[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 29 (Thursday, February 12, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2184-S2209]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            STIMULUS PACKAGE

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the stimulus bill is the subject of 
discussion. There are some things we know about it and some we don't. 
We know, for example, it is a massive amount of money, almost $800 
billion. These are numbers we throw around. But according to the 
Politico newspaper last month, this is more than we spent on Iraq, more 
than we spent on Afghanistan, more than we spent going to the Moon in 
today's dollars, and more than the Federal Government spent in the 
entire New Deal in today's dollars. It's a massive amount of money. It 
is not like some of the money we were authorizing to be spent in 
October and November, when we were giving the Department of the 
Treasury, in effect, a line of credit to help financial institutions 
begin to lend again so people could get auto loans. This is money we 
are spending. It goes out the door. We have to pay it back. It adds to 
the national debt. It took from the founding of our country all the way 
to the late 1970s to accumulate a national debt as large as the amount 
of money we are spending in this bill. We have been moving rapidly on 
this legislation. It is not only spending. The amount of money spent 
for education is such that it may be the largest Federal education bill 
we have ever passed in terms of dollars. The amount of money spent for 
energy is enough that it will be one of the largest Energy bills. The 
amount of money spent for Medicaid in the House and Senate bills, 
nearly $90 billion over 2 years to the States, may completely distort 
the discussion we are about to have on national health care policy. 
These are all topics that normally we would take weeks to consider.
  For example, if we are going to add $40 billion to a Department of 
Education that only spends $68 billion today, we would ask the 
question: $40 billion for more of the same, or do we have some better 
ideas about how we might reward outstanding teachers or give teachers 
more discretion or parents more choices of schools?
  I ask the assistant Republican leader from Arizona, this is one of 
the most important, massive bills. Republicans want a stimulus package. 
We have made clear we think we ought to start by fixing housing first, 
letting people keep more of their own money, and confining the spending 
to only those projects that create jobs.
  I ask the Senator from Arizona, where are we? Has he had an 
opportunity to read the legislation to know how much is being spent, 
how much is actually targeted for jobs, and how temporary that 
targeting might be?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, we do not know yet. I received an e-mail that 
said the Speaker of the House would be holding a press conference 
sometime in about an hour. I assume that, therefore, by then they will 
actually have produced the bill, that there will actually be a bill she 
can then share with her colleagues in the House and then would come 
over here and we could begin to read as well.
  The answer to the first question is, despite all the discussion, we 
don't know yet exactly what is in it, how much it is, and what the 
long-term consequences will be. We do know from news media that certain 
things in the bill that passed the Senate have been changed. We are 
also told the basic amount is somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 or 
$30 billion less than the House-passed bill. If that is true, we can 
make some rough guesses. I will be happy to share what the 
Congressional Budget Office says about those guesses about future 
amounts of money.
  If I may indulge by setting one bit of background first, when the 
Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan staff for the Congress, 
develops their cost estimates, they base it on what the language of the 
bill is and how the bill needs to work in the future. They always 
provide us with a 10-year cost. That is particularly important because

[[Page S2185]]

we hear about the cost of the bill, and we assume that is all there is. 
The truth is, there is a lot of cost that isn't calculated into the 
bill. When we hear about a bill that is $790 billion or $820 billion, 
that is not the true cost.
  I will give an example. One of the programs in the bill expands 
Medicaid. It is called the FMAP increase in Medicaid. That went through 
the Finance Committee. For about 25 years, they calculate the cost of 
expanding the eligibility for Medicaid. Then they simply assume, 
because the cost was getting to be too big, that it stops at that 
point. For the rest of the 5 years for the 10-year total, in effect, 
the program goes away. Everybody knows the program is not going away. 
One program that is not going away is Medicaid. The eligible people on 
Medicaid are not going to suddenly be wiped off the program. Obviously, 
Congress will continue the program. What CBO had to do is calculate not 
only the first-year cost or the 5-year cost but what will it cost over 
10 years. They have done the same thing with Head Start, Early Head 
Start, title I education--incidentally, there is something about all 
these programs; they do not in any way create jobs or stimulate 
economic growth, as they are social programs deemed to be a good thing 
but having nothing to do with stimulus--the LIHEAP program, the 
National Institutes of Health, COBRA insurance coverage, Medicaid, and 
other programs.
  What CBO did was to take the House bill and calculate the true cost 
over the 10-year period. When one does that, it jumps from $820 billion 
to over $2.5 trillion. Then add in the interest payments on that amount 
which are about $744 billion. The total deficit impact, then, over the 
10-year period would be $3.27 trillion. Assume that the bill might be 
slightly less expensive than what CBO is estimating, it is still, 
obviously, going to be in the neighborhood of $3 trillion over 10 
years.
  It is important to look at expenses over an extended period because, 
as the Senator noted, this is borrowed money. This is not money we have 
today. We are borrowing it. Therefore, the long-term consequences of 
that borrowing are important. What the CBO also said was that by the 
10th year, we are actually going to be creating negative economic 
growth. The GDP will grow by between .1 and .3 of a percent less in the 
year 2019 than it would if we hadn't even passed this bill.
  I compare it to kids eating sugar. They get a sugar high. They have 
all kinds of energy for a while. But when they crash, we have seen what 
that can be. While some of this might be stimulative early on, once the 
sugar high is gone, we are going to be left with the longer term 
consequences. Over this 10-year period the CBO has to calculate, we are 
talking about getting into negative economic growth, over $3 trillion 
in cost.
  The question is, At that point, what is that going to do to our 
economy? I don't think anybody can say it is good news. But it is the 
kind of thing we have been talking about, to think about the long-term 
consequences of what we are doing. If one is gambling with a couple 
hundred million, that is one thing. Start gambling with $3 trillion, 
one better be right. I don't think anybody can say, with any degree of 
certainty, that what is in this legislation we can doggone guarantee is 
going to work and be worth the expenditure.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. As I listen to the Senator, what occurs to me is, we 
have some laws about truth in labeling, truth in packaging. This bill 
wouldn't meet any definition I have ever seen. The whole argument for 
this legislation is, we are in an economic downturn. We Republicans 
know that. Americans are hurting. We feel that too. So we thought, what 
can we do to help make a difference? The thought was, fix housing 
first. We suggested lower interest rate mortgages. We suggested, with 
the leadership of Senator Isakson, a $15,000 tax credit for home buyers 
for the next 2 years to create more demand to stabilize home values. 
Those ideas would have been actually stimulative. But most of the 
legislation the Senator from Arizona talks about is very different. 
Medicaid would come up in the regular appropriations process.
  As I am thinking about it, what has the Senator heard about one of 
the aspects of this bill that would be actually stimulative, the one I 
mentioned, Senator Isakson's proposal for a tax credit of $15,000 for 
home buyers, so that if they bought a home, they would get $15,000 off 
their taxes, cash in their pocket, as a way of stimulating the market? 
Is that in the compromise legislation?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, obviously, we don't 
know because we haven't read it. But what my staff believes, from 
contact they have had with other staff, is that in order to make room 
for a bunch of other spending, that incentive program has been slashed. 
The amount of money has at least been cut in half. The people eligible 
to take advantage of it have been narrowed to first-time home buyers. 
There would be an income cap. I think now that CBO would score that 
somewhere in the neighborhood of about $2 billion, meaning that the 
impact of it on the economy could not be particularly significant.
  May I mention one other thing, because it reminded me of another idea 
that we had. We had a lot of good ideas because we wanted to make sure 
this would work. We mentioned, several of us, the fact that 80 percent 
of the jobs are created by small business. So we looked in the bill to 
see where the relief would be targeted to small businesses to encourage 
them to hire more folks. When we finally found what was in there, it 
amounted to .8 of 1 percent of all of tax provisions in here that could 
be utilized by small business, hiring 80 percent of the jobs. Only .8 
of 1 percent of the bill is dedicated to those kind of businesses as 
tax relief.
  So when we talk about targeted, well, our idea of targeting relief 
obviously does not comport with the authors of the bill, and that is 
another one of the real questions and concerns we have about this 
legislation.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, if I could ask the Senator from Arizona 
one more question.
  Over the last couple days, we have heard testimony from the Secretary 
of Treasury about the importance of moving now to help strengthen 
financial institutions so they can lend money, so people can buy cars, 
buy homes, send their kids to college. We have heard about the 
importance of the housing plan that is coming. We have heard numbers of 
$1 trillion, $2.5 trillion. We have had testimony from experts outside 
the administration who have estimated that the so-called bad bank 
option for taking toxic assets out of banks might need $2 trillion and 
that we ought to capitalize that bank at several hundred billion 
dollars.
  I ask the Senator, is it possible, if we spend the whole piggy bank 
on this so-called stimulus package, we will not have the dollars left 
to get the economy moving again by fixing housing and strengthening our 
financial institutions?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Tennessee, a friend 
of mine has a saying that probably applies here: You broke the code. 
That is one of the big problems. We know we are going to need a massive 
amount of money to deal with the housing problem and to deal with the 
credit problem so when you go to the bank, they will have money to lend 
to you.
  Because this so-called stimulus bill is taking so much borrowed 
money--well over a trillion dollars just in the first 2 years; $3 
trillion over 10 years--there is a real question about how much money 
we can afford to spend on these other things that, as you note, are 
absolutely critical. There will come a point in time when the people 
who buy U.S. debt--primarily foreign governments and foreign entities 
now--are going to believe we are so heavily in debt they are not going 
to trust our debt or be willing to give us as good a rate on that debt, 
the result of which there will come a tipping point when we cannot 
afford to borrow anymore. By, in effect, wasting a lot of it on this 
stimulus bill, I think the Senator's question is exactly on point: Will 
we have what is necessary when the real time comes?
  If I could finish with an analogy. Some of my friends on the other 
side have said: Well, when the house is on fire, you just go put it 
out. You don't worry about how much water it takes or whatever. Well, 
that is fine, unless the fire is going to spread to the second house 
and the third house and the fourth house. You better not waste all your 
water on the first house. That is the essence of the question from the

[[Page S2186]]

Senator from Tennessee, and I think it is a very good point. I thank 
him.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Or to put it another way: Don't dump the water out on 
the street and fertilize the field if you need to throw it on the 
house.
  Mr. KYL. Right.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. We have a limited amount of water, a limited amount of 
money. I note the Senator from Arizona as well as I both voted to give 
President Obama the money he needed to work on housing and to work on 
financial institutions, and we may have to do it again. So it is not 
just a matter of saying no to proposals; it is a matter of being 
greatly disappointed this legislation is not targeted, is not 
temporary.
  The Senator from Wyoming is in the Chamber. He has been an 
outstanding spokesman on the importance of the stimulus legislation, 
how to fashion that. I ask the Senator from Wyoming, as he looks at 
this legislation--and I know we have not yet seen the entire 
compromise--but how satisfied is he the legislation focuses on the 
problem that will actually create new jobs for Americans in a short 
period of time?
  Mr. BARRASSO. Well, Mr. President, that is my biggest concern. I make 
a point of getting home to Wyoming every weekend. I have been to 
Wyoming just last weekend and the weekend before that and the weekend 
before that and this is what the people of Wyoming want to know. Is 
this money going to be well spent? Are they going to get value for 
their taxpayer dollars?
  Similar to the other Members of this body, I have not yet seen a copy 
of the final proposal. But I think the answer, from what I see of the 
little snippets, is the value is not there for taxpayers. In today's 
Investor's Business Daily there is a front-page story, and the headline 
is ``Stimulus Bill Funds Programs Deemed `Ineffective' by OMB''--the 
Office of Management and Budget. Stimulus bill funds programs deemed 
ineffective.
  Well, if they are going to be ineffective at stimulating the economy, 
my question is: Why are they in a stimulus bill? The people at home get 
it right. This past Saturday I was at a Boys & Girls Clubs function. We 
had 700 people trying to help our Positive Place For Kids in the 
community, and many of them talked to me about this and said: We want 
to help. We want a program that will succeed. We need a program that 
will help our Nation and will help our economy. But they say, every 
dollar you put into this that is not really targeted and timely--and 
then, of course, temporary--every dollar that is spent that is not 
stimulating the economy is an extra dollar we or our kids or our 
grandkids are going to owe to people from around the world--owe to the 
Chinese, owe to others--and that is not the way to have a strong 
economy for our Nation.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I wonder if I might ask the Senator, he 
has been especially effective as a spokesman for the importance of 
fixing housing first. Many of us, especially on this side, believe 
housing got us into this mess and helping housing restart will get us 
out of the mess. Can you explain why there seems to be, in a nearly $1 
trillion bill, so little focus on housing?
  Mr. BARRASSO. Well, I think they did not focus where they should have 
put the focus, which is where we got into the problem in the first 
place and that was housing. I believe this body said unanimously we 
need to fix housing first, and we put in a significant amount of money: 
a $15,000 tax credit, tax relief for people who buy a house, to get the 
economy moving in the area that got us into the problem in the first 
place. Then--while we have not seen the bill yet--that has been 
stripped away, I understand, in this new compromise between the House 
and the Senate, and they have taken billions out of it, to a very small 
number, where it is $8,000 for certain, limited numbers of first-time 
home buyers.
  So there is a significant decrease in dealing with housing. But there 
is money in for all sorts of other things that will not effectively 
help our economy, and that is what I have trouble with. I am looking 
for something I can support, can vote for. President Clinton's economic 
adviser, Alice Rivlin, said there should be something much smaller, 
something that is targeted at the problem. Because, to me, this seems 
rushed. We are making rushed judgments on energy, education, health 
care that, to me, do not belong in a stimulus package. We should be 
focused on what got us into the problem in the first place. That, to 
me, is housing.
  So we can go on about other problems I see with this legislation. 
People all say to me: Hey, how are you going to judge success? I say: 
Well, the American people are going to judge success. They will be the 
ones to decide whether this will be a successful program. If people 
believe things are working and the Government is working for them, then 
terrific. But if the people of America feel the burden of this whole 
package--the burden is on them with inflation, with increased taxes, 
with less buying power, with more Government rules--well, then, the 
people of America will judge this to not be a successful package.
  But whether it is throwing water on a fire or breaking the piggy 
bank, the people of Wyoming think of this as we are using so much 
money, we are shooting all our bullets at once, and we are not going to 
have any ammunition left over if we have to come after this again.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for 
his leadership, especially as a spokesman on the importance of fixing 
housing first, which we believe the American people have gotten that 
message, but apparently the majority writing this bill has not gotten 
that message.
  The Senator from South Dakota has arrived. He is vice chairman of the 
Republican conference, one of the leaders, too, in this debate. I have 
heard him speak about the importance of this legislation for stimulus 
being temporary and targeted. Actually, to give credit where credit is 
due, I believe we borrowed that phrase from the Speaker of the House, 
who said last year that stimulus packages, programs to create jobs for 
the American people, should meet the test of temporary, timely, and 
targeted.
  I ask the Senator from South Dakota, specifically in light of the 
McCain amendment, which was offered--which you may want to describe--
whether he looks at this compromise which is coming our way as 
temporary, timely, and targeted on the problem of creating jobs for 
Americans?
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Tennessee 
yielding and the comments of my colleague from Wyoming in focusing this 
debate where it should be, on things that are actually stimulus, that 
actually do create jobs in the economy, that actually do stimulate the 
economy and create growth and economic opportunity for more Americans.
  I would say to my colleague from Tennessee that there are lots of 
things about this bill that do not meet that criteria, that do not meet 
that definition. You used the phrase ``timely, targeted, and 
temporary.'' I would argue that much of the substance of this bill is 
much different than that. In fact, it is slow, it is unfocused, and it 
is unending.
  Again, we do not know exactly what is in it, unfortunately, because 
we have yet to see the bill. All we know is it is going to be somewhere 
in the neighborhood of $800 billion in face amount. When you add in the 
interest to that--some $350 billion--you are talking about almost $1.2 
trillion in obligations we are handing off to future generations.
  I think whenever you talk about that, you need to make sure you are 
understanding what you are getting for that amount of investment and 
what that means to future generations. For example, a lot of people do 
not realize or think about the debt we have today. The gross Federal 
debt is $10.7 trillion. Now, that means that every man, woman, and 
child in the United States owes approximately $35,000. That is their 
personal part of the Federal debt. CBO projects the fiscal year 2009 
deficit to be $1.2 trillion before--before--any additional stimulus 
measures are considered. So when you start adding that in, the deficit 
as a percentage of our gross domestic product will be 10 percent, which 
is the highest level--the last time we saw that kind of a deficit-to-
GDP ratio was back in 1945 when it was 8 percent. That is the amount of 
debt we are talking about.
  I heard my colleague from Tennessee say before that this generation 
of

[[Page S2187]]

Americans will be the first generation of Americans who will not have 
the same standard of living as their parents. If you think about what 
we are doing, we are making matters much worse. We have a lot of young 
people out there who do not have a voice in this debate. I would 
characterize them as the ``silent generation'' who are not going to be 
heard. Somebody needs to be their voice in this debate too. Somebody 
needs to bring some rhyme or reason to what is happening here and hope 
we can get something reasonable passed through the Senate that is 
focused on job creation, that is temporary, that is targeted, that is 
timely--all the things we have talked about should be but this bill is 
not.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, if I could ask the Senator from South 
Dakota: As I recall, Senator McCain offered one amendment which almost 
all of us voted for, which was very targeted and cost about $400 
billion, but he also offered another amendment which would have 
guaranteed that whatever was passed actually be temporary.
  Mr. THUNE. Yes, that is correct. We had an opportunity to vote on a 
number of alternatives. The McCain alternative, which you and I both 
supported, was one that, in my judgment, made a lot of sense because it 
got you about twice the effectiveness, twice the job creation, at half 
the cost.
  It was focused, as you mentioned earlier, and as our colleague from 
Wyoming mentioned, on the central issue of housing, which is so 
critical to bringing our economy back on a pathway to recovery. It also 
focused on tax relief for middle-income Americans and for small 
businesses which are responsible for creating most of the jobs in this 
country. It had an appropriate focus on infrastructure, which many of 
us agree is an area that can create jobs. It also had a trigger in 
there, a hard trigger that said when you have two consecutive quarters 
of economic growth, the spending would cease or would terminate. In 
other words, when we start to get our way out of the recession, we 
would actually bring some fiscal responsibility to this debate.
  What troubles me about where we are going with this particular bill 
right now is it does not have that. In fact, much of the spending in 
here is long term and extends well beyond the so-called period we are 
looking at in terms of getting some stimulus into the economy. Many of 
the commitments that are made, many of the obligations will be 
obligations we are going to experience for months and years to come. 
Much of the spending in the bill is on what we call mandatory spending; 
in other words, spending that will be factored into the baseline and 
that we are going to be responsible for going into the future.
  Senator McCain's amendment would have addressed that issue. It would 
have brought some fiscal responsibility to this proposal. 
Unfortunately, it was defeated. But that being said, there are lots of 
things in here that still I think the average American, when they look 
at this, they will wonder: What is Washington doing, and why are they 
spending money on these sorts of things?
  I am looking here at another proposal: $750 million for the 
replacement of the Social Security Administration's National Computer 
Center. Now, that is almost a billion dollars we are talking about, and 
you have to ask the question: What does this do to create jobs? How is 
it that this in any way stimulates anything other than perhaps some 
jobs in a government agency in Washington, DC? We have $2.5 billion to 
turn Federal buildings into green buildings; $1 billion for the U.S. 
Census; $850 million in new subsidies for Amtrak; $650 million in 
additional funds for digital TV conversion boxes; $645 million for new 
and repaired facilities at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration; $448 million for the headquarters of the Department of 
Homeland Security in Washington; $300 million for new cars for 
government workers; $228 million to the State Department for 
information technology upgrades; $125 million for the Washington, DC, 
sewer system; $20 million for the removal of fish barriers. These are 
all things that are included. I forgot this one: $3 million tax benefit 
for golf carts, electric motorcycles, and ATVs, provided they don't 
exceed 25 miles per hour. These are all things that are in this 
legislation, and I think it would be very hard to convince the majority 
of the American people these have anything to do with stimulus.

