[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 30 (Friday, February 13, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2263-S2288]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        STIMULUS PACKAGE REPORT

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Senator McCain is a friend of mine and 
someone I respect. We came to the House of Representatives together 27 
years ago. He came to the Senate before me, and we have served together 
for over 12 years. I respect him very much, and I know he speaks from 
the heart when he addresses this stimulus package. But I would like to 
take a few moments to reflect on some of the arguments he has made, and 
at any point in my presentation invite the Senator, if he is nearby, to 
come join me on the floor to discuss this matter in debate. Sadly, the 
Senate no longer debates in the old style. We give speeches and many 
times are like ships passing in the night. So I hope, if he is 
available--and I know he may not be; he has a busy schedule, too--I 
hope he will return to the floor, and we can talk about some of the 
arguments he made, and he can address them directly. In the meantime, I 
would like to speak to a few of them myself.
  Senator McCain argues that spending $790 billion, which the President 
has suggested for a recovery and reinvestment, is too much money. He 
argues the bill is too large, there is too much money in this bill. 
Keep in mind, this money is going to be spent out over a 2-year, maybe 
3-year period, most of it on the front end, most of it in the first 18 
months, but much of it over a longer period of time. So we are talking 
about roughly $350 billion to be spent, for example, in the first year, 
maybe as much as $600 billion or $700 billion by the end of the second 
year. It is a huge sum of money. It may be the largest bill we have 
ever considered, certainly the largest stimulus bill we have ever 
considered, on the floor of the Senate.
  But I will tell you that most economists, in looking at this bill, 
raise the question about whether it is enough, considering the size of 
the American economy, No. 1. It is an economy that generates more than 
$14 trillion a year in the production of goods and services. It is an 
economy that is flat on its back. It is an economy deep in recession, 
with high unemployment, with businesses failing, with families losing 
their health insurance, with a lot of misery being spread across the 
country. The obvious question is: What can we do to change it?

  Last year, President George W. Bush saw this coming, and he suggested 
the way to change it was to offer tax breaks, tax rebates to families. 
The Democratic Congress said to the Republican President: If this is 
what you want us to do to try to turn the economy around, we will do 
it. We enacted bipartisan legislation to give President Bush about $150 
billion to send back to families in checks of $300 or $600 in the hopes 
that would breathe some life back into the economy, cause people to go 
out and spend more money, buy more goods and services, invigorate 
businesses, save and create jobs. We did it. We signed up for that 
approach. It did not work. Mr. President, $150 billion was spent for 
individual families. There was the $300 or $600 check, which I am sure 
provided some relief. But at the end of the day, when we took a look at 
the economy, it continued to cascade downhill. Simply doing $150 
billion in tax cuts did not do it.
  Then President Bush came to us and said: I need $700 billion. It was 
a staggering amount of money, but we were told by Secretary Paulson, 
Secretary of the Treasury, Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal 
Reserve, and others, that if we did not do it and do it quickly, the 
economy could go into a crisis which could be felt worldwide.
  It was the most sobering meeting I ever attended as a Member of 
Congress when I heard this, and I felt duty-bound to do everything I 
could to cooperate with the Republican President, to give him the 
resources he wanted to try to breathe life back into this economy, to 
get the credit institutions moving forward, and I voted for it. At the 
end of the day, $350 billion was spent and, I am afraid to say, very 
little positive occurred. In fact, we are still trying to get an 
accurate accounting of what happened to that money.
  These were the first two attempts by the previous Republican 
administration; first, a $150 billion tax cut, then a $700 billion TARP 
funding they called it--the Troubled Asset Relief Program--which the 
Democrats cooperated in and said: Mr. President, though we are of a 
different political party, this is a national crisis, and we will work 
with your best minds to try what we can to turn this economy around.
  We debated it, and we changed parts of it. We are expected to. That 
is what Congress has as a responsibility. But there was no question 
from the beginning that the Democratic Congress was going to cooperate 
with the Republican President because we had a national emergency on 
our hands.
  Now comes the new President, President Barack Obama, sworn in a 
little over 3 weeks ago. The crisis, which we had hoped would have 
turned, in fact, had worsened. He inherited the worst economic crisis 
in 75 years. You have to go back to President Franklin Roosevelt and 
the awful Depression he saw to find another President faced with this 
kind of an economic challenge. President Obama came to office and said: 
We have to do something. We have to try to find a solution. We need to 
put the best minds, the best economists, and the best leaders together 
to come up with an approach which will stop this recession from growing 
and getting worse and will turn this economy around. He said, similar 
to President Bush: I would like the help of both political parties to 
do it.

[[Page S2264]]

  Well, it is natural a President would ask for that. Because the 
crisis that faces us is not a Democratic crisis or a Republican crisis. 
Families who do not vote, families who are Independents, families of 
both political parties are being affected.
  President Obama made a presentation of this recovery and reinvestment 
program, and he estimated the cost to be around $750 to $800 billion. 
The Senator from Arizona thinks that is an unnecessarily large sum. I 
might say to the Senator that he knows, as well as I do, that last year 
the U.S. stock market lost $7 trillion in value. You can see it in the 
Dow Jones index--now somewhere near 8,000. At one point, it was near 
15,000. Mr. President, $7 trillion in lost stock market value is $7 
trillion in lost savings and lost retirement plans.
  To argue that spending $350 billion to try to stop this slide is 
overspending, overlooks the obvious. With $7 trillion lost in stock 
market value, to do nothing, to allow this to continue, is to run the 
risk that even more value will be lost and the dreams and plans of 
families across America will have to be changed.
  There is something else we know as well. Because of the state of the 
economy, we have what the economists call the paradox of thrift. If you 
look to your near future for your family, and you are worried about 
your job or your wife's job or your children, you are likely to say: We 
better be careful. We shouldn't make big purchases now until things are 
pretty clear. Put more money in savings and hold back a little. Be 
thrifty. That is a natural reaction. It is a defensive mechanism when 
people see a troubling economy. Although it makes sense on an 
individual family basis, it creates in the overall economy exactly the 
opposite of what we need. What we need is more confidence and people 
stepping forward and saying, I think we are through this; I think we 
will be through this soon, and I need to make some purchases that I 
have held off making. As they buy things, they create more economic 
activity, businesses flourish, and jobs are created and saved. So as 
people are thrifty in an economy and hold back, it deepens the 
recession. Deflation is what they call it. This year we will lose $1 
trillion in spending in America. We estimate that families holding 
back, consumers holding back will spend $1 trillion less. Remember, our 
overall economy is about $14 trillion, so that represents about 7 
percent of our economy which will contract because of fear, concern 
about our future.

  What President Obama has said is at this moment we need to inject 
money into this economy. We need to show the American people we can 
save and create jobs. We need to have more economic activity so that 
businesses will survive, and we need to see our way through this 
crisis. That is what he has come forward with. So the critics of 
President Obama's plan have no alternative. They are not proposing 
anything that will stimulate this economy to this measure. They offered 
a plan which I think was at least thoughtful in one respect which tried 
to address the housing crisis, but it didn't come close to investing 
the money in this economy that we need to try to turn it around. So I 
say to my friends on the Republican side: If you can't come up with a 
viable alternative, if you can't come up with a solution, then being 
critical of President Obama's plan doesn't have much credibility. You 
need to acknowledge we have a problem and work with us to try to solve 
it.
  It is interesting too that there is this argument on the Republican 
side--and I heard it from the Senator from Arizona--that this is too 
much money. If we don't do something, if the recession continues and 
gets worse, here is what happens: Fewer people are working, fewer 
dollars are collected for income tax, fewer dollars are being spent, 
less sales tax is collected, values of real estate continue to go down, 
property tax receipts go down, and we find that the receipts and 
revenues of the Government start getting fewer and constricted. At the 
same time, the demands for government services go up. Unemployed people 
need a helping hand. They need a hand to feed their families and keep 
them together. They need a hand to provide some kind of health 
insurance. So the demands for government services go up and revenues go 
down, and it is a perfect recipe for deficit.
  It is no surprise--and I think this chart, if I am not mistaken, 
shows it--across America 46 States are now facing budget deficits, and 
it could get worse. It shows a cumulative budget deficit of $350 
billion through 2011. So failing to respond to this situation will mean 
even deeper deficits. To argue that spending about $790 billion now 
will add to the deficit is to ignore the obvious. Doing nothing and 
allowing the recession to occur and get worse will give us deficits not 
only this year but for years to come, not to mention the suffering that 
families and businesses will go through in the process.
  If I came to Senator McCain and said to him: I know of your interest 
in national defense. You are a war hero from Vietnam and I respect you 
so much for it, and I know you have focused on Americans' national 
security more than any other issue. If I told you there was a threat to 
America, whatever it might be, and that we had better prepare ourselves 
to defend ourselves, would you stop and say first tell me how much it 
costs, or would you first say keep America safe, that is our first 
obligation; we will talk about the cost later? I expect that would be 
his reaction. It might be my reaction as well--it probably would be my 
reaction as well. So here, when we face a national economic crisis, for 
any Senator to stand up and say, You know, there is only a limited 
amount of money we can spend on this, is to ignore the fact that if you 
don't make the right investment and turn this economy around, we will 
pay dearly for years to come.
  Now, there was also talk about the way this bill was written. It is 
true that much of the negotiation for this bill occurred behind closed 
doors, but there was a conference committee, which is a rarity on 
Capitol Hill, where Members of both political parties came forward to 
talk about the bill. Why did so much of it happen outside of the 
conference committee? Well, it reflects the reality of how business is 
done most of the time here on Capitol Hill. I know it needs to get 
better, Senator McCain does, and I am sure President Obama agrees, but 
this is what we came down to. This is the dilemma we came down to: 
President Obama reached out to House Republicans and Senate Republicans 
and said join me in writing this bill, and only three stepped up. Three 
Republican Senators said we will join you in writing the bill. They 
have played a major role, those three Republicans, in writing this 
bill. They have changed priorities in spending. They have eliminated 
some programs. They have pushed forward with more money in some areas 
and less in others. They have made a profound difference in the bill 
because they started with the premise that if we can bring this bill to 
a point where they can accept it, they would vote for it. Now, that is 
not an unreasonable thing to ask.
  If someone wants to sit down and amend the bill and change the bill, 
the obvious question is--and at the end of the day we are successful 
and make the changes you asked for--will you help us pass the bill? For 
many Republicans, the answer has been: No; we want it both ways. We 
want to change this bill, but we are never going to vote for it.
  I recall an amendment offered by a Republican Senator from Iowa in 
the Senate Finance Committee which added $70 billion in costs to this 
bill for a tax cut I personally approve of but wasn't in the original 
bill. So he added $70 billion in costs to the bill and then came to the 
floor and said I can't vote for this bill because it costs too much. 
Now, wait a minute. You can't have it both ways. You can't add to the 
cost of the bill in the committee and then come to the floor and say I 
can't vote for the bill because it costs too much. It happened.
  Another Senator on the floor offered what I thought was a valuable 
idea. It needed some changes here and there but a valuable idea: Create 
tax incentives for people to buy homes. I like it. I believe we have 
improved it in this bill, but it was at least a sound idea to start 
moving the housing market forward. Well, it turns out that Senator as 
well added between $11 billion and $30 billion to the cost of the bill 
with his amendment which was adopted, and then said I can't vote for 
the bill; it costs too much. Again, you can't have it both ways. If 
many Republican Senators wonder why they aren't in the

[[Page S2265]]

room talking about the ultimate bill, it is because they have already 
made a public pronouncement that no matter what you do to the bill, we 
are not going to vote for it. How much time should we spend talking to 
those Senators? We are never going to pass a bill if we spend our time 
agreeing to amendments they like so they can vote against the bill. 
That is the case, unfortunately, too many times.
  There is also this notion Senator McCain raised that Speaker Pelosi 
said, We won the election; we wrote the bill. Well, I can tell my 
colleagues the American people did speak on November 4 and there was a 
decision in the election, but President Obama could not have reached 
out more to try to bring in Republicans in the House and Senate to help 
write this bill. Three stepped forward. Those three were in on the 
negotiations. Those three had a profound impact on the bill. I respect 
them very much; the two Senators from Maine, Olympia Snowe and Susan 
Collins, and the Senator from Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter. If you would 
ask them today: Did you influence this bill, the answer is obvious. 
They did. They made a big impact on this bill because they were 
prepared to sit down and work with us and said, If we can find an 
agreement, we will vote for it. So, in fact, we did win the election, 
but we know we need the help of both political parties to solve our 
Nation's problems, and we are trying our best.
  Senator McCain also raised questions about the cost per job. If you 
take the overall cost of the bill--$790 billion, roughly--and the 
projected increase in jobs--anywhere from 1 million to 3.9 million--he 
does simple math and comes to the conclusion that we are spending too 
much money for each job we are creating. What the Senator did not note 
was that about a third of this bill goes to tax cuts to everyone. It 
isn't in the creation of a single job, but in trying to help all 
families--at least those in income categories that we characterize as 
middle-income families, working families--so that is about a third of 
the bill.
  The second thing he didn't acknowledge was the money spent in 
creating a job has to be looked at in the long term. If you create a 
job for a worker in Illinois and that worker ends up getting paid 
$50,000 a year, that worker is going to take his or her paycheck and 
spend it. In spending that paycheck, it is going to put more money back 
into the economy. At the shops and stores they go to there will be 
receipts, profits, more people working, and the people who are working 
there will take their paychecks and go on and spend them as well. It is 
the so-called multiplier effect which I am sure the Senator from 
Arizona is well aware of. So to assign the value of each job as being 
$100,000, $200,000, whatever the cost is, is to overlook the fact that 
that money, through the workers, is spent and respent time and again. 
That is what helps us rebuild the economy.
  We also had some criticism from the Senator from Arizona about the 
``Buy American'' provisions. I have to tell my colleagues something. I 
respect him, because I know he believes this in his heart of hearts. I 
certainly do not stand here and endorse isolationism, protectionism, or 
economic nationalism, but shouldn't our priority with America's tax 
dollars be in putting Americans to work, creating good-paying jobs 
right here at home, buying as many goods and services within our 
economy as we can?
  Senator Dorgan of North Dakota offered an amendment which was a very 
thoughtful amendment and it said: We are going to buy American, but 
whatever we do will be consistent with our international trade 
agreements. That is a reasonable approach. I think as far as we can go 
under existing law and treaties, we need to try to help American 
families get back on their feet and Americans back to work. There is 
nothing unreasonable about that. I think it may go a little too far 
with this economist's article and others who argue we are getting back 
into some era of protectionism. Senator Dorgan's amendment I think was 
a thoughtful one and will help us address that issue.
  There was also some concern about Governors. I can tell my colleagues 
why there is a provision in this bill relative to the power of 
Governors. We have this amazing situation where there are literally 
Governors--only a handful--across the Nation who are saying we don't 
want the money. We don't need the money for our States. I don't know 
why you are going to force us to take this money.
  Well, that is their political point of view. Most States are having 
trouble. So what we said at the outset is we want Governors to request 
the funds. Literally billions of dollars will be coming to their States 
and they should request it. That is not unreasonable. We went on to say 
that if your Governor doesn't request the funds, doesn't ask for the 
funds to help people in their States, that the legislature in each 
State can do it. Why did we put that in there? Because some of the 
money will not go through the Governor's office, but will go directly, 
for example, to school districts. Take an example in my State. In my 
hometown of Springfield, IL, the school district there will get 
additional funds for IDEA. That is the Federal program that provides 
money to school districts so they can educate and help children with 
special needs. It is an expensive commitment and it is one the Federal 
Government has not done its share of over the years. That money would 
go to the school district to help them meet their needs for teachers 
and classrooms, and it would also suppress the need to raise property 
taxes which no one wants. Also, money will go to the schools in my 
hometown that have a larger percentage of disadvantaged kids, kids from 
low-income families. It is called title I. That money is coming from 
the Federal Government down to my local school district. Well, the 
Governor in my State is going to accept the funds, I can assure my 
colleagues, but what if we were in a State where the Governor said we 
don't need this money. I don't know why Washington did it. I am not 
going to sign up and ask for it. There ought to be a way that school 
district can still benefit even if the Governor sees it differently, 
and that is the reason for the provision Senator McCain raised.
  Senator McCain also said that bill was done in a partisan fashion, 
behind closed doors. I can tell you the Republican Senators who were 
engaged in this process on the Senate side made it as bipartisan as 
possible. They were involved--all three of them--in very detailed 
discussions about what was included in the bill. Yes, it is true, some 
were discussions behind closed doors, but, ultimately, this bill is 
public for those interested in reading and carefully looking through 
it, and they should. That is part of the process.
  I might add, there is more to follow. This bill has no earmarks in 
it. There is no specific project that is appropriated funds in this 
bill. That was our promise. There is increased funding in all the 
agencies receiving more funds for oversight so the inspectors general 
can keep an eye on the money being spent. There will be an 
accountability and transparency board to coordinate and provide regular 
reports to Congress. We are going to have a recovery Web site where 
people across America can follow the expenditures of these funds, so 
they can see what is happening nationally and in their States.
  I think it also is going to protect State and local whistleblowers. 
These are tax dollars collected for people who work hard for them. 
These dollars should be spent in a responsible way, with transparency.
  Senator McCain also spoke about Amtrak. Senator McCain is on the 
record for a long time against Amtrak. Again, I respect his position 
but disagree with it completely. We found in Illinois and across the 
Nation when the price of gasoline went over $4, millions of Americans 
rediscovered, or discovered for the first time, Amtrak. You need a 
reservation to get on a train in Illinois because they are packed with 
people who realize it is a lot cheaper to use the train. Of course, in 
using a train, there is less traffic congestion and less pollution. 
Ultimately, expanding Amtrak--even high-speed rail, which is part of 
this--is part of the future. Senator McCain sees it differently. I 
respect him for that, but I think the investment in Amtrak is money 
well spent, jobs right here in America building tracks, expanding 
Amtrak service, and providing train service that will benefit our 
country for a long time to come.
  I might say, as well, to my friend from Arizona that this bill, 
though he and his fellow Senators may vote against it, is going to 
create or save

[[Page S2266]]

70,000 jobs in Arizona over the next 2 years. It will provide a tax cut 
of up to $800 for more than 2 million workers and their families in the 
State of Arizona--a tax cut they will greatly appreciate, I am sure. 
And 75,000 Arizona families will now be eligible, under this bill, to 
deduct college education expenses for their kids in a way to give them 
a helping hand so the kids can stay in college, get their degrees, and 
go on to be employed profitably and successfully in their lives. It is 
going to provide additional money for the unemployed in Arizona of $100 
a month and give them a helping hand in paying for health insurance.
  So whether the Senators voted for this or not, there are benefits 
coming directly to their States, which most people would agree are 
important. It will provide funding sufficient to modernize at least 193 
schools in Arizona so the children will have laboratories and libraries 
and modern classrooms for the 21st century. Money will be invested in 
renewable energy so we will have less dependence upon foreign oil. We 
are going to move toward the computerization of health records in every 
State, including Arizona, Illinois, and Virginia, because we believe 
that means doctors can do a better job. They can see the background of 
a patient when making a diagnosis. It means there are fewer medical 
errors. Though that was criticized as being part of the bill, I think 
it is money well spent.
  If we are talking about health care reform, we need to modernize the 
way we capture and hold health records. Also, the Veterans' 
Administration's system already has computerized records. It is the way 
to go. This bill moves America in that direction. This bill, when it 
comes to the VA, has $1.2 billion for VA hospital and medical facility 
construction and improvements. Money that otherwise would not have been 
spent on the VA will be spent because of the stimulus bill. There is 
$2.3 billion for Department of Defense facilities such as housing, 
hospitals, and childcare centers. There is $555 million to expand the 
DOD homeowners assistance program. There is $150 million that will be 
used for more personnel to process disability claims--something we need 
in Illinois, and I bet other States need as well.
  These are things I think are critically important to put spending in 
this economy, to breathe life into it, to create and save up to 3 
million or 4 million jobs, to try to stem the tide of this recession.
  Again, at the end of the day, we may only have three Republican 
Senators voting for it, but unless we stand and act together, we are 
not going to solve this problem.
  When President Bush needed help last year with his economic stimulus 
plan, we stood together, Democrats and Republicans, and gave it to 
him--first, the $150 billion in tax cuts and then the President's 
request for the so-called TARP funds of $700 billion. We gave the 
President the bipartisan support he wanted, even though some of us may 
have questioned whether it was exactly the right thing to do. We knew 
we had to act together.
  Now there is a different mood. President Obama's plan is facing a 
different standard by some of the Senators on the other side of the 
aisle. I think we need to jumpstart this economy and not only bring us 
to recovery but reinvest in this economy so we have less dependence on 
foreign oil, better sources of energy that don't pollute the 
environment, modernize our health care system, modernize our school 
system, prepare it for the 21st century, and do all these things by 
creating jobs in America. That is what this is all about. That is why 
it is so critically important.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, as we come to the final vote on the 
stimulus package, I express my great regret that I am going to be 
unable to vote for it because we clearly need a stimulus package that 
works. The economy is in serious trouble, and we need to do the very 
best we can to restore confidence in our economy and in our future.
  Indeed, confidence is the basic issue. Confidence is what it is all 
about. We have had glimpses that have led us to believe some sense of 
confidence could be restored. Unfortunately, in my view, we have 
squandered the opportunity.
  Let me put it in context. Let's go back to the time when President 
Obama was newly inaugurated and people were looking forward to the 
stimulus package and the activity with respect to banks and what would 
happen in the financial industry. If I can quote from an editorial that 
appeared in the Wall Street Journal over the weekend of February 7 and 
8, they were talking about the gamble that the stimulus package 
represents. This is what they had to say:

       The biggest gamble with this stimulus is what it means if 
     the economy doesn't recover. Monetary policy is already as 
     stimulative as it can safely get, and the Obama 
     administration is set to announce its big financial fix on 
     Monday.

