[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 26 (Monday, February 9, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1992-S2024]
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 Collins-Nelson (NE)) amendment No. 570, in the 
     nature of a substitute.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 5:30 will be equally divided and controlled between the leaders 
or their designees.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, Senator Baucus is my designee.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Senator Baucus is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, this afternoon the Senate returns to its 
7th day of work on this important jobs bill. The case for this bill 
continues to grow stronger every day. Last week, for example, we 
learned that 3.6 million Americans have lost their jobs since this 
recession began--3.6 million Americans have lost their jobs. The 
unemployment rate has risen to 7.6 percent and it is rising. Job losses 
appear to be accelerating.
  Last year, more than 3 million families lost their homes to 
foreclosure--3 million families in 1 year--and many more foreclosures 
appear to lie ahead.
  We face the worst economic disaster in the lifetimes of most 
Americans alive today. History will judge how we respond and let us not 
let this Nation down.
  In the late 1920s and early 1930s, there were those who questioned 
vigorous Government response. There were those who fretted about short-
term deficit. We were spending too much, they said. History has not 
judged them kindly.
  Rather, the consensus of economists came to agree with the great 
British economist, John Maynard Keynes. Keynes argued that in times of 
high and rising unemployment, the Government has an important job to 
do. The Government must make up for lagging demand in the private 
sector, he said, and the Keynesian school teaches the best way to 
increase demand is to get money in the hands of those most likely to 
spend it quickly.
  It is true some economists questioned the Keynesian consensus, but 
those questioners are very much on the fringe of economic thinking. The 
mainstream--by far the mainstream is that we have to use public money 
to help pull us out of recession.
  Our time of testing is upon us. The broad consensus of economic 
analysis informs us what to do. The question before us is now one of 
political will. Will this generation have the courage to confront the 
economic storm of our time or will this generation be like that which 
preceded the New Deal? Will our generation, by its inaction, be found 
wanting or will our generation rise to the challenge of our times?
  The path to address this crisis lies ahead of us today. At about 5:30 
p.m. this evening this Senate will conduct a rollcall vote on the 
motion to invoke cloture on the Collins-Nelson substitute. That 
substitute is the best clear chance for the Nation to respond to the 
economic crisis we face.
  Under the previous order, if the Senate invokes cloture on the 
amendment, then the Senate will be able to complete action on this bill 
with a vote at 12 noon tomorrow. If a Senator raises a budget point of 
order against the amendment, then the Senate will vote tomorrow on a 
motion to waive that point of order; otherwise, under the previous 
order, the adoption of the amendment will still be subject to a 60-vote 
threshold, and the Senate would then vote on passage of the bill. 
Either way, the Senate faces two 60-vote hurdles for this important 
legislation, one this evening at 5:30 and another tomorrow at noon.
  That familiar arithmetic dictates the path before us. The amendment 
before us provides the one clear chance to surmount that 60-vote 
hurdle. The Collins-Nelson substitute provides an opportunity for 
Congress to respond and respond quickly, swiftly. Let us take that 
opportunity.
  The Collins-Nelson substitute is a principled compromise. Yes, if I 
had my way, I would have written it differently. I brought a slightly 
different bill to the floor on behalf of the Finance Committee. But the 
substitute makes the change we need so as to allow the broad consensus 
we need to pass this bill. In the Collins-Nelson substitute, we agreed 
to trim the underlying bill. But I am pleased the compromise does not 
sacrifice the main thrust of the bill.
  So what is the compromise? The Collins-Nelson substitute would trim 
the COBRA subsidy--that is the health subsidy for persons who lose 
their jobs and therefore lose their health insurance. It would provide 
a 50-percent subsidy for 12 months for the purchase of health insurance 
for those who have lost their jobs. This saves $5 billion. The 
agreement trims the health information technology proposal. It would 
cap the amount of funds that a critical access hospital can receive 
under the health IT provisions at 1.5 million per hospital. This change 
saves $5 million per hospital.
  The Collins-Nelson substitute also cuts back on some of the tax 
incentives. The agreement eliminates the general credit carry-back 
provision, saving about $9 billion.
  The agreement trims the recovery zone bonds by providing $10 billion 
in private activity bonds and $5 billion in refundable credit bonds. 
The agreement provides a 35-percent tax credit for Build America bonds 
for 2009 and 2010, with a 40 percent tax credit for small issuers. This 
change saves $2 billion.
  The Collins-Nelson substitute trims the number of people eligible for 
the make work pay credit by beginning the phase out of the credit at 
$70,000 in annual income for singles and at $140,000

[[Page S1993]]

in annual income for couples. This change saves $2 billion.
  And the refundable child tax credit threshold is decreased to $8,100, 
saving $3 billion.
  Other than these changes, the underlying tax provisions are 
essentially intact. The bill remains a balanced approach to getting our 
economy back on track.
  The bill would continue to provide more than $300 billion in tax cuts 
for individuals. The bill would help working families with the make 
work pay. Seniors, disabled vets, and SSI recipients would receive a 
one-time payment of $300.
  Families with children would also get help. The bill would still 
expand the earned-income tax credit and the refundable child tax 
credit. Families would still get benefits for college with the American 
opportunity tax credit and the expansion of 529 college savings plans.
  The bill would expand the homeownership tax credit beyond first-time 
homeowners and double the amount of the credit. For those receiving 
unemployment benefits, the first $2,400 would not be taxed as income.
  There are also tax incentives for commuters and those buying 
automobiles.
  The bill would also provide a 2009 AMT patch, so that people can keep 
the tax cuts they receive.
  The bill contains $18.4 billion for businesses. There are several 
provisions geared toward small businesses. The bill extends bonus 
depreciation and 179 expensing. The bill also decreases the S-Corp 
holding period from 10 years to 7 years for built-in gains.
  The bill would allow businesses to take accumulated AMT and R&D 
credits in cash in lieu of bonus depreciation. The bill provides a 
delayed recognition of certain cancellation of debt income. Net 
operating losses can be carried back 5 years instead of 2.
  The bill still provides more than $19 billion in energy tax 
incentives.
  These incentives will create green jobs producing the next generation 
of renewable energy sources, wind, solar, geothermal, spur development 
of alternatives, and help to combat climate change by reducing our use 
of carbon-emitting fuels.
  The bill would extend and modify the renewable energy production tax 
credit for qualifying facilities, in order to make the credit more 
useable in the economic environment.
  The bill includes additional funding for clean renewable energy bonds 
to finance facilities that generate electricity from renewable 
resources and conservation bonds for States to use to reduce greenhouse 
gas emissions.
  Energy efficiency is often cited as the low-hanging fruit, the 
easiest way for us to reduce our energy consumption and greenhouse gas 
emissions.
  We have included incentives for energy efficiency. The value of the 
existing credit for energy efficient homes is increased and the 
limitations on specific energy-efficient property are eliminated. The 
credits for various types of energy efficient property, for both 
residential and business, are extended.
  The bill has two new tax credits designed to spur our alternative 
energy and production.
  The advanced energy research and development credit provides an 
enhanced 20 percent R&D credit for research expenditures incurred in 
the fields of fuel cells, energy storage, renewable energy, energy 
conservation technology, efficient transmission and distribution of 
electricity, and carbon capture and sequestration.
  The second tax credit is an advanced energy investment credit for 
facilities engaged in the manufacture of advanced energy property.
  These energy tax incentives will help to keep our alternative energy 
sector moving forward as we confront the growing demand for clean, 
renewable energy.
  The bill would provide recovery provisions totaling $9.6 billion. The 
bill would provide for several types of bonds to help depressed areas, 
including recovery zone bonds, tribal economic development bonds, high 
speed rail bonds, and broadband bonds. The new markets tax credit would 
be extended. The bill would accelerate the low-income housing tax 
credit.
  The bill would also provide $14.3 billion in help for municipal bond 
markets. This recovery bill includes changes that will free up this 
market, unlocking cash for infrastructure investment.
  Banks would be able to inject more capital into projects, creating 
demand for municipal bonds, and driving down interest rates. And 
increasing the small issuer exception would increase the range of 
municipalities from whom banks could buy.
  The bill would also eliminate tax-exempt interest on private activity 
bonds as a preference item under the alternative minimum tax. This 
change would draw new investors and help stabilize the market.
  The legislation would also establish parity for tribal governments on 
$2 billion of tax exempt bonds. This important change would put Tribal 
governments on equal footing with other government issuers.
  The bill would maintain the new tax-credit bond option, giving State 
and local governments a new tool to finance infrastructure projects.
  The bill would also eliminate the 3 percent withholding requirement 
for Government contractors.
  The tax components of the bill are diversified. They would spur our 
economy from several directions.
  On health matters, the Collins-Nelson substitute preserves much of 
the health IT investment that the original bill proposed. These sound 
investments will pay dividends in the future. They would reduce health 
care costs and improve health care quality.
  The health IT provisions preserved in this bill will also help 
patients to make better decisions about their health care. I am pleased 
that these provisions remain intact. And the provisions have been 
improved by the amendments offered by Senator Enzi last week.
  The Collins-Nelson substitute also maintains the important 
protections that we provided in the original bill to State Medicaid 
programs. As we heard in the floor debate, the rise in unemployment has 
placed significant strain on Medicaid.
  Decreased revenue coming in means less money to fund Medicaid. And 
experts warn that every percentage point increase in unemployment adds 
1 million more people to the Medicaid and CHIP rolls.
  The substitute before us today would provide much-needed relief to 
every State through a temporary increase in the Federal share of 
Medicaid funding. This funding would prevent States from making further 
cuts to a program that is already in dire circumstances due to the 
economic downturn.
  And the substitute also preserved the critical extension of emergency 
unemployment benefits. It also maintains the improvements to our 
unemployment insurance program by increasing and extending benefits to 
those currently looking for work.
  A key component of the economic recovery package helps unemployed 
workers maintain their health coverage. When workers lose their jobs, 
they lose more than their paychecks. They often lose their health 
insurance coverage, as well. Losing job-based health insurance can have 
tragic consequences.
  The initial proposal provided a 65-percent subsidy for COBRA coverage 
for up to 9 months. The Collins-Nelson substitute shaved that coverage 
back to a 50-percent subsidy for 12 months. By doing so, we saved $5 
billion.
  I am concerned that a 50-percent subsidy might not provide enough 
relief. In the future, I will look for ways to maximize participation 
in this program for people who want to keep their health coverage.
  But the product before us today is the result of principled and 
bipartisan negotiation. This is a compromise across the aisle in the 
finest tradition of the Senate.
  But we do not have time to waste. We must act quickly to pass the 
Collins-Nelson substitute. We must work quickly with the House in 
conference to reach consensus and put this bill on the President's desk 
without delay.
  Let us not repeat the dithering of the late 1920s and early 1930s. 
Let us summon the courage to confront the economic challenge of our 
times. And when the roll is called this evening, let us invoke cloture 
on the Collins-Nelson substitute.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask the manager, I assume we will 
continue

[[Page S1994]]

the practice we have been pursuing of going back to either side and 
that any time in quorum call will come off the times of both sides?
  Mr. BAUCUS. That would be my intention.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the manager.
  I would like to say for the benefit of my colleagues on this side of 
the aisle that----
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. If the Senator would suspend, I 
have been informed there is no such unanimous consent agreement. If 
Senators would like to get that into the order, it would be appropriate 
at this time.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
remaining allocated to this bill be equally divided and that all time 
in quorum calls be charged equally to each side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona has the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, obviously, if we have Members from that 
side who are waiting and none are on this side, we will adjust that, as 
we have the last several days. I thank the Senator from Montana for all 
of his courtesies in making sure we have had balanced debate on this 
very important issue.
  Also, I would like to say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle 
that speakers from my side, if they would come to the floor, I think 
there would be time to recognize them. We have signed up Senators Kyl, 
Enzi, Alexander, Inhofe, Thune, Graham, Chambliss, Bond, Sessions, and 
Coburn. If others wish to speak, if they would notify the cloakroom.
  Madam President, many of my colleagues are claiming that the 
``compromise bipartisan bill'' that is before us is a product and 
result of serious negotiations, and it is neither. It is neither 
bipartisan nor is it a compromise. It is not bipartisan in that 3 
Republican Senators, after not a single Republican Member of the other 
body, the House of Representatives, plus 11 Democrats voted against 
this legislation.
  Now, there continues to be touted that there were meetings that 
Republican Senators attended. There are meetings that take place all 
the time, all the time around here. There are meetings, both informal 
and conversations about it. But the fact is, we ended up with 3 
Republican Members of Congress out of 178 in the House and 40 here in 
the Senate. So it is not ``bipartisan.'' To say otherwise belies 
history.
  I am proud to have been a member of a number of bipartisan 
resolutions of issues that have come before this body, whether it be 
the Gang of 14, on campaign finance reform, or whether it be on other 
important issues as far as national security and other issues are 
concerned. That is when Republicans and Democrats have sat down 
together and came out in equal numbers--roughly equal numbers--to 
achieve bipartisan agreement.
  This is not a bipartisan agreement. This is three Members of the 
Senate--none on the House side--who have joined Democrats for a 
partisan agreement. It is unfortunate that has happened because we are 
now committing an act of generational theft. We are robbing future 
generations of Americans of their hard-earned dollars because we are 
laying on them a debt of incredible proportions. We have already 
amassed over a $10 trillion debt. Apparently, we will pass this 
legislation, which is another, when you count the interest, about $1.1 
trillion dollars.
  The House is about to take up a $400 billion Omnibus appropriations 
bill. It has been put off until tomorrow, probably wisely. The 
Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Geithner, is going to recommend 
somewhere around $\1/2\ trillion to $1 trillion for another TARP 
package. So we are talking about trillions of dollars.
  This morning, one of my colleagues, the Senator from New York, Mr. 
Schumer, said: ``Why quibble over $200 million?''
  I am not sure the American people would agree.
  What has been the result of this compromise? Ten out of hundreds 
eliminated items: $34 million to renovate the Commerce Department; $100 
million for governmentwide supercomputers; $14 million for cyber 
security; $55 million for historic preservation; $20 million for Bureau 
of Indian Affairs; $5.8 billion for prevention wellness programs, $870 
million for pandemic flu; $16 million for school improvement programs, 
construction; $3.5 billion for higher education facilities; $2.25 
billion for a neighborhood stabilization program. Ten have been 
eliminated from the hundreds which totals $12.6 billion of the $140 
billion being touted as having been cut from the more than $900 billion 
bill. What we have done is, we have eliminated 10 items, reduced 
others, which will probably be restored, reaching basically the same 
level, a ``compromise'' of about $827 billion which is a little more 
than that passed by the House of Representatives. The total is over a 
trillion dollars.
  Both the distinguished majority leader and the Senator from Montana 
have emphasized the need for speed, that we have to act quickly, right 
away. We will, I am sure, because a seminal moment was when the two or 
three Republican Senators announced they would vote for this package. 
So it is a matter of time.
  Last week, the overseer of TARP I announced there had been $76 
billion wasted in paying for assets over their actual value. We acted 
in speed, with haste, and it cost the taxpayers $76 billion.
  Again, this is an unusual circumstance we are in. These circumstances 
we all appreciate. We appreciate the fact that millions of Americans 
are without a job, without health insurance, without the ability to 
educate themselves and their children, and without the ability to stay 
in their homes. We need to act. We need to act responsibly.
  It is being said that every economist says we need to adopt this 
package. That is not true. I even hear one of my advisers during the 
campaign, Marty Feldstein's name, being mentioned as being for this 
package.
  I ask unanimous consent that Martin Feldstein's Washington Post op-ed 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From washingtonpost.com, Jan. 29, 2009]

                        An $800 Billion Mistake

                         (By Martin Feldstein)

       As a conservative economist, I might be expected to oppose 
     a stimulus plan. In fact, on this page in October, I declared 
     my support for a stimulus. But 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. 
     It would be better for the Senate to delay legislation for a 
     month, or even two, if that's what it takes to produce a much 
     better bill. We cannot afford an $800 billion mistake.
       Start with the tax side. The plan is to give a tax cut of 
     $500 a year for two years to each employed person. That's not 
     a good way to increase consumer spending. Experience shows 
     that the money from such temporary, lump-sum tax cuts is 
     largely saved or used to pay down debt. Only about 15 percent 
     of last year's tax rebates led to additional spending.
       The proposed business tax cuts are also likely to do little 
     to increase business investment and employment. The extended 
     loss ``carrybacks'' are primarily lump-sum payments to 
     selected companies. The bonus depreciation plan would do 
     little to raise capital spending in the current environment 
     of weak demand because the tax benefits in the early years 
     would be recaptured later.
       Instead, the tax changes should focus on providing 
     incentives to households and businesses to increase current 
     spending. Why not a temporary refundable tax credit to 
     households that purchase cars or other major consumer 
     durables, analogous to the investment tax credit for 
     businesses? Or a temporary tax credit for home improvements? 
     In that way, the same total tax reduction could produce much 
     more spending and employment.
       Postponing the scheduled increase in the tax on dividends 
     and capital gains would raise share prices, leading to 
     increased consumer spending and, by lowering the cost of 
     capital, more business investment.
       On the spending side, the stimulus package is full of well-
     intended items that, unfortunately, are not likely to do much 
     for employment. Computerizing the medical records of every 
     American over the next five years is desirable, but it is not 
     a cost-effective way to create jobs. Has anyone gone through 
     the (long) list of proposed appropriations and asked how many 
     jobs each would create per dollar of increased national debt?
       The largest proposed outlays amount to just writing 
     unrestricted checks to state governments. Nearly $100 billion 
     would result from increasing the ``Medicaid matching rate,'' 
     a technique for reducing states' Medicaid costs to free up 
     state money for spending on anything governors and state 
     legislators want. An additional $80 billion would be

[[Page S1995]]

     given out for ``state fiscal relief.'' Will these vast sums 
     actually lead to additional spending, or will they merely 
     finance state transfer payments or relieve state governments 
     of the need for temporary tax hikes or bond issues?
       The plan to finance health insurance premiums for the 
     unemployed would actually increase unemployment by giving 
     employers an incentive to lay off workers rather than pay 
     health premiums during a time of weak demand. And this 
     supposedly two-year program would create a precedent that 
     could be hard to reverse.
       A large fraction of the stimulus proposal is devoted to 
     infrastructure projects that will spend out very slowly, not 
     with the speed needed to help the economy in 2009 and 2010. 
     The Congressional Budget Office estimates that less than one-
     fifth of the $50 billion of proposed spending on energy and 
     water would occur by the end of 2010.
       If rapid spending on things that need to be done is a 
     criterion of choice, the plan should include higher defense 
     outlays, including replacing and repairing supplies and 
     equipment, needed after five years of fighting. The military 
     can increase its level of procurement very rapidly. Yet the 
     proposed spending plan includes less than $5 billion for 
     defense, only about one-half of 1 percent of the total 
     package.
       Infrastructure spending on domestic military bases can also 
     proceed more rapidly than infrastructure spending in the 
     civilian economy. And military procurement overwhelmingly 
     involves American-made products. Since much of this military 
     spending will have to be done eventually, it makes sense to 
     do it now, when there is substantial excess capacity in the 
     manufacturing sector. In addition, a temporary increase in 
     military recruiting and training would reduce unemployment 
     directly, create a more skilled civilian workforce and expand 
     the military reserves.
       All new spending and tax changes should have explicit time 
     limits that prevent ever-increasing additions to the national 
     debt. Similarly, spending programs should not create 
     political dynamics that will make them hard to end.
       The problem with the current stimulus plan is not that it 
     is too big but that it delivers too little extra employment 
     and income for such a large fiscal deficit. It is worth 
     taking the time to get it right.

  Mr. McCAIN. The Washington Post op-ed is entitled ``An $800 Billion 
Mistake.'' Martin Feldstein and many other economists believe this is 
an $800 billion mistake. He says:

       On the spending side, the stimulus package is full of well-
     intended items that, unfortunately, are not likely to do much 
     for employment. Computerizing the medical records of every 
     American over the next 5 years is desirable, but it is not a 
     cost-effective way to create jobs. Has anyone gone through 
     the long list of proposed appropriations and asked how many 
     jobs each would create per dollar of increased national debt?

  Well, since Mr. Feldstein wrote that column, the Congressional Budget 
Office did, indeed, go through the list. They found out it would 
increase between now and the bill then, which has been changed somewhat 
but basically will end up over a trillion dollars, it says it would 
increase employment at that point in time by 1.3 million to 3.9 million 
jobs. At $885 billion, 1.3 million jobs would work out to $680,769 per 
job. And at 3.9 million jobs, the cost would be $226,923 per job.
  Several of my colleagues have celebrated the reduced cost of the 
compromise from $885 billion to $827 billion. So let's do the math for 
that amount. It is only $636,154 per job for 1.3 million jobs, and 
$212,000 for 3.9 million jobs created. If you add the cost of interest 
to the total for the compromise, we have $1.175 trillion.
  There are numerous policy changes which have nothing to do with jobs 
in this bill. This legislation was delivered to our office at 11 
o'clock on Saturday night. My staff has been hard at work scrubbing 
this bill, 778 pages, I believe, for the changes. One of them that is 
very interesting, which has been added, is a new, far-reaching policy 
with respect to unemployment compensation. Specifically, the title is 
Unemployment Compensation Moderation. It would allow a person to 
collect unemployment insurance for leaving his or her job to take care 
of an immediate family member's illness, any illness or disability as 
defined by the Secretary of Labor. This was originally sponsored 
legislation in the 110th Congress and did not succeed. Each State would 
need to amend their unemployment insurance in order to receive $7 
billion in funds.
  Again, that may be a laudable goal to fundamentally change 
unemployment compensation. What in the world is it doing on what is 
supposed to be an economic stimulus package?
  I see my friend from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, is here. I will conclude. 
This is neither bipartisan nor is it a compromise. It is generational 
theft, because we rejected a proposal on this side to establish a 
trigger that when our economy improves, we would be on a path to a 
balanced budget and reducing spending. These spending programs will 
remain with no way of paying for them. What are we doing to future 
generations of Americans? We need a stimulus package. We need to create 
jobs. We certainly don't need to lay a multitrillion dollar debt on 
future generations of Americans, once our economy has improved.
  We found out when we received 44 votes on a triggering mechanism what 
a lot of this is all about. It is increasing spending, increasing the 
role of government in a Draconian and unprecedented fashion, and laying 
a debt on future generations of Americans of many trillions of dollars. 
I urge colleagues to rethink their position. I still believe if it had 
not been a process that started with ``we won and we wrote the bill,'' 
we could have had a truly bipartisan approach which the majority of 
Americans would not only support but benefit from.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, it is worth repeating until it is 
understood: According to CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation, 99 
percent of all the Finance Committee bill is spent in the first 2 
years. If we add the whole bill together, the Finance Committee portion 
and the Appropriations Committee portion, 79 percent is spent in the 
first 2 years. This is an approach to get money spent quickly.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does Senator McCain yield time to 
Senator Enzi?
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from 
Wyoming.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming is 
recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent that the following speakers on the 
Republican side be recognized for up to 10 minute each, in no 
designated order, with the remaining time under the control of Senator 
Grassley: Senators Kyl, Alexander, Inhofe, Thune, Graham, Chambliss, 
Bond, Sessions, and Coburn.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I have to say it: The emperor has no 
clothes. Somebody has to say it. I am referring to this additional 
bailout, a spending bill that spends everything we have on nothing we 
are sure about. I have watched with dismay and disgust as this stimulus 
ballooned from $800 billion to more than $930 billion in only 4 days of 
debate. Today my colleagues tell me I am supposed to be giddy that we 
are only spending $827 billion. Frankly, I have had enough of this 
bailout baloney. Members from both sides of the aisle are taking 
advantage of taxpayer shell shock and a strident sense of national 
urgency to pump the recovery package with wasteful spending and 
unending tax provisions that blatantly fail a crucial yet simple test 
set by my Democratic colleagues--that the provisions of the stimulus 
bill would be targeted, timely, and, most important, temporary.
  For example, this bill includes billions of new money for Federal 
agencies. Presumably these agencies will hire new workers. What happens 
at the end of the fiscal year when the funding for these new hires goes 
away? Will these new jobs be eliminated? Of course not. We never do. 
Lawmakers simply come back to the well in a few months and exert even 
more pressure to maintain the new programs and keep these new jobs and 
keep the bloated spending that supports them. There is nothing 
temporary about that kind of spending.
  There is also nothing temporary about much of the programmatic 
spending included in this bill either. For example, the compromise 
includes $13.9 billion in additional funding for Pell grants to help 
college students pay for college costs. I am a strong supporter of Pell 
grants. But we provide funding for them in the normal appropriations 
process which, incidentally, we haven't passed last October's 
appropriations yet. I always wonder when we will get around to doing 
that. We are

[[Page S1996]]

kidding ourselves that after the stimulus bill, we will be able to 
return Pell grants to their prestimulus level. If we try to go back to 
that level, we will be accused of making college unaffordable. The same 
goes for the IDEA Program. It receives $13 billion in the compromise to 
improve education for disabled children. We are all for improving 
education for disabled children. But if we suggest that the IDEA 
Program go to a prestimulus level, we will be accused of cutting 
funding for disabled children. They are both good programs, but they 
should be funded in the normal appropriations process because they are 
not temporary spending increases. That is $26.9 billion with only those 
two. That used to be big money around here.
  While this bill does not include traditional earmarks, we should all 
understand that there are earmarks in this bill. There is $850 
million--just millions, nothing--to bail out Amtrak; a $75 million 
earmark for the Smithsonian, a $1 billion earmark for the 2010 census.

