[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22720-22725]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           ECONOMIC STIMULUS

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on Tuesday, we began debate about the 
economic stimulus package. We know the economy is in trouble, and we 
know we have to act. Clearly, by any standard, we face an economic 
emergency that demands responsible action by Congress.
  The American people want action by Congress too. They strongly 
support our Democratic proposals to provide unemployment insurance and 
health insurance to laid-off workers, and Federal assistance to States. 
They know it's an emergency in the economy and they know it is an 
emergency for the hundreds of thousands of men and women without 
unemployment insurance or health insurance.
  Yet, some of our colleagues in Congress oppose this action. Instead, 
they support a bill that would retroactively repeal the corporate 
minimum tax and give the largest corporations $25 billion in direct 
payments from the U.S. Treasury. They don't think laid-off workers who 
can't afford, or don't have, health insurance are an emergency. 
Instead, they support spending $120 billion to accelerate the reduction 
of upper income tax rates, 80 percent of which won't go into the 
economy until after next year.
  Our economy is in trouble. There is no denying it. Just ask the men 
and women who have lost their jobs and have to tell their families 
every week that they cannot find new employment. They will tell you how 
hard it is to put food on their families' tables each week. They will 
tell you how hard it is to watch their bills piling up with no end in 
sight.
  If that's not enough, look at the numbers.
  Only 38 percent of unemployed workers receive unemployment insurance. 
This figure is down from 75 percent in 1975. And, the figure is much 
worse for low-wage workers. According to a new study by the National 
Campaign for Jobs and Income Support, only 20 percent of unemployed 
low-wage workers will qualify for benefits during a recession.
  These workers are least likely to qualify for unemployment benefits, 
and they are most likely to be laid off. They are struggling to keep a 
roof over their families' heads and to afford food for their children. 
We know that the number of hungry children has grown in recent years. 
Unless we do more to help, the number will continue to grow.
  Yesterday, America's Second Harvest released the largest, most 
comprehensive report on the plight of hungry Americans. Last year, 23 
million Americans, including 9 million children, sought emergency food 
relief through America's Second Harvest. The current downturn in the 
economy means that even more families are facing the difficult choice 
between feeding their children and paying the rent, a choice no person 
should have to make.
  These findings demonstrate the dramatic rise in hunger and related 
health problems among children. They demonstrate that current 
unemployment benefits are not adequate to help working families during 
the current economic downturn. We need to do more to see that families 
can afford to put food on their tables. Our Democratic plan provides 
unemployment benefits to 600,000 more low-wage and part-time workers 
and increase these benefits by at least $25 a week.
  The economy needs stimulus now. Workers need assistance now.
  The best way to accomplish both of these goals is to get relief to 
the families who need it the most. Economists across the country agree 
that providing relief to low- and moderate-income families is one of 
the most effective ways to stimulate the economy.
  The Democratic plan would stimulate the economy right away, by 
putting money in the hands of the people most likely to spend it--
dislocated workers and their families. We do that by strengthening the 
unemployment insurance system, improving workers' ability to afford 
health care, and providing a tax rebate for those who did not receive a 
full rebate earlier this year.
  Unemployment insurance is the Nation's first line of defense in an 
economic recession. By putting UI trust fund dollars into the declining 
economy, we automatically boost consumer spending in communities 
affected by rising unemployment, while meeting essential needs of 
households hurt by layoffs.
  A recent study by the Department of Labor shows that every $1 
invested in unemployment insurance generates $2.15 for the Nation's 
economy. That same study estimated that unemployment insurance 
``mitigated the real loss in GDP by 15 percent'' in the last five 
recessions.
  According to Joseph Stiglitz, ``we should extend the duration and 
magnitude of the benefits we provide to our unemployed. This is not 
only the fairest proposal, but also the most effective. People who 
become unemployed cut back on their expenditures. Giving them more 
money will directly increase expenditures.''
  The Congressional Research Service agrees: ``Extending unemployment 
compensation is, in fact, likely to be a more successful policy for 
stimulating aggregate demand than many other . . . changes.''
  The Republican plan will put very little money into the hands of 
unemployed workers. It offers no guarantees of extended benefits in 
most states. In fact, the States with the highest unemployment rates 
are the least likely to receive help under that plan. Even for those 
few workers who will be helped, the plan won't provide any benefits 
until next spring. America's working families must not be left behind 
when Congress acts on an economic recovery package.
  We must also help families afford health insurance. It is also the 
right thing to do for them, and it is the right thing to do for 
economy. Providing health insurance for laid-off workers improves the 
health of our economy. When a parent is forced to choose between health 
insurance and food on their table, it is unfair for their family, and 
it undermines the economy.
