industry is no exception. 
One recent headline was ``Dark Days for Green Energy.''
  Solar, wind and even geothermal businesses are caught in the credit 
crunch. Installations have slowed, despite the extensions of important 
production and investment tax credits that we included in the Troubled 
Asset Relief Program and the promise of the new renewable and energy 
efficiency incentives and loan guarantee programs that we have included 
in the economic recovery legislation the Senate is debating now.
  The number of investors for new renewable projects, like other 
industries, has dwindled due to the disruption in tax equity markets. 
So, to keep making progress toward a clean energy revolution, making 
our Nation and my home State of Nevada more energy independent and 
creating thousands of new jobs and sustainable economic growth, we need 
a temporary substitute for those tax credits and incentives.
  My amendment is similar to the temporary DOE grant program included 
in the House-passed bill, which works in lieu of the investment tax 
credit. However, I have modified it to be certain that it also works 
for utility-scale solar and geothermal projects which take slightly 
longer than wind or other renewable energy production facilities to 
commence operation.
  Clearly, this grant program will not and should not remove the strong 
preference of most project sponsors to use the traditional tax equity 
markets once those markets are reestablished and functioning. The grant 
option is less valuable to these investors than the investment or 
production tax credit because it does not fully replace other tax 
benefits such as accelerated depreciation. But the grant program is a 
necessity in today's troubled market

[[Page S1672]]