  In addition to that, thousands of the projects that will be funded 
from this bill are what the American people would consider to be 
earmarks. For example, the compromise includes $1.2 billion for Byrne 
grants that will go to local law enforcement agencies to be spent on 
basically whatever they desire. This bill is not a stimulus package; it 
is another bloated appropriations package. That is another $3 billion 
that used to be real money around here. I wish I had time to cover the 
thousands of other spending ideas we would not fund in the past. Time 
does not allow it when you are talking about $800 billion.
  I think it is ironic that Congress spent last fall criticizing 
subprime mortgage lenders who sold overvalued homes to people who could 
not afford them--and created this mess we are in--when we are 
committing that very same sin today in this ``stimulus'' bill. This 
Chamber is guilty of trying to sell an overvalued, bloated spending 
bill to taxpayers who can ill-afford the price tag. But unlike those 
homeowners who just left the keys and closed the front door, the 
American taxpayer does not have that option of just walking away when 
this bill comes due.
  It is time to admit that, just like many Americans, the Federal 
Government has maxed out its credit card. But while most Americans are 
wisely trimming the fat in their budgets, reexamining their spending 
patterns, and focusing on what is truly essential, Congress has not 
smartened up yet. Now is not the time to put every politician's 
Christmas wish list on the Government credit card.
  We are already approaching the debt ceiling with alarming speed. In 
fact, I will bet most Americans do not know that buried deep in this 
stimulus bill is the increase to $12.1 trillion in the Federal debt 
limit. Let me repeat that: a $12.1 trillion debt limit. And that is on 
top of the trillions already set as a debt ceiling.
  The American people want Congress to act now, to act with urgency. 
They say we do not have time to wait. Well, that is what the party in 
charge is telling us. My reply is, do we have time to get it right? The 
American people do not want us to go fast for the sake of being fast. 
They want us to solve the problem, and they want a solution that makes 
sense to them. That is what will give the American people confidence, 
and confident American people are going to make our economy better, not 
the Federal Government throwing their money around with reckless 
abandon.
  Do not get me wrong, I understand the immediate need to jump-start 
our economy. The employment numbers released last week were stark 
evidence that jobs continue to disappear at a fearsome pace. People are 
frightened, and they feel they have nowhere to turn. But in steering a 
ship through a crisis such as this, Americans need to be confident that 
the lawmakers have a steady hand on the tiller and a firm eye on the 
horizon. And it is clear from the sinking poll numbers that this 
stimulus bill gives them no such confidence. Americans have had enough 
bailout baloney too. What we need is a new plan and a new approach.
  Alice Rivlin, a former OMB and CBO Director, suggested we split this 
bill into smaller pieces. I agree, and some of my colleagues agree too. 
Our first priority should be an antirecession package that can be both 
enacted and spent quickly. Elements of this bill should meet very 
strict criteria: The funds must spend out completely or expire by the 
end of this calendar year; the funds cannot be used to support 
permanent obligations such as entitlements or operating budgets; and 
the funds must be targeted at specific needs.
  A second, separate set of packages could be considered without the 
same urgency after the completion of the antirecession package. These 
smaller bills would include funds for long-run investments that are not 
needed to enhance the future growth and productivity of the economy, 
including infrastructure investment, education, and worker retraining. 
I have been trying to get that through for 4 years.
  Rushing this type of spending through, as we are doing in this bill 
today, ensures that mistakes will be made, plans will be poorly 
crafted, and precious taxpayer money will be wasted. This bill's 
ability to create jobs is dubious at best.
  When combined with the outrageous cost of past bailouts for Wall 
Street and the automakers and bailouts we are told are yet to come for 
the banking and housing sectors, the only sure thing about this bill is 
that taxes are going up for everybody--working Americans; senior 
citizens; businesses small and large; and, as we have mentioned all 
along, our children and grandchildren. No one will be spared the cost 
of this stealth expansion of the welfare state. I simply cannot support 
a future tax increase the size this bill implies and will need. I plan 
to oppose this bloated bailout, and I urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I just want to remind my good friends on 
the other side, this bill also cuts taxes by $300 billion. It is a tax 
cut. My colleagues love tax cuts. This bill cuts taxes by $300 billion.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask the Senator from Montana, he does 
not like tax cuts?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Very much I like tax cuts.
  Mr. McCAIN. Good.
  Mr. BAUCUS. But I might say, all I hear is complaints. I know the 
Senators on the other side like tax cuts, but they do not talk about 
the good stuff in this bill. There is a lot that is good about this 
bill, and it would just be great if they would talk about some of the 
good provisions as well because I know all my colleagues like tax cuts, 
including my dear friends on the other side of the aisle.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I urge my colleagues on both sides who 
wish to speak to come over and speak.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I will yield to the Senator from 
California such time as she desires.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. I thank my good friend.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Baucus). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank you so much, I say to the Presiding Officer, the 
chairman of the Finance Committee, the Senator from Montana, for giving 
me this time and also for your very strong leadership on this very 
important bill.
  I think, as I listened to the Senator from Montana this morning, he 
laid out the case for this bill better than I have heard, frankly, from 
anyone in

[[Page S1997]]

the most clear fashion. When somebody tells you something is very 
complicated and you do not understand it, do not believe it.
  There is a very simple, cogent, important, urgent reason for this 
bill: We need to save jobs, we need to create jobs, because if we do 
not, at the rate we are shedding jobs in this country, we are going to 
be headed for not a deep recession but perhaps even worse than that. My 
friend who is presiding pointed out that 3.6 million jobs were lost 
last year. How can anyone possibly turn away from that fact?
  Saturday, I spoke on this bill and the need for it, and I had a 
picture of 1,000 people in Florida showing up at a job fair for 35 
firefighter jobs--1,000 people. It looked almost like a rock concert--
all these young people trying to get in line and fill out the forms for 
these jobs. The police had to come in--everyone was calm--just to make 
sure it was an orderly process.
  My friend from Montana pointed out that history will judge us on how 
we act right now. Again, just to keep it simple and focused, there are 
three things we can do. One, do nothing. Doing nothing, to me, is 
action. It is action for the status quo. Doing nothing, to me, is a 
hostile act on the American people. Doing nothing, from my mind, is 
closing our eyes to the election that was just held, an election that 
said: We need change.
  Now, what else could we do? We could pass a perfect bill. Trust me 
when I tell you, I can write one perfect for me. The Senator from 
Montana can write the bill perfect for him. The Senator from Arizona, 
who is leading the opposition--and, by the way, Senator McCain, I am 
pleased he is out here doing that because I think the people in America 
understand the difference between Senator McCain's approach and 
President Obama's approach, and this debate is about that, make no 
mistake. So Senator McCain could write the perfect bill.
  (Mrs. HAGAN assumed the Chair.)
  I see Senator Hagan has come to the Chamber. She could write the 
perfect bill. Each of us could write the perfect bill for us. And guess 
what. If we each stood up here and said: My way or the highway, there 
would be no bill, and therefore we would have nothing. Nothing is, in 
my mind, a hostile act on the American people.
  Then there is a third choice: a compromise, a compromise plan that 
has been put together by Democratic Senators on our side and several 
Republican Senators on the other side. Now, for the life of me, I do 
not understand how anyone can say that is not bipartisan. Of course it 
is bipartisan.
  Let me be clear, our Republican friends are filibustering this bill. 
We could get 58 votes for this bill. We know that. That would be a 
strong majority. We do not have 60, and we need Republicans to help us. 
Several have stepped forward, and I thanked them so much the other day, 
and I repeat it again.
  So the three choices we have: do nothing is one choice, in the face 
of these horrific job losses and layoffs continuing--and in my State of 
California, I put in the Record Saturday company after company after 
company laying off, pulling in, fearful--we could do nothing; we could 
have the perfect bill, which means that each of us will fight for that 
perfect bill--maybe we can get one or two others to agree it is 
perfect--or we can have a compromise bill. That is what is before us.
  So just remember, if someone tells you this is not bipartisan, they 
are not telling you the truth because if they did not filibuster us, we 
could pass a bill with 51 votes. They are forcing us to get 60 votes; 
therefore, we must get Republicans to support us.
  Passing this compromise means we get to conference with the House. 
Now, that is going to be a very tough conference, and my friend from 
Montana knows better than anyone how tough it will be.
  I want to send a message to my friends in the House of 
Representatives: I know how you feel. I know things were left out of 
this compromise that you desperately want in this bill. But I will say, 
you should fight for that, but at the end of the day, again, go back to 
the three options: doing nothing, doing the perfect bill, or doing the 
compromise. My kids always say to me, ``You are where you are.'' And we 
know where we are. We are in the middle of a filibuster. We have 58 
Democrats, and we need to pick up Republican support, and we have done 
so.

  Now, I have to again point out to my colleagues why I feel my 
Republican friends are being just a little bit disingenuous when they 
shed bitter tears about the debt. Let's face facts. I didn't see those 
bitter tears during the Bush years. We went from $5 trillion in debt to 
$10 trillion in debt. Now they are very worried about another $800 
billion. I understand they are worried. We didn't like the debt either, 
and we don't like the debt. When we were in charge with Bill Clinton, 
we got that debt down. We turned deficits into surpluses. We know how 
to do that, and we will get our economic house in order. We have done 
it before. When the first President Bush handed us billions of dollars 
in deficits and trillions in debt, we worked on balancing that budget, 
and we handed George Bush a budget surplus--we Democrats did--a budget 
surplus. Now the debt is $1 trillion, and our friends on the other side 
cry about it.
  There is a cartoon in the paper today that was given to me, if I can 
find it. I remember it. Oh, here it is. It is called ``Deficit 
Patrol.'' It is frame after frame of Republicans sleeping through the 
increase in the debt. They slept through billions of dollars in tax 
cuts; never said a word about the debt. Those tax cuts were to their 
friends, the highest earners. They slept through billions in debt to 
invade Iraq, billions more for oil and gas subsidies, billions more for 
Iraq, and this thing goes on and on. They kept snoozing through the 
debt. The debt doubled. As a result of their action, every man, woman, 
and child in America carries an additional $17,000 of debt because of 
the war in Iraq, subsidies to oil and gas, and because of tax cuts to 
the very wealthy. Suddenly, now--when it is time to help working 
families and invest in them and in our schools and rebuilding our 
infrastructure and creating jobs--suddenly they wake up and say: Do you 
have any idea what that will do to the debt?
  Look, I support my friends on the other side having the right to do 
whatever they want to stop this bill, but I will tell my colleagues 
what is hard for me: to have these tears about the debt when all 
through the Bush era we had an open checkbook for Iraq, an open 
checkbook for the wealthiest Americans, and nobody cared about the 
debt. Nobody cared. Nobody cared about the deficits on the other side. 
We never had this conversation.
  What I want to say is, we certainly learned from the depression era; 
that when times are as rough as these times are, we must act. We must 
act. Now, it is sad to say we don't have a surplus, that we don't have 
the debt on the way down, but that is the way it is. You are where you 
are. So we can either do nothing, do the perfect bill, or do the 
compromise.
  So I would say to every Member of the Senate and every Member of 
Congress that we need to work together. I watched President Obama and 
just a little bit of his townhall meeting. He is out there and he is 
answering questions--some tough ones too--about why this is necessary, 
and he makes the point. He said: People go to the floor in Congress, in 
the House and the Senate, and they say: Oh, my goodness, we are 
spending in the face of this recession. Well, that is the whole point. 
There is no money in this economy. The banks won't lend. We have used 
the monetary policy to bring interest rates to the banks way down. We 
fed money to the banks and perhaps we forestalled a complete crisis. 
However, I will tell my colleagues, they are still not doing what they 
should in terms of lending. People are fearful. They are not spending. 
So it is a vicious circle, and we need to stop this vicious circle. The 
way to do it is to save jobs from being lost and create new jobs.
  Now, we know this all started with the housing crisis. Believe me, we 
tried on this side to pass housing legislation. Seven times we were 
filibustered--seven. Seven times we were filibustered. We must address 
housing, and I am glad to hear my colleagues on the other side coming 
up with some very good ideas on how to do that, and I agree with some 
of those ideas. This is a three-legged stool. We have to pass this jobs 
program, this jobs plan--and by the way, these jobs will be created in 
the private sector as we go out to rebuild our roads and our bridges 
and our

[[Page S1998]]

schools and make them energy efficient. Private sector jobs will be 
created. These will be contracts. So the first leg of that stool is 
jobs, jobs, jobs. That is what we are talking about.
  Next we have to deal with the housing crisis, as I said, belatedly 
so. I would like to see mortgages down, mortgage rates down for folks 
who will get a boost from that, an economic stimulus in their pocket 
from that. We have things we can do. Senator Durbin's plan for the 
bankruptcy courts is very important. If someone is underwater with 
their house, and they go to bankruptcy court, let's have the judge 
restructure their loan. These are things we should and must do. That is 
the second leg.
  The third is the financial crisis. I know the Obama administration is 
looking at some new ways, not just giving a blank check to these 
institutions, to these banks, but ensuring that they don't use it for 
big high salaries for the people at the top, for golden parachutes, and 
that in fact taxpayers have a stake in those institutions so we get 
paid back. That is a refreshing change. We are going to see that 
coming. That is going to be a very tough vote. I don't know how I am 
going to wind up voting on that. It depends on how much of that is 
aimed at the housing sector.
  But that is tomorrow, and this is today, and we are where we are. 
There have been more than 3 million jobs lost. Imagine that. In the 
State of Delaware there are less than 1 million people. So figure, it 
is almost four States of Delaware where every single person has lost 
their job. These are no ordinary times.
  Around here, I learned after many years the easiest vote was no. Vote 
no. It is so much easier. You could point to something in the bill you 
don't like--I say to my friend who is sitting in the chair, a wonderful 
new Member--you can vote no and say: You know, on line 7, page 240, 
there was something in there. It just brought me to a ``no'' vote. I 
couldn't take it. I disagreed with it.
  It is easy. It is the easiest way to vote because we don't know at 
the end of the day whether this package is going to do every single 
thing we hope it will do. But I will tell my colleagues it will do some 
of those things. It will create jobs. It will save jobs. It will help 
our States. It will help our communities. It will help make us energy 
efficient. It will help make us energy independent. It will lead us on 
the road to clean energy. It will unleash the technological genius of a 
lot of our people looking at clean energy.
  I want to close by again thanking those Republicans who joined with 
us. I know how hard it is. I have been in situations where I have 
stepped out, done something not popular with my caucus. It is very 
difficult. It is really hard, but at the end of the day we have to put 
country first. Country first. If you line up every economist in this 
Nation from the left to the right, except for a few on either end of 
the spectrum, they are all telling us to do a package about this size. 
Don't make it too small or it will be inefficient.
  I think the Senator from Montana was very instructive when he pointed 
out that the tax cuts will kick in--certainly almost 100 percent of 
them--in 2 years, and overall, 75 or 76 or even 80 percent of the 
package, spending and tax cuts, will kick in, in the first 2 years. 
Larry Summers, a great economist working for President Obama, has said 
he believes if a few dollars kick in 2 years out, that is not all bad 
because this is a deep recession. We are going to need those dollars as 
well.
  So to those three colleagues who came forward--I think I should say 
the two who came forward with Ben Nelson, Senator Collins and Senator 
Specter, taking the lead--thank you. I know it is hard. You are 
reaching out to this new President. He has everything on his shoulders. 
This is what he promised. He promised he would not sit back and allow 
the policies of the past to dominate: bickering, bickering, bickering, 
never getting anything done, and finding fault just for the sake of 
being able to vote no.
  Saturday I read into the Record a story about one of my constituents 
who has been out of work and out of work and out of work. He worked in 
the high-tech sector. He can't find a job. He is just desperate. He had 
to place his children into foster care. We cannot do nothing. When my 
friends on the other side say, oh, they are for doing something, at the 
end of the day, it seems to me, by making us reach a 60-vote, 
filibuster-proof majority, they are making it tough for us to do 
something. Let's not forget that. They are filibustering this bill. 
That is why we need to get 60 votes. So they are slowing it down and 
slowing it down and slowing it down. As a matter of fact, they stand 
here and say: What is the rush?

  I will tell them what the rush is: people being laid off every day, 
people losing health care every day, people losing confidence every 
day, people losing housing every day, people losing hope every day, 
economists telling us to move swiftly every day. So don't say you are 
for something when you are making us get a 60-vote supermajority, 
because people are smart in this country. They get it. They know what 
you are saying when you all of a sudden are afraid of the debt because 
we are doing things you don't like. You didn't mind going into debt for 
the war in Iraq--open checkbook. Rebuilding Iraq? Fine. Tax cuts for 
the wealthy few? Wonderful. No problem. You should look at that 
cartoon. It says it better. It just happens to be in Politico.
  So don't say you want to do something and then set up a 60-vote 
hurdle. Don't say you want to do something, but you are afraid of the 
debt when, for 8 long years, you have doubled the debt from $5 billion 
to $10 billion. Say the truth. Say the truth. I think I know what the 
truth is. You don't really like investing in schools. You don't like 
investing in workers. You don't really think it makes sense at this 
time to build more infrastructure. You don't like helping our cities. 
That is the truth.

  But we believe that is the way to stimulate this economy and grow it, 
stop it from sliding, reverse it. We are going to try to do it. We 
still have a long road ahead of us, no question about it. This isn't 
easy, but we are on the path to do it. I hope the American people will 
listen to our President both today and tonight when he holds his press 
conference. I hope the people will listen to this debate because it is 
very clear where the sides line up.
  What we need to do is the right thing for America. Those choices are 
clear: Do nothing, hold out for your perfect bill, or embrace the 
compromise. I am embracing the compromise, and I urge my colleagues to 
do it. I hope more will do it from the other side. I think it will be 
such a vote of confidence in the future and confidence in this 
President and confidence in this country if we can pick up more votes 
on the other side. I hope we will. I am very pleased to have had this 
opportunity to speak.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I am going to speak both about the general 
approach to the so-called stimulus package, as well as the deal reached 
at the end of last week that we will be voting on at 5:30 this 
afternoon.
  First, let me say you can usually tell when proponents of an idea 
don't have good arguments for their proposition. They generally set up 
a false premise, what is sometimes called a ``strawman.''
  It goes like this: We can't just sit here and do nothing. I ask 
anyone here, has anybody in this Chamber said we have to do nothing in 
the face of this crisis? No. Everyone who has spoken on both sides has 
said we have to do something. Has anybody here said we need to slow 
down and not act with alacrity because there is no problem or real 
emergency facing us? No. I think everybody has said we have a real 
problem in this country, people are hurting, and we have to do 
something as quickly as we can.
  It is not a choice between doing nothing or doing something. It is 
not a choice between acting quickly or taking our sweet old time at it. 
There is a legitimate difference of opinion. One reason we have 
liberals and conservatives and Democrats and Republicans is we have 
people in this country who are smart and very patriotic, but they 
disagree about the best way to proceed ahead in various situations, 
including the crisis we are in right now. So let's don't denigrate the 
arguments of the other side.
  I respect what my colleagues are saying. They believe spending a lot 
of

[[Page S1999]]

money in the way they are doing it is the right way to go forward. As 
the President has said: What do you think a stimulus bill is except a 
spending bill? I understand what he means. If you spend a lot of money, 
the theory goes, jobs will be created and that will stimulate the 
economy. But the original test he and others in his administration set 
forth was a little more precise than that. It was the correct test, put 
forth by Larry Summers, who said they are going to be choosing 
investments ``strategically based on what yields the highest rate of 
return for our economy.'' That is the right approach, not just spending 
for spending's sake; not just throwing a lot of money at the wall and 
seeing what sticks but targeting investments to see what really works.
  Unfortunately, that is not what has been done here. Let me give you 
one example. In the debate we had after the deal was announced by the 
Senators who went off and negotiated some reductions in the original 
bill, there was the comment made that the House bill was just a 
Christmas tree--I will quote it:

       It was a Christmas tree upon which every member virtually 
     had his or her favorite project. It was bloated, expensive, 
     and ineffective.

  That was the criticism of the House bill. Now, the deal struck by 
these Senators reduced some of the spending in various parts of the 
Senate bill. But it turns out that the final product is actually $7 
billion more than the House bill they just criticized. So even though 
they cut some money at the margins, the various pieces of the bill, 
because of other things that were added in the Senate which they didn't 
cut, the total Senate bill is even more than the House bill.
  I ask, is this money really targeted? One of the things one of the 
authors of this deal said made it a good deal was they added $14 
billion in Pell grants. Now, Pell grants are the money that each year 
the Appropriations Committee appropriates so that students can get a 
grant from the U.S. Government to go to college. We do it every year. 
It is a good program. People love to take advantage of it. It has never 
been viewed as a stimulus package. That money is appropriated every 
year through the regular appropriations process. But we have added $14 
billion in Pell grants.
  Pell grants means students who graduate from high school can go to 
college. They are not getting a job; they are not going out into the 
workplace. The teachers teaching them already have jobs teaching. I 
don't know where the jobs are created here.
  My point is twofold. It is a worthwhile program. We do it every year 
as part of the regular appropriations process. Why is it included in 
this bill as if it is going to stimulate something, as if it will 
create new jobs? It is not a stimulus. We do it every year. It is not a 
targeted investment strategically based on what yields the highest rate 
of return from the economy. It is sending kids to college, which is, of 
course, a good thing, but it should not be part of the stimulus 
package.
  The stimulus package, with regard to spending, is supposed to 
identify those things that will require a lot of people to go to work 
and, therefore, get hired on to do jobs. But this is an example of the 
kind of thing that isn't targeted strategically to achieve that 
objective.
  Another item was $6 billion for special education. Special education 
is a good thing. We appropriate money for it every year in the regular 
appropriations process. Why is it in this bill? Emergency spending? You 
don't have to offset it with spending reductions somewhere else or tax 
increases. It goes right to the bottom line of the deficit. It doesn't 
have to compete with anything else. As far as I know, you don't have a 
lot of special education teachers who are unemployed today. As a matter 
of fact, in education and health care you have the lowest unemployment 
rates in the country, around 2 to 3 percent. What is the targeted 
nature of this?
  It turns out these are things the people in the room making the deal 
were all for. They wanted to make sure these programs got funded well 
this year, so they stuck them in the bill. This is not targeted. It is 
not stimulative, for the most part. It is just money we think would be 
a good idea to spend.
  So a bill that was intended to encourage economic growth originally 
by investing in high-return projects has turned into a wild spending 
spree that is out of proportion and reason and won't achieve the 
objective it was intended for. In the process, it is going to cause 
tremendous waste. CBO noted that Government agencies don't have the 
ability to spend this kind of money quickly and efficiently. They are 
asking them to spend a lot of money quickly. That, obviously, results 
in a lot of waste.
  Even so, the reality is, they cannot spend that much money, as it 
turns out. In fact, less than half of the discretionary money of the 
kind I just identified will be spent before 2011--less than half. So 
more than half of the money we will start spending in 2011 and beyond. 
I hope the recession is over by 2011. So by that definition, over half 
of the money doesn't go to stimulate the economy and create jobs. It is 
ongoing, more permanent spending.

