[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.
____________________