  On average, health insurance premiums for these families cost nearly 
two-thirds of their unemployment insurance. That is why only 18 percent 
of workers eligible for COBRA use this coverage. And millions of 
workers are not eligible for COBRA at all.
  This is no time to accept an increase in the uninsured. It is wrong 
for families and wrong for hospitals, nursing homes, health care 
workers and many others in the health care sector, which makes up one-
seventh of our economy.
  The Democratic economic recover plan provides temporary health 
insurance for workers who have been laid off in the slowing economy. 
Currently, workers must pay 65 percent of their unemployment check to 
purchase COBRA health insurance coverage. Our plan to subsidize COBRA 
coverage would make health care affordable for all displaced workers. 
States also could receive Federal Medicaid matching payments to cover 
other laid-off workers who do not qualify for COBRA.
  By protecting both workers eligible for COBRA coverage and increasing 
the Medicaid matching payments, the Senate Democratic plan provides 
meaningful health coverage for unemployed Americans while the 
Republican plan will leave families behind. For unemployed workers who 
are eligible for COBRA, the Senate Democratic plan provides health 
coverage for 12 months during the economic downturn. The Senate 
Republican plan provides enough for only 2 weeks of coverage. For 
unemployed Americans who are not eligible for COBRA, the Democratic 
plan again provides coverage for

[[Page 22721]]

1 year, while the Republican plan offers no assistance.
  The plan to provide unemployed workers with health insurance coverage 
will also be good for the economy by helping to stop a decline in the 
health care sector. If unemployed individuals who lack health insurance 
forgo health care, the health care sector will be hurt during the 
downturn. The health care system has been one of the most vibrant 
sectors of the economy in recent years. It has been responsible for 30 
percent of the real growth in gross domestic product and 45 percent of 
the net increase in jobs in the past year. A reduction in the purchase 
of health care services has an effect on the economy similar to that of 
other reductions in consumer spending, it dampens economic activity.
  Finally, a federal stimulus package will do no good if States have to 
make spending cuts or raise taxes. The current recession is already 
having an impact on state budgets. In fact, 35 States have reported 
budget shortfalls--a shortfall that already totals more than $15 
billion and will grow to $30 billion if unemployment continues to 
increase.
  This means that states across the country will have to make drastic 
cuts. In particular, they are cutting back on Medicaid. In fact, 20 
States are already planning to cut Medicaid. At the same time, the 
number of people on Medicaid is expected to grow by as much as 3 
million during this recession, about 2 million of them could be 
children.
  If States cut Medicaid just as more people need it, we are going to 
see an increase in the uninsured. Also, leading economists believe 
substantial cuts in state Medicaid budgets would have dramatic ripple 
effects on the national economy.
  Our plan provides financial assistance to States to help avoid 
devastating cuts in Medicaid, cuts that will hurt State economies and 
reduce health coverage. States would receive $5.5 billion through an 
increased Federal Medicaid matching rate, providing an immediate influx 
of cash into States suffering from the recession-driven budget crisis.
  The Senate Republican alternative is unacceptable. It fails to 
address aid to the States, health care or unemployment insurance in any 
meaningful way.
  The Democratic plan is a fair balance between tax incentives and 
spending incentives for the economy. The tax incentives in the plan 
meet the three essential criteria for a stimulus: They will put money 
into the economy now; they do not impose substantial new long-term 
costs on the federal budget; and they treat fairly those who are most 
in need.
  Seventy percent of Americans today pay more in payroll taxes than in 
income taxes. Yet many of them received no tax rebate earlier this 
year. The rebate unfairly ignored these low and moderate income 
families. A one-time rebate of payroll taxes to them now will 
immediately inject $15 billion into the economy, placing the dollars in 
the hands of people who are likely to spend them immediately. 
Economists tell us that families with modest incomes are likely to 
spend the extra money they receive right away on needed consumer goods. 
Those with higher incomes are more likely to save it.
  The Democratic bill also includes temporary, targeted tax cuts to 
stimulate immediate business activity. These changes provide more 
favorable treatment for new investments now, and they deserve to be 
supported.
  Because the tax cuts in the Democratic plan are truly designed to be 
an immediate economic stimulus, they do not incur any substantial cost 
beyond 2003. This point is vital to our economic recovery. Enacting new 
permanent tax cuts which can trigger large long-term Federal deficits 
would be counter-productive. Permanent new tax cuts, on top of the 
nearly $2 trillion in tax cuts enacted earlier this year, would 
actually hurt the economy now, by raising the cost of long-term 
borrowing and discouraging the kinds of investment we need most today.