  Furthermore, as the Senator from Tennessee has very appropriately 
pointed out on many occasions, with some of the spending in here, what 
the States are asking for in terms of assistance--because many of them 
have shortfalls in their budget. My State is an example of Medicaid now 
constituting a bigger portion of our State's budget. It was 15.83 
percent of the State's budget in 2000, and in 2008 it was 23.33 percent 
of the budget--a dramatic increase. What we are talking about is 
sending a lot more money out there. I have heard the Senator from 
Tennessee talk about it as the States asking for a life raft, and we 
are sending them the yacht from Washington, DC--
  Mr. ALEXANDER. And we are going down to the bank and borrowing the 
money in their name?
  Mr. THUNE.--to do it, almost eight times the amount of money they 
would need just to cover additional enrollment due to the downturn. 
Eight times the amount the States would need to get that done is what 
we are going to be shipping out there and, as the Senator from 
Tennessee mentioned, borrowing from future generations and piling on to 
that $35,000 that every man, woman, and child in America already owes 
as their part or their share of the Federal debt.
  This is a very bad direction, in my view, to be heading for the 
country. I think we have had some opportunities to improve the bill, to 
make it better. We have had some alternatives offered. The McCain 
alternative which the Senator mentioned was one that I think, again, 
was very well balanced, focused on housing and tax relief and 
infrastructure and had the kind of fiscal responsibility and discipline 
in it that makes sure a lot of the spending doesn't go on ad 
infinitum--forever.
  So I would concur with the points and the arguments that have been 
made by my colleague from Tennessee and say that we ought to be 
thinking not just about today but about the next generation because we 
have always had a history in this country--for 200 years Americans have 
sacrificed to make the next generation's lives better, to create a 
better life for our children and grandchildren. We are asking our 
children and grandchildren to sacrifice for us. That is a reversal of 
200 years of American history. For generation after generation after 
generation, we have attempted to build a better, brighter, more 
prosperous future for our children and grandchildren. What we are 
essentially asking them to do is to loan us $1 trillion to do these 
things--some of which I mentioned and that I think are just completely 
outside the realm of anything that fits within the mission of job 
creation or stimulating the economy--at enormous cost to them because 
it is going to pile additional debt on top of the $35,000 they already 
owe, their share of the Federal debt we have today.
  So I hope in the end people will come to the realization that this is 
a mistake and that we will see the necessary votes to defeat it and 
perhaps go back to the drawing board and put something together that 
really does, in fact, address the fundamental problem we are facing in 
the country right now, to get the focus back on housing, to get the 
focus back on the American people and families and small businesses, 
and to make sure we are doing it in a fiscally responsible way.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from South Dakota. I imagine my 30 
minutes has expired, but seeing none of my colleagues, I ask unanimous 
consent for up to 10 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Dakota 
for his eloquent words. The numbers being thrown around are so huge--
and numbers get thrown around so often in Washington, DC--that it is 
sometimes hard to distinguish between $1 million and $1 trillion or $1 
billion or $10.
  One thing I was thinking of as the Senator from South Dakota was 
speaking, I believe he said as much as 10 percent of the gross domestic 
product of the United States would be the size of this year's Federal 
deficit. What that means is, this country--even in these

[[Page S2188]]

bad times--is such a marvelous country that we will produce about 25 
percent of all of the money in the world just for Americans, 5 percent 
of the people in the world. So what we are saying is, just this year we 
are going to run up a debt of 10 percent of 25 percent of all of the 
money in the world and add it to the national debt we already have and 
which we already know we are going to be increasing because of the 
responsibilities we have to try to help fix housing and encourage the 
financial institutions to support the efforts that the President is 
making to get the economy moving again.
  What we are asking is, why would we spend the whole piggybank on a $1 
trillion piece of legislation that isn't targeted to create jobs when 
we have so many other pressing responsibilities for this limited amount 
of borrowed money--namely, fixing housing and getting lending moving 
again? That is where we would put our attention. So we have a lot of 
questions about the bill.
  As the Senator from South Dakota said, Republicans offered our 
legislation, which was voted down, and it focused on housing, it 
focused on letting people keep more of their own money and on a limited 
amount of spending for targeted, job-creating infrastructure projects. 
That saved $500 or $600 billion which could have been reserved for 
housing, for lending, or to reduce the debt. But this bill, I am 
afraid--and we will know more about it as it comes--is mostly spending 
instead of mostly stimulus. Not enough of the jobs come quickly enough 
to make as much difference as this borrowed money should make. Even 
most of the tax cuts in the bill aren't stimulative. They may be 
welcome, they may leave 13 more dollars in your paycheck each week. But 
is running up the debt this much more worth that? This is a lot of 
money--according to one report, more than the Federal Government spent 
in the entire New Deal, more than we spent in Iraq, more than we spent 
in Afghanistan, and we should spend this money carefully.
  As the Senators from South Dakota and Arizona have pointed out, what 
happens after 2 years? The Senate rejected our amendment that said once 
the economy recovers, the new spending stops so we don't continue to 
run up an unimaginable debt.
  States are having trouble and in a shortfall. Tennessee has a $900 
million shortfall this year. But we are sending Tennessee, according to 
the latest estimates--even with the cuts and the compromise--about $3.8 
billion. We are establishing policy without even thinking about it. In 
this legislation, which has never been to the authorization committees, 
we are having possibly the largest, I believe, Federal education bill 
in our history in terms of dollars. We are having one of the largest 
health care bills. We are having one of the largest energy bills. That 
is not the way we make energy, education, and health care policy--just 
by passing an appropriations bill with a huge amount of money.
  We are very disappointed about the lack of bipartisanship. We respect 
our new President. We want him to succeed because if he succeeds, our 
country succeeds. We expected that in this first major piece of 
legislation, a number of us would sit down on both sides of the aisle 
and compare our notes and say: Let's go forward. We know the Democrats 
have the majority and we have the minority, and so more of their ideas 
are going to be included than more of our ideas, but 58 Democrats and 3 
Republicans is not a bipartisan effort. That is not the way we do 
things around here.

  The way we do things in a bipartisan way around here is when we had 
the Energy bill in 2005 and Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman 
worked side by side. All ideas were considered. We had our votes. It 
took weeks and we got a big result. Another example is when we passed 
the America COMPETES Act and we worked side by side, or even with a 
contentious area such as intelligence surveillance when Senator Bond 
and Senator Rockefeller worked side by side and we came to a conclusion 
together. The American people gained more confidence in what we could 
do and in the result that we came to. I am afraid in this case we have 
not had that kind of bipartisanship.
  What I fear is that this is not a good sign for the future because 
this is the easy piece of legislation. This is the first major proposal 
from the President. This is just a spending bill, albeit a massive 
spending bill. Next comes health care and controlling entitlements and 
whether we want to authorize more money to take bad assets out of banks 
and to help housing. Next comes whether we want to pass this version of 
climate change or that version of climate change. All of these are 
difficult pieces of legislation.
  I have said on this floor before that President Bush technically did 
not have to have broad-based congressional support to wage the war in 
Iraq because he was the Commander in Chief. So he went ahead, and it 
made the war more difficult. It made his Presidency less successful. 
``We won the election, we will write the bill'' is not a recipe for 
resolving a difficult problem or for a successful Presidency.
  I would hope we can either do as the South Dakota Senator said, which 
is start over again on this bill and retarget it, make it temporary, 
make it timely, and save hundreds of billions of dollars while focusing 
on housing and lending. That somehow we can get the Congress on track 
with the President so that when we say bipartisan, we do bipartisan, 
and we don't have an attitude that says, in effect: We won the 
election; we will write the bill.
  Unless the Senator from South Dakota has additional comments--I am 
finished with mine, so I yield the floor and yield to him.
  Mr. THUNE. Who controls the time, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Senators are authorized to speak for up to 10 minutes each.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use up to that 
amount of time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Again, to my colleague from Tennessee, I thank him for his 
leadership on this issue and particularly for bringing to the forefront 
of the debate the housing issue which, as so many have mentioned 
already, really is an integral, essential part of the solution. If we 
don't deal with that, then I think we are not going to be able to lead 
our country out of the recession. I don't think anybody will dispute 
the fact that housing played a very important role in where we are 
today, and I think trying to recover is going to require a good amount 
of focus and attention on that issue which, in this bill, is very 
light. In fact, if you look at what is included in the bill--let me 
see--1 percent of the Senate bill goes toward fixing housing. Even the 
$15,000 new home buyer credit that was reportedly cut in half in the 
final version of the bill, I am told--and I don't know the answer to 
this because I have not seen the final bill, nor, I don't think, have 
any of us seen the details in it--that entire housing tax credit may, 
in fact, be gone which would eliminate any commitment to helping to 
repair that aspect of our economy--the housing sector of the economy--
which I think is going to be so important in helping us to recover.
  So 1 percent of the Senate bill goes toward housing currently, 2.3 
percent of the Senate bill goes toward small business tax relief, and, 
as I mentioned before, small businesses create two-thirds or three-
fourths of all of the new jobs in our economy. It seems to me at least 
that ought to be a very proper and important focus of this legislation.
  Of course, some of the alternatives we voted on last week, one of 
which was the McCain alternative which we referenced earlier, did 
include a significant amount of incentive for small businesses to 
invest and to create jobs. I offered a couple of tax amendments to a 
couple of alternatives to the bill which really did focus on tax relief 
for middle-income families and for small businesses. That, of course, 
was defeated as well.
  I guess my point is, the bill as we have it in front of us is going 
to be very much oriented toward spending, and spending on government 
programs and spending which, in many cases, doesn't go away; that isn't 
temporary, that, in fact, makes obligations and commitments and 
liabilities well into the future. We talked about up to about $200 
billion of funding in the bill being what we call mandatory spending; 
in other words, spending that is built into the baseline, that isn't 
temporary, and it is hard to see how that

[[Page S2189]]

fits into the definition of temporary, targeted, and timely, which was 
the criteria that was set out by the President and by the Democratic 
leadership in developing this bill in the first place.
  The Senator from Tennessee, when he touched upon the amount of money 
his State of Tennessee will receive and what the State's need is--and I 
would repeat what I said earlier, that under this bill, we are not 
giving States what they have estimated their amount is to cover the 
increased Medicaid enrollment due to the economic downturn.
  We are giving them--if you can believe this--almost eight times the 
amount of money they would need to cover additional enrollment due to 
the economic downturn. Why? States, of course, aren't going to refuse 
it. Which Governor out there will turn down additional resources? It is 
estimated that States would need about $11 billion in additional 
funding to cover enrollment-driven growth in State Medicaid Programs.
  Under this bill, we provide $87 billion with absolutely no strings 
attached and no requirements that States get their own spending and 
fraud and abuse under control. I hope we have pointed out--and we will 
continue to point out--the ways in which the funding under this bill is 
being spent. Again, I mention some of the particular earmarks here, 
much of which go to Government agencies: $20 million for the removal of 
fish barriers; $300 million for new cars for Government workers; $645 
million for new and repaired facilities at the NOAA; and $750 million 
for the new computer center for the Social Security Administration.
  It is hard to argue that these things are stimulus. Perhaps they are 
needed and, in fact, perhaps ought to be debated, but it ought to be 
done in the regular order, handled through the normal annual 
appropriations process, not included in a bill that is being sold to 
the American people as stimulating the economy and creating jobs. There 
is little in here I can see that meets that definition.
  I want to make a final point with regard to the whole issue of job 
creation, because the CBO, in a letter dated February 11, 2009, clearly 
describes the false economic theories behind this Government spending 
bill. The CBO letter encompasses the majority of the economists' views 
on this legislation. Specifically, the letter states that beyond the 
year 2014, this legislation is estimated to reduce gross domestic 
product by up to two-tenths of 1 percent. The reduction in GDP is 
therefore estimated to be reflected in lower wages, rather than lower 
employment. Workers will be less productive because the capital stock 
is smaller. The legislation's long-run impact on output also would 
depend on whether it permanently changed incentives to work or save. 
The legislation would not have any significant permanent effects on 
those incentives.
  Those are quotes from the CBO letter that came out last week. Even 
the most optimistic CBO projection states that long-run GDP growth will 
increase by zero percent. Even the most optimistic projection is built 
on an assumption that all of the relevant investments, on average, 
would add as much to output as would a comparable amount of private 
investment.
  The Government spending included in the House and Senate bills 
doesn't change GDP at all due to Government spending crowding out 
private investment.
  Most of us would agree--I think most of us on this side would agree--
that we are much better served in terms of creating economic growth and 
jobs, in seeing that the jobs are created in the private sector, and 
that we are providing the necessary incentives for investments in new 
jobs. This bill is very light on the types of incentives that would 
lead small businesses to go out and invest and do the sorts of things 
that actually will create jobs and help us recover and build a better 
and more prosperous future for our children and grandchildren which, as 
I said earlier, in my view, is in serious jeopardy because of this 
legislation--primarily because of the enormous amount of borrowing it 
includes and how much it adds to the debt for every man, woman, and 
child in America, and $35,000 is that share of the debt. Under this 
bill, that would grow $2,700 per every man, woman, and child in 
America.
  What we are doing to future generations is wrong, it is not fair to 
them. This Government needs to learn to live within its means. We need 
to think about building and sacrificing so that our children and 
grandchildren and future generations will have a brighter future. That 
is the way it has always been in this country. It is part of our 
culture and ethic that we work hard and sacrifice so that future 
generations can have a brighter and better future. This completely 
turns that whole history, that legacy, we have as a nation on its head 
by asking future generations to sacrifice for us. That is the wrong 
thing to do.
  I hope we will reject this legislation and go back to the drawing 
board and do something that is effective and creates jobs and does work 
and will give the American taxpayer a good return on their investment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to join my colleagues and 
discuss the spending package that will be back in front of us--the $800 
billion but, with interest, probably $1.2 trillion, which will be in 
the package, and it will all be borrowed--every cent of it. We don't 
have that money presently. So we are going to be borrowing it to do 
this.
  A couple of things strike me. One, we learned last fall--and there is 
an old saying that is true in government and certainly with individuals 
as well, which is ``haste makes waste.'' I grew up with that saying. 
People say, look, if you hurry at this and you don't get it right, you 
are going to have to do it again. We saw that last fall with TARP. We 
put in $750 billion because they said we have to do it now and we have 
to do it fast. But at the end of the day, that haste made waste. The 
Treasury Department went pillar to post, saying we are going to do this 
or we are going to do that, and they ended up spending the money. Now 
we are looking at TARP II and the banks still need help. I have a lot 
of people back home saying: What happened to the first hundreds of 
billions of dollars you gave the banks? Haste makes waste. We saw it 
then.
  There is no reason for us to rush to get this wrong on the stimulus 
package. Yes, we need a stimulus package. My State needs a stimulus 
package. This country needs it. We need a stimulus package, not a 
spending bill. If we slow down a little bit--I think we should refer 
this back to the Committees on Finance and the Appropriations and put a 
requirement on it that every dollar spent must yield at least $1.50 in 
economic activity over and above what is spent.
  We should make it a stimulus bill, not a spending bill. We have not 
done that. We are hastily putting this forward. I believe, tragically, 
we will be wastefully putting it out. There will be a number of 
programs that can use the funds, I have no doubt about that. But if the 
target is to get this economy off its knees and moving forward, we have 
to hit that target and not a multiple set of targets, and not a set of 
spending targets that are not stimulative in nature.
  There is another saying that President Reagan was fond of using, and 
it was that there is nothing so permanent as a temporary Government 
program. That was his experience and it has been mine as well. Once 
something gets started, it is hard to stop, because it gets a 
constituency built up around it, and people build up their expectations 
and infrastructure around it. When you go to eliminate it once it has 
started, it is like, wait a minute, now this has a multiplier impact on 
a broader cross-section of individuals. That is why there is nothing so 
permanent as a temporary Government program.
  I think that is probably why some people are looking at starting 
things under the guise of stimulus that are, in actuality, starting new 
Federal spending programs with the hope that infrastructure builds up 
around it and in future years, when it goes to be cut, people will say 
you cannot do this because it will have this multiplier impact. That is 
the history of the Federal Government and its growth.
  According to a CBO analysis, if most of the new spending programs 
enacted under the proposed stimulus were to become long-term spending 
programs--and that is our history and what we have seen in the past--
the cost of the

[[Page S2190]]

stimulus package would rise to $2.5 trillion over the next decade, and 
$3.3 trillion if you include interest payments on that debt. We are 
borrowing every cent. You are looking at long-term spending in the $3.3 
trillion category. If you do and you look at a rough outline of this, 
you are going to move the Federal Government from about 20 percent of 
the economy, which it has been, up to 25 and possibly 30 percent of the 
economy. At what time do you come to the tipping point? And that is 
before you add in the baby boomers retiring and the increased costs in 
Medicare, and when that baby boomer generation is retired and using the 
Government programs instead of paying into them. You will get to a 
tipping point where people cannot afford the tax structure that is 
needed underneath that. That is not wise for us to do.
  In this stimulus bill, we will take the Federal debt in private hands 
relative to our gross domestic product from below 40 percent of GDP to 
move it well over 60 percent of GDP. So that will be like saying I have 
a job and I make $100,000 a year, and I borrowed $40,000 that I am 
paying on, and now I am going to jump it to $60,000. You are looking at 
that in this soft economy and saying, is that a smart thing to do? Most 
people would say, no, that is not the right thing to do. You want to 
try to stimulate things, not harm them.
  Finally is this thought: I don't believe that hastily constructed 
bills such as this one being sold as stimulative is a plan to help our 
economy weather this recession. It strikes me as a highly leveraged, 
speculative bet on larger Government and massive long-term spending as 
a cure to our economic woes. We have seen what the aftermath of highly 
leveraged speculative bets can bring. That is what we have gotten into 
in the first place, where you have had highly speculative leveraged 
events taking place in the housing market and expanding into credit 
card use, into automobile loans. A number of homes were bought with 100 
or 110 percent borrowing, and they thought the appreciation would pay 
for that. Those were completely leveraged events. That doesn't bring 
economic prosperity; it brings bubbles. I don't think you are even 
going to see that with this one. You are going to see long-term costs. 
We are going to see speculative debt with the Government using our 
children as leverage. Is that the way we want to go?

  Clearly, the people in my State believe no, and they believe we need 
a stimulus package, and that we need to work together on a bipartisan 
package. We should take it through the regular order, through the 
Appropriations Committee and the Finance Committee, and hold hearings 
on it, look at what actually works, set a criteria on this. When we had 
this very rapid, hastily put together TARP legislation--and everybody 
is mad about that now--we didn't hold hearings on it. We did it quickly 
and in closed sessions. Out pops the package, and now we are back at 
it. I think we will be back at this one also if we don't do what we 
need to do. But only our ammo box will be empty. We are not going to 
have anything in it, because haste makes waste. We rush out there 
trying to get it done and we don't work the process and work together 
on it. We are not going to hit the target and that will be sad for the 
American public.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in 
morning business for 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there has been a generous amount of 
discussion on the floor today about the economic recovery package that 
has been put together and about the dire conditions of our economy. If 
you listen, they have been described in so many different ways--
financial crisis, deep recession, economic trouble, a wreck, a dire 
condition--and I suspect almost anybody who has been experiencing 
trouble in the workplace as a result of this rather steep economic 
decline would understand all of those terms.
  I have been listening to the debate on the floor of the Senate, and I 
had to come to see if we could add a little clarity to what has caused 
all this. It is pretty hard to describe a remedy unless you understand 
what has caused it.
  I understand from a lot of discussion a bit ago that there are a lot 
of people who don't want to do anything or they want to do something 
much less or they are not sure. In any event, I was thinking of how 
many people in the Senate lined up to help the banks. The Treasury 
Secretary said we have to pass legislation to help the big Wall Street 
banks. He said we have to pass a 3-page bill in 3 days for $750 
billion. Boy, there was a big-old traffic jam trying to get up here to 
the well to vote in favor of that legislation, helping out all the big 
banks with hundreds of billions of dollars. Now we are talking about 
helping someone else out, helping out folks who need jobs, and all of a 
sudden, there is a big problem. Mr. President, $700 billion to bail out 
big banks and steer this economy in the ditch--that is OK, big traffic 
jam to do that, but some money to help put people get back on payrolls, 
no, that is deficit spending, we are told.
  I showed this chart the other day on the floor of the Senate. There 
were 35 jobs available in Miami for firefighters, and 1,000 people 
showed up on the sidewalk and lined up to apply.
  For some, it may be easy to come to the floor of the Senate and talk 
about the 598,000 people who lost their jobs last month, the 1 million 
people who lost their jobs in the last 2 months, and the 3.6 million 
people who lost their jobs since this recession began. But name 1, name 
10, name 1,000, name 1 million or look at their picture and see the 
faces of people who want to work but cannot because they were told 
their jobs no longer exist. Then ask whether this is important, and ask 
yourself: What are you going to do about it? What do you think the 
remedy is? What do you think the priority ought to be with respect to 
putting people, such as these people, back to work: giving them an 
opportunity with a job or lining up in the well of the Senate to say to 
the big banks: Here I come; here is $700 billion. Big difference, in my 
judgment.
  The difficulties we face in this country today are not some natural 
disaster. This is not Hurricane Katrina that came raging through our 
country. This is not some disaster over which we had no control. This 
is an economy which is collapsing and has very serious trouble as a 
result of specific things that have been done that have been 
irresponsible.
  How on Earth do you describe a solution unless you are willing to 
admit what has caused it? Let me go through some of it. It is not a 
question of pointing fingers, it is just a matter of deciding, let's be 
straight about where we are and how we got here. They will write in the 
history books about this era and this age. We studied the Gay Nineties. 
We studied the Roaring Twenties. Somebody will study this age, this age 
of excess, this carnival of greed in the history books in the future.
  So how did we get here? Let me describe it by saying we got, in my 
judgment, several fundamentally flawed policy changes that happened 
over a long period of time.
  Trade. First of all, you cannot suggest this problem we have does not 
lay right on the doorstep of those who have allowed this trade deficit 
in this country to rise to $700 billion to $800 billion a year, buying 
$2 billion more each day than we sell abroad and racking up a giant 
deficit for this country that we must repay to other countries. Most of 
the Members of this body have been perfectly willing to be brain dead 
on that subject for a long time. Trade doesn't matter, the deficits 
don't count. Don't worry about jobs going overseas, don't worry about 
unfair trade agreements, just ignore it and just keep chanting about 
free trade. That is one big mistake that has been made for a very long 
time and no more so than during the past 8 years of the past 
administration.
  With a trade deficit of $700 billion to $800 billion a year, add to 
that budget deficits. I know what they say about the budget deficit in 
the newspaper. OMB puts out a number. I think the