  We actually create around 30 new Federal programs in this bill and 
over $180 billion in mandatory or permanent spending. So it is not 
targeted for stimulative relief in the short run.
  Now, one of my colleagues said we should acknowledge requiring 60 
votes, as if that is somehow wrong, and Republicans are filibustering 
the bill.
  Let's understand we started debating this bill about 1 week ago. We 
are spending more money than we have ever spent in a piece of 
legislation in the history of the United States of America, and we have 
only spent 1 week at it, and the critical vote is at 5:30 tonight--1 
week after we started the debate. That is hardly filibustering. That is 
a point on which we don't need to spend any further time.
  There are still so many things in the bill that are wasteful. Time 
doesn't permit getting into all of it. Let me note some of the things 
we had talked about originally that I thought at least the people who 
made this deal would want to cut to avoid embarrassment. It appears 
that these things are in the bill: transition to digital TV. I am not 
sure how that creates jobs. There is another $300 million for Federal 
Government cars. That may help the auto companies. There is money for 
Amtrak. There is $1 billion for the census. There are green cards for 
the military. There are Filipino veterans of World War II in the 
Philippines.
  As I said, none of these things create jobs. They may be good ideas. 
Let them compete through the regular appropriations process and see how 
many would actually get through that process and what the priority 
would be.
  About a year ago, Amity Shlaes, a historian, wrote a book called 
``The Forgotten Man'' about the Great Depression. The title was used 
for two reasons. It is a phrase Franklin Delano Roosevelt used in one 
of his speeches kicking off one of his programs. It actually was 
borrowed from another person who was referring to, in today's terms, 
the ``little guy'' in our economy who bears the burden in our economy, 
who lives and plays by the rules and works hard and ends up paying the 
taxes on which everybody else relies. That is who the real forgotten 
man was at that time.
  I think there are a couple of forgotten groups of people here too. 
The first are the small businesses. I note about three-tenths of the 
total package is dedicated to small business relief. Yet small 
businesses create 80 percent of all new jobs. This is supposed to be a 
job creation bill. Think about that. Small businesses create 80 percent 
of the jobs, so you would think a good piece of the relief would go to 
small business. No, it is just three-tenths of 1 percent. They are the 
forgotten folks.
  The other group of forgotten folks includes our children and our 
grandchildren. I have two grandchildren, one whose birthday was 
yesterday and one whose is today. I cannot believe how fast they are 
growing up. I think about the legacy we are going to leave them in 
terms of all of this debt. It is very clear, from the CBO and all the 
others who have examined this that this $1 trillion is going right to 
our deficit. We are going from a $1 trillion deficit to a $2 trillion 
deficit next year. Eventually, of course, the debt has to be paid back.
  Other countries are buying much of the debt. When they say: We want 
our money back, Americans have to do one of two things: produce their 
way out of the debt; that is to say, have such a robust economy that it 
is producing a lot

[[Page S2000]]

of tax revenue to pay the debt back or, inevitably, there will be a tax 
increase.
  Unfortunately, because of the effects of this bill, according to CBO, 
after 10 years there will be negative economic growth; that is to say, 
minus one- to three-tenths of a percent of negative growth over what it 
would have been. We cannot count on growth to lift us out of the 
economic situation we will be in. They say it is a little like a sugar 
high. We may get stimulus right away, and like when you have the sugar 
high, you then crash.
  So they are talking about .1 to .3 percent decline in GDP. Obviously, 
we cannot count on economic growth to produce the revenue to pay back 
the people who bought the debt. That could mean a tax increase. That 
would be a very bad thing to leave these kids and grandkids I love as 
part of what I did on my watch, to say we spent the money today so they 
could pay it back later.
  All I am saying is, we need to be much more careful about what we are 
doing. If we were talking about $200 million or $300 million, I would 
say we can take a chance; that it is a lot of money, but let's see if 
it works. Nobody knows for sure whether this will work. Anybody who 
says they know this will work, you can believe one thing: They are not 
telling you the truth.
  Nobody knows. But to spend $1 trillion and not know whether it is 
going to work is very bothersome. One of my colleagues said a trillion 
dollars is a terrible thing to waste. I don't think we would be wasting 
$1 trillion. A lot of this will actually build something we can use 
later, so it is not all going to be wasted. As CBO said, you cannot 
spend this much without wasting a bunch of money.
  Since most of it is not targeted to job creations, for reasons I 
mentioned, even though it may produce some result later on, the 
question has to be asked: Is it worth the expenditure now, in view of 
the crowdout effect in the private economy? Every dollar we spend is 
money that is crowded out in the private sector which, at the end of 
the day, is what creates jobs.
  Looking at that three-tenths of 1 percent for small business is 
illustrative of the point. Small business creates 80 percent of the 
jobs in the country. You would think we would be focused on small 
businesses if we are talking about spending money in this bill to get 
job creation. Yet only three-tenths of 1 percent goes to small 
business.
  Our point is, we are not being wise in the way we are spending this 
money, that we should be much more wise and that the deal that was 
struck last weekend to get the votes to pass the bill does nothing more 
than shave off some of the money at the top but does not fundamentally 
attack the problem I believe should be attacked.
  For that reason, I hope my colleagues will reconsider, and when we 
have this vote in about 3 hours, that they will consider the 
possibility that we could do better, that we could do better by making 
more modifications to this bill than were done in the so-called deal 
that was struck last weekend. Hopefully, if they vote no, we will have 
the opportunity to go back and do that. If we don't, we are on this 
slippery slope to spend $1 trillion to an uncertain outcome, except we 
know we eventually will have negative growth and a lot of waste to show 
for our efforts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first, let me state something that is 
unexpected at this time. I was with Wade Paschal yesterday, and we were 
talking a little bit about love, something we don't see or sense a lot 
of in this body. In 1 Corinthians 13:13, there are three things--faith, 
hope, and love, and the greatest of these is love. I find myself faced 
with this dichotomy sometimes with feeling this and yet telling the 
truth at the same time because sometimes the truth isn't that prevalent 
around here either.
  I had an unpleasant experience last Thursday with the junior Senator 
from West Virginia. I was pretty well assailed in different ways, and 
yet it really didn't bother me. Keith Oberlin called me the worst 
person in the world; Vanity Fair, a conspiracy theorist. I have to say 
this, though: At least they are all liberals. I love them all.
  Having said that, let me discuss the politics of what is happening 
right now because this is something I think is going to end up being a 
positive thing for Republicans. I know not many people have thought 
this through in the same way I am going to present it.
  Tonight the Senate will vote on whether to shut off debate--well, 
first of all, it needs to be clarified. A lot of people do not know 
what is going to happen tonight. I have been asked a lot of questions: 
Is it tonight at 5:30 or tomorrow? The key vote is tonight. This one 
needs 60 votes to cut off a filibuster. They have to have, in this 
Senate, two Republicans. If all Republicans stuck together in this 
Senate, such as they did in the House last week, this legislation would 
be dead. It wouldn't go anywhere. However, that is not what is going to 
happen.
  Martin Feldstein called this an $800 billion mistake. He is not the 
only one disappointed in the Senate. Democrats worked hard in the past 
week to make this nearly a $900 billion mistake. In fact, the 
Congressional Budget Office reported, during the House consideration of 
its $820 billion version of this spending bill, that the cost of 
servicing the debt on all new debt created by this bill would be 
roughly $347 billion over 10 years, which means at $820 billion, the 
real cost, as we have heard before from many other people, would be 
$1.2 trillion.
  It is a hard thing for people to grasp. It is hard for me. I remember 
when we were talking about the $700 billion bill that came up last 
October in the bailout, as it has been called, trying to put that into 
words so people would understand it.
  If you take the 140 million families who file tax returns--and do 
your math--that is $5,000 a family. Now we are talking about something 
far greater than that.
  I have been quoted as saying this bill we are going to be considering 
at 5:30 p.m. today is 93 percent spending and 7 percent stimulant. We 
know what stimulant is. We know what it takes to stimulate the economy. 
When I talk about what is in this bill to stimulate, I find only two 
things. One, a very small tax provision, accelerated depreciation and a 
loss carryback provision and, second, it has $27 billion in highway 
construction. This is interesting because the House bill actually had 
$30 billion. My feeling is if we are going to spend all this money, 
let's at least get something for it, provide some jobs, get some roads, 
highways and bridges, things this country needs. But they elected not 
to do that.
  If you add together the accelerated depreciation and the tax 
benefits, that is about 3\1/2\ percent, and the $27 billion is about 
3\1/2\ percent of the total amount we are going to be talking about. 
That is where you get 7 percent of stimulus and 93 percent spending.
  We know what works. That is the issue that is frustrating to a lot of 
people. We know how to stimulate the economy. We have done it. At the 
end of World War I, they said: We raised taxes to support the war. Now 
we are going to reduce taxes because we don't need that money anymore. 
They reduced taxes, and it increased the revenues.
  The real one who discovered this who had the foresight was President 
Kennedy. President Kennedy, during that time, made a statement that we 
have to have more revenue to run all these Great Society programs, and 
the best way to increase revenue is to reduce marginal rates. He did. 
He lowered tax rates across the board. He helped create the longest 
economic expansion in American history.
  Listen to this: Between 1961 and 1968, the economy grew by 42 
percent--42 percent. Fast forward to the eighties. In the eighties, we 
had a President named Ronald Reagan. In 1980, the total amount of 
revenue that was derived from the marginal rates was $244 billion. In 
1990, it was $466 billion. It almost doubled in the decade that had the 
largest tax reductions in this Nation's history. So we know what we can 
do.
  I have to say that a lot of this started with the $700 billion 
mistake that was made, in my opinion, back in October. The Senate voted 
74 to 25 to empower one unelected bureaucrat to buy billions of 
dollars' worth of troubled assets. As it turned out, interestingly 
enough, he didn't do that. That is what he said he was going to do. 
That is

[[Page S2001]]

what he told me personally he was going to do.
  Finally, after all this bailout mania extended to the auto industry, 
Congress had the opportunity to redeem itself on the second half of 
that $700 billion mistake. In that vote, 33 Republicans and only 9 
Democrats voted disapproving release of the second $350 billion.
  We have to look at what has been going on in the debate. We are 
debating this multibillion-dollar legislation, and I think some of my 
Republican colleagues are too gracious to lay collective blame where it 
should be, and that is clearly on the Democratic side.
  As the House considered this spending bill in a vote of 244 to 188, 
not a single Republican voted in favor of the $820 billion spending 
bill. Only by Republicans sticking together, 100 percent together in 
the Senate, can we stop this $1.2 trillion mistake. But should it pass 
this week, no one should be fooled and think it was done in a 
bipartisan way.
  At the end of the Senate's consideration of H.R. 1, we are voting 
tonight to end debate on what is going to be called a compromise 
proposal. It is being called a compromise proposal. Let me tell the 
American people that the vote tonight on a proposal supported by all 
the Democrats and two Republicans is the furthest thing from a 
compromise proposal. In fact, the proposal we are now considering makes 
this past week in the Senate a waste of all our time.
  Why do I say that? Let's look at the numbers. The House passed an 
$820 billion bill. In the Senate, we started with nearly $855 billion, 
more than the House. Although the compromise proposal reportedly only 
costs $780 billion, it includes the cost-raising amendments the Senate 
considered, bringing the price tag to around $827 billion. So what we 
are going to be considering tonight is actually $7 billion more than 
the House bill.

  I do believe Senator McCain made an excellent statement. I am going 
to read the statement because I think he captures it. This is on the 
floor of the Senate. He said:

       There are 178 Members of the House of Representatives who 
     are Republicans. They all voted against the bill, plus 11 
     Democrats. There are 40 Republican Senators here. We now have 
     2, count them, 2, who have decided behind closed doors, 
     without consultation with the other 38, to come to an 
     agreement, which you can call it a lot of things but 
     bipartisan isn't one of them, unless you say that 2 
     individuals and possibly a third, but no more than that out 
     of 40, are in agreement. I've been involved in a lot of 
     bipartisan legislation . . .

  What we are talking about is 2 out of 535 in the Congress. This 
cannot be considered by anyone to be bipartisan.
  I offered some amendments I thought would be good that would actually 
stimulate the economy. There are two of them. One was to redirect over 
$5 billion from programs, such as television coupons, trail 
improvements, renovations to Federal buildings in Washington, DC, to 
military spending and procurement. According to economic reports by 
Standard & Poor's, defense spending along with infrastructure 
investment and tax cuts has a greater stimulative impact on the economy 
than anything else the Government can do. However, how did my amendment 
fare? Thirty-seven Republicans and Senator Lieberman voted in favor of 
it. All the Democrats voted against it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has spoken for 10 minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to continue 
speaking for another 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Can the Senator make that 5?
  Mr. INHOFE. Five is fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, that is part of it. The other is 
infrastructure. To cut this short, the Department of Transportation 
recently estimated that for every $1 million invested in highways and 
bridges, 27,800 jobs were created, and the last jobless numbers show 
that 899,000 construction workers have lost their jobs. If you do the 
math and take both these amendments, had they been adopted, it would 
have provided over 4 million jobs. This is the number President Obama 
has talked about doing. Again, it should not have been defeated, but it 
was right down party lines.
  We have had several amendments. Senator McCain had probably the best 
one because it substituted reducing payroll taxes, lowering marginal 
rates, lowering corporate rates, offering accelerated depreciation for 
small business. This is exactly what Presidents Kennedy and Reagan did. 
On this amendment, all the Republicans voted for it and all the 
Democrats voted against it.
  A bipartisan amendment was offered to allow repatriation of foreign 
earnings at a reduced tax rate.
  Senator DeMint offered a substitute with provisions to reduce 
corporate taxes and individual marginal rates, repeal the AMT, reduce 
capital gains and estate taxes. The result of that amendment was 36 
Republicans supporting it and 57 Democrats opposing it.
  Senator Thune offered a substitute to reduce marginal rates, offer 
AMT relief, offer bonus depreciation and small business tax relief, 
deductions for health coverage, and homebuyer assistance. The result of 
that amendment was 37 Republicans supporting it and 57 Democrats 
opposing it.
  All these amendments would have stimulated the economy; however, they 
were all killed down party lines.
  The reasons I said at the beginning--and I planned to get into a lot 
more detail, but I didn't know we would be operating under the rules 
under which we are operating. This does have a happy ending. Katie, my 
daughter--Senator Kyl was talking about his two grandchildren. These 
are my 20 kids and grandchildren. I equally have a great concern over 
what is happening. This little girl, Katie, my daughter, and these 
little girls asked the question: What does the United States do? If we 
did that, would our country go bankrupt?
  I said: No. I want you to remember 1992. In 1992, a very similar 
thing happened. We had a Democrat in the White House, we had a 
Democratic-controlled House, a Democratic-controlled Senate, and we saw 
what happened. They started spending money. We had Hillary health care. 
All these things the American people know won't work.

  So I would say this: I believe what is happening today, as bad as it 
sounds to conservatives right now, are things that can change this, if 
it will get the attention of the American people. I believe we are 
going through the same thing we did in 1992 and we are going to have 
the same results we had in 1994. This is the largest spending in the 
history of humankind and in the history of the world, and it is 
something we should not let happen, but it is going to happen right 
down party lines.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I always enjoy hearing my friend from 
Oklahoma. But I regret he feels that what is happening in America today 
somehow relates to 1992, implying that when Democrats assume power, 
somehow things are going to collapse, and we find ourselves in a tough 
situation because all they want to do is spend, and all this and that. 
The fact is there is plenty of blame to go around with respect to what 
has happened in this country. It is not one party, it is both parties.
  I say to my friend: We have seen a hemorrhaging of red ink in this 
country the last 8 years. I am not going to spend time talking about 
it--but I could, and almost should, except I don't think it contributes 
too much at this time to point out that we decided to go to war and not 
pay for a penny of it in 8 years, to charge it all and run up the 
Federal debt. Look, there are a lot of things wrong. A lot of things 
have been done wrong by the past administration, by Republicans and by 
Democrats. I understand all that. That is not the issue. The question 
is what do we do to put it right.
  You know, there was a situation in Miami the other day. They had 35 
jobs for firefighters and a thousand people showed up to apply. Now, 
look at these faces. Look at the faces of these people, one by one. All 
they hope for is an opportunity. A thousand of them showing up, 
thinking perhaps they will get a shot at one job, because there are 
only 35 available. These people don't

[[Page S2002]]

give a rip whether you are talking about Republicans or Democrats. All 
they care about is whether you can talk about what might succeed to 
help put their life back in order, to help put this economy back on 
track, and to give them a feeling that they might have an opportunity 
to find a good job, one that pays well and provides benefits, and one 
that allows them to help take care of their family. That is all they 
care about. That is why a thousand of them lined up down the sidewalk 
in search of 35 jobs.
  Now, this looks like a crowded picture. But what if we could take a 
look at 2.6 million of them? There is no picture of the 2.6 million. 
That is the number of people who lost their jobs last year. Actually, 
it turned out to be just over 3 million in the last 12 months. What if 
we had a picture of the last 2 months, with over 1 million people 
lining up wanting a job because they got laid off? Think of it.
  More than one million people had to come home, or call home and say 
to their family, the person they love, you know what, I have lost my 
job. No, it is not because I have done a bad job. I have worked here 
10, 15, 20 years, and I did everything I could. I got all evaluations 
that were in the top 5 percent. I am a terrific worker, but I lost my 
job because the company had to cut back.
  I wish we could have a picture of a million people lined up so we 
would understood the faces and the agony and the despair of losing your 
job in the last 2 months. And it would describe the urgency. No, not 
the urgency to come and talk about Democrats and Republicans, but the 
urgency to talk about what we can do to put this place back on track.
  I wonder sometimes whether anyone knows what exactly the right 
medicine or the right dose of medicine is needed to fix what ails this 
economy. I confess I don't know. I know what we shouldn't do. I have a 
pretty good handle on what we shouldn't do. Let's not take the position 
of being an observer and deciding, you know what, we intend to do 
nothing. Let whatever happens happen. If our economy is perched on the 
edge of a cliff and falls off the side to a deep depression, so be it. 
That is not my position. I think our position has to be to do whatever 
we can to try to put a foundation under this economy and see if we can 
lift this economy to provide jobs, provide growth, and expand and give 
people hope once again.
  I have given many speeches on the floor of the Senate about the past. 
I have talked about what has caused this wreck--and this clearly is a 
wreck. In 1999, this Congress and the President decided what we wanted 
to do was to get rid of all those old-fashioned things that were put in 
place after the Great Depression to separate traditional banking from 
risk. Let's get rid of all of that and see if we can allow banks to 
create big old holding companies and merge, and so it happened. They 
ran that through here like a hot knife through butter, and everybody 
was fat and happy and singing songs of celebration.
  Not me. I voted against all that. I fought against it all. I said at 
the time that within a decade I thought we would see massive taxpayer 
bailouts. And we have. The biggest financial institutions in this 
country, the biggest banks and the biggest financial institutions in 
this country got involved in a series of risks--buying toxic assets, 
doing things that were unbelievable--and the whole tent came collapsing 
down. Then we were told, you know what, it is the taxpayers' 
responsibility. So the Federal Reserve Board rushes in with a net and a 
pillow to say to the big financing institutions: We have money for you.
  You know, it is interesting. We are told now, at the latest count, 
that $8.9 trillion--no, not the $800 billion we are talking about on 
the floor of the Senate--but $8.9 trillion has been used of taxpayers' 
funds to lend and guarantee certain things, most of it by the Federal 
Reserve Board and some by FDIC. Most of it was done without a vote. It 
is done well outside the sunlight of good government. In fact, an 
enterprising news organization called Bloomberg had to sue the Federal 
Government to find out how much has been committed.
  I don't know that there is some divine right of all the biggest banks 
in this country--who got bigger and created holding companies and 
became too big to fail--to be kept to succeed and to continue to live. 
Maybe--and we won't talk about this much, because no one wants to--we 
should recreate or create new financial institutions. But no one wants 
to talk about that. Why is it we decide to invest in failure? Probably 
we should invest in success. Maybe we should decide, if these financial 
institutions ran this country into the ditch, to create new financial 
institutions, to help capitalize those institutions that won't do that.
  Again, briefly, as I talk about why we must do something, it is not 
strange that we have seen this wreckage. I had someone on Saturday at a 
meeting I was at in North Dakota, saying: You know what, the government 
has caused all this. I said: I tell you what, the government has plenty 
to answer for. You are darned right the government has a part of it--
fighting a war without paying for it. Part of it is a trade deficit of 
$700 billion to $800 billion a year. Most people here are willfully 
blind about the fact that we are consuming significantly more than we 
produce. Two billion dollars a day represents our trade deficit, every 
single day. You can't keep doing that. Our fiscal policy deficits are 
way out of control because we fought a war and we didn't pay for it. So 
government has plenty to answer for.
  But I told the person who asked me that question--isn't this all the 
government's fault?--I said: Government didn't put out all this bad 
paper. That was greedy mortgage companies out there writing bad 
mortgages, unbelievable mortgages, no different than Madoff's Ponzi 
scheme, and then packaging them in securities and selling up to hedge 
funds, and then selling up to investment banks, and the whole country 
is larded now with toxic assets that we are told threaten the entire 
banking system. So now the American taxpayer has to be a backstop in 
order to save the very companies that ran this into the ditch.
  You wonder why the smartest in the room, the best and the brightest, 
didn't understand it was a bad security when you put a mortgage into 
the hands of someone who can't pay it and then tell them they only have 
to pay interest; you don't have to pay any principal; in fact, if you 
don't want to pay interest, you can pay no principal and only partial 
interest, and you don't have to document your income in order to get a 
loan from us. Bad credit, no credit, bankrupt, slow pay, no pay, then 
you come to us. Those were the advertisements by Millennium Credit, 
Zoom Credit, and Countrywide Mortgage. They all did it, and they put 
out a lot of bad paper. The whole thing's collapsed.

  The banks were all happy because they were all buying these things 
and they had high yields. And the reason they had high yields is they 
loaded them up with prepayment penalties, so the borrower couldn't get 
out of it. So here we are with this system that has collapsed around 
us, and what are the consequences? Do you think most of the people who 
did this have lost their jobs with the big banks? Absolutely not. They 
are still accepting big paychecks. But these people lining up in Miami, 
a thousand of them for 35 jobs, are the victims of an economy that has 
collapsed.
  The question is: Do we do nothing? Some of my colleagues are 
perfectly content to do that. They come to the floor and talk about, 
you know what, this is all about 1992; or let's go back to Calvin 
Coolidge. How about let's blame it on Calvin Coolidge or Jimmy Carter? 
It doesn't make any sense at all to be doing that. Let's talk about 
where we find ourselves and where we want to be and how we might get 
from here to there.
  I confess I don't know exactly what is going to work. I used to teach 
a little economics in college, but I don't know that there is any 
economist or anybody who can say that if we do these three things, this 
is going to work. I confess that we don't know. Normally, there are two 
tools in the toolbox to try to fix the economic engine of this country: 
One is called fiscal policy--taxing and spending. But the fact is we 
have had a stimulative fiscal policy for a long time. We have been 
running big deficits for a long time, so it is not exactly that that 
tool hasn't been available. That tool has been used and reused, and I 
don't know how effective it is. The other tool in

[[Page S2003]]

the toolbox is monetary policy. There is nothing in the toolbox left 
there. Interest rates are down nearly to zero with respect to the Fed 
and what it charges. So there is not much juice left in monetary 
policy. But what the Fed has done is used its ability--somewhere in the 
shadows--to push a lot of money out the door with no transparency as to 
who got what and how it was used. So I don't know, with respect to the 
fiscal or monetary policy, the impulses they might have to help fix 
this economy.
  What I do know is this: A piece of legislation--an economic recovery 
plan--has been put together. That follows on the heels of the $700 
billion TARP legislation--the Troubled Asset Relief Program. I voted 
against TARP, and am happy I did. I didn't think they had the foggiest 
idea what they were going to do with that money, and I was dead right. 
I have no idea where it went or what was accomplished with it. There 
was no accountability and no strings attached. This is different. This 
legislation is an attempt to say: You know, we can learn at least 
something from some things that we have tried in the past.
  We have an unbelievable backlog in infrastructure investment that 
should have been made in this country and has not. I will give an 
example: In the last few years, we have been funding 900 water projects 
in the country of Iraq with taxpayers' money--900 water projects. We 
have tens of billions of dollars in infrastructure backlog in this 
country--of water projects--which we have not been doing what we should 
about. So how about investing here at home repairing the roads, 
repairing the bridges, repairing other infrastructure--building the 
water projects that are authorized and ready to go, fully designed and 
fully engineered? That puts people to work. It puts people on a 
payroll. It takes people out of this line and says, we will put people 
to work even as we build infrastructure for this country's future. Is 
that a good thing? It seems to me it probably is.
  My colleagues have put together a piece of legislation, and I have 
been a part of it. I was involved in the negotiations last Friday for 
about 3 hours to see if we could find middle ground, which we have 
done. We cut nearly $110 billion out of the proposal that existed. I 
was all in favor of those cuts. It seemed to me there were areas that 
could and should be trimmed, and now are trimmed from that proposal. 
But at this point, the question is: What do we do?
  I certainly have respect for those who have a different view. Some 
have a view we should simply use tax cuts, because tax cuts have the 
biggest juice. But the economists say that is not true. It isn't the 
case. And besides, if that were the menu, we have been through a decade 
of that. We know the function of all of that. So I have respect for 
those who believe that; I just believe there is a different approach. 
The key is not to use some proxy to put people back to work. The key, 
at the short term, is to see if you can put people back to work now 
doing something that represents gainful employment and which will build 
an asset for this country.
  That is what our attempt is here. And, boy, I think there is plenty 
of reason to be critical. I understand that fully. The question is: Are 
we willing to do something? I have often told my colleagues, I think it 
was Mark Twain who was asked once if he would be willing to engage in a 
debate. He said: Oh sure, as long as I can take the negative side. And 
the person who asked said: But we haven't even told you what the 
subject is. He said: Oh, it doesn't matter. The negative side will take 
no preparation.
  So it is easy, it seems to me, to decide what doesn't work and to 
oppose it. It is much more difficult to decide how you put together 
something that is constructive and positive that you think will give 
this country some help and some hope.

  I said when I started, I don't know, and no one does, exactly what 
will work. I told a meeting on Saturday when I was asked the question: 
Can you guarantee this will work? I said: No, I can't. There isn't one 
person you can bring into this room who can tell you, yes. If they do, 
they are not telling you the truth.
  What unites all of us is none of us have ever been here before. We 
have never seen a circumstance where the system of finance has 
virtually collapsed with toxic assets laced everywhere in the system, a 
system in which we have had a subprime loan scandal. It has resulted 
now in the complete collapse of the housing bubble--which was, by the 
way, aided and abetted by my friend, Alan Greenspan, who was supposed 
to have been overseeing this sort of thing and did not. But now you 
have, according to Martin Feldstein, one in four homes in this country 
in which the home has less value than the mortgage on the home. That is 
a pretty significant problem.
  Then you have 598,000 people told their jobs are gone as of the last 
month and a half million people the month before. It is running into 
the millions of people who lose their jobs and lose their homes and 
then lose hope and lose confidence.
  I would say this: When I taught economics--I did the things you do. 
You teach the supply-demand curves, Gresham's law, and all the things 
you teach in economics. But, by far, the most important thing I taught 
students is confidence. If the American people are confident, believe 
their future will be better than the past, have confidence in tomorrow, 
then they will do the things that represent and manifest that 
confidence. They buy a suit of clothes, buy a car, take a trip--they do 
the things that will expand this economy. Why? Because they have 
confidence in the future. When they lose confidence in the future and 
they are unsure of that future, they do exactly the opposite. They say 
I am not going to make that purchase. I am not going to take that trip. 
I will not buy that car. That is the contraction side of the economy.
  You can do all the things you want to do in the Senate, and the Fed 
can do all they want to do. The fact is, we are in trouble if we don't 
provide some way to say to the American people: You can have confidence 
in this country. You can have some belief that things will be better 
for your kids than they were for you. So we can start the economic 
engine on the ship of state and get it moving again. If we can say that 
to the American people, we will turn this economy around.
  I know that there is not just one idea that represents a silver 
bullet. I understand that as well. But at the end of the day, the 
Senator from Montana, the Senator from Hawaii, who are managing this 
legislation--at the end of the day, it is our responsibility, their 
responsibility, it is the responsibility for us to govern in a way that 
says to the American people: Here is a plan we think has a chance. Here 
is an approach we believe has an opportunity to put us back on track 
once again.
  I want to make one final point. Even as we do all of this as best we 
can to try to help this country recover, it is very important for us to 
seek accountability, going backwards and forwards. We need to 
investigate exactly what has happened. We need a prosecution task 
force, we need a select committee in the Senate, we need to do all 
these things. We ought to be subpoenaing people in front of committees 
to say: What did you do? We need to get to the bottom of all of this 
and make sure it can never happen again.
  This notion of deciding self-regulation, quote-unquote, according to 
Alan Greenspan, works in the interests of everybody--let's understand 
that. Self-regulation did not work. What happened to us in self-
regulation is we were stolen blind and the American people have paid 
for it now to the tune of maybe $9 trillion and still counting.
  We need to put a lot of things back together. I want to be a 
constructive party of one, saying I want to play a role. Whatever the 
consequences, I want us to take action to try to help this economy 
recover.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I want to take issue with something that 
was said on the Senate floor earlier about this being rushed and that 
Republicans are blocking this or slowing this down or delaying this 
bill. I have to take issue with that.
  If you think about the enormity of what we are dealing with, we are 
talking about spending $1 trillion of our hard-working American tax 
dollars. We have been on this bill literally since

[[Page S2004]]

last Tuesday. So 4 days last week and today--it seems to me, at least 
by Washington standards, that is pretty much light speed for moving 
anything around here. So to suggest that somehow Republicans are 
blocking or delaying this bill is a complete misstatement of the facts 
with regard to anything historical in the Senate.
  When you are dealing with big issues, when you are dealing with 
issues of consequence, the Senate typically takes a certain amount of 
time and considers amendments. We have had 26 rollcall votes on this 
bill, only 5 amendments have been accepted. Unfortunately, most of the 
amendments that have been voted on and been accepted are amendments 
that have added to the cost rather than reduced the cost. But the point 
simply is the 4 or 5 days of time in the Senate to spend $1 trillion. I 
said this before, but I will repeat it: $800 billion, which is the base 
amount of the bill, when you add in the interest costs of about $350 
billion, it gets you up to almost $1.2 trillion. But I said this last 
week: Between the Revolutionary War and the Presidency of Jimmy Carter, 
we only, as a nation, borrowed, cumulatively, $800 billion. We are 
talking about borrowing $800 billion from future generations in this 
one piece of legislation.
  This is historic. It is unprecedented. It is stunning in terms of the 
size and scope and scale, and it certainly ought to be given the 
consideration I think something of this consequence and magnitude to 
the American people deserves.
  I think it could be said about this legislation: The more things 
change, the more they stay the same. I said before, when we saw this 
bill come over from the House, it was about $820 billion. It got added 
to in the Senate, got up to a little over $900 billion. Then this last 
week there was this big debate about we are going to be able to reduce 
its size; we are going to change some of the ways in which it is 
funded, make it more stimulative and more oriented toward job creation. 
But the reality is, in spite of all those statements to the contrary, 
we are faced with a bill today that is essentially larger than the bill 
that came to us from the House.
  The so-called compromise, which was designed to cut extraneous 
wasteful spending from this bill, reduced the overall amounts in some 
specific categories, but it didn't eliminate the categories. We are now 
spending on the same types of wasteful nonstimulative items--we are 
just spending slightly less than we were going to under the original 
bill we had last week in front of us. In fact, compared, as I said, to 
the bloated House bill to which so many people across the country 
reacted negatively, we are actually spending more.
  So the Senate bill, the so-called compromise, is actually not smaller 
but, rather, larger than the House bill.
  Second, the same shotgun approach to funding programs that are not 
temporary and not targeted is being employed. So we continue to fund 
budget items that still reflect bad policy and bad precedent. We just 
do so a little less. Expansions of Medicaid, COBRA, the first ever 
foray by the Federal Government into school construction--they are all 
policy and precedent-setting changes from which it will be very hard to 
retreat.
  Make no mistake about it, with this bill we start down a path to a 
bigger and more pervasive Federal role, thereby changing the 
traditional dynamic between the Federal Government and State and local 
government. I do not believe this is the bargain the American people 
thought they were getting.
  Just where are we in this process, as we end up on the Senate floor 
this Monday afternoon? We still have a $800 billion bill, more than 
$800 billion. As I said earlier, it is larger than the House bill. The 
House bill came over at $820 billion. The Senate added to it, got it up 
close to $940 billion. It got cut back under the so-called compromise 
that emerged last week. But the compromise leaves us at a point where 
we are actually spending more, $827 billion, than the bill that 
originally came to us from the House, which was scored at $800 billion. 
Add in the interest: $1.2 trillion.
  It really has not been reduced from the levels that most Americans 
found to be very disturbing about the House bill. In fact, the Senate 
bill is actually larger, not smaller, as I said before, than the House 
bill.
  Second, it continues to be poorly targeted, spraying money at all 
kinds of programs, new and old, that have little hope of creating 
private sector jobs. We got the report from CBO last week which 
suggested, again, that there could be as few as 1.3 million jobs 
created from the previous Senate bill. My assumption, of course, is 
although this has been reduced--not by much--the overall job creation 
will be less under the so-called compromise than it was under the 
original bill introduced last week.