  The House of Representatives passed, by the narrowest of margins, a 
so-called stimulus package that will not stimulate economic growth in 
the short term, and will not be affordable in the long term. It merely 
repackages old, unfair, permanent tax breaks, which were rejected by 
Congress last spring, under the new label of ``economic stimulus.'' The 
American people deserve better.
  The long-term cost of the House plan is too high, and less than half 
of the dollars would reach the economy next year. The House plan offers 
$46 billion in tax breaks to big businesses by permanently repealing 
the corporate alternative minimum tax and by giving permanent new tax 
cuts for multinational corporations. These provisions are an 
unacceptable giveaway of public resources.
  The alternative suggested by our Republican colleagues in the Senate 
is also flawed. Their proposal to accelerate the reduction of upper 
income tax rates would cost $120 billion over the next decade. Only a 
small percentage of these dollars, less than one dollar in four, would 
go into the economy in 2002. And these dollars would go to those least 
likely to spend them. The result would be little immediate stimulus, 
large long-term costs, and a grossly unfair distribution to the 
wealthiest individuals in our society.
  In fact, the House Republican proposal gives $115 billion in 
permanent new tax breaks to wealthy individuals and corporations, while 
the Senate plan would give them $142 billion in new tax breaks. Yet 
each of the Republican tax plans provide only $14 billion for low and 
moderate income families. Under the GOP plan, the tax cuts for 
corporations and wealthy individuals are permanent, while the cuts for 
working families are limited to just one year. The result is unfair, 
and it won't provide the economic stimulus that the nation urgently 
needs now.
  Perhaps never before in history has our nation faced such grave 
challenges. The tragedy of September 11 has touched us all. Together, 
we witnessed a horror we could not have imagined, and bravery which 
inspires us all. The tragedy may have shaken our basic assumptions 
about the world in which we live. But, Americans have not retreated in 
fear. Instead, they have risen to meet these new challenges. The spirit 
of September 11 has compelled vast numbers of our fellow citizens to 
ask what they can do for their communities and our country.
  It is time for Congress to do its part to respond to the emergency we 
face. We must respond to the economic crisis the Nation faces. As we do 
so, we must show our dedication to America's best ideals. As we fight 
for a safer society, we can also create a more just society at the same 
time. September 11 has taught all Americans that we need to help each 
other as never before.
  We will not ignore the plight of millions of Americans hurt by this 
tragedy and by economic forces beyond their control. As we work 
together to get our economy moving again, we can also work together to 
see that none are left behind.
  We have a unique opportunity to give help and hope to every American 
as we enact a stimulus plan that puts America back to work.
  The American people are meeting this challenge, and we must 
demonstrate to them that Congress is capable of meeting it too. The 
test we face now is to pass a stimulus package that truly lifts the 
economy, and lifts it fairly and responsibly. We do have an emergency, 
and we must address it. The American people are watching this debate 
closely, and they are waiting for our answer.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, President Bush has asked us to send him an 
effective, anti-recession stimulus package. In the spirit of 
bipartisanship and good faith, he proposed a series of provisions that 
enjoyed both Republican and Democratic support. After much foot-
dragging, the Democratic majority has finally produced a bill. 
Unfortunately, it appears to be nothing more than a collage of special 
interest wish lists, from livestock assistance to new entitlements--
with very little if anything that will actually stimulate the economy.
  It is fat on claims but thin on data. It struts around in the light 
of day as a bipartisan package, but makes deals in the dark of night to 
secure votes.

[[Page 22722]]

The bill before us is an embarrassment to the Senate; it is no good for 
our country, and it is certainly no good for our economy. There may be 
many good political reasons for Congress to pass an economic stimulus 
package, but when pet projects trump fiscal prudence, we miss a 
historic opportunity to help the American people during a time of great 
need. We must improve the incentives to work, save, and invest--the 
real catalysts of economic growth--and the Democratic bill fails on all 
three counts.
  Instead, Democrats insist that increased Government spending serves 
as the primary tool for boosting economic activity. But look what they 
are spending money on--sugar beet disaster programs, rural 
telecommunications infrastructure, and water-treatment and waste 
disposal facilities. It is no mystery to leading economists, although 
my colleagues across the aisle will tell you otherwise, that the better 
approach is to lower tax rates and the tax burden on labor and capital 
to improve incentives for workers and business owners. This produces 
more jobs and generates higher incomes, which in turn translate into 
higher investment and consumer spending.
  Democrats prefer to add new health-care entitlements and massive 
pork-barrel spending items rather than accelerate tax cuts for 
businesses and individuals. Given the amount of money that would be 
spent under this bill, we would be better off passing no bill at all. 