[[Page S2191]]

last administration said it is some $450 billion. That is not true at 
all. It is not $450 billion. The question is how much did we have to 
borrow last year. That is the impact. It is between $700 billion and 
$800 billion, even more depending on whose counting. So with an economy 
of $14 trillion or so, a $700 billion to $800 billion trade deficit, a 
budget deficit of somewhere around $700 billion to $800 billion, that 
is 10-percent or so indebtedness in 1 single year.
  But it is not just the fact we have this budget deficit that has been 
so out of whack ever since the last administration took office--and by 
the way, they inherited a budget surplus. We had a big debate on the 
floor of the Senate, and those now saying: Let's not do much to remedy 
this economy, were standing on the floor of the Senate saying: We want 
to get rid of the budget surplus; we want very big tax cuts for a very 
long time, most of which will go to the very wealthy. Some of us said: 
Let's be careful, let's be conservative. No. Katy, bar the door. They 
passed their legislation. We ran into very big budget deficits in a 
very big hurry.
  Trade deficits, budget deficits--and by the way, a budget deficit 
that was, in part, constructed by deciding to fight a war and not 
paying for it. Can you imagine, fighting a war and saying we are going 
to charge every penny. We say to the American people: You go shopping. 
That is what President Bush said: Your job is to go shopping. We are 
going to fight this war. We are going to spend $10 billion, $12 billion 
a month, and we don't intend to pay a penny of it. Some of us who 
wanted to pay for part of it were told: We will veto the legislation if 
you try. He said: I will veto the legislation if you try.
  Trade deficits and budget deficits have weighed this economy down in 
a very significant way. And the very folks who have come today to talk 
about spending and deficits are the ones who supported all along a 
fiscal policy that created the most significant budget deficits in the 
history of this country.
  Those are not the only two things. They are significant--trade 
deficit, a budget deficit, reckless fiscal policy. They are 
significant, but something else happened, something very significant, 
and I talked about it frequently on the floor of the Senate. The same 
people who are so concerned about these issues now joined forces to 
say: You know what, we need to modernize America's banking system. It 
is way old-fashioned, way out of date. We put in place all kinds of 
things since the Great Depression to prevent banks from being 
modernized, and we need to have one-stop shopping. We need to let banks 
get involved in real estate investments again. We need banks to get 
involved in securities investments again. And so they passed--yes, the 
Congress did; incidentally, there was bipartisan support for it--a 
piece of legislation called the Financial Services Modernization Act. 
It got rid of old-fashioned things that were put in place after the 
Great Depression and helped create the big bank holding companies that 
could get involved in securities, real estate, and all kinds of risk 
ventures attached to banking which we had prevented for 80 years.
  All of a sudden, we saw the pyramid created, the big holding 
companies, and it was Katy, bar the door. What we saw was the buildup 
of unbelievable leveraged debt in these institutions and a substantial 
amount of risk brought into America's banking system.
  Almost immediately, that system allowed greed to permeate. Here is 
how it manifested itself in one significant part of the contributor to 
this economic malaise, and that is the housing bubble and the subprime 
loan scandal. I have spoken about it at great length--I am sure people 
are tired of hearing it--the subprime loan scandal. We know people who 
were cold-called by brokers to say: We know you are paying a 7-percent 
interest rate. We will give you a 2-percent interest rate, and by the 
way, you don't have to pay any principal; 2-percent interest rate and 
no principal, and you don't have to document your income to us. No-doc 
loan, no principal, 2-percent rate. They put people in subprime loans 
not telling or emphasizing that it is going to reset in 2 years to 10 
percent or 11 percent and you can't prepay because there is a 
prepayment penalty for doing it.

  They larded up a whole lot of securities because they wrapped these 
into securities with bad loans, bad mortgages, and then sold them 
upstream to mortgage banks, hedge funds, investment banks. They were 
all fat and happy, and that included the rating agencies that would 
take a look at that security and say: That is a good security; that is 
AAA. They were all in on the take. By ``the take,'' I mean infected 
with greed. So we had the housing bubble. We had all of these mortgages 
out there.
  Consider this: A $14,000-a-year strawberry picker buying a $720,000 
home placed by a broker who got a big bonus for placing the mortgage 
without any chance of that person being able to make payments. But that 
mortgage then becomes a mortgage wrapped into a security sold to a 
hedge fund, rated as a security as AAA, sold to an investment bank. Now 
all of a sudden you have brokers who are happy because they are making 
massive amounts of money; you have the mortgage banks, they love it, 
they are making lots of money; hedge funds, they are making so much 
money they can't count it.
  By the way, the top hedge fund manager a year and a half ago earned 
$3.7 billion. By my calculation, that is $300 million a month, about 
$10 million a day.
  Honey, how are you doing at work?
  I am doing pretty well, $10 million a day. I make as much in 3 
minutes as the average American worker does in a year.
  They were all happy, all making massive amounts of money. The problem 
is, they built a pyramid. The scheme of this pyramid is not much 
different from Mr. Madoff, who apparently allegedly got away with a $50 
billion Ponzi scheme. This scheme was not much different. All of a 
sudden, it began to collapse.
  Huge trade debt, big federal debt, reckless fiscal policy, fighting a 
war and not paying for it, charging every penny, in fact, insisting on 
continuing tax cuts even during the war, and then this unbelievable 
banking scandal by removing the protections that existed since the 
Great Depression and saying to the big banks: You can create holding 
companies, you can attach risk, such as securities and other issues, 
and it will be just fine. You can do that. And so they did. All of it 
was built on leverage--trade debt, budget debt, leverage debt in the 
private sector, almost unparalleled in the history of this country. 
Then the tent pole began to come down. All of a sudden, we discover a 
very serious problem.
  To describe how significant the money that was being paid was, there 
was a discussion in the last couple of days in the Congress about maybe 
doing what President Obama suggested; that is, to those big companies 
that got bailout funds, for the top 25 people in those companies, their 
compensation should be limited to half a million dollars a year. It is 
interesting, when they tried to do that, my understanding is there was 
a budget cost to that of something close to $10 billion. Why would 
there be a budget cost? Because they were all making so much money that 
the income tax they would pay as a result of that money was so 
significant that you had a $10 billion budget cost if you limited the 
income of the top people on Wall Street in these firms to $500,000 a 
year. That is almost unbelievable to me. But having done some work to 
study how much income exists in those areas, that is exactly true.
  There was an investigative story in the Washington Post about the 
failure of one of the largest investment banks. They described the top 
trader in that organization, a person trading securities and the person 
who was in charge of risk management. It turns out they carpooled every 
day from Connecticut to New York. It wasn't very hard to have the top 
trader deal with his best friend risk manager and get things done 
pretty easily. The top trader, they said, was making $20 million to $30 
million a year. So that company turns out to be loaded with toxic 
assets, as were most of the other institutions engaged in exactly the 
same business because they were making so much money.
  Now we are told the taxpayers have to come to the rescue of these 
banking institutions. So $700 billion has been voted in what is called 
the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP. I did not support that 
legislation. I didn't think

[[Page S2192]]

the Treasury Secretary had the foggiest idea what he was doing, and I 
think history shows that to be the case.
  But one of the questions I think needs to be asked at this moment, 
is: Is there a requirement that we bail out these specific banks? Is 
that some divine right of existing institutions, to come to the 
Government to say: We are in trouble, you need to help us. Well, what 
has happened is the Government has allowed them to become so big they 
are referred to as being too big to fail. That is an actual specific 
category at the Federal Reserve Board--too big to fail. Despite the 
fact that they are bailing them out, our Government--the Federal 
Reserve Board and the Treasury, which have said these institutions are 
too big to fail, and have in fact failed and need taxpayer money to 
bail them out--our Government is actually pursuing mergers to make them 
bigger. It is unbelievably ignorant, in my judgment, as a policy 
matter. But I think it is important for us to ask some basic questions 
here. Do we care about too big to fail; and should we, at some point, 
decide to take apart those institutions and create different entities, 
smaller institutions?
  I understand we can't tomorrow decide there will not be any major 
banking institutions in this country. Our country can't function like 
that. Credit is critical to every business in this country. I know many 
profitable Main Street businesses that are having great difficulty 
finding credit from established credit sources they have had for 
decades. So I understand the urgency and the need for credit from 
banking institutions. My only observation is this: If we are pushing 
$700 billion after failed institutions in order to try to make them 
well, even as we are saying to them, we want you to become bigger, and 
when, in fact, they are already too big to fail, I am saying that 
doesn't add up to me. I think maybe we should have a discussion here in 
this Congress about whether there is some inherent right to preserve 
institutions, or whether those that are too big to fail should be 
perhaps taken apart and create institutions that will better serve this 
country's interest.
  Now, some say there are only two choices in the future as we try to 
take a look at financial reform. And by the way, there is very little 
action on that at this point, and I believe it ought to go concurrent 
with all the discussion about trying to put people back to work and so 
on. But it seems to me the two choices are: You go back to a world in 
which you had Glass-Steagall and separation of banks from other 
inherently risky things, such as securities and real estate. And I 
believe we should do that. That means banks essentially become very 
much like a utility. That is the way it was. They were regulated, but 
generally performing traditional banking functions and making money. 
Then risky enterprises are over here, regulated in a different way but 
nonetheless able to engage in substantial amounts of risk with 
securities, real estate, and other items.
  We have to make that choice, and the sooner the better. I think to 
ignore that is to suggest, as some are now doing, that what we are 
going to do is we are going to have taxpayer money chase current 
institutions that have failed, and perhaps even make them bigger when 
they are already too big to fail. That makes no sense to me at all.
  And that brings me to this issue today of the economic recovery plan 
that has been negotiated. I don't think anyone comes willingly to this 
either starting line or finish line with this kind of a plan to say, I 
am pleased to be here. But I do think this: I see all of the energy of 
people who rush to try to help the big banks with $700 billion, and 
then see so much concern about trying to help people who are out of 
work, and I say: Wait a second; maybe we have our priorities wrong 
here. I believe that the economic engine in this country works best 
when people have something to work with, when American families have a 
job to go to, a job that pays well and allows them to take care of 
their family. I think that is a percolating-up kind of strategy with 
the economic engine, and I think it is perfectly appropriate and 
important. In fact, I think it is essential for us to worry about 
trying to put people back to work during a very deep recession.
  No one can say that what happened last month doesn't matter. You 
can't say that 598,000 people coming home at night and telling their 
loved ones they lost their job doesn't matter to this place. If it 
mattered to this place that the biggest banks in the country were 
having some difficulty, and they had to get $700 billion, why doesn't 
it matter that we care a little bit about the people who lined up in 
Miami, FL, a thousand of them, trying to get a little shot at 35 
firefighting jobs? This too ought to matter. It is not unfair, as some 
have suggested last week when I showed this chart, and said I was 
playing on sympathy. This isn't sympathy. This is reality. Isn't it 
important that we talk a little about reality and a little less about 
theory here in the Chamber of the Senate? The fact is these people got 
up, stood in line, because they need a job, and we ought to be able to 
do something about that, to try to put people back to work and give 
this economy a lift.
  I think it is pretty clear that no one knows exactly what the 
medicine is or the menu is to try to make this economy well and healthy 
once again. But this legislation we are going to be considering 
contains a couple of things that I put in during this past week when it 
was considered. One is very simple: If we are going to put people back 
to work building roads and dams and bridges and so on and so forth, 
putting people on payrolls to do these projects that will invest in 
America's infrastructure, then let's try to buy American products while 
we do it so that we are putting people on factory floors to produce 
those products. I am talking about steel and iron and manufactured 
projects.
  When I suggested that we buy American for the major purchases that we 
are going to make to put people back to work, I did that because I know 
when we buy those products we will put our people back to work in those 
factories. But you would have thought I was talking the most radical 
kind of talk in the world, by the reaction of some--you are going to 
upset the international balance of trade. That is absurd. We are 
already so out of balance in trade. We are $700 billion to $800 billion 
in red in trade. At any rate, my legislation is here. So as we try to 
put people back to work and invest in our infrastructure to create 
jobs, we should buy American. It is common sense.
  The second amendment I put in this piece of legislation is different 
than anything that has been required with all the other money that has 
been shoved out the door by the Federal Reserve Board, by the Treasury 
Department, by the FDIC, and, yes, with TARP, supported by the 
Congress, and that is a provision that says: I want accountability. If 
you get money from this economic recovery package, you have to report 
to us on a quarterly basis that says: Here is who I am, here is the 
money I got, here is how I used it, and here is how many jobs I 
created. That kind of accountability, demanding that kind of reporting, 
is essential for my support for this bill. And that is in this piece of 
legislation because I put it there last week.
  Now, one final point, if I might. I understand, as I have said many 
times, that in most ways the issue of trying to promote economic 
recovery in this country is not about some menu. It is not about a menu 
of tax cuts or more spending. It is not about a menu of M1B or anything 
of that sort in fiscal or monetary policy. It is about trying to give 
the American people some increased confidence about the future. That is 
critical in order to have an expansion of our economy. People have to 
feel confident about the future in order to act on that confidence--to 
buy a suit, buy a new washing machine, buy a car, buy a home, take a 
trip. It is the kind of things people do when they are working and they 
feel good about the future and their job is secure. They do things that 
expand the economy.
  When people aren't confident, they do the exact opposite, and that 
causes a contraction of the economy. That is where we are today. People 
aren't confident about the future. I understand that. I mean, I think 
all of us know why. They have seen the most significant era of greed 
perhaps since the 1920s, and they do not like it. They have seen a 
collapse of the housing bubble, they have seen big investment bankers 
get rich, they have seen all these things--the scandals--and it is hard 
to be confident. They have seen the country fight a war without paying

[[Page S2193]]

for it. Some people have given their lives. So I understand that we 
have a lack of confidence. The question is not whether that exists; the 
question is what do we do about it? Do we decide to do something about 
it? And if so, what?
  I have described often the response of Mark Twain when asked if he 
would engage in a debate at this organization, and he said: Oh yes, if 
I can take the negative side. They said, but we haven't even told you 
the subject yet. He said: Oh, the subject doesn't matter. The negative 
side will take no preparation.
  So I understand how easy it is to simply be opposed to everything. 
The question now, however, is: What do we do to lift this country? What 
do we do to help lift this country out of this deep recession and give 
people some confidence that we are on the right road? Perhaps a trade 
policy that begins to insist on some balance in trade so we are not 
deep in the red; a budget policy that at some point says you can't 
spend what you don't have on what you don't need. You have to have some 
balance in fiscal policy and you have to recognize that. And you have 
to have a policy on banking and finance that says we're not going to 
allow you to do this anymore. We are not going to merge the safety and 
soundness of banking with speculation and risk in real estate and 
securities. We are not going to do it. If we would take those steps, it 
seems to me we would give some substantial confidence to the American 
people.

  Passing the legislation that is going to be proposed today or 
tomorrow--the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act--is not the 
easiest thing, I understand, because it is counterintuitive to somehow 
believe that the way out, when you are deep in debt, is to spend some 
money. Well, I understand that is counterintuitive. Yet all of the 
lessons we have learned are that you have to prime the pump to put 
people back on a payroll. If you have half a million people a month 
losing their jobs, you have to find a way to put people back on the 
payroll and to inspire some confidence in the economy again.
  I have heard discussions today about, well, I worry about this piece 
or that piece, and people won't go back to work. I am telling you, I 
think there are a lot of things in this bill that will put people back 
to work.
  I chair the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water. We have 
$4.6 billion in this with the Corps of Engineers, and the Corps of 
Engineers will be repairing mostly bridges and water projects--that are 
designed, engineered, and ready to go. They will be being hiring 
contractors who will be hiring workers. The fact is there will be a lot 
of jobs created with this package--we believe 3.5 to 4 million jobs. 
That is going to make a difference, I believe.
  Having described in some cases our disagreements, let me say that I 
do think every single person in this Chamber wants the same thing for 
this country. We perhaps have different approaches to how to get there, 
but we all want this country to prosper, the economy to be lifted and 
to recover, for people to go back to work, and for us to have the kind 
of future that we expect for our children. I believe that is possible. 
If I didn't believe it was possible, I would hardly be able to go to 
work in the morning.
  Let me tell one story, if I might--I have mentioned it before, a 
couple of weeks ago--and some people have heard of this. I talked about 
this guy named Ken Mink from Kentucky, because it is so inspiring. It 
is so indicative of people in this country who think we can do anything 
and they can do anything.
  Ken Mink, from a news report I read, was 73 years old. He was out in 
the back yard shooting baskets, and he came in and said to his wife: 
Honey, it is back. She said what is back? He said: My shot. My 
basketball shot is back. No matter where I shoot in the back yard, I 
don't miss. So he sat down that night and wrote applications to 
colleges--junior colleges--at age 73. He got into a junior college and 
tried out for the basketball team, at age 73, and made the basketball 
team. About a month and a half ago, he made two points in a college 
basketball game. The oldest man, by 40 years, ever to score at a 
college basketball game, at age 73. I was thinking about that the other 
day, and I thought: What a wonderful inspirational story, of somebody 
who didn't understand what he couldn't do. Who says you can't play 
basketball at age 73 for a junior college some place in Kentucky?
  My point is: I think that represents the story of our country. We 
have so many stories of people who, against the odds, do things that 
make this a better place. And if we work together and believe in 
ourselves, and believe in what we have accomplished in decades past and 
will accomplish in the future, this country is going to be fine. So we 
are going to get through this week, and hopefully we will give some 
boost to this economy, and after which I believe we will see an economy 
that provides more jobs and begins to expand and provides opportunity 
for American families once again.
  Mr. 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. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Bennett and Mr. Wyden pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 426 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements 
on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from Oregon is 
recognized.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, in the course of debating the economic 
stimulus legislation, every Senator I have talked to has been 
interested in trying to find savings to keep down the cost of the 
economic stimulus bill. I have come to the floor this afternoon because 
it appears that when the Senate debates the final stimulus legislation, 
it is not going to include a bipartisan provision to protect taxpayers, 
a bipartisan provision which would require that Wall Street companies 
that recently paid excessive bonuses be required to pay those bonuses 
back to the taxpayers.
  Taxpayers in this country were horrified several weeks ago to learn 
about the fact that recently Wall Street companies that had received 
TARP financing--TARP, of course, being the Troubled Asset Relief 
Program--had just paid $18 billion in bonuses. Once that news became 
public, everybody in Government spoke out against the bonuses. 
Everybody lined up in front of the television cameras to say the 
bonuses were wrong. Everybody said that it was outrageous and 
unacceptable for these Wall Street bonuses to have been paid when these 
institutions were receiving billions and billions of dollars of 
taxpayer money.
  After the news, three of us on the Senate Finance Committee--a 
bipartisan group--said we were going to do more than say the bonuses 
were wrong; we were going to take steps to make sure the bonuses were 
actually paid back. So we came together and put forward a bipartisan 
proposal. We collaborated with law professors across the country and 
had the Joint Committee on Taxation, under the able leadership of 
Edward Kleinbard, review the financial underpinnings of the proposal, 
and they found that our modest approach that would allow taxpayers to 
be paid back the excessive amount of the cash bonuses would generate 
$3.2 billion for American taxpayers--just a fraction of what had been 
paid out. We felt it was a modest proposal. We felt it was a bipartisan 
proposal.
  The fact is, nobody would oppose our idea in broad daylight, but it 
now seems that when the ink is dry on the final legislation, the 
taxpayers of this country are still going to get soaked. It is not 
right. It is not right because taxpayers in this country have been 
taking a beating with their health care costs and their fuel costs and 
trying to figure out how to stay in their homes.
  Companies normally pay bonuses when they are doing well. That wasn't 
the case with these Wall Street financial firms. Here is the math. The 
Wall Street firms took $274 billion in taxpayer money. When they 
weren't doing well, they paid $18 billion in bonuses, but they couldn't 
pay the taxpayers $3.2 billion of the amount paid--the excessive amount 
paid--in cash bonuses when the taxpayers are being hit in

