[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1152-1156]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           ECONOMIC STIMULUS

  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise in morning business today to talk 
about the so-called economic stimulus package we will be dealing with 
in this body over the next few weeks. I think the Presiding Officer 
knows that it is very seldom that I come to this floor to speak. I try 
to only speak when I have something to say. I realize that today, I am 
probably a voice in the wilderness and probably will be over the next 
few weeks.
  As are many Americans, all Americans who are familiar with being

[[Page 1153]]

around railroads, I know a freight train when I see it coming. I 
realize the action taken yesterday in the House, by overwhelming 
majority sending over to our body a stimulus package to deal with--I 
realize the winds are blowing, and the fact is that the winds are 
blowing in the direction of a stimulus package.
  I am honored to serve in this body. I know that, contrary to much of 
what the American public thinks, there are many things that happen on 
this floor that actually show greatness of this body and greatness of 
individuals.
  I have seen on this floor both the majority leader and the minority 
leader do things to cause something good to happen for our country. 
When I have seen that happen--and most of the time it happens under the 
radar screen--I have tried to go to them and thank them for taking the 
positions they did, even if it was a private position to make something 
good happen. I have seen other Senators take politically courageous 
votes that were maybe not in their own best political interests but 
were in the country's interests, and I have tried, too, on those 
occasions when I have recognized that, to go up and thank them for what 
they have done. Then, on the other hand, I have also seen occasions 
when we in this body just bow to the political winds and do things that 
are expedient because they are expedient, even though in our hearts we 
know they are really not best for our country.
  Today, all across America, there are young people, young children 
gathered in classrooms, and they are learning in those classrooms that 
which will equip them to be productive in life. They are learning not 
just about facts and figures, but they are also learning about 
character. They have teachers whom they look up to. They have parents, 
hopefully, whom they go home to and look up to, coaches and others, 
Sunday school teachers, and hopefully some of the people whom they look 
up to from time to time are us in this body.
  I know that right now in our country we are going through tremendous 
economic turmoil as it relates to the markets in general. I think most 
of us know that it is due to excesses that have taken place in the 
marketplace, that in our country and in this world we have business 
cycles that exist. That is what happens in a free market society such 
as we have. Those excesses work themselves out, and over time, we begin 
building again.
  I know in the process of these excesses that in some ways they are 
beyond the control of the average citizen, and there are people in this 
country who are hurting. I know they are. My heart goes out to people 
across this country who find themselves in economic situations that in 
many cases are beyond their control. They have to do with markets. They 
have to do with the way we ourselves have conducted ourselves as it 
relates to fiscal policy. They have to do with things that are 
happening in other parts of the world. I truly feel for people who go 
home at night with tremendous economic distress. I am also always 
happy--just honestly always happy--when I see Americans receive refunds 
from the Federal Government. That is a good thing, and I am happy for 
people when that occurs. I really mean that.
  But in this backdrop, I must say that I find it so odd that today in 
America we would consider a stimulus package, a package that in essence 
is built on sprinkling money around America and then encouraging people 
to quickly spend that money to ignite an economic stimulus in this 
country. I doubt there are many people in this body--there may be some, 
and I don't want to in any way criticize anybody because I know there 
are some who may believe the stimulus package that came from the House 
yesterday really is going to do some good. There are some, and I 
understand that, but I bet there are not many in this body who believe 
sprinkling money around America and asking people to spend it is going 
to do much, is going to do much to affect the long-term status of this 
economy.
  But what I see happening is, all of a sudden, in the name of 
bipartisanship--and I want to say I have been excited to see 
bipartisanship taken up, and I want to put on the record that I have 
exercised, as the Presiding Officer has, bipartisanship in many cases 
to try to make something good happen. But in the name of 
bipartisanship, what has happened is we have come--what has come out of 
the House is a bipartisan bill in the name of economic stimulus that to 
me is--and I hate to be this crass--nothing more than political 
stimulus.