The Republican minority strongly supports the President's proposal, and 
has crafted a bill that reaffirms his principles for economic recovery. 
As such, criticism of the Republican bill is direct criticism of the 
President, because it is his bare-bones proposal we introduced. To my 
Democratic friends, I say, don't take refuge in calling Republicans 
partisan; if you object to our bill, criticize the President--it's his 
proposal. The truth is: he's right, and you're wrong.
  The American economy is starved for business investment. The 
President's proposals are designed to stimulate business investment. My 
Democratic friends say rich people don't spend, only poor people do. 
Now that is real voodoo economics. Alternative Minimum Tax relief for a 
business provides money for reinvestment. Neither rich people nor 
corporations hide their money in a mattress. They invest it, which does 
. . . what? It creates jobs. What do we need to do today? Create jobs. 
And what happens when we do that? People have more money to spend. I 
would rather people have a job than an unemployment check. I would 
rather they spend their paycheck than an unemployment check.
  I recently read an article in which a key Democratic political 
operative said, in effect, we will stand with the President in the war, 
but on the domestic front, we'll use issues to our political advantage. 
Righting our economy is critical to our war effort. We shouldn't be 
playing politics with it.
  So let's stop the political games. Time is short. The President has 
asked us to produce a bill for him by the end of the month, and the 
minority intends to do so. We have already come a good distance toward 
the other side. It is time for Democrats to do the same, and converge 
upon what the President and the American people think is best.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Economic 
Recovery and Assistance to American Workers Act. This legislation is 
about security, economic security and physical security. This bill will 
help us achieve two national priorities: homeland defense and economic 
recovery.
  I have four principles for economic stimulus. First, any measure 
should have a strong, immediate impact. Next, economic recovery 
provisions should be temporary--sunsetting within one or two years. The 
overall package should be fiscally responsible to ensure long-term 
interest rates are not negatively affected. And, lastly, the proposal 
should be focused on those who need the help the most.
  I also have four principles for homeland defense legislation. First, 
it must give law enforcement the tools they need to prevent attacks. 
Next, it must give first responders the tools they need to respond to 
an act of terrorism. Also, it must improve security of our 
infrastructure. Lastly, it must provide for greater public information, 
since information is the antidote for panic.
  The legislation we're considering today meets my principles.
  Our Nation is fighting a war against terrorism. This war is on two 
fronts: in Afghanistan, and in every community in America. Our military 
has the right stuff to defeat our enemies. They have honor, courage and 
patriotism. They also have the best training, best intelligence, best 
equipment.
  Yet on the home front, our communities are foraging. They are forced 
to choose between keeping communities safe from drug dealers and other 
thugs, and keeping key infrastructure safe--like bridges, power plants 
and stadiums.
  I recently held a hearing in the VA-HUD Subcommittee to hear the 
mayors perspective on homeland defense. What did we learn at the 
hearing? We learned that our local governments are on the front lines 
of homeland defense. We learned that they are responsible for the 
protection of our infrastructure, including our bridges, tunnels, and 
mass transit as well as our first responders, our police and fire 
fighters.
  Yet their resources don't match their responsibilities.
  What will happen if we don't pass this homeland security bill?
  Costs are shifted to local governments who must forage for funds from 
local programs. That means higher local taxes and lower security across 
our Nation.
  What does this legislation do? It provides the resources we need to 
secure our homeland. Local law enforcement is essential to our fight 
against terrorism. They are our front line of defense. There are 
650,000 local police officers and only 11,000 FBI agents. This 
legislation will provide $2 billion that will go to states to be used 
for counter-terrorism training for police to train them to prevent and 
respond to terrorist attacks and for new equipment.
  Our firefighters are our protectors. We must protect the protectors. 
Simply put, that means making sure they have the equipment they need to 
save lives. Yet fire equipment is very expensive. A new fire engine 
costs $300,000. A new rescue vehicle costs $500,000. A suit of 
protective gear for our firefighters costs $1,000 and wears out 
quickly.
  Each year we provide funds for grants to local fire companies, but 
the funding has been spartan and skimpy. Over 30,000 fire companies 
requested almost $3 billion dollars worth of equipment this year, 
including $400 million just for personal protection equipment. In 
Maryland, 198 fire companies applied for funds so far this year, and 
yet only 5 received funding.
  Clearly, we need to do better.
  Even before the tragedy of September 11th, I was fighting for our 
firefighters. We were able to increase funding for the fire grant 
program by 50 percent to $150 million in the VA-HUD bill. The Homeland 
Security bill does even better by providing $600 million for our 
firefighters.