that will get renewable project developers through these difficult 
times, creating thousands of jobs in the course of months instead of 
years.
  The amendment does a number of other things, including pushing and 
funding the Departments of Energy, Interior and other agencies to work 
together more constructively and more quickly to process renewable 
energy projects and related transmission permits on public lands. It 
also raises the cap to $2.5 billion on third-party financing for 
transmission capacity developments that the Western Area Power 
Administration and the Southwestern Power Administration are allowed to 
accept.
  Lastly, the amendment includes a nod toward the problems faced by 
solar and other renewable technologies that might not easily fall into 
the two categories of guaranteed loan eligibility in the substitute, 
commercial vs. non-commercial. My amendment would add a new category of 
``new or significantly improved'' technologies that would be eligible 
for the new loan guarantee program created in the underlying bill. This 
definition was part of the final rule for the title XVII loan guarantee 
program published in October 2007.
  Nevadans and all Americans are eager to get back to work and clean 
energy investments are one of the best ways to ensure they can get back 
to work and prosper.
  Nevadans pay billions of dollars every year in energy bills. Much of 
that money goes to other States or other countries in fuel costs and 
enriches them, but does not add equivalent and long-lasting value for 
Nevada or provide much help to diversify our economy or prepare for a 
safer and more affordable future.
  Fortunately, this economic recovery plan, with the help of the new 
administration, is going to start the transformation of our national 
energy policy that Nevada needs to become a net exporter of clean 
renewable energy.
  This bill will stimulate the economy in the short-term, but its 
energy spending will have long-term benefits for Nevada and the Nation.
  The entire list of potential benefits to Nevada are too numerous to 
list, but at my and the President's strong urging, the economic 
recovery bill will, for example: accelerate renewable energy project 
and transmission line development; stimulate the growth of businesses 
making energy efficient and renewable energy products and services; 
improve energy efficiency of schools, hospitals, public buildings and 
low-income housing; maintain, repair and improve critical water supply 
and quality projects in urban and rural areas; promote conversion of 
vehicle fleets to clean and efficient alternative fuels to reduce oil 
consumption; and, enhance energy security at military installations 
through renewable energy and energy efficiency investments.
  Some of the specific items currently in the bill and their benefits 
for Nevada:
  A 3 year extension of the renewable energy production tax credit. The 
long-term extension of this tax credit are critical to ensure 
investment in Nevada's geothermal and wind energy potential. $3.25 
billion in new borrowing authority for the Western Area Power 
Administration to finance and facilitate development of renewable 
energy transmission capacity. The new borrowing authority should 
facilitate access to Nevada's vast solar and geothermal resources. 
$22.1 million through the Weatherization Assistance Program, with 
changes to the income level percentage formula for determining the 
eligibility, an increase in the assistance level per dwelling unit, and 
an increase in the funding ceiling for worker training. $5.4 million 
through the State Energy Program for energy efficiency, conservation 
and renewable energy projects. A new Advanced Energy Investment Credit 
for facilities that manufacture advanced energy property like solar 
cells or mirrors, wind turbines, technology that can access geothermal 
deposits, or energy storage systems for electric and hybrid-electric 
vehicles. $1.6 billion in Clean Renewable Energy Bonds that Nevada's 
cities, counties, and electric cooperatives will be able to compete for 
to finance renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. A 2 year 
extension and expansion of the 10 percent energy efficiency tax credit 
for existing homes to 30 percent. Approximately $20 million for energy 
efficiency and conservation block grants for Nevada's communities. 
Hundreds of millions of dollars that will make military installations 
more energy efficient and more energy secure through greater use of 
renewable power and alternative fuel vehicles. $2 billion that Nevada's 
public housing agencies will be able to compete for so that they can 
invest in energy conservation. $1.6 billion that Nevada's hospitals and 
schools will be able to compete for so that they can invest in energy 
efficiency
  I should note that nothing is final until the Senate has had a chance 
to pass and conference this bill with the House and President Obama has 
signed it. Many Senators have filed or are considering amendments to 
cut some of these important energy programs. So we will have to see 
what happens.
  But I am committed to making sure that the renewable energy business 
in Nevada and elsewhere continues to grow through this legislative 
package, the next energy bill and beyond. The economic, energy, 
environmental and national security benefits are just too important to 
my State, to the Nation and the world.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, my friend from Montana referred to the 
CBO analysis of this bill. He rightly pointed to some proposals in the 
bill that will have some stimulative effect. The Chairman also talked 
about CBO's analysis of years 1 through 3--all relevant data. But we 
need to know what happens in years 4, 5, and years 6 through 10. I have 
asked that question because there is a reasonable fear that the 
spending might have a negative effect on the economy from years 4, 5 
and so forth.
  The spending might ``crowd out'' investment and that crowding out 
could adversely affect economic growth later.
  It is kind of like the difference between a carbohydrate diet and a 
protein diet. Under this bill, there is a lot of carbohydrate-spending. 
The spending is like eating a sugary doughnut. It tastes good going 
down, but shortly thereafter the effect wears off and you are hungry 
again. In this case, we have a spending surge, but we might face the 
effects of too much spending with crowdout.
  On our side, we would prefer a protein-type of stimulus. We want 
investment nourishment up front. Like protein, the economic body will 
become stronger after the investment stimulus is digested.
  Now, I am not saying there shouldn't be any spending stimulus. What 
we need is a balanced stimulative diet. This bill's stimulus diet is 
too carb-oriented. It needs more protein investment stimulus.
  I am afraid the detailed CBO analysis of years 4, 5 and 6 through 10 
may confirm that this bill will show that we pay the price for a 
stimulus package that is too far tilted towards spending.
  On the AMT patch point made by Senator Durbin, I agree the AMT patch 
is not in the McCain admendment. As one who pushed for it in the 
Finance Committee, I agree the patch would be a good addition.
  Senator McCain would be glad to add the AMT patch. But I would ask my 
friends in the Democratic leadership a question. If the patch were 
added, would they support the bill?
  They were supporters of the House bill and the Chairman's mark. Both 
documents did not contain the AMT patch. If we add the patch here, will 
they support Senator McCain's amendment?
  If Senator McCain's amendment passes, I will seek to add the AMT 
patch in conference so that 24 million American families do not get hit 
with this stealth tax.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, although the housing crisis has devastated 
cities and towns across America, nowhere has been hit harder than 
Nevada.
  Nearly 1 in 20 households has been affected by foreclosure, and that 
number goes up every single day.
  Every time a home is lost, a family loses not just a place to live 
but a sense of security, financial stability and the promise of a 
brighter future.
  Last evening, the Senate passed an amendment to the American recovery 
and reinvestment plan that doubles the tax credit for home buyers to 
$15,000. This legislation will also expand the credit to all 
purchasers, not just first-time buyers.