  I hope this body will have the responsibility and the character to 
deal with our economic situations over the long haul. It may be that 
this body takes up this stimulus package, and it may be that this body 
makes changes, and it may be that this body actually passes a stimulus 
package that is similar to what came out of the House. But what I see 
in this package is nothing but a political stimulus. It is a stimulus 
to make the American people think that we as a body are doing something 
to actually cause the economy to be stronger.
  So at this moment, I fear we are going through one of those moments 
where I am less encouraged about what might happen, but I am hoping 
that somehow or another, we will deal with this in an appropriate way.
  I think all of us know in our country that we together have been 
fiscally reckless over the last several years. I think we know that 
generations who come after us will be dealing with the brunt of our 
actions. Not to be misunderstood, I am a strong believer in low taxes 
and creating a structure in this country that people can count on to 
move ahead and to make investments, but with that has to be the reality 
that spending has to be under control. Yet there is always a reason in 
this body and in the other body to spend money we do not have. I can go 
back and cite example after example, and for some reason I sense that 
today we are in another one of those situations.
  I know this package is going to change, and I know some of the 
components of this package cannot be calculated exactly this way, but 
what I would like to say is, if you take $150 billion and spent the 
money today--I look at these pages on the floor who have come here so 
excited about their work. I want them to know that actually we in this 
body will never deal, in my generation, with paying for the $150 
billion. The next generation might, but I doubt it. It will actually be 
$329 billion in 20 years at present rates, and in the generation after 
that, $722 billion.
  I know my time is drawing to a close. I know I am probably a voice in 
the wilderness. I am very discouraged about the wind I see blowing at 
this time. I am very discouraged about a package I think many people, 
if not most in this body, doubt is going to have any long-term effect 
on our economy. So I ask that my colleagues consider this, my 
colleagues with whom I enjoy serving: No. 1, that we call this package 
for what it is, a political stimulus package; that we begin today 
dealing in a bipartisan way with the tough decisions we have to make, 
and if there are anomalies out there we need to deal with where people 
are truly being hurt, let's deal with them; that we adopt the Conrad-
Gregg bill to truly deal with long-term entitlements; and that we ask 
the administration, when they bring their budget forth on February 4, 
to bring forth a real budget that lays out to the American people the 
deficits we will have to deal with in the future.
  This country has been built on sacrifice. It has been built on us and 
generations before us making tough decisions and making sacrifice. I 
hope this body, in a bipartisan way, will do the same.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire is 
recognized.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I begin my remarks this morning by 
addressing the points made at the close of Senator Corker's remarks. 
The Senator talked about the need to look at some of our long-term 
budget problems--Social Security, Medicare, and even our tax structure. 
There are areas where we can see that the Tax Code is not as simple or 
straightforward as we want it to be, where we know there are imbalances 
in the Medicare program, and

[[Page 1154]]

where we need to address how we are going to pay for future generations 
who will be retiring.
  These are tough and long-term important problems with which we need 
to deal. Senator Corker mentioned bipartisan legislation that I have 
cosponsored by Senators Gregg of New Hampshire and Senator Kent Conrad 
of North Dakota to create a bipartisan commission to look hard at these 
issues. The result will not just be another report. Instead, it will 
actually prepare legislative recommendations that will be brought to 
Congress to get an up-or-down vote.
  Sometimes that kind of an approach is the best way of dealing with 
what appear to be intractable problems because such a structure can 
generate consensus and in some ways force Congress to take action, even 
if the short-term political issues might discourage action.
  I hope that this approach will be adopted. I hope it is an approach 
that will make an impact because, as I have spoken on the Senate floor 
and at home in New Hampshire, these are long-term issues that have to 
be addressed. It takes leadership, but it also takes consensus.
  The one point we also have consensus on in the country right now, and 
certainly in New Hampshire, is that we have witnessed a weaker economy 
over the last 6 to 12 months. In New Hampshire, just as in any other 
part of the country, that is felt first by families, by working 
families who see the slower growth, families who feel the pinch of 
higher energy prices, families who see credit tightening and are 
struggling to deal with that slowdown.
