[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1228-1231]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           ECONOMIC STIMULUS

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak about our need to move 
swiftly on the stimulus package. We are responding obviously to a 
bipartisan package that has come out of the Finance Committee. I 
believe we should work on a bipartisan basis, because we are in tough 
economic times, to hurry and get this package done. Doing the right 
thing means doing the right thing for seniors, for disabled veterans, 
for consumers, for business. It means getting real dollars pumped back 
into the economy now and not continuing to play a time-consuming game, 
going back and forth.
  I know the House and the administration rapidly put together a 
package and it garnered wide bipartisan support, and I applaud their 
efforts for doing that. Likewise, Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member 
Grassley also initiated quick, bipartisan action in the Senate Finance 
Committee, and the bill was reported out, and Senator Reid has brought 
that bill before the full Senate. I urge my colleagues to keep pace 
with the President's request for timely action and to support sending 
the Finance Committee bill to the House so we can quickly move to 
conference and resolve whatever differences there are, so we can move a 
package to the President's desk we can be proud of.
  Our goal is to act on policies that will stimulate the economy now 
and over the next 12 months. We should not lose sight of that goal. I 
know many of my colleagues like to talk about other proposals that may 
be stimulative in the long run, but for me the focus should be--and I 
think for my colleagues--on that which is truly going to be stimulative 
over the next 12 months.
  The Finance Committee package makes significant improvements to the 
House bill. I think they are important aspects that strengthen our 
efforts on stimulus. The Finance Committee bill makes sure that 20 
million low-income seniors and 250,000 disabled veterans are eligible 
for a stimulus rebate--a critical aspect to correct. Now I don't think 
the House of Representatives intended to leave these folks behind, and 
I think we can simply send a message to the House and the President 
that we know they support including these individuals as well.
  By making sure that seniors qualify for these payments, in my State, 
over 800,000 Washingtonians will be helped, and over 93,000 disabled 
veterans and their families. So we are talking about a large percentage 
of the population. These people live on fixed incomes, and it is 
essential we provide them the economic assistance they deserve. I do 
want to congratulate Senators Lincoln and Snowe for highlighting the 
fact that the House bill failed to help these individuals--disabled 
veterans--and worked to correct this in the Finance Committee package.
  The Finance Committee package also improves upon the House bill by 
including a modest temporary extension of the stimulative energy tax 
credit and investment provisions. Some may ask: Are these energy 
provisions stimulative? Let me respond clearly: Extending these 
provisions is critical to the prevention of billions of dollars of 
investment loss and thousands of jobs lost in 2008. We need to act 
quickly or we are going to not only lose out on a positive economic 
stimulus that can be upwards of $20 billion, but people will start 
cancelling projects that are in critical areas of investment simply 
because we have not given them the predictability of the Tax Code.
  This bill includes a 1-year extension of expiring clean energy and 
efficiency tax credits that will help consumers and businesses make 
stimulative investment decisions in 2008, and it happens to address one 
of the most pressing needs--energy costs--that are causing impact to 
our economy today. Extending this package of incentives now will enable 
companies to go forward with more renewable investments in wind and 
solar which are currently on hold now because they are waiting for the 
certainty of the Tax Code.
  I wish to show my colleagues an example of what uncertainty does for 
our investment. Historically, the production tax credits have been 
renewed at various points in time. When Congress has failed to give 
predictability--and

[[Page 1229]]