[[Page S2194]]

their wallets, as we all have seen every time we are home and talking 
to our constituents.
  The arguments of the financial firms don't add up to me, and they 
aren't going to add up to the millions of taxpayers whose money has 
gone to the financial firms. The taxpayers deserve to see in this 
stimulus legislation that somebody was actually standing up for them; 
that it wasn't just about speeches; it wasn't just about saying 
something was wrong; it was about backing up those words and taking 
concrete action to protect taxpayers.
  So I have come to the floor more than anything else to make it clear 
that I am a persistent guy, and I am going to stay at this until there 
is a better accounting for our taxpayers' money, until Congress puts a 
stop to these kinds of actions where financial firms take taxpayers' 
money and give the citizens of this country a runaround. This needs to 
end, and it needs to end now. It means concrete action has to be taken. 
That means more than speeches.
  We know in the days ahead these financial firms are likely to come 
back to the Congress of the United States and say they need additional 
sums of money to deal with the toxic loans that are on their books. How 
can one have confidence about giving these firms additional money when 
they have just paid bonuses during these tough times and they have 
fought--I know for a fact--against a reasonable provision to require 
that these bonuses be paid back.
  I intend to stay at this. It concerns me greatly that we didn't have 
a recorded vote here on the floor of the Senate on this provision. I 
knew that nobody would oppose this in broad daylight, but I had no idea 
there would be such an aggressive effort behind the scenes to kill a 
modest step to protect taxpayers, and particularly to find savings in 
this legislation. For days now, Senators of both political parties have 
been talking about ways to hold down the costs. A bipartisan group of 
Senators found a way--a reasonable way--to save more than $3 billion, 
according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.
  It is time to put a stop to financial firms taking taxpayers' money 
and using the money to pay bonuses to many of the same people 
responsible for the current financial crisis. I am old enough to know 
that normally you pay bonuses when you do well. That is what the 
American economy is all about. That is what capitalism is all about. 
Somehow, some of these institutions think they ought to be able to 
privatize their gains and socialize their losses. That is not right, 
and it wasn't right to kill this modest provision to force the 
repayment of the excessive amount of these Wall Street bonuses.
  So I intend to come back to the floor of the Senate on this subject. 
I will do everything I can to get a fair shake for the taxpayers of 
Oregon and the taxpayers of this country. I wish this bonus recovery 
provision was in the stimulus legislation that will be voted on here in 
the Senate. I regret greatly that it is not. I am going to stay with 
this until the taxpayers recover this money that shouldn't have been 
paid out in the first place.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, I wish to speak on the pending matter, 
which is the so-called stimulus plan, with great concern about where we 
are. As we hear, the plan has been agreed to and the package is being 
put together; however, we have yet to see it. So I am going to make 
some assumptions about the things I hear that may or may not be 
included in it.
  It appears we have some clear idea of some things that definitely 
won't be a part of this package. The fact is that as we approach this 
problem--and this is a serious problem for our Nation--the President 
talked about a timely, targeted, and temporary spending package. The 
President talked about it being timely because we needed to get the 
money out the door now so that it would get into the mainstream of 
commerce, so that it could get into the economy so that we could avoid 
a deep and long-lasting recession. It also needed to be targeted 
because it made no sense to do those things that would spend money but 
not create jobs, not create economic activity; the types of tax cuts 
that are geared toward creating more jobs in the marketplace, not 
simply to give money to people that may or may not ultimately be spent. 
It needed to be temporary because we all know that Government spending 
in excess during a time of a recovery, when the Government should not 
be overspending, should not be overheating the economy, could lead to a 
slowdown of the recovery because it would increase inflation.
  So that is why, when the President made those comments, I was 
excited. I was positive. I was very positive in thinking this is 
exactly what our country needed at this point in time. However, we have 
found that as this has evolved through the Halls of Congress, that is 
not what we are getting. We are getting an unfocused spending plan 
which spends money on things that are far afield from shovel ready, 
ready-to-get-out-the-door types of projects, but which is really an 
unfocused spending measure that, in my view and in the view of many 
others, spends too much at a time when we can hardly afford to be 
overspending needlessly, but it also does not spend on that which is 
designed to create the jobs America desperately needs today.
  In my view, there are ways we could have crafted a package. I made a 
proposal because I do believe that to simply oppose what the President 
proposes and what the majority of this body and across the hall have 
put together is--it is not enough to just say no, don't do it. We have 
a responsibility to be responsible and offer alternatives, to offer a 
proposal, because at this point in time we know we are in deep and 
serious economic times. So the key to this is oppose but propose.
  The fact is that some of us did attempt mightily to see if we could 
not come to a bipartisan compromise, a spending package that would have 
spent about $650 billion--a very big package of spending. But the 
spending would have been focused on what I believe would have gotten 
out the door quickly. We also know it would have been good to spend on 
things that we needed to spend the money on anyway. In fact, military 
reset, the resetting of equipment that has been damaged or lost in the 
long struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan would have been a great way for 
us to be spending it--those things that we have to spend money on 
anyway but at the same time be doing so now in a manner that gets it 
out the door in a hurry.

  We have the infrastructure in place for military purchases of 
equipment. That would have helped. We could have also done more in the 
infrastructure field. I think this plan is not big enough as it relates 
to the building of highways and bridges. The fact is that the Presiding 
Officer well knows the need for bridges. In Minnesota, there is a 
tremendous need for infrastructure. I wanted to see more bridges. 
Across this Nation, we have bridges that are failing and need to be 
rebuilt, and more highways and bridges and infrastructure in that sense 
would have been the right way to approach it.
  Obviously, a part of the package should also be tax cuts geared to 
job creation. There is a difference between giving money to the people 
who would use it to pay down debt or hoard and hold it because they are 
fearful of what is coming in the economy. I believe in more focused tax 
cuts, such as payroll deduction or the corporate tax rate being 
reduced, which ultimately is America's small businesses that will put 
America back to work. Giving those small businesses a tax break would 
have encouraged them to get people back on the rolls of the employed.
  My largest disappointment of all is that this plan fails to address 
the problem that got us into this mess in the first place. Why did the 
President and my Governor appear in Fort Myers a couple of days ago? 
Because that is the foreclosure capital of America, and that is where 
more houses are being foreclosed than anyplace else in Florida. I was 
speaking with a group of government officials from Charlotte County, a 
little north of Fort Myers, where there is 11 percent unemployment and 
a terrible problem with foreclosures. They said: Please do something 
about foreclosures. If we can stop houses from being foreclosed, we can 
do two very important things. We can keep a family in their home and 
keep that family whole; we can keep that street from having a 
foreclosed house, and we

[[Page S2195]]

keep that community from yet declining further and further in the 
prices of homes.
  In addition, we also do something else; we sustain home values in a 
way that will help yet another foreclosure from occurring as the 
declining spiral of housing prices continues to go downhill.
  The second one I would have loved to have seen in this package--and I 
am disappointed to know it is not in there--is the proposal by Senator 
Isakson, which is to give a $15,000 tax credit to anybody who purchases 
a home--not just first-time home buyers but anybody. We know one of the 
great problems in the housing market today is that there is an enormous 
inventory of unsold homes, many the result of foreclosures. If we 
encourage potential home buyers by giving them a significant tax break, 
they would get into the marketplace and make the decision to buy, and 
we could begin then to stave off this continuing cycle of declining 
home prices, stalled sales, and more foreclosures.
  I know when the President went to Fort Myers, he went there because 
there is a foreclosure problem. If there wasn't a foreclosure problem 
in Fort Myers, there would not be double digit inflation in Lee County 
and Charlotte County. I know my Governor wishes to see this package 
passed. I don't know that my Governor understands all of the details in 
the package. There will be nothing here to help with Florida's housing 
economy, which is the No. 1 problem we have today. Until we address the 
housing problem, we are not going to bring Florida back to economic 
health.
  There is not enough largess that can come to Florida from the Federal 
Government to fill the coffers of the State's needs. We need for 
Florida's economy to get back on its feet. We need tax cuts so that the 
taxpayers have more money to spend, and we need to work on the housing 
problem. We need to work on the overall economy of the country so that 
tourism comes back to our State. All of these things working in unison 
will bring America back to economic health.
  This package, unfortunately, misses the mark. One of the great 
dangers in it is that at the cost of almost just a hair under $800 
billion, there are not enough additional hundreds of billions that we 
can safely spend. We have to get it right, because some of us in the 
Banking Committee this week heard from the Secretary of the Treasury, 
who told us to get ready, another almost $2 trillion more is going to 
be asked of you for the financial institutions. At the end of the day, 
this is very costly. At some point, continued Government spending isn't 
going to cut it. So that is why it is so important that this package be 
gotten right.
  I hate to oppose this package, because I would have loved for us to 
have come up with something that was a truly bipartisan package--not 
just a way of getting three votes but a way of, in fact, working 
together and getting the best thinking of both sides and working on 
something that was bipartisan. Not working in that fashion has caused 
some of us to oppose this package. I hate doing that. I wanted to work 
with President Obama. I wish our new President well, and I hope the 
package succeeds and has the desired effect. In my conscience, I cannot 
support it because I don't feel it will do what this economy currently 
needs or that it will do what in fact all of us need to work together 
toward doing, and that is getting our country back on the road to 
recovery.
  With great regret, I will not be able to support this package. I look 
forward to seeing the final outcome because we have not all read the 
bill yet. I will analyze it again to see if the component parts are 
there that will allow me to support it. But it appears clear to me, in 
the information we have, that that in fact will not be the case. I am 
increasingly disappointed, but at the same time my hope is that it will 
succeed because, at this moment, at this juncture in history, we need 
for our country to be successful, so that Americans can get back to 
work and our Nation can get back to prosperity.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I have been listening to the remarks of 
the Senator from Florida. I find myself in agreement with him. I want 
to elaborate a little bit. For that reason, I ask unanimous consent 
that my 10 minutes be extended to 15 minutes should I need that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Inhofe pertaining to the introduction of S.J. 
Res. 10 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to the 
conference report that has been granted and put together accompanying 
the American recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, more commonly known 
as the stimulus package.
  When I spoke on the floor last week about my disappointments in the 
Senate version of the stimulus bill, I did not think the bill would get 
much worse in conference. In fact, I harbored some hope it would 
actually improve. Unfortunately, I was wrong.
  What we have seen emerge from the conference weakens the stronger 
provisions of the Senate bill and worsens the less effective 
provisions.
  Many Utahans have called and written me to express their concerns 
about this stimulus package and the process by which it has been 
legislated. They are rightly worried about the consequences of an 
economic stimulus package that, with interest, will cost taxpayers well 
over $1 trillion. That is just the beginning, by the way. They are 
particularly worried it will be ineffective in saving or creating jobs.
  Last year, President Obama's campaign was based on ``hope not fear.'' 
That is until he needs fear to help him pass a bill, as Charles 
Krauthammer of the Washington Post points out. The pressure is on the 
majority to convince the American people this is the right economic 
package.
  On Tuesday, President Obama spoke to the American people, not about 
the audacity of hope but rather to instill fear into Americans. He said 
at that time:

       A failure to act will only deepen the crisis as well as the 
     pain of Americans.

  He also said:

       The Federal Government is the only entity left with the 
     resources to jolt our economy.

  While I do not disagree with these statements, it is wrong to use 
fear to force the completion of an unbalanced, largely partisan package 
that the Congressional Budget Office estimates will create at most 1.9 
million jobs by the end of 2011 and leave us with a lower gross 
domestic product in 10 years than if we do nothing at all.
  Keep in mind, the head of the Congressional Budget Office is a 
Democratic appointee.
  It is clear we are in an economic recession and that action is needed 
to stimulate the Government. I think every one of our colleagues agrees 
with this. What troubles me is the misperception about why most 
Republicans are opposed to this bill. The President and many of our 
Democratic colleagues have unfairly implied that Republicans prefer to 
do nothing. That is absolutely not true. Yes, we are opposed to this 
bill, but we are not opposed to stimulating the economy. We simply want 
to do it in the most effective and least wasteful way as possible. We 
do not want to see us make a $1 trillion mistake, and this is a $1 
trillion-plus mistake.
  Yet we Republicans were shut out of negotiating the final conference 
report, which is something President Obama vowed to the American people 
he would change. According to President Obama's Presidential campaign 
Web site, change.gov, he vowed to ``end the practice of writing 
legislation behind closed doors.''
  Specifically he said he would `` . . . work to reform congressional 
rules to require all legislative sessions, including committee mark-
ups, and conference committees, to be conducted in public.''
  That certainly did not happen here. I believe this bill could be much 
more effective and so does President Obama. At his Tuesday press 
conference, he admitted as much when he said:

       I cannot tell you for sure that everything in this plan 
     will work exactly as we hope.

  That concerns me. If we plan to spend an amount equal to the 15th

[[Page S2196]]

largest economy in the world, we ought to make sure the stimulus plan 
is drafted in the most effective way possible.
  For example, many economists say the make work pay tax credit 
provision in the plan, which will give workers roughly $15 more a week 
in each paycheck, will largely be ineffective in stimulating the 
economy. It is not going to help the economy. Yet it is a tremendous 
cost, around $150 billion, that could have easily been spent on 
something that would help the economy, create jobs. I suggested the 
research and development tax credit by making that permanent. I cannot 
begin to tell you how that would keep our unqualified lead in the high-
tech world.
  My objection to this bill is not based on the fact it includes 
spending, it is because it lacks an effective balance of spending and 
tax relief.
  If we look closely at the bill, we will see that much of what the 
majority lists as tax relief is actually spending. In other words, 
those who do not pay any income taxes, as well as State and local 
governments, are receiving money through the Tax Code. How can there be 
tax relief to those who do not pay taxes? That is more taxes for those 
who do. Tax relief from what? I am not saying those who do not pay 
income taxes should not benefit from this stimulus package. I am saying 
if you are going to give money to people who do not pay taxes, call it 
what it is--it is spending, it is not tax relief.
  Like I say, I would far rather would have had a permanent research 
and development tax credit, which would cost about only two-thirds of 
what they are going to spend on this so-called make work pay provision 
that would create millions of jobs in America and throughout the world.
  In fact, when one adds up all the provisions in the bill, more than 
70 percent is spending and less than 30 percent is real tax relief. 
Where is the balance? Even worse, only one-half of 1 percent of this 
bill--one-half of 1 percent of this bill--is devoted to tax relief to 
help struggling businesses keep their doors open. One-half of 1 
percent--that is pathetic. We know small business produces most of the 
jobs. Yet this is what we are doing. Moreover, the bill fails to 
adequately address the housing crisis. Unfortunately, the $15,000 tax 
credit for home buyers, which is one of the few bipartisan amendments 
accepted into the Senate bill during the Senate debate, has now been 
watered down drastically. So has the other major bipartisan amendment 
added on the Senate floor--the deduction for interest on a new auto 
loan. And one of the few provisions to help struggling companies keep 
their doors open--the expanded period for carryback net operating 
losses--has been erased from the conference report, except for small 
businesses.

  Now, I have some news for my Democratic colleagues. Small businesses 
are not the only companies that are laying off workers. Allowing 
companies to get quick refunds of taxes previously paid was one of the 
few smart and efficient provisions in the Senate bill, designed to 
directly save jobs. Now that has been whittled down to a mere shadow of 
what it was.
  I worry that my friends on the other side of the aisle are looking 
through rose-colored glasses, spectacles tinted by spending priorities, 
such as expanding Government programs, which they hope will stimulate 
the economy. They are trying to convince America that spending millions 
on Government vehicles will somehow stimulate the economy. They refuse 
to listen to even the President's Chair of the Council of Economic 
Advisers, Christina Romer, who in a study determined that every dollar 
of Government spending increases the gross domestic product by $1.40, 
while every dollar of tax relief increases the gross domestic product 
by $3. That is what the study says. The President's own Chair of the 
Council of Economic Advisers says that $1 of Government spending equals 
a $1.40 increase in GDP, but if you do it in tax relief, $1 will give 
you a $3 increase in GDP. Doesn't take too many brains to figure out it 
is far better to do it the second way.
  The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the Senate 
version of this so-called stimulus package would only save or create 
between 600,000 and 1.9 million jobs by the end of 2011. At a cost of 
$1.2 trillion, including interest, the cost to the taxpayer for each 
job saved or created under the plan is at least $632,000 and as much as 
$2 million if that goes up. We are spending taxpayer money to create 
one job at the rate of $632,000 per job.
  Now that the Senate bill has been scaled back significantly, this 
job-creation estimate is almost sure to go down significantly. We can 
do better than this, Mr. President. This is not good enough for 
Government work. With the amount of money spent in this bill, you could 
give every man, woman, and child in America $4,000. I think Utahns and 
all Americans would put $1.2 trillion to better use than what this bill 
does.
  A large share of this stimulus bill will go to States to implement 
temporary programs. When that funding runs out, what do we tell all of 
those employees who were hired and now have to be let go? Will we say: 
Sorry, this is just a temporary job. Who are we kidding? This makes 
about as much sense as denying an undefeated football team the chance 
to play in the national championship game. I know that sounds a little 
bit like sour grapes since the University of Utah was the only 
undefeated team this last year but had absolutely zero chance to play 
in the national championship game.
  The majority knows the American people want to see more tax relief in 
this stimulus bill. A February 9 poll conducted by the Rasmussen Report 
found that 62 percent of U.S. voters want the plan to include more tax 
relief and less Government spending. It appears as if the more time 
Americans have to review this bill, the less they like it. That is 
certainly the case for me.
  While time is of the essence, we cannot afford to get this wrong. The 
stakes are too high. Yet President Obama has chosen to break the theme 
of his Presidential campaign and use fear to hurriedly pass this flawed 
economic stimulus package. Now, I am not sure I can blame him for that 
because he is stuck with what the people up here have done to him and 
to what he said he would do. So I suppose he was limited to using fear 
to get this package passed. I have a lot of respect for him. I 
personally have helped him, and I intend to help him more. But, gee 
whiz, this is pathetic.
  Mr. President, we Republicans realize the severity of this economic 
situation. We recognize the need to stimulate the economy with a 
balanced stimulus package that has an appropriate mix of spending and 
real tax relief. We want to create jobs and spur economic growth. But 
haste makes waste, and, like many of my constituents, I believe our 
efforts are about to be wasted--squandered on a stimulus bill that will 
stimulate more criticism and feeling of futility than the economy.
  The great American poet and abolitionist John Greenleaf Whittier 
wrote:

       For of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are 
     these: ``It might have been!''

  And while those words were written more than a century ago, they can 
certainly be applied now to Congress. Faced with serious recession, we 
need to do our very best to get the economy moving again. Instead, it 
looks as if this body will settle for a partisan bill that could well 
fail to do the job our Nation requires. We should do better. We could 
do much better. The American people need us to do much better. And if 
this legislation passes, many of us will one day shake our heads at the 
opportunity lost and wonder aloud about what might have been.
  I have told a few people over the last number of weeks who have 
blamed both parties for what has gone on here over the last number of 
years that I have been here 33 years and there hasn't been 1 day in the 
Senate that I can point to where a fiscal conservative majority has 
been in control of the Senate--not 1 day in 33 years--because there are 
always enough liberal Republicans, combined with the mostly all liberal 
Democrats, to do just about anything they want to in spending. It is 
discouraging, I have to admit. We have won some battles because we have 
outworked the other side or we have had a President who has made a 
difference on some issues, no question about it. But not 1 day that I 
can recall where, if you count the liberals on our side and the 
liberals on the Democratic side and you put them together--it is 
usually only five or six, really, on our side--we always have the 
majority on

[[Page S2197]]

the other side. That is why President Bush was hammered all the time 
for his spending programs when, in fact, his budgets were at all times 
less than what we ultimately passed here in both Houses.
  Mr. President, I would like to now take a few minutes to talk about 
the health care provisions in this so-called stimulus package or, more 
appropriately, the next installment of the ``Socialized Health Care for 
All Act of 2009.'' Democrats hate to hear that. They think it is 
terrible to hear the word ``socialism.''
  President Obama recently made the media rounds stating that any delay 
in passing this Government spending package would be inexcusable and 
irresponsible. Well, today I am going to highlight certain health care 
provisions in this Trojan horse legislation that, in the President's 
own words, should be classified as inexcusable and irresponsible.
  First and foremost, let me make this point again, even though I am 
starting to sound like a broken record. Reforming our health care 
system to ensure that every American has access to quality, affordable, 
and portable health care is not a Republican or Democratic issue, it is 
an American issue. When we are dealing with 17 percent of our total 
economy, it is absolutely imperative that we address this challenge in 
an open and bipartisan process.
  Think about it. We are going to talk about this for just a minute. 
Just like the partisan SCHIP exercise preceding this bill, this 
stimulus legislation is another example of the Democrats justifying the 
current economic turmoil to simply expand our entitlement programs and 
make the Federal Government bigger. More and more Americans are being 
pushed into Government-run health care programs. Special interests have 
taken priority over families; politics, of course, over policy.
  In this time of national crisis, we should have come together as one 
group to write a responsible bill for the American families who are 
faced with rising unemployment and dropping home values. Instead, the 
other side has simply chosen to turn this into a government-expansion 
exercise and a grab-bag of favors for the liberal special interests.