  We are the strongest country in the world, the strongest economy in 
the world, but that does not make us immune from the economic cycle. 
When we see an economic slowdown, we understand we cannot necessarily 
turn the economy around instantly, but we need to take action. We need 
to lay the groundwork for near-term economic growth and the groundwork 
for long-term economic growth. That is what we need to focus on as we 
debate an economic growth package in the Senate.
  We have begun to act with a housing modernization bill, commonly 
referred to as FHA modernization, that will help States and homeowners 
modify their mortgages, stay in their homes, deal with the slowdown in 
real estate prices and reduce the impact of the credit crisis on home 
ownership. We passed that bill in the Senate last month. The House has 
also passed its version. This is an area where we need to act quickly 
to resolve the differences between the two versions and send it to the 
President for signature.
  The issue of timeliness is going to come back on us again and again 
as we debate this economic package because the one thing we understand 
and know about any economic package is that if it is going to have an 
impact, it needs to be done in a timely way. It should focus on the 
near term. It should include provisions we believe will have an 
immediate impact on investment and growth, and it should be temporary.
  We know that we have to deal with long-term problems about which the 
Senator from Tennessee spoke, but we also understand the impact that 
the slowdown is having. We can put together a package that meets the 
following criteria: focuses on the next 12 months, encourages 
investment and economic growth, and is done in a timely way.
  What should the main provisions of an economic growth package be? It 
should put money into the pockets of families and do it through a tax 
rebate. People pay taxes. At the end of the day, every dollar of 
revenue that is collected by the Federal Government ultimately started 
with an individual, a family, a worker, whether it is excise taxes on 
gasoline or income taxes. Even the taxes we levy on businesses 
ultimately are passed through to consumers in the products and services 
those corporations sell. As I said, people pay taxes. It is not a 
mistake to allow a family to keep a little bit more of what they earn, 
to give them a rebate over the next 12 months to help deal with those 
energy prices, help deal with their mortgage payments or help invest in 
items that will make for a better quality of life for them and their 
children. This needs to be part of this growth package.
  Business investment also needs to be a part of this growth package. 
In New Hampshire, that means small businesses. They are the ones that 
provide jobs, cover their employees with health care, and are 
responsible for most of the investment in New Hampshire and across the 
country. I think one of the most important provisions that is being 
discussed in this growth package is a way to encourage those small 
businesses across the country to make new investments in their plant, 
improve productivity, make investments in their employees, and create 
new jobs. Jobs are not created in Washington; they are created across 
the country. Businesses large and small put up capital, take a risk, 
hire that new worker, train that new worker. That is where the 
difference is made. This package needs to include very real and 
meaningful incentives for those businesses to spend, build, create new 
jobs, and improve productivity.
  If we are going to have any impact, though, we cannot stand in 
Washington and debate. We need to act in a timely way. This cannot be 
done over a 4-month, 5-month or 6-month protracted debate. If it takes 
that long, it will be too late to have any impact.
  Congress does not often act in a timely way. We know that; we 
understand that. The key to getting something done soon is to work in a 
bipartisan way. That means compromise. That means everyone will not 
have everything in the package they might like to have. We cannot have 
535 Members of Congress all writing their own economic growth package. 
We do have the basis for a bipartisan agreement in legislation that has 
passed the other body by a very strong bipartisan vote, with Democrats 
and Republicans supporting the two core principles I talked about: tax 
relief for families and individuals and encouraging business investment 
for small businesses and larger firms that are creating jobs every day.
  A bipartisan approach has to be the way this issue is addressed in 
the Senate. We all understand the rules of the Senate allow unlimited 
debate and unlimited amendments. This is one case where we need to 
exercise a little bit of discipline, where we need to exercise a little 
bit of common sense. We cannot have every Senator offering three, four 
or five different provisions to this legislation. The bill would 
collapse under the weight. By delaying passage and implementation, we 
make it much more difficult for anything we do to have a positive 
impact.