  Third, it is not timely. Much of the job creation in here will take 
years, due to the number of new programs that are created which will 
require new bureaucracies to be stood up, regulations to be issued, and 
all the redtape that is attendant to the creation of new Government 
programs.
  Fourth, it is not temporary. The mandatory funding in this bill will 
be added to the baseline, creating long-term spending programs and 
liabilities that are permanent. Let's not fool ourselves. Much of the 
spending in this bill is not going away.
  Fifth, every penny is borrowed from future generations. There is no 
way we can get around what we are doing to our children and 
grandchildren. Not only are we handing them all this debt, according to 
CBO, passing this bill will cost us in GDP growth down the road, making 
it even harder for our children to experience the growth in the economy 
that will be necessary to retire this kind of debt, not to mention the 
inevitable increase in inflation and interest rates that come with 
greater Government borrowing.
  Finally, lest there be any confusion about the magnitude of what we 
are doing, let's remember again what $1 trillion represents. As I said 
before, more than the total amount of borrowing between the 
Revolutionary War and the Presidency of Jimmy Carter. The debt service 
alone on that amount of money, that amount of borrowing, is almost $350 
billion over a 10-year period. The deficit for this fiscal year alone 
will exceed 10 percent of our gross domestic product, a level we have 
not seen since World War II.
  I was a business student years ago. When we did financial 
calculations, we used a Texas Instrument Business Analyst II calculator 
to do our financial calculations.
  That calculator would be inadequate to today's debate. There was not 
enough room on the screen to accommodate the number of zeros we are 
talking about.
  This is serious business. We better get it right. This bill misses 
the mark. It spends too much, and it does too little. We offered lots 
of amendments last week to make it better, all of which were rejected. 
But I submit there is a better way. This bill has the votes to pass. We 
know that based on the agreement that was reached. But it is not too 
late to put the brakes on and actually sit down and work on a true 
bipartisan basis on a solution that sticks with the mantle of fiscal 
responsibility and actually would create jobs.
  I hope my colleagues will defeat this bill and avoid making a mistake 
for which our children and grandchildren will pay for generations to 
come.
  We know there are other installations of borrowing that are coming. 
We know the debate that was going to occur in the House last week on 
the first ever $1 trillion Omnibus appropriations bill was delayed 
because they didn't want to get it conflicted with the other $1 
trillion we are going to be spending for stimulus. So we have a $1 
trillion bill coming, an appropriations bill coming, a $1 trillion 
stimulus. We know the announcement is going to be coming tomorrow from 
Secretary Geithner about what their intentions are with respect to 
market stabilization and additional liabilities the country will 
acquire as a result of that effort. As my colleague from North Dakota 
earlier today noted, there is the Bloomberg story today about the 
trillions and trillions of dollars which Americans are being put on the 
hook for in the future.
  We have lots of additional liabilities, obligations, debt that is 
coming down the pike. It is going to affect our children and 
grandchildren for generations to come.
  There was something said earlier about Republicans do not have any

[[Page S2005]]

ideas; they do not have any alternatives. We offered lots of 
amendments. I offered two substitutes last week----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. THUNE. That would have improved this bill dramatically. But this 
bill is the wrong way to go, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, an earlier speaker, the Senator from 
Arizona, made some comments regarding Pell grants which I think should 
be addressed. He essentially said that spending on Pell grants; that 
is, helping young Americans go to college, would not help the economy. 
He was opposed to the increases in the Pell grant.
  I am surprised he made that statement, because I think it is 
inaccurate. Let me explain why. First, money in the hands of low-income 
families--and Pell grant recipients are low-income families--is money 
that will be injected into the economy quickly.
  Low-income people who receive money spend it. They have to spend it. 
They have to spend it to make ends meet. They have to pay the bills. 
They have to pay a mortgage. They have health care. You name it. It is 
very difficult--very difficult.
  So to say that money spent on Pell Grants is not a good idea, 
implying it is not stimulative, is highly incorrect. Low-income people 
spend the money they receive. And this legislation does increase Pell 
grants. Again, Pell grants are the grants that go to low-income 
students to go to college. That is what Pell grants are.
  He was suggesting that is a bad thing, it is not good to increase 
Pell grants. I am pointing out that the money in the hands of low-
income families, such as Pell grant recipients, is money that is spent 
in the economy very quickly. It is highly stimulative.
  Second, what happens to that money when the low-income families 
receive a Pell grant? What happens to that money? Well, it keeps 
teachers working, jobs in colleges, it helps the college meet its 
payroll. It helps the college meet its expenses.
  Pell grants are spent. First, they are spent. It is stimulative. And, 
second, the dollars are spent to help colleges, to help colleges meet 
their payroll and meet the expenses they have to make. Many State 
colleges are having a hard time these days because they are cutting 
back. They are cutting back in their colleges, the expenditures of 
their colleges. Why? Because we are in a recession. It is tough. Some 
kids are not going to college as they usually would.
  Second, Pell grant dollars are not only stimulative, but they help 
keep jobs at the colleges where the dollars are spent. Third, and 
perhaps most important, a dollar spent on Pell grants is a dollar that 
makes it much more likely for a young woman or young man to go to 
college.
  I think that is a good incentive, to help people go to college. The 
economists tell us if a person goes to college, they will, over their 
lifetime, earn $1 million more than someone who does not go to college. 
We want to encourage kids to go to college, especially help low-income 
kids go to college, because they otherwise cannot go to college.
  When that person goes to college, that young woman, that young man, 
and earns more money, economists tell us it is $1 million more compared 
to kids who do not go to college. That is more money that goes into the 
economy.
  Now, granted, it takes a little time for that college graduate to 
earn that $1 million. Maybe in that sense it is not stimulative. But 
the main point is, Pell grants are stimulative. It is a good idea, and 
another reason why this legislation should be adopted.
  I am quite surprised, frankly, that the Senator from Arizona 
criticized Pell grants, saying they should not be in this bill. And 
clearly they should be in this bill. It is stimulative. There are a lot 
of other examples I can give. But that is one I thought needed to be 
addressed.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and under the 
order, the time will be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to use whatever time allotted to our side until the next Republican 
speaker arrives.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I want to come back to the one point I 
neglected to make earlier or did not have the time to make in my 
remarks; that is, even though I made the point that the House bill when 
it came over was at a certain funding level, $820 billion, the Senate 
compromise is $827 billion, and that actually the compromise is more 
costly than was the bill that so many people complained about as being 
pork laden when it came over from the House. There are those who are 
saying this bill is going to get bigger in the conference committee 
when the House and Senate get together to work out their differences.
  I want to note what one of the Senators from Michigan said recently, 
and that is: I expect there will be some significant improvements over 
the package that comes out of the Senate. He said: There would be a 
push for more spending on infrastructure, education, and aid to the 
States.
  The President indicated recently: ``I will be honest with you, the 
Senate version cut a lot of education dollars. I would like to see some 
of this restored.''
  We talk about cuts in this program as if we are actually cutting 
something that already exists. We are talking about $1 trillion in new 
spending, an unprecedented amount of spending that has not been 
authorized. It did not go through regular order. Now we are actually 
talking as if somehow because the Senate bill, although as large as it 
is, larger than the House bill, is smaller than it was relative to 
where it was a week ago, which was over $900 billion, that somehow that 
bill has been cut, and that when we go in conference we are going to 
restore some of this money.
  So I guess the only point I would make is, as this bill makes its way 
through the legislative process, we are not talking about a bill that 
is going to be smaller, we are talking about a bill that is going to be 
increasingly larger. I suggest when it goes to the conference committee 
with the House of Representatives, that this will not--if it is at 820 
in the House and at 827 in the Senate--you can bank on it, that is 
going to be the minimum--it is probably going to get significantly 
larger.
  As I said before, we believe there is a much better way of doing 
this. First, there was a great comprehensive approach last week put 
forward by the Senator from Arizona, which many of us supported, which 
invested in infrastructure, which addressed the housing issue, which 
many of us believe is central to our ability to emerge from this 
crisis, and which also appropriately targeted a lot of the stimulus 
toward job creation in the form of tax relief for small businesses, 
which, frankly, create most of the jobs in our economy, at least a good 
share. Two-thirds to three-quarters of the jobs in our economy are 
created by small businesses.
  It also directed a lot of that particular approach and package to tax 
relief for middle-income families, putting more money into their 
pockets and allowing them to get out and to spend and to take advantage 
of something that might benefit them more than some government program 
that is going to be funded in Washington, DC, from which they probably 
will derive very little benefit.
  So this is not getting smaller, it is getting larger at every step in 
the process. There are better ideas and better alternatives out there. 
This has been proven, at least by the CBO, to have very, I think, 
questionable ability to create jobs and also to do more long-term 
damage to the economy down the road. In their study which came out last 
week, it suggested that if in fact this stimulus bill was enacted, it 
would lead to lower GDP growth in the outyears.
  I see some of my colleagues have arrived.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.

[[Page S2006]]

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I thank the Senator from South Dakota 
for his effective leadership in helping the American people understand 
the full implications of this legislation on American families. I ask 
that I be informed when I have 1 minute remaining.
  A number of things have been said about the so-called stimulus 
package, which I feel, many of us feel, is more of a spending bill than 
a stimulus bill. But there is no doubt about the fact that it increases 
our national debt.
  The debt is not some abstract thing. Our national debt is $10.7 
trillion. This adds to the national debt as much money as--well, let's 
put it this way. It took from the beginning of the Republic until 1982 
to have a cumulative debt of $850 billion. And this bill is more than 
that. This is a lot of money. We are adding the $820 or 830 billion 
that we have heard about plus the interest over the next 10 years. That 
adds about $10,000 to each family's share of the debt. Well, with that 
$10,000 you can pay in-state tuition for 1.5 years at the University of 
Tennessee. You could pay for 21 years of public school lunches every 
day for the average middle school student. You could buy a gallon of 
milk a week for 57 years. That is a lot of money.
  I wish to make three points today as we think about this stimulus 
bill which, I believe, is more of a spending bill. First, this bill 
makes a number of policy decisions on education, health, and energy 
that ought not to be made in such a bill, but ought to be separately 
debated and considered.
  No. 2, we should have all of the proposed spending on the table. Mr. 
Geithner is coming up to Congress this week to tell us how much we need 
for banks. Then we need more for housing. Then we need more for the 
war. I think if we knew all of the money we are about to have to 
borrow, our appetite for spending $1.2 trillion, mostly on projects 
that do not create jobs in the next few months, would diminish.
  And, third, this is not the kind of bipartisanship that I expected. 
As I listened to the President, I thought he wanted to change the way 
Washington works. The way Washington works in a bipartisan way is for 
us to sit down and talk with one another and come up with something 
both Republicans and Democrats can agree upon; not we won the election, 
we will write the bill and let's see if we can pick off two or three 
Senators.
  First, a number of policy decisions. The first version of the Senate 
bill actually doubled Federal spending for education without any 
discussion. I used to be the Secretary of Education. Today, that 
Department has about a $68 billion budget. The original version of the 
Senate bill doubles that. It took 40 years to get to $68 billion. But 
the original Senate bill would increase education spending by $140 
billion over the next two years--on top of that $68 billion we're 
already spending per year. So the bill would double the $68 billion 
this year, and keep it doubled next year. Then it is supposed to go 
back down to $68 billion the year after that, which seems unlikely.
  But there was no discussion about this. Would you not think, if they 
were going to double the Federal commitment to education, we would have 
a discussion about what would be best to spend it on? I mean, are we so 
delighted with the performance in kindergarten through the 12th grade 
and our preschool programs that we have nothing to do but say, let's 
double the money for more of the same?
  Even the small things that have crept into the legislation, some of 
which President Obama has said he supports, should be fully debated. 
For example, we have some new Senators at the forefront of federal 
support for the Teacher Incentive Fund. We have a new Secretary of 
Education who supports this effort to help reward outstanding teaching 
and outstanding school leading, but not a penny was included in the 
Senate bill.
  What about charter schools? A lot of us on both sides of the aisle 
want to give teachers the freedom to use their own common sense and 
good judgment in dealing with the children who are brought to them. 
That is what a public charter school does. Not a penny in the Senate 
bill.
  So education is the first policy area that should have been debated 
separately. Then on health care, the House added nearly $90 billion for 
Medicaid. The President has said we need to make health care available 
to every American. We Republicans agree with that. So we are ready to 
have a debate about that. That will cost some money.
  One of the major proposals, in fact, the one that has the most 
bipartisan support, the Wyden-Bennett legislation, would get rid of the 
Medicaid Program and replace it with individual accounts. This preempts 
that decision by giving $90 billion more to the States.
  So the States get $90 billion. That is a lot of money. Tennessee's 
share of that would be $1.5 or $2 billion. That is going to make the 
program so rich the States will not want to give it up, and we will not 
be able to have a full discussion about health care when that comes 
around.
  Then an energy bill. Last year, I asked the Energy Information 
Administration to estimate what kind of subsidies we were doing for 
renewable energy, because it seemed to me it was all going to wind and 
nothing else. I was about right.
  EIA said: We are subsidizing wind at 27 times greater than all other 
forms of renewable energy per kilowatt hour; 53 times greater than 
subsidies for coal per kilowatt hour; and 15 times greater than the 
subsidy for nuclear, which produces 70 percent of our carbon-free 
electricity.
  That was in the middle of last year. That was at a time when we only 
were committed to $11.5 billion to give to rich people and big banks, 
some of which we are bailing out, that get big tax credits when they 
build wind turbines. So that was $11.5 billion in the middle of last 
year.
  Then in October of last year we passed legislation that brought that 
up to $16 billion over the next 10 years, and this bill brings to $25.7 
billion the amount of taxpayer dollars that we are paying rich people 
and banks so they can get big tax credits for building wind turbines.
  As far as the beautiful mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee, I 
don't want those things littering our area, particularly because the 
wind doesn't blow there enough to make it efficient. But even in areas 
where it does make sense, do we really need, without any discussion, to 
go from $11.5 billion last year to $26 billion this year with a 
national windmill policy? Why don't we have a debate about energy, and 
let's have a technology-neutral way to encourage all forms of renewable 
energy, especially emerging forms.
  We have an education bill, a health care bill, and an energy bill, 
but we don't have a stimulus bill. We shouldn't have all this on the 
table.
  Mr. Geithner has apparently delayed his recommendation about what we 
do about credit and banks until we have had the vote on this stimulus 
bill. This was supposed to be a transparent administration. To be 
transparent, let's put it all out there. How much do we need to 
appropriate for banks? I voted for that twice now. I might vote for it 
again if I think we need to do it. It was not an easy vote, but I did 
it. How much do we need to spend on housing? How much do we need to 
spend on the war in Afghanistan and to finish the war in Iraq? How much 
do we need to spend on the health care plan the President and we in 
Congress have said we want to work on? And how will we shape all this 
into some control of entitlement spending? It would be nice if we had 
it all on the table.
  If we knew, as the testimony suggested before the Budget Committee 
last week, that we really need to appropriate $400 or $500 or $600 
billion to take care of $2 trillion of toxic assets in banks to get the 
economy moving again, we might have less appetite for lumping an energy 
bill and an education bill and a health care bill and a lot of projects 
that don't really stimulate the economy in with this borrowed money.
  Finally, on this side of the aisle, just as on that side of the 
aisle, we like the new President. He was our colleague. He came to see 
us. We walked out of that meeting between the President and Republican 
Senators saying: Here is an accomplished man who wants to help our 
country. We want him to succeed because if he does our country will 
succeed. But we want to be a part of it. We expected to be a part of 
it.
  President Bush technically didn't need the Congress to wage the war 
in

[[Page S2007]]

Iraq. So he didn't get support, for example, for the Iraq Study Group 
principles when Senator Salazar and I----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. When Senator Salazar and I and 17 Senators and more 
than 60 House Members of both parties suggested it. He could do it, but 
without that support, it made the war harder and the Presidency less 
successful.
  This stimulus bill is the easy thing to do. What the White House and 
the majority in the House and the majority in the Senate need to 
recognize is that if you want to be bipartisan, we want our ideas 
considered. If you want 20 Republicans, you are probably going to lose 
10 Democrats. That is the way things work around here. So the majority 
can either say: We won the election and we will write the bill and try 
to pick off two or three Republicans, or we can sit down together and 
make it work. We are ready to do that to make it work. But when you get 
to banks and housing and entitlements and health care and the war, it 
is going to get harder. I hope this is not an example of the kind of 
bipartisanship we will have. This is borrowed money. This is a spending 
bill, not a stimulus bill. It would be better if all of the money we 
are going to be asked to spend were on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. And it also would be better if we all had the 
opportunity to see exactly what the total bill is before we vote on 
this part of it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Could the Chair inform me when I have used 9 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, we are about to vote at 5:30. Under 
Senate rules, we need 60 votes to bring closure to a bill, to basically 
end debate, move on with any amendments that are left hanging, and 
bring the debate to an end. I hope people were listening to my 
colleague from Tennessee. I thought he made a very good argument that 
we are bringing to close a debate that really never began.
  I don't remember debating doubling the size of the Education 
Department budget. I do know that education spending in Washington has 
grown significantly under the Bush years. Maybe there is room for it to 
grow even more. But I thought we were trying to create jobs to get our 
economy going. I am quite confident that many of the programs they are 
trying to expand in the Education Department have more to do with a 
particular agenda of a few people than creating jobs. The health care 
issue is enormous. Providing broadband service to rural America is very 
important. There is $9 billion in this bill to do that. But the 
question is, Does that money create a job in the near term?
  The reason I believe we need a stimulus package is because I don't 
think the private sector has the ability to jump-start the economy 
because they can't borrow money. There are not many businesses out 
there that have the ability right now to expand.
  One thing we could do in Washington to help the economy is cut 
people's taxes so that businesses would have more money to expand and 
hire new people; cut individual taxes so people would have more money 
to meet the needs and manage the budget and make their house payments; 
and infuse into the economy some spending, shovel-ready projects. You 
are going to need a shovel when this bill passes, not to build 
anything, just to get the money out the door.
  There is $200 million in oversight; $200 million is going to be spent 
just to try to figure out where the money went. This is an incredible 
amount of money being spent, $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years with 
interest, and we have spent 4 days on it in the Senate.
  The House started this process, and they couldn't pick up one 
Republican vote. I can assure you, there are Republicans in the House 
and Senate who really do believe we need to cut taxes and spend money 
to jump-start the economy. They lost 11 Democrats in the House.
  This bill started poorly and has gotten worse. It comes to the Senate 
in the compromise, and I applaud Members for trying to reach a 
compromise. The bill is $7 billion more in the Senate than it was in 
the House. I wouldn't want these people to buy me a car. That is not 
exactly what I had in mind when it came to compromise.
  Every Republican voted for a bill--I think it was $415 billion--to 
cut taxes, money for infrastructure spending, money to extend 
unemployment benefits and food stamps, and other programs to help 
people who have lost their jobs. Compromise is not going from $415 to 
$7 billion more than the House bill. To those who said this is the best 
deal we could get, I couldn't disagree more. This is the best deal you 
could get with two or three people.
  But I do believe the American people have seen through this bill, and 
they don't like it. They don't know exactly what to do. That is 
probably true of many of us in Congress. This is something unusual. But 
they know this process is not what they had in mind when it came to 
change. They know this bill stinks.
  This bill was written by appropriators, not by economists. The focus 
of this bill--to create jobs in the near term--has been replaced by 
what I consider basically an orgy of spending. People have piled onto 
this bill policy changes that were never debated. We made up numbers 
when it comes to education and health care without really any vetting. 
The markup in the Senate, where the bill was drafted, lasted an hour 
and 40 minutes. We have had 2 or 3 days on the floor to talk about the 
bill. It has been helpful. But at the end of the day, we are bringing 
closure to a bill that spends $1.2 trillion that will transfer to the 
next generation of young Americans a debt on top of what they already 
owe, and we are digging a hole for the next generation of Americans I 
don't think they will be able to get out of. Shame on us.
  If it creates 4 million jobs, who knows, that is still $275,000 per 
job. If it is 1.3 million, that is almost $600,000 per job. What was 
intended to be a good thing has turned out to be the old way of doing 
business. Less than 20 percent of the money gets into the economy 
within the first year. I argue, if you can't get the money into the 
economy within a year or 18 months, we should not be doing it.
  The sad thing is that the fundamental problem with the economy is 
unaddressed; that is, housing, what got us into this mess, a collapse 
of the housing industry. You can't borrow money at banks. Why? Banks 
have a hard time lending money because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and 
other organizations pushed home loans to people who couldn't afford to 
pay the loans. They took these questionable mortgages and repackaged 
them 1,000 times over, calling them different things such as mortgage-
backed securities, and it spread throughout the entire world. Now banks 
own these troubled assets. And the first round of TARP that was 
supposed to get some of these assets off the book--we just gave the 
money to banks to keep them from folding.