[[Page S1673]]

  In Nevada, this incentive will help encourage those who continue to 
sit on the fence, hoping for further price declines, to jump into the 
market and buy a home. Despite the current uncertainty, many experts 
agree that for the long term, now is an excellent time to become a 
homeowner.
  Nevadans know that this amendment will not solve our housing crisis, 
but it will help. If Democrats and Republicans keep working together 
with President Obama, putting partisanship aside to find commonsense 
solutions, we can stabilize our housing market and begin the long road 
to economic recovery.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to bring to the Senate's attention 
a compelling new report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, 
CBO,
  The February 4, 2009, report, which was requested by President 
Obama's nominee for Secretary of Commerce, Senator Judd Gregg of New 
Hampshire, confirms what supporters of the Senate economic recovery 
package have said from the very beginning. The CBO has concluded that 
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act would have an immediate and 
substantial impact on the U.S. economy, most notably in terms of job 
growth and GDP growth.
  In crafting this legislation, our No. 1 priority has been putting the 
American people back to work. This report estimates that the recovery 
package, as reported out of the Senate Appropriations and Finance 
Committees, would create between 900,000 and 2.4 million new jobs in 
2009, between 1.3 and 3.9 million jobs in 2010, and between 600,000 and 
1.9 million jobs in 2011. These numbers would correspond to an 
unemployment rate reduction of 0.5 to 1.3 percent in 2009, 0.6 to 2.0 
percent in 2010, and 0.3 to 1.0 percent in 2011.
  Additionally, the report estimates that the legislation would grow 
the U.S. gross domestic product by 1.4 to 4.1 percent in 2009, 1.2 to 
3.6 percent in 2010, and 0.4 to 1.2 percent in 2011.
  I welcome this new data as further evidence of the job-creating 
potential of this economic recovery package. I believe this new 
analysis strongly reinforces the need for swift action by the Senate on 
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This legislation will 
alleviate the painful effects of the current economic crisis by 
spurring real economic growth and putting millions of Americans back to 
work. I am confident that this body will respond with the urgency that 
this crisis demands of us.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, during debate on H.R. 1, the Economic 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Senator Cornyn of Texas offered 
Senate amendment 277 to Senate amendment 98, an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute. Pursuant to section 312 of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974, Senate Budget Committee majority staff determined and 
advised the Senate Parliamentarian that the amendment violated the 
Senate pay-go rule, section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21, the concurrent 
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008. Consequently, a point of 
order was raised against the Cornyn amendment, and a motion to waive 
the point of order failed by a vote of 37 to 60.
  Upon further review, committee staff concluded that the determination 
of a pay-go point of order was made in error--in fact, the amendment 
did not violate section 201. As chairman of the Committee, I regret the 
point of order was inadvertently raised in error.


                                Hospice

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to support an 
amendment being offered by Senator Schumer to reverse a recent Centers 
for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, regulation reducing payments 
to hospice service providers. This amendment is also cosponsored by 
Senators Rockefeller, Stabenow, Wyden and Roberts.
  In October 2008, CMS finalized a rule that cut hospice reimbursement 
under Medicare. This reduction limits the ability of hospice providers 
to provide comprehensive, high quality end-of-life care to Medicare 
beneficiaries and their families. In 2008, an independent study from 
Duke University, clearly demonstrating the cost savings associated with 
hospice care, noted, ``Given that hospice has been widely demonstrated 
to improve quality of life of patients and family members . . . the 
Medicare program appears to have a rare situation whereby something 
that improves quality of life also appears to reduce costs.''
  During the 110th Congress, in response this regulation, I introduced 
S.3484, the Hospice Protection Act, to reverse the CMS regulation. The 
bill received bipartisan support and garnered thirty five cosponsors 
however we were not able to move the legislation forward. The economic 
stimulus legislation offers an opportunity to correct a misguided 
regulation that has put an estimate 3,000 individuals out of work. 
During these economic times the Federal Government should not be 
putting forth regulations that not only hurt beneficiaries but harm the 
workforce.
  While this amendment provides a number of jobs, I am concerned that 
the amendment is not offset and the cost of the bill may increase the 
cost of the overall bill. As a cosponsor of this legislation, I will 
work to ensure that the cost of this amendment is paid for without 
increasing the cost of the bill. I encourage my colleagues to support 
this amendment and to work with the sponsor and cosponsors of this 
amendment to ensure its inclusion in the economic stimulus package.