  I continue to hope that the other side's promise of change was more 
than a campaign slogan that did not expire on November 4, 2008. Let's 
all remember: Actions speak louder than words.
  Let me start with the COBRA provisions in this package. The Senate 
version of the stimulus includes more than $20 billion in subsidies for 
health insurance premiums for those who have lost their jobs in these 
tough economic conditions. However, this subsidy will only go to those 
Americans who had access to COBRA coverage through their employers.
  Now, let me put this inequity into perspective. If you worked for a 
large employer, such as Lehman Brothers or Bear Stearns in New York 
City, which had access to a COBRA qualified group health plan, you will 
get help under this bill. But mom-and-pop stores in Salt Lake City that 
could not afford a group health plan for their hard-working employees, 
they get nothing. Not a thing. Now, let me repeat again--nothing. This 
is not only unfair, it is unconscionable.
  That is not all. It gets worse. Both the Senate- and the House-passed 
language gave the same COBRA subsidy--50 percent and 65 percent 
respectively--regardless of one's income threshold. Look at this chart. 
You probably recognize the fellow on the left. This is Richard Fuld, 
the former CEO of the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers, who made almost 
half a billion dollars in salary, bonuses, and stock options since the 
year 2000. He is going to get the same level of subsidy for his health 
insurance premiums as the laid-off construction worker on the right 
here in Utah.
  I worked with Senator Grassley to write an amendment that would have 
applied income testing to this provision to target this taxpayer-funded 
help to those who needed it the most. We income test Medicare Part B 
for our seniors, so why not do the same for these subsidies? 
Unfortunately, it was not included in the Senate package.
  Another concern Americans need to be mindful about is the impact of 
this massive COBRA subsidy on our Nation's employers, who are already 
struggling to meet their payroll needs.
  By the way, just so everybody understands what COBRA means, if you 
get fired or the business ends or you have to leave the business, you 
have a right under COBRA to continue the insurance, but you have to pay 
for it rather than your employer.
  Even though employers are not explicitly liable for the COBRA 
subsidies in this legislation, they will suffer from this phenomenon of 
adverse selection. A number of COBRA-eligible individuals have premiums 
that exceed those of active workers. Studies have shown that the 
average COBRA premiums are at 145 percent of active worker premium 
payments. According to a study by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the 10-year 
impact of this provision on employers, even when limited to those in 
the 55-to-64 age group, could be up to $65 billion. Economics 101 
dictates that these additional costs will simply be passed on to 
employers, which in return will result in lower wages and more layoffs. 
This is not exactly what would qualify as ``stimulus'' in my book--
spending, sure, but definitely not stimulus.
  Let me shift my attention to the comparative effectiveness provision. 
The idea behind this concept is simple: Compare the effectiveness of 
medical treatments and procedures so payers, providers, and patients 
can make smart choices. Sounds good. However, the difficulty arises 
when you decide to compare on the basis of what is cheaper rather than 
what works well. Both the House- and the Senate-passed versions 
provided $1.1 billion for comparative effectiveness, including a $400 
million slush fund to be used by the Secretary at his or her 
discretion. Once again, this is a topic of bipartisan interest and 
concern that should have been discussed in the context of comprehensive 
reform.
  We can all agree that a one-size-fits-all approach is the wrong 
approach for the American health care system. Based on our own personal 
experiences, we know that what works best for one does not always work 
the same for the other. Allowing comparative effectiveness on the basis 
of cost can have disastrous consequences not only on innovation of 
lifesaving treatments but also in the delivery of quality care.
  On this chart, for example, we see Jack Tagg, a former World War II 
pilot, who in 2006 suffered from a severe case of macular degeneration. 
The regional health board that utilized cost-based comparative 
effectiveness rejected his request for treatment citing high cost, 
unless the disease hit his other eye also.
  It took 3 years to overturn that decision. Now let's just all 
remember that a family member with cancer in an intensive care unit 
would probably neither have the time nor the resources to appeal such 
an egregious decision. We need to remember the real implications of 
these provisions--not simply in terms of political spin and special 
interests--but in terms of its impact on real people who are our 
mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, brother and sisters--children.
  During the Finance Committee consideration of the stimulus 
legislation, Senators Baucus, Enzi, Conrad, and I discussed the 
importance of getting the comparative effectiveness provision right.
  I believe that comparative effectiveness must focus on clinical 
effectiveness, not cost, and it should maintain patient choice and 
innovation. Failure to do so could have disastrous consequences.
  As I have already said multiple times, I am disappointed that 
Democrats have decided to use the stimulus legislation to address 
health care reform in a partisan and piecemeal manner. Health IT--
information technology--is another perfect example. It is an area of 
consensus that should have been part of a comprehensive and bipartisan 
health care reform dialogue.
  It is my hope that the Health Information Technology Standards 
Committee that is created in this legislation will take into account 
the work of States like Utah that already have adopted statewide HIT. 
standards for the exchange of clinical data. Utah is much further down 
the road than other States in this area. Therefore, when the committee 
is making recommendations for HIT standards, it is my hope that the 
work of States like Utah will be taken into account and seriously

[[Page S2198]]

considered by the HIT Standards Committee members. Utah has been a 
national leader in this area and I believe that its work in this area 
should be used as a template when national HIT standards are developed.
  In addition, as we incentivize physicians, hospitals and other health 
care providers to use electronic health records--EHR, it is important 
that we provide assistance for them with both the purchase and 
maintenance of EHR systems. I have heard from one Utah physician in 
Ogden who paid over $8,000 for software only to discover that the 
software simply does not work. This is unacceptable. Therefore, if we 
are going to incentivize health providers to use electronic health 
records, we need to make sure that providers will have assistance in 
choosing, implementing and using electronic health records.
  Utah has been a leader in physician EHR implementation as a result of 
its participation in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services--
CMS--Medicare Care Management Performance--MCMP demonstration project 
which was created through the Medicare Modernization Act. The 
demonstration provided incentive funding to Utah physicians for 
adopting EHRs and offered these doctors support and assistance with 
their EHRs systems. In the bill we are considering, I included language 
to ensure that health providers in Utah and across the country will 
continue to receive that assistance. Without such assistance, many 
practices will move forward with a commitment to adopt EHRs, but will 
not choose the right product for their needs or could have difficulty 
using the system.
  Another concern that has been brought to my attention by Utah health 
care providers is that the maintenance of effort provision in this 
legislation only applies to eligible State and local governments and 
not to State and local health care providers. This is a real concern in 
Utah. My State, like others across the Nation, is experiencing economic 
difficulties and, as a result, is contemplating reducing provider 
payments. I am deeply concerned about the impact this provision could 
have not only on providers but patient access to quality health care.
  Finally, I would like to briefly address the enforcement provisions 
contained in section 13410 of this legislation relating to the State 
attorneys general. When adopting rules to implement the health 
information technology provisions in this act, I would urge Secretary 
of HHS to include rules to require the States to notify the HHS 
Secretary as to any outside groups that will have contracts to assist 
with the enforcement of these provisions. I appreciate the opportunity 
to work with my colleagues on this important issue.
  I look forward to working together to transform our sick-care system 
into a true health care system. However, the other side at this time 
seems focused on transforming it into a socialized welfare system 
through this Government-spending bill. I continue to hold deep hope in 
my heart that we will soon move beyond these beltway games and work 
together to fix Main Street and make sure that our Nation continues to 
be the shining city on the hill.
  Let me just make one other comment. When our bill went over to the 
House--the House bill was passed too--I happened to notice that the 
welfare reform program that we worked so hard on in the mid-1990s, that 
President Clinton vetoed twice until he finally decided that it was 
worthwhile and signed it, has been greatly modified in this bill. I may 
be wrong in this because I have not read that section, but I have had 
indications that that section basically has changed our welfare reform 
law. It basically put, within a short time thereafter, two-thirds of 
the people who had been on welfare to work, many of those people second 
and third generations on welfare. They found out that they could work 
and get the self-esteem that comes from being able to work, while still 
having a welfare system to care for those who can't care for themselves 
but would if they could.
  My understanding is they have changed the rules now where people can 
stay on welfare their whole lifetime. I hope that has been changed. I 
have not looked at this final version, but I hope that has been 
changed. If not, let me make a prediction. For most all of my time in 
the Senate, the percentage of GDP that our Federal Government has 
required is somewhere between 18 and 20 percent. If this bill goes 
through and there is another $2 or $3 trillion in spending, without 
being done right, we are talking about Europeanizing America. We are 
talking about the percentage of GDP going up as high as 39 percent--
according to the economists I talked to. That would be disastrous.
  Some are so crude that they suggest that is the plan of our more 
liberal friends on the other side because the more they get people 
dependent on the Federal Government, the more they think the Democratic 
Party is the only one that is going to take care of them.
  We prefer a little different approach to it. We prefer to help those 
who can't take care of themselves but would if they could, to help them 
in every way we possibly can. We have difficulty--at least I do--
helping those who can help themselves but will not.
  I hope that provision is no longer in this bill, but I strongly 
suspect it is. If that is so, we will have done the American economy 
tremendous harm.
  I am concerned about this. I can't vote for this bill, but I would 
have liked to have voted for a really good bill that really provided 
appropriate tax relief and made it possible to expand jobs in such a 
way as to bring this economy back to the greatest economy in the world, 
bar none, without question, and without question of its future 
greatness.
  Mr. 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. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I wanted to spend a few minutes this 
evening talking about what we think, what we think--I am going to 
emphasize that--because nobody has seen the bill that I understand we 
are supposed to vote on tomorrow morning, that spends almost $700 plus 
billion. We have not seen the bill. We have not seen the report 
language. And I can assure you that this Senator is not about to vote 
on this bill until he has read the bill and we will do due diligence to 
do that, if we ever get a copy of the bill.
  But I wanted to talk about a couple of things that are important that 
we think are in the bill, and it has to do with health care. I have a 
little bit of experience in that. I have practiced medicine now for 28, 
29 years. I find parts of this bill that I know when it is explained to 
the American public, they will agree with me, it is ludicrous.
  Let me tell you the first part of the bill. There is $20 billion in 
this bill to pay hospitals and doctors to buy health IT. Now, at the 
beginning you would say, well, what is wrong with that? We want 
electronic medical records. We want to see the benefits that come from 
the economy of scale, the increased productivity that comes from IT to 
help us in health care.
  Where this bill does not understand what is happening out there is 
doctors will buy health IT, and hospitals will improve--they all have 
health IT right now, by the way--will improve their health IT once 
there is a program out there that is interoperable with the rest of the 
program. The reason doctors are not buying programs for electronic 
medical records has nothing to do with a lack of money, it is this very 
simple reason: They know if they buy it now they get to buy it again, 
because none of the computers in health IT talk to each other. They 
will not talk.
  The way to make them talk is called an interoperable standard. And a 
good example for you to compare, think about where we had ATMs. How did 
we make an ATM, where you can go anywhere in the country if you have a 
credit card that allows you to get cash and go into any ATM in this 
country and get cash. How did we do that? How did ATMs come about? They 
came about because the private sector, the banking industry, created an 
interoperable standard first. Because they had the interoperability 
standard, where every bank could make sure that they could talk to 
every other bank, they put in ATMs.

[[Page S2199]]

  All of a sudden, voila, anywhere in the world today, if you have 
money in the bank and you have an ATM card, you can get money out of 
the bank. They did not build the ATMs first, they did not have the 
Government buy the ATMs before they had the standard set.
  People say, well, we have taken care of that in this bill. We are 
going to have the Government decide what the interoperable standard is. 
Well, the Government has been working for 6 years to develop an 
interoperability standard. They are at least doing it through a private 
consortium now, and 80 percent of that standard has been accomplished. 
It will be completed in 2011. But it will not be completed the way this 
bill is written, because we are going to pull it all back from this 
public-private consortium and we are going to have some bureaucrats at 
HHS decide what the standard is going to be.
  There are a lot of problems with that. One is nobody at HHS knows 
that information. No. 2 is, everything that is out there in the market 
today is now put at risk, so you are going to absolutely stop private 
investment in this area that is so much needed.
  So what we are going to do is we are going to allow bureaucrats to 
decide what is it going to be. We are going to eliminate companies that 
have great ideas, because they are not going to be in the mix, and we 
are going to accept a standard that is not going to be the best 
standard.
  The way HHS has it set up now with a public-private consortium was a 
poor way to do it, but at least it has got it 80 percent of the way 
there. We are going to backtrack on it. Just so you know, we are so 
good at spending money. We have spent $780 million already of your 
money trying to get this, that we are going to now throw down the 
toilet so we can start over and have bureaucrats exactly decide what 
the standard is going to be.
  Well, I will predict to you, everything else we do in IT in the 
Federal Government, 50 percent of the money we waste. That is what our 
studies show. We waste $32 billion a year on IT programs that never 
work, out of a $64 billion budget for IT programs alone. So we are 
going to waste a ton of money.
  But that is not the important thing in this bill. We are going to 
give every doctor in the country, no matter how much money they make, 
if they do not have electronic medical records, we are going to give 
them $60,000 to buy an electronic medical record.
  Now, it would seem to me that with the incomes of the average 
physician being over $200,000, the last place we want to give $60,000 
to buy a piece of software that is not going to work, that is going to 
have to be replaced anyway, is to those who are in the upper income in 
this country.
  But that is probably not as important as we are going to give for-
profit hospitals and the profitable non-profit hospitals $11 million 
each to buy electronic medical record software that still will not talk 
to the doctors who bought it and we gave $60,000.
  The total cost of this, and what we are doing, is going to be in 
excess, by the time all of the problems are solved and all of the 
defects are figured out, and all of the wasted money, of $100 billion. 
This bill is going to waste $100 billion.
  Now, tell me for a minute why we would give some of the most 
profitable companies in the country, the for-profit hospitals and the 
not-for-profit hospitals who last year made in excess of $6 billion--
that is the not-for-profit hospitals made in excess of $6 billion 
besides doing the charity care that they did--why are we going to give 
them $11 million each to accomplish something that cannot be 
accomplished?
  I will tell you why we are going to do it. Because some Congressman 
or some Senator said the way you solve this problem is to throw money 
at it. They haven't thought it through. There has been no development 
on or recognition of what is needed, which is an interoperable 
standard. What should we have done? Seven years ago when we started 
down this process, there were three great programs out there: one at 
Mayo--I am talking big programs--one at Cleveland Clinic, and one at 
Kaiser Permanente. What should we have done? We should have bought all 
three of those, created the ability for those three programs to talk to 
each other and given it away. We would have spent about $20 or $30 
million, maybe $100 million, maybe $200 million, but not $100 billion. 
So again, Washington has messed it up. The very thing we are hoping to 
fix we are going to ruin. As we do it, we are going to waste $100 
billion, and $30 billion of that total is in this bill.
  The other interesting thing is none of this money starts rolling out 
until the middle of next year.
  I am told I have 1 minute remaining. I ask unanimous consent for 2 
additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. That is one of the problems with this bill.
  Let's talk about the big problem. As a practicing physician, I know 
what physicians are taught. First, do no harm. Second, listen to your 
patient, and they will tell you what is wrong with them. Third, if it 
has already been done, don't do it again. That is what they are taught. 
With that comes years of experience, clinical judgment, and in-depth 
knowledge about people and their disease. In this bill is a statement 
that says: We are going to develop, through a large slush fund at 
Health and Human Services, a model called comparative effectiveness. 
There is nothing wrong with comparing effective outcomes. There is 
nothing wrong with trying to use clinical data to move us in a better 
direction. But that is not what this is about. This is comparative 
effectiveness to control cost.
  I warn the American people tonight, if this bill goes through, we are 
well on the way to absolute government control of the patient-doctor 
relationship, because we are going to assume that there is no way that 
a doctor can make a better decision than a computer. I will give two 
examples that happened in the last 5 years in my practice, two people 
who came in who had no clinical signs, had no indications other than my 
knowing them for years and developing a suspicion that something was 
wrong. They didn't come with a complaint. Their complaint was something 
else. I ordered MRIs on both patients. They were both denied by their 
insurance company. I arranged for both of them to get MRIs. Both had 
deadly brain tumors. They never would have fit in the comparative 
effectiveness or the cost control mechanism that we are setting up with 
this so we can control Medicare costs. This is the first step for the 
government to start rationing the very care it says it wants to give to 
the American people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. The American people better pay very close attention to 
this bill. If you are on Medicare today or if you are 55 years of age, 
you better be plenty afraid of the language in this bill, because it is 
setting up the basis with which the Government will decide what kind of 
care you get. We are going to use a chart. If you don't fit in the 
chart, you are out of luck. You are going to lose the ability for 
clinical skills to make a difference in your life. Talk to the people 
of Great Britain where cancer cure rates are lower than ours because 
they don't have access to treatments Americans have today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). The Senator from New Mexico.
  (The remarks of Mr. Udall of New Mexico pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 433 are located in today's Record under ``Statements 
on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the economic stimulus 
plan, and I rise in dismay. I am dismayed because we are about to spend 
$786 billion--or whatever the latest figure is that keeps changing 
almost by the hour--one of the most expensive bills this or any other 
Congress has ever seen that will not truly stimulate anything. I am 
also dismayed that in doing so we are placing an almost insurmountable 
fiscal yoke across the next generation's shoulders.
  Yesterday, I became the proud grandfather of two twin granddaughters. 
It saddens me to know the result of the