  The Homeland Security bill provides $4 billion for our nation's 
bioterrorism preparedness and response needs. Our country's ability to 
recognize and respond to a bioterrorist attack depends on a strong, 
coordinated public health system. This bill gives state and local 
public health departments additional resources to prepare for this new 
germ warfare. State and local public health departments have already 
been stretched thin. This bill gives them the resources to detect, 
respond, and contain a possible bioterrorist attack.
  This bill recognizes the important role the CDC plays in a public 
health emergency. It expands CDC's laboratory capacity so public health 
officials can quickly and accurately identify a suspected biological 
agent.
  To prepare our Nation for a bioterrorist attack, this bill upgrades 
State and local public health departments; expands laboratory capacity 
and surveillance at the State, local, and Federal level; and trains 
first responders to recognize the signs and symptoms of a bioterrorist 
attack. The bill also improves State and local communications systems; 
ensures that hospitals and emergency rooms have the expertise

[[Page 22723]]

and equipment to handle a surge in patients from a bioterrorist attack; 
increases our nation's supply of antidotes and vaccines against 
possible biological agents; and, provides significant new resources so 
that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can protect the safety of 
our nation's food supply with more inspectors and additional tools.
  Investments in the fight against bioterrorism will help in our 
battles against infectious disease and antimicrobial resistance. Our 
nation's public health system is on the front lines of this new 
biological war. This bill will make sure they are combat ready and fit-
for-duty.
  Our Coast Guard used to focus on drug and migrant interdiction, and 
search and rescue. Today, it's primary role is national security by 
keeping our ports safe, patrolling around power plants and under 
bridges, and searching suspicious vessels.
  This bill provides $177 million in operating funds. These funds will 
be used to improve training, and allow for increased patrols without 
forcing the Coast Guard to cut back on it's other missions.
  Terrorists look for weaknesses. We can not let them find these 
weaknesses on our nation's railroads. We must ensure the safety of all 
the components of our rail system. This means providing tunnel security 
which means preventing people from entering tunnels. It includes 
terminal safety--the fact that most terminals are intermodal, bringing 
together different forms of transportation which means that it's hard 
to screen passengers. It means providing bridge security and the 
protection of track switchboards.
  Why is railroad security so important? Because each day, 350,000 
people ride on our railroads. That's over 20 million people a year. 
Forty percent of all freight is transported on our rails which is more 
than any other mode of transportation.
  A terrorist attack on our rails could result in a catastrophic loss 
of life and paralyze our economy. Amtrak is ready and willing to 
improve rail safety, but it must also address its critical 
infrastructure needs.
  For example, the tunnels that run through Washington, Baltimore, and 
New York accommodate trains that carry roughly 350,000 people a day. 
These tunnels don't meet minimum safety standards. They do not have 
proper ventilation, and there is not adequate lighting.
  Rail safety requires Federal help. Yet Federal support for Amtrak has 
been cut by eighty percent in the last three years eighty percent. 
Annual appropriations for Amtrak is frozen at $521 million. That's only 
about half of what Congress authorized in the TEA-21 bill.
  What does this legislation do? It enables Amtrak to enhance security 
of their overall network by providing $300 million and enabling Amtrak 
to upgrade it's most dangerous tunnels by providing $760 million for 
tunnel safety.
  As stated before, I have four principles for economy recovery. These 
principles have been widely adopted. When I compare the different 
proposals for economic recovery to these principles, the answer is 
clear.
  The Economic Recovery package proposed by Senator Baucus meets my 
principles and provides real and effective measures for economic 
recovery.
  This package provides real economic recovery that benefits working 
Americans who have lost their jobs, helps businesses recover from the 
recent attacks and the economic downturn, and provides real the boost 
that this economy needs.
  The Economic Recovery bill will provide tax relief to nearly 44 
million working Americans who were left out of the last round of 
rebates. This bill will provide the same $300 checks to individuals or 
$600 checks to married couples who tend to pay only payroll taxes. 
These are the people who live paycheck to paycheck. These are the 
working Americans who will benefit most from a rebate check.
  Often times, these hard working Americans have trouble making end 
meet. This Democratic proposal will help them make ends meet thus 
ensuring that the vast majority of these rebates will actually be spent 
which will help provide the real boost this economy needs.
  The Democratic proposal also contains provisions that would help 
businesses invest in the new equipment and infrastructure needed to 
rebuild, would help small businesses acquire new equipment, and would 
provide rebates to companies quickly.
  The Economic Recovery bill will also help unemployed working 
Americans by providing a 13 week extension of the period during which 
they can collect unemployment insurance, by increasing the amount that 
unemployed workers can collect, and by including more displaced workers 
in the unemployment insurance program.