                        Army Corps of Engineers

  Mr. President, I seek recognition to comment on my cosponsorship of 
an amendment to H.R. 1, the Economic Recovery Act, which would increase 
funding in the bill for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by $4.6 
billion. I am cosponsoring this amendment, offered by Senator Landrieu, 
because the funding will support construction of critical 
infrastructure projects across the Nation. At the Port of Pittsburgh 
alone, there is over $580 million worth of shovel-ready lock and dam 
work that could be started in 6 months. These structures support the 
transportation of bulk commodities to industries that depend on them. 
Failure at any of these locks and dams would have dramatic economic 
consequences, as the Port of Pittsburgh generates over $13 billion in 
economic activity and supports over 200,000 jobs. Not only does the 
long-term modernization of these structures increase the economic 
competitiveness of domestic manufacturing industries, but they create 
immediate jobs in the construction industry. This is just one example 
of the type of economic stimulus that funding for the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers can provide. There are more examples across Pennsylvania 
and the Nation.
  However, despite my cosponsorship of this amendment due to its 
potential for stimulus, I am not committed to voting for it without an 
offset. Since adopting this amendment would add $4.6 billion to the 
size of the bill and increase the national deficit, an offset to reduce 
spending elsewhere in the bill by an equal amount would be preferable. 
We should make every effort to identify offsets to reduce the total 
size of the economic recovery bill.


                      Rescission of Highway Funds

  Mr. President, I seek recognition to comment on my cosponsorship of 
an amendment to prevent Federal highway funds from being rescinded. 
SAFETEA-LU requires that $8.7 billion in unobligated contract authority 
balances held by States be rescinded on September 30, 2009. This 
rescission will cut Pennsylvania's road and bridge program by $380 
million in fiscal year 2010. That is why I am cosponsoring an amendment 
offered by Senators Baucus and Bond to prevent this rescission from 
happening.
  However, I am not committed to voting for this amendment if it does 
not contain an offset. Since preventing this rescission will add $8.7 
billion in new budget authority, an offset is needed to make its 
budgetary impact neutral. We should make every effort to identify 
offsets to reduce the total size of the economic recovery bill.


                              Brownfields

  Mr. President, I seek recognition to speak on an amendment I am 
offering to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This 
amendment would provide $3 billion for the purpose of redeveloping 
Brownfields and neglected urban properties. The $3 billion would be 
equally divided between the EPA Brownfields Program, the Brownfields 
Economic Development Initiative at the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development and the Urban Development Action Grant Program, also at 
HUD.

[[Page S1674]]

  In 2001, I cosponsored the Brownfield's Revitalization and 
Environmental Restoration Act. This legislation led to the creation of 
the EPA Brownfields Program, and a similar program at the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development.
  Abandoned industrial sites are common blight on the landscape in many 
towns and cities across Pennsylvania and the nation. Turning these 
industrial sites into developments, either for residential or 
commercial use, provides an obvious benefit: an eyesore is replaced by 
a new community, and economic growth is generated.
  Traditional lenders are reluctant to lend initial money to brownfield 
development projects for a number of reasons. Liability concerns, and 
the fact that the cleanup costs may exceed the property's actual value, 
are among them. By providing seed money that redevelopers are often 
unable to obtain from traditional sources, the Brownfield Program spurs 
development and economic growth in struggling regions throughout the 
country.
  It is estimated that every $1 invested in brownfield redevelopment 
leads to $15 to $20 in economic activity. I am told an investment in 
traditional infrastructure yields about $1.56 for every $1 invested. 
The proposed economic stimulus legislation provides $100 million for 
Brownfield redevelopment. Of that amount, the Congressional Budget 
Office projects that 85% could be spent within the two year time frame.
  This number is insufficient. I recently met with a Pennsylvania 
company specializing in brownfields redevelopment. This company alone 
has fifteen projects that could break ground within 120 days if granted 
approximately $280 million in support. These projects alone could 
create tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in economic 
activity.
  The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 85 percent of the 
funding provided by the stimulus could be spent within the 2-year 
window. They base their figure off the historic spending patterns at 
the program.
  In light of the economic benefit of these projects, I recommend that 
we provide $3 billion to these programs.