  We have yet to address the housing problem and the banking problem. 
We are going to find out maybe tomorrow what additional money would be 
required to fix those two aspects of the economy. There is $310 billion 
left in the TARP fund. It will not cover the needs of the banking or 
housing industries. The public will be asked to give more money.
  My point is simple: Every dollar that is unfocused and wasted in the 
stimulus could be spent on helping people stay in their homes and 
helping banks lend money. That is the way I look at it. There is so 
much in this bill that may be worthy but doesn't create a job and could 
be transferred to the housing and banking problems and not just spent.
  The President called this a spending bill. I thought it was a bill to 
create jobs. We have a way to spend money. It is called the 
appropriations process. We came together early on after the election to 
try to find a new way of doing business. We, most of us--I think there 
are 20 Republicans--would sign up for a bill that would cut taxes and 
spend money in a focused way. The bill we have before us cuts taxes and 
spends a lot of money, and neither one of them is focused.
  The public will be asked again to put more of their money on the 
table--and it is all borrowed from their children--to deal with the 
fundamentals of the economy, housing and banking, that are pretty much 
unaddressed. It is disappointing for me that we are bringing

[[Page S2008]]

to close a debate that really never happened.
  To the Senator from Tennessee, he has a great reputation of being 
somebody who listens and is pretty easy to get along with. I think I 
have a reputation of reaching across the aisle, sometimes to my own 
political detriment. It is in my nature to try to find common ground on 
big problems that no one party can solve. I argue that the economic 
crisis we are in is not going to be solved by one group of people. It 
is going to be solved by America working together.
  The message from the election that I thought was received by most 
Americans is that you want us to be smarter and you want us to work 
together.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. GRAHAM. The public was hopeful that the Congress and the new 
President would be smarter and we would work together. I think we have 
failed. I don't believe this bill is smart at all. It certainly wasn't 
a work product that came from working together.
  Where do we go from here? We go to get more of the public money to 
fix housing and banking. We wasted a lot of their money. We cannot 
spend enough money through a stimulus package to save this economy 
unless we deal with banking and housing. We have thrown a lot of good 
money after bad. I apologize, and I am sorry that we can't do better. I 
now know why the Congress is in such low esteem.
  I am disappointed in this new President. Like everyone else, I want 
him to do well because our country needs to do well. But he has missed 
a great opportunity.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I yield myself 5 minutes from the time of Senator 
Chambliss.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, the President last week talked about the 
need for speed. He equated spending with stimulus. He even said: That 
is the point, spending is stimulus.
  If you are going to spend a trillion dollars, you better spend it 
right. Ask the country of Japan, during the 1990s, when they had six 
different stimulus bills. Stimulus was not equal to spending in their 
country because they spent the money incorrectly. They had many 
examples of bridges to nowhere and roads to nowhere. It isn't just a 
question of spending money and spending it fast; it is a question of 
how you spend it. You better spend it correctly.
  One of the huge problems we have in this bill is that it does very 
little for housing. When the bill first came out, it did almost nothing 
for housing. There has been a little bit of change to it since then, 
and that is good.
  I brought forward a proposal earlier that I believed--and many 
believed--would have done a great deal to solve the housing problem.
  We all know it is the housing problem that has dragged the rest of 
the economy down. It is the housing sector that has effected the rest 
of the economy. During the early part of this decade, housing was 
booming, and it actually helped the rest of the economy. But it was a 
false bubble, and all bubbles burst, whether it was the dot.com bubble, 
this housing bubble or any of the bubbles from the past. They always 
burst.
  This bubble, by the way, was caused by the Government, and that is 
why we as the Government have a responsibility to fix it. But the speed 
with which this bill is coming forward--a trillion-plus dollars--means 
we are going to make some major mistakes. You cannot do it this quickly 
and do it right.

  The President has just put together a new economic team, including 
some very talented people as his economic advisers. I suggest we start 
over. I suggest we combine the administrations economic team with 
Democrats from the House and Senate in order to come up with the best 
ideas and put forward a bill that will actually fix the economy. When 
we put together a bill such as this one, a bill so complex and so large 
and it is done behind closed doors with one party, you are going to 
have problems. That is why you have seen so much objection to this bill 
from our side of the aisle.
  In the House of Representatives, this bill was jammed through. It was 
$819 billion. Not a single Republican voted for it, and 11 Democrats 
voted against this bill. The only thing bipartisan in the House version 
of this bill was the opposition. Now we come over to the Senate, and 
Republicans are excluded from the process of writing this bill. It has 
been an open process on amendments, but almost all of the amendments 
have been rejected.
  We should sit down and start over so we get this economic package 
right the first time. As I have said before, you do not get do-overs 
when you are talking about a trillion dollars. The budget deficit going 
into this year was slated to be $1.2 trillion. We are talking about 
over $800 billion in this bill. The Senate bill is actually more than 
the House bill. I think the Senate bill is $827 billion. When you count 
interest, it is actually $1.2 trillion.
  So, Madam President, when you start adding up this debt we are 
passing on to our children--and, as the President has said, in the next 
4 or 5 years, we are looking at annual budget deficits of over $1 
trillion--this is going to lead to higher taxes, it is going to lead to 
severe inflation. As we are running up this debt, we have to sell 
Treasury bills to be able to pay for the debt. If other countries in 
the world decide they are not going to buy our Treasury bills, this 
country's economy will completely collapse. It will be worse than the 
Great Depression.
  We have to get this right. We cannot get it right with outlandish 
spending. We need to shrink the size of the package and target spending 
so it is effective, so it is actually not building bridges to nowhere 
but rather bridges that are needed, roads that are needed and mass 
transit that is actually needed.
  This bill includes money for electric golf carts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, let's start over and get this thing 
right.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 10 
minutes immediately prior to the cloture vote today, as well as the 10 
minutes prior to the 12 noon vote on Tuesday, February 10, be equally 
divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with 
the majority leader controlling the final 5 minutes prior to the vote 
on each day covered in this agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise to speak on the stimulus 
package today. Much has been said on this package that is before us 
now--in fact, so much that the often employed adage over the weekend 
was that everything that can be said has been said but not every man 
has had a chance to say it. While those musings are certainly 
applicable, it is important to note our debate here is healthy.
  The perils facing our economy are of the gravest concern and 
magnitude, which requires a response in kind. When faced with such an 
undertaking, it is understandable to seek a solution with one voice in 
the spirit of bipartisanship and compromise. However, when differences 
arise that are so fundamental, spirited debate and disagreement can 
pose a healthy return to our purest forms of thought and help to foster 
basic solutions advocated by a set of guiding principles.
  The party makeup of the Senate all but confirms passage of this 
enormous spending bill. Still, I use this time to highlight the most 
basic differences in beliefs so as to assure the American people that 
our reason for opposing this bill is not political, is not partisan, 
but, rather, based on true economic principles.
  It is a cornerstone of my thinking that the American people deserve 
and are rightfully entitled to best determine how their own money is 
spent. While there are most certainly essential Government functions 
which require funding by the American taxpayer, when faced with a 
decision as to who can best govern themselves and how to spend their 
money, I will always side with the taxpayer. As such, I cannot support 
this spending plan--a

[[Page S2009]]

plan which not only adds over $1 trillion to our national debt, which 
would increase our debt ceiling to over $12.1 trillion, but, most 
importantly, a plan which will do nothing to truly stimulate the 
economy. Government spending taxpayer dollars on behalf of taxpayers 
does not grow the economy in the manner which is needed to return 
strength and stability to our economy.
  This past month, the unemployment rate hit 7.6 percent. It is higher 
than that in my home State. Madam President, 598,000 jobs were lost in 
January 2009, for a total of 11.6 million people unemployed. We must 
enact policies that create jobs, not simply spend taxpayer dollars, 
robbing Peter to pay Paul. We must provide incentives to businesses to 
hire, expand, and grow. This bill does none of that.
  Unfortunately, this Democratic spending bill will cost the American 
taxpayer more of the money they so desperately need to be allowed to 
keep. Moreover, it simply does not do enough to address the crux of the 
problems facing our economy, which is the housing industry. In fact, 
the original bill that came out of the Finance Committee did not 
contain one single provision that addressed the housing crisis. Thank 
goodness we have an amendment that seeks to address it, but more must 
be done. Housing problems got us into this mess, and solutions targeted 
toward housing will help get us out. It is imperative that we work 
toward narrowing the gap between supply and demand of houses. As long 
as supply remains at its current level as related to demand, home 
values will continue to drop and our economy will continue its downward 
spiral.
  With this plan, the Democrats are saying they believe the Government 
can spend its way out of our current economic perils by spending the 
taxpayers' money for them. There is nothing wholeheartedly I disagree 
with more. The Government must not act as the purchaser and spender of 
last resort. Government intervention into private markets and 
imposition into citizens' pocketbooks does more harm than good. They 
attack the solutions we have offered as financially imprudent yet 
advocate a spending plan which spends more money than the entire 
economy of Australia.
  But as I began, at the heart of this debate, the numbers here are not 
as important as is the difference in fundamental economic principles. 
This spending package only succeeds in doing two things: expanding 
permanently the size of Government and saddling the taxpayer with the 
cost and requiring our children to repay the debt. If we reduce the 
size of Government, limit its impositions into the free market, and 
allow the private sector to prosper where the Federal Government has 
staked a claim, businesses will grow, creating more jobs, injecting 
more capital into the economy. But a piecemeal compromise such as this 
proposal serves only to dilute the framework needed to allow our 
economy to return to prosperity.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam 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. Madam President, I understand the Senator from Iowa, Mr. 
Grassley, wishes to speak. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Iowa. 
I think he has some time he wishes to use as well.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Total of 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, first of all, let me express great 
appreciation to the chairman for giving me an opportunity to use some 
of his time when I am going to be speaking against the legislation. It 
is very much brotherly love and I appreciate that.
  Today I wish to talk about some of the questionable spending in this 
bill and some of the amendments we aren't going to be able to vote on. 
First of all, there is $87 billion in Medicaid funds in this bill. As I 
have said on this floor several times, it is more than States need to 
pay for enrollment-driven increases in Medicaid spending due to the 
recession. We all accept the fact that there needs to be more money for 
Medicaid, as long as it is directly related to an increase in 
unemployment. However, I explained last week how the facts show that 
this amount is far more than States need for the cost of the new 
Medicaid enrollment resulting from a downturn in the economy. What the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office determined was that what States 
need to pay for increases in Medicaid enrollment is not the $87 billion 
in the bill but a lot smaller amount--$10.8 billion--directly related 
to an increase of unemployment Medicaid use.
  So the question is, Why does the bill provide almost eight times what 
the States actually need for the new enrollment resulting from that 
downturn? I say we shouldn't kid ourselves. This bill gives States, in 
a sense, a slush fund. Now, I am willing to admit States might need 
money for other programs, but it shouldn't be covered up by saying it 
is Medicaid money.
  On Friday night, I had an amendment to ensure that Medicaid funds 
would have been distributed fairly. Amazingly, 17 Members of the Senate 
voted to give their States less money, but at least in that case, I was 
able to get a vote. I had several other amendments that were never 
allowed to be made pending. All day Wednesday we were prevented from 
making amendments pending. Retreats and signing ceremonies got in the 
way. Thursday evening we spent more time arguing over whether 
amendments would be made pending rather than actually processing 
amendments. It seems contrary to what President Obama said on Monday 
night. He said the Republicans have a lot of good ideas and we ought to 
make this a bipartisan bill. So we get to 10 o'clock on Friday morning. 
We were encouraged to bring our amendments to the floor so they could 
be debated. For some reason, the first amendment was not allowed until 
4\1/2\ hours later.
  So I am disappointed that several amendments on this side of the 
aisle, including some of my own, would not receive a vote. I am not 
convinced the majority wanted to have open debate and take votes on 
many of these amendments, including mine. It is too bad because this 
bill still can be made a bipartisan bill, and this bill can still be 
made a more effective bill.
  Congress is giving States, then, $87 billion for Medicaid and resting 
on the hope that States don't strip the health care safety net for low-
income families and then pocket money. For instance, in my State of 
Iowa I recently read in the paper that they are going to cut $20 
million out of Medicaid. So if we can do things with all the money we 
are going to give to the States to make sure these programs aren't cut, 
it seems to me, for that additional $76 billion, we ought to get some 
of that assurance. I use the word ``hope'' that they don't do that 
because the underlying bill doesn't do enough to make sure States do 
what is best with the Medicaid Program. Does the bill prevent States 
from getting Medicaid Programs? It does not. The bill only prevents 
States from cutting Medicaid on one of three propositions, this one 
being income eligibility. So that is a good thing. But if Congress is 
giving States $87 billion and telling them not to cut Medicaid 
eligibility, shouldn't Congress also tell States they can't cut 
benefits? If Congress is giving States $87 billion and telling them not 
to cut Medicaid eligibility, then shouldn't Congress also tell States 
they can't cut payments to providers? Will Medicaid beneficiaries who 
are elderly or disabled be able to receive home- and community-based 
services? Will there be enough pharmacists taking Medicaid? Will there 
be enough rural hospitals or public hospitals taking Medicaid patients? 
Will there be enough community health centers taking Medicaid people? 
Will Medicaid beneficiaries who are elderly or disabled be able to get 
into nursing homes? Will States cut mental health services because 
Congress didn't prevent them from doing so in this bill? Will there be 
pediatricians or children's hospitals there for children on Medicaid?
  So if the Senate does nothing to protect access to these vital 
providers, nobody will be able to assure the people who count on 
Medicaid that the care they need will be there. I filed an amendment 
that prevents States from generally cutting eligibility and benefits 
and providers. In other words, I am

[[Page S2010]]

building on what the bill's authors did. They said don't cut 
eligibility. I agree with that. But shouldn't we, at the same time, not 
allow States to cut benefits and providers while all the time the 
States are getting $87 billion, which is about $75 billion, $76 billion 
more than what the recession-driven unemployment qualifiers for 
Medicaid need? The other day, if we had a chance, Members could have 
voted, in other words, to protect Medicaid providers and people who are 
on it. That should have had a vote.
  The bill provides in addition a COBRA subsidy to involuntarily 
terminated employees. The bill places no limits on the eligibility for 
the subject. Why? I haven't quite figured it out. I know the amendment 
we are now considering lowers the subsidy, but it still has no limits 
on eligibility for that subsidy.
  Last week, President Obama and his administration issued guidelines 
for capping compensation paid to CEOs whose institutions receive 
taxpayers' dollars through the TARP program, but the fact of the matter 
is this: Former Wall Street CEOs and hedge fund managers who have made 
millions of dollars while running our economy into the ground will get 
a taxpayers' subsidy equal to now 50 percent of their health care 
insurance. It seems to me that is outrageous.
  I filed an amendment that simply said if a worker who was voluntarily 
terminated from their job earned income in excess of $125,000 for 
individuals or $250,000 for families as a whole, this worker would not 
be eligible to receive the subsidy. What is magic about $250,000? It is 
the same level President Obama in the campaign said that people above 
that level should have tax increases. So I figured $250,000: You 
shouldn't be eligible for a subsidy for your health insurance, 
particularly if you are coming from a company that as a CEO you drove 
into the ground. That amendment should have had a vote.
  It is not just the health care amendments. This bill could be 
improved by increasing the tax credit for education expenses. Senator 
Schumer and I filed an amendment--now, that is a bipartisan amendment--
that would have done just that. It would have increased the American 
Opportunity Tax Credit from $2,500 to $3,000. It was a bipartisan 
amendment. It should have had a vote.
  I also remain deeply concerned about the oversight of this bill. On 
the front page of today's Washington Post, there is a story with this 
headline: ``If Spending Is Swift, Oversight May Suffer.'' Well, a 
person such as I was very interested. I spend more time on oversight 
than I do on legislating because I don't think we do enough of it here. 
The article says:

       The Obama administration's economic stimulus plan could end 
     up wasting billions of dollars by attempting to spend money 
     faster than an overburdened government acquisition system can 
     manage and oversee it.

  When there is a potential for waste, fraud, and abuse, Congress needs 
to be proactive, not reactive. This is why I filed an amendment to 
ensure Congress has the ability to get information from the executive 
branch and respond to the allegations that will inevitably come in. The 
amendment would ensure that any agency that gets funding under this 
bill would be required to provide records upon written request by a 
chairman or ranking member of a committee of Congress. The committee 
records should not be kept secret from the elected representatives of 
the people. I have always tried to focus on good Government issues such 
as waste, fraud, and abuse. That is what my amendment did. That should 
have had a vote.
  I know a lot of people have worked very hard putting this bill 
together. I have done some of that myself, so I know what work it 
takes. I know a lot of people worked very hard putting a substitute 
amendment together. I respect that they have worked hard. Hard work 
doesn't mean, though, that it is necessarily good work. We should all 
have been allowed to consider and vote on more amendments than we have. 
I would say on all the amendments I have discussed in my remarks today, 
giving $87 billion, even though that is as much as eight times what 
they need to stay ahead of enrollment-driven Medicaid increases, is 
still not well thought out. Giving States $87 billion while still 
allowing them to cut their Medicaid Programs is still not well thought 
out.
  Giving a COBRA subsidy to millionaires is still not well thought out. 
It is still not well thought out. It is still out of control.
  The Senate should have been allowed to vote on the numerous 
amendments I have discussed today to address the shortcomings that 
occur when partisan bills are moved too quickly. We could still do 
that. We could process these amendments today. But as we have seen 
throughout, the majority is not interested in true bipartisanship or in 
process that allows for full and open debate on amendments. We have the 
House of Representatives and the ``House of Representatives in 
training,'' given how this debate has been run.
  Today we are being told ``just do it,'' at the expense of doing this 
very important and urgent legislation in a way that does right by the 
American people in the short and longer term.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I wish to set the record straight on a 
few points that speakers on the other side of the aisle have made. I 
think it would be totally unfair if they go unchallenged and the record 
is not set straight.
  The Senator from Oklahoma said the bill before us is the biggest 
spending bill ever. That is not true. It is true this is a big bill, 
and that is because the economy is in such dire shape and because we 
are in a recession. That is a big problem. It needs to be faced. This 
is a big bill, and I would suggest the appropriate response to a big 
problem is a big bill. An inappropriate response would be not a big 
bill to a very big problem.
  I might say that this is a big problem also because economists 
project that the economy is likely to suffer $2 trillion to $3 trillion 
less growth because of this recession than would have occurred with 
full employment. Again, that is $2 trillion to $3 trillion of less 
growth because of the recession than would have occurred with full 
employment. We have a lot of lost jobs, as we know. We need to do 
something pretty significant about that.
  The size of the bill is an appropriate level to try to replace some 
of the activity this recession is robbing from our economy.
  The second point is this is not the largest bill that Congress has 
ever considered. That assertion, made by a Senator on the floor not 
long ago, was inaccurate; it is not true. The fact is, in past years, 
we have passed legislation that would cut taxes by trillions of dollars 
and all in one bill.
  Those who call this the largest bill in history are forgetting recent 
history. The 2001 Bush tax cuts, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
Reconciliation Act, was estimated back then to cost $1.3 trillion over 
10 years. Frankly, I think it turned out to be more than that. It was a 
larger bill than this. This is a $827 billion bill; that was about $1.3 
trillion.
  I also think it is important for us to remember that as of October of 
last year, Congress had approved a total of $864 billion for the Iraq 
and Afghanistan wars and for enhanced security at military bases from 
2001 through 2009. About $657 billion of that amount, about 76 percent, 
was approved for the war in Iraq, and the conflict is not over yet. So 
an accurate tabulation would conclude that the Afghan and Iraq wars are 
bigger than the stimulus bill before us. So it is inaccurate that this 
is the largest spending bill we have ever had.
  Next, the Senator from South Dakota asserted that the mandatory 
spending in the bill is permanent. That is not accurate. The spending 
in this bill is not permanent. The spending provisions in this bill are 
nearly all sunsetted, not permanent. We have crafted a bill that has 
its effects in the first 2 years.
  I remind my colleagues that according to CBO and the Joint Committee 
on Tax, a nonpartisan, bipartisan professional staff, whose job it is 
to analyze legislation before us, concluded that 79 percent of the 
effect of the Finance Committee provisions would take effect the first 
two years. That doesn't sound like it is permanent to me. The Joint 
Committee on Tax and CBO, in a combined analysis, concludes

[[Page S2011]]

that 79 percent of the entire bill's effect will be spent in the first 
2 years. That is not my statement. That is CBO, made up of very highly 
trained professionals who deal with these issues. So it is not true 
that this spending goes on forever. This bill is very temporary, by 
definition.
  Another colleague on the other side complained that this doesn't do 
enough for small business. Let's see if that is true. The business 
provisions in the bill, like the loss carrybacks, help small businesses 
by providing immediate cash to help them meet payroll and make 
investments. That can clearly help all businesses. In addition, the 
bill has something specifically targeted at small businesses that are 
trying to make ends meet. That is expanded expenses in section 179. 
That section is a provision in the law that allows businesses to fully 
expense their expenditures for that year. They don't have to depreciate 
and apply that depreciation against earnings in subsequent years. 
Rather, they can fully expense the expenses. I forgot the cutoff, but 
it is around $700,000 or $800,000. It is significant. That is in this 
bill.
  Also, there are other business provisions, such as the extension of 
bonus depreciation. We extend that provision in current law, and that 
is extended next year. That provision says any expenses that any 
company makes can be fully expensed irrespective of the size and 
purpose--50 percent can be fully expensed in the first year, and the 
rest has to be amortized. That is a big boon for small business. There 
are many other provisions. We picked up some of the big ones.
  I mentioned the 5-year carryback of operating loss. That helps 
business. Section 179 is targeted only to small business. There is 
delayed recognition of certain cancellations of debt income. There is a 
small business capital gains provision. That will help small business 
and also the S-corp holding period. Most small businesses or S-corps--
there is a provision here of half a billion dollars relief over 10 
years. Altogether, the tax portion of the bill contains about $28 
billion worth of provisions targeted to small business.
  This bill certainly contains provisions that are very helpful. So the 
assertion that there is nothing in this bill to help small business is 
simply inaccurate.
  Fourth, two Senators said this bill spends hundreds of thousands of 
dollars for every job this bill creates. A lot of Senators are throwing 
a lot of numbers around. It is kind of wild. That is one of them. That 
is wildly inflated. Why? First, those who make that assertion simply 
divide the total cost of the bill by the number of jobs created in any 
1 year. This bill spends out over 2 years, not 1 year. The jobs it 
preserves or creates will extend over 2 years and longer. Thus, the 
Senators need to cut their estimates per job at least in half. They 
take 1-year numbers, and we are talking about 2 years. When this bill 
is passed with the jobs it creates or preserves, the people who would 
get those jobs will pay taxes, payroll taxes, income taxes. Thus, they 
bring money back into the Treasury. That also helps cut taxes, the 
total number of dollars per job. A fair analysis would cut first their 
assertion in half, and it would add back additional revenues that would 
go back into the Treasury because of the jobs these people would have 
would produce payroll taxes and sales taxes--we are talking about 
payroll tax and income tax.
  I wish when Senators speak--and certainly they can have their 
opinions, and every Senator has come to the conclusion whether he or 
she is for or against the bill--I wish when the Senators describe the 
bill, they would describe it in a fair and balanced way and then reach 
their conclusion--not just take one set of facts only because it is 
inaccurate and misleading, frankly, to the American public, who want us 
to do the right thing, to figure out a way to stop the recession. I 
firmly believe the public should have all the facts, and they would 
probably reach the conclusion that this is the right thing to do. In 
statements I have made, I have acknowledged this is a big bill. I have 
acknowledged it is imperfect. But I also conclude it is far better to 
pass this legislation than do nothing. If we don't pass this, we ain't 
seen nothing yet, in terms of the foreclosure of homes underway and 
jobs lost. We will get close to the Great Depression.
  There is no other conclusion than we must pass this legislation 
quickly so we can get on to the next issues we have to face.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, these last few days, I have been traveling 
across my State of Missouri, and to say that people are outraged over 
this $1 trillion budget buster would be an understatement. 
Unfortunately, many of the people have called the office and talked to 
the fine young people who work for me have had all kinds of harsh 
comments made to them. But as I have traveled around the State from my 
hometown of Mexico in central Missouri to the rural folks in Ava and 
Gainesville in south Missouri, to the people in the metropolitan area 
of St. Louis, Missourians are telling me how they are overwhelmingly 
opposed to this stimulus bill.
  It is not just Missourians I met with in person; thousands have been 
calling my offices in the State and in Washington, as I said, to voice 
strong opposition. The numbers aren't even close. It is about 4 to 1 
against this bill. They want me to vote against it because Missourians 
know the only thing about this bill that will stimulate is the national 
debt and the growth of Government. Don't get me wrong, Missourians 
aren't opposed because they are untouched by the economic crisis. In 
fact, a large percentage of Missourians, such as many other Americans, 
are struggling right now. They want to do something positive. Missouri 
workers are facing the loss of jobs, Missouri small businesses are 
failing and Missouri families are struggling to pay their bills and put 
food on the table.
  Last week's unemployment report only underscores the suffering of the 
folks in Missouri and the rest of the Nation. It is clear we must act 
quickly and boldly to protect and create jobs and put people back to 
work as soon as we can. We cannot afford to sit on the sidelines and 
let this suffering continue. But we cannot afford nor should we spend 
$1 trillion on a spending bill that will jump-start spending in 
Government but not jobs and the economy. I want a responsible stimulus 
bill--not a big spending bill--that will create jobs now and help our 
families.