  That Monday was the Monday of this week, Mr. President. It goes on to 
say:

       Stocks rallied Friday on expectations of the latter, 
     despite the job loss report, with big bank stocks leading the 
     way. If done right, this will help reduce risk aversion and 
     gradually restore financial confidence.

  Again, confidence is what we need to get the economy going in the 
right direction. Continuing to quote:

       We hope it does, because the size and waste of the stimulus 
     means we won't have much ammunition left. The spending will 
     take the U.S. budget deficit up to some 12 percent of GDP, 
about double the peak of the 1980s and into uncharted territory. The 
tragedy of the Obama stimulus is that we are getting so little for all 
that money.

  What did they mean when they talked about getting so little? Picking 
out a few examples, again quoting from the Wall Street Journal on the 
same day and an editorial on that issue, they point out:

       The Milwaukee public school system, for example, would 
     receive $88.6 million over two years for new construction 
     projects under the House version of the stimulus--even though 
     the district currently has 15 vacant school buildings and 
     declining enrollment. Between 1990 and 2008, inflation-
     adjusted MPS spending rose by 35 percent, per-pupil spending 
     increased by 36 percent and state aid grew by 58 percent. 
     Over the same period, enrollment fell by a percentage point 
     and is projected to continue falling, leaving the system with 
     enough excess capacity for 22,000 students.

  Yet they are going to receive $88.6 million to build new capacity. Do 
the schools they represent have difficult conditions? Back to the 
editorial and quoting:

       In general, MPS facilities have been described by school 
     officials as being in good to better-than-good condition--

  Reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel--

     the kind of situations that create urgent needs for 
     renovation or new construction in some cities have not been 
     on the priority list for MPS officials in recent years.

  So we are going to spend money to build Milwaukee schools and they 
don't have students to fill them. That is the kind of thing the Wall 
Street Journal was talking about.
  Let's look at what happened this week. Now, I go not to an American 
publication but to the Economist, printed in Great Britain, which has 
perhaps a more objective view than a publication focused on American 
politics:

       There was a chance that this week would mark a turning 
     point in an ever-deepening global slump, as Barack Obama 
     produced the two main parts of his rescue plan. The first, 
     and most argued-over, was a big fiscal boost.

  They are referring to the stimulus package.

       The second, and more important, part of the rescue was team 
     Obama's scheme for fixing the financial mess. . . .

  They refer there to the unveiling of the program that Secretary 
Geithner gave us on Tuesday of this week. They go on to describe the 
situation:

       America cannot rescue the world economy alone. But this 
     double offensive by its biggest economy could potentially 
     have broken the spiral of uncertainty and gloom that is 
     gripping investors, producers and consumers across the globe.

  Again, Mr. President, they are pointing out that we have a 
significant crisis of confidence. They say it applies to investors, 
producers, and consumers. Then they gave their judgment:

       Alas, that opportunity was squandered. Mr. Obama ceded 
     control of the stimulus to the fractious congressional 
     Democrats, allowing a plan that should have had broad support 
     from both parties to become a divisive partisan battle. More 
     serious still was Mr. Geithner's financial-rescue blueprint 
     which, though touted as a bold departure from the 
     incrementalism and uncertainty that plagued the Bush 
     administration's Wall Street fixes, in fact looked 
     depressingly like

[[Page S2267]]

     his predecessor's efforts: timid, incomplete and short on 
     detail. Despite talk of trillion-dollar sums, stock markets 
     tumbled. Far from boosting confidence, Mr. Obama seems at 
     sea.

  These are comments not of an American publication, or of a Republican 
or Democratic partisan, but the comments of an objective observer from 
overseas. They go on:

       The fiscal stimulus plan has some obvious flaws. Too much 
     of the boost to demand is backloaded to 2010 and beyond. The 
     compromise bill is larded with spending determined more by 
     Democrat lawmakers' pet projects than by the efficiency with 
     which the economy will be boosted.

  I will give you an example that fits that category. Quoting from the 
Wall Street Journal of today:

       An obscure Commerce Department office with a $19 million 
     budget and fewer than 20 grant officers would end up in 
     charge of $7 billion in grants to expand Internet access in 
     rural areas.

  Mr. President, you have had executive responsibility at the State 
level. I have had executive responsibility in the private sector. Think 
for a moment about the workings of this situation. There is an office 
with 20 employees administering a $19 million budget that is going to 
receive, under this stimulus package, a check for $7 billion and then 
being told: Spend it wisely in expanding Internet access in rural 
areas.
  Mr. President, $7 billion does not get spent by 20 people overwhelmed 
by the task. It does not get spent expanding Internet access in rural 
areas without careful studies and an intelligent plan laid out.
  That is an example of what ``The Economist'' is talking about when 
they say, and I go back to their quote:

       The bill is larded with spending determined more by 
     Democrat lawmakers' pet projects than by the efficiency with 
     which the economy will be boosted.

  They go on to talk about more details of the stimulus plan, as well 
as the Geithner plan, but they summarize it this way under the heading, 
``A great failure of nerve.'' They say:

       How serious is this setback? One interpretation is that Mr. 
     Obama's crew mismanaged expectations--that they promised a 
     plan and came up with a concept. If so, that is a big 
     mistake. Managing expectations is part of building confidence 
     and when so much about these rescues is superhumanly complex, 
     it is unforgivable to bungle the easy bit.
       More worrying still is the chance that Mr. Geithner's 
     vagueness comes from doubt about what to do, a reluctance to 
     take tough decisions, and a timidity about asking Congress 
     for enough cash. That is an alarming prospect.

  I wish I could support this stimulus package. I am more than happy to 
reach out to the administration and do whatever I can to help solve 
this problem because our country is in serious difficulty and the 
world, as a whole, is in even more.
  I regret, in the words of ``The Economist,'' that this is an 
opportunity that has been squandered. I hope in the coming weeks we can 
do something to regain the opportunity and regain the momentum we need 
in order to get to where we need to be.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, like my colleague from Utah, I too wish 
I had something I could vote for, something I believe would stimulate 
the economy, would get the job done. But on this package, based on its 
size, based on its magnitude, and based on what I believe are 
fundamental flaws in it, like my colleague, I will also need to vote 
no.
  The other day I was on a local radio station in Casper, WY, KTWO, 
``Brian Scott in the Morning.'' Brian said: How do we know, how are we 
going to judge the success or failure of this bill? And I said, because 
this is statewide in Wyoming: Ultimately the people of America will 
judge the success or failure of this bill. If the people believe the 
Government is working for them, then it is going to be a success. But 
if, on the other hand, the people of America believe they are working 
for the Government because of the debt and they feel burdened by this 
package through increased taxes, through inflation, through less buying 
power, through more Government regulations, then people will judge this 
a failure. I want it to work. I want something that is going to make a 
difference in the lives of the people of Wyoming and the people of 
America.
  Brian then specifically said: How will it work? How is the program 
actually going to work?
  That is where I have to turn to the headlines and the sort of things 
Senator Bennett was talking about because I don't think anyone knows. 
The Members of this body don't know. The Members of the House don't 
know. The program is much too big. As Alice Rivlin, the former adviser 
to Senator Bill Clinton said, we should go with something half the 
size. Take a look and do the emergency spending now, and then let these 
other programs, whether it is energy, environment, education, health 
care--let's discuss those in a deliberate manner.
  But the headlines from the Washington Post say, ``Trim to Stimulus 
Carves Into Goals For Job Creation.'' Are we not trying to create jobs? 
Isn't that what this is supposed to be all about? Not these backed-up 
projects people have had as their pet projects for years.
  Another headline, same page: ``Despite Pledges, Package Has Some 
Pork.'' ``Sifting Through Details of the Deal,'' as the Members of this 
body are still waiting for the copies to come to the floor.
  Investors Business Daily: ``Stimulus Bill Funds Programs Deemed 
`Ineffective' by [Office of Management and Budget].'' Page 1 headline: 
``Stimulus Bill Funds Programs Deemed `Ineffective' by the [Office of 
Management and Budget].'' Then why are those programs still here? That 
was yesterday's Investors Business Daily.
  Today's headline: ``$789.5 Bill Stimulus Coming, But Will It Revive 
Economy?''
  We are going to spend all of this money, and every dollar we spend 
that does not actually work to contribute to reviving the economy is an 
extra dollar our children and their children are going to owe to 
foreign nations because we did not have the self-control to limit our 
spending now.
  And then the front page of the Wall Street Journal today, the big 
question: ``Next Challenge on Stimulus: Spending All That Money.''
  Senator Bennett talked about a very expensive proposal that is going 
to be spent, and the Wall Street Journal said it would probably take 
them about 8 years. By then, this economy is going to have changed 
dramatically.
  This ``Next Challenge on Stimulus: Spending All That Money'' talks 
about the Department of Energy. What does it have to say?

       [Department of Energy] is going to have to dramatically 
     change how it does business if it hopes to push all this 
     money out the door. . . .They are going to need more people, 
     more oversight and more freedom to waive regulations.

  If they are going to spend all this money in a timely manner, because 
that is what this program is supposed to be--timely, temporary, and 
targeted--if they are going to be able to spend this money in a timely 
manner, they are going to have to waive regulations.
  We will see how they do. This is the Department of Energy that has a 
history of delays and of letting costs spiral during the delay process. 
And that is today's Wall Street Journal.
  Is there waste in this program? Absolutely. I think the people of 
Wyoming get it right. I have had telephone townhall meetings. I have 
been home every weekend for the past three weekends. But the Powell 
Tribune in Powell, WY, has a headline that says: ``Stimulus: Take time 
to get it right.''
  If you live in Powell, WY, and you write for the paper in Powell, WY, 
you are not one to ever want to quote the New York Times. Yet in this 
editorial they do. They talk about the New York Times. They said: A New 
York Times editorial said, ``A bill that is merely better than nothing 
won't be nearly good enough.''
  ``A bill that is merely better than nothing won't be good enough. The 
economy is too fragile. And the numbers are too huge.''
  What I think we should do is people should, once the bills get to 
their desks, pack them up, take them home with them, read them on the 
plane, read them in the car, read them on the train, read them as they 
go home, and then talk with people about what is in the bill, and then 
come back and vote on it. Then I think this Senate and the House would 
know what the people of America would say. Take the time to get it 
right. This bill is too big. It spends too much. The cost is too great.

[[Page S2268]]

The risk is too high. And for somebody from Wyoming, it seems to me as 
though we are firing all our bullets at once, spending close to $1 
trillion on a package that we don't know whether it is going to work, 
and if additional help is needed, we will have run out of ammunition.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be 
recognized for up to 15 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, today we will pass an economic 
recovery bill designed to create and save jobs. There are many reasons 
our economy is in trouble. One can point to the housing bubble and 
bust, failure to properly regulate financial markets, two wars that we 
have not paid for, and a global credit crunch. But whatever the causes 
for our economic crisis, a common thread running through the fabric of 
our economy is energy. I believe that a decade of shortsighted energy 
policies and missed opportunities has contributed to the economic 
crisis we face today.
  I also believe a way out of this crisis can be found if we develop a 
smart energy policy. That is what I want to talk about today.
  Investments in energy technology, energy conservation, and 
sustainable energy will be an important part of the path to economic 
recovery. We need to get on that path soon. One way we can move forward 
is to pass legislation establishing a national renewable electricity 
standard, which is known as an RES. This week, I am joining Senator Tom 
Udall from New Mexico in introducing such a bill.
  Establishing a national renewable electricity standard is a goal I 
have been striving to achieve for many years. In 1997, as a Colorado 
State legislator, I introduced several bills designed to advance 
renewable energy, including a State renewable portfolio standard. While 
my bills were voted down in committee and never reached the full House 
floor, my work in the Colorado House laid a path for action.
  In 2004, as a Member of the House of Representatives, I traveled 
across Colorado with our then-State House Speaker, Republican Lola 
Spradley, campaigning for the Nation's first statewide RES ballot 
measure.
  Despite well-publicized objections from Colorado's electricity 
providers, Colorado voters approved amendment 37, which required 10 
percent renewable energy production for our State by the year 2015. 
After we easily reached that goal within a few years, the Colorado 
legislature increased this RES to 20 percent by the year 2020, this 
time with the support of those very electricity providers who opposed 
the measure initially because they came to realize the bottom line 
benefits of utilizing renewable sources of energy.
  I have continued this work at the Federal level since being elected 
to the House of Representatives. In 2003, again along with my cousin 
Tom Udall, I introduced a bill to create a national RES. This bill 
became the basis for a measure we passed out of the House in 2007. This 
measure would have created an RES of 15 percent by the year 2020 for 
our entire Nation.
  Unfortunately, this amendment did not make it through the Senate. It 
failed by one vote and was not included in the 2007 Energy bill. But 
now thankfully, under the leadership of Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, and with the growing support of a 
number of new Senators, we will have opportunities in this Congress to 
again pursue a national RES.
  Early this week, Chairman Bingaman held a hearing on his draft 
language for an RES of 20 percent by the year 2020. I would like to 
thank Chairman Bingaman for holding this important hearing and for his 
leadership on this issue. I look forward to working with him to get a 
strong bill through the committee, through both Houses of Congress, and 
to the President's desk.
  My desire to win this fight and to help the chairman is why I joined 
with Senator Tom Udall to introduce this Udall-Udall RES bill that 
would require 25 percent of our electricity produced from renewable 
energy sources by 2025. RES is important for many reasons. As demand 
for energy continues to grow in this country, we need to make sure we 
continue to have affordable and reliable electricity supplies.
  As demand for energy continues to grow in this country, we need to 
make sure that we continue to have affordable and reliable supplies. 
And, most importantly, as we move to more competition in the delivery 
of electricity, we must make sure consumers and the environment are 
protected. So it makes sense to put incentives in place to ensure that 
less polluting and environmentally responsible sources of energy can 
find their way into the marketplace. That is what a renewable 
electricity standard, or RES, would help to do.
  Not least, our bill would reduce air pollution from dirty fossil fuel 
powerplants that threaten public health and our climate.
  But this bill is also about addressing two of the greatest challenges 
facing our country--national security and economic growth. With almost 
all of the new electricity generation during the last decade fueled by 
natural gas, our domestic supply cannot sustain our needs.
  Just think, Iran, Russia, and Qatar together hold 58 percent of the 
world's natural gas reserves. As demand for power continues to grow, we 
should not be forced to rely on these unstable regions to sustain our 
economy, nor do we have to.
  The best way to decrease our vulnerability and dependence on foreign 
energy sources is to diversify our energy portfolio.
  Half of the States in our great Union have already figured this out 
and have made the commitment to producing a percentage of their 
electricity using renewable energy.
  But all of our States will benefit from a national standard, which 
will lower natural gas costs nationwide, create new economies of scale 
in manufacturing and installation, and offer greater predictability to 
long-term investors. By reducing the cost of new clean technologies and 
making them more available, as a national RES would do, it would help 
restrain natural gas price increases.
  This bill will spur economic development with billions of dollars in 
new capital investment and new tax revenues for local communities, as 
well as millions of dollars in new lease payments for farmers and rural 
landowners.
  For those not yet convinced of the benefits of an RES, I would ask 
them to look at what has happened in Colorado. Vestas, a major wind 
turbine supplier, identified our State RES as a determining factor in 
locating 2,500 jobs in Colorado for its wind turbine manufacturing 
headquarters. Additionally, Colorado Governor Bill Ritter has estimated 
that just the solar component of the RES has brought 1,500 new solar 
jobs to Colorado.
  Now, Mr. President, some have argued that a national RES would burden 
some regions of the country at the expense of other regions. I would 
argue the opposite. A national RES would, in fact, create public 
benefits for all.
  The bill's definition of ``renewables'' is broad, including biomass 
such as cellulosic organic materials; plant or algal matter from 
agricultural crops, crop byproducts, or landscape waste; gasified 
animal waste and landfill gas, otherwise known as biogas; and all kinds 
of crop-based liquid fuels. The definition includes incremental 
hydropower; solar and solar water heating; wind; ocean, ocean thermal, 
and tidal; geothermal; and distributed generation. Every State has one 
or more of these resources.
  Further, the argument that the Southeast would be disadvantaged by a 
national RES--that the Southeast has no renewable resources--has been 
shown to be inaccurate. In fact, the Southeast is one of the regions of 
the country that would see the most benefit from this proposal. 
According to the Department of Energy's Energy Information 
Administration, the technology that does best under a national RES is 
biomass. Already, 2,500 megawatts of generation come from biomass in 
the Southeast, and much of the waste from pulp and paper mills has yet 
to be used for generating electricity.
  In summary, a national renewable electricity standard will reduce 
harmful air and water pollution, provide a sustainable, secure energy 
supply now,

[[Page S2269]]

and create new investment, income and jobs in communities all over our 
country. That is why I look forward to working closely with my 
colleagues in the Senate to ensure the adoption of a national renewable 
electricity standard.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and 
if it is necessary, to be fair to the other side, I will take it out of 
the time I have over here, or equally divided.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on Friday the 13th, there is 
superstition that says we shouldn't be walking under ladders, we should 
avoid black cats crossing our paths, and certainly you wouldn't 
purposely break mirrors, would you. But since this is the first 
significant piece of legislation in this Congress, and under our new 
President, we ought to take a look in the legislative mirror at what we 
are doing when we vote here today.
  If you look at the developments of this legislation, you will see 
some patterns. No. 1, House Democrats put together their priorities and 
drove their priorities through the House of Representatives. They 
didn't pretend to take any Republican input and they left out 11 of 
their own Members in the House of Representatives, as we saw from the 
11 Democrats who voted against it. In the Senate, Republicans were 
consulted, and that is a very positive thing, but we were never invited 
to the negotiating table.
  We saw this pattern repeat itself at committee levels and on the 
floor here and, of course, the most obvious one, at the conference 
stage. When Republicans offered ideas, generally they were rejected. 
There were a few exceptions, and the chart behind me will show what 
those few exceptions were.
  The chart deals with one of the improvements--the alternative minimum 
tax. This is 2006 return data, so it might understate its impact, but 
you can see that every State would add up to about 20 million for the 
year 2006. If the 2008 patch were not passed, it would probably add up 
to 23 million, 24 million middle-class Americans who would be hit if we 
didn't do something on the alternative minimum tax. Each one of us can 
look at our own individual State. But you can see that there are high 
percentages of middle-class people who would be hit by the alternative 
minimum tax. That needs to be done.