                               Prompt Pay

  Mr. President, I seek recognition on my amendment to remove the 
prompt pay provision from the calculation of Medicare Part B drug 
pricing.
  The prompt pay discount is a discount from the pharmaceutical 
manufacturer to the wholesaler for prompt payment on prescription 
drugs. The current Medicare payment calculation requires that this 
prompt pay discount be included in the calculation of average sales 
price, which forms the basis for the Medicare drug reimbursement 
provided by the manufacturer. This effectively lowers the average sales 
price thus artificially lowering drug reimbursement to physicians. This 
amendment would remove the prompt pay discount from ASP, requiring CMS 
to reimburse physicians based on the price they actually pay for drugs 
without the inclusion of discounts.
  The reduced payment for Medicare Part B drugs has adversely affected 
physicians since its implementation. This compounded with the current 
economic downturn. is resulting in cancer clinic closings and staff 
layoffs. It is estimated that in medical specialties that have the 
highest usage of Medicare Part B drugs, over 12,000 individuals are at 
risk of losing their jobs. This not only harms the economy, it hurts 
cancer care.
  I am very concerned that the cost of the economic stimulus bill is 
growing too large. To ensure that this does not contribute to that 
growth I am offsetting the cost of this bill by reducing funds to the 
Office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. After the 
estimated cost of this bill of $400 million, the Office of the 
Secretary will still receive $700 million to examine comparative 
clinical effectiveness. I encourage my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we all know how important this legislation 
is to the health of our Nation's economy. I commend the managers of 
this bill for focusing on job creation and projects that are focused on 
America's future. Large-scale infrastructure projects such as new 
schools and better roads and bridges will benefit all of us, but when 
it comes to the men and women tasked with building them, I believe we 
have a responsibility to ensure that those most in need of work are put 
at the front of the line.
  That is why I introduced an amendment to express the sense of the 
Senate that, to the extent possible, contractors using funds made 
available through this act should hire individuals from vulnerable and 
underserved populations. By focusing on helping veterans, at-risk 
youth, low-income people, and those trying to start a new life for 
themselves through a reentry or career training program, we can not 
only help build the future economy, but we can help these individuals 
become sustainable and productive members of that economy. These 
populations have been most affected by the downturn in the economy the 
most--many have lost their homes in the housing crisis or have been 
laid off.
  My amendment also encourages the State and local agencies that 
receive stimulus funds to look to local organizations such as labor 
unions, community groups, and faith--based organizations to help them 
find workers. These groups can serve as an invaluable partner in our 
effort to stimulate the economy. So I ask my colleagues as we debate 
this bill that they stay mindful of the people who need our help the 
most and support my amendment to ensure that we put America back to 
work.


                           Amendment No. 248

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, as part of the debate on the 
the American Economic Recovery Act, I filed amendment No. 248, which 
addresses development and management concerns for the Republican River, 
a river that runs through Colorado, Kansas, and Nebraska and is part of 
the South Platte River Basin. This bipartisan amendment is cosponsored 
by Senator Bennet.
  This amendment was filed to address an issue in Colorado under the 
purview of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, BOR, in the same way that 
the drafters of the bill permitted funding for Arizona and California. 
If funding under the bill to the BOR can be directed to address 
concerns in California and Arizona and not be considered an earmark, 
then similarly, this direction to benefit the South Platte River Basin 
should not be considered an earmark.
  As you know, the language of the bill suggests that $50 million of 
the funds provided in the bill may be transferred to the U.S. 
Department of the Interior for programs, projects and activities 
authorized by the Central Utah Project Completion Act--titles II-V of 
Public Law 102-575; $50 million of the funds provided under this 
heading may be used for programs, projects, and activities authorized 
by the California Bay-Delta Restoration Act, Public Law 108-361.
  In this case, I feel it is important as the senior Senator for 
Colorado to insist that additional funding for the Bureau of 
Reclamation for important job-creating projects in the West ought to be 
handled in an evenhanded way.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak to an amendment to the 
stimulus proposal with Senator Feinstein and Senator Kerry that would 
increase tax incentives for energy efficiency and ensure that we invest 
in the area that can transform our energy policy. Given the state of 
our country, I believe that we must be resolute and visionary in our 
commitment to energy efficiency, an investment that provides both 
short-term benefits and long-term dividends. As a result, today I am 
offering an amendment that will facilitate a revolution toward energy-
efficient buildings.
  One inexcusable legacy of this housing crisis for our future 
generations will be that the vast majority of homes constructed over 
the last 10 years during the housing boom have been inefficient. While 
an inefficient vehicle purchased today may guzzle gasoline for an 
average of 10 years, an inefficient building will require elevated 
levels of energy for as long as 50 years. Therefore, whenever we create 
inefficient buildings, generations to come will be saddled with our 
wasteful energy decisions.
  My amendment today would create and expand tax incentives for 
efficient buildings to levels that would equal the additional 
construction costs for the higher efficient buildings. The amendment 
would raise the tax credit for the construction of a new home from 
$2,000 to $5,000, a provision that the National Association of Home 
Builders estimates could provide 100,000 jobs. In