  I hope, as the debate moves forward, we work to keep this growth 
package in line with the bipartisan agreement that has been 
established, the framework that has been put together. Such a process 
does not mean we will not have an opportunity to debate the package or 
even make some modifications. If we go astray, if we let our own egos 
and personal needs drive this debate, we will not get this legislation 
done, and the American people will look at the institution of Congress 
yet again and be frustrated at its inability to act in a bipartisan 
way, at our inability to act in a timely way, and our inability to take 
the steps necessary to make a difference in our economy.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is 
recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time remains on our 
side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 9 minutes 37 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to express my agreement with the 
wise words of the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire and expand 
on the theme he spoke to, along with the Senator from Tennessee 
earlier.
  When I was younger and was going to college, I thought I wanted to 
become a doctor, but that was until I encountered organic chemistry and 
physics, and that persuaded me that maybe there was something else out 
there for

[[Page 1155]]

me to do. But I did learn about the Hippocratic oath which is what the 
medical profession takes, this oath basically to first do no harm. I 
think that ought to be something that guides us as we look at how do we 
deal with this impending challenge with regard to our economic 
situation.
  I do think we have started off in a very strong way, and I express my 
congratulations to Speaker Pelosi, Republican Leader Boehner, and 
Secretary of Treasury Hank Paulson for the work they have done which 
met with as close to universal approval on a bipartisan basis as you 
can get in the House of Representatives for what the Speaker has called 
a targeted, temporary, and timely economic stimulus. That will 
hopefully allow us to avoid a recession and, of course, all the fallout 
that would result from that recession, including people out of work and 
obviously negatively affecting the quality of life for a lot of 
Americans, including my constituents in Texas.
  We have to look at this as both a short-term issue and a long-term 
issue. I hope the kind of bipartisan cooperation and the movement we 
have seen will start a trend. I am encouraged, as my colleagues have 
already heard, by some of the work that is being done on a long-term 
basis by Senator Kent Conrad and Senator Judd Gregg, both the chairman 
and the ranking member of the Budget Committee on which I serve, to 
deal with the impending long-term crisis of entitlement spending. If we 
do not do anything in the next 30 years, the only programs that we will 
have money to spend on as part of the Federal Government is Medicaid, 
Medicare, and other entitlement spending, plus the interest on the 
national debt. That is it. We will not have any money to spend on 
national defense, research, innovation, education, and other programs 
that are very important to the continued prosperity and future of our 
country.
  That is a looming disaster out on the horizon I hope we will respond 
to. We cannot afford to take the year off in Congress because we know 
we are in an election cycle. We have a Presidential election coming up 
in November, and a third of this body will stand for election as well. 
But as the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, has pointed out, we 
have had an election every 2 years since 1788 in this country--we are 
going to have another one in November--and we can't use that as an 
excuse for simply sitting back and becoming spectators rather than 
active participants in trying to solve the challenges on the economic, 
security, and all other fronts on both a near-term basis and a long-
term basis.
  Of course, there are other things we need to do to be able to restore 
public confidence in the U.S. Congress and Government, and one of the 
things you will be hearing more about is the proposal that we will be 
making for a 2-year budget, the idea being that, as we saw last year, 
on an annual budget we basically spend all year in the appropriations 
process with very little opportunity for oversight of this huge 
bureaucracy--the executive branch of the Federal Government. And 
without oversight, we know bad things can happen. Perhaps with 
oversight bad things can happen, but we cannot be asleep at the switch 
when it comes to the oversight responsibilities we have for the Federal 
Government and Federal spending.