[[Page S2200]]

votes we cast, I assume, tomorrow--and the ultimate cost of this bill--
is going to be borne by those two little girls in their lifetimes and 
not by my generation in ours. We are saddling this next generation of 
our children and grandchildren with an unbelievable debt for the 
purpose of trying to stimulate the economy when, in fact, there is 
virtually nothing in this bill that truly is going to stimulate the 
economy in the current crisis we are in.
  Georgians and Americans are struggling. They need jobs. They need 
food on the table. They need to be able to go to bed at night knowing, 
at the very least, they have the blessing of a roof over their heads.
  But provisions in the bill that could have truly helped Americans, 
such as a $500-per-worker tax credit, have been so watered down that 
now the experts say that particular provision is going to provide about 
$13 more per week in workers' pockets. That is not a stimulus plan.
  I commend my good friend and my colleague, Senator Isakson from 
Georgia, who worked to put an idea in this bill, a housing tax credit 
that we know would have stimulated the economy and revived the 
plummeting housing market.
  Now, why are we in this economic crisis we are in today? If you ask 
any economist to point to one thing that has put us in this crisis, 
every single one of them--Republican and Democratic economists, 
conservative and liberal economists, Independent economists--every one 
of them will tell you the housing crisis is the No. 1 issue that put us 
into this crisis.
  Unfortunately, the bill that came out of the House, the bill that 
originally came out of the Finance Committee in the Senate, contained 
not one single provision, in either bill, that was focused on 
addressing this issue of the housing crisis.
  Under Senator Isakson's proposal that was an amendment to the bill on 
the floor of the Senate, a $15,000 home buyer tax credit would have 
been given to anyone who purchased a home during the next year. That 
would have had a very positive effect on the economy. How do we know 
that? We know that because Congress passed a similar housing tax credit 
in 1975, when we were in the midst of another declining housing 
industry situation in a crisis that was not as severe as this one but 
still in a crisis. What we found then was that particular provision 
turned around America's sagging economic fortunes.
  I know families across the country were waiting for this tax credit 
to pass. I have heard from Georgians over and over again, over the last 
several weeks, who are looking for a new home to buy, but they, 
frankly, have been waiting on the proposal because they have been 
reading about it.
  I got a call from a radio talk show host in my home State today who 
made the statement to me, before we started the interview: Tell me 
about Senator Isakson's tax credit provision. Where does it stand 
because I am looking for a home to buy and my realtor called me and 
said: Look, you can afford to pay a little bit more because here is 
what is going to be the result of your buying this house: a $15,000 tax 
credit.
  Now, with the way this provision has been watered down, it may as 
well not even be in there. It is unfortunate. This was a bipartisan 
amendment, an amendment that was talked about on both sides of the 
aisle by Senators in this Chamber, and was agreed to without even 
calling for a vote because everybody recognizes the housing sector has 
to be fixed and that this would play a major role in fixing that 
sector.
  All week we have read in the papers and heard from a majority of our 
colleagues that this bill is a compromise. Well, let me say this: This 
bill is no compromise. When deals of this magnitude are struck in 
closed-door, back-room sessions, when the White House talks to this 
side of the aisle but does not truly listen, you do not have a 
compromise.
  It is pretty clear the White House has not listened to this side of 
the aisle in crafting this final proposal that apparently is in the 
process of being agreed to. My Republican colleagues have offered 
proposal after proposal to create jobs, to fix the real crux of our 
economic troubles--the housing crisis--and to lend a hand to laid-off 
workers who are suffering through no fault of their own. Instead, we 
are spending money we do not have on projects or programs that are not 
needed.
  What taxpayers are getting instead is a bloated Government giveaway 
packed with pet projects. Let me say there has been a lot of 
conversation coming from the White House, as well as on the floor of 
the Senate, that this bill does not contain earmarks. Well, anybody who 
says that simply has not read the bill. This bill is packed with as 
many earmarks as I have seen in any bill that has come into this body 
in the time I have been here. There is earmark after earmark in here, 
and we are going to talk some more about that before this bill is voted 
on, presumably tomorrow.
  The American people know something needs to be done, and I agree that 
it does. But this legislation is not what is needed to address the 
housing crisis, put hard-earned dollars back in our citizens' pockets 
to spend as they wish, and put Americans back to work.
  Our side of the aisle offered a very targeted combination of spending 
and tax reductions in the McCain amendment. A truly bipartisan effort 
by the majority and the Senate as a whole would have passed that 
amendment, and we could be headed down the road of reaching a 
bipartisan agreement on the issue of trying to solve this economic 
crisis. Unfortunately, that amendment was not agreed to because it was 
not voted on in a bipartisan way.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for his 
excellent comments about the housing proposal offered by our colleague, 
Senator Isakson. I thought it was a good idea when he first brought it 
up. It would have pleased me if that had been included at the time 
President Bush sent out those checks a year ago that had no real 
permanent benefit, and I thought it should have been included then. I 
was very much supportive of it when he brought it forward later, last 
week, and I thought we had adopted it. But it looks like it is going to 
be taken out or so reduced it will not have the same effect.
  The advantage of that was it would target the real problem we have; 
which is the housing supply that is growing. The growing supply of 
unoccupied housing causes the price of everyone's home to decline. We 
know it had to decline some because we had a bubble in housing. But 
there is a danger when home prices fall below what the real market 
value is. When they fall too low, it does begin to have serious 
ramifications in the economy.
  Similar to Senator Chambliss, I thought Senator McCain's proposal had 
some real infrastructure spending, some targeted tax reductions that 
would put money in people's pockets immediately but would not 
necessarily be permanent, and we could shut that off without creating a 
bureaucracy. I thought that was a real good piece of legislation. It 
cost about half the cost of this legislation.
  So there are some things we could do. I was certainly prepared to 
consider other options and other alternatives. But, as it is, there has 
been very little input into this bill. Right now, we still have not 
seen it. There was talk about trying to vote on it tonight. That is 
unthinkable: to have a 700-plus page piece of legislation, spending 
almost $800 billion, and people who have not read it are going to vote 
on it? Surely, that will not happen. It is not a good process, in my 
view.
  I am disturbed about it, and I think the financial soul of our 
country is at stake. If this becomes a pattern, if this becomes the way 
we do business and the way we spend money and throw money around, it 
seems to me, too much in a political way, rather than in a stimulative 
way, we will say to our constituents and to the world: The United 
States does not have its house in order, it is not a safe place to put 
money, and there is no certainty about what will happen next because 
unpredictable Government actions may dwarf the natural economic forces 
that people relied on in the past to make their investments. So I am 
worried about that.

  I would share something here. When you get the Government spending a 
large amount of money, it creates a lot

[[Page S2201]]

of problems. Our economy has always been less dominated by Government 
spending than the European economies, at least Germany and France in 
particular. They have had Government spending that represents as much 
as 45 or 50 percent of their gross domestic product. It is a huge 
portion of their economy. Their unemployment rate has always tended to 
be higher than ours, and their growth has not kept up with ours.
  One other thing happens when the Government injects itself into the 
economy; and that is, it has a tendency to corrupt the Government 
itself. We have had a lot of criticisms about lobbyists, that we have 
too many lobbyists. Lobbyists have too much influence, and we should 
have fewer lobbyists and they should have less influence. But as the 
size and power of the Government expands, I think it is only natural 
that one would expect companies worth billions of dollars would feel a 
necessity to have more lobbyists. This is a Washington Times piece not 
long ago dealing with the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, and it 
shows some of the things that were happening. During the fourth 
quarter, Citigroup had $1.28 million in lobbyist expenses. In the third 
quarter, they had $1.39 million in lobbyist expenses. People say, well, 
that is unbelievable. That is a lot of money. There are 1,000 million 
dollars in a billion. That is how many 1 billion is, 1,000 million. 
During that time, Citigroup gets $45 billion from the U.S. Government. 
So what is that? Forty-five billion is forty-five thousand million. So 
it is probably a pretty good idea, from the company's point of view, to 
spend $1 million on lobbyists. That is a pretty good bargain. That is 
all I am saying. The bigger the Government, the more the Government 
gets interfaced with what has historically been a private sector that 
we didn't stick our nose in. Historically, the companies paid taxes, 
they obeyed the law, and the Government didn't subsidize winners and 
losers in the banking industry.
  So AIG, they actually got, I think now, over $100 billion. They spent 
$390,000 in fourth quarter expenses. General Motors, look at that: 
$3,320,000. They got money out of this Wall Street financial bailout 
that nobody ever thought they could get. They got the Government to 
give them $10 billion. So I guess they consider $3 million in lobbying 
expenses to be a pretty good bargain. Those are some of the dangers 
when we stick our nose into matters that we out not to meddle in.
  Once again, I wish to share this chart because I think it is 
instructive of the situation in which we find ourselves. Back in 2004, 
President Bush had the biggest deficit up to that time since World War 
II--maybe ever, in terms of real dollars. It was $413 billion. That is 
when he was criticized so aggressively, as many of my colleagues will 
remember, for reckless spending and running up the deficit. I thought a 
lot of that criticism was valid, but we had a war going on and we had 
some other things. We didn't contain spending as well as we should 
have. The recession that occurred was biting into revenue, and we ended 
up with a $413 billion deficit, the biggest we had ever had. It dropped 
in 2005 to $318 billion, it dropped to $248 billion in 2006, and in 
2007 the deficit dropped to $161 billion. It was definitely heading in 
the right direction. That represented only 1.2 percent of GDP. This 3.6 
percent of GDP for the deficit was the highest in about 30 years, since 
the recession in 1980, as I recall.
  So what about 2008, the last fiscal year, ending September 30 of 
2008. We sent out the $150 billion in checks to Americans in the hope 
that it would do something good for the economy. People blamed the 
President for it. I think he deserves blame for it because it didn't 
work. However, the President has no authority whatsoever to spend a 
dime that Congress doesn't give him. He had to come to Congress and ask 
for that money. The Democratic leadership supported it and moved the 
bill forward, and we sent out the checks. That, plus the economic 
slowdown, caused the 2008 deficit. Last September 30, it was $455 
billion, the largest ever.
  What about this year? Our own Congressional Budget Office has done 
some analysis. And I would just say that the CBO is a nonpartisan 
group. We just elected a new Director. He was basically selected by the 
Democratic majority. The Republican members of the Budget Committee 
liked him. We thought he was an honest, capable man, and we voted for 
him. So we got a new Director. He is, I believe, an honorable person, 
gives us good numbers, as the previous Director did. So the CBO 
estimates, without the stimulus, the deficit ending September 30 of 
this year will be $1.3 trillion. That will represent 8.3 percent of 
GDP, the highest ever.
  Now we are about to pass another almost $800 billion stimulus package 
on top of that. It all would not get spent in 2009. It is not all going 
to get spent before September 30 of this year, so of that 800 they are 
scoring about 232 to be spent in this year, meaning the total deficit 
would be $1.4 trillion, three times--three times--the size of the 
highest deficit we have ever had in history.
  I have to tell my colleagues, Gary Becker, the Nobel Prize-winning 
economist, and another one of his associates, just wrote an op-ed in 
the Wall Street Journal. He questioned this stimulus package. He used 
careful language. He said normally in a stimulus package, for every 
dollar you expend, you hope to get a dollar and a half of growth. He 
said in their opinion, because of the nature of this legislation--I 
will say the political nature of it rather than the stimulus nature of 
it--they conclude each dollar spent will produce less than a dollar of 
stimulus.
  So we are adding another $800 billion on to our debt total for very 
little benefit. When you go to next year, they are expecting it to be 
another $1 trillion deficit and the year after that, $640 billion. By 
the way, these 2 years at least have $70 billion more which will be 
added because we are going to fix the AMT, the alternative minimum tax. 
It costs $70 billion to fix it, and we do it every year, and that is 
never scored until we fix it. So that will be added on to both of 
those. Also, physicians are set to get a 20-percent reduction next year 
in their physician payments. Why do we do that? Well, we passed a law a 
long time ago that would call for that. We have long since recognized 
we can't cut our doctors' pay that way, we can't cut them 20 percent. 
Every year, we put the money back in. It is about $30 billion, I 
believe, a year. That doesn't score in these numbers. So you can assume 
the deficit next year will be at least about $100 billion higher than 
current estimates. Those are gimmicks we use to hide the real nature of 
the deficit.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, interest in the 
stimulus bill alone over the next 10 years will amount to $326 billion, 
and that includes the first 2 years when all is not yet spent. It will 
actually be about $40 billion a year thereafter once it all gets spent. 
That is a huge thing. That is $400 billion every decade. Who is going 
to pay it? Our children and grandchildren. There is no plan to pay this 
off. So this is not a minor matter.
  Finally, our own Congressional Budget Office, after studying this 
package, concluded these things: It would have a temporary stimulus 
effect in the first 2 to 3 years, but over a 10-year period, they 
conclude the gross domestic product would grow less if the legislation 
were enacted than if we didn't pass anything. They project that over a 
10-year period it would hurt the economy--not a lot, but it would be 
down. Why? Because when we borrow $1 trillion from the private economy 
to pay this debt, it crowds out private people who may want to borrow 
money and create jobs.
  Secondly, you have to pay the interest on it every year; we have to 
pay $40 billion a year in interest. How much is $40 billion? That is 
the amount of the entire Federal highway budget each year, $40 
billion--a lot of money. Now we are going to add that every year, just 
in interest, which we will be paying indefinitely. Some people have 
said--even some conservatives have said deficits don't matter. Wrong. 
Deficits do matter.

  Finally, I would just point out these facts about why the bill is not 
effective to do what it says it wants to do, which is to create jobs. 
It is simple arithmetic. We wrote this chart when the bill was $826 
billion. It actually came out of the Senate at $838 billion. We are 
hearing it is going to come out less than that, and that we will end up 
with about $789 billion. So we don't know. Apparently, they are still 
arguing over what to spend and how to spend the

[[Page S2202]]

money. The interest on that version, according to CBO, would run $347 
billion, give or take a billion or two, over the next decade.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. So that totals over $1.1 trillion. You divide that out 
per taxpayer, per person who pays taxes--don't think that something can 
be created for nothing. To inject $800 billion into the economy today, 
we have to borrow it. How much does that mean that the average American 
is assuming as new debt? Well, what we conclude is--just from simple 
arithmetic--it is about $8,400 per taxpayer. Think about that. Just 
like that, we are going to pass a bill that over 10 years will cost 
over $1.1 trillion and increase the average taxpayer's share of the 
debt by about $8,400. It is like adding it to your mortgage or 
something.
  If it produces 3.9 million jobs, which is the high end of what the 
Congressional Budget Office says it would create--the goal for those 
pushing the legislation say they want to create 4 million jobs. That is 
the high side of what--it is higher, actually, than what CBO, our own 
budget office, tells us it will create. So 3.9 million jobs, that costs 
$300,000 per job. Do the arithmetic.
  Is that a good deal for America? Is that worth burdening us with 
$8,400 each? What if it came out on the low side? What if it only 
created 1.3 million jobs, which was the low side that CBO scored--1.3 
to 3.9? That would be $900,000 per job.
  Mr. President, I would say that, yes, we can do some things to 
improve this economy, but we are moving a political agenda; we are 
moving programmatic ideas. A lot of people might like to see some of 
these things become law, but they don't want to go through the entire 
budget process, to compete and debate. They just stick these programs 
into this emergency stimulus bill that goes straight to the debt, none 
of which is paid for, and then it is all debt. I don't think it is a 
good idea.
  Good people might disagree, but I firmly believe it is not a good 
idea for my constituents. My phones are ringing off the hook against 
it. I don't believe it is good for my children, my grandchildren, or 
yours.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business 
for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, what we are debating in the Senate is 
about fighting for the economic future of America.
  Dr. King talked about the ``fierce urgency of now'' in the context of 
a struggle for civil rights. We have to remember the fierce urgency of 
now when we are tackling the worst economic crisis our country has seen 
in generations.
  We have to understand the urgency for the 3.6 million Americans who 
have lost their job since December 2007--almost 600,000 in the last 
month alone. It is an urgent situation when millions of American 
families are in danger of losing their homes. It is a dire situation 
when State budgets are stretched so thin they have to watch school 
buildings crumble. It is an emergency situation when local communities 
are forced to consider cutting police or firefighters who protect their 
residents. It is an immediate crisis when a young girl needs an 
operation but her parents cannot afford health insurance. The Dow lost 
40 percent in a year's time. Businesses are closing. Life savings are 
being drained.
  Even for the hard-working Americans who still have their jobs, 
pensions, and health care, there is still a lot of fear out there that 
their careers and health insurance aren't secure; that the job loss or 
foreclosure that hit their neighbor might knock on their door next. Yet 
in the midst of all of that, I hear so many of my colleagues basically 
saying: Oh, no, do nothing.
  Without bold and decisive action, the country faces the possibility 
of a prolonged economic collapse rivaling the worst we have ever seen.
  In a crisis this severe, the Federal Government has the 
responsibility to step in and to stabilize the economy and lay the 
groundwork for recovery. We are not just talking about the financial 
recovery of individuals; we are talking about the renewal of a nation.
  We have before us a tremendous opportunity to strengthen the 21st-
century economy, to make investments so the private sector can create 
the innovations that will help our country prosper in the future, to 
transition away from fossil fuels and stop sending our money abroad, 
enhance America's energy security and meet the climate crisis that 
threatens our planet.
  We have an opportunity very soon to vote on a bold plan to create and 
maintain more than 3.5 million jobs in America and 100,000 in my home 
State of New Jersey, helping workers damaged by this crisis and laying 
the foundations for economic growth well into the future.
  Is the bill we are considering perfect? No. But in my many years of 
legislating, I have never seen a perfect bill. People are losing their 
jobs, their homes, and their life savings. The unemployment rate in New 
Jersey is the highest it has been in a decade and a half. More 
Americans are filing first-time jobless claims than any time in a 
quarter of a century. This isn't a time for delay, and it isn't a time 
for games or political posturing. It is time for quick, bold action. 
This is a complicated piece of legislation, so I will take a little 
time to lay out its most important provisions.
  First, this bill brings tax relief to the middle class--about $230 
billion worth of tax cuts. In the Finance Committee, I introduced an 
amendment to save over 1 million New Jerseyans from the alternative 
minimum tax, saving families up to $5,600.
  That AMT tax was originally designed to ensure that the wealthiest 
Americans could not use creative accounting to avoid all taxes, but it 
was never intended to hit the middle class as hard as it is hitting 
them now. If we don't act, millions of taxpayers could wake up next tax 
season to realize they owe more in taxes even though their income 
hasn't changed.
  The cornerstone of this legislation, in terms of tax relief, is a 
making work pay credit--the credit that is available to those who are 
working. The average working family--95 percent of all working 
families--are going to get a tax cut of up to $800 to put money back 
into their pockets to support their families and, at the same time, 
create demand for goods and services in this economy that will be 
provided largely by the private sector that creates other jobs for 
those who provide those goods and service.
  It expands the earned-income and child tax credit to help low-income 
working families get through these difficult times. Those are the 
individuals who need money, and when they have it, they spend it in an 
economy that also creates demand for goods and services, created 
largely by the private sector. In fact, 90 percent of all of the jobs 
created under this bill will be from the private sector. It supports 
tax incentives for businesses to make new investments and hire new 
employees.
  This recovery package would not just create jobs; it will create a 
new generation of green jobs. What we are considering today is a green 
recovery package, which will help change the direction of our economy 
for one based on fossil fuels to one based on clean renewable energy. 
It makes important investments in building efficiency, renewable fuels, 
clean vehicles, and green job training. It makes a massive investment 
in weatherizing homes, which will reduce emissions while bringing down 
energy costs. All along the way, each of those initiatives creates a 
different sector of the job marketplace that Americans will be able to 
fulfill.
  Just like the rest of it, the energy piece of this legislation isn't 
perfect. I would have liked to have seen more support for mass transit. 
They are facing major budget crises and have to consider service 
cutbacks, just as ridership is growing and climate change is 
accelerating. Transit funding is essential if we are going to meet our 
emissions goals, get cars off the streets, and keep efficient 
transportation affordable.

[[Page S2203]]

  The Federal Government has been dragging its feet on energy security 
and climate change for too long. Our local governments have been 
leading the way. That is why I am proud to have created the energy 
efficiency and conservation block grant in 2007, along with Senator 
Sanders, to help fund and reward them for that work. I am thrilled 
this Economic Recovery Act contains substantial funding for these 
grants, including tens of millions of dollars for New Jersey. Cities 
and communities across the country can use the funding to promote 
efficiency, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and invest in renewable 
energy and the jobs that will go along with that in doing that work.