  I am sure that many will ask how does this help the economy recover? 
These Americans do not even have a paycheck to live on anymore. But 
they still have to meet their basic needs of food and shelter. For 
example, the average unemployment benefits in Maryland are about $950 
per month, the average rent in Baltimore is about $500/month, and the 
average grocery bill for a family is about $475. Thus, under the 
current benefit levels families are falling behind and could not 
continue their health care which costs at an estimated average cost of 
$ 650/month in my State.
  Unemployment Insurance is an essential part of the valuable social 
safety net. In every recession over the past thirty years, unemployment 
insurance has been extended. It is absolutely crucial to continue this 
good practice. The Democratic proposal would also expand the 
eligibility of those qualifying for benefits. For example, this would 
allow working mothers to look for part-time work.
  The Economic Recovery proposal would also increase benefits by 15 
percent or at least $25 a week. This is enough for a couple of bags of 
groceries or two tanks of gas.
  President Bush has a proposal that would address unemployment 
benefits. But the devil is in the details. The Democratic plan helps 
the 3.2 million already unemployed workers left out by the Bush plan. 
Under the Bush proposal, about 25,000 to 30,000 more Marylanders would 
have to lose their jobs and wait until March 2002 before Maryland's 
workers would qualify for any extensions under the Bush proposal.
  The Economic Recovery bill provides guaranteed benefits to workers 
laid off prior to September 11 who may be having difficulty finding 
their next job. It would extend benefits to part-time workers, low-wage 
workers, and would help most hospitality and airline workers that have 
been especially hard hit.
  The Economic Recovery bill would also help provide health care to 
displaced workers who have lost their jobs since September 11th through 
the coming year. So that just because they temporarily lose their job 
they do not also lose their health care.
  The economic recovery bill provides a 75 percent COBRA subsidy for up 
to 12 months for workers to continue health insurance through their 
former employer's plan. It allows States to cover the remaining 25 
percent of the premium for low-income workers.
  For unemployed workers who are not eligible for COBRA, it gives 
States the option to provide Medicaid coverage for these workers for up 
to 12 months. These proposals are temporary; they end on Dec. 31, 2002.
  Under the Democratic Economic Recovery plan, unemployed workers will 
get the health care they need, temporarily, and this will help 
stimulate the economy. Unemployed workers with health insurance will 
have more money to spend on other items because they won't have to pay 
high out-of-pocket health care costs.
  For example, a mom or dad in Prince George's County can afford to buy 
a refrigerator to replace the broken one or buy school clothes for 
their growing child because they did not have to pay lots of money to 
take their child to the emergency room for a severe earache.
  Unemployed workers will spend money on health care because if you 
have health insurance, you are more likely to go to the doctor to get 
the treatment you need.
  Finally, the Democratic proposal temporarily strengthens the Medicaid

[[Page 22724]]

safety net when unemployed workers will need it the most. States across 
the country are facing budget shortfalls and are considering Medicaid 
cuts at the same time more unemployed workers will need health care 
through Medicaid. This provision provides additional resources to 
states so that states don't have to resort to serious cutbacks in their 
Medicaid program in order to balance their budgets this year. This 
provision is important to Maryland and has the strong support of the 
National Governors' Association.
  During times of crisis, our Nation comes together. We have seen that 
since the terrible events of September 11th. The terrorists thought 
they would cripple us, but they have only made us stronger. We want to 
help those in need.
  Yet volunteers and philanthropy cannot take the place of public 
policy. The Economic Recovery and Homeland Security bill puts our 
values into action to help our fellow citizens to get back on their 
feet and to protect our citizens from the evil acts of our enemies.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on a matter that 
should be intertwined with any economic stimulus package that passes 
this Chamber--providing airline depreciation on the sale of new and 
refurbished aircraft.
  The aviation industry and the industry's employees have been hit 
especially hard in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. The 
economic woes reach far beyond slumping ticket sales and the layoff of 
airport personnel. These difficult times are stretching to the heart of 
the aviation industry, to the companies that manufacture, reconstruct, 
and refurbish aircraft.
  By providing a depreciation allowance for the aviation industry, we 
will avert the loss of more jobs in this major industry.
  Kansas is a state that has a tremendous interest in the aviation 
industry. Boeing, Cessna, Raytheon, and Bombardier, which all have 
major plants based in Wichita, employ tens of thousands of Kansans. 
While the airline bailout package will go a long way toward preventing 
immediate mass layoffs, it is not doing enough to ensure that the sale 
of aircraft will rebound from their current lulls.