  I heard detracting remarks on whether we ought to do that in a 
stimulus package. It is not as stimulative as some parts of it. I think 
I heard some figures from the other side that it might be 2 cents on 
the dollar--or $1.02 of stimulus as opposed to other places where, as 
with food stamps, you might get a $3 or $4 return on the investment 
from a stimulus. But it needs to be there for the simple reason that in 
each of the last 2 years, we have waited a long period of time to do 
it, and it has created problems for the IRS to do their form work when 
you do the alternative minimum tax in November.
  I pushed this amendment, an extension of the alternative minimum tax 
patch. I thank the conferees for retaining it in conference. Many in 
the Democratic leadership--most particularly the senior Senator from 
Illinois--argued that I should support the package based upon that 
amendment alone. I agree with my friend from Illinois that the package 
was improved with that amendment. I also point out that all these 
families in his State--and you can look at Illinois, where there is a 
fabulous number of middle-income taxpayers, 909,000 right now, before 
this bill is signed by the President--would be obligated to pay that 
alternative minimum tax. In my State of Iowa, it is a large number; not 
quite that big.
  We need to point out that all the families from his State and 
families from my State will get a tax cut averaging $2,300 due to the 
amendment. We on this side pushed for that.
  I do not get what the senior Senator from Illinois was saying. I only 
heard him say it last night because I was on the floor at that 
particular time. I don't get why he doesn't accept the improvements 
based on merits alone and not whether it has anything to do with who 
supports this bill or who does not. Why he feels the need to continue 
to criticize me by name for improving the bill is beyond my 
comprehension.
  Now, instead of repeatedly criticizing me by name, I hope the senior 
Senator from Illinois would listen to what I have to say and reflect on 
it. We do not need to be partisan, cutout cartoon characters. We can 
actually engage in some real debate. In that vein, many on my side 
could probably support the conference agreement before us, with more 
improvements such as the one the senior Senator from Illinois has 
criticized me for offering, the alternative minimum tax. President 
Obama could get the 80 votes he wanted and still have a stimulus bill.
  But on this side we will supply those additional votes, maybe pushing 
the total to 80, only if we believe the bill as a whole would improve 
the economy. To that end, House and Senate Republicans offered 
amendments in committee and on the floor to improve this bill the 
following ways. I have about four examples.
  No. 1: to tie the spending of this bill to the period in which the 
economy is sagging. That was Senator McCain's trigger amendment. If 
Senator McCain had prevailed, taxpayers would know their tax dollars 
would be protected once the economy recovered. It was a good, fiscally 
responsible idea. It was rejected largely along party-line votes.
  No. 2 example: to ensure that the huge amount of State aid money, 
almost $87 billion for Medicaid alone, was used by the States to 
prevent tax increases or cuts in important services. We had amendments 
to do that. The amendments required States to maintain their efforts on 
keeping taxes low and not cutting services. That was rejected largely 
along party lines.
  Another example was to build on the individual tax relief in the 
package. On this side, we offered amendments to expand the relief in 
amount and by the number of taxpayers. Those amendments also were 
largely rejected along party lines.
  The last example: we tried to divert some of the over $1 trillion in 
this bill--that is $1 trillion when interest on this debt is included--
to home mortgages and housing problems. We offered amendments to do 
that. Senator Isakson prevailed with his amendment to provide a robust 
tax credit for home purchases. How was that amendment received in the 
conference committee? The answer is it was dumped and new social 
spending, the priority of a lot of House Democrats, was added back.
  These are just a few examples. I would like to remind my colleagues 
that we would cut back the cost of the bill. Ask Senator McCain. I am 
sure he will explain, in detail, the large amounts of money that could 
be saved.
  The true test is in the press reports. They note the conference 
report is not too far off from the basic plans laid out by the 
Democratic leadership. The bottom line is the basic outlines of the 
plan did not move all that much between what was originally passed in 
the House, originally passed in the Senate, and what comes out of 
conference. It goes back to my basic point--to be bipartisan you have 
to have a real offer to negotiate and a sincere objective to entertain 
each other's point of view. There is no better evidence of that kind of 
pattern than the record Senator Baucus and I have established in the 
committee, the Finance Committee, during the years I chaired the 
committee and during the years he has chaired the committee.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask the time be divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this is 10 minutes for morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask to be notified after 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, I truly believe the legislation before us is a 
historic piece of

[[Page S2270]]

legislation. It is a piece of legislation that changes the course the 
United States has steered throughout its history, by moving us rather 
significantly and precipitously toward a European model of an economy. 
The Government's share of GDP has historically been about 20 percent 
for the last 34 years, up and down, 17, 21, 22. One score--when you put 
all the stimulus money, all the bank money and all the bailout money 
and what we may expect to see in the future--one score indicated that 
it could reach 39 percent. In 1 year, we go from 21 or so percent of 
GDP to 39 percent of GDP. They say this is a temporary stimulus 
package. But it is not a temporary stimulus package. It has all kinds 
of permanent expenditures, creates new Government programs, and spends 
more money on things such as IDEA, special education--$14 billion on 
that existing program. Does anybody think we are going to reduce that 
in the future by any significant degree?
  This bill funds program after program that will be increased in size, 
and the Government spending will then account for a larger percentage 
of our economy.
  As George Will wrote--he is frequently, I think, thoughtful and 
wise--recently:

       If this is not a matter that ought to be politically 
     discussed, what is?

  So we want to be nonpartisan, bipartisan, and work together. But if 
you realize that we are undertaking an expenditure, the largest in the 
history of the Republic, the largest in the history of any nation in 
the world, in one fell swoop, and if you believe that is going to move 
us significantly in a way that alters the historic principle of this 
Nation that believes in limited Government, then you need to be here 
talking about it and opposing it and voting against it.
  I think it is pretty clear. I know a lot of my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, a lot of new Senators who came in recently, 
they are uneasy about this legislation. But they have been led along, I 
am afraid, by the leadership and some of the others and listened to the 
Siren songs and are going along with this legislation.
  I do not think, in years to come, they are going to be that proud of 
it. I just don't think so. I wish that some way, even in these last 
moments, we could stop this train, go back and look at a piece of 
legislation that might be better. The House proposed legislation. 
Senator Thune offered it here. Some folks have taken a look at 
Christina Romer's work. She is the Obama administration's top economic 
adviser.
  She put a model out on how to evaluate a stimulus-type legislation 
last year. They believe their legislation, following her model of what 
creates jobs, following her analysis, would create twice as many jobs 
at half the cost and not create so many permanent Government 
bureaucracies and programs that are going to absorb more and more of 
America's wealth.
  I think this is a big deal, and I do not like the process. The bill 
got out in the middle of the night, and now we are supposed to vote 
today. There is hardly time to read it. It is $1 billion per page, 700, 
800 pages, maybe more in there, and almost $1 billion per page. If you 
add up the minutes between now and the time we will be voting, it is 
almost $1 billion a minute. One professor at Hillsdale College notes 
that this represents--$789 billion is almost equal to all the currency 
in circulation in America today. It is a stunning piece of legislation.
  I want to repeat something that I have spoken about before. In my 
view, there was a deliberate plan that was hatched to create a 
perception that something would be done in this legislation that would 
require any business that obtained money out of this program, any 
contractor, to use the Government E-Verify Program. All you have to do 
with this program is punch into the computer the Social Security number 
of the people who seek employment and have it checked by the Department 
of Homeland Security. And we are finding that a considerable number of 
potential new hires--not too many but a considerable number--are here 
illegally. Now, let me ask my colleagues, is it the desire of the 
Members of this body that the stimulus money to create jobs--that those 
jobs should be given to people illegally in the country? People who are 
here lawfully, green card holders or temporary workers, if they are 
lawfully here, they can have a job under the program. I am not 
objecting to that. But the Government has a computer system, and 2,000 
businesses a week are signing up to use it voluntarily. Nobody has 
required them to do that. Those businesses are finding that some of the 
people who apply are not here legally, and they are not hiring them, as 
a good citizen company should do. They are not supposed to hire 
illegals--in fact, it is a criminal offense if they knowingly hire 
people who are in the country illegally. So why would we not do that? 
Why?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 5 minutes of his time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair.
  Why would we not include this simple requirement? Well, let me tell 
you, the American people want us to do it, overwhelmingly, and I think 
the leaders of this body know that. So a clever plan was hatched. I 
began to get the feel for it when I began to offer this amendment. 
Three or four times I offered the amendment. Many amendments were voted 
on on the floor during this debate. The leadership was most proud of 
that: Oh, we had a lot of votes. But some did not get voted on. This 
was one that did not. Why? It passed the House last year. One part of 
my amendment was passed on a floor vote of 407 to 2 to extend the E-
Verify Program, which is set to expire in March. The other part was 
accepted in the Appropriations Committee, without objection, and that 
part would say that if you get a contract under this jobs bill, you 
would use E-Verify. So the House passed it. It was in their bill. All 
but 11 Democrats voted for the overall bill, so they voted for the E-
Verify provision. And I am sure that the Republicans and the 11 
Democrats, had they been asked to vote on just this provision, would 
have voted for it too. So it was virtually unanimous in the House.
  So I kept pushing it here, and if it had passed here, using the same 
language our House colleagues used, it would have--absent skullduggery, 
which sometimes happens--been in the final bill because it would have 
been in the House bill and the Senate bill and become law.
  So the House Members are most proud. They voted for it. They voted 
with their constituents. They voted for common sense. They voted for 
American jobs. And they are proud of themselves.
  The Senate, however, did not get to vote on it--sorry, Jeff, we just 
couldn't find time to get your vote. We had all the other votes, but we 
did not have time for yours.
  No Senator is now on record as having voted against E-Verify. But 
just as I predicted, they went to conference and they got with Speaker 
Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid, who control the conference--both of 
them pick the conferees; a majority of Democrats on both the House and 
Senate side, and they had the power to write the bill as they chose--
and lo and behold, surprise, they took it out. They did not want it in 
from the beginning. They systematically maneuvered around to get a plan 
to take it out, and they think they can pass the bill without it, and 
perhaps they will. And who is to lose? Low-skilled, honest, decent 
American workers out looking for a job.
  Let me tell you about E-Verify. Doris Meissner, who is the former 
head of the Immigration Service under President Clinton, in a report 
last week, February 2009, said this:

       Mandatory--

  That is what we are doing, requiring these companies to use E-Verify, 
not mandatory now--

     employer verification must be at the center of legislation to 
     combat illegal immigration . . . the E-Verify system provides 
     a valuable tool for employers who are trying to comply with 
     the law. E-Verify also provides an opportunity to determine 
     the best electronic means--

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. She goes on to say that:

       E-Verify also provides the best opportunity to determine 
     the best electronic means to implement verification 
     requirements. The administration--

  She is talking about the Obama administration--


[[Page S2271]]


     should support reauthorization of E-Verify and expand the 
     program.

  Alexander Aleinkoff, a Clinton administration official, called it a 
``myth'' that there is ``little or no competition between undocumented 
workers and American workers.''
  And I would say, I am disappointed. I am not surprised, I could see 
how this was headed for the last week or so. I hoped it was not so. I 
raised openly my concern with the majority leader and the bill managers 
that this would happen, and I am now seeing it happen.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, today all over the country, millions 
of Americans went to work unsure whether they would bring home a 
paycheck or a pink slip. Today, millions of Americans got up, put on 
their suit, left the house, not go to work, but for another interview, 
another visit to the unemployment office, another spot in the long 
hiring line. Today, millions of Americans will have that late-night 
session at the kitchen table trying to figure out how they are going to 
make ends meet on their stressed family budget. And today, millions of 
Americans worried how they could afford it if a child or an elderly 
parent were to get sick. In my home State of Rhode Island, where the 
unemployment rate is the highest it has been in decades, the second 
highest in the country, I hear stories like this over and over again.
  This past Sunday, I had one of our community dinners that we hold. 
This one was at the Tri-City Elks Lodge in Warwick. More than 200 
people came from all over the State to talk to me about their struggles 
to afford health care in this economy. From them all, the message was 
the same: We are trying to get by, but times are tough and we feel the 
deck is stacked against us so we just can't make ends meet. What can 
you do to help?
  Our economy, our country, is in crisis. Americans are urging us to 
take action now, before things get worse, before it is too late. So 
this week, the Senate took action. It was not easy, it is not perfect, 
and it will not be cheap. But it was the right thing to do. The bill we 
passed on Tuesday will create or save 12,000 jobs just in Rhode Island 
over the next 2 years. Many of those jobs will come from new 
investments in Rhode Islands's infrastructure, including millions for 
road and bridge repair, to improve drinking water and sewer systems, 
and to help families weatherize their homes and cut their energy bills.
  The recovery plan will provide a refundable tax credit, a downpayment 
on the middle-class tax cut President Obama promised this country. That 
credit will reach 470,000 Rhode Island workers and families, giving as 
much as $800 worth of breathing room in a family's budget in this year 
when every little bit counts.
  I am also proud that the recovery bill will provide a one-time $250 
payment to those living on Social Security or SSDI. In the Ocean State, 
we know that for vulnerable seniors, that little bit of extra help from 
the Federal Government can make the difference between housing and 
homelessness, between health and sickness. Approximately 138,000 Rhode 
Islanders receive Social Security, so this bill will mean more than $34 
million into Rhode Island's economy for Rhode Island seniors and those 
who are disabled.
  The recovery plan will send an additional $100 a month in 
unemployment insurance benefits to 86,000 Rhode Island workers who have 
lost their jobs, and it will provide extended unemployment benefits to 
an additional 17,000 laid-off Rhode Island workers.
  The bill we passed does not stop there. It increases Pell grants so 
people who cannot find work can go to college, improve their skills, 
and come back into the workforce better trained, and in better days. It 
increases funding for food stamps, for Head Start and other early 
childhood education programs, and for Medicaid--all to help struggling 
families just weather this storm.
  It includes $18 billion in Medicare and Medicaid incentives to build 
health information infrastructure to improve the quality and safety and 
efficiency of our health care system.
  The bill we passed will put people back to work. It will jump-start 
our faltering economy, and it will support struggling families. It is 
not a perfect bill, but at this moment, in this crisis, it is 
necessary.
  We tried to do this together with our Republican friends. President 
Obama reached out his hand in unprecedented ways. George Bush never 
once came to the Senate to talk to us, to Senate Democrats. President 
Obama traveled to Congress to meet with the House Republicans; he came 
over here to meet with the Senate Republicans; he did individual calls 
and meetings. Three Republican Senators, Senators Snowe and Collins of 
Maine and the distinguished ranking member of our Judiciary Committee, 
Senator Specter, heard his call, put their country first, and helped us 
pass this bill. I do not agree with all of the compromises that they 
required, but without them, we might have had no bill at all.
  But from the vast majority of Republicans in Congress, from every 
Republican Member of the House of Representatives, what did President 
Obama get for his pains? They slapped away his hand of friendship, and 
they gloated about it, saying, ``The goose egg you laid on the 
President's desk, [the goose egg meaning zero Republican votes in the 
House of Representatives] was just beautiful.''
  They claimed--hold your horses here--to take inspiration from the 
Taliban. They said their boycott of President Obama's bill was a 
political shot in the arm going forward.
  And their party leader said this:

       You and I know that in the history of mankind and 
     womankind, government--federal, state or local--has never 
     created one job.

  I guess his history book ended at the chapter on Herbert Hoover. Mr. 
Steele, read on; read the next chapter about Franklin Delano Roosevelt 
and the Works Progress Administration and the Citizens Conservation 
Corps and how the Government got us out of the Great Depression.
  Another measure of whether our Republican friends are being fair is 
to look at the arguments they have made. Do they make sense?
  ``We should do housing first.'' We have heard that one. Well, fixing 
the housing market is, indeed, important. But actions speak louder than 
words, and while the Republicans' words call for action, their actions 
spell obstruction. They still resist the single most important and 
effective thing we can do to stem foreclosures, which is Senator 
Durbin's bill to allow bankruptcy courts to modify mortgages on 
principal residences, the only loans that don't have this authority in 
all loans in our country.
  And when we tried to address the housing crisis only a few months 
ago, they stopped all those bills, refused to allow us to move forward 
because they said expanding--remember this--oil drilling was more 
important and we had to do that first. It's the number one issue facing 
the American public.
  Look where we are now and how important oil drilling is in our 
crisis. If we had done housing first, can you not see the signs here 
saying: Jobs first? I fear our friends would rather move the goalposts 
than move legislation.
  ``It is full of spending, and it is too big.'' Yes, it is full of 
spending. The recession of consumer spending and business spending is 
what is draining the economy. The whole idea is to counterbalance the 
loss of that spending with Government spending. And you know what? It 
is probably not enough. Our economy has already lost more than 3.6 
million jobs since the peak of the business cycle in December 2007, and 
11.6 million Americans are currently looking for work. A report last 
month estimated that in the absence of this legislation, we could lose 
another 3 to 4 million jobs. This legislation will create or preserve 3 
to 4 million jobs. 11.6 million Americans out of work. This 
accomplishes the first necessary step of stopping the bleeding. But 
more, I suspect, will be required to cure the patient. Realistically, 
the danger that this bill is too small is worse than the danger that it 
is too big.
  ``The bill doesn't all create jobs.'' Well that is true. But let's 
look at two examples of provisions that don't create jobs--Pell grants 
and Medicaid. The Pell grant money lets people step out of the market 
for jobs at a time when it is highly stressed, train up, improve their 
skills, and move back in in better times. Isn't that smart? Doesn't 
that make sense for the country?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 more minutes.

[[Page S2272]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. The health care spending will protect precarious 
State budgets and protect people's health care as they ride out the 
storm. Isn't that the decent thing to do as this storm hits American 
families?
  Another argument: ``Some of it isn't soon enough.'' Well health 
information technology, for instance, will take a while to ramp up, but 
it is necessary infrastructure to avert the $35 trillion health care 
calamity now bearing down on us. It has to be done sooner or later. The 
recession will almost certainly be here 2 years from now, and if it 
does take a little while to do, isn't that all the more reason to start 
now?
  And then there are the--what I call the ``oh, please'' arguments. The 
party that ran up nearly $8 trillion in debt under George Bush--now 
that Barack Obama has been elected, and now in the one time of crisis 
when every respectable economist is saying this is the time for deficit 
spending--now suddenly gets religion about deficit spending? If this 
weren't so serious, it would practically be funny.
  Finally this: If our opponents cared about jobs and putting people to 
work quickly with effective, valuable infrastructure, why such 
widespread opposition to the $20 billion for school repair and 
construction? This money could have put contractors to work on school 
repairs, green renovation, weatherization, and conservation measures. 
It would have made schools cleaner and greener. It would have lowered 
local fuel budgets, and it would have reduced dependence on foreign 
oil. What does opposition to that tell you?
  And what did they argue for? Here is a golden oldie: Reduced 
corporate tax rates. How many companies do you think are out there 
reporting big, taxable profits in this economy?
  On even brief consideration, the Republican arguments against the 
bill don't hold water. It is instant replay of the same, tired, flawed 
ideology that put us in this mess in the first place. Barack Obama did 
not ask for this mess. He inherited this mess. Barack Obama would 
rather have come into a budget surplus, a growing economy, and a 
trajectory to a debt-free America, like George Bush and Dick Cheney 
did. But that is not what they left him. And now he's the guy who has 
to dig us out of their mess. In simple decency, you would think the 
least one could ask is that the party whose President made the mess not 
slap away Barack Obama's hand of friendship. ``I am sorry, but I won't 
help you clean up my mess unless you do it my way.''
  After weeks to ventilate their arguments, our friends now have an 
opportunity to show that when all is said and done, they care more 
about moving the country forward than scoring political points. Now we 
have the chance to come together and pass this bill and send to it 
President Obama's desk so we can begin to restore confidence and hope 
to our country.
  I hope--I hope--our Republican friends will join us. There is too 
much at stake to do nothing.
  I thank the presiding officer, I thank distinguished Senator from 
Texas for her courtesy in yielding me additional time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the bill 
coming from the House shortly. We have had a chance to look at this 
bill for the last few hours. There is much in it that is different from 
what passed the Senate. Some of it is different from what passed the 
House as well.
  I wish to address a few points that have been made. It is somewhat 
misleading to talk about the Republican input in the way it is being 
described. First, the bill was written without any Republican input. It 
was written in the House of Representatives by Democrats. There were no 
amendments allowed. The committees were not allowed to exercise their 
jurisdiction on the bill there. It came to the Senate. I was on the 
Appropriations Committee which passed the spending part of the bill. 
Amendments were discouraged. The meeting lasted a couple hours. The 
same thing happened on the Finance Committee, which is the tax part of 
the bill. There were no amendments that were hammered out. There was 
not an amendment process where we gave and took. To say Republicans had 
a chance to have input is disingenuous.
  I respect the President of the United States for coming and talking 
to Republicans. He talked to the Republican Senators and House Members. 
That is good. There is nothing bad about that because he is a smart and 
civilized man whom we all respect. We want the President to work with 
Congress as we go forward. But talking should include taking ideas and 
shaping them into something on which we could all say we had a part. If 
I could support half this bill, I would be inclined to look at it in a 
way that maybe I would be able to support. But let's look at what this 
bill is.
  It has a total cost of $787 billion. The spending portion is $580 
billion. With interest, the cost of the bill is going to be about a 
trillion dollars. I take the cost of a trillion dollars, and borrowing 
that money from the future, very seriously. We ought to spend some time 
before we spend $1 trillion in a bill that is going to be off the 
budget and is not in any projected budget we have seen. It is going to 
add almost $1 trillion to the deficit. Is it going to succeed? I hope 
it does. But let's talk about what is in the bill.

  Eleven percent of the spending in this bill will occur this year. The 
purpose of a stimulus bill is to stimulate the economy quickly. We are 
talking about almost $1 trillion and 11 percent is spent this year. A 
stimulus bill should inject money into the economy that will cause jobs 
to be either produced or kept, that will produce spending so there will 
be something for people to make and retailers to sell. After we have 
that stimulus, which we hope would be in the private sector and 
therefore permanent, then we are going to have to deal with the deficit 
in years 3 through 10, so we don't have an upside down situation where 
we have so much debt that either our foreign investors will not buy our 
debt or, if they do, the risk is so high that they increase the 
interest rate, which then becomes an inflationary problem. This is not 
a stimulus package when 11 percent is spent in the first year.
  Eighteen percent of this conference report is dedicated to tax 
relief. I believe tax relief has been proven again and again to spur 
the economy. President Kennedy gave tax relief, and it spurred the 
economy and increased revenue. President Reagan, tax relief, and it 
increased revenue. President Bush, in 2001 and 2003, when we were 
having a rough time in the economy, the tax cuts gave us the largest 
increase in revenue in the history of America.
  People scoff at tax relief as part of a stimulus package. How can 
they scoff, when it has been proven again and again to work? In this 
conference report, 18 percent is tax relief. It is not even tax relief 
that will spur the economy. The tax relief is the Making Work Pay 
Credit which is going to be approximately $7.65 per week in tax relief 
for a worker. That is going to be limited to $400 a worker.
  Speaking of what has been tested, last year, when we became concerned 
that the economy was beginning to lag, we passed a $600 tax credit. 
Every economist I have read says it did nothing. It did not spur the 
economy. It did not help our financial situation at all. That was $600 
per person last year. This is going to be $400 per person, and it is 
going to be strung out in such small amounts in a person's paycheck, 
they are not going to go out and spend money which is what you want in 
a stimulus package. The stimulus provides $1.10 a day in tax relief to 
workers, while saddling every American family with $9,400 in added 
debt.