  A municipality could work to insulate office buildings, install 
fluorescent light bulbs, install solar panels, invest in LED lighting 
for traffic signals or purchase more efficient municipal vehicles. Of 
course, what a municipality would do for energy efficiency in New 
Jersey would be different from what one might do in Alaska or Arizona. 
So the funding allows for flexibility.
  There is strong support for solar energy, including a manufacturing 
tax credit and tax incentives for homeowners to install solar panels. 
That is good news for New Jersey, which is the second-biggest solar-
producing State in the country and where the solar cell was invented.
  The support for energy efficiency is complemented by important 
investments in infrastructure. With this recovery plan, we can start 
building and rehabilitating scores of roads, bridges, and bypasses.
  We have the chance to secure a stream of funding to start 
construction on the ARC rail tunnel, to ease commutes across the 
Hudson, reduce traffic, and clean our air. Most important, those kinds 
of projects put people to work. Not only the construction people but 
the engineers and architects, the clerical workers in their office, and 
everybody who creates supplies for these jobs at their places of work, 
and the transportation that brings it to the job site. This is how we 
create all of these jobs, and they're mostly in the private sector.
  We understand a major part of helping the economic recovery is 
allowing workers who have lost their jobs to keep their families 
afloat, develop the skills necessary to maintain long-term employment 
and find new jobs.
  This economic recovery package makes exactly this type of bold 
investment. It helps States close gaps in their unemployment programs. 
It rewards States for innovative reforms, providing benefits to more 
than 500,000 workers a year who are now falling through the cracks of 
the unemployment program. It stimulates the broader economy as every 
dollar put into the hands of temporarily displaced workers and their 
families generates $1.64 in economic growth, whether it is spent on 
housing, groceries, or other basic necessities.
  For those who have fallen on the hardest of times--who have been laid 
off and haven't been able to find work and are having trouble putting 
food on the table or keeping a roof overhead--the recovery package 
includes important support for food assistance, as well as housing 
programs that will help prevent foreclosures, rehabilitate homes, and 
provide emergency housing in New Jersey.
  This legislation that we are talking about is not only recovery but 
investment. This legislation also means about $4 billion for worker 
training and employment services. The labor market has fundamentally 
changed. If we are going to stay competitive in our State and country, 
we need to invest in human capital and give our workers the skills to 
thrive in the 21st-century economy.
  Preparing those students and workers and those who will prepare them 
for the high-tech, high-paying jobs means investing in education at 
every level. That is also not only going to lay the foundation for 
long-term economic growth but give immediate opportunities for jobs as 
well. These are ways in which we, in fact, can modernize our schools. 
At least 205 New Jersey schools will have the opportunity to modernize 
themselves with the technology necessary and the laboratory necessary 
for preparation for this 21st-century economy. It is an investment that 
could mean the difference between a crumbling schoolroom and a science 
lab that prepares a child for a career in biomedical engineering.
  I was raised in a tenement, poor, the son of immigrants, the first in 
my family to go to college. I know I would not be standing in the 
Senate today if it weren't for the Federal Government's support and 
those opportunities. Whether it is our public education program or in 
college through the Pell grants and the opportunities in the American 
opportunity tax credit to make college more affordable, it will produce 
a workforce that can compete anywhere in the world and be able to 
capture the new jobs created under this bill.
  Any parent in America knows the challenges of affording health care, 
even if you haven't lost your job. Families working in low-wage or even 
moderate-wage jobs struggle every month just to pay the bills, not to 
mention the medical bills on top of that. Those who have recently lost 
jobs are pretty much out of luck. Unfortunately, a child's illness 
doesn't always wait for a good-paying job with health care to come 
along.
  That is why we have included provisions in this bill to help States 
continue to provide health coverage to those children and families they 
are serving. For those who lose their jobs and their health insurance 
with it, we have included a tax break to help them pay for the COBRA 
coverage they are eligible for in between jobs.
  I will end where this whole crisis began, in housing. This bill 
includes provisions that will allow more families to get tax relief 
when they buy a home, provide additional funding for those who recently 
lost their home, and provide additional funding for a provision I 
authored to help children affected by a home foreclosure stay in 
school.
  This plan may be detailed; the investments it makes may be diverse. 
But we are not talking about just throwing money haphazardly. We 
understand every dollar in the plan belongs to the American taxpayer. 
They deserve assurances that their money is invested wisely. So we are 
going to ensure unprecedented transparency, oversight, and 
accountability to the plan so Americans can see not only how their 
money is being spent, but also the results of their investments.
  This includes requiring the President to report quarterly on the 
plan's progress, as well as establishing an oversight panel to review 
the management of taxpayer dollars.
  We have had a vigorous debate in the legislation. That is part of our 
democracy and it is always welcome. It has been troubling to me to see 
such a bad case of amnesia in some of my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle. I think it would make every American who loss his or her 
job in this recession cringe to hear that some of my Republican 
colleagues want to repeat the policies that helped create this crisis 
in the first place.
  Republican policies dominated the last Presidency over the last 8 
years and dominated Congress for a good part of that period of time. 
All of a sudden, they are guardians of fiscal responsibility, after 
taxing the middle class while passing capital gains and dividend tax 
cuts aimed at the wealthy, after turning President Clinton's record 
surpluses into President Bush's record deficits and doubling the 
national debt to more than $11 trillion--$11 trillion. If we did 
absolutely nothing, if President Obama did absolutely nothing, he will 
have inherited a $1.2 trillion debt. I hear these voices now of fiscal 
responsibility. Where were they when they were driving this enormous 
deficit to the Nation?

  Now, to top it all off, they added amendment after amendment that 
added to the debt, and then they turned around, after adding to the 
debt and complaining about it, and voted against the package because 
they said it adds too much to the Federal debt. Only in Washington can 
one believe that.
  Finally, I hope our Republican colleagues are not of the belief that 
by hoping this package does not succeed they will achieve political 
victory because, in essence, they would be voting and betting against 
an American economic recovery, against the American people's hopes and 
dreams and aspirations to live a better life.
  I fear, after reading some of the articles today, that is exactly 
where they are: no plan to meet the economic challenges we have, 
complain about the

[[Page S2204]]

plan that is there, and then ultimately find ourselves in a set of 
circumstances in which they are betting against the American people and 
this economic recovery. That is not only bad politics, it is pad policy 
for the Nation. I hope they will see the light when it comes time to 
vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, first, let me say to my distinguished 
colleague from New Jersey, I sincerely appreciate his passion about 
this problem. I think everyone on this side of the aisle likewise feels 
as passionately about the difficulties facing the American people 
today. There is no one who believes this is not a problem. There is no 
one here who does not feel the empathy every one of us should feel 
about Americans who are losing their jobs and about Americans who are 
underemployed.
  There are over 92 percent of Americans employed, but there are over 7 
percent who are not. The fact that 92 percent are employed in no way 
denigrates the fact that we have a substantial and a high rate of 
unemployment.
  With all due respect to my colleague from New Jersey, he made 
reference to the fact that there are people encouraging that we do 
nothing. I don't know who that person is. I have not run into them yet. 
It is not anyone on this floor that I know of.
  I think this problem is so serious and I believe my Republican 
colleagues believe this problem is so serious that it does not only 
deserve something be done but that something major be done, something 
aggressive be done, and something quickly be done.
  With all due respect, I strongly disagree with his characterization 
that there is anyone on this side of the aisle who hopes this plan does 
not succeed. We pray every day that this package does succeed. It has 
to succeed. If it does not, this country is going to be in very serious 
trouble.
  Let there be no mistake about it, this is clearly a Democratic plan. 
The people who are saying this is a bipartisan plan are flat wrong. 
This is a Democratic plan. I hope it works. I pray that it works. I 
pray that we will be able to come out here one day in the very near 
future and say congratulations to the Democrats for putting together 
this package and putting it to work so that we turn this economy 
around. The Democrats own this plan.
  Having said that, I urge, and my colleagues on this side of the aisle 
urge, that this is not just a single path that is going to take us out 
of the problem we have. Indeed, it is going to take more than just 
spending. Just spending has not worked in the past. It did not work at 
the time of the Great Depression. It did not work for Japan in the 
nineties. It did not even work for us last year when this Congress gave 
$600 to every individual to go out and spend. It did not even put a 
blip on the screen as far as helping the downturn in the economy.
  The real problem, the systemic problem is the frozen credit markets. 
It is not Government spending that is going to get us out of this 
situation; it is the spending by the great American people, by the 
great American consumer, by businesses large and businesses small. It 
is their spending that will get us out of the deep hole we are in.
  With all due respect to my good friend from New Jersey, I would like 
to see as much passion about attacking the problem with the banking 
sector and the frozen credit markets that we are seeing for this 
spending of $800 billion which, when all is said and done, will turn 
out to be $1.2 trillion when we include the interest that is going to 
have to be paid.
  I congratulate the good Senator for referring to the work done in the 
housing sector. With all due respect, I urge it is not enough. This 
Senate added an excellent provision to this particular package. It was 
taken out when the conference committee met, and that portion that was 
taken out reduced in half what needed to be done to help stimulate the 
housing sector.
  Mr. President, you heard my distinguished colleague from New Jersey 
talk about the amount people will be able to use to go out and get a 
home. It was reduced in the conference committee. It was cut virtually 
in half. On top of that, it only allows for first-time buyers, which 
just does not make sense. If we are trying to stimulate the housing 
sector, why just first-time house buyers? Everyone should be given this 
opportunity to go out and to purchase a new home or a previously 
occupied home and should get the credit.
  With all due respect, what this Senate did was taken out in the 
conference committee. I would like to see the same passion as the other 
two paths--that is, attacking the frozen credit market and the housing 
sector--that we keep seeing from the other side as far as the spending 
of this $800 billion.
  I close with this. I asked this on the floor the other day: Why $800 
billion? It is really important that history knows why America settled 
on $800 billion. There is no doubt this is going to pass. The Democrats 
will vote together on this. Three Republicans have shown they are going 
to vote with them. And there is no doubt this is going to pass. But we 
need, America needs, America requires an explanation of why $800 
billion.
  I heard the President of the United States say earlier this week: 
That is not just a number I pulled out of the air. I take him at his 
word. If it was not just pulled out of the air, it was carefully 
constructed with a formula. I want to see that formula. America wants 
to see that formula. Historians are going to need to see that formula 
because if it works, we are going to need that formula in the future 
again someday. If it does not work, we need to look at that formula and 
see if we can figure out why it did not work.
  Somebody, please, deliver us that formula so we know how the number 
of $800 billion was reached. It could be $50 billion. It could be $200 
billion. It could be $600 billion. It could be $1.5 trillion. We don't 
know. But if we have that formula, we Republicans can help fine-tune 
that formula to either spend more if more needs to be spent based on 
the formula or to spend less if less can be spent and if we can save 
this money. We are strapping our children, grandchildren, and great 
grandchildren with a horrendous debt. They are going to be paying this 
back. The money will have to be borrowed probably from China. They are 
the ones who usually put up the money for this. Future generations are 
going to be working to pay back the Chinese Government $800 billion. 
Future generations have the absolute right to know how this 
administration and how the Democratic Party constructed a formula that 
spent $800 billion. It is only fair.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have been listening to the criticisms of 
the recovery and reinvestment plan from the other side of the aisle, 
and I have tried to put them into categories so I can address them and 
consider them. The first complaint appears to be that this is an $800 
billion stimulus package which will add to our deficit.
  There is no question about the premise. The facts are right. It is 
$800 billion, and it will add to our deficit. But I find it interesting 
that the Republicans who are criticizing this come from the same party 
which, over the last 8 years, saw America's national debt double from 
$5 trillion to $10 trillion and they went along with all of it. When 
the President wanted a war and did not want to pay for it, which added 
to the debt of the country, they voted for it. The final cost was about 
$800 billion, and it is still accumulating. When the President wanted 
tax cuts in the midst of a weak economy, which added to the deficit--
and cuts that went primarily to the wealthiest people--his Republican 
Party supported him and no questions asked.
  In fact, the argument for many years was that deficits don't matter, 
when President Bush was in the White House, during that 8-year period 
of time. Now deficits do matter. It is an accumulated debt of America. 
It has a lot of negative impact on our economy. But for a party which 
ignored this reality for so many years to come and tell us now, in the 
midst of the worst economic crisis in modern times, that

[[Page S2205]]

we have to be so careful of the deficit we cannot address this economic 
crisis, is a little hard to take. That is the first point.
  The second point is they criticize this package for costing too much, 
when in fact on two separate occasions Republican Senators offered 
amendments to this package which added to the costs dramatically. In 
the Senate Finance Committee, the Republican Senator from Iowa offered 
an amendment that added $70 billion in cost to this package. It passed 
with the support of both parties, I will add. At the end of the day, 
the package cost $70 billion more, and the Senator from Iowa said he 
couldn't vote for the final work product because it was too expensive. 
He had authored an amendment that added $70 billion in cost and then 
said he couldn't vote for the package because it was too expensive.
  Another Senator, from Georgia, added an amendment on the floor--I 
thought it was a thoughtful amendment--that added in cost $11 billion 
to $30 billion, by some estimates, to give incentives for people to buy 
homes. It makes sense. We need help in the housing market. Yet this 
added expense on the bill, this added amendment, which we adopted, 
could not win that Senator's support. He too was critical of the final 
product: It cost too much.
  So it is hard to follow why so many Republican Senators are 
criticizing the President's attempt to get this economy back and moving 
forward, because they are saying it cost too much, when they introduced 
and passed amendments which added to the cost of the package. It 
doesn't follow.
  And the third point, made by the Republican leader, who came to the 
floor today and criticized the compromise--the final bill here that we 
will consider probably tomorrow night--said they cut back on some of 
the tax cuts for working families.
  It is true. The President's original proposal was $500 for 
individuals, I think it was up to $70,000 or $80,000 in income, and 
$1,000 for families. Then when we had to cut back in the cost of the 
overall bill to win the support of several Republican Senators, the 
President offered to make a cutback in that area. So when we try to cut 
back in the cost of the bill to win Republican support, we are 
criticized for those cutbacks; and when the bill comes to the 
committee, or to the floor, Republican Senators add amendments that add 
cost to the bill and then tell us it costs too much. It is hard to 
follow their logic. I can't.
  I am glad that it appears, with our fingers crossed, that there will 
be at least 60 Senators tomorrow when we vote on this bill that will do 
something about the state of our economy. This President has inherited 
the worst economic crisis of any President since Franklin Roosevelt's 
in 1933. This situation is terrible. It is no Great Depression, thank 
goodness, but it is terrible. We have lost jobs all over America--
500,000 jobs in the month of December--and 36,000 of them, 
incidentally, in my home State of Illinois. That is 1,200 jobs a day we 
have lost in my State in December, I am afraid a like number in the 
month of January, and there is no end in sight.
  The President has stepped up and said: We cannot let the American 
economy slide into this spiral that is going to create so much hardship 
for workers losing their jobs and businesses closing. We have to do 
something. We need a solution. We can't stand back and watch the parade 
go by. We have to step in and try to stop the negative impact of this 
economic crisis.
  Most Americans--in fact, the overwhelming majority of Americans--
believe the President is right in trying to solve this problem. He has 
said, and they understand, this may not be a 100-percent solution. At 
the end of the day, we may need to do more or something different. But 
the alternative is to do nothing, and that seems to be the position of 
many Senators who are opposing this. They want to wait. They want to 
wait and see if this economy gets better or they want to return to the 
old-time religion. What is the old-time religion? It is what we tried 
last April. When the economy was softening, President George W. Bush 
came to us and said: I know the solution. I know how to get us out of 
this problem. It is a tax cut.
  Well, if you have been around Congress for a while, you know that 
when it comes to the Republican Party, the answer to every challenge, 
every issue, every circumstance is a tax cut. We have a surplus. Is the 
economy booming? Cut taxes. Do we have problems. Is the economy 
cratering? Cut taxes. Well, tax cuts do have value, but in certain 
circumstances they may not work effectively. And we found out last 
April that our $150 billion package--and I think that was the number--
that President Bush asked for, enacted by the Democratic Congress, 
didn't work. I believe it was $300 to individuals and $600 to families. 
It may have helped an individual family put some money in savings or 
pay off a credit card, but at the end of the day, when you step back 
and look at the big picture--the macroeconomic picture--it didn't work. 
The economy continued to slide downhill.
  So the magic elixir of tax cuts, which we hear consistently from the 
Republican side, even during this crisis, is one that has been tried 
and failed.
  We included tax cuts in this package in an effort to try to win over 
some Republican votes. It didn't work very well. We got no Republican 
support in the House and only three Republican Senators who stepped up 
in the Senate and said they would support it.
  What we are trying here is something that is dramatically different; 
not just tax cuts for working families, which they need, but injecting 
money into the economy. Why do we need to have the government spending 
money in this economy? Because Americans are not spending enough of 
their own money. We anticipate that this year Americans will spend 
about $1 trillion less on goods and services than they ordinarily 
would.
  We have a gross domestic product of about $14 trillion a year. Well, 
that is about 7 or 8 percent of it that won't be spent this year. And 
when you cut back in that much spending, when people are not buying the 
things they buy--refrigerators and cars and homes and clothing, and all 
the rest--jobs are lost, businesses contract, and our recession gets 
deeper. So the President said: Let's put this money into a stimulus or 
recovery package that will inject new life into this economy and try to 
get it moving forward again.
  It turns out economists--conservatives, liberals, most economists--
have said it is worth a try. Historically, it has worked; we should do 
it now. And the President went further. He said that our goal will be 
creating or saving 3\1/2\ million jobs over the next 2 years. That is 
an ambitious goal, and I hope we can reach it.
  I know those on the other side criticize it. They say: You know what, 
when you take the total cost of this bill and divide it into the number 
of jobs, it is a fantastic amount of money for each job. But they have 
forgotten one basic thing: That new worker in Illinois or in Iowa is 
not only going to get a paycheck, that worker is going to spend the 
paycheck. And when the worker spends the paycheck downtown, the people 
who work at that shop have a job, too. And the people who work at the 
shop with the job take a paycheck home, and they will go to another 
shop and spend the paycheck. It moves through the economy over and over 
again. So to argue that we are spending so much money for a single job 
overlooks the obvious, overlooks Economics 101. I think I learned this 
in Georgetown in one of the first classes. It is called the multiplier. 
That says if I go out and spend a dollar at shop, then maybe 80 cents 
of that is going to be spent by a worker there, and on and on. So the 
dollar may turn out to be worth a lot more in terms of the economic 
activity.

  That is the President's goal, to create enough jobs and save enough 
jobs to breathe life into this economy to start people moving forward 
again with confidence in making purchases. That is the bottom line.
  It also provides, this bill we are going to consider tomorrow, 40 
percent in direct relief to working and middle-class families. I talked 
about the President's tax cuts. He focuses on the working and middle-
class families. I think it is the right thing to do. It is about $400 
an individual, $800 for a family. That will give them a helping hand.
  It also doubles the renewable energy generating capacity of our 
country over 3 years. Is there anyone who doubts the President's 
position that if we are going to have a strong economy over a long term 
we need to have more

[[Page S2206]]

energy independence, we need to have more renewable sustainable sources 
of energy right here in our country? This bill, this stimulus package, 
invests in energy for America's future--good energy, reliable energy, 
energy that we do not have to bargain with OPEC to have in future years 
to build our economy.
  It invests $29 billion in the Clean Energy Finance Authority and 
renewable tax credits. This is a way to encourage the renewable energy 
sector. In my State of Illinois, in the State of Iowa and a lot of 
other States, you see the wind turbines when you drive down the 
highway. In one section of central Illinois are 240 wind turbines that 
will generate enough clean electricity to supply the electricity needs 
of Bloomington-Normal, a large--at least by Illinois downstate 
standards--metropolitan area. More and more of these need to be built. 
Solar panels, using wind energy, geothermal sources, all of these are 
clean, thoughtful, homegrown, and make us less dependent on energy 
sources from overseas.
  There is also a dramatic investment, $150 billion, in infrastructure. 
Infrastructure is a generic word that does not paint a very specific 
picture. We are talking about roads and bridges and highways. We are 
talking about making certain that what we have in our State and States 
across the Nation is in good repair and safe, and is expanding 
opportunities for the economy to grow by building these roads and 
bridges for the future. It is money well spent, as far as I am 
concerned.
  And health care, too. The first casualty for unemployed workers is 
usually health insurance, so we want to help the families facing 
unemployment with the costs of health insurance. That to me is money 
well spent. These families need the peace of mind to know that if 
somebody gets sick they have a doctor they can go to and a medical bill 
that at least will get a helping hand to be paid.
  There is $25 billion for school construction--no, not for new 
buildings but modernizing schools. If you bring energy efficiency to a 
school, it is going to reduce the cost to the school district and to 
the property taxpayers who sustain that district.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 
5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. In addition to that, we are going to try to make sure 
this bill moves us forward when it comes to health care. One of the 
things we need to do in America, which we have done in the Veterans' 
Administration, is start putting medical records on computers. The 
importance of that is obvious to anyone who has visited a modern 
hospital. You know if a doctor has access to all of your medical 
records on computer, or a nurse, that they are more likely to make a 
better diagnosis, come up with better treatment, save money in the 
process and have a safer outcome. So if we are going to move toward a 
health care system ready for this century, we need to bring the 
Internet into the hospital room and into the hospital setting. This 
bill makes the investment to do that. It is a critically important 
investment and it is the starting point I think in moving toward the 
health care system we need to provide for Americans.
  There will be critics. Many of them want to do nothing, let the 
economy solve its own problems. But most of them are not students of 
history. The last President facing a major economic crisis, who said 
let's ride it out, was Herbert Hoover. Herbert Hoover, a Republican 
President during the Great Depression, said things will get better, the 
economy will cure itself, the market is a miracle. Guess what happened. 
More and more people lost jobs, more businesses failed, the stock 
market cratered and Franklin Roosevelt rode to the rescue.
  We have to understand that standing back and watching this economy 
crater is unacceptable. This President was elected last November 4 to 
bring real change to this town in the way we do business and real 
change to this economy so we have a fighting chance for excellence in 
the 21st century. I think he has the right approach.
  Let me add another element. There is a big section of this bill that 
demands accountability. All of us, whether we voted for or against 
President Bush's attempts to help the economy--all of us were 
frustrated at the end of the day that so few dollars could be accounted 
for. We gave them $350 billion. At the end of the day we wanted an 
accounting--those who voted for it and for the taxpayers. We couldn't 
get it. We still don't know what happened to the money.
  This bill is different. This bill not only is going to provide 
inspectors general in each of the departments to watch the money as it 
is being spent, accountability through the States and through the local 
units of government, but Web sites as well for taxpayers to follow the 
course of this bill. It is a new level of openness and transparency we 
have not seen before and it is long overdue. I am glad it is there. I 
think that kind of openness is what the American taxpayers want to see, 
too.
  They want solutions, they do not want political squabbling. They want 
to have people working together here rather than like in the House of 
Representatives, where no Republicans would even support the idea of a 
stimulus package. They want accountability, transparency--so they know 
their Federal tax dollars are being spent wisely--and they want honesty 
too. This President has been honest from the beginning and he said: I 
believe this will work. The best minds in the economy tell me this will 
work. If it does not, we are going to try something that does. We are 
going to be honest with you about the outcome here.
  That is the best we can ask from our leaders, that they give it their 
best effort, good-faith efforts to solve our problems and be honest 
with us if they do not succeed. We need to succeed. There is too much 
at stake here.
  I have seen it in Illinois. We have seen it all across this country. 
This particular proposal for Illinois is one I am excited about, 
creating or saving 148,000 jobs over the next 2 years. We need it. As I 
mentioned, we lost 36,000 jobs in December. We need to do something to 
stop this outflow of jobs.
  A making work pay tax cut of up to $800 will affect about 5 million 
workers and their families in my State; 156,000 families are going to 
be eligible for an American opportunity tax credit, which makes college 
affordable. When I talk to college presidents, they tell me: I am 
worried. Kids are coming into the dean's office and saying: Dad's 
business is going down or Mom lost her job. I may not be able to finish 
here.
  Let's give these families a helping hand, a tax credit so these kids 
can stay in school. If these young people end up dropping out of school 
with a mountain of student loans and no degree, that's the worst 
possible outcome. This will help us avoid it.
  An additional $100 a month in unemployment insurance for those who 
lost their job doesn't sound like much to most families, but for these 
folks $100 means an awful lot.
  We are providing funding sufficient to modernize 412 schools in 
Illinois so our children have the labs and classrooms and libraries and 
energy efficiency they need.
  We are doubling the renewable energy generating capacity. I think 
there will be more wind turbines that will be installed in my State. 
There will be some happy farmers renting their plots of land for that 
and some communities that will have cleaner energy sources.
  This is a bill that looks forward. To those looking in the rearview 
mirror of what we tried last year and want to try it again--we gave 
them their chance and it didn't work. It is worth a try now. I am glad 
three Republican Senators stepped forward and said they are willing to 
give this President a chance. It shows the kind of bipartisan 
cooperation we need more of.
  I hope at the end of the day even more will vote for this and I hope 
the next time we debate an important issue on the floor that more 
Senators from both sides of the aisle will come together to solve the 
problems the American people face and do the job they sent us here to 
do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we have seen a whirlwind of activity on 
this so-called economic stimulus package.
  We began by watching the partisanship in the House prevail, where the