[[Page S1675]]

fact, the association has written the Finance Committee stating that 
this amendment would ``provide much needed and meaningful expansions to 
two existing tax incentive programs that are helping to improve 
residential energy efficiency in both new and existing homes.''
  This amendment would build on Congress's landmark energy efficiency 
tax credits established in the 2005 Energy Policy Act and continue to 
foster the burgeoning energy efficiency industry to work for homeowners 
who are struggling with energy bills. Specifically this amendment would 
provide a $500 tax credit for individuals to become professional energy 
auditors, experts that can reduce our country's demand for oil, reduce 
carbon emissions, and save our struggling families money on their 
energy bills. In addition, a $200 tax credit is established for 
homeowners to hire these professional energy auditors and analyze the 
deficiencies of an existing home and propose investments that will save 
the taxpayer money. As we move forward with dedicating significant 
resources to energy efficiency in this legislation it is critical that 
we ensure that this funding is utilized effectively by a professional 
energy efficiency industry, and this amendment will accomplish this 
critical goal.
  Finally, the amendment increases the tax credit for energy efficient 
commercial buildings by increasing the deduction from $1.80 per square 
foot to $3.00 per square foot. The original version of the commercial 
buildings tax deduction as passed by the Senate set the deduction to 
$2.25 per square foot, with the critical support of the current Finance 
chairman and ranking member. Adjusting for inflation, this corresponds 
to $3.00 per square foot today with partial compliance increased to 
$1.00 per square foot. These changes would return the deduction to 
viability as it was originally designed and ensure that commercial 
building developers are provided an adequate incentive to pursue energy 
efficiency.
  We must not overlook that an exacerbating factor in the collapse of 
our economy was our exposure to the historic price of foreign oil. With 
estimates that every 1 percent increase in energy prices results in a 
.15 percent drop in aggregate consumer spending, clearly, the United 
States must address this situation with boldness, clarity, and 
foresight and invest in energy efficiency--the low-hanging fruit of a 
new energy era. We must seize this historic opportunity.
  Two weeks ago, a New York Times editorial pointed out that we are an 
extremely energy inefficient economy--the 76th best country in the 
world. This must change if we are to retain our leadership in this 
world. It is a burden to our citizens as well as our small business, 
and unsurprisingly, the Chamber of Commerce wrote to Congress on 
January 14 indicating that energy efficiency should be our first 
priority. We have an opportunity to do that today, and I believe it is 
a serious absence in this recovery package.