  Instead of seeing a well-targeted, temporary, and timely emergency 
stimulus bill, what Missourians see is the bill before us today, and 
they see it for what it is: a budget buster that will fail to create 
the jobs we need so desperately now and not down the road, if then. As 
a matter of fact, CBO said the impact of this bill will be to slow our 
national gross domestic product by two-tenths to three-tenths of a 
percent in the long run.
  This trillion-dollar baby is loaded with pet programs and wasteful 
spending, despite the efforts of people on my side to trim the bill's 
price tag and include some real stimulus. Some of this funding could be 
all right on its own. There are good arguments for them. But it does 
not belong in an emergency spending bill which goes beyond the budget 
and does so in the name of jump-starting the economy when it will not.
  The bottom line is that this bill nickel-and-dimes the American 
people. Unfortunately, it is nickels and dimes with many zeros behind 
the fives and the tens, and it will result in over $1 trillion in 
additional debt that our children and grandchildren will spend their 
lives repaying. That is too much to ask of them, especially when it 
will not do the job we need to do now.
  Some of my colleagues are talking about a grand compromise. The only 
thing grand about this compromise, regrettably, is its price tag. Only 
in Washington would trimming a $1 trillion bill down to $827 billion be 
called fiscally responsible. With interest, this is still a trillion-
dollar baby, and that is on top of $9 trillion of spending loans and 
guarantees that the Government has already committed, as reported by 
Bloomberg news service today.
  This budget-buster spending bill--$7 billion more than the House 
bill--is

[[Page S2012]]

still loaded with too much spending that will not create jobs, will not 
let working families keep more of their hard-earned money, and will not 
strike at the heart of our economic crisis, which is why, in good 
conscience, most Republicans, such as myself, will be voting no.
  I am disappointed that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
are trying to point fingers at Republicans for Democrats' failures. 
President Obama was very compelling, and he made a strong and very 
urgent pitch for bipartisanship. Instead of bipartisanship, we got a 
bait-and-switch. Calls for bipartisanship switched to partisanship when 
the bill was taken over by majorities in the House and the Senate.
  We heard from the President wonderful talk of a timely, targeted, and 
temporary stimulus bill and the fact that everybody was going to be 
involved, both sides. And then it was switched to a bloated, business-
as-usual spending spree with Democratic priorities, stuffed with 
billions in wish-list items that will not create jobs. Families need 
help now. It is time for this bait-and-switch to end.
  Rather than an irresponsible spending spree, our economic recovery 
plan must include three key components for it to work. Any economic 
recovery plan must include real and significant tax relief for working 
families and small businesses. Second, an economic recovery plan must 
be focused on including significant investment in ready-to-go 
infrastructure projects, things where you can go to work this year and 
put people to work building roads, bridges, highways, locks, transit 
systems, water and sewer projects, other items that we badly need in 
this country. Third, any economic recovery plan must include a solid 
plan to attack the root cause of this economic crisis--the housing and 
financial crisis. That is what brought us down. That is what is going 
to hold us here unless we do something about it. Japan spent 10 years 
trying to spend its way out of a similar crisis, but they did not get 
the debt out, and as a result they had 10 years of stagnation. We 
cannot afford to spend $1 trillion and have 10 years of stagnation. 
Unfortunately, the Democrats' trillion-dollar spending bill fails to do 
any of the three things that are needed.
  I want to talk about the third point a little bit. There is broad 
agreement that without help, our economy cannot recover from the 
breakdown of our financial and credit markets. We were supposed to see 
the plan to tackle the root of the crisis today. Instead, the President 
postponed the critical announcement and went around campaigning, trying 
to force Republicans to vote for a bill that we know is a pig in a 
poke. We are not going to vote for a pig in a poke. If any of my 
colleagues don't know what a pig in a poke is, I will explain it to 
them.
  Why would President Obama put off talking about the most important 
part of our economic recovery? Perhaps the President does not find the 
idea of coming to Congress and asking for another trillion dollars on 
top of this budget buster too appetizing before they get this bill 
passed. But just wait, folks, the numbers that are going to come in 
when that plan is announced will curl whatever of your hair is not 
curled already. I think it is one more example of the mixed-up 
priorities. Republicans understand that we must fix the problem first. 
A trillion dollars is a terrible thing to waste.
  I urged and continue to urge that the President's representatives sit 
down with the bipartisan leaders of the House and the Senate and the 
appropriations and the tax-writing committees and come up with a bill 
that is smaller, that is focused, that will get the job done. We do not 
need an irresponsible bill that stimulates the debt, stimulates the 
growth of Government, but fails to stimulate our economy or job 
creation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, what is the time on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 10 minutes remaining, of which 5 is 
supposed to be for the Republican leader.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I return again for the fourth time now 
to ask that the Senate be allowed to vote on my E-verify amendment. 
That amendment has been refiled to make sure it is applicable to the 
substituted bill.
  I do not see any Members from the majority, so I will not ask at this 
moment to get UC. The bill managers and the majority leader have been 
ever so nice, as we have discussed, but having been around here a few 
years, I have to say I am getting a message, and the message is: The 
answer is going to be no.
  The fact is that this legislation has been moving in a certain way 
with a unanimous consent agreement that was obtained late Friday night 
that is going to make it not possible to get a vote on the amendment 
without unanimous agreement of the Senate. The people who participated 
in that should have known and I am sure did know they were eliminating 
the amendment I desire to offer. I want to ask again for that unanimous 
consent and will before I give up the floor.
  E-Verify is being used by over 100,000 businesses across America. It 
is a free, voluntary system set up by the Department Homeland Security. 
E-Verify allows any employer who has an interest in making sure they 
hire legal workers to simply punch in the Social Security number, and 
within a few minutes it shows whether there is a problem with that 
number. Ninety-six percent of the persons queried are approved 
immediately. Employers can feel good, even feel safe in hiring those 
approved by the system, even though that is not absolute proof of the 
legal status of that applicant.
  I simply want to offer in this amendment exactly the same language 
that was accepted, without a vote, in the House bill. Furthermore, the 
language that extends the E-Verify program passed the House by a vote 
of 407 to 2 last July. The amendment simply extends the E-verify 
program, No. 1, and also says that if a company gets stimulus money, 
money which is supposed to create jobs for Americans, they ought to 
take the 2 minutes to check to make sure that the people they are 
hiring are lawfully here. We want to make sure that only citizens and 
people who are here legally can be hired. This includes green card 
holders and temporary workers who are here on valid visas. This 
amendment would ensure that only people who are illegally here don't 
get hired.
  The leadership in the Senate, for some reason, has made up their 
minds that they are not going to let us vote on it. If we had a vote on 
it, it would pass. It already passed the House, and if it passes the 
Senate, it must be a part of the final bill. It cannot be taken out in 
conference without real sculduggery undertaken, and I think it would be 
in the final bill.
  The game here is clearly to subtly and otherwise keep this vote from 
occurring, let this bill be forced out of here. It will not be in the 
Senate bill. It will be in the House bill. And the conferees will meet 
and they will decide to take it out. That is what is happening. If the 
American people want to know, if the Members of Congress would like to 
know why people are so upset with us, it is this kind of game playing. 
All the Members of the House who voted for it can tell their 
constituents: I voted for it. I don't know why it wasn't in final 
passage. And people in the Senate could say: I didn't vote on it. I 
would have been for it if I didn't get to vote. But the net result is 
it is not part of the law.
  I cannot imagine why persons would not want this amendment to be in 
any legislation that would at least take the steps to see that those 
who are illegally in the country do not get this money.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I rise to address my colleagues 
regarding the importance of improving access to health care in our 
rural communities. Rural America accounts for about 20 percent of the 
Nation's population, yet only 9 percent of the country's physicians. It 
should, therefore, come as no surprise that nearly 70 percent of the 
primary care health professional shortage areas are in rural 
communities.
  The disparity in access to quality health care has a substantial and 
tangible impact on the quality of care and the quality of life for 
rural Americans, who are typically older, poorer, and

[[Page S2013]]

sicker than the population at large. That also has an impact on the 
economic vitality of those regions.
  I do not believe that the stimulus legislation is the right vehicle 
for the majority of the spending it contains. Of the spending it 
contains, I note that the bill spends a substantial amount of money for 
health care in rural communities. This spending is directed toward 
health care access points, health information technology, workforce 
training development, and broadband deployment. At this point, it is 
likely some version of this package will move forward. As Congress 
spends this money, I would encourage my colleagues to give appropriate 
focus to preventive care and approaches that integrate these various 
components of health care across an entire region.
  Improving health outcomes for a community requires going beyond 
building hospitals and clinics. A regional ``systems'' approach to 
improving health may provide effective opportunities to improve the 
health outcomes of individuals and communities in a cost-effective 
manner. Such an approach could integrate health coverage initiatives 
with prevention programs, primary care clinics, advanced specialty 
outpatient care programs, hospital-based care, and a regional health 
information network.
  I plan to work with my colleagues to shape policies this Congress 
that will improve health care across America, including rural 
communities. Individuals, communities, private foundations, and the 
Government must work together if we are to be successful.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today I want to talk about some of the 
questionable spending in this bill and some of the amendments that we 
aren't going to be voting on.
  First of all, there is $87 billion in Medicaid funds in this bill.
  That is a huge payment to the states.
  And as I have said on this floor several times, it is more than 
States need to pay for enrollment-driven increases in Medicaid spending 
due to the recession.
  I explained last week how the facts show that this amount is far more 
than States need for the cost of new Medicaid enrollment resulting from 
the economy.
  What the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office determined was that 
what States need to pay for increases in Medicaid enrollment is not $87 
billion but $10.8 billion. That is about $76 billion less than what 
this stimulus bill gives the States.
  So the question is, why does this bill provide almost eight times 
what the states actually need for the new enrollment resulting from the 
downturn?
  Let's not kid ourselves; this bill gives States a slush fund. This 
outlandish sum of money is not needed for Medicaid.
  It is a slush fund for the States.
  I thought that money should be spent fairly. I thought there should 
be some accountability.
  On Friday night, I had an amendment to insure the Medicaid funds 
would have been distributed fairly.
  Amazingly, 17 Members of the Senate voted to give their States less 
money.
  But at least in that case, I was able to get a vote.
  I had several other amendments that were never allowed to be made 
pending.
  All day Wednesday, we were prevented from making amendments pending.
  Retreats and signing ceremonies got in the way.
  Thursday evening, we spent more time arguing over which amendments 
would be made pending rather than actually processing amendments.
  At 10 o'clock Friday morning, we were encouraged to bring our 
amendments to the floor so they could be debated.
  For some reason, the first amendment was not allowed until 4\1/2\ 
hours later.
  I am disappointed that several of my amendments will not receive a 
vote.
  I am not convinced the majority wanted to have open debate and take 
votes on many of my amendments.
  It is too bad, because this bill still needs fixing.
  Congress is giving States $87 billion and just resting on hope that 
States don't strip the health care safety net for low income families 
and then pocket the money.
  I use the word ``hope'' because the underlying bill doesn't do enough 
to make sure States do what is best for the Medicaid Program.
  Does the bill prevent States from cutting their Medicaid programs?
  It does not.
  The bill only prevents States from cutting Medicaid income 
eligibility.
  But if Congress is giving States $87 billion and telling them not to 
cut Medicaid eligibility, shouldn't Congress also tell States they 
can't cut benefits?
  If Congress is giving States $87 billion and telling them not to cut 
Medicaid eligibility, shouldn't Congress also tell States they can't 
cut payments to providers?
  States can't change income eligibility, but under the bill as 
written, they can cut provider payments or benefits to providers.
  Will there be Medicaid beneficiaries who are elderly or disabled able 
to receive home and community based services?
  If we want to keep seniors and the disabled in their homes, rather 
than institutions, paying direct care workers to provide home and 
community based services is critical.
  Will there be enough pharmacists taking Medicaid?
  Will there be enough rural hospitals or public hospitals taking 
Medicaid?
  Will there be enough community health centers taking Medicaid?
  Will Medicaid beneficiaries who are elderly or disabled be able to 
get into nursing homes?
  Will States cut mental health services because Congress didn't 
prevent them from doing so in this bill?
  Will there be pediatricians or children's hospitals there for 
children on Medicaid?
  If the Senate does nothing to protect access to these vital 
providers, nobody will be able to assure the people who count on 
Medicaid that the care they need will be there for them.
  I filed an amendment that prevents States from generally cutting 
eligibility and benefits and provider payment rates while they are 
receiving the $87 billion in additional aid.
  Members could have voted to really protect Medicaid.
  That should have had a vote.
  As written, the bill gives states $87 billion also in the hope that 
States don't take actions that are contrary to economic growth.
  I use the word ``hope'' because the bill doesn't do enough to make 
sure States do what is best for our economy either.
  We should ask for more guarantees that States will spend the money 
appropriately and not make decisions that work against economic 
recovery.
  If Congress gives states $87 billion and tells them not to cut 
Medicaid, should Congress also tell States not to raise taxes?
  If states react to their deficits by increasing taxes, they will 
defeat the goal of economic recovery.
  It makes no sense for us to leave the door wide open for States to 
raise taxes while getting an $87 billion windfall from the Federal 
Government.
  I filed an amendment that prevents States from raising income, 
personal property or sales taxes as a condition of the receipt of $87 
billion in federal assistance.
  That should have had a vote.
  If Congress gives states $87 billion and tells them not to cut 
Medicaid, should Congress also tell States not to raise tuition at 
State universities?
  If States can price young people out of an education, that does 
nothing for preparing our workforce for the 21st century.
  I filed an amendment that prevents States from raising tuition rates 
at State colleges and universities as a condition of the receipt of $87 
billion in Federal assistance.
  That should have had a vote.
  For $87 billion, what does this bill do to ensure that all those 
Federal taxpayer dollars are being spent appropriately?
  Almost nothing.
  Senator Cornyn and I filed an amendment that requires States to do 
something to improve their waste, fraud and abuse in exchange for the 
$87 billion in Federal taxpayer's money.
  It provides a list of eight options to combat waste, fraud and abuse, 
and the Secretary can provide more options as well.
  These are all very reasonable steps States could and should take if 
Congress is going to send them 87 billion in additional Medicaid 
dollars.

[[Page S2014]]

  They don't have to do all of these various options.
  Just four.
  Just show the American people that States can take four simple steps 
to reduce fraud, waste and abuse.
  Shouldn't Congress at least ask that much of States for $87 billion?
  That should have had a vote.
  If Congress passes all this Medicaid spending, what guarantee do we 
have that the fiscal challenges facing Medicaid in the future will be 
solved?
  Sooner rather than later, we must recognize that our entitlements are 
unsustainable as currently constructed.
  President Obama has acknowledged this himself on numerous occasions 
recently.
  One of my concerns about the additional Medicaid funding that is in 
this bill is that it places too much emphasis on Medicaid in the here 
and now and ignores future fiscal challenges.
  Just last year, the CMS Office of the Actuary reported that Medicaid 
costs will double over the next decade. That is simply unsustainable.
  It is critical that both the Federal Government and States recognize 
the fiscal challenges we face and take action now.
  Senators Cornyn and Hatch and I filed an amendment that requires 
States to submit a report to the Secretary detailing how they plan to 
address Medicaid sustainability.
  It is critical that we look at the future of Medicaid if Congress is 
to give States $87 billion in additional Medicaid funding.
  That should have had a vote.
  The bill provides a COBRA subsidy to involuntarily terminated 
employees.
  The bill places no limits on the eligibility for the subsidy. Zilch, 
Zero. Why? I haven't quite figured it out.
  I know the amendment we are now considering lowers the subsidy, but 
it still has no limits on eligibility for the subsidy.
  Frankly, I am surprised my Democratic colleagues--and especially the 
Obama administration--have not tried to place limits on the 
availability of the subsidy.
  After all, the subsidy is paid for with taxpayer dollars.
  Last week, the Obama administration issued guidelines for capping 
compensation paid to CEOs whose institution receives taxpayer dollars 
through the TARP program.
  But the fact of the matter is this, former Wall Street CEOs and hedge 
fund managers who have made millions of dollars--while running our 
economy into the ground--will get a tax payer-funded subsidy equal to 
now 50 percent of their health insurance policy.
  That is outrageous.
  I filed an amendment that simply said that if a worker who was 
involuntarily terminated from their job earned income in excess of 
$125,000 for individuals and $250,000 for families during 2008, this 
worker would not be eligible to receive the subsidy.
  Some of my colleagues may ask why we set the cap at $125,000 and 
$250,000.
  Well, when Candidate Obama was campaigning to be President Obama, he 
continually said that he wanted to raise taxes on families making over 
$250,000 a year.
  Why?
  Because then, Candidate Obama felt that these people are too ``rich'' 
to pay lower taxes.
  If these families are too ``rich'' to receive a tax benefit in the 
form of lower taxes, aren't these people too ``rich'' to receive a 
taxpayer-funded subsidy for health insurance?
  That should have had a vote.
  And it is not just the health care amendments.
  This bill could be improved by increasing the tax credit for 
education expenses.
  Senator Schumer and I filed an amendment that would have done just 
that.
  It would have increased the American opportunity tax credit from 
$2,500 to $3,000.
  Senator Schumer has shown great leadership in the area of education, 
and I thank him for partnering with me to help families better afford 
college through the tax code.
  It was a bipartisan amendment.
  That should have had a vote.
  I also remain deeply concerned about the oversight of this bill.
  On the front page of today's Washington Post, there is a story with 
this headline: ``If spending is swift, oversight may suffer.''
  The article says,

       The Obama administration's economic stimulus plan could end 
     up wasting billions of dollars by attempting to spend money 
     faster than an overburdened government acquisition system can 
     manage and oversee it.

  When there is a potential for waste, fraud, and abuse Congress needs 
to be proactive, not reactive.
  We have created a special inspector general for the TARP program and 
we have the Government Accountability Office reporting to Congress 
every 60 days on the use of that money as well.
  However, there is nothing like that for the money in this bill.
  That is why I introduced an amendment to ensure that Congress has the 
ability to get information from the executive branch and respond to the 
allegations that will inevitably come in.
  The amendment would ensure that any agency that gets funding under 
this bill would be required to provide records upon written request by 
a chairman or ranking member of a committee of Congress.
  In my experience, the executive branch consistently misinterprets a 
number of statutes in order to claim that it is legally prohibited from 
complying with oversight requests from Congress.
  This amendment would make the will of the Congress clear that when we 
ask for records, the agencies have an obligation to comply.
  The public's records should not be kept secret from the elected 
representatives of the people.
  The idea that only the majority should be able to request documents 
from the executive branch is just an invitation for a timid legislative 
branch.
  The President's choice to head the Office of Legal Counsel at the 
Justice Department, Dawn Johnson, wrote in July 2007:

       With regard to Congress, oversight obviously tends to be 
     least effective when the President's political party 
     dominates. . . .

  Now that the White House and the Congress are controlled by the same 
party, I am worried that oversight will suffer, just like Dawn Johnson 
said it would.
  I have always tried to focus on good government issues like waste, 
fraud, and abuse.
  That's what my amendment did.
  That should have had a vote.
  I know a lot of people have worked very hard putting this bill 
together.
  I know a lot of people worked very hard putting the substitute 
amendment together.
  I respect that they have worked hard.
  Hard work doesn't mean that it is good work.
  And we should have been allowed to consider and vote on all of the 
amendments I have discussed here today.
  Giving States $87 billion even though that is as much as eight times 
what they need to stay ahead of enrollment-driven Medicaid increases is 
still not well thought out.
  Giving States $87 billion while still allowing them to cut their 
Medicaid programs is still not well thought out.
  Giving States $87 billion while still allowing them to raise taxes or 
tuition is still not well thought out.
  Giving States $87 billion without requiring them to do a better job 
of addressing fraud, waste, and abuse is still not well thought out.
  Giving States $87 billion without making them address the fiscal 
sustainability of their Medicaid programs is still not well thought 
out.
  Giving a COBRA subsidy to millionaires is still not well thought out.
  It is still not well thought out. It is still out of control.
  The Senate should have been allowed to vote on the numerous 
amendments I have discussed today to address the shortcomings that 
occur when partisan bills are moved too quickly.
  We could still do that.
  We could process these amendments today.
  But as we have seen throughout, the majority is not interested in 
true bipartisanship or in process that allows for full and open debate 
on amendments.
  One of the key questions in the stimulus debate has been whether one 
side or the other is acting in a partisan manner.
  To put a finer point on it, you could break it down to two precise 
questions. The first question would be: Has the

[[Page S2015]]

majority party, meaning my friends on the Democratic side, ever invited 
my side, the Republicans to the negotiating table?
  That is, has an offer, with an intent to negotiate, ever been 
extended by the Democrats? If the answer to the first question is yes, 
then the second question would be: Has the minority party, the 
Republicans, ever responded to the offer and taken the next step in the 
negotiating process.
  These are the fundamental questions that need to be asked and 
answered to determine whether the stimulus bill before us is a 
bipartisan process.
  Let's go to the first question. It is a basic question. My friends on 
the other side did very well in the last election. We congratulated our 
new President, Barack Obama, on his victory. The Democrats have robust 
majorities in both houses of Congress.
  They have their biggest majority in the House since 1993. They have 
the biggest majority since the Carter administration. We Republicans 
recognize they set the agenda.
  It is kind like the role of the point guard in a basketball game. 
They have the ball. Just as a point guard runs the plays, so too does 
the Democratic Leadership in both bodies decide the plays. Republicans 
don't have the ball.
  We are in a position of responding. That's all we can do. It's really 
up to the Democratic majority to make the first move. So, with the 
context in mind, let's bear down on that first question. Did the House 
Democrats make an offer?
  Did the Senate Democrats make an offer?
  Maybe I missed something, but I don't recall receiving an offer. As I 
said in committee and in the opening floor debate, my friend, Chairman 
Baucus, courteously and professionally consulted with me. But 
consultation is not the same thing as negotiation. They are very 
different actions.
  As a former chairman, I know well the pressure from the leadership, 
the caucus, the House, and an administration of one's own party.
  You really have to push uphill to get a bipartisan deal. The benefit 
of a bipartisan deal is the policy is likely to stand the test of time. 
The leadership, caucus, and administration are likely to understand 
that benefit in the abstract, but unlikely to take concrete actions to 
realize it.
  All of those partisan pressures will look to pull apart any 
bipartisan plan. I know my friend, Chairman Baucus understands that 
dynamic. He would probably prefer a bipartisan process and product, but 
the partisan edge is too great. The expectations on the Democratic side 
are too high. It's like the old saying: ``our way or the highway.''
  So, Madam President, we can't get to the second question. That 
question, whether Republicans have engaged in a bipartisan process, 
can't be answered. It can't be answered because the process was never 
started. An offer was never made. We were not invited to the 
negotiating table.
  We have the House of Representatives and the House of 
Representatives-in-training given how this debate has been run.
  Today we are being told ``just do it'' at the expense of doing this 
very important and urgent legislation in a way that does right by the 
American people in the short and longer term.
  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I wish to to speak to my amendment that 
expands the eligible participants of the National Telecommunications 
and Information Administration, NTIA, Broadband Technology 
Opportunities Program. This program will be very valuable toward 
increasing broadband availability and access nationwide.
  The current language unduly limits private sector participation to 
that of only public-private partnership. And while I have been a long 
supporter of these efforts as an additional way to roll out broadband 
service and have cosponsored legislation in the past to that effect, I 
believe it is necessary to expand their eligibility in the program in 
order to more effectively and immediately increase the availability and 
access to broadband service, mainly in this economy.
  While many States have established very useful initiatives that have 
advanced broadband deployment in rural communities where the digital 
divide existed, other States unfortunately haven't. So by requiring a 
public-private partnership, it could hinder achieving the fundamental 
goal established by the program if there is lack of interest or 
resources from the public entities.
  In addition, this provision imposes a 20-percent match requirement 
for these grants, which may be satisfied by the grant applicant or any 
third-party partnering with the grant applicant, and only may be waived 
under special circumstances. With at least 45 states facing budget 
shortfalls, which the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates 
for the current and next two fiscal years could surpass $350 billion, 
it may be difficult or impractical for States and local government to 
engage in these endeavors at this time. The last thing we need to do is 
to put States or local governments in position to have to find 
additional funds or possibly incur future costs to participate in this 
program.
  Over the past 5 years, the private sector has led the way in 
investing billions of dollars to build out communications networks in 
order to meet the growing demand for speed to due the flood of Internet 
content and applications. Through technologies such as DOCSIS 3.0, 
ADSL2+, and Fiber-to-the-Home, consumers can now achieve download 
speeds of more than 20 megabits-per-second and in some cases exceeding 
50 megabits-per-second. Wireless broadband, such as Wi-Fi and Wi-Max, 
is playing an increasingly significant role by providing valuable 
mobility--making the Internet portable.
  In order to achieve these speeds in rural areas and to meet the goals 
prescribed by this provision, it is central that we allow the private 
sector to continue its leadership. If the private sector is willing to 
make the investment then they should be able to participate in this 
beneficial program, with or without a public-private partnership.
  At the same time, States must play a significant role with this 
program by working with NTIA and the industry to determine the areas in 
most need of broadband investment--unserved areas. Doing so will 
provide a targeted effort toward erasing the digital divide that 
continues to exist in many rural communities and inner cities. These 
are the areas that have the most to gain from its availability.
  Without question, broadband has a significant impact to our economy. 
The availability of broadband in communities adds over 1 percent to the 
employment growth rate and a 0.5-percent in business growth to that 
area.
  With the poor state of our economy, we must look at all opportunities 
that will not just create jobs but will create 21st century jobs to 
make our Nation more competitive in this global digital economy, not 
limit them. This is why I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.


                               Broadband

  Madam President, I wish to also speak to my amendment that builds 
upon a beneficial provision in this legislation that will advance the 
investment and deployment of broadband. It does so by providing 
companies an incentive to build broadband infrastructure by using a 
targeted tax credit. I am very supportive of this measure but believe 
we can do more in order to have a greater impact.
  Specifically, this amendment increases the tax credits made available 
for current generation and next generation broadband deployment to make 
the provision more attractive; it establishes an ``intermediate 
generation'' broadband tier with speeds of 50 megabits per second 
downstream and 5 megabits per second upstream to set a migration path 
between the current and next generations speeds and have more carriers 
participate in the program. Also, the amendment refines the definitions 
of areas to provide a greater focus on building out in the areas that 
need it most--communities where the digital divide continues to exist.
  It is estimated that 9 to 10 million American households that use the 
Internet still lack access to broadband. And many areas that do have 
``broadband'' lack sufficient bandwidth speeds to utilize the full 
potential and benefits the Internet has to currently offer. These 
areas, typically rural communities, are the ones that have the most to 
gain from broadband. The availability of broadband in communities adds 
over 1 percent to the employment growth rate and 0.5 percent

[[Page S2016]]

to business growth in that area. Also, the Brookings Institute 
estimates that $5 billion increase to broadband investment would 
successfully increase broadband penetration by 7 percent and result in 
2.4 million new jobs throughout the economy. So it is clear that 
broadband is increasingly becoming a principal anchor to our economy.
  Over the past 5 years, the private sector has led the way in 
investing billions of dollars to build out communications networks in 
order to meet the growing demand for speed due to the flood of Internet 
content and applications. Through technologies such as DOCSIS 3.0, 
ADSL2+, Fiber-to-the-Home, and Wi-Max, urban and suburban consumers are 
achieving bandwidth speeds that were only available or affordable to 
businesses and corporations. But rural communities are unfortunately 
being left out in many cases. So we cannot sit idly by while the 
digital divide continues to exist. If we do not act, millions of 
Americans without access to modern technology will also find themselves 
unable to realize the educational and employment opportunities of the 
future.
  I take personal interest in this endeavor because approximately 10 
percent of Mainers still do not have any access to broadband. In 
addition to the creation of construction, engineering, and information 
technology jobs that will result from these tax credits, it will help 
revitalize local economies that have been disseminated by job loss. 
With a computer, a broadband connection, and an idea, a displaced 
worker can start his or her own business or take continuing education 
courses online to improve their skill set in order to reenter the 
workforce. With Internet broadband access, rural small business can 
connect to a global marketplace.
  With the poor state of our economy, we must look at all opportunities 
that will not just create jobs but will create 21st century jobs to 
make our Nation more competitive in this global digital economy. This 
is why I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.