  The home buyer credit the Senate added, which tries to correct the 
fundamental problem that started this whole economic downturn--
housing--is all but eliminated from the conference committee report. We 
have an $8,000 credit for first-time home buyers. Now, I support this 
because it will be some credit for a first-time home buyer to go out 
and buy a home. But the Senate provision was $15,000 for any home 
buyer. So we had the capability to give every home buyer that $15,000 
tax credit so we would move inventory and allow homebuilders to start 
building again, which would create jobs. That was changed in the 
conference report.
  The conference drastically reduced the auto purchase deduction which 
would have spurred our struggling auto industry and provided relief to 
dealers

[[Page S2273]]

all across the country. I have a great sympathy for auto dealers. When 
we were taking up the automobile manufacturing bailout, I was very 
concerned about not only the manufacturers but also the dealers because 
the dealers could not help what was happening in the auto manufacturing 
industry. They had nothing to do with the manufacturing, but the 
dealers and the families who are supported by dealers were being hit 
again and again and again because their buyers could not get credit and 
they could not buy cars.
  So we should have dealt in this bill with housing and credit. Those 
are the two things that caused this financial downturn, and so I hoped 
the first things we would deal with in this package would be housing 
and credit, and I hope eventually we will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an 
additional 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, 17 percent of the discretionary 
spending in this package is for infrastructure items. Now, 
infrastructure is what we should be spending money on because 
infrastructure is jobs. Infrastructure is American jobs. In this bill, 
we do not have enough in infrastructure spending.
  Mr. President, we should keep in mind that the money in this bill 
isn't temporary. There are concerns that it will be permanent. It is 
likely that those funds will be extended well beyond the short window 
that we claim to be acting in. And in that case, according to The 
Heritage Foundation, the total cost of the bill comes to $3.27 trillion 
over 10 years.
  This is not the bill we should be passing right now. This bill did 
not even have the signature of one Republican on the conference 
committee. We do not expect to have dominated the conference committee 
or the Senate or the House production of a bill, but to have no 
Republican support cannot under any circumstances be declared 
bipartisan. Mr. President, 3 Republicans out of the Republican 
contingent is just not bipartisan.
  Let me add, in a couple of minutes, what we are for. I am for 
stimulus. We all know we need stimulus.
  I would like tax cuts that would spur spending, not tax cuts that 
would be dribbled out in such small amounts that no one would feel they 
could go out and buy something. Tax cuts that would spur spending would 
be in the form of a card, such as the converter box cards that were 
sent in the mail, that would be for specific purposes--maybe it would 
be home improvements, maybe it would be weatherization. Specific 
purposes would require spending. It would be a card that people would 
know they could spend, and it would make a difference in jump-starting 
the economy.
  Tax cuts that would spur hiring. It was sort of said on the other 
side that we do not need corporate rate deductions because no one is 
making a profit. Well, let's do something that would allow corporations 
to make a profit because that is when they hire people, when they are 
making a profit.
  How about a tax credit for hiring people? That might make a 
difference. How about spending on infrastructure? How about more than 
17 percent of $1 trillion going for infrastructure? That would be jobs 
today for people building bridges, building highways, building things 
that would clearly be job creation.
  I had an amendment which never made it to the floor that said that 
military construction should be moved up from the Department of Defense 
5-year plan to 3 years. Military construction is money we know we are 
going to spend. The Department of Defense has a 5-year plan. They know 
exactly what their priorities are. We normally take it 1 year at a 
time. Why not take the 5-year plan and bring it up and do it in 2 or 3 
years? Because we know it would be American jobs. We know it is money 
we are going to spend anyway. It would be stimulative, and it would be 
the right kind of spending. Instead, the conference cut the military 
spending in this bill from what passed in the Senate. The conference 
cut our military spending for hospitals and for Veterans' 
Administration hospitals to increase the quality and access to health 
care for our veterans. What kind of priority is that? And they are 
increasing spending to save a mouse in San Francisco that might be 
endangered.
  This is not a package we can be proud to give to the American people 
and say: It is worth tightening our belts to do this because it will 
make a difference. But we can be for something. We do not say we should 
have everything we propose. There are other good ideas on the other 
side. We acknowledge that. But this is not the right bill for the 
American people, and I urge my colleagues to please consider their 
positions and let us do this right: tax cuts to spur spending, tax cuts 
to spur the opportunity for corporations and businesses to hire people, 
spending on infrastructure, more in military construction. That would 
be a bill we could support.
  Mr. President, I thank you and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I, too, want to speak about the conference committee 
report. I did not think it was possible, but after waiting until late 
last night to finally receive the text of this trillion-dollar economic 
bailout legislation, the Speaker of the House and the majority leader 
took a bad bill and made it worse.
  Fix housing first. The housing market is where the problems began, 
and it is where they will end. Fix housing first. So what did the 
negotiators between the House and the Senate do? Amazingly, Democratic 
leadership managed to remove one of the provisions that would really do 
some good and help address housing. Stripped from the conference report 
is Senator Isakson's home buyers tax credit extension amendment. 
Expanding that successful tax credit program--we know from the 1990s--
would have addressed the source of our economic crisis--housing--and 
would help bring tentative homeowners back into the market. There are 
over 3.5 million homes on the market right now and no buyers. Instead 
of including this provision, the conferees replaced it with more 
wasteful Government spending. They have used our last bullet. They have 
maxed out the Federal credit card. Every drop has been taken out of the 
well, and they have spent this one-time money on expenses that will go 
on and on--and that is the real problem--on and on with money we do not 
have for things we do not need.
  I have listened to the Democratic leadership speak on this 
legislation over the past day or so and have been surprised as they 
described it as bipartisan compromise legislation. I have been a Member 
of the Senate for 12 years, and in my experience, finding only three 
Members of the minority party to support legislation and only involving 
them at the end of the process is not bipartisan. It is not bipartisan 
in the slightest.
  I am disappointed that we have reached this point. When we first 
began discussing this legislation, President Obama asked for change. He 
asked for a bipartisan economic stimulus measure, something that could 
garner as many as 80 votes. I wanted to see that as well. I wanted to 
see legislation that both parties could support because the economic 
crisis we are in is not a partisan problem. Unfortunately, the 
legislation we have before us is partisan, and it reads like a list of 
bundled liberal priorities that could not gain support individually. 
How do I know? It is a wish list that could not be passed for the last 
20 years because they could not find the money.
  Democratic leaders, even at the exclusion of other Democrats, wrote a 
bill, brought it to the floor, and then negotiated with Republicans 
they thought they could pick off. Several saw what was happening and 
dropped out. They picked three off by asking what it would take to get 
them to vote for the Democratic bill and making a few changes. It was 
not a bill made by both parties.
  President Obama turned the drafting of this bill over to the Speaker 
of the House and other Democratic leaders who did not consult 
Republicans and even said: We won the election, we get to write the 
bill. Then the President went out on the campaign trail to stump for a 
plan crafted solely by Democratic leaders in the House and

[[Page S2274]]

Senate. He complained that he reached out to Republicans but they did 
not reach back. Reaching out cannot just be an afterthought.

  The supporters are using the politics of fear. Fear mongering adds to 
the problem.
  I was not part of the initial ``gang of eight'' Republican Senators 
who were handpicked to work with Senator Ben Nelson and the majority 
leader on a ``compromise'' ``stimulus'' bill. I would note, however, 
that five of the eight Republicans quickly saw how superficial the 
compromise was going and bowed out.
  I nevertheless offered and supported ways to improve the bill that 
was put forward by some of my colleagues. I am not just talking about 
amendments you saw on the floor that would reduce the price. Those were 
simply efforts to salvage something out of the wreck. I suggested 
removing a number of things that did not make sense--policies backed by 
Republicans and policies backed by Democrats. I always recognize that 
both sides have to have things left out to be fair. I also backed 
moving the bill forward in several understandable pieces so we could 
bring the American public along.
  I offered amendments that sought to improve several parts of the 
bill, including a change that would make sure the billions of taxpayer 
dollars spent to pay for health information technology would go toward 
items that will actually work in the real world. This was a real 
bipartisan effort which enjoyed broad support among both Republicans 
and Democrats. In fact, I did get an amendment adopted that was just 
technical changes, and that was difficult to do. I think it has been 
ripped out now too. But the bill will not work without those.
  Unfortunately, it, along with my efforts to try to protect patients 
from Government bureaucrats rationing their access to health care, was 
largely ignored. As a result, I have strong concerns that this stimulus 
bill will likely backfire on patients and providers, resulting in more 
harm than any good we are likely to see from its ill-conceived and 
misguided efforts.
  We are going to do health care reform this year. Partisan pieces do 
not have to be rushed through as ``stimulus.'' We do not have to 
legislate on a spending bill.
  This massive bill contains short-term and long-term spending, and I 
advocated moving forward with the short-term spending immediately. I 
advocated for addressing the housing crisis and the jobs crisis right 
now. I suggested that after we dealt with those pieces of legislation, 
we should work together on the long-term items, not jam them in with no 
time for debate. Some of those items in this bill are important, but 
they should be dealt with in a separate measure going through the 
normal legislative process where we can have the time for real debate 
about our Nation's priorities.
  I am not happy about deficit spending in these bailouts. I realize 
something is wrong with our economy, and we need to take steps to fix 
it. I worked to create a bill that efficiently used taxpayer money to 
improve the housing market and put people back to work. The 
``compromise'' we are forced to take or leave is so far off the mark 
and full of pork that it is obscene. I will not support spending money 
we do not have for projects we do not need. I will support legitimate 
efforts put forward by either party that could help our country out of 
this economic mess.
  I have been very critical of this bill and other bailout bills passed 
last year, and time is showing I made the right decisions opposing 
those bailouts. I would support an economic stimulus package if only it 
lived up to the President's own threshold of being targeted, timely, 
and temporary. I am leery of spending one-time money on programs that 
will have to continue. These will be continuing payments on our maxed-
out credit card. But this bill does not fit with the President's words, 
and Democratic leadership has made no real effort to make it conform.
  This bill is both bad in content and in process. It includes wasteful 
spending, including $2 billion for groups like ACORN and $1.3 billion 
for Amtrak. Funding that was stripped from the Senate version for 
sexually transmitted disease prevention was included in the conference 
report.
  As is typical in Washington, programs that were Members' pet projects 
saw ridiculous increases in the conference. The Senate bill provided $2 
billion for the High-Speed Rail Corridor Program. The House bill 
included no funding for the program. How did we compromise that? How 
much did the conference provide? It provided $8 billion. This is 
compromise according to Congress. Both the House and the Senate version 
of the bill included $200 million for ``Transportation 
Electrification''--both bills, House and Senate--$200 million for 
transportation electrification. Logically, one would then expect that 
the conference would provide $200 million, but logic flies out the 
window around here when you come inside the beltway. The conference 
provided $400 million--double what either body suggested.

  I know how to do more than talk about bipartisanship. I have built a 
career on it without compromising my principles. Take a closer look and 
we will see bipartisan isn't about compromise; it is about establishing 
common ground and finding a third way. First you sit down together with 
principles each side can agree on. That is probably about 80 percent of 
any issue. Then you identify the 20 percent you were never able to 
agree on and either leave that out or preferably find a new way both 
sides can agree on--one that hasn't already been down in the weeds and 
washed for years and years. After you have the principles, you work on 
the details, keeping what you can agree on and throwing out what you 
can't, until you have legislation that is for and from both sides, from 
the beginning. That didn't happen here.
  Talk is cheap, but the latest economic bill pushed through by a 
majority and three Republican Senators is not. And if this is the 
description of bipartisan support, then the House, with every 
Republican and 11 Democrats voting no, must be bipartisan opposition. 
This legislation is the single most expensive bill in the history of 
the United States and it is being sold to the American people as a 
``compromise.'' Buyer beware.
  Mr. President, I reserve the balance of the time, I yield the floor, 
and I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be equally 
divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. 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. DODD. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak about the 
agreement that was reached a day or so ago by conferees on the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the inclusion of two priorities of 
mine in particular.
  Before I give the substance of my remarks, let me commend the 
leadership of the Senate and the House as well as the Members on both 
sides of the so-called political divide in this Chamber and elsewhere 
who helped put this together. I know there were many who obviously did 
not want this bill to pass and who have spoken against it. Most, I 
believe, feel that inaction is unacceptable. We may have significant 
disagreements about what should have been included in this package--
whether it is stimulative enough; whether the size of the package 
itself will provide the necessary jolt to our economy to have us moving 
in a better direction than the one we are obviously in. I happen to 
believe we are doing the right thing by doing this. I don't take any 
great joy or pleasure in the fact we are doing it, any more than I did 
when we had the vote last fall on the emergency economic stabilization 
effort. That was no great moment of joy either.
  Normally when we pass legislation, we are directly helping some group 
or helping the country in some way. These efforts obviously help, but 
they help us get out of a mess we are in, one that, in my view, could 
have been avoided. This was not a natural disaster that occurred in our 
country; this was a manmade disaster--inattention, misfeasance, 
malfeasance that allowed this country to watch the greatest economy in 
the history of mankind evaporate in the pockets of many overnight. Job 
losses--20,000 a day--with our fellow citizens finding themselves 
without an income. Nine thousand to

[[Page S2275]]

ten thousand homes a day are foreclosing in our country. Retirements 
are evaporating within minutes. People who have spent years 
accumulating, to be able to enjoy the latter years of their lives in 
some peace and comfort and security, knowing they can take care of 
themselves and their loved ones as they step out of the workforce and 
enjoy a well-deserved period of retirement, are now in jeopardy. People 
may have to stay at work, if they can find work, at an older age in our 
country.
  So while I am pleased this bill is going through and pleased that my 
State will be the beneficiary of some help at this particular hour, I 
don't take any great pleasure in this moment at all; quite the 
contrary. It saddens me that it has come to this. So with that as a 
framework, I wish to share some thoughts about what is in this bill and 
why I think it can be of some help to get us moving in the right 
direction.
  Most Americans I think are aware now that our economy has been in a 
recession for the last 14 months or so and has impacted every State 
differently. My State of Connecticut is no exception. While the effects 
of the recession took a bit longer to hit my State than others, 
economists believe Connecticut may take longer to recover for a variety 
of unique reasons, including the kinds of jobs we provide and the like. 
We have lost about 125,000 jobs in my State. Close to 20,000 homes have 
been foreclosed on. One of my cities alone, the city of Bridgeport, has 
had 1,100 foreclosures--one city, 1,100 foreclosures. That means our 
efforts to get our economy moving in this bill are going to be 
important to families all across the country, and certainly my State is 
no exception.
  We are addressing many priorities with this economic recovery 
package, providing urgent help to communities who are struggling in the 
midst of this recession while making a downpayment on long-term needs 
as the new President, President Obama, has articulated in Indiana, in 
Florida, and in Illinois, where he has spoken in townhall meetings 
about this over the last several days, as he did in his first 
nationally televised press conference. At a time when layoffs are 
increasing the rolls of the uninsured, this bill provides $24 billion 
in health care premium assistance to 7 million unemployed workers. I 
can't begin to tell my colleagues how important that is.
  I have held two townhall meetings in my State in the last two weeks 
on health care. I had one at 8:30 on a Monday morning, which is a 
dreadful time to hold a townhall meeting, obviously. We anticipated 
maybe 75 people might show up at the small community college on the 
banks of the Connecticut River outside of Hartford. Well, 700 people 
showed up at 8:30 in the morning to talk about health care and to talk 
about what they are going through. The discussion was supposed to be 
about coverage. Specifically, we had three themes: one on coverage, one 
on costs, and one on prevention. But the conversation was far beyond 
the issue of coverage. Seven hundred people showing up at 8:30 in the 
morning. These are people who either didn't have coverage--most had 
coverage, but couldn't afford the 42-percent increase in premiums they 
have seen in the last 6 years.
  Then, last Saturday at Western Connecticut State University at 2:30 
on a Saturday afternoon--not exactly, again, an optimum time for a 
townhall meeting--500 people showed up to express their views and to 
listen to some professionals in the field talk about what they thought 
ought to be included in a comprehensive universal health care program, 
one I hope that will be charting a course and moving forward very 
quickly. I know my great friend from Montana, the chairman of the 
Finance Committee, Max Baucus, is already deeply involved. Senator Ted 
Kennedy has been a champion of this issue for decades. While he is 
struggling with his own health issues, he is on the phone every day, 
talking to everybody, and he wants his committee to be deeply involved 
in this effort as well.
  But in the midst of it, until that gets done, more and more people--
the 20,000 a day who lose their jobs--if they had health care are 
losing that as well. So the fact that we are providing $26 billion to 
help out unemployed workers at a time such as this, I think most 
Americans--most; not all, but most Americans--would say that is the 
right thing for our country to do for hard-working people who, through 
no fault of their own, may find themselves on an unemployment line 
today, tomorrow, or next week, to know of the fear and fright that you 
may have a health care crisis with you or your family and all of a 
sudden don't have the capacity to deal with it.
  These people didn't lose their jobs because of something they did 
wrong and should not be put in a position where their ability to take 
care of their families regarding their health care needs will be 
disregarded.
  To ensure that people have safe, affordable shelter during these 
tough economic times, there is a $4 billion downpayment on an estimated 
$30 billion backlog for capital repair needs in public housing. A lot 
of people are falling behind out there. That will put people to work, 
and that is the major goal here.
  As we see families struggling to make ends meet, I am proud and 
pleased that people in Connecticut will receive over a billion dollars 
in Medicaid assistance. Every State in the country and every Governor 
has asked for assistance in this area. We have a program called the 
HUSKY Program--our Medicaid Program. It is strongly supported across 
the political spectrum. This assistance will help out in that area.
  I am glad we were able to include assistance for our fire first 
responders. Fire departments in my State are reporting they are turning 
down awarded what they call SAFER grants--funds used to put additional 
people on these rigs. You ought to have at least four people in a rig 
when going out to deal with these fires and problems they have to face. 
Those numbers are dwindling. This bill provides assistance and support 
for first responders. I am pleased to say that is the case.
  We included $8.8 billion in stabilization funds to States to provide 
for public safety and other critical services. That was a change--a 
welcome one.
  Across our State, from city to town, communities faced with budget 
deficits are crunching the numbers to maintain critical education, 
police, firefighter jobs, and services.
  In East Hartford, CT, the town was forced to lay off 8 municipal 
employees and eliminate 11 positions that were vacant or will be vacant 
because of retirements--including firefighters and police officers.
  The city of Stamford was counting on $500,000 in State assistance 
that was eliminated in the State budget in the last several days for 
the city's $16 million overhaul of their police and fire radio systems, 
and that interoperability will get help.
  The communities of Farmington and Colchester are trying to replace 
decade-old fire engines.
  These stabilization funds will help communities in my State, and 
others across the country, to prevent layoffs of first responders, 
firefighters and police officers, which are so critical to the well-
being of our communities.
  Our communities' safety must not get left behind during this economic 
downturn. While the comprehensive economic recovery package before us 
today will provide critical support for a broad range of additional 
needs, there are three issues I want to focus on today.
  First, I wish to highlight an amendment I authored to restrict 
executive compensation and bonuses. I have to thank the majority 
leader, his staff, and others, for making its inclusion a priority. On 
executive compensation, let me say that when the American people wake 
up in the morning and see some institution just received billions of 
dollars and you have a headline that 700 employees received income in 
excess of a million dollars, people ask themselves: What are you 
thinking of?
  The idea that we continue to pour billions of dollars into 
institutions that are still awarding their employees massive amounts of 
income is infuriating--and that hardly describes the reaction of the 
American people. This is about trying to save an economy in our 
country, with 20,000 people losing their jobs every day. I promise you 
that the overwhelming majority of these people are making nothing like 
a million dollars a year or $500,000 a year. They are earning $40,000, 
50,000 to raise a family of four. When they see their tax dollars going 
out the door and

[[Page S2276]]

into institutions that are then, in some cases, not lending but are 
hoarding and doing other things, I cannot begin to describe the anger 
we hear. Then we turn around and say to that taxpayer that we need to 
have them step up and do more because the economy needs assistance. The 
American public really reacts to this.
  If you have hope of convincing the public we are on the right track--
I see my colleague from Alaska, and I know she has time constraints.
  I am digressing from the text, but, again, I find it incredible that 
people are calling up and bellowing about this, how upset they are that 
we have asked for some constraints in this area. Do they have any idea 
what is going on? I am mesmerized that people are calling up and 
bellowing because somehow they are going to be asked to be restrained 
from providing these exorbitant incomes for some people.
  This country is hurting. This is the deepest financial crisis we have 
had in many years in America, and they are worried about their pay. Our 
system of economy is at risk these days, and we will be judged by 
history as to whether we can respond intelligently to it. To be 
preoccupied over whether someone is going to get a bonus of--whatever 
it is, is misplaced energy and attention. It is stunning that the very 
people in the communities who are directly involved in this and the 
conception are the ones calling about that issue.
  The stories we have seen in recent weeks about CEOs giving themselves 
bonuses and spa vacations on the taxpayer dime after they have been 
rescued by the taxpayer infuriate the public, and they ought to.
  Families in Connecticut have lost everything as a result of this 
financial crisis. They don't have jobs, health care, their retirement, 
and they may have lost their homes. When they hear about the complaints 
coming out of these towers of financial success--about pay cuts--after 
all these people have gone through, they deserve better than having to 
put up with the behavior from some of the most fortunate among us, who 
have made many of the decisions that got us into this crisis.
  I have said again and again that if your institution is receiving 
funds through TARP and at the same time paying out lucrative bonuses, 
we should look at every possible legal means to have that money come 
back and ban the practice outright for high-paid executives going 
forward.
  As a result of the inclusion of this language in the legislation, it 
will prohibit bonuses to the 25 most highly paid employees of the large 
companies that receive TARP funding--and severely limit other 
performance-based bonuses as well. It will empower the Treasury 
Secretary to get back bonuses or compensation paid to an executive at 
these companies based on false earnings reports or anything else later 
found to be materially inaccurate or misrepresentative of what was 
occurring. It will also give shareholders the right to vote on 
executive pay at these firms. And it will strictly prohibit golden 
parachutes to senior executives of companies that receive taxpayer 
help. Because of this bill, we now will provide far more safeguards 
than exist today--measuring whether executive compensation plans pose 
risk to the financial health of the company and preventing the 
manipulation of earnings reports.
  The President told the world a few weeks ago that a new era of 
responsibility had begun--it is time our executives in those companies 
understood that message.
  The second issue I wish to discuss is transit. The bill dedicates 
some $8.4 billion to transit issues. Connecticut alone will receive 
$137 million, which will meet many important needs, reducing congestion 
in our State. Route 95 through Connecticut and other arteries of 
transport are under tremendous congestion. Transit assistance and 
support is long overdue. This bill provides that needed assistance.
  The American Public Transit Association has said that $48 billion 
worth of transit projects are to be completed over the next 2 years; 
therefore, jobs will be created, putting people back to work. That is 
valuable not only in the short term but for the long-term economic 
growth in investments for transit. That is not only about being shovel-
ready, it is also future ready. Ridership is already at record levels. 
Traffic congestion in metropolitan areas is getting worse, and our 
population is going to grow by another 50 percent by 2050.