                           energy efficiency

  Mr. President, I rise to speak to an amendment with Senators 
Feinstein, Bingaman, and Kerry to improve upon the efficiency standards 
of residential tax credits. As a leader on energy efficiency tax 
credits, I am encouraged to see roughly $4.3 billion in incentives for 
the residential home energy efficient purchases through the 25C tax 
credit. As a longtime leader on efficiency, and as the one who 
spearheaded this landmark energy efficiency tax credits with Senator 
Feinstein, I have strong concerns about the stimulus proposal, which 
must be overhauled to ensure that only the most efficient products 
qualify for this tax credit.
  Of primary concern, the mark extends the 25C tax credit for 
residential property for an additional year through end of 2010 and 
raises the individual cap from $500 to $1500. However, the mark 
critically fails to overhaul the tax credits to reflect technological 
developments that have occurred since we passed this into law four 
years ago. Quite simply, during this period, products have become more 
energy efficient, yet the proposal fails to reflect this indisputable 
point. For example, as a result of technological change nearly all new 
windows, roughly 87 percent, now qualify for this credit. As a result, 
all of these windows will continue to receive a tax credit if this mark 
becomes law.
  My amendment is very simple in that it raises efficiency levels to 
reduce the types of products to only the efficient residential property 
that is available today. I am pleased that Senator Bingaman, the 
chairman of the Energy Committee, as well as Senator Feinstein, a 
longtime leader on transforming our energy policy, will make the tax 
credit more functional and reduce the overall score of the tax 
provision. As the sponsor of this provision in 2005, I can say that I 
believe this amendment returns the tax credit to the original intent of 
this committee when we enacted this credit into law in 2005. Without 
this amendment, I am concerned this tax credit will fail to facilitate 
a transformation to more energy efficient products that will cut energy 
demand and reduce carbon emissions.
  I look forward to working with Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member 
Grassley on this issue and appreciate their continued efforts to work 
with me on energy efficiency tax incentives.
  Mr. BEGICH. Mr. President, America's fisheries are as important to 
our coastal communities as agriculture is to the Nation's breadbasket. 
From New England and the mid-Atlantic to the gulf coast and vast 
Pacific, America's fisheries contribute $185 billion to our Nation's 
wealth, help drive the economy of coastal communities, create jobs for 
harvesters and processing workers, and provides the Nation a source of 
healthy, sustainable--and tasty--seafood.
  That is especially true in my home State, Alaska, which accounts for 
over 55 percent of the Nation's seafood landings, boasts 5 of the top 
10 fishing ports in the Nation, and is the State's largest private 
sector employer, creating jobs that are spread from the largest cities 
to the smallest rural villages.
  Alaska seafood can be found from the Nation's finest white tablecloth 
restaurants to your neighborhood fast food outlet. And Alaska has 
harvested this resource in a sustainable manner. Alaska stocks are 
managed under strict scientific guidelines. None of these species is 
considered overfished.
  Fisheries elsewhere across our Nation face serious challenges from 
overfishing, habitat loss, climate change, and other factors, which is 
why Congress recently strengthened the conservation and management 
provisions in reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation 
Act to end overfishing, reduce bycatch and improve science-based 
management of our fisheries.
  Unfortunately, many of these provisions have not been implemented due 
to a lack of funding. Only a quarter of the species managed by the 
National Marine Fisheries Service have been fully assessed and 
provisions for the monitoring and enforcement of regulations are 
seriously lacking.
  The amendment I propose today would provide and help fulfill the 
intent of Congress, the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean 
Policy, Pew Oceans Commission and others who called for action to 
protect our oceans and the bounty it provides our Nation.
  It provides $39.8 million to help rebuild our Nation's fish stocks. 
Rebuilding the Nation's fisheries would generate approximately $19 
billion in sales and create 27,600 jobs in the harvest sector and 
295,000 jobs in the overall economy.
  It would provide funding for bycatch monitoring, habitat assessment 
and other research relevant to climate change.
  This amendment would provide an effective stimulus to our Nation's 
fishing industry and boost the economy of coastal communities from 
Maine to Alaska. I urge your support of this vital proposition.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lautenberg). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant 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.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have a lot of amendments still pending. I 
have made a decision in conjunction and in cooperation with the 
Republican leader

[[Page S1676]]

that we are going to stop legislating tonight and come back tomorrow, 
come in at 10 o'clock. We will go immediately to the bill. There are a 
number of amendments pending. Other Senators want to offer amendments.
  The main reason I look forward to tomorrow is there are a number of 
Republican Senators working with Democratic Senators trying to come up 
with an alternative proposal. Now, I hope something works out. I know 
everyone is trying in good faith to move this ball down the court. But 
I think we need the night and some time tomorrow to see if we can do 
that. There is paper floating back and forth that is becoming filled 
with numbers, and we all need to take a look at this.
  The work done by the negotiators, as I indicated earlier--about eight 
Republicans, about the same number of Democrats, trying to work toward 
making this a better piece of legislation--is ongoing. If, in fact, we 
find tomorrow that we are spinning our wheels, cannot get something 
done, then we will file cloture and have a Sunday cloture vote.
  Now, Mr. President, I am optimistic we can get something done, and I 
hope that, in fact, is the case. Everyone is going to have to give a 
little and understand that this is a process where we have to move this 
ball down the court. The Republican leader has indicated to me that if 
we get this out of here, we should go to conference. I agree with him. 
That takes a little bit of time, and I would hope we could complete 
this legislation tomorrow. I have hopes, and I am cautiously optimistic 
we can do that.
  So I wish I had all the answers, but the answers are not here 
tonight. I think the answers have been coming forth more rapidly in the 
last few days. I think staying here later tonight would not benefit us. 
We have a number of amendments we could dispose of, but I think we are 
waiting for the big amendment that has been worked on now for all this 
week.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield for an 
inquiry?
  Mr. REID. I will be happy to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Then am I correct in assuming we would continue to 
process other amendments tomorrow----
  Mr. REID. Absolutely.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Because there are a number over here, and I understand 
you have some as well--while these discussions are going on?
  Mr. REID. Yes. We will come in at 10 o'clock. The managers of the 
bill should be here. We will go directly to the legislation. There will 
be votes. We could have votes early in the morning because there are 
amendments right now pending that the manager on this side could move 
to table, setting up a string of votes. But the answer to the 
Republican leader is, yes, we will process amendments.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________