                           Amendment No. 537

  Madam President, Amendment No. 537 to the recovery package will 
ensure that all regional electricity planners are eligible for funds 
for transmission development under this proposal. Under the proposal 
developed by the Appropriations Committee, the language clearly 
benefits Western States' development of transmission lines to 
population centers. This not only unfairly benefits this particular 
region, but it fails to reflect the proximity of the renewable 
resources in rural New England to population centers. I strongly 
recommend that this language remain silent on what region or what 
entity should receive funds for transmission planning, and allow the 
Department of Energy to determine the merits of each region's plan.
  My amendment would simply expand the types of technical assistance 
grants under the Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Program 
that shall be provided to all regional transmission organizations, 
regional reliability entities, States, and other transmission owners 
and operators. Currently, the language inequitably limits the types of 
funds provided to western entities. I strongly believe that this 
language must be expanded upon to provide my State of Maine, and the 
independent system operator of New England to develop the critical 
renewable energy sources that exist in New England and construct the 
transmission lines to bring this power to population centers.
  I strongly recommend that we adopt this language and I look forward 
to working with my colleagues from New England, the Appropriations 
Committee, and the Department of Energy, to ensure that this funding is 
distributed in a regionally equitable manner.


                           Amendment No. 553

  Madam President, amendment No. 553 will provide dedicated funding for 
homeowners to replace inefficient fossil fuel heating systems with 
renewable energy sources. Although there is near unanimity in Congress 
with regard to the disastrous consequences of our failed energy policy, 
there still remains to be a bold effort to address this issue. Madam 
President, I believe that the consensus will ultimately build to reach 
a substantive change in our energy policy, but I believe it is critical 
that we begin these critical steps within this recovery package and 
dedicate resources to homeowners to utilize renewable energy sources to 
heat their homes, rather than foreign oil.
  Madam President, in my home State of Maine, roughly 80 percent of the 
population utilizes heating oil to keep warm in the winter. In New 
England, 40 percent of homes use heating oil. As a result, on average 
nearly 4.7 billion gallons of heating oil are consumed by New England. 
This is not only an enormous cost to families across the region, but it 
creates massive greenhouse gas emissions and increases our country's 
demand of foreign oil. This is not merely a regional issue, this is a 
national issue, and it should be a priority of Congress to reduce 
heating oil use in New England.
  Last week, I introduced an amendment that would dedicate $100,000,000 
of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program to 
homeowners who replace their current heating system with a renewable 
energy system. These can include solar energy systems, geothermal 
energy systems, and wood pellet systems. These are all alternatives 
that should be pursued with boldness. While I continue to believe that 
significant investments must be made into energy efficiency, we should 
also work to reduce the percentage of homeowners who use heating oil. I 
believe that this is a critical downpayment to addressing our energy 
policy, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to dedicate 
funds to replacing fossil fuel systems.


                              Health Care

  Madam President, the bill before us includes critical funding and 
infrastructure to at last move our health care system out of the pen 
and paper era so that we may realize the promise of modern technology 
to reduce the toll of medical errors, improve care, and reduce costs. 
In doing so, it has been estimated that we will create from 40,000 to 
as many as 200,000 new jobs.
  To make this effort a full success, patients must be willing to trust 
their health records to a secure system which protects privacy. That is 
why I am pleased that Senator Kennedy has joined with me in my effort 
to achieve that.
  Today the public's confidence has been shaken by a dramatic growth in 
breaches of medical records. Such events--affecting over 42 million in 
the past 4 years carry serious and irreversible consequences. The 
impact just in the areas of employment and health coverage can be 
devastating.
  That is why I am pleased to see a number of provisions provided in 
this legislation to assure our constituents that greater data security 
and privacy protections will be used to protect their health 
information. Foremost among these, I note that the provision I authored 
on breach notification has largely been incorporated and extended. Yet 
a serious problem remains.
  Because the fact is that the provisions regarding breach--that notice 
is provided that the HHS Secretary reports on the problem and progress 
in addressing it--that measures are instituted to assure compliance . . 
. these will simply be ineffective. And that is because they will 
seldom be applied. That is because, in defining a breach, and providing 
some exceptions for inadvertent acts, the language actually excludes 
unintentional disclosures. An unintentional disclosure--the cause of 
the overwhelming number of breaches--simply would no longer be 
considered a breach!
  We all appreciate that exceptions may be made for some unintentional 
access. For example, a health care worker might inadvertently call up 
the wrong record on a computer. But the fact is, there are technical 
measures to prevent that in nearly every case. Yet the current language 
states that breach does not include any unintentional acquisition, 
access, use, or disclosure of such information by an employee or agent 
of the covered entity or business associate involved if such 
acquisition, access, or use, respectively, was made in good faith and 
within the course and scope of the employment.
  So if one should lose a laptop containing data, or transmit 
information to an unauthorized party, or perhaps leave a patient's on-
line medical history exposed for anyone to see . . . under the language 
in this bill that disclosure is not a breach, and the breach provisions 
simply do not apply. Since the vast majority of breaches are 
unintentional, we won't see the measures of

[[Page S2017]]

this bill employed to secure and protect health records. It would apply 
only to intentional acts--and these are currently already addressed in 
current law as criminal acts. So without a conforming change in this 
overly broad exclusion, we will do little to address one of the 
public's greatest concerns about Health IT.
  Our amendment makes the necessary conforming change to the 
exception--simply removing the term disclosure as an exception. 
Unauthorized disclosures of protected health information are breaches--
and we all know that. Our amendment ensures that we will actually take 
the steps outlined in this bill to protect Americans from abuse of 
their medical data.
  In addition, we have heard from providers of their concern that the 
language in the bill may not properly extend reasonable exceptions to 
some health care workers--such as physicians with admitting 
privileges--who may be neither an employee of the hospital nor an 
``agent'' of that entity. The language of our amendment makes clear 
that such individuals who are authorized by the entity or business 
associated to handle protected health information would fall under the 
reasonable exception for inadvertent acts, with the same qualification 
that further ``acquisition, access or use'' does not occur.
  We also have added clarity to the bill's definition by stating that 
breach does not occur when an unauthorized individual simply could not 
reasonably have been able to retain protected health information. That 
makes it indisputable that many ``no foul'' situations will not be 
swept into breach reporting, such as unopened mailings by covered 
entities which are returned as undeliverable.
  Once again, I thank Senator Kennedy for his cooperation and support. 
The product of our bipartisan work ensures that Americans will be 
better protected from medical data breaches--and more critically--that 
we will see a reduction in this perilous threat.
  Madam President, I now will speak to the substitute to the stimulus 
package we are considering today--against the backdrop of a moment in 
time in which our Nation lost 600,000 jobs last month alone, we are 
suffering under a 7.6 percent unemployment rate, and the number of 
Americans receiving unemployment benefits has reached 4.8 million--the 
highest since recordkeeping began in 1967.
  Indeed, the landscape facing us is so grave that economists of all 
persuasions--Republicans, Democrats, Independents--indisputably agree 
that inaction is not an option and that the question which has been 
before this Chamber since last week and before that in the Finance 
Committee is, What will actually work to jump-start this economy?
  Yet even the best economic minds are not in agreement or accord on 
what is the optimal stimulus to pursue--and what it would achieve. 
Business Week, in its January 28 issue, asks ``how much does boosting 
government spending or cutting taxes help the private sector? Can 
massive fiscal stimulus create jobs and increase economic output?'' 
David Leonhardt, economics columnist for the New York Times, stipulated 
in an article on January 29, 2009, that such a ``bill should help the 
economy in both the near term and the long term. But the government 
doesn't go out and spend about $800 billion every day. The details 
matter.'' He is absolutely right--the details do matter. That is why we 
have been engaged in this necessary, vigorous debate. And then there 
are economists such as Alan Viard, formerly of the Bush administration 
and now with the American Enterprise Institute, who questioned the idea 
of a stimulus initially who now agree that one, although limited, is 
required.
  As I said last Monday here on the floor, I want to support a stimulus 
package, but I cannot support just any package. We are confronting a 
multidimensional crisis that requires a multidimensional approach, and 
we cannot afford to get it wrong.
  Already Congress passed a rescue plan for financial institutions, but 
the lending expected to free up our credit markets has yet to 
transpire. Already the Federal Reserve has essentially exhausted its 
options to improve the economy through monetary policy, having reduced 
interest rates to zero--something else that hasn't happened since the 
1930s--and lent more than $1 trillion to stabilize the financial and 
credit markets. So, as I said during the markup of the Senate Finance 
Committee's portion of this package, we ought to remember that for us 
in crafting fiscal policy to meet this historic challenge, there are no 
do-overs. We only have so many arrows in our fiscal quiver.
  So the question at this point isn't if an economic stimulus is called 
for. And it isn't about how much we label as ``tax relief'' and how 
much we label as ``spending.'' In the final analysis, it is about the 
merits of the individual measures in this legislation and whether the 
totality of the package can--in the timely, temporary, and targeted 
fashion we have employed on stimulus measures in the past--deliver job 
creation and assistance to those who have been displaced. Because both 
elements are essential to turning the economic tide and aligning our 
Nation for a more prosperous future.
  I know this process got off to a less than stellar start. The House 
of Representatives, frankly, did not put its best bipartisanship foot 
forward by closing the door on House Republicans with an end result of 
the House bill receiving zero Republican votes. I like to think that 
there is a more constructive dynamic here in the Senate--a belief I 
will look to substantiate further in the coming days once we move to 
conference.
  So I recognize and share the frustration of my fellow Republicans. At 
the same time, we are no longer in control of this Chamber, and we 
should embrace our role as a minority to do all we can to exercise our 
rights to make constructive changes to this legislation. That is what 
many of my colleagues have been doing, and that is what this debate is 
all about.
  I have been in the Senate long enough to know that in a process like 
this there has to be give and take. And, in fact, the American people 
look to the Senate to temper the passions of politics, to provide an 
institutional check that ensures all voices are heard and considered, 
because while our constitutional democracy is premised on majority 
rule, it is also grounded in a commitment to minority rights.

  The bottom-line challenge is crafting a package that is effective--
and that means forging a measure that doesn't confuse stimulus with 
omnibus. And on that score I believe the Finance package--which 
ultimately came to comprise 65 percent of the combined legislation we 
are now considering, and with its tax provisions comprising more than 
40 percent of the overall package--set an appropriate standard as 
right-sized, properly targeted, and timely--thanks to Chairman Baucus 
holding 10\1/2\ hour markup and working through the issues. Under the 
leadership of Ranking Member Grassley, we included relief from the 
alternative minimum tax--which bolsters the President's make work pay 
provision I might add. We included a health information technology 
provision I championed that will create 40,000 new jobs as well as 
renewable tax credits I have long fought for that will create more than 
89,000 more. Frankly, if we had not dithered last year and opted to 
pass the extension of the renewable tax credits at the beginning of 
2008, we would have already been on the road to creating 100,000 new 
jobs.
  We also included significant tax relief that could be available to 
small businesses, the true job generators of our economy. We extended 
unemployment compensation benefits which, as we heard last year from 
the Congressional Budget Office, is a preeminent stimulus tool with a 
cost-effectiveness that is ``large,'' a length of time for impact that 
is ``short,'' and an uncertainty about the policy's effects that is 
``small.'' And we provided vital Medicaid assistance to the States--and 
I have heard the arguments against it, but does anyone seriously 
believe that a projected, combined budgetary shortfall of $350 billion 
for the States over the next 2 years won't have a profound impact on 
our national economy, as States grapple with raising taxes or slashing 
spending to balance their budgets.
  Our package also contains a payroll tax credit for more than 95 
percent of working families in the United States--which Mark Zandi has 
said will be ``particularly effective, as the benefit will go to lower 
income households

[[Page S2018]]

. . . that are much more likely to spend any tax benefit they 
receive.'' And it increases eligibility for the extraordinarily 
successful refundable portion of the child tax credit that I originally 
spearheaded--to reach low-income families earning between $8,100 and 
$14,767 a year. Now, I have heard the arguments before against 
refundability, but this program reaches people who may not earn enough 
to have Federal tax liability but who work and contribute local taxes 
and payroll taxes--and will therefore get additional money into the 
pockets of those most likely to spend it.
  Before I go on to describe additional critical tax provisions in the 
Finance portion, I should note that although an extension of the 
suspension of required minimum distribution rules applicable to IRA, 
401(k), 403(b), and 457 plans is not included, I appreciate that 
Chairman Baucus has agreed to work with me to address this issue. While 
Congress provided critical relief to retirees by suspending these rules 
for 2009, Congress must go further and waive the rules for 2010. 
Equities markets have not recovered after a disastrous 2008, and our 
Nation's seniors will require considerable time to recoup their 
substantial losses. I trust that the Finance Committee will act to 
continue relief in a forthcoming pension or tax extenders bill.
  As ranking member of the Small Business Committee, I am also pleased 
the bill before us contains tax provisions I authored to help them 
sustain operations and employees, as part of my Small Businesses 
Stimulus Act of 2009. Our package extends enhanced section 179 
expensing for 2009, allowing small businesses throughout the Nation to 
invest up to $250,000 in plant and equipment that they can deduct 
immediately, instead of depreciate over a period of 5, 7, or more 
years.
  Our package also lengthens the carryback period of net operating 
losses to 5 years to provide businesses facing unprecedented losses due 
to the economy with a $67.5 billion infusion of capital in 2009 and 
2010. But crucially, this proposal also ensures that those receiving 
Federal bailout funds from the TARP program will not be allowed to take 
advantage of these additional taxpayer resources.
  That is why I also appreciate the chairman's inclusion, at my 
request, of an initiative based on a bill that Senator Kerry and I have 
introduced to eliminate the taxation of gain on small business stock--a 
proposal President Obama had also made. Under current law, section 1202 
provides a 50-percent exclusion--a 14-percent effective tax rate--for 
the gain from the sale of certain small business stock held for more 
than 5 years. This provision is limited to individual investments and 
not the investments of a corporation.
  As a 14-percent effective tax rate provides little incentive to hold 
small business stock, given that Fortune 500 company stock is taxed at 
15 percent if held for only 1 year, the provision allows a 75-percent 
exclusion--7 percent effective tax rate--for individuals on the gain 
from the sale of certain small business stock field for more than 5 
years. This change is for stock issued after the date of enactment and 
before January 1, 2011.
  Furthermore, I was pleased to see that the chairman included a 
provision I joined Senators Lincoln and Hatch in spearheading to lessen 
the impact of the built-in gains tax on small businesses. By reducing 
the period from 10 to 7 years that S corporations converting from C 
corporation status must hold appreciated assets before they can be sold 
at lower tax rates, this proposal will enable small businesses to 
unlock capital that is currently frozen. This change is absolutely 
essential at a time in which our Nation's credit markets remain frozen 
and small businesses are struggling to meet their financing 
requirements. This provision benefit up to 900 small businesses in my 
homes State of Maine.
  We must neither neglect nor forget our Nation's distressed and rural 
communities. The Finance package rightly recognizes that imperative by 
including an additional $1.5 billion in 2008 and 2009 allocation 
authority for the new markets tax credit. I am told that the Community 
Development Financial Institutions Fund, which administers the 
incentive, can allocate the augmented 2008 credit authority within 90 
days, which will create 11,000 permanent jobs and 35,000 construction 
jobs.
  Moreover, I am pleased the chairman agreed to my provision--based on 
legislation I introduced in January--to expand the definition of 
``manufacturing'' as it pertains to the small-issue Industrial 
Development Bond, or IDB Program to include the creation of 
``intangible'' property. For example, this would allow the bonds to be 
used to benefit companies that manufacture software and biotechnology 
products by helping them get the financing necessary to assist their 
operations in innovating and create new jobs.
  With this change, State and local financing authorities could use 
IDBs to raise capital to provide low-cost financing of manufacturing 
facilities with the jobs of the future, helping to attract new 
employers and assist existing ones to grow. Notably, knowledge-based 
businesses have been at the forefront of this innovation that has 
bolstered the economy over the long term. For example, science parks 
have helped lead the technological revolution and have created more 
than 300,000 high-paying science and technology jobs, along with 
another 450,000 indirect jobs for a total of 750,000 jobs in North 
America.
  Our package also includes, at my request provisions from legislation 
Senator Kerry and I introduced to keep the alternative minimum tax from 
eroding the value of private-activity bonds, which are used to promote 
infrastructure and student loans. Congress repealed the AMT for use 
against housing private activity bonds as part of last summer's housing 
bill, and this proposal extends that beneficial treatment to other 
types of private-activity bonds. This should help spur demand for these 
types of bonds in a time in which the Nation is experiencing a credit 
crunch.
  I also appreciate the fact that the chairman agreed in a colloquy 
with me to address the critical issue of energy efficiency in the 25C 
tax credit. I am deeply concerned that our package fails to include 
modernizations to the efficiency standards, and I am alarmed that this 
provision, which I authored in 2005, may not propel our country forward 
to the truly advanced energy efficiency products. In addition, I am 
troubled that the stimulus proposal seems to address energy efficiency 
merely through appropriations. The Finance Committee has been on the 
vanguard of developing an energy efficiency industry through the Tax 
Code, and I am deeply concerned that we have failed to complement the 
Appropriations Committee proposal.
  In regard to the high-tech agenda ahead of us, the Finance measure 
establishes a tax credit for broadband infrastructure investment in 
rural and underserved areas that I coauthored with Senator Rockefeller. 
The purpose of our proposal is to drive job creation and to stimulate 
broadband deployment, particularly in areas where the digital divide 
continues to exist.
  Specifically, this proposal promotes broadband deployment in rural 
areas by providing a two-tiered tax incentive to stimulate new 
broadband investment. The provision contains a 10-percent tax credit to 
companies expanding their ``current generation'' broadband services--
defined as a download speed of 5 megabits per second--to rural and low-
income areas and a 20-percent tax credit to companies deploying ``next 
generation'' broadband services--defined as download speeds of 100 
megabits per second. Any provider installing broadband service in the 
targeted areas, whether by standard telephone wire, cable, fiber 
optics, terrestrial wireless, satellite or any other medium, would be 
eligible.
  The data is abundant and clear on the significant impact that 
broadband plays in communities--the availability of broadband in 
communities adds over 1 percent to the employment growth rate and 0.5-
percent in business growth to that area. Businesses locate operations 
and hire employees in urban locations that have adequate broadband 
infrastructure, rather than in rural or inner-city locations that are 
otherwise more efficient due to the location of their customers or 
suppliers, a stable or better workforce, and cheaper production 
environments. It is not an understatement to say that the deployment of 
technology could fundamentally transform the future of rural and inner 
city America.
  Finally, today there are 45 States which face budget shortfalls over 
the

[[Page S2019]]

next 2 years which will result in a combined budget ``gaps'' of $350 
billion--would anyone suggest that this would not have a profound 
impact on our national economy? Because States, which unlike the 
Federal Government, are required to balance their budgets, they will 
have to raise taxes or reduce spending or both. And right now, States 
are struggling to serve even their current Medicaid enrollees, never 
mind facing the growing demand for Medicaid care--as with every 1-
percent increase in unemployment an additional 1 million Americans will 
qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP assistance, under current enrollment 
criteria.
  So we should further assist their ability to serve their current 
Medicaid enrollees without imposing unacceptable tax increases or 
extending recent benefit cuts even further. At the same time, I thank 
the chairman for including provisions I championed to ensure States 
cannot use the increased Federal match monies to expand eligibility and 
to ensure prompt payment to providers--as delays in payments can 
threaten their continued operation, limit their ability to invest in 
new technology, or hire new employees--just the type of activity we 
want to encourage. I also thank the chairman for extending this 
requirement for nursing homes, which is crucial to better supporting 
long term care in this country.
  We then came to this debate on the floor, having combined the finance 
package--which had fully $325 billion in tax relief, and $198 billion 
toward truly stimulative spending--with the appropriations portion at 
$365.6 billion. And as I stated on the floor last week, I share the 
deep concerns that while more than 98 percent of the finance package 
would spend out over the next 2 years, just 12 percent of the 
discretionary spending portion of the original, overall package would 
spend out in the first year--and just 49 percent over the 2 next years.
  Further, as the President said last Wednesday in our one-on-one Oval 
Office meeting, getting this not only right--but also right-sized--is 
also imperative. As he stated, we will lose $2 trillion in consumer 
demand this year and next--demand, I might add, that must be 
``backfilled'' in our economy with a substantial investment in both tax 
relief and targeted, effective expenditures that will create jobs. The 
fact is, given the monumental level of this recession that's about to 
become the longest and deepest since World War II, we can't just be 
throwing pebbles in the pond, Mr. President--we require the ripple 
effect of a boulder while at the same time ensuring that this is not an 
open-ended passport to spending in perpetuity. We heard the President 
say last week essentially that stimulus is spending. But let us 
remember, not all spending is stimulus.
  In order to help address the various concerns that have been 
expressed, I worked with Chairman Baucus to scale back the finance 
package by $25 billion, to contribute to the overall level of 
reductions necessary in combination with cuts on the appropriations 
side to trim more than $100 billion from the package--which was a 
number I had suggested in my meeting with the President last week.

  Overall, on the appropriations side, $83 billion has been excised 
from the package, and that is progress--as is the fact that more than 
40 percent of the Senate bill contains tax relief, whereas that ratio 
drops to about 33 percent in the House bill. And we shouldn't stop 
there, we should also require a specific listing of the numbers of jobs 
being created by each title in this act, and also rescind any 
unobligated balances of any program in the act that are not currently 
creating--or cannot be reasonably expected to create--jobs or help 
those displaced by the current recession.
  Which brings us to today, Mr. President. We have now considered a 
week's worth of amendments. And we have come to a compromise on both 
the spending and tax portions of the package at about a ratio of more 
than three to one. Is this compromise perfect, Mr. President? No. Is it 
everything that I personally would agree with? No. But it is, in fact, 
improvement and progress--and it is critical that these improvements 
are preserved in conference with the House following final passage of 
this bill.
  Looking forward, Mr. President, this must be a two-way street between 
Republicans and Democrats--and between the Senate and the House--if we 
are to craft a package commensurate with the times. I will support this 
compromise, but I will also continue to work throughout the conference 
committee process to ensure the individual elements of the final 
package will actually deliver job creation and assistance to people in 
need to the best of our ability.
  That is my bottom line--this process is far from complete, our work 
is far from complete, and make no mistake, my support at the end of the 
day will be predicated on the demonstrable ability of the elements of 
the final package to provide a vitally necessary stimulus to our 
economy through rapid job growth. That must be the yardstick by which 
we measure the value of any final version of this bill.


                   BIODEFENSE MEDICAL COUNTERMEASURES

  Mr. CASEY. I rise to engage the esteemed chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, Senator Daniel Inouye; Senator Tom Harkin, 
chairman of the Labor, Health & Human Services, and Education 
Subcommittee; my Pennsylvania colleague, Senator Arlen Specter; and my 
Kansas colleague, Senator Sam Brownback in a colloquy regarding funding 
for creating capabilities to develop and manufacture biodefense medical 
countermeasures.
  As the chairmen and Senator Specter are aware, our country faces the 
rising threat of a bioterrorist attack against the U.S. homeland. 
Indeed, most experts agree that a bioweapons attack could be launched 
against the United States within the next few years. Such an event 
could inflict civilian casualties on a scale that would threaten the 
viability of a city's or region's key institutions and impose a 
widespread sense of vulnerability across the country and 
internationally.
  Moreover, President Obama has stated on numerous occasions that the 
bioterrorist threat is real and increasing. And, I believe, he will 
make responding to such a threat a key element of his national security 
strategy.
  Mr. HARKIN. I agree with my colleague from Pennsylvania that our 
Nation faces this growing threat and that we must respond accordingly.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the bill the chairman has brought before 
the Senate includes funding to respond to many economic and security 
issues facing our country today, and I congratulate him on his 
tremendous effort. In particular, the bill includes funding for the 
Health and Human Services Department pandemic flu program, which falls 
under the subcommittee on which I have dedicated much of my service to 
the country. Unfortunately, the Senate bill does not identify specific 
funding for HHS to address bioterrorism and the development and 
production of biodefense medical countermeasures.

  Mr. INOUYE. That is correct. I recognize the importance of these 
investments. It is my understanding that the House version of the 
recovery bill includes funding for biodefense and medical 
countermeasures within the public health and social services emergency 
fund.
  Mr. SPECTER. A key component of preparedness is the availability of 
effective preventive and therapeutic drugs and vaccines to counter 
diseases caused by man-made attacks and public health threats. 
Identifying and funding the means to acquire these drugs and vaccines 
is an issue that I believe the Appropriations Committee and the Labor-
HHS Subcommittee should urgently address.
  Mr. CASEY. It is my understanding that the House version of the 
recovery bill includes funding for biodefense and medical 
countermeasures within the public health and social services emergency 
fund. I am sure my colleagues would join me in urging the Senator to 
agree to include funding for capabilities to support the development 
and production of biodefense medical countermeasures to address the 
bioterrorism threat in the conference report of this bill. We believe 
there is no better use of American taxpayers' dollars to both create 
high-quality jobs, retain biotechnology expertise domestically, and 
address a terrible threat to our Nation.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I agree with my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that the 
bill the Senator has brought before us addresses many impending needs. 
This

[[Page S2020]]

matter we are discussing not only addresses a critical matter of 
national security by creating the capability to develop enough medical 
countermeasures to treat the U.S. population in the event of a 
terrorist attack, but it would expand domestic jobs and domestic 
infrastructure in the biotechnology industry. Like Senator Specter 
addressed previously, this bill does not identify specific funding for 
these needs.
  I conclude that the best way of addressing these threats is for 
partnerships between the academic, industry and government sectors. 
Academically affiliated, privately operated National Centers of 
Excellence for Flexible Manufacturing of Medical Counter Measures are 
the answer to developing, sustaining, and integrating our country's 
biodefense portfolio under the Biomedical Advanced Research and 
Development Authority.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank my colleagues for raising this important issue 
with me today. I intend to work with them and the members of the 
conference committee to try to identify funding to develop and produce 
biodefense medical countermeasures.
  Mr. HARKIN. The capability that we are discussing is vital to our 
Nation's defense. It would also be a critical source of innovation, 
developing novel countermeasures faster and cheaper. I will also work 
with Senators during conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 5 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment I offered, the E-verify amendment, be made pending and we 
have a vote on it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I might say, I was going to 
mischievously suggest to my good friend from Alabama, maybe we can work 
something out if he can make sure the managers' amendment receives no 
objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would be delighted to talk with you.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I knew you would. I must say, I expected that response, 
but I must also say the Senator from Alabama knows full well there are 
other Senators who would like their amendments in and agreed to. In all 
things considered, in fairness to all Senators all the way around, I 
think it is prudent to object, so the Senator's amendment may not come 
up at this point.
  I yield to the Senator from Nebraska--how much time does the Senator 
wish to speak?
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Six minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. About 6 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I rise today to take 
action--and I thank my friend and colleague from Montana for this 
opportunity to speak--for action is what is demanded by this American--
and, indeed, global--economic crisis.
  The economic recovery bill that came over from the House was a start, 
and the bill introduced in the Senate was better, but it was not good 
enough, and some elements did not seem to belong in a bill to create 
new jobs, save the jobs people have now, and return our economy to 
prosperity as soon as possible. That is why Senator Susan Collins and I 
worked with a group of nearly a dozen and a half Senators--12 Democrats 
and 6 Republicans--to cut and tailor our bipartisan compromise. It 
focuses like a laser beam on tax cuts for the middle class and job 
creation for millions of Americans.
  Critics have gone to great lengths to find fault. That is the old 
Washington way that leads straight down the path to partisan bickering, 
deadlock, and a dead end. Many have said it spends too much. Others 
have said it cuts too much spending. That is a sign, to me, that 
perhaps we have it just about right.
  We cut $110 billion of inefficient or less stimulative spending out 
of the previous bill. As I say, we have trimmed the fat, fried the 
bacon, and milked the sacred cows. We didn't have a closed-door 
negotiating system last week as some have said. It was open to all 
Senators, and they were invited. All were welcome to participate. In 
fact, several Republican colleagues did join us and participated, 
although they declined to support our final proposal. But they helped 
shape it, and their contributions were listened to, were considered, 
and were valuable.