  One example I wish to point out is something my colleagues have heard 
me comment on before, and it is a Web site called expectmore.gov. I 
hope people who are hearing what I am saying here today will take the 
opportunity to look at this expectmore.gov Web site created to 
demonstrate the review by the Office of Management and Budget of over 
1,000 Federal Government programs. What they found out is that 22 
percent of those programs either are ineffective or else--what may be 
even worse--they weren't able to tell one way or the other whether they 
were effective, as Congress intended. That is 22 percent of 1,000 
different programs. Yet Congress has done virtually nothing to 
eliminate those ineffective programs or to make sure those that could 
be improved and could be effective are in fact improved and the 
problems corrected. I hope we would use this as an opportunity to deal 
with our budgetary problems both in the near term and the long term.
  I have proposed another initiative, based on the sunset commission 
that exists in my State, and exists in a number of other States, where 
periodically we would go back and look at the very reason for the 
existence of Federal programs. In my State, the sunset commission has 
been very effective in allowing the State legislature to look at 
programs--government programs--to determine whether they are still 
needed and to start at a zero-based budget and force these agencies to 
justify their budget, rather than what happens here in Washington, 
which is that things tend to grow and grow and grow and develop their 
own constituency, and then a bureaucracy that has a vested interest in 
their growth and proliferation, and there is very little impetus, very 
little pressure on Congress to eliminate ineffective and unnecessary 
programs.
  I hope we will continue this early spirit of bipartisan cooperation 
on the emergency stimulus package that came out of the House, and we 
will do more to carry on this trend when it comes to dealing with our 
mid- and long-term economic problems, not for ourselves but for our 
children and for our grandchildren.
  There are things in the economic stimulus package that came out of 
the House that I have some questions about. But I do agree it is 
important for confidence building in the markets and to demonstrate we 
are actually capable of acting when action is required that we act on a 
timely basis to pass this House-passed measure. I believe there were 
only 35 votes against the House stimulus package yesterday, and as I 
said earlier, that represents overwhelming bipartisan support for this 
negotiated product.
  I know there are Members of the Senate, myself included, who have 
some other ideas about what we might be able to offer to improve that. 
The problem is, as we all know, under the rules of the Senate it is 
basically a free-for-all once that bill comes to the Senate floor, and 
there can be numerous amendments, there can be filibusters and other 
delays, which I think are dangerous indeed when a timely response is 
called for in terms of this targeted, temporary stimulus package. My 
conclusion is I think we are better off and the country is better off 
in the long run showing that we can act on a prompt basis by passing 
the House version.
  Now, that does not mean we can take the rest of the year off or we 
don't have to be responsive to other concerns that arise, as I have 
indicated earlier. If there are other things we need to do, then I 
think there are other opportunities for us to do them. But I do think 
it is important early on in the year to demonstrate our commitment to 
working together to solve America's problems.
  I saw a poll the other day that said 98 percent of the respondents 
were sick and tired of the bickering and the partisanship they see in 
Congress. I am shocked anybody would have to take a poll to conclude 
that, and why it wasn't 100 percent rather than 98 percent. But here is 
a chance for us to act, and I hope we will act in the short term to 
deal with this economic challenge we face in the markets, but then in 
the long term to make sure that the prosperity we have enjoyed, thanks 
to our parents and grandparents, will be handed down to our children 
and grandchildren.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from Georgia is 
recognized.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
for up to 7 minutes as in morning business and to maintain the existing 
30 minutes for the majority side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I commend Senator Cornyn on his remarks, 
and I want to add that I too think it is important to address the 
stimulus package that has come from the House quickly and decisively. I 
fall in the category of one of those who has some

[[Page 1156]]

other ideas as well, but I think while the iron is hot and while we do 
have a surgical and strategic proposal before us, we should act.
  Immediate action can make a large difference in when the infusion 
comes back into the economy, when the tax breaks can be taken advantage 
of by business in terms of depreciation and expensing, and in 
particular for the housing market, the increased loan limits for Fannie 
Mae, Freddie Mac, and FHA loans will be essential in saving some houses 
in foreclosure and those ultimately facing foreclosure, because they 
will be purchased by people who will qualify under the new loan limits 
and who will be able to take that loan and make it a performing asset.