  If we provide a depreciation allowance equal to 40 percent of the 
adjusted basis for the qualified property acquired by those purchasing 
aircraft, we will provide a strong incentive for individuals and 
corporations to increase their purchases from the aviation industry. In 
so doing, we would provide an immediate boost to the economy, while at 
the same time providing security for aviation-industry employees beyond 
the 1-year period of the airline bailout.
  Moreover, it is important that we extend this depreciation allowance 
to include not only new orders, but also aircraft that have been 
purchased or taken in a trade and refurbished or reconstructed, and 
sold to a third party.
  By taking such steps, production orders will increase, and we will be 
able to ensure that hard-working Americans have jobs beyond the time-
table of the airline bailout package.
  This is good for America. It is good for Kansas, and it is something 
that I will be working to see implemented as part of an economic 
stimulus package.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I was hoping to make a statement yesterday 
on this important subject, but I was tied up chairing the Agriculture 
Committee in consideration of our new farm bill. I would like to speak 
briefly on the subject of bioterrorism and the economic stimulus/
homeland security proposal considered by the Senate. The defeat of this 
legislation on a budget point of order was especially disappointing to 
me because it included a crucial $4 billion initiative to combat 
bioterrorism. Senator Specter and I worked closely with Senator Byrd to 
develop this funding proposal, which is a comprehensive plan to better 
protect Americans from anthrax, smallpox, and other bioterrorism 
threats.
  I have the privilege to chair the appropriations subcommittee which 
funds our health programs. Our subcommittee has for the past several 
years provided increased funding to combat bioterrorism. We have made 
real progress as a result. However, much more remains to be done. To 
determine what additional steps are necessary, our subcommittee has 
held three hearings during the past 2 months.
  We heard from our top Federal officials, including the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services, the head of the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention, and head of FBI bioterrorism efforts. We also heard 
from distinguished State and local officials and top scientists from 
the public and private sectors. Their testimony made clear that we are 
not adequately prepared for this threat. We do not have enough vaccines 
to respond to an attack. Our public health system has been allowed to 
decay, and needs more help to detect an outbreak quickly, to treat a 
large number of infectious patients, and to vaccinate large parts of 
the country.
  As I said before, to put the state of our public health system into 
military terms, our troops are ill-trained, our radar is out of date, 
and we are short on ammunition.
  The plan we developed and which was included in the stimulus package 
is a thoughtful, bipartisan approach. It closely follows the 7 point 
plan I outlined last month. It provides more than twice the resources 
of the President's to bolster our Nation's defenses against a 
bioterrorist attack.
  In contrast to the President's plan, our proposal prioritizes funding 
to ``first responders'' at the State and local level. We have put the 
bulk of the funding, $1.3 billion, into improving our public health 
departments, beefing up local lab capacity and expanding the Health 
Alert Network. We desperately need to make these investments if we want 
to quickly identify, track and contain a bioterrorist attack should we 
ever be confronted with one. The President's plan neglects this vital 
piece of our response system.
  Our proposal also includes funding for the production of enough 
smallpox vaccine for every American should that ever be necessary. As 
we have seen in recent press reports, the administration's request is 
too low to produce enough smallpox vaccine for all Americans.
  We also allocate $116 million for research on new vaccines. Earlier 
this month my subcommittee heard testimony from Dr. Fauci at NIH about 
the promising future of antivirals against smallpox. The 
administration's plan devotes no money to developing these new drugs.
  Our plan also provides more money than the President to bolster the 
work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We need to 
upgrade their overburdened lab capacity and their disease surveillance 
systems.
  It also includes $650 million to improve safety and to safeguard our 
animal disease labs.
  I would like to thank Chairman Byrd for the opportunity to work with 
him on this important funding package. Our Nation's public health 
system is now the front lines in our war against terrorism; it should 
be prepared accordingly.
  I believe that we cannot leave this year without addressing the 
bioterrorism threat. Whether our package is included in the stimulus 
plan or another appropriations bill, we must get it done.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the stimulus 
package we recently considered in the Senate, and the disturbing new 
definition of patriotism that was associated with it. As I think most 
of my colleagues are aware, the bill we considered was laden with 
rewards for wealthy donors. Now, I think these days we would hardly be 
able to recognize a stimulus package, or any kind of emergency 
spending, if it weren't loaded down with provisions designed to benefit 
special interests. This practice certainly isn't new. But what is new, 
is the attempt to cloak these giveaways in a kind of patriotism.
  A recent Washington Post editorial quoted a lobbyist for 
PricewaterhouseCoopers, who has been pushing tax breaks in the bill 
that

[[Page 22725]]

would profit clients such as GE and IBM, saying that it would have been 
``irresponsible'' and even unpatriotic for him to behave otherwise.