  I am pleased that the legislation includes $100 million to establish 
and implement a program to provide assistance to transit agencies to 
become more energy efficient as well. This is a very important part of 
this bill. There are a number of other provisions that provide that 
kind of assistance.
  Public transit saves over 4 billion gallons of gasoline annually and 
reduces carbon emissions by some 37 million metric tons a year--that is 
the equivalent to the electricity used by almost 5 million households. 
The need to repair our highways, roads and bridges is obvious, and I am 
pleased the bill includes $302 million in highway funds for my State of 
Connecticut.
  But the most effective way to reduce congestion is to provide 
transportation options that take cars off the road. Investing in 
transit creates jobs, it addresses climate change and reduces our 
dependence on foreign oil, and makes our economy competitive in the 
21st century.
  Third is an area where I think we fell short in this bill--the 
failure to include the amendment I offered with Senator Martinez of 
Florida, which would require the administration to use $50 billion of 
the TARP money to attack the root cause of the economic crisis: 
foreclosure. It would have gone a long way toward dealing with the safe 
harbor so we can avoid the kind of litigation that may slow down some 
of these workouts. That was a mistake. We are trying to get to the root 
cause of the problem, the foreclosure issue. Senator Martinez had a 
very good idea that was adopted unanimously, and it had no cost of any 
measurable amount. I don't understand why it was taken out, but it is 
gone. That will create problems in terms of addressing the foreclosure 
issue. Clearly, we wanted the $50 billion used for foreclosure 
prevention.
  In 2001, this body approved $1.3 trillion in tax cuts at a time when 
unemployment was 4 percent and our economy was in fairly good shape. 
Today, with an unemployment rate of 7.6 percent and headed upward and 
as many as 8 million foreclosures potentially on the horizon, we are 
dedicating $800 billion to jump-starting our economy. Meanwhile, nearly 
10,000 families enter into foreclosure every day, as I mentioned 
earlier. In December alone, there were 2,000 foreclosures in 
Connecticut. Other States, such as California, Arizona, Nevada, and 
Florida, have many more than we do. Eight million homes are underwater, 
with mortgages that exceed the value of their homes.
  Perhaps the most important step we could have taken in this bill is 
to require Treasury to spend some of the TARP money Congress previously 
released to modify home loans. By providing the Treasury with the 
authority and funds in this bill to design and implement a loan 
modification program in consultation with FDIC, HUD, and the Federal 
Reserve, we could have ensured we would help nearly 2 million families.
  Some 16,000 families in my State of Connecticut would have avoided 
losing their home, moving them out of these unaffordable, exploding and 
often predatory mortgages that are strangling our economy and into 
mortgages they can afford.
  While I am disappointed we didn't codify this requirement into law, I 
am pleased that the Treasury Secretary has pledged to dedicate at least 
$50 billion to preventing foreclosures--and I believe that is in no 
small part due to the strong support this body expressed for this 
amendment last week.
  Quite frankly, that is a step which should have been taken months ago 
in the previous administration. There was no interest in it despite the 
fact that expert after expert warned that unless you get to the bottom 
of the residential mortgage market, the economic crisis will persist. 
They are right. I hope we will see a change in direction and resources 
committed to the underlying problem of our economic issues.
  While we will hold this administration's feet to the fire, I believe 
they recognize that unless we act now to stop foreclosures and put a 
tourniquet on the crisis, the hemorrhaging will get worse--the number 
of layoffs will increase, more businesses will shutter

[[Page S2277]]

their doors, and more Americans will suffer.
  With this bill, we begin to get our economy moving again. This is not 
a moment of great joy, as I said. We should not have had to have been 
in this moment to talk about this, but we are here. While I know many 
have said they are going to vote against this, I think they bear a 
responsibility of having offered some alternative ideas because just 
saying no is not enough, in my view. That is the conclusion of almost 
every economist who has analyzed this issue over the last number of 
weeks and months.
  Again, I commend the efforts of Senator Reid, the majority leader, 
Nancy Pelosi, and the efforts made by Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe 
and Arlen Specter, who have agreed to work with us and come up with 
this package. We would not be at this point without them. I appreciate 
their efforts.
  Lastly, some of my colleagues are concerned that some of their 
amendments were dropped as well. Senator Sessions mentioned one, the E-
Verify Program. E-Verify is currently authorized through March. When we 
take up the omnibus spending bill in 2 weeks, I am told it will include 
a provision to extend that until September 30, 2009. This is a program 
that, when fully funded, will be operational for hires funded by the 
stimulus bill for companies participating in the program.
  I see my friend and colleague from Alaska, who I know wants to 
express her thoughts on this.
  I thank those who put this together. We need to get back on our feet 
again. Obviously, unleashing the clogged-up credit market is a critical 
issue, but also providing that jolt this stimulus package will provide 
is also necessary if we are going to complete the effort to do what we 
can to improve the economic conditions in our country. For those 
reasons, I will be supportive of the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the remarks of my 
colleague from Connecticut and thank him for his efforts to focus on 
the housing issues that face this Nation right now. As he has 
mentioned, if we are not able to get to the root cause, which is the 
housing debacle and the failures we have seen, all our good efforts may 
not be successful.
  I thank him for his efforts in that regard. I know we will continue 
working on this issue together with the administration. It is essential 
we focus on the housing piece.
  Later this afternoon or this evening, we are going to be voting on 
the conference report to accompany the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act. I was one of those 37 Senators who voted against this 
bill earlier this week. I would like to take a few minutes this 
afternoon to speak to some of the reasons why I was unable and why I 
will be unwilling to support the conference report when it comes before 
us later.
  My principal concern in voting against the Senate measure at the time 
was the scope of the spending. It is not just the scope of what we have 
in front of us with this particular bill, this package of $790 billion. 
There was an article in the Washington Post on Wednesday that had a 
chart that outlined all of what we have been spending in the past year.
  The header is: ``It Adds Up.'' ``The Federal Government has committed 
at least $7.8 trillion in loans, investments, in guarantees since the 
beginning of 2008.'' The funding coming from the Federal Reserve is at 
$3.8 trillion; from the FDIC, $1.22 trillion; from the Treasury, this 
includes the TARP moneys we authorized back in October, $771 billion; 
the joint programs that include the guarantees of Bank of America and 
Citigroup, $419 billion; and then in the ``Other'' category, it 
includes not only the programs Fannie and Freddie at $200 billion, but 
then at the bottom we have the Senate bill for the current stimulus 
package at that time coming in at $838 billion.
  It is almost inconceivable what we are talking about in terms of the 
outlays we are putting forward.
  The cost of this stimulus package before us, as everyone in America 
knows, is $790 billion, but when we account for the interest, which we 
need to do--that is part of the bill--the cost increases to more than 
$1 trillion; it is about $1.2 trillion. So add this in to the outline 
of what I have laid out, and the cost to America is considerable.
  Where do we get this money? From where do we get it? We don't just 
tell the Treasury to turn the printing presses on full bore: let's go, 
let's print the money. No, we have to borrow. We sell Treasury bills. 
We sell debt. Who buys it? People such as the Chinese and others from 
outside this country.
  It is not just cranking up the presses and printing more money. We 
will be paying for this legislation. My children will be paying for it. 
We have a responsibility to make sure what we spend is spent wisely.
  The focus of this stimulus, of course, is the job creation. Even if 
it actually creates the 4 million jobs the White House once promised, 
then those jobs, if you piece it all out--do the math--these jobs come 
at a cost of about $300,000 apiece. What we are seeing now is probably 
not 4 million jobs. Even the most optimistic economists are now 
estimating what we are looking at would create or save less than 2.5 
million jobs.
  I noted the comments of the Senator from Connecticut about the need 
to fix housing first, and I strongly agree with that approach. But this 
afternoon, I wish to speak to another issue.
  As the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources, I wish to spend some time on another aspect of the bill. 
This is an area where millions of new jobs are promised, and that is in 
the area of energy. There is absolutely no doubt we must facilitate the 
development of renewable resources, increase our energy efficiency, and 
pursue the many innovative solutions to the challenges we face when it 
comes to how we consume, how we use, and how we create energy.
  I am not satisfied with the energy provisions that are contained in 
this measure. I am not satisfied that they are timely, that they are 
targeted, and that they are temporary. By adopting this conference 
report, we are missing out on some significant opportunities that could 
revive our economy and improve our energy security at little or, 
hopefully, no cost to our taxpayers.
  When it comes to criticisms, there is plenty of room to be critical. 
One of my first criticisms this afternoon is not necessarily the items 
that are included in the stimulus but perhaps some of the items that 
were left out. Simply put, this package makes no effort to increase 
domestic production of our traditional resources, such as oil and 
natural gas. What we have done is focused on the new technologies, to 
the total exclusion of those tried-and-true technologies. I think this 
creates this false dilemma. It says clean energy is the only viable 
option for energy development and job creation when, in fact, it might 
not be the most effective option at this time when we are trying to 
pursue jobs and get the country strong again.
  Consider the benefits that could be brought about by greater 
production of oil and gas in this country. One recent study outlines 
that the full development of domestic oil and gas resources could 
generate up to $1.7 trillion in revenues for the Federal Government and 
create as many as 161,000 new jobs by 2030.
  The revenues from the production could be used to provide a 
tremendous downpayment on the long-term strength and security of our 
Nation. Instead, as a result of what we will be doing today, American 
taxpayers are ultimately going to be paying $1.2 trillion because of 
the decisions we are making.
  Setting aside my concerns about the priorities, it is very uncertain 
the funds that are provided by this bill can be spent in a rational and 
cost-effective way. Perhaps the best example of this is within the 
Department of Energy. It is set to receive roughly $45 billion in the 
conference report we are looking at now. DOE's total budget for fiscal 
year 2008 was $24 billion. Assuming the Department receives similar 
funding through fiscal year 2009 appropriations--and we are going to be 
debating that after this recess break--DOE will receive almost triple 
its historic level of funding in less than 3 months. What we have is an 
unprecedented level of spending within the Department.
  CBO is concerned about how we spend this out as well. They determined 
the

[[Page S2278]]

Department would only be able to spend 24 percent of its funding before 
the 2-year deadline. The Energy Department, along with so many of the 
other departments we are dealing with, simply does not have the time to 
gear up and properly spend, with a level of accountability, so much 
money over such a short period.
  The question then needs to be asked: Will this level of funding 
become the new baseline for the Department? If it does, we will have 
significantly expanded Federal spending at a time of unprecedented 
Federal deficits. If it does not become part of the baseline, then that 
crashing sound we will hear is going to be the gears that are grinding 
back down as funding returns to normal. I suggest such wild swings in 
funding are disruptive and one of the most ineffective ways to spend 
our taxpayers' dollars.
  The stimulus, by giving Government agencies completely unprecedented 
amounts of money for sometimes nonexistent programs, also sets up near 
perfect conditions for waste, fraud, and abuse. This is exactly what 
the American taxpayers do not want to see. For example, $3.2 billion is 
provided for block grant programs for energy efficiency. The conference 
report provides $400 million for a competitive grant system that does 
not currently exist and for which there is no administrative process.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, making matters worse, it provides an 
additional $3.1 billion to State energy programs but imposes conditions 
on receiving funds that are currently met by only a handful of States.
  Another example I wish to leave you with is the smart grid. We agree 
this is very important. There is $4.5 billion for the smart grid. This 
was authorized at $100 million in the 2007 Energy bill. It has received 
zero funding to date. Is it possible to expect we can ramp up to $4.5 
billion in 2 years in a rational way? We don't even have the standards 
in place for the interoperability framework.
  I don't think the American taxpayer is concerned so much about how 
much we spend, so long as we do it responsibly and with accountability.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. My concern is we have not done this with this stimulus 
package.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, as Members can see from the debate we have 
had today and throughout the past couple weeks, almost everyone in this 
Senate and in the House of Representatives agrees on the need for 
Congress to be working with our new President on a stimulus plan to 
jump-start the economy.
  We have people in our home States who are hurting. There were 600,000 
jobs lost last month across our country. These facts underscore the 
need for something to be done to strengthen our economy. So we are all 
in agreement on that basic premise.
  There is a great deal of good will out there in the country for our 
new President. I commend President Obama for making the economy his 
main focus. I also commend him for publicly stating Democrats do not 
have a monopoly on good ideas. The President said: Republicans have 
good ideas also. And he wanted to include them in his stimulus plan.
  That is not what happened when House Democrats met behind closed 
doors several days ago to write this bill. It is not what has happened 
throughout the process.
  Republicans responded to the President's call. We came forward. We 
came to this floor. We talked to our constituents back home. We stood 
before every television camera that would film us. We talked with every 
journalist we could find. We have discussed our ideas with the American 
people.
  We presented ideas that I believe could have turned this economy 
around. Our ideas focused, first, on getting the housing market out of 
the gutter. The housing problem is what got us where we currently are, 
and it should be where we begin in turning our economy around.
  Also, we proposed real tax relief for America's working people and 
for those people who create over half the jobs in this country, our 
Nation's small businesses.
  Additionally, our plan called for targeted infrastructure investments 
with clear economic development purposes, in addition to putting an 
emphasis on legitimate Government priorities, such as early investment 
in military equipment and facilities, items we know will be funded in 
the future but would create increased jobs quickly if we focused on 
them now.
  Just as importantly, the Republican idea I supported would have 
stimulated our economy at half the cost of the plan we are considering 
today, and that is not just my opinion, that is the opinion of a lot of 
very well-considered Democrats in this town.
  Three days ago, the Senate cast one of the most expensive votes in 
the history of the United States of America. That $835 billion bill, 
which actually costs $1.2 trillion-plus when we add the cost of 
interest, has been given, at best, a small haircut. The bill before us 
is being presented to the American people today at a cost of $789 
billion, still in the neighborhood of $1.1 trillion to $1.2 trillion, 
when one adds the cost of debt service.
  In order to reach the current number, this so-called compromise cut 
much of the tax relief geared toward job creation and stimulating the 
housing market in order to keep in place spending for slow, unending, 
and nonjob-creating government programs. As the Washington Post 
reported yesterday morning, this final product ``claims many coauthors, 
including house liberals who saw a rare opportunity to secure new 
social spending.'' And take advantage of that opportunity they did 
indeed.
  It now appears the majority leadership in the House and Senate have 
taken a bad bill and made it worse. Two popular items, one Republican 
and one Democratic, added to the Senate bill on the floor have been 
dropped from the final version and replaced with weaker alternatives 
that are less likely to work to stimulate home sales and automobile 
sales.
  The first is the Isakson amendment, which was so widely agreed upon 
in this Chamber that it was approved by a voice vote. It went right to 
the housing problem. It would have provided a $15,000 tax credit to all 
home buyers, a concept which has worked in the past. Yet the final 
conference report before us reverts back to the House-passed proposal, 
providing much less money--an $8,000 credit--and limiting the provision 
to first-time home buyers. We need to encourage home buying by every 
American who is creditworthy, and this provision doesn't get the job 
done.
  The Mikulski amendment, offered by our Democratic colleague from 
Maryland, also had wide bipartisan support. It passed this Chamber by a 
vote of 71 to 26. It has been dropped in favor of a weakened 
alternative. The plan now allows new car buyers to deduct from their 
Federal taxes the sales tax they paid on a new car. But the Mikulski 
provision that would have also allowed them to deduct interest on their 
car loans was stripped. The Mikulski amendment would have helped 
struggling U.S. automakers and auto dealers get buyers in the 
showrooms, it would have helped move cars off their lots, and helped 
protect the endangered automobile industry jobs. Like the Isakson 
amendment, it was unfortunately removed from this final package.
  So while the conferees tinkered around the edges--making the bill 
worse in some ways--we stand here today debating a bill that will add 
over $1 trillion to the national credit card. I have said it before in 
this debate, and I will say it one more time: A trillion dollars is a 
terrible thing to waste. But that is exactly what this bill does. This 
bill is full of bad decisions that will take Americans decades to pay 
for.
  Much has been made during this debate--by me and by many of my 
colleagues--about how much $1 trillion is, and I think we have 
established well that this is a staggering amount of money. Again, this 
is the most expensive piece of legislation ever passed in the history 
of our Republic.
  Last September, Congress approved the $700 billion Wall Street 
bailout.

[[Page S2279]]

That came on top of approximately $200-plus billion earlier in the year 
in the form of rebate checks. I think the American people have the 
right to ask: of that $200 billion and then the $700 billion--and that 
is almost $1 trillion right there, and certainly more than $1 trillion 
when you add the debt service, as I have already pointed out--what did 
we get? What did the taxpayers, the American public, get for that 
unbelievable expenditure of taxpayer funds last year? A worsened 
economy is what we have gotten. We certainly didn't get the economic 
boost that was promised.
  In an editorial yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, it was noted 
that the Congressional Budget Office estimates the 2009 deficit will 
reach 8.3 percent of the economy--a number that does not include the 
stimulus or the TARP bailout funds. We know that after this is 
enacted--and it does appear that the proponents of this conference 
report have the votes to move it to the President's desk--another very 
expensive financial package will be forthcoming from the administration 
in a matter of days. So what does this mean for people across America? 
Each household now owes more than $100,000 to pay for the debt we 
already have, not including the additional debt that is coming.
  Senators need to ask themselves, when is enough enough? When will we 
begin making hard choices?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to consume about 
30 seconds more.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WICKER. We need to ask ourselves in the Senate: When is enough 
enough? When will we begin making hard choices between what will truly 
work to stimulate this economy and what we wish to have but which will 
not work to get the job done?
  Americans expect us to get this right and to take the time necessary 
to make sure we get this right. This bill fails to hit that mark. I 
will vote no because we simply cannot afford again to make a mistake of 
this magnitude.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, President John F. Kennedy said:

       There are risks and costs to a program of action. But they 
     are far less than the long-range risks and costs of 
     comfortable inaction.