  It is to that subject I want to talk for a second. Experience is a 
great teacher. There is an old saying if a cat sits on a hot stove, it 
will never sit on a hot stove again. Of course, they never sit on a 
cold stove; they just get out of the business of sitting on stoves. In 
my experience in the private sector as a businessman, for years I was 
in the real estate business in the 1970s, in particular, in the period 
of time between 1968, as a matter of fact, and 1999. In the mid 1970s, 
the United States faced a housing crisis almost identical to what is 
about to happen in this country today. In 1973 and 1974, we had a huge 
housing boom, with increasing values, where credit got easier, loan 
limits got higher, and underwriting got lower. What ended up happening 
was that a lot of bad loans were made. In that particular period of 
time, many were to homebuilders rather than homeowners. But suffice it 
to say it was the same underwriting problem and the same deficiency in 
terms of loans. A plethora of foreclosures took place, new homes went 
back, and the United States found itself in 1975 in a recession with a 
3-year supply of single-family houses on the market, unsold and with no 
housing market.
  The President and the Congress took action. They passed a $6,000 tax 
credit, where a family could collect $2,000 a year for 3 years if they 
purchased any standing new home in inventory and occupied it during 
those 3 years. Within the course of a year, we had reduced as a country 
a 3-year supply of housing to a 1-year supply of housing. We had 
reinvigorated the construction trade, the subcontractors, the building 
suppliers, those who manufactured carpet, washing machines, dryers, and 
all the components so important in the overall economy that are spurred 
by a home purchase.
  Yesterday, I introduced, along with Senator Gregg, Senator Craig, 
Senator Allard, and Senator Chambliss, S. 2566, calling for us to 
repeat history in this country, to reenergize the housing market that 
is so sluggish, at a strategic time. We can save houses in pending 
foreclosure from actually being foreclosed upon and turn them into 
occupied single-family dwellings. Very simply, S. 2566 would do the 
following:
  It would provide a $15,000 tax credit--$5,000 for 3 years--to any 
individual, couple, or two people living together filing separately, if 
they purchased and occupied as their home any single-family dwelling on 
the market that was: A, a new home permitted for construction before 
September 1 of 2007 and now vacant; B, a home that has been foreclosed 
on that was owner occupied and is now in an REO--real estate-owned--
category of any lender, bank, or financial institution; and, C, any 
property pending foreclosure that is owner occupied.
  We all know from reading the paper that foreclosures are going up in 
geometric proportions. What is about to happen in the first quarter of 
this year is the largest realm of foreclosures that has taken place in 
this country in years. What is going to go into the second quarter of 
this year is those banks being told by regulators they have to get rid 
of that inventory, that they can't keep it on their books, and banks 
and lenders are going to do what they have always done. They are going 
to get rid of them by deeply discounting the prices to try to get 
people to come and buy those houses.
  Now, what that does to Mr. and Mrs. America who live in a house 
making their payments is it depresses the value of their house, it 
lowers their home equity line of credit available because the value has 
gone down, and it stagnates the very consumer the economy has depended 
on over the last decade for the longest protracted period of growth in 
our history.
  I come to the floor today to ask all the Members of the Senate to 
take a look at S. 2566, to take a hard look at it, and to make sure 
they look back at the history of 1975, when we faced almost an 
identical problem, took the strategic action this bill recommends, and 
had a result that was absolutely right for the economy and right for 
the American homeowner.
  I understand all kind of incentives, I understand giving money back, 
I understand trying to send people to do things, but there is nothing 
better than helping to make the No. 1 investment every American family 
wants to make. An incentive to do that, at a time that very market is 
in trouble, is one of the keys to seeing to it that whatever lies ahead 
for us in our economy is a much lower trough, and maybe even a peak, 
where we at the right time strategically invest in the American family, 
in homeownership, and take those houses in ownership by lenders and put 
them in the ownership of families.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time, and I suggest 
the absence of quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________