  Patriotic to push for a taxbreak for major corporations? I never 
thought I'd see the day. But here we are, in the midst of the war on 
terrorism, trying to stop a deepening recession, and we were faced with 
a stimulus package that was designed to reward wealthy interests, but 
did very little to boost the economy. And now, to add insult to injury, 
we've been told that this isn't merely pork barrel politics, but that 
it is downright patriotic. I find that appalling, and I'm sure many of 
my colleagues did as well.
  Because today this country is brimming with real patriotism, and I 
think many of us draw strength from that shared sense of pride in our 
country. But some versions of the stimulus bill were nothing to be 
proud of.
  At this moment I believe that we may well need a stimulus package. 
But that's not what we were considering; instead we were faced with the 
same kind of pork-barrel spending we have seen year in and year out, 
except that now these provisions were dressed up in red, white and 
blue. That kind of opportunism, at a time like this, is an affront to 
the American people, and it should be unwelcome in this Chamber.
  The stimulus bill, and in particular, the House-passed version of the 
bill, represents a lost opportunity for the Nation, and I think the 
American people have the right to ask what went wrong. How, at a time 
when the Nation needs a strong stimulus package, did we end up with 
this pile of pork? And when I say pile of pork, I'm being kind. The St. 
Louis Post Dispatch called it chicken manure. From time to time I like 
to Call the Bankroll on legislation, and talk about the potent mix of 
money and influence that results in the kind of legislation that's 
before us today. I think it's appropriate to review the donations given 
by the interests that could reap such tremendous benefits from this 
bill.
  According to information from Common Cause and Citizens for Tax 
Justice, just 14 corporations alone would reap a $6.3 billion windfall 
from the retroactive repeal of the alternative minimum tax in the 
House-passed package. Enron, which has given more than $3.7 million in 
soft money from 1991 through 2000, will get an estimated $254 million 
refund under this bill. Chevron Texaco, which gave more that $3.6 
million in soft money over the last 10 years, will get an estimated 
refund of $572 million. General Electric gave $1.3 million, and they'll 
get $671 million. And this list goes on. Billions upon billions of 
dollars being funneled back to big donors at a time when more and more 
Americans are out of work, lacking health care coverage and struggling 
to pay their bills.
  The House package also gave a temporary tax break to multinational 
corporations on some profits from their foreign operations. As the 
Washington Post pointed out, ``it's hard to see how this measure, which 
would encourage firms to keep money outside the country, would do 
anything to stimulate the American economy.'' This measure rewards some 
of the biggest donors in the banking, investment and life insurance 
industries. Some of the biggest donors in these industries include 
Merrill Lynch, which has given more than $2.2 million in soft money 
over the last 10 years, and Citigroup, which has given more than $2.1 
million during the last 10 years, according to Common Cause.
  The House-passed package even included Medical Savings Accounts, 
which soft money donor Golden Rule Financial Corporation and other 
insurance interests have lobbied for for many years. Golden Rule gave 
just shy of $1.3 million in soft money in the last ten years.
  The stimulus bill should have been an opportunity to stimulate the 
economy; instead it turned out to be a chance for special interests to 
add the provisions they've been pushing for all these years. Wealthy 
interests haven't hesitated to take this difficult period for the 
country and exploit it for their own gain. And if this version of the 
bill ever passes, they will reap an enormous financial windfall.
  In the last few months, the Nation has endured a great deal, and we 
will continue to face enormous challenges. As a Congress, we must 
address the issues before us with the kind of integrity that these 
challenges will demand. But we can't meet those challenges when the 
legislative process is hobbled by the clout of special interests. The 
stimulus bill was a sobering example of a bill that went through that 
process, and fell far short of its goal.
  The stimulus bill was a missed opportunity that the Nation may pay 
dearly for down the road. We've missed an opportunity, but we don't 
have to miss another one. I hope when Congress returns next year, we 
will rise to meet the next challenge before us: getting campaign 
finance reform to the President's desk. The Nation is closely watching 
our work here, more now than ever in the wake of September 11. And 
bills like the stimulus package would make any American wonder whether 
we are truly conducting the people's business on this floor. We must 
restore integrity to legislative process, and restore the people's 
faith in us and what we do.
  I think we can start by voting against this bill, if it comes to us 
in a form like the House-passed bill. But we must do much more, we must 
abolish soft money and shut down the issue ad loophole, and it can't 
wait another year. Campaign finance reform should be one of the first 
orders of business when we return next year. The American people are 
looking to us for leadership, and I believe that this Senate can 
provide that leadership. We can show the American people that we have 
the courage and leadership they seek, and we can start by making 
campaign finance reform the law of the land.

                          ____________________