  President Kennedy's observation applied well to the economic policies 
of the late 1920s and 1930s. When we look back at the late 1920s and 
early 1930s, we wonder what our leaders must have been thinking. With 
the benefit of hindsight, we see that they should have acted more 
forcefully. We see they should have used the tools of government to 
increase the demand for goods and services in the economy. By failing 
to act to spur demand, our leaders prolonged the Great Depression. By 
seeking to balance the budget in the face of economic decline, our 
leaders only worsened that decline.
  President Kennedy's adage about action applies as well again to the 
economic policies of our time. Yes, there are risks and costs to the 
bold program of action we recommend today. But those risks are far less 
than the long-range risks and costs of failing to act forcefully.
  Since this recession began, 3.6 million Americans have already lost 
their jobs, and job loss is accelerating. In each of the last 3 months, 
more than half a million American workers lost their jobs. Economists 
warn that the worst is yet to come.
  Last month, before the latest bad news, the Congressional Budget 
Office--a nonpartisan professional organization--said:

       Under an assumption that current laws and policies 
     regarding Federal spending and taxation remain the same, CBO 
     forecasts . . . an unemployment rate that will exceed 9 
     percent early in the year 2010.

  Those are the costs of inaction. The costs of inaction will be paid 
with millions--millions--more lost jobs. The costs of inaction will be 
paid by the heartache of millions of families plunged into economic 
hardship.
  And so, with the leadership of our new President, we have sought to 
act forcefully. We have put together this $787 billion package designed 
to help bring our economy back. We have assembled this package, 
designed to create and save jobs.
  The day before yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office said it 
will work. The Congressional Budget Office--again, a nonpartisan 
professional organization--said:

       The legislation would increase employment by . . . 1.2 
     million to 3.6 million by the fourth quarter of 2010.

  That is an objective observation done by professional analysts. The 
administration agrees. The administration projects the legislation 
before us will create or save 3\1/2\ million jobs.
  That is what this debate is about. It is about creating or saving 
millions of jobs. It is about acting forcefully to avoid yet more 
hardship. It is about avoiding the far greater risks and costs of 
comfortable inaction.
  The history of the 1920s and 1930s teaches us what we must do. The 
history of the Great Depression teaches us the costs of delay. This 
recession is the economic test of our generation. Responding to it with 
forceful action is our duty. Let us not be found wanting.
  So let us not find comfort in ``no'' votes and the blocking of 
action. Rather, let us rise to the challenge of our generation and let 
us finally send this jobs bill to the President's desk to become law.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, this is a bittersweet day for a lot of us, 
I know a lot of Americans. A lot of Americans have called in expressing 
their opinions, sent thousands of e-mails and letters. If my 
colleagues' offices are anything like mine, mine have been 80 to 90 
percent against this bill.
  Folks are saying: Slow down. Let's see what is in it. We know about 
unintended consequences. Let's not spend all this money unless we know 
what we are doing. Folks have expressed concern that we seem, as 
politicians for the last 2 years, to have been talking down the 
economy--holding press conferences in the very worst areas of our 
country and saying this is what is happening everywhere, and every day 
saying it is going to get worse, it is going to get worse. What 
businessman would expand his business, or what businesswoman would go 
out and invest her life savings to start a new business if what they 
were hearing from Washington every day is: It is terrible; it is going 
to get worse. I am afraid we have done our part in creating a bad 
economy.
  Clearly, there is a difference in philosophy, and I have to respect 
what the President and the Democratic majority have said: They won the 
election, they get to do it their way now. But I think some of us 
believe--and if you look at history, there are a lot of facts behind 
us--that when the economy slows down and there is a need to get more 
money in the economy, the fastest and quickest way to do it is to stop 
taking so much out in taxes. Some say on the other side: Well, tax cuts 
are an old idea. But tax cuts are related to individual freedom, people 
making their own decisions about how money is invested; leaving profits 
in the hands of thousands of small businesses so they can use that 
money to hire people and grow their businesses. Because that is where 
all the jobs are created.
  Government doesn't create jobs. It may hire someone, but they have to 
take that money to pay that person from the private sector, from 
businesses that are actually creating the wealth.
  We have talked about so much data in this very short debate. People 
have talked about the Great Depression. It is pretty clear that we 
tried getting out of the Great Depression for about 10 years by 
spending and adding new government programs, and it didn't work. In the 
1960s, though, the economy grew after President Kennedy cut taxes. Our 
economy sagged again during the big spending days of Lyndon Johnson. In 
the 1970s, we tried to get out of a recession, or grow our economy, 
with heavy spending and new government programs and huge deficits and 
ended up in recession again. The 1980s were the boom years, when Reagan 
and Margaret Thatcher and others around the world realized that freedom 
does work. Free markets do create prosperity.
  We have seen countries, such as the Soviet Union, change from their 
old centralized government approach to some free market principles and 
grow

[[Page S2280]]

out of a lot of their problems. We have talked about Japan during this 
debate. They had a lost decade. They kept their taxes the highest in 
the world and they tried to spend their way out of a recession. It 
didn't work. They lost a lot of time, a lot of money, and a lot of 
opportunity.
  There is a big difference in philosophy that we should debate. But 
why the rush? I think the consternation I hear from the American people 
now more than anything else is, if this is the biggest spending bill in 
history, why are we trying to rush it through? Why does it have to be 
on the President's desk Monday morning? Why are we going to vote on a 
bill that not one of us have finished reading at this point? We just 
have had it today in any kind of searchable format on the Internet. Yet 
we are going to vote on it before we leave today. It seems we are 
afraid there might be some good news coming out of the economy in 
different sectors and the panic could subside long enough that maybe 
Congress doesn't feel we have to do something, even if we do not know 
what it is.
  It seems we are rushing such an incredible spending bill. I talked to 
one of my sons last night and said: You might get $400, spread out in 
$17 increments. The bad news is you will probably end up owing $10,000 
or more because of this one bill. He didn't seem to think it was that 
good a deal.
  I know the other side won and that makes it bittersweet, in a way, 
because I feel like a lot of us have been standing for what the 
American people are calling and telling us about. We know if we let the 
people who are earning it and hiring people keep the money, we would 
stimulate our economy.
  There are other things we can do, other than tax cuts as well. As to 
energy, at a time when we know that by opening our own energy reserves, 
drilling for our own oil and natural gas, we could stop the flow of 
American dollars overseas and create lots of jobs here, this very week 
this new administration delayed the planning of opening our own 
reserves by another 6 months. What are we waiting for, gas prices to go 
up to $3 or $4? Why delay something that could help the economy?
  If we only allowed States to take the money we are already spending 
for education and allow students to take that to any school of their 
choice, it would attract literally billions of dollars--probably 
hundreds of billions of dollars of private sector investment in 
education to create all kinds of new choices for students that might 
actually prepare them to compete in the global economy. But what we are 
doing is more Government spending with the old Government model, and it 
is not going to create new jobs.
  Even in health care, there is something in this bill that will help 
subsidize people's health care with COBRA when they lose their jobs. 
But we will not allow that same subsidy to apply if the same person 
wants to apply a less expensive policy of their own choosing that they 
can keep more than just a few months. We will support something that is 
Government, but we will not help people live free and make their own 
choices. Certainly, it is bittersweet.
  But the news is not all bad today. I think the American people have 
resigned themselves to the fact that they are going to lose this 
battle, but they have gotten more informed and more engaged and 
outraged. I think they have seen if they call, if they e-mail, if they 
stand and express their opinions, they have a chance to turn around 
this move by our Government toward a more socialistic style of economy 
and culture to one that is more like the freedom Americans have always 
known and loved.
  Freedom is not an ideology; it works. When we let people take 
advantage of opportunities and direct their own spending and start 
their own businesses, that creates jobs. We cannot do that 
artificially, by taking money from one person and giving it to another, 
which we are doing a trillion times in the bill we are talking about.
  I think Americans are watching what is going on today. They are going 
to wonder why we voted on a bill that is not even on our desk, that we 
have not read yet, that they have not been able to search--as the 
President promised during his campaign, that he would not sign any bill 
unless it had been on the Internet for at least 5 days so the American 
people could know what we are doing here. We promised in these Chambers 
that we would not bring a bill to the floor unless it was on the 
Internet for people to see before we voted on it. We are breaking all 
those promises with this bill today.
  The American people may have lost this one, but they have raised 
their voices and they have seen what is going on a little bit better 
than they have seen it before. I think they are going to win the final 
battle against this big Government approach to every problem that comes 
up, against this idea that every time there is a problem out across 
America, that we throw up our hands and say we have to do something, 
even if it is wrong, even if we had not read it, even if it is $1 
trillion; we have to do something so the people back home will think we 
are doing something. Wasting this kind of money and putting this kind 
of debt burden on the next generation is inexcusable and intolerable 
and the American people are starting to figure it out.
  They may lose this vote today, but the American people will win that 
final battle for freedom when they continue the fight they have started 
this week.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, it is good to see you in the 
chair. You are a great addition to the Senate, being a distinguished 
new Senator from Delaware. What a pleasure.
  Although we are in an emergency condition, I almost wish this vote 
this afternoon were taking place a week from now, after the Presidents 
Day recess, so Senators who have voiced opposition--and I take them at 
their word and I certainly respect their right to disagree, and I 
respect them. Almost all the Senators in this Chamber know how much 
this Senator enjoys them personally. But I almost wish this vote were 
being taken a week and a half from now, after the recess, after 
Senators have gone home to their States and looked into the eyes of 
their people and understood the pain and the anguish that is going on 
across America and how much people are depending on us, the Government, 
to stop the downward spiral of our economy; and to try to get it 
righted and going back up the other way.
  In the meantime, as that attempt is being made--and it is going to 
take some time. We hear every economist in the world say it is going to 
be at least a year, if not 2 or 3 years. In the meantime, our people 
are hurting. We hear, every day, these stories.
  This Senator is going to scores of townhall meetings all across 
Florida next week. I know what I am going to hear. It is what I have 
been hearing every weekend when I go home. It is these horror stories, 
these impossible economic stories of people who have worked hard and 
played by the rules and done everything right and they lose their job, 
they lose their home, they get upside-down in an economic condition and 
they do not have any hope. It is almost as if I wish this final passage 
vote were not coming so Senators who have expressed an opinion about 
voting against this legislation could listen to them. Fortunately, 
there will be a vast majority of at least 60 in this Chamber, with not 
all the Senators present today because I don't think the health of 
Senator Kennedy is going to allow him to return to the Chamber--so at 
least 60 of the Senators are going to be voting for it.
  But there will be a substantial number, at least 37 in this Senate, 
who will vote against it. If they could hear the stories, they would 
understand why there is $120 billion in this bill in investments in 
infrastructure and science; and $14 billion for health and $106 billion 
for education and training and energy--$30 billion in energy 
infrastructure; and helping with direct economic help to those hit 
hardest by the economy, of $24 billion; and helping law enforcement, 
$7.8 billion.
  My State is one of the States that has been the hardest hit. We are 
second only to California in the total number of foreclosures of homes. 
You wonder, why did the President go to Fort Myers earlier in the week? 
The Fort Myers area is the highest foreclosure rate area in the entire 
country, and for people who are getting laid off there, there is no 
economic opportunity for them to find another job. Out of this stimulus 
bill, just this bill, with the spending

[[Page S2281]]

and the tax cuts, some $10 billion is going to go to my State. It is 
going to be for roadbuilding, it is going to be for health care, it is 
going to be for classrooms and teachers, it is going to be for food 
stamps, it is going to be for unemployment compensation, it is going to 
be for Medicaid. Look at the human face. Our people are hurting and 
they need help.
  Of that amount that is going to Florida, $4.3 billion is going to 
help people who have lost their jobs to keep their health insurance. 
Can you imagine the trauma of a breadwinner who loses the job--and that 
is traumatic enough--not to be able to afford health insurance for his 
family, especially if there is a traumatic injury in that family? That 
amount of $4.3 billion going to Florida is going to provide health care 
for the poor. This is what I am talking about. This is compassionate 
assistance in an economic downward spiral that only the Government can 
provide.
  Specifically, in Florida, this bill is going to create or save 
206,000 jobs. Nationwide it is going to be somewhere between 3 million 
and 4 million jobs it is going to create or save. Over 1 million jobs 
have already been lost since the first of last year. But there are 
several million more that are going to be lost in this country if we do 
not do anything. So this stimulus bill is designed to create 3 million 
to 4 million jobs that will, in fact, take up that slack of what 
otherwise would have been lost and has been lost.
  This bill is going to provide $800 for a family. That is going to 
provide almost 7 million workers and their families, just in the State 
of Florida--7 million are going to be eligible for the making work pay 
tax cut of up to $800. Just in Florida, this bill is going to make 
195,000 families eligible for a new tax credit to make college 
affordable. That is almost 200,000 in Florida alone able to have the 
tax credit for college.
  For those out of work who are getting unemployment insurance 
benefits, there is going to be an additional $100 in my State, to 
761,000 people--761,000 workers in Florida who have lost their jobs in 
this recession are going to get a little bit more help in unemployment 
compensation.
  In addition, what this bill is going to do for my State of Florida 
is, it is going to give funding sufficient to modernize 485 schools so 
our children are going to have labs and classrooms and libraries that 
they need to get ready to compete globally in the 21st century.
  Then, in addition, this legislation is going to help transform our 
economy in our State, in Florida alone, by doubling the renewable 
energy generating capacity over the next 3 years. It is going to create 
enough renewable energy in Florida to power 6 million homes.
  We are going to be able to computerize every American's health record 
in 5 years, and look what that is going to save Floridians. We are 
going to be able to enact significant----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 
additional seconds. I will complete my thought.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. We are going to provide the most significant 
expansion in tax cuts for low- and moderate-income households ever. 
That is going to occur right in the State of Florida. We are going to 
increase the investment in roads and bridges and mass transit. We need 
all of this in Florida. This is stimulus. This is providing jobs. This 
is helping people in need. This is the right thing to do for Florida.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the bill we are considering now was made 
available to us at 11 p.m. last night, long after the Senate was out of 
session. This is it. Now, I daresay that I doubt any of my colleagues 
have read this bill. I have not, I confess. Yet we are going to be 
voting on it in about 3 hours. We have relied on our staff to tell us 
what is in this bill, and we found some very interesting things.
  There are changes from when the bill passed the Senate. My colleagues 
need to know what some of these changes are. I would note, by the way, 
that the middle-of-the-night, behind-closed-doors way this legislation 
was created is a far cry from what the President requested of us and 
promised on his Web site. He talks about ending the practice of writing 
legislation behind closed doors. He says: By making these practices 
public, the American people will be able to hold their leaders 
accountable for wasteful spending, and lawmakers won't be able to slip 
favors for lobbyists into bills at the last minute.
  Well, would that it were. So, unfortunately, it looks as though a lot 
of favors were inserted for a lot of folks. I don't know whether it was 
because lobbyists requested it, but there are sure a lot of things that 
relate to specific Members and specific States. And, as I said, many of 
these items were not even included in the Senate-passed bill. Let me 
mention a couple because they are matters that have been in the media a 
great deal.
  I think we have all heard discussed the fact that when Republicans 
raised the fact that ACORN could receive money from the neighborhood 
stabilization fund, this was a provision that the other side, the 
Democrats, said: Well, we will take that out. And, indeed, they removed 
the words ``neighborhood stabilization fund'' as a subheading. Then 
they just lumped that funding under the community development fund.
  Bottom line is, they took out three words. The money can still be 
spent, including for ACORN; same thing for the billion dollars for a 
new prevention and wellness fund. This was in earlier committee reports 
that indicated it could be spent for things such as STD testing and 
prevention and smoking cessation. There was a lot of commentary about 
that in the media, and folks made fun of it. So the assumption was that 
has come out. No, it turns out there is still very clearly flexibility 
to use the funds for these kinds of things.
  Let me mention two or three others: $50 million for the National 
Endowment of the Arts, $500 million for Social Security Administration 
disability backlog, $60 million for Student Aid Administration, $50 
million for the Compassion Capital Fund. There is $450 million for 
Amtrak security grants, which was not in either the House bill or the 
Senate bill. They simply put it in this legislation.
  All of these items were new from when the Senate passed the bill. 
There is also $53.6 billion for a fund labeled ``Fiscal Stabilization 
Fund.'' In looking to figure out what the Fiscal Stabilization Fund is, 
we find it is really nothing more than a discretionary slush fund for 
States to use.
  Now, the Senate has cut the fund from $79 billion. They cut that down 
to $39 billion. Some of our Members were proud that was accomplished. 
All of the Democrats voted for that. But it turns out in the 
conference--of course not the public conference; that was merely for 
show. But when the Members went behind closed doors, they tucked all of 
the money back in--added about $14 billion, I should say, back into the 
slush fund. But what is $14 billion when we are talking about $1 
trillion?
  There is an article today in the Washington Post that includes a 
story titled, ``Despite Pledges, the Package Has Some Pork.'' It 
begins:

       The compromise stimulus bill adopted by the House and 
     Senate negotiators this week is not free of spending that 
     benefits specific communities, industries or groups, despite 
     vows by President Obama that the legislation would be kept 
     clear of pet projects, according to lawmakers, legislative 
     aides and anti-tax groups.

  Included in the pork called out by the Washington Post is $8 billion, 
$8 billion for high-speed rail projects, for a MagLev rail line between 
Los Angeles and Las Vegas, and other things. I mean, I had mentioned 
this before, the money for Filipino veterans, I think a very worthy 
cause except they are from the Philippines, and it does not create jobs 
in America.
  There is money for the Nation's small shipyards. I wonder why the big 
shipyards were not adequately represented? And I mentioned before the 
$1 billion for a powerplant in Mattoon, IL. These are what we call 
earmarks. These are especially for a specific Member's congressional 
district or State. They may be good spending, some of them may even 
create jobs, but they violate what the President talked about when he 
talked about special projects put in these bills.
  The bottom line is, this legislation continues to spend money in a 
wasteful

[[Page S2282]]

way that our constituents strongly oppose.
  Now, the Coburn amendment was adopted to reflect our constituents' 
concerns. We voted for that amendment, 73 to 24. We are in favor of 
ending wasteful Washington spending, we said. Specifically, the 
amendment prohibited funds from being used for a casino or other 
gambling establishment, aquarium, zoo, golf course, swimming pool, 
stadium, community park, museum, theater, art center, and highway 
beautification project. And that is where we thought it ended. But not 
so. In this group of negotiators who met behind closed doors for at 
least a couple of nights, it turns out that a lot of these things have 
crept back into the bill.
  So now section 1604 of the conference report includes part of the 
funding limitation from the Coburn amendment but drops its applications 
to museums, stadiums, art centers, theaters, parks, or highway 
beautification projects. So a lot of the good that we thought we had 
accomplished, it turns out, does not carry at the end of the day.
  The end result of this is, the CBO scores the long-term consequences 
of the spending in this bill not to be $800 billion, as has been 
discussed, or even $1 trillion when you add in the interest. But, as 
you know, the Congressional Budget Office, nonpartisan, scores for 10 
years what is the cost the real cost, over a 10-year period.
  They say the cost will jump to $3.27 trillion. So when we are talking 
about the $800 billion stimulus bill, let's understand it is really a 
$3.27 trillion bill.
  Now, there are a couple of other interesting things about this. It is 
not temporary. There are 31 new programs totaling $97 billion, in fact, 
31 percent of all of the appropriations. It expands 73 programs by $92 
billion. These should be part of the regular appropriations process.