  Now, some critics also say that other approaches might have been 
better for the economy than what we put in place. But no other plan has 
enough bipartisan support--and that is what you have to have in the 
Senate--to get the 60 votes needed to pass. The time for talk is over, 
and it is time to act.
  I believe our plan is the best chance for Congress to stop an 
economic avalanche. In just a year's time, that avalanche has swept 
away jobs for 3.6 million Americans--including many in my State of 
Nebraska--and nearly half nationwide vanished in the last 3 months. 
That is three and a half million jobs lost in the last 12 months and 
almost half of them in the last 3 months. The avalanche has erased 
billions of dollars in assets, driven anxiety up, and pushed our 
economy down toward the worst condition in seven decades. And it is 
accelerating. People in Nebraska and across America are losing their 
homes every day. The cost of inaction would be far higher than the cost 
of this bill, and acting later, when we are in a deeper recession or 
depression, will cost even more.
  Other critics of the bipartisan plan also say we are creating too 
much debt to leave to our children. I am afraid they have not learned 
from the past. The surest way to get out of debt is the way we have 
before: economic growth. Let's review. In 1993, when President Clinton 
inherited a deficit of over $300 billion, we grew our way out of it 
with tax cuts and jobs that lowered unemployment, increased 
productivity, and increased revenues. With the help of the Congress, he 
turned that deficit into a surplus of over $200 billion. President 
Obama has inherited a deficit of at least half a trillion dollars, and 
now we must once again restart the American prosperity engine with a 
lean diet of tax cuts and jobs for the middle class. This is not only 
the fastest plan to get us out of this economic slide; indeed, it is 
the only thing that ever has.
  While it certainly is easier to stay on the sidelines, it is our 
responsibility, as Members of Congress, to the American citizens and 
taxpayers to approve a recovery plan that is tailored, targeted, and 
lean, one that reduces taxes so middle-class Americans can get by today 
and that creates American jobs so we can grow our way out of this 
crisis.
  Some say we have cut too much from important programs, such as help 
for struggling States. We did reduce spending by $40 billion, leaving 
$39 billion, because we didn't want to offer a taxpayer-backed blank 
check to States with little accountability or promise of job creation. 
The plan leaves unchanged $87 billion to States under Medicaid. Now, 
let's be clear. The cuts our group found are reductions in new spending 
and not actual cuts.
  The more than $300 billion in tax cuts will help families with 
children, college students, home buyers, commuters, and businesses. 
They also offer incentives to expand renewable energy and promote 
energy efficiency. Cutting taxes has always been a key way Government 
can drive private sector job and economic growth, and the economic 
recovery plan we will consider delivers those major tax cuts.
  The $110 billion leaner spending side of the plan will fuel, save, 
and create jobs in towns, townships, and cities across America. It 
still provides robust support for infrastructure projects that will fix 
and build roads, bridges, highways, and sewer systems. It will improve 
community health centers, refurbish childcare centers, expand broadband 
Internet service, and repair housing. It will create the smart grid for 
electricity transmission across our country. Those upgrades will leave 
a lasting legacy long beyond the terms of the legislation.
  Our refocused bipartisan proposal isn't perfect. We all will admit 
that. But it will, in my view, do the job we need right now, and it 
will get many Americans back on the job while keeping many others in 
their jobs.
  I would like to extend my gratitude to Senator Susan Collins from 
Maine, Senator Olympia Snowe from Maine,

[[Page S2021]]

Senator Joe Lieberman from Connecticut, Senator Arlen Specter from 
Pennsylvania, and the more than a dozen others who joined our 
negotiations--who, rather than taking the easy path of criticism, saw 
the need for resolute action and joined in the task of building----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 6 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield additional time to the Senator--
say, 4 more minutes?
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Thirty seconds more.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield a full minute.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I thank my friends for these negotiations. 
Rather than taking the easy path of criticism that we have seen, they 
saw the need for resolve and they joined in the task of building our 
American recovery, for I believe, as they do, in the hard work and 
ingenuity of the American people, and that is how we will return to 
prosperity, as only Americans can and have.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I thank my colleague from 
Montana for that courtesy.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, how much time remains on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent to consume that 4\1/2\ minutes 
and an additional 1 minute, if the generous chairman will accept.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I hear the word ``legacy.'' The legacy 
that is going to be left from this bill is demonstrated to us by 
history. Here is what we did the last time we found ourselves in this 
shape. The Federal Government as a percentage of GDP went from 2\1/2\ 
percent to 20 percent in all the New Deal programs.
  There is a wonderful book, and people ought to read it. It is called 
``The Forgotten Man,'' Roosevelt's ``Forgotten Man'' series. This is an 
analysis of what we did, how we did it, what worked, and what didn't. 
Quite frankly, what you can see from this chart is that Government 
never got small again. Never. And what is going to happen is, if you 
look outside of this chart to what we are doing now, you are going to 
see Government grow again. So the total State and Federal take from GDP 
will be above 38 percent from now on. Now, what does that mean to you? 
What is the legacy of that? The legacy of that is lost opportunity--not 
for us; we will be pushing up daisies. Our children and our 
grandchildren, though, will suffer from a massive decline in their 
standard of living.
  That is not to say we shouldn't do a stimulus bill. The stimulus bill 
we should do should be very targeted--this one is not--it should be 
timely--this one is not--and it should be temporary--this one 
absolutely is not because we are going to see this same thing happen. 
Even our own budget chairman, the honorable Senator from North Dakota, 
says, at a minimum, $124 billion a year increase in the baseline, 
additional spending that will never go away--never go away.
  So what does it mean when we say we have a legacy? Here is the legacy 
of this bill: The cost this year, not including interest, for every 
family in this country is going to be $11,000. That is what we are 
going to borrow against your future earnings. We will increase the 
baseline budget this year $350 billion. That is just this year. The 
increase in the annual deficit will be somewhere between $50 billion 
and $185 billion, before interest. And we are going to pay $438 billion 
in interest on this borrowed money over the next 10 years. Everybody 
knows that if you save before you spend, it costs you about half. But 
what we are doing is spending and costing the future of our children.
  What is the Congressional Budget Office's best guess? That we will 
create somewhere between 1.3 and 2.9 million new jobs. But also their 
best guess is that in about 10 years, this ``stimulus'' will have a 
negative effect on the economy. We are going to spend $15 billion to 
renovate offices for Federal employees. What percentage of this $800-
plus billion bill will really stimulate? About 12 percent.
  The other thing that is wrong with the bill is that there are no 
brakes on it. What happens when we have two or three quarters of 
growth? Do you think this body will come back and take this money away? 
No. Politicians are averse to ever taking anything away because they 
care more about getting reelected than they care about what is in the 
long-term best interest of the country. So here we have a stimulus bill 
that will forever raise the baseline and the interference of 
Government.
  Now, what does this really mean if it goes to 35 percent? What it 
means is that you lose liberty. You lose freedom. If you think the 
Government is involved in the decisions you make now, just grow it 
another 10 percent total and see what happens. Your liberty and your 
freedom. It doesn't mean we shouldn't do a stimulus bill. We should. 
But we ought to do one that will really make a difference.
  The other moral hazard with this bill is that we didn't hear today 
what the plans are for the mortgage problems, the housing problems, or 
the bank problems. Now, the reason we didn't hear about that is because 
we have to get past this vote because when you get ready to swallow the 
near trillion dollars they are going to come and ask for on those two 
problems, this is going to seem small. But if you have to talk about 
both at the same time, $1.8 trillion, now we are at $25,000 per family.
  The fact is, what was done in this country from 1929 to 1938 didn't 
work. We are not even doing as good a job as they did in terms of 
directing the money. Yet, because of the basis of fear, we are going to 
pass a bill saying we have to do something. We do have to do something, 
but it doesn't have to be done today. It needs to be done in a very 
meticulous manner to make sure we get it right.
  There is a legacy with this bill. I will spend the last few minutes 
talking about the fact that there are no earmarks in this bill. That is 
an out and outright untruth. There are tons of earmarks in this bill, 
from electric golf carts, to power generations for specific lobbyists 
who spent well over $1 million getting it in there, to a new building 
for the State Department to train its security personnel. They spend 
$12 million a year now. They are going to spend $275 million now and 
still spend $12 million a year, but we get a building in West Virginia 
because the Senators from West Virginia want that building there.
  The competitiveness clause we put in, which the Senate voted 
unanimously on to put all contracts competitive, it will be blown out 
of the water, it will never come out of conference----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. COBURN. Because we don't want to do what is best for the children 
of this country; we want to do what is best for the politicians.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam 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.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, is the time controlled?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is controlled. All remaining time is under 
the control of the Senator from Montana.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to proceed for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the 
bipartisan compromise amendment Senator Ben Nelson and I have filed, on 
which we will be voting very soon. Before I get to the specifics of our 
amendment, let me address more generally the challenge, indeed the 
crisis, we are facing as a nation.
  Over the course of the past year and a half, and particularly during 
the last 6 months, we have witnessed the collapse of the housing 
market, the unraveling of our Nation's financial institutions, and the 
evaporation of trillions

[[Page S2022]]

of dollars of what had been invested in the stock market and in 
people's retirement accounts. As a result, millions of Americans are 
worried about whether they now have enough money to retire, how they 
will make ends meet if they are already retired, or how they will help 
pay for their children's education.
  I have heard from far too many Mainers who have had to delay their 
retirement plans because they no longer have the nest eggs for which 
they have worked so hard.
  The crisis that started on Wall Street has become a crisis on Main 
Street in every community in America. The deeply disturbing economic 
report released last Friday underscores the magnitude of the challenge 
we are facing. Nearly 600,000 Americans lost their jobs in the month of 
January, bringing to 2.5 million the number lost since the end of 
summer. The Nation's unemployment rate is the highest it has been in 
more than 16 years.
  In my home State of Maine, job losses totaled 3,400 in December and 
the unemployment rate has reached 7 percent. It seems every day brings 
another report of a business laying off hundreds or even thousands of 
workers.
  Friday we learned that Katahdin Paper, in East Millinocket, ME, is 
being forced to lay off 140 workers for at least a month because the 
business simply does not have enough orders to keep these workers on 
the job. These are people who have worked hard their entire lives to 
take care of their families and now they fear for their future.
  I know everyone in this body recognizes the difficult straits we are 
navigating as a nation. Finding a consensus on how to address our 
economic crisis is extremely difficult. There are some who believe no 
action is better than the action that has been proposed. I could not 
disagree more. The future of our economy depends on immediate action 
that is targeted and effective and the American people rightly expect 
that this action will be bipartisan; that we will come together to 
address the most serious economic crisis in generations. That is why I 
joined with my good friend, Senator Ben Nelson, and a group of Senators 
from both sides of the aisle, including the Presiding Officer, to help 
craft a bipartisan compromise to achieve these critical goals.
  I want to recognize that, regardless of how many Republicans vote for 
this package today, several were involved in the deliberations in which 
we participated. Their insights and input were invaluable in crafting 
the compromise package we are offering tonight. Our efforts to reach a 
compromise would not have been possible without this hard work, this 
dedication, this commitment by our colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle.
  Here is what our amendment would do. First, we will provide more than 
$200 billion in aid to the States. I stress that because I have heard 
some commentators say there is no money in here, that it has been 
slashed, that it has been cut, that there is nothing left for the 
States. Madam President, $200 billion is included in this compromise. 
Approximately $87 billion of this amount will flow through a temporary 
increase in the Federal share of the Medicaid Program. I know that as a 
former Governor, the Presiding Officer is well aware that for most 
States health care costs are the No. 1 item in their budget. If it is 
not health care, it is education.
  The loss of jobs often means the loss of health insurance and it is 
well established that the number of persons relying on Medicaid 
increases in a poor economy. Moreover, this increased demand for 
services occurs at precisely the time that State budgets are under the 
most pressure. Our proposal, therefore, includes $87 billion in 
assistance to States through a targeted, temporary increase in the 
Federal Medicaid matching rate. Maine will receive an additional $490 
million in Federal Medicaid funds through this provision alone.
  I want to recognize and salute the work of my colleague from Maine, 
Senator Snowe, who worked very hard in the Finance Committee with her 
colleagues to shape this portion of the aid. And I also want to note 
the hard work of my good friend Arlen Specter, whose efforts were so 
essential to the construction of this compromise.
  Putting money in the hands of States is a commonsense way to 
stimulate economic growth. Leading economists have found that targeted 
aid to States will generate increased economic activity of $1.36 for 
every $1 spent. Moreover, this temporary increase will help States 
avoid cutting back on health care coverage and services at the very 
time that the number of families needing help is increasing.
  Some of my colleagues are opposed to this provision because they say 
it will never be temporary, that once we increase the Federal matching 
rate it will become a permanent entitlement. We have only to look at 
history to know that is not true. In 2003, Senators Nelson, 
Rockefeller, and I negotiated a similar temporary increase that proved 
effective in staving off drastic cuts in Medicaid and we need to 
provide similar assistance again. I would note it was 18 months that we 
did that for, so I believe we can do this in a temporary, targeted way.
  Next, our amendment provides $41.6 billion for education programs. 
That is right, more than $41 billion in new funding for education 
programs. It includes $13.5 billion in funding through the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, what is known to most of us as 
special education, education for children with special needs. This new 
funding will help fulfill a promise that the Federal Government made 
back in the 1970s, when it first passed IDEA. At that time, the Federal 
Government promised to pay 40 percent of the national average per-pupil 
expenditure for every child in special education and we have never come 
close. This is the granddaddy of unfunded Federal mandates. This money 
will help relieve the burden on school districts. Every school district 
throughout the United States will benefit from this increase in special 
education funding. That, in turn, will help communities retain support 
staff and teachers in the classroom because, after all, they cannot cut 
back on funding for special education because that is a Federal 
mandate. What happens is they are forced to cut back elsewhere. This 
will help a great deal with teacher and support staff retention and it 
helps relieve the pressure of this unfunded mandate.
  Other education funding includes $10.4 billion in title I funding. 
This is funding that goes to school districts with high percentages of 
economically disadvantaged students.
  Another education portion of this bill provides $13.9 billion for 
Pell grants so that the maximum Pell grant will increase by $281 for 
the 2009 school year, and by $400 for the 2010 school year. I worked at 
a college prior to my election to the Senate and I know how critical 
Pell grants are for our low-income families.
  That is not all. The $200 billion in aid to States also includes $39 
billion for a new State stabilization fund, to help States and local 
governments with other key priorities.
  Let me now talk about another part of this bill that I think is 
absolutely critical and which fortunately enjoys widespread support. 
Every State in the Nation has a backlog of needed infrastructure 
projects that are ready to go--the engineering is done, the design is 
completed, they are truly shovel ready. We are providing nearly $52 
billion in funding to restore our Nation's crumbling infrastructure. Of 
that amount, $45.5 billion is directed to a wide variety of 
transportation projects and that is expected to produce $5.70 of 
economic benefits for every $1 spent--a tremendous rate of return. For 
every $1 billion invested in transportation infrastructure, up to 
35,000 jobs can be created, so this is a real job generator. Under our 
amendment, the State of Maine could receive more than $170 million in 
transportation infrastructure funding, and that will result in nearly 
6,000 jobs for Mainers.
  This part of our amendment also provides $6.4 billion for the Clean 
Water State Revolving Fund and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. 
Again, these are more examples of unfunded Federal mandates where we 
can help relieve pressure on States and communities while creating good 
jobs.
  There have been many discussions about what should not be included in 
this bill. There are a number of worthwhile projects and programs that 
were funded by the House bill and by the bills as reported by the 
Senate committees--programs I have always supported that are near and 
dear to my

[[Page S2023]]

heart. But the fundamental, critical goal of this bill is to provide a 
jolt to our economy to get it back on track.
  So some of these programs, while they are worthy of an increase in 
funding, simply do not belong in an economic stimulus bill. This is the 
test we applied: Will it help get our economy on track? Will it create 
jobs? Will it save jobs? Will it put tax relief in the pockets of 
consumers? These are the proper criteria.
  It is the regular appropriations process that is the appropriate 
vehicle for considering funding for many of these programs that, while 
worthwhile, do not boost our economy. So our amendment eliminates $5.8 
billion for health prevention and wellness programs. I support these 
programs. I am a strong supporter of them. But it simply does not make 
sense to fund smoking cessation programs as part of an economic 
stimulus package. It does not make sense to include $870 million for 
pandemic flu preparedness, again an issue that I care deeply about 
because of my role on the Homeland Security Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to proceed for 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the chairman.
  Madam President, we also struck--I am chagrined to say to the senior 
Senator from New Hampshire--$34 million to renovate the Department of 
Commerce building.
  Now, again, undoubtedly there needs to be renovations, but that 
simply does not meet the threshold for inclusion in this bill. I 
support many of these projects, but the stimulus bill should not be a 
vehicle for either my pet projects or anyone else's.
  In closing my remarks, I want to emphasize that a substantial amount 
of the funding in our amendment, more than $365 billion, will be used 
to reduce the tax burden on Americans at a time when this relief is so 
critical. We provide also important assistance for those who are 
struggling the most, for those who need an extension of unemployment 
compensation and an increase in the refundable child tax credit and an 
increase in the earned-income tax credit.
  We provide direct assistance to seniors, disabled veterans, and SSI 
recipients. And very importantly, the amendment contains three 
provisions that are especially critical to small business--the job 
generators of our economy.
  These include an extension of the bonus depreciation and small 
business expensing provisions we passed last year, plus a provision 
allowing businesses to carryback net operating losses for five years, 
instead of the current two years. Taken together, these provisions will 
give the American business community nearly $23 billion in much needed 
tax relief. I commend the Finance Committee for its leadership in 
crafting these provisions.
  All in all, I am proud of the bipartisan work we have done during the 
last 10 days. As with any major legislation, this bill is not perfect. 
But it can go a long way toward creating jobs and addressing the dire 
economic crisis facing our Nation.
  Our amendment is bipartisan, targeted, and effective. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I commend the Senator from Maine, Ms. 
Collins, who has done a terrific job in helping us reach this point. 
She has done great work. I commend both Senators from Maine. The 
Senators from Maine are the key to a solution because they are the ones 
who created the impetus to get us where we are.
  Because of their efforts, I might say, the Senate is within 
measurable distance of being able to respond to an economic crisis that 
confronts the Nation. It is the efforts of the Senator from Nebraska, 
of course, and also Senator Specter, but the Senators from Maine are 
really the ones who deserve the lion's share of the credit. Because of 
their work, millions of Americans will keep their jobs or get new jobs.
  Again, I thank the Senators from Maine for what they are doing for 
our country.
  The amendment before us is about creating jobs. The Office of 
Management and Budget has estimated that this bill could create or save 
3 to 4 million jobs. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 
this bill would create or save between 1.3 and 3.9 million jobs. This 
amendment will help us to pass this bill. Literally millions of jobs 
depend on the adoption of the amendment. Let me restate that. Literally 
millions of jobs depend on the adoption of this amendment.
  We face the worst economic disaster in the lifetimes of most 
Americans alive today. History will judge how we respond. Let's not let 
this Nation down. We do not have much time to waste. We must act 
quickly to pass the Collins-Nelson substitute in conference to reach a 
consensus and put this bill on the President's desk without delay.
  Let's not repeat the mistakes of the late 1920s and 1930s. Let's 
confront the economic challenge of our times. When the roll is called 
minutes from now, let's invoke cloture on the Collins-Nelson 
substitute.
  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.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I want to point out to my colleagues, 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has issued a letter strongly urging a 
``yes'' vote on cloture on the Nelson-Collins amendment.
  I am going to put a copy of that letter on my colleagues' desk. But I 
do ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                               Chamber of Commerce


                              of the United States of America,

                                 Washington, DC, February 9, 2009.
     To the Members of the United States Senate:
       The U.S. Chamber of Commerce urges you to support cloture 
     on the Collins-Nelson amendment to H.R. 1, the ``American 
     Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.'' The Chamber also 
     renews its call that the Senate approve H.R. 1 without delay 
     so that the House and Senate can expeditiously complete work 
     on a conference report that provides timely, targeted, and 
     temporary economic stimulus.
       The Chamber recognizes that the evolving legislation is not 
     perfect, but believes that it is vital that Congress quickly 
     approve legislation to assist the crumbling U.S. economy. The 
     Chamber strongly supports cloture on the Collins-Nelson 
     amendment, which will refine H.R. 1 and, most importantly, 
     allow the legislative process to proceed. Overall, the 
     Chamber supports many of the pro-growth tax initiatives in 
     the bill, as well as spending-side provisions to provide 
     stimulus, create jobs and to get Americans back to work.
       The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business 
     federation representing more than three million businesses 
     and organizations of every size, sector, and region, looks 
     forward to working with the Senate, House and the 
     Administration to accomplish meaningful economic stimulus 
     legislation that can be signed into law in the coming days.
           Sincerely,

                                              R. Bruce Josten,

                                         Executive Vice President,
                                               Government Affairs.

  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, 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. REID. Madam 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. Madam President, the millions of Americans who are out of 
work, struggling to keep their homes and make one paycheck last until 
the next one comes, deserve to hear five words from Congress: Help is 
on the way.
  Moments from now, we will have the opportunity to vote to move 
forward on President Obama's economic recovery plan and put an end to 
the filibuster now stopping this legislation from helping the American 
people. This legislation is not a silver bullet. The economic anguish 
that President Obama inherited from the previous administration is far 
too severe to be solved in 1 day or 1 week or by one piece of 
legislation.

[[Page S2024]]

  Recovery will take time. The American people understand that. They 
have patience for the long road that lies ahead, but they do not have 
patience for Congress to point fingers, drag its feet, or fail to act.
  We have already shown the American people we can act on a bipartisan 
basis, and we have done it this Congress. We worked in a bipartisan 
basis to pass the Lilly Ledbetter legislation, bipartisan legislation 
that makes the working place a place where women are treated more 
fairly.
  We worked on a bipartisan basis to pass the Children's Health 
Insurance Program, legislation that, in Nevada, will give insurance to 
120,000 children who previously had no health insurance. These pieces 
of legislation are already law. They have been signed by President 
Obama and are now the law of this country because we worked together to 
get it done.
  This week Senators from both parties met the seriousness of the 
economic crisis with an earnest approach to solving this emergency. 
With the help of the dedicated work of Senators Ben Nelson, Joe 
Lieberman, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter, we now have 
the opportunity to support legislation that will put America back to 
work.
  I appreciate my friend from Maine mentioning the letter from the 
Chamber of Commerce. This is a strong letter. You cannot find a company 
anyplace in America that does not support this legislation because they 
know it is going to create jobs.
  The National Association of Manufacturers supports this legislation. 
Big business, small business supports this legislation because they 
believe help is on the way. At a time of escalating job loss, it will 
save or create as many as 4 million new American jobs. At a time when 
middle-class families are finding it harder to make ends meet, it 
provides desperately needed tax relief. At a time of crumbling roads 
and ever greater reliance on foreign oil, it invests in infrastructure 
and renewable energy. At a time of deepening complexities in the global 
marketplace, it better equips our schools to prepare American students 
for success.
  But our job does not end here, it begins. In the coming weeks and 
months, we will turn to legislation offered by the Obama administration 
to fix our badly broken financial sector and to stabilize the housing 
market. As we have with Ledbetter--I talked about that important 
legislation--Children's Health Insurance Program, and this economic 
recovery plan, we need to continue to work together to solve the 
problems our great Nation faces. Nevada and all of America deserves 
nothing less. The time to act is now. Because the American people 
believe help is on the way, we must prove it to them.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the vote start now.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, what is the request?
  Mr. REID. I have 2 minutes remaining. I am giving everyone relief so 
they do not have to listen to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Collins-
     Nelson of Nebraska amendment No. 570 to H.R. 1, the American 
     Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
         Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, Jon Tester, Debbie 
           Stabenow, Charles E. Schumer, Richard Durbin, Dianne 
           Feinstein, Jeff Bingaman, Patty Murray, Christopher J. 
           Dodd, Benjamin L. Cardin, John D. Rockefeller IV, 
           Claire McCaskill, Patrick J. Leahy, Blanche L. Lincoln, 
           Harry Reid.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 570, offered by the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, and 
the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Nelson, to H.R. 1, shall be brought to a 
close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays result--yeas 61, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 59 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     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
     Kennedy
     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
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--36

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Cornyn
     Gregg
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 61, the nays are 
36. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, as we know, that is the last vote for 
today.

                          ____________________