[[Page S2207]]

House passed a package strictly along party lines. No House Republican 
voted for it. And 11 Democrats joined the Republicans in voting no.
  Then we had a mark-up in the Senate Finance Committee, the committee 
that I am ranking member on. Over 200 amendments were filed. Some 
amendments were agreed to, like the amendment I filed for a 1-year 
alternative minimum tax ``AMT'' patch.
  But many others, specifically Republican amendments, failed or were 
never brought to a vote.
  Unfortunately, there was a tacit agreement among the Democratic 
members of my committee to vote no on any Republican amendment, 
regardless of the merits. Those on my side of the aisle did not find 
that very bipartisan.
  Then a floor debate in the Senate ensued. It lasted a full week. I am 
happy that the debate gave many Members on my side of the aisle an 
opportunity to discuss how this legislation could be improved. I was 
dismayed, however, on the process. For example, there were a number of 
amendments that I filed that were never given a fair vote.
  Bottom line, they were blocked. I was not the only Republican Senator 
that got locked out of the process.
  And speaking of process, let me briefly discuss how this conference 
committee process worked. Or shall I say did not work. It was not a 
conference that permitted bipartisan negotiations.
  I have often used the following analogy to define bipartisanship. It 
is an analogy that married couples can understand. That analogy comes 
from the example of Barbara and Chuck Grassley going to buy a car. If I 
buy the car and take it to Barbara that is not a truly marital 
decision. If we both go to the dealership and agree on the car, then 
that is truly a joint marital decision.
  The same logic applies to bipartisan legislating. If Senator Reid 
shows me a deal that has been done by Democratic conferees, which he 
was courteous enough to do Wednesday morning, without my participation 
as the leading Republican tax writer, that's not bipartisan. There is 
no ``bi'' in that partisan.
  So let no one be mistaken that this conference agreement is the 
result of bipartisan negotiations. While Republicans were courteously 
consulted at the member and staff level, we were never at the 
negotiating table. Speaker Pelosi best described the bottom line on the 
process.
  She said: ``Yes, we wrote the bill. Yes, we won the election.'' That 
quote comes right out of the front page of the Washington Post, dated 
Friday, January 23, 2009.
  Now, one can argue that all that I have just described is water under 
the bridge. We now have a conference agreement that both Houses of 
Congress are on the verge of approving. I will be voting against the 
package.
  But before I cast my vote I wanted to take this time to applaud the 
inclusion of specific proposals in this conference agreement that I 
advocated for. While being locked out of the process, I am happy to see 
that my commonsense proposals were ultimately included in this final 
bill.
  The first commonsense proposal is placing income limits on the 
subsidy for COBRA benefits. As the provision was originally drafted, 
which provided involuntarily terminated workers a subsidy to help pay 
for their health insurance, there were no income limits on the 
eligibility for the subsidy.
  I want to remind my friends in the media that the House passed this 
provision with no income limits. The Senate Finance Committee approved 
this provision with no income limits. And the Nelson-Collins 
substitute, which garnered 61 votes in the Senate, was passed with no 
income limits.
  That means if the original provision that cleared so many legislative 
hurdles made it into law, Wall Street CEOs and hedge fund managers, who 
made millions of dollars while running our economy into the ground, 
would have received a taxpayer-funded subsidy to pay for their health 
insurance.
  In my opinion, this is outrageous. Just last week the Obama 
administration released guidelines for capping compensation paid to 
executives whose financial institution receives taxpayer dollars 
through the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The COBRA subsidy provision 
was in clear contradiction to our President's policy.
  During the Senate Finance Committee mark-up, however, I offered an 
amendment that would have placed income limits on the eligibility for 
the COBRA subsidy. When I offered my amendment, some Democratic 
committee members rebuffed my efforts with trumped up charges that the 
IRS would not be able to administer income limits. It appeared that my 
Democratic friends on the committee, who voted in favor of the 
chairman's mark, wanted to give the taxpayer-funded subsidy to Wall 
Street CEOs and hedge fund managers. But in the end, Chairman Baucus 
gave me a commitment to at least look at an income cap.
  So I filed an amendment during the floor debate. And I continued 
pressing the point both publicly and privately. I was disappointed that 
my amendment was never given a fair vote.
  Simply put, my amendment provided 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 Members of this body asked me why I set these limits at $125,000 
and $250,000. It is simple. 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.
  So it logically followed that if these families are too ``rich'' to 
receive a tax benefit in the form of lower taxes, are these people not 
too ``rich'' to receive a taxpayer-funded subsidy for health insurance?
  I applaud the inclusion of income limits for the COBRA subsidy. 
Although, the income limits are set at $145,000 and $290,000, I am 
happy that my work was the reason it was added during the conference 
committee.
  The second proposal included in this final conference agreement is 
something that is of vital importance to workers who have been 
displaced by trade. I am talking about the temporary reauthorization of 
the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, or TAA.
  At the beginning of this year, I engaged with Chairman Baucus and our 
counterparts on the Ways and Means Committee, Chairman Rangel and 
Ranking Member Camp, to see if we could work out a compromise to 
reauthorize the trade adjustment assistance programs that we could all 
support.
  That engagement led to weeks of intensive negotiations. They were not 
easy negotiations. But they were truly bipartisan and bicameral 
negotiations. And they resulted in a compromise that I am proud to 
support.
  That is the way the process should work. I wish the rest of the 
provisions in the conference report had been developed in such a 
bipartisan way. If they had, we would have seen more Republican support 
for this conference report.
  Hopefully, the majority will not repeat the partisan process that 
produced this conference report.
  I want to highlight some of the reasons why I support our compromise 
on trade adjustment assistance.
  The fact is, the current trade adjustment assistance program is not 
doing enough to help American workers. It is outdated, overly rigid, 
and fails to incorporate appropriate oversight and accountability at 
the State and Federal level.
  Our compromise addresses each of those concerns.
  First, it extends the benefits of the program to service workers. 
Services now account for almost 80 percent of our economy. It doesn't 
make sense to exclude service workers from eligibility for trade 
adjustment assistance if they lose their job due to trade.
  If a call center in the United States is closed and the operation 
moved to India, for example, those workers are not currently eligible 
for trade adjustment assistance. Our compromise changes that.
  But it does so in a way that preserves the requirement that there be 
a causal link between trade and the loss of a job. Our compromise 
treats manufacturing workers and service workers the same, if trade 
contributed importantly to the workers' job loss, then they may be 
eligible for adjustment assistance.
  We also improved the program by interjecting much more flexibility, 
so

[[Page S2208]]

that individual workers are empowered to decide for themselves how best 
to respond if they lose their jobs.
  Workers can choose between full-time and part-time training, or full-
time work with limited wage insurance. Trade-impacted workers can even 
take advantage of training and case management services before they 
lose their jobs.
  Our compromise increases the funding for worker retraining to 
accommodate these expansions in the pool of potentially eligible 
workers and the array of benefits that are made available to eligible 
workers.
  But it does so in a way that protects against inefficient spending of 
taxpayer dollars. For example, for the first time, we have capped 
funding for administrative expenses at an amount equal to 10 percent of 
training funds. I insisted on that.
  In addition, our compromise requires changes in the way the Secretary 
of Labor allocates and distributes funds, so that States that do not 
need additional funds are not building up their kitties at the expense 
of States that need those funds now.
  We also require States to implement control measures to ensure that 
the data they collect and report is accurate and timely. The Department 
of Labor needs accurate data in order to administer the trade 
adjustment assistance program efficiently.
  And we require the Department of Labor to collect and post the data 
on the Department's Web site, to increase transparency and make the 
information more readily accessible to the public.
  I am confident that the compromise legislation that it have helped to 
craft will provide immediate and long-term benefits for workers in Iowa 
and across the United States.
  Separately, our compromise reauthorizes the trade adjustment 
assistance for firms program, and it improves and reauthorizes the 
trade adjustment assistance for farmers program.
  The farmers program was enacted as part of the Trade Act of 2002, and 
it has not operated as planned.
  We have made it easier for farmers to demonstrate that they are 
eligible for benefits under the program, and we have redirected those 
benefits to focus on developing and implementing business plans to 
better adjust to imports.
  We also established a trade adjustment assistance for communities 
program to help entire communities respond to the pressures of 
globalization. One component of that program is a new community college 
and career training grant program which I have been working to develop 
over the past few years.
  This is a timely, targeted, and temporary grant program to help 
educational institutions develop and offer the most appropriate courses 
to retrain trade-impacted workers.
  The program will improve and expand the educational opportunities 
available to eligible workers. It is an investment in the long-term 
competitiveness of the American workforce.
  Mr. President, I have already noted that our compromise is the result 
of a bipartisan effort that reflects the work of four offices.
  There are portions of the amendment that I might have done 
differently if it were solely up to me.
  But that is the nature of compromise. And the overall policy embodied 
in this amendment is a good one that will do a lot of good for a lot of 
Americans, in Iowa and across the United States.
  Equally important, if we enact this amendment into law, it will help 
unlock the trade agenda so we can progress with other important 
priorities.
  Chief among those is implementation of the Colombia trade agreement, 
which is my top trade priority.
  And then we need to turn to our other trade agreements with Panama 
and South Korea as well.
  We need to level the playing field so that our exporters, service 
suppliers, and farmers can increase their sales to foreign countries.
  It is more important than ever.
  We have had a social compact on trade for over 45 years.
  One side of that compact is to address them of trade-displaced 
workers, and we are doing that with the compromise I have helped to 
negotiate on trade adjustment assistance.
  The other side is to open up new markets for U.S. exports. That was a 
driving principle when President Kennedy established the Trade 
Adjustment Assistance program.
  President Obama should hold true to that principle by doing 
everything he can to create new export opportunities, starting with 
implementation of our pending trade agreements.
  A pro-growth trade agenda should be integral to our economic recovery 
strategy. I stand ready to work with the President and my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to accomplish that.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the conference report for H.R. 1, the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, includes provisions 
that would modernize and expand the trade adjustment assistance program 
to reflect today's economy. This has been my highest trade priority. It 
has been the priority of workers and labor unions. And it has been the 
priority of the business community. We all recognize the importance of 
passing a TAA bill that helps American workers, firms, farmers and 
communities.
  Earlier this week, I received letters of support from the following 
groups: AFL-CIO; Change to Win; United Auto Workers; United 
Steelworkers; Trade and American Competitiveness Coalition with over 50 
businesses; and the Information Technology Industry Council. I ask 
unanimous consent that a few of these letters of support be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                Change to Win,

     Washington, DC, February 11, 2009.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Senate Majority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Senate Minority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker of the House,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     House Minority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressional Leaders and Conferees: Change to Win's 
     seven affiliated unions and more than six million members 
     urge you to include the Baucus-Grassley-Rangel-Camp Trade 
     Adjustment Assistance amendment in the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act conference report.
       This amendment will bring many long-needed improvements in 
     the TAA program, such as extending assistance to workers in 
     services-related industries, increasing access to wage 
     insurance and health insurance benefits, and expanding 
     training. This bipartisan, bicameral compromise is an 
     important part of our economic recovery and should be 
     incorporated into the recovery package.
           Sincerely,
                                                Christopher Chafe,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                 February 9, 2009.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Senate Majority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi
     Speaker of the House,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell
     Senate Minority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     House Minority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
       We, the undersigned companies and associations, urge you to 
     include the Trade and Globalization Adjustment Act of 2009 in 
     the conference report for H.R. 1, the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act.
       We applaud Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Grassley, 
     Chairman Rangel, and Ranking Member Camp for their tireless 
     bipartisan, bicameral efforts to craft the Trade and 
     Globalization Adjustment Act of 2009. Their hard work has 
     created a good compromise package that will be a significant 
     improvement over existing law, offering more flexible 
     training opportunities so workers can transition into new 
     careers in a dynamic 21st century economy.
       We support the Trade and Globalization Adjustment Act of 
     2009 and hope you will include it in the conference report 
     for the American Recovery and Investment Act.
           Sincerely,
         Abbott; American Chemistry Council; Applied Materials, 
           Inc.; Auto Trade Policy Council; Bechtel Corporation; 
           Business Roundtable; California Chamber of Commerce; 
           Cargill, Incorporated; Caterpillar Inc.; Chevron.
         Cisco Systems, Inc.; Citi; Coalition of Service 
           Industries; CompTIA; Corning Incorporated; Eastman 
           Kodak Company; Emergency Committee for American Trade; 
           FedEx; Financial Services Forum.
         Grocery Manufacturers Association; Hewlett-Packard 
           Company; IBM Corporation; Information Technology 
           Industry Council (ITI); Intel Corporation;

[[Page S2209]]

           Microsoft Corporation; National Association of 
           Manufacturers; National Foreign Trade Council; National 
           Electrical Manufacturers Association; Ohio Alliance for 
           International Trade.
         Oracle Corporation; Pharmaceutical Research and 
           Manufacturers of America; Pyramid Mountain Lumber; 
           Retail Industry Leaders Association; Software & 
           Information Industry Association (SIIA); Sun 
           Microsystems; Sun Mountain Lumber; TechAmerica; 
           Telecommunications Industry Association.
         The American Business Council; The Association of 
           Equipment Manufacturers; The Boeing Company; The Coca-
           Cola Company; The Dow Chemical Company; The General 
           Electric Company; The McGraw-Hill Companies; The 
           Stanford Financial Group; United States Council for 
           International Business; United Technologies 
           Corporation; UPS; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Wal-Mart 
           Stores, Inc.; Whirlpool.
                                  ____

         International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & 
           Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
                                Washington, DC, February 10, 2009.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid: This week the 
     House and Senate are expected to have a conference on the 
     proposed American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The 
     UAW wishes to share with you and the other conferees our 
     views on several important provisions in this legislation.
       The UAW strongly supports the core elements of the House 
     and Senate bills, including the provisions that would:
       Give tax relief to 95% of working families, amounting to 
     $500 for individuals and $1,000 for couples;
       Increase spending on infrastructure, energy efficiency, and 
     health care information technology;
       Provide fiscal relief for states and localities through an 
     increase in FMAP and other mechanisms; and
       Extend assistance to the unemployed through an extension 
     and expansion of UI benefits and COBRA.
       We believe these initiatives will create millions of jobs 
     and provide an immediate stimulus for our economy, while also 
     helping to alleviate the impact of the current recession on 
     the most vulnerable Americans. Many of these measures also 
     represent important investments that will lay the basis for 
     long-term economic growth.
       The UAW applauds the inclusion of provisions in the House 
     and Senate bills that would encourage investment in advanced 
     technology vehicles and their key components, while also 
     providing assistance to the struggling domestic auto 
     industry. This includes funding for advanced battery 
     manufacturing, the purchase of fuel efficient vehicles by the 
     federal government, and the purchase and manufacturing of 
     plug-in hybrids, as well as monetization of banked tax 
     credits and restoration of the tax deduction for interest and 
     taxes related to the purchase of vehicles. We urge you to 
     retain these provisions in the final conference report.
       In addition to these elements, the UAW urges you to include 
     in the final conference report:
       The stronger Buy American language in the Senate bill; 
     these provisions will help to ensure that taxpayer funds are 
     used to create jobs for American workers and to stimulate the 
     U.S. economy, rather than being sent overseas;
       The TAA reform package that has been agreed to by Senators 
     Baucus and Grassley and Representatives Rangel and Camp; 
     these historic reforms will provide vital assistance to 
     workers who have lost their jobs due to trade, and correct 
     numerous longstanding deficiencies in the TAA program;
       The more expansive provisions in the House bill that would 
     provide health care to more laid off workers both through an 
     expansion of Medicaid and through a 65% subsidy under COBRA; 
     and
       The provisions in the House bill that would provide greater 
     spending for school construction and assistance to states and 
     localities; in addition to generating jobs and boosting the 
     economy, these measures would provide important investments 
     in education and other vital social programs.
       The UAW believes it is critically important that Congress 
     act quickly to approve the proposed American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act. Thank you for considering the points 
     discussed above as you fashion the final conference report on 
     this legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Alan Reuther,
                                             Legislative Director.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I have always been a steadfast supporter 
of Federal funding for museums and the arts in New York and across the 
country. When I voted in favor of Senator Coburn's amendment No. 309 to 
H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, I thought the 
amendment was only targeted to casinos and golf courses and was not 
aware it also included museums and other cultural centers. The arts 
community knows they have had--and will certainly continue to have--my 
full support.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the papers from the House will be here 
momentarily, within the next few minutes. Senator McConnell and I have 
spoken a number of times during the day. We believe it is fair that 
Members have an opportunity to study this big document. The basic 
document people have already read but, of course, that is what the 
conference is about. They change things. So this should be here in a 
short time. This will give Members all night to look at this. Senator 
McConnell and I talked a few minutes ago. We will come in tomorrow at a 
reasonable hour, spend all day debating this. This would give people 
the opportunity to read all the papers. Then we would vote sometime 
late tomorrow afternoon or in the early evening. I have talked to 
Senator McConnell. He has been certainly more than fair. As everyone 
knows, Senator Kennedy is ill. He came here earlier this week, and it 
would be to his health advantage not to have to come back tomorrow. 
Senator McConnell has agreed that is, in fact, the case. It doesn't 
change the vote count, but it means we can set a definite time which is 
very helpful.
  In addition, Senator Brown's mother died. The celebration of his 
mother's life starts tomorrow. Senator Brown has agreed to leave for, I 
don't know what it would be called in his religious belief, a viewing, 
and people will come and greet his family. It is a very large extended 
family. They will do that. That would be completed around 8 tomorrow 
night. So we are going to keep the vote open for Senator Brown until he 
arrives tomorrow night. This is not the first time we have done this.
  I have announced we will hold our votes to 15 minutes, plus we give 
Members 5 minutes' leeway. After that, the vote is closed. But we have 
always said that on a close vote, we would keep the vote open until 
everything is done. Everyone understands that when one's mother dies, 
we have to be a little more understanding of the situation. This is 
very difficult for Sherrod Brown to go home because he has to turn 
right around and come back here the same night. He is going to fly here 
and fly back the same night so he can be at the funeral Saturday 
morning. I appreciate Senator McConnell and all Senators working toward 
doing this. We will come in at some reasonable time and enter a 
unanimous consent request that I am confident will be granted so we can 
do this. We are going to close shortly and come back in the morning at 
an agreed-upon time with the minority leader.

                          ____________________