  It is interesting that while the Congressional Budget Office 
confirmed the bill might provide a short-term boost to the gross 
domestic product in the next few years, the added debt burden and 
crowding out of private investment will actually become a net drag on 
economic growth and wages by 2014. That means a lower standard of 
living for all of us.
  This is fascinating to me. The Congressional Budget Office forecasts 
that the time period where economic growth is boosted, 2009 and 2010, 
is the same timeframe when 98 percent of the tax cuts are disbursed. 
But between 2011 and 2019, when only 2 percent of the tax cuts are 
left, you have over half of the spending in the bill, and yet the bill 
actually reduces economic growth. Let me repeat that. This is from the 
Congressional Budget Office. Their forecast is that economic growth 
will be boosted in the years 2009 and 2010. I talked about it like a 
sugar high for kids. That is when 98 percent of the tax cuts are 
disbursed.
  We like to say tax cuts can do a lot of good here. Our Democratic 
friends say: All you want to do is talk about tax cuts. We think tax 
cuts would really help. So the period where 98 percent of the tax cuts 
are disbursed, but less than half of the spending is where you have the 
economic growth.
  Then in 2011 to 2019, when there is only 2 percent of the tax cuts 
and over half of the spending, you actually have reduced economic 
growth. That is why Republicans have been emphasizing tax cuts. It is 
interesting the actual incremental tax cuts represent only 20 percent 
of the overall size of the bill, and we do not know all of the exact 
totals in the bill. But an analysis of the earlier passed House version 
would result in 22 million families getting a check back from the IRS 
that is bigger than what they paid in both payroll and income taxes 
combined.
  So when we say, well, this goes to folks who do not pay income taxes, 
our friends on the other side said: Yes, but they pay payroll taxes. 
Yes. Combine the two. The check they get back, in 22 million cases, is 
still more than the combination combined.
  There are so many other concerns that we have expressed with this 
package. We talked about the fact that small businesses create 80 
percent of the jobs in the country. So you would think this bill would 
contain all kinds of things to help small businesses create more jobs.
  Well, we looked in vain. It turns out that about one-half of 1 
percent of this package is dedicated to helping small businesses 
produce jobs, one-half of one percent. In fact, only $7 billion total 
is provided for all business incentives combined, and one of the key 
features relating to net operating losses that passed the Senate was 
taken out of the conference report.
  There are other provisions that will expand the cost dearly. If you 
look closely in this package you will find a $17 billion tax, in 
effect, on Government spending because we included a requirement that 
the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rules must apply to most of the 
spending in the bill. That adds a cost of $17 billion because of the 
requirements of Davis-Bacon. There are provisions that expand welfare 
dependents. It reduces or eliminates current work requirements for 
welfare and will obviously or ultimately lead to less work and more 
poverty.
  There is even a provision relating to unemployment benefits that 
allow people to leave a job to care for a family member and then 
collect employment insurance compensation. Now, States, interestingly, 
have to amend their State laws in order to take advantage of this 
provision.
  We really missed an opportunity to create private sector jobs through 
trade. Yet that is the area where the----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his time.
  Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. The United States has actually only had a positive growth in 
our gross domestic product by virtue of our exports. This is another 
area, sadly, that has been missing from this legislation. At the end of 
the day, this is not the right way to spend $1 trillion, gambling on 
our future and certainly not providing that we will stimulate economic 
growth.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I believe I am scheduled for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no order, but the Senator is 
recognized.
  Mr. CARDIN. If the Chair would advise me when 5 minutes has been 
used, I would appreciate it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so note.
  Mr. CARDIN. It is interesting my friend from Arizona mentioned small 
business, because this morning on my way into the Capitol--I go home 
every night to Baltimore--I had a meeting with small business leaders 
in Prince George's County. We noticed this a couple days ago. The room 
was overflowing. These small business owners want us to take action to 
help them. Minority businesses, women-owned businesses, veterans' 
businesses--they want to see bold action because they are hurting. 
Their businesses are hurting. They are having a difficult time getting 
credit. They are using their credit cards for credit because they can't 
get SBA loans and credit from banks.
  In this legislation, there is help for small business procurement 
from the Federal Government. There are provisions in this legislation 
that will make it easier for them to get 7(a) loans and 504 loans by 
eliminating the cost so it would be less expensive for small 
businesses.
  The bottom line is that the American people are looking for us to 
take bold action, to give our new President the tools he needs to get 
our economy back on track.
  In Maryland we have lost jobs, as has the rest of the country. 
Nationwide we have lost over 600,000 jobs last month, over a million 
jobs in the last 2 months. Foreclosures are at record numbers. 
Businesses are closing their doors. Consumer confidence is at an all-
time low. We need to take action.
  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will create jobs. In my 
State, it is estimated to be 66,000. It will provide tax relief for 2.2 
million Marylanders of $800. It will provide for the American 
opportunity tax credit for 253,000 Marylanders which will help them pay 
for college education. It will increase unemployment insurance for 
242,000 Marylanders who are on unemployment by $100 a month. It will 
help modernize 138 schools in my State.
  Nationwide we will double the renewable energy capacity of America. 
We will computerize medical records which will make it safer for 
patients and less expensive. We will build roads and

[[Page S2283]]

bridges, the most expansive public infrastructure efforts literally 
since President Eisenhower.
  I am pleased that the final bill includes the Mikulski amendment that 
will help auto sales by allowing taxpayers to deduct the cost of the 
sales tax. I am appreciative that the committee included an amendment I 
offered with Senator Ensign to expand the homeowners credit for first-
time home buyers, introduced last year to make it a true credit of 
$7,500 and to extend that through November of this year. That will help 
home sales. It was the housing market that triggered the current 
recession. That is an important issue. It will restore consumer 
confidence in home buyers. I am pleased to see that was included.
  I am pleased to see the amendment I offered for small business, for 
surety bonds to make it easier for small businesses to get surety 
bonds, increasing the limit from 2 million to 5 million for 
construction companies to get help from SBA to get the surety bonds so 
they can get part of this procurement.
  This underlying bill provides for significant opportunities to create 
jobs now in which small businesses will participate and be the driving 
engine for creation of new jobs in our country. That is how it should 
be. We need to take action in order to expand job opportunity now and 
make the type of investments so America can compete in the future. 
There is accountability. There is transparency in this legislation.
  I have confidence that we will pull out of this recession. America 
will continue its economic strength. But let us give the tools to 
President Obama that he needs so we can answer that person who talked 
to me this morning, the small business owner who has to use personal 
credit cards in order to get a loan to keep the business open, because 
he can't get a loan from the bank even though he is creditworthy. We 
need to provide the type of economic stimulus to our economy to create 
the type of jobs now to fill the void to make sure America can compete 
in the future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, if the Chair could let me know when I 
have about a minute remaining, I would appreciate it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so notify the Senator.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, our economy needs a stimulus; there is no 
question about it. Senator Cardin certainly illustrated that in his 
remarks. Americans are worried, very worried about job security and how 
they will support their families and stay in their homes if they lose 
their jobs. The Senator mentioned businesses in Maryland. I know 
businesses in Kansas are the same way. All over the country, our 
Nation's businesses are struggling. Not a day seems to pass without 
another major U.S. employer announcing stunning layoffs. However, this 
conference report--this didn't get here until 12 last night. You talk 
about transparency. I defy any Senator to say he has been through every 
page of this in terms of transparency.
  This conference report is a missed opportunity. We had an opportunity 
to provide pro-growth policies that put money directly into the pockets 
of families and businesses. When they have more money in their pocket, 
they can spend it as they see fit rather than handing the money over to 
the Government to redistribute elsewhere. Instead the conference report 
further reduces the tax relief that will go to workers from $500 to 
$400 per individual, from $1,000 to $800 per couple. Estimates are that 
this tax relief will add about $13 more per week in the worker's 
paycheck this year. Next year it will add only about $8 a week. How 
will $8 a week stimulate the economy? It won't even buy a family of 
four dinner at McDonald's off the dollar menu. They will probably have 
to split the hamburger.
  We also had an opportunity to fix housing first--that is the Gordian 
knot of what faces us in terms of an economic stimulus--to address the 
core problem in our economy. Unfortunately, our colleagues across the 
aisle rejected meaningful housing relief during Senate debate. Now the 
conference report dramatically cuts the tax relief to encourage 
qualified home buyers to purchase a home, one of the very few things in 
the stimulus that would have done us some good.
  Most Americans are clearly opposed to the spending in this bill. A 
bill negotiated in a back-room deal without the transparency we were 
promised by the new administration. A bill that increases spending at 
the expense of putting money directly in the pockets of families and 
businesses.
  This bill remains a honey pot for too many special interests. It 
reinforces a growing and dangerous mindset that the Government--not 
private enterprise, personal responsibility and hard work--is the 
creator of wealth and prosperity. It reinforces for individuals, 
businesses, and State and local governments that the Federal Government 
is the source for funding for--the honey pot--for whatever they need.
  I have here the ``Berenstein Bears,'' a little book I read to first, 
second, and third graders. It should have been required reading prior 
to the stimulus. ``The Trouble With Money, With the Berenstein Bears.'' 
Open the book and it reads: When little bears spend every nickel and 
penny, the trouble with money is they never have any. And then after 
learning their lesson, the cub asked Momma bear: What about the money 
we earned?
  You earned it and it is yours, said Momma.
  No more, not with this conference report. It borrows money for 
programs that, in many cases, should be funded by local or State 
investments and that won't create jobs now, such as $300 million for 
new cars for Federal employees. The problem with $300 million for new 
cars is that somebody is going to drive them. Rather than focusing on 
practical and comprehensive approaches to fixing housing first, this 
bill diverts Federal funds to controversial and politically skewed 
groups that will do nothing to address interest rates, availability of 
credit, or declining home values that are at the root of the housing 
and mortgage crisis.
  Two infrastructure provisions have miraculously grown during this 
conference. First, the Senate bill provided the highest level of 
funding for Amtrak at $850 million. The House had $800 million. The 
conference report includes $1.3 billion for the rail company. Does this 
mean Amtrak will stop in Dodge City, KS at some time other than 4 a.m. 
which they do today?

  Second, the high speed rail earmark that is not an earmark, that 
received $2 billion in the Senate bill and zero in the House, has 
somehow grown by 400 percent overnight. I know some of my colleagues 
will come up and say this is not an earmark to the tune of $8 billion 
in taxpayer money. But press reports have already questioned this 
definition since it appears the rail link between Los Angeles and Las 
Vegas will be the major beneficiary. I guess they hit the jackpot.
  I want to be clear as well that the health care provisions in this 
bill are not stimulative. Instead they represent major policy changes 
that should have gone through the regular order.
  The most egregious example of this stealth maneuvering is $1.1 
billion for the establishment of a new Federal board to conduct 
comparative effectiveness research. The majority is aiming, bluntly 
put, for research that justifies restricting access for Medicare 
patients to medical treatments that the Government deems to be not cost 
effective. That is an extremely dangerous path to be on. One need look 
no further than Canada and the United Kingdom for examples of 
comparative effectiveness research being used to deny access for 
treatments for breast cancer, Alzheimer's disease, rheumatoid 
arthritis, and much more.
  I also want to highlight the inequitable increases to Federal 
Medicaid funding for States. I have heard arguments from my friends 
from States that reap large windfalls under the regular Medicaid 
formula as well as under the special bonus formula in this bill. But 
you cannot tell me with a straight face that the State of New York 
deserves $12.2 billion more than the State of Kansas.
  Under this bill, the State of Kansas is estimated to receive an 
additional $450 million, while the State of New York will receive an 
additional $12.65 billion. That is nearly 28 times more than what my 
State will receive. When CBO estimates that total enrollment-driven 
State Medicaid increases are only expected to be $10.8 billion, well 
anything

[[Page S2284]]

more than that is an earmark in my book.
  So I want everyone to understand the State of New York is getting an 
earmark that is 28 times what the State of Kansas is getting, 23 times 
what the State of Iowa is getting, and 41 times what the State of 
Nebraska is getting. That is not fair.
  Americans do not want us to place greater debt on future generations 
by supporting a bill that doesn't provide the right incentives to 
stimulate the economy and create private sector jobs. The American 
public does not want the Government determining what is and what is not 
a beneficial health care treatment.
  This is not our finest hour as a Congress. We had a real opportunity 
to stimulate our economy, create jobs, and put money back in families' 
wallets through common sense tax relief.
  There is an old story that says you can't kill a frog by dropping him 
in boiling water. He reacts so quickly to the sudden heat that he jumps 
out before he is hurt. But if you put him in cold water and warm it up 
gradually, he never decides to jump until it is too late. He is cooked. 
Men are just as foolish.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chair.
  If you take away their freedom overnight, you have a violent 
revolution on your hands. But steal it from them gradually under the 
guise of security or stimulus or recovery, and you can paralyze an 
entire generation. I think we failed on that front. We are not 
stimulating the economy. We are creating a nanny state based upon a new 
form of American socialism. The lure of that is especially dangerous, 
as many people I would have never suspected will be coming to 
Washington, coming to the honey pot, not doing things for themselves at 
home but coming to Washington expecting some kind of a stimulus or 
money or grant. That is not right. It tears at the fabric of what 
America is all about.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I do not have much time, so I cannot take the liberty 
I would normally take to build on the metaphor offered by my dear 
friend from Kansas about this frog in the hot water. But I will say 
briefly that I see this legislation, this conference report, as 
essentially being a prod to the American economy, which is kind of like 
a lethargic frog right now, not moving very far, and when this bill 
passes and is signed by President Obama, that American frog is going to 
go jumping positively all over the landscape.
  Now, having gotten that out of my system, may I say that you have to 
judge this bill not just on its face or as a matter of theory but in 
reality, in the context of the world we live in now. The fact is, 
without belaboring it, because we are living it, we are going through 
in this country the most severe economic emergency since the depression 
of the 1930s, and it is happening in a way that is unprecedented. It is 
not like the 1930s. So we are working very hard to figure out a way to 
get us out of it.
  What is the reality? Hundreds of thousands of jobs lost every month, 
people laid off, hundreds of people every month; the market going down; 
the value of people's homes dropping more than $4 trillion in the last 
year; the stock market dropping somewhere around $8 trillion; 
confidence sapped in our economy; no credit from the banks.
  So this is not a perfect piece of legislation. I do not believe I 
have ever seen one in my 20 years in the Senate. But this is a very 
strong piece of legislation. I will say, bottom line, I am confident 
that passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which is 
before us from the conference committee, will be the turnaround of the 
American economy. It will stop the slide of our economy. It will 
protect and create millions of jobs. It is that strong and that urgent.
  I said from the beginning that I thought this so-called stimulus 
package should be as big and clean and quick as possible. Big because 
the problem is so big that the economists I have talked to--left, 
right, center--say: Don't do what Japan did when it, through a similar 
crisis, kind of gave a little, it did not work, and gave a little more. 
Give it a big investment. I think this bill does that.
  Clean. Yes, there was some stuff in it at the beginning that, in my 
opinion, was not as directly related to job creation or economic 
recovery as it could have been, should have been. That is why I worked 
with the bipartisan group of centrists, and I think we ended up cutting 
out $110 billion, a lot of programs. The bill is as clean as possible, 
as it could be.
  Quick. That is most important. You cannot legislate in the middle of 
an emergency in a way that is as lethargic as that frog I described in 
the beginning. The American people need help. This bill will provide 
them help.
  I want to make two quick points. There is a lot of spending in this 
bill, and some people are rightfully worried about whether we can spend 
this much money this quickly and do it without waste or fraud. I want 
to say on behalf of Senator Collins, who is the ranking member of the 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and myself, we 
have responsibility for the oversight of Government spending generally. 
We take that seriously. We intend to oversee aggressively the carrying 
out of this economic stimulus package. We are going to begin with a 
hearing in our committee on March 5 to examine how the Federal 
Government will account for the billions of dollars that will be spent 
over the next 2 years, with a focus on ensuring that measures are taken 
to prevent cost overruns, that strict oversight of contractor 
performance is in place, that grant conditions are met, and that fraud 
is promptly prosecuted.
  Speed in distributing money, as I said, is critically important, but 
we cannot repeat the kinds of mistakes that occurred in support of 
Iraqi reconstruction projects or in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina 
where money rushed out the door with little accountability and too many 
billions of taxpayer dollars were wasted.
  This bill, on its face, gets off to a good start in that direction. 
It includes $200 million in additional funding for our inspectors 
general to hire experienced auditors and investigators to police the 
spending under this program. It creates a Recovery Accountability and 
Transparency Board, headed by a Presidential appointee and composed of 
at least 10 inspectors general from the departments and agencies that 
have jurisdiction over the recovery package.
  The bill adds protections for whistleblowers who work for State or 
local governments or private contractors, who generally have no 
protection against retaliation, if they disclose waste or fraud in the 
spending of these stimulus funds. A special Web site called 
recovery.gov will provide transparency by posting information about 
spending, including grants, contracts, and all oversight activities, so 
that any American will be able to report on waste, fraud, or abuse when 
they see it. But our committee is going to police this, working with 
this board, and stick with it to do our best to make sure every 
taxpayer dollar is spent efficiently.
  Final point: I cosponsored, with Senator Isakson, a proposal to 
create a home buyer tax credit of $15,000 to help stimulate the home-
buying sector of our economy, raise home values, along with the $50 
billion the Secretary of the Treasury has to use to prevent 
foreclosures and modify delinquent mortgages. Unfortunately, the 
conference committee determined that our proposal was too expensive to 
fund. It ended up coming in at over $35 billion. But there was a good 
compromise to create an $8,000 first-time home buyer tax credit, with 
no recapture--in other words, you do not have to pay it back--and it 
can be used until the end of this year, December 1, 2009. As I said, it 
is raised to $8,000. This is no small incentive. In fact, the estimates 
are that this credit will cost us $6.6 billion. But what that means is, 
I think hundreds of thousands of people who want to buy a home will get 
this special incentive--an $8,000 tax credit--to buy that home. That 
will raise the values of homes generally and get this economy of ours 
moving again.
  Bottom line, we are in an emergency. This bill is as big and 
unprecedented as the emergency. As I said before, I believe we will 
look back at the passage of this bill and say: This is where the

[[Page S2285]]

American economy began to turn around and work its way out of the great 
recession of 2008 and 2009.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The Senator from Texas is 
recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, the administration and many of my colleagues have 
argued that we cannot rely upon the same strategies that got us into 
this mess to get us out of it, and I wholeheartedly agree. I am voting 
against this stimulus bill because I believe it replicates a failed 
strategy.
  Some of my colleagues have claimed that a ``nay'' vote on the bill 
means we are for doing nothing. I want to correct that misimpression. 
That is just not true. We all understand the economy is in crisis. This 
week, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas said that my 
State--which had been doing well relative to the rest of the country in 
job growth and from an economic standpoint--is now officially in 
recession, which confirmed what small businesses have been telling me 
for weeks. None of us disputes we are in a crisis. Some of us disagree 
about what we ought to do in order to get out of this crisis.
  I believe a stimulus bill would have been a good idea if it had been 
focused on the right priorities. That, I believe, was President Obama's 
original vision. The administration said it wanted a bill that was 
timely, targeted, and temporary when it came to the spending that is 
contained in it. I daresay that if this bill had reflected President 
Obama's priorities, it might well then have received the 80 votes he 
said he wished it could receive, if it had truly been the product of 
bipartisan collaboration and cooperation. But it was not.
  The fact is, we never saw the bill the President said he wanted. We 
saw instead that Speaker Pelosi and Democrats in the House essentially 
wrote the bill themselves and really redefined the word ``stimulus'' to 
mean nearly anything they wanted in a bill which they knew they could 
pass because they knew this was an emergency, there was not adequate 
time to scrutinize the spending and projects, so they knew this was a 
moving vehicle, and they took every opportunity to load it up with a 
lot that is certainly not targeted, timely, or temporary and thus 
breached with the vision President Obama had said he envisioned for the 
bill.
  That is the reason why this bill will receive very little support on 
this side of the aisle. In fact, out of 535 Members of Congress, I 
would be surprised if there are more than 3 on this side of the aisle 
who will support this bill because it was essentially written by the 
leadership in the House and the leadership in the Senate and without 
Republican contributions. Indeed, every amendment that was offered, 
with only rare exception, was rejected upon party-line votes--both in 
the Finance Committee, on which I serve, and here on the floor. That is 
not bipartisan. If, in fact, this bill had been produced by a 
bipartisan process, I have every conviction it could well receive an 
overwhelming vote on both sides of the aisle in this body. But this was 
a failed opportunity, I believe.
  Many of the programs in this bill are, in fact, wasteful and 
unnecessary. These are earmarks in all but name only: golf carts, art 
projects, company cars, and new buildings for Federal employees. And 
these are only some of the spending plans that we know are contained in 
this 1,100-page bill which, as the Senator from Kansas pointed out, we 
did not get a copy of until roughly midnight last night--without enough 
time for Senators to actually read every line, to discuss it and 
deliberate on it and to make sure we understand what is in it and that 
we are not simply wasting taxpayer money. The fact is, we will not have 
even had 24 hours to look at the conference report before being 
required to vote on it later today, a report negotiated in secret, 
behind closed doors, and which seemed to be briefed to reporters and 
leaked to the press before many Members of Congress actually got a 
chance to look at it, but we are told: Don't worry. Trust us.
  The people in my State of Texas were promised many benefits under 
this bill, at least $10 billion of direct spending and aid to our 
State, according to the Democratic policy committee--$10 billion. Well, 
that is one reason some of my constituents are saying: Senator Cornyn, 
we want some of that even if we understand your point that in order to 
get it, my State's share of the cost of this bill will roughly include 
$90 billion, including interest. Mr. President, $10 billion for $90 
billion in debt? That does not strike me as a great bargain. Now, I am 
not an accountant, and I am not sure the Democratic policy committee's 
numbers are accurate. I just cannot vouch for them. But accumulating 
$90 billion in debt to receive about $10 billion in benefits does not 
strike me as a good deal. And I suspect the deal is not much better for 
any of our other States.
  The math does not work on a national scale either. Even if this bill 
does ``create or preserve'' up to 4 million jobs, that means we are 
paying about $300,000 per job--$300,000--which is more than five times 
the median household income in the country.
  Now, if we are going to do this, why don't we just give the money 
directly to the people through lower taxes, letting them keep more of 
what they earn? They would create and preserve far more jobs than the 
Government is going to be able to do and we would not be in the process 
of picking political winners and losers in the process.
  But now the tax relief in this bill is even weaker tea than it was 
before, averaging only about $8 a week, according to some accounts--
hardly stimulative. The simple truth is, Government is inefficient at 
creating jobs, and this morning the Wall Street Journal explained some 
of the reasons why.
  Many Federal agencies, such as the Department of Energy, simply do 
not have the capacity to spend all of this money as quickly as Congress 
is appropriating it through this bill. I expect the same is true for 
many State and local governments. But the fact is, we in Congress have 
simply not taken the time to find out. Instead, we are determined to 
turn up the water pressure across all levels of government without 
thinking about which pipes will burst and whether they can handle the 
load.
  Nobody knows what will happen once this bill is actually implemented. 
I appreciate the distinguished Senator from Connecticut saying he and 
the ranking member on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
Committee are going to do extensive oversight. But I would suggest, the 
time to do our due diligence is before passing the legislation, before 
spending the money, not after it is already spent, when Government does 
not have the capacity to deal with it.
  And then there is this: The Congressional Budget Office estimates 
that this so-called stimulus bill will actually reduce growth of gross 
domestic product over the next 10 years. Because as the CBO says, it 
will actually--because of such enormous direct Government spending, it 
will crowd out private investment in the economy and actually hurt the 
economy, rather than help it as its proponents have promised. That 
means many millions of our children will have fewer opportunities as 
they enter the workforce, even as they inherit more and more public 
debt than any generation in history.

  The tragedy of this $1 trillion bill is it ignores hard-learned 
lessons. We cannot spend our way to prosperity. During the Bush 
administration over the last 8 years, we spent a lot of money. We 
strengthened our homeland defenses, we delivered a prescription drug 
benefit under Medicare, and we increased Federal support for education. 
Yet all that additional spending--for the war on terror, for homeland 
defense, prescription drugs, and education--did not protect us from a 
recession.
  In last year's stimulus package, we sent out rebate checks. Remember 
that was about a year ago where we sent out cash to taxpayers 
ostensibly as a rebate which, in fact, represented a redistribution of 
money from people who did pay income taxes to people who don't. You 
know what. It had virtually zero effect in terms of stimulus. Now we 
are going to do it all over again, this time under the guise of 
refundable tax credits, again sending money to people who don't pay 
income taxes from people who do pay income taxes in a vast 
redistribution of wealth and replicating the failed example of the 
stimulus package we passed a year ago.
  Now, I understand these are unprecedented economic times. I 
understand

[[Page S2286]]

even the smartest people in the world have a hard time knowing what we 
should do, but shouldn't we at least prevent repeating mistakes we know 
don't work? I don't think it takes a rocket scientist or a master of 
the universe to know that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it is not as though my colleagues are just 
complaining about the bill on the floor. We offered a constructive 
alternative to fix housing first that got us into this mess and which, 
I believe, if we had listened to some constructive suggestions on this 
side, would help lead us out of it. We also know that letting people 
keep more of what they earn exerts a much greater multiplier effect in 
terms of the economy than does direct Government spending. Finally, the 
idea that we can spend money we don't have on things we can't afford 
simply defies logic.
  I am sorry this is a missed opportunity, both for bipartisanship and 
an opportunity to actually solve a real problem confronting the 
American people. I believe there are better ideas available, and those 
ideas remain available if we simply have the will to embrace them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am honored to be here to speak in 
favor of the economic recovery plan.
  Yesterday we celebrated Abraham Lincoln's 200th birthday. As I sat 
there and listened to the historians talk about Abraham Lincoln's life, 
there was one thing that stood out to me and that is the importance of 
timing. They talked about when he was there in those very dark days of 
the Civil War, that he had to make a decision. He had to make a 
decision about whether he was going to sign the Emancipation 
Proclamation, freeing the slaves. He thought about it for awhile. He 
knew if he did it at one time, it would be too early, and if he waited 
too long, it would be bad. Finally, he signed it. The Historian said 
yesterday it is very possible that if he had done it 6 months earlier, 
we would have lost a number of States that wouldn't have been with us; 
and if he had done it 6 months later, we would have lost the momentum 
that propelled us forward to win the Civil War. It reminded me again 
that timing is everything and that timing matters.
  This is a time to take action with our economic crisis. This is the 
time. With each passing day, we get more bad news: another round of 
layoffs, dropping consumer confidence, increasing debt. Last month, we 
learned the United States had lost 598,000 jobs in just 1 month--the 
month of January. As the President pointed out, that is basically 
equivalent to the total number of jobs in the State of Maine. That 
happened in 1 month in the United States of America.
  In my home State of Minnesota, the unemployment rate rose to 6.9 
percent last month. That is the highest it has been in 20 years. The 
national unemployment rate is now at 7.6 percent. It is across the 
board. Great companies in my State such as Target and Best Buy and 
Ameriprise are trying everything to do the right thing, but they still 
are having to lay off employees.
  Behind all these numbers and statistics are real families. They are 
not just a number, such as 598,000; they are real families, people whom 
I have spoken to across our State; moms and dads who put their kids to 
sleep and then sit at the kitchen table with their heads in their hands 
thinking: How are we going to make it? A woman wrote me saying she got 
a little inheritance from her father. She was going to use it for her 
daughter's wedding and now she had to spend it on her own retirement 
because it got blown in the stock market.
  As we prepare to vote on this bill, it is important to remember how 
we got there. Our economic crisis is a result of bad decisions on Wall 
Street, a result of greed, as well as the result of a failed economic 
policy for 8 years. There is a diner that used to be down the street 
from me in Minnesota. It was a motorcycle diner called Betty's Bikes 
and Buns. There would always be a bunch of motorcycles parked in front. 
There was a sign in the window that said: ``Betty's Bikes and Buns: 
Where lies become legends.''
  Look at the past 8 years. We were told by the past administration 
they would create jobs. Just last month--the last month of the past 
administration--we lost 8,000 jobs. They told us they would restore 
fiscal responsibility. Well, we went from the largest budget surplus 
left by the Clinton administration to a record-high budget deficit left 
by the Bush administration. They told us they would reduce that 
deficit. They didn't do it. ``Where lies become legends.''
  The people of this country in this last election said they had enough 
of lies, they had enough of legends, and they wanted to see change. 
They wanted to put a President in who was going to tell them the truth 
and not sugarcoat it, not make a bunch of promises and not keep them. 
If we are going to get out of this crisis, we are not going to be able 
to rely on the ideas that got us here, as some on the other side have 
argued. We need a new direction and that is what this bill offers. It 
is not a perfect bill, but it is the first step to jolting this economy 
back in the right direction.
  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will jump-start our 
economy in the near term by creating jobs, but it is also going to give 
the people of this country something to show for their money. The 
legislation provides economic assistance aimed directly at Main Street. 
It provides economic relief to working families, small businesses, and 
seniors. It gives critical support to States and communities so they 
can ensure a safety net for families hurt by the economic downturn, and 
it will save or create 3.5 million jobs.
  In my State of Minnesota, the projections are that this bill will 
create 66,000 jobs. A recent analysis concluded that the economic 
recovery bill could create as many as 91,000 jobs in Minnesota by 2010. 
Additionally, it will provide a tax cut to 95 percent of working 
families and offer additional unemployment benefits to so many of the 
people in our State who have lost their jobs.
  This legislation will put Americans back to work building bridges, 
building roads, building schools. That is what this legislation is 
about. The legislation invests $116 billion in infrastructure, in 
science, roads, bridges, highways, and transit systems. The Federal 
Highway Administration estimates that for every $1 billion of highway 
spending, it creates nearly 35,000 jobs. We know a little bit about the 
need to invest in infrastructure in my State. We had a bridge that fell 
down right in the middle of the Mississippi River, 6 blocks from my 
house. As I said that day, a bridge shouldn't fall down in the middle 
of America. Not a six-lane highway, not a bridge 6 blocks from my 
house, not a bridge that my daughter travels as she rides with me and 
my husband every day when we go to work or go visit our friends. It 
shouldn't have happened.
  The Federal Highway Administration estimates that more than 25 
percent of the Nation's 600,000 bridges are either structurally 
deficient or functionally obsolete. That is the good thing about this 
bill. It gives us immediate short-term jobs, as well as giving us 
something to show for it, so that years later, when this economy is 
running again, we will have the bridges that will take the goods to 
market, the good highways, and the good rail.
  This plan will also create jobs by investing $43 billion in homegrown 
renewable energy, creating new energy jobs across the country. As I 
have traveled across my State, I have seen the possibilities. I have 
seen the little solar panel factories. I have seen the wind turbine 
farms. When we had the information technology revolution--the IT 
revolution--it created jobs. A lot of those jobs were for people who 
had graduate degrees and Ph.D.s and they had to be in certain parts of 
the country. That is what is great about this energy technology 
revolution--the ET revolution. We have had experts testify before our 
environmental committee, and they have told us the ET revolution will 
create not just those Ph.D. jobs and those graduate student jobs, they 
will create jobs for working people, building those wind turbines, 
working on those solar panels, putting in those lines for that 
electricity grid.

[[Page S2287]]

It is jobs across the demographic spectrum of this country. It is 
green-helmet jobs, not just Ph.D. jobs.

  Finally, I wish to highlight the $7 billion this plan contains for 
broadband for Internet and for telecommunications infrastructure. When 
President Roosevelt, back in 1935, looked at this country, he knew 
there was a problem. Only 12 percent of American farms had electricity. 
There we were in the middle of the Depression and only 12 percent of 
American farms had electricity. Now, what did he do? Did he put his 
head in the sand and say: Well, times are bad, we are not going to do 
anything? No. He said: Let's invest in some jobs, and let's invest in 
making things better for people so we can get this economy moving 
again. You know what. Fifteen years later because of rural 
electrification, we had about 75 percent of the farms with electricity. 
We went from 12 percent to 75 percent in 15 years. That is what 
Government action will do when it is done right.
  Focusing now on the present day, in so many counties in my State we 
have Internet service, but it is either too slow or too expensive. This 
country has gone from fourth in the industrialized world for Internet 
service subscribership to 15th in just 8 years. How are we going to 
compete with countries such as Japan and India if we are going 
downhill, if we are nosediving when it comes to Internet service? This 
bill puts over $7 billion in infrastructure for Internet. In these 
tough economic times, broadband Internet deployment creates jobs, not 
only direct creation of jobs in the technology sector but also the 
creation of even more indirect employment opportunities by increasing 
access to the Internet. I want these jobs to go to Thief River Falls, 
MN, or to Lanesboro, MN, instead of over to India and to Japan. I want 
them to be in our country.
  This recovery plan offers an economic one-two punch, including tax 
cuts that will promote more consumer and business spending by providing 
relief to middle-class families, small businesses, and seniors. Second, 
Federal spending that will create jobs and strengthen the economy with 
investments in transportation, renewable energy, and high-speed 
Internet.
  The American people are tired of the lies and legends of the last 8 
years.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 more 
seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, they want action. They want the truth. 
We literally can't afford to wait any longer to pass something.
  As President Obama recently said, the time for talk is over. The time 
for action is now. If we don't act, a bad situation will become 
dramatically worse. This is our time. This is our opportunity. Let's 
get this passed today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the moment of truth is almost here, the 
time when we will all have to cast our votes. I submit this is a sad 
day for our country, for the American taxpayer, and it is a sad day for 
future generations, who will be left paying for this trillion dollar 
spending bill.
  The American people are hurting and they are demanding action. 
Unfortunately, Congress has failed the American people and lost an 
incredible opportunity to empower small business owners, fix our 
housing crisis, and turn our economy around. So many things could have 
been done with this legislation that could have meaningfully led to job 
creation and economic stimulus.
  In the few short hours that the final bill has been available, it is 
clear that the Democratic leadership has turned a deaf ear to the 
American taxpayer.
  The final spending bill still includes spending on wasteful 
Government projects that have outraged taxpayers across the country. 
The final bill includes: tax benefits for golf carts, electric 
motorcycles, and ATVs; $300 million for Federal employee company cars; 
$1 billion for ACORN-eligible block grants; $50 million for arts 
endowment; $165 million for fish hatcheries; $1 billion for the census.
  Instead of mouse habitats, electric golf carts, and fish barriers, 
Congress should have focused on serious proposals to address the 
housing crisis and create jobs through small business tax relief.
  There were a number of opportunities. I view this as the question of 
what could have been. A number of amendments that were offered last 
week would have addressed this crisis with respect to housing and job 
creation and getting the economy back on a path to a recovery. Senators 
McCain and Martinez and other Republican Senators offered an 
alternative proposal that would have cut wasteful Government spending 
and focused on targeted investments and tax relief.
  This proposal was a well thought out and fiscally responsible 
proposal. It included a commonsense provision that would have cut off 
new spending after two consecutive quarters of economic growth greater 
than 2 percent of inflation-adjusted GDP.
  The alternative plan would have invested about $45 billion in 
transportation infrastructure, $17 billion in defense facilities and 
resetting our combat forces. This targeted spending would have 
rehabilitated our military facilities and equipment while creating jobs 
over the next 9 months--important tax relief that would have put money 
back into the hands of average middle-income families in this country 
and incentives for small businesses to create jobs, hire employees, and 
purchase equipment.
  What is unbelievable and, in my view, a major flaw in the Democratic 
stimulus bill is this simple fact: The bill we will be voting on spends 
$6 billion on Federal buildings and only $3 billion on small business 
tax relief. Small businesses create most of the jobs in our economy--
three-quarters to 80 percent of the jobs in this country. We ought to 
be figuring how can we get that economic engine going again so small 
businesses are making those investments. As I said before, this bill 
contains $6 billion for Federal buildings and only $3 billion for small 
business tax relief--a small, minuscule amount. One-third of 1 percent 
of the final stimulus bill is going to small business tax relief.
  In terms of the way the bill breaks down, 27 percent of the entire 
almost trillion dollar bill is in tax relief in some form, or tax 
provisions. Many would argue that it was meaningful tax relief. There 
are a lot of better ways to deliver tax relief. The rest is in the area 
of spending. Forty-seven percent of that spending doesn't occur in 2009 
or 2010. Only 11.3 percent will be spent in 2009, which means one 
thing--there is a lot of spending in the bill that cannot be 
characterized as stimulus. In other words, it is spending that will go 
on and on for years to come. What is remarkable about it--the late 
President Ronald Reagan once said that the closest thing to immortality 
on this planet is a Government program.
  There is a letter out from the CBO in response to a question posed by 
a House Member regarding some spending in the bill: What would happen 
to the 20 most popular Government programs that are funded in this bill 
if, in fact, at the end of the 2 years the funding doesn't terminate? 
In other words, a lot of this spending will go on and on over time. 
What CBO found was the total cost of the bill, if those programs are 
expended--bear in mind that these are popular items on which it will be 
difficult to turn off the spigot. If the spending continues past that 
2-year window, the cost of this explodes to $3.27 trillion. The 
interest alone is $744 billion. So it will be $3.27 trillion for much 
of the spending in this bill if it continues beyond the 2-year window.
  As I said, according to CBO, only 47 percent of the spending part of 
the bill gets spent in 2009 and 2010. There are so many better ways 
this could have been done. We offered amendments last week. I mentioned 
the McCain amendment. I offered an alternative focused on tax relief 
for middle-income families and small businesses, which, according to 
the methodology developed by the President's own economist, Christina 
Romer, would have created twice as many jobs at half the cost--6.2 
million jobs--and the cost of this amendment voted down last week was 
about $440 billion or, in rough terms, half of what we are looking at 
in the bill we are voting on today.
  The last amendment I offered last week, toward the end of the debate, 
would have taken the total amount. I don't agree that we ought to spend 
this

[[Page S2288]]

amount of money. I think it is stealing from future generations. If we 
are going to do it, the question is, should Washington spend it or 
should the American people? I took the total amount and divided it by 
every tax filer in the country--182 million people who file a tax 
return in this country--and we could have given a rebate of $5,403 to a 
single filer and to a couple filing jointly, $10,486--if we take the 
total amount of the bill and divide it among the taxpayers in this 
country. I would be willing to bet that the American people would much 
rather have that check than have money going to Washington, DC, to 
spend on these new programs, many of which will create obligations and 
liabilities for generations to come.
  I think we have missed a golden opportunity here. I think we have 
created a whole new realm of spending that will go on for some time 
into the future. It is not fair to our children and grandchildren. The 
Federal Government needs to learn to live within its means. I can tell 
you as somebody who comes from the prairies, when the prairie pioneers 
settled South Dakota and places such as that, they understood a basic 
principle or ethic, which was that they were going to have to sacrifice 
so their children and grandchildren and future generations could have a 
better life.
  What we have done with this bill is turn that very ethic entirely on 
its head. What we are asking future generations to do is sacrifice by 
handing them a trillion dollar debt so that we here and now can have a 
better life, and we cannot live up to the obligations we have to pay 
our bills on time.
  It is a sad day; it is unfortunate. This could have been much 
different. There could have been more input from our side. It is a bill 
heavy on spending, not only temporary but spending that will continue 
to go on for some time into the future and create obligations down the 
road. If this is correct and the CBO response in this letter is 
accurate, if these programs continue to be funded and don't terminate 
at the end of the 2-year period, there will be $3.27 trillion in 
liabilities that we are creating today by voting for this legislation. 
It is not fair to our children and grandchildren and to the future 
generations who will bear the cost of the fact that we cannot live 
within our means and cannot come up with a way to fund an economic 
recovery plan that creates jobs and helps stimulate the economy and 
gets this recovery underway in a fashion that is fiscally responsible.
  I regret that I will be voting no on this bill. I urge my colleagues 
in the Senate to do the same.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, this is the largest spending bill ever 
to be voted on. It will probably be passed by this body. It has been 
done in the most rushed fashion that we have ever done a spending bill. 
It is the least bipartisan ever. Not a single Republican in the House 
voted for this bill; nine Democrats voted against it.
  Unfortunately, in conference, the bad parts of the bill got bigger 
and the good parts got smaller. We are left with a spending bill of 
gigantic proportions and a stimulus package that is small, by any 
measure.
  I will point out a few historical numbers. We have had stimulus 
packages in the past, and we have needed them. We need one now. We have 
never, in the history of the Republic, had a stimulus package over the 
size of 1\1/2\ percent of GDP. That is the biggest we have ever done in 
the history of the Republic. This stimulus spending bill is 5.5 percent 
of the GDP of the entire country. It is huge--more than three times 
larger than any we have ever done.
  To give perspective, we did a stimulus package in 2008 in the amount 
of $152 billion. This is $800 billion. In 2001, it was $38 billion. 
That seems small by today's standards. This one is 5\1/2\ percent of 
GDP. If you look at the actual tax cuts, there are things in the tax 
cuts I think are good. There are other things in spending I think are 
good, but they should not be in a stimulus bill. They should go through 
the regular order in a spending package.
  We will have the omnibus spending bill after the break. That will be 
hundreds of billions of dollars, and people can measure that. But the 
tax cut piece of this bill that is probably going to be stimulative--
and I would support as being stimulative--is a total of $76 billion, 
which is 9.6 percent of the bill. Many of the tax cuts in the bill are 
actually spending through the Tax Code or an AMT fix that will not be 
stimulative, which most people regarded as that will be fixed and they 
are not going to alter economic activity based on that. You are left 
with $76 billion in tax cuts that would be stimulative. As I said, 
there are things in there I like. I congratulate the majority on some 
of those tax cuts that are in it--the issue on first-time home buyers. 
We have done that in Washington, DC. It was helpful in stimulating the 
housing market here. I think it will stimulate the market across the 
country. Wind energy is in here that will help our Plains States--the 
Senator from South Dakota, myself, and many others. This will help in 
wind energy, a key growth area for us. I am supportive of that. I think 
that is important. We got a piece in here about deductibility of State 
taxes on purchases of new automobiles in 2009. That will have a 
stimulative effect. I think it will be small. There is bonus 
depreciation for a big industry in my State, aircraft, that will have a 
stimulative effect. It will be positive. All of those I support and I 
applaud the majority side for that.
  The sum total of those altogether is less than 10 percent of the 
whole package. Instead, we are left with this gargantuan spending bill 
that is 5\1/2\ percent of the economy, which we cannot afford. It will 
not be stimulative. It will a be highly speculative Government bubble 
that we are creating.
  At the end of the day, the last and biggest number in this whole bill 
is a number of $12 trillion. That is in the bill and that is what we 
are growing, what we are setting the debt limit of the country at in 
this bill. We are raising it to $12 trillion. That is in the bill. The 
reason we are raising that debt limit to $12 trillion--you guessed it--
it is headed that way. We are getting closer with this bill.
  We have come to a very big speculative bubble on housing and consumer 
credit and a number of other things as well. This speculative bubble 
led to a lot of housing being built, cars being purchased, and all was 
fine. But then the bubble burst. Now we are trying to substitute that 
with a Government speculative bubble. We are going to spend all this 
Government money and in a speculative, highly leveraged nature, because 
100 percent of this is borrowed. That is somehow going to stimulate the 
economy. It is going to leave that big, massive hole in it.
  I am deeply concerned about what this is going to do both in the 
present and in the near-term future. I hope we can do better. There is 
a great possibility that we can do better. I think we should.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________