this chart shows the megawatt production, the years we failed to 
provide certainty--we actually saw a 93-percent drop in 2000. In 2001 
when we failed to get certainty again, we saw a 73-percent drop in 
production, and in 2004 we saw a 77-percent drop in production again. 
What this chart shows us is that in 2007, we are off to a great year as 
it relates to production, and the production tax credit and the 
alternative energy that we are producing.
  As I said, 2000 shows almost $20 billion in stimulation to our 
economy by our investment in energy. That helps us lower energy costs 
and certainly puts more production into the mix. But if we fail to give 
the businesses the predictability we are going to extend these tax 
credits, those investments aren't going to be made.
  The American Wind Energy Association estimates that the extension of 
the production tax credit will enable $7 billion in capital spending to 
go forward over the next 12 months, thanks to projects and contracts 
that will be executed as planned rather than delayed because of 
uncertainty of the place-in-service date. That is, by saying the 
projects have to be in place by the end of this year does not give them 
the predictability of continuing to make the investment. We have been 
told by just one appliance manufacturer that they will not give the go-
ahead on $30 million in investment in 2008 to put new energy efficiency 
appliances into production unless the tax credit is extended. That 
production line won't be cost-effective without it. That is what they 
tell us.
  Also, the extension of the investment tax credit for solar, for 
example, means that one large grocery store chain in the United States 
would--if they got the credit--inject an additional $30 million into 
the economy by following through on their plan to retrofit more stores 
with solar panels in 2008. Each solar conversion of those stores puts 
$2 million into the economy, into manufacturing and installation of 
those solar panels. The Federal investment credit is key to whether 
they move forward with their investment, or whether they stop or slow 
down. Overall, the solar industry estimates that up to 40,000 new jobs 
will be lost in the next 12 months if we don't extend the investment 
credit. At this time in our economy, why should we be sacrificing high-
quality jobs because we aren't giving certainty predictability?
  Let me give an example. In my own State, someone called our office 
today who is the president of Wellons, Inc., in Vancouver, WA. For more 
than 40 years Wellons has been a leader in providing wood-fired energy 
systems, lumber-dried kilns, and related products to the forest 
industry. Wellons has four to six projects and maybe many more that are 
ready to go, and yet a key to all these projects moving forward is 
certainty about the production tax credit. If the production tax 
credits aren't extended, these projects can't go forward, and as the 
president of that organization told my office:

       Every project I have hinges on the production tax credit. 
     If they aren't extended, we will start having to lay off some 
     of the 500 employees in the company.

  So we have to act quickly. There are many other States that will be 
impacted besides mine. A report that was released today by Navigant 
Consulting found that over 100,000 jobs are at risk. In fact, their 
report shows State by State that due to a lack of production tax 
credit--Texas, for example, 23,000 jobs could be at stake; Colorado, 
10,000 jobs; Illinois, 8,000--and I am not giving the exact number 
here; I am rounding them up or down--Oregon, 7,000 jobs; Minnesota, 
6,000; my home State of Washington, 4,744; and the list goes on. Iowa, 
North Dakota, Oklahoma; Pennsylvania will lose 1,500 plus jobs; 
California, nearly 1,000 jobs; Missouri, nearly 1,000 jobs, and on and 
down the list.
  So the question is whether we are going to act to pass what is a 
bipartisan Senate bill that improves on the House package--it improves 
on the House package including seniors, including disabled veterans, in 
making sure we are clear about who--in fact, that legal citizens get 
access to these rebate checks, and to make sure we are truly making the 
best decision about stimulative investment.
  Now, I wish that last year we could have had some of these things 
pass and having some clarity. But it is clear that the House of 
Representatives and the White House see this differently. So it is very 
important that we take the opportunity now to get this investment 
strategy right. Doing these tax credits at the end of this year is not 
sufficient to keeping investment. If we don't, 2008 is going to look 
more like 2004. That is that in 2008, people will cancel projects, stop 
production, we won't have the energy produced in the marketplace.
  This is a large opportunity for us. It is a large opportunity to give 
businesses--and I should say it also gives consumers--an opportunity to 
get about $500 from a tax rebate for their consumer energy investments 
into products that will help them keep their energy costs down, and the 
estimates are that individual consumers, besides the $500 rebate they 
will get, will probably save between $600 and $800 on energy savings. 
Those are the kinds of things we want to do. We want to see 2008 look 
even more aggressive from a stimulative perspective than 2007. We want 
people to be aggressive in this area because not only will it create 
jobs, not only will it create economic stimulus now, but it will help 
consumers on the key impact they are feeling in this economic hardship 
of high energy costs. The more production you get into place, that 
production helps us in lowering energy costs. Getting more alternative 
energy production helps us in impacting the cost of natural gas, 
because you have an alternative product in the marketplace. It helps us 
in getting other supply. It certainly is supply that is there for the 
long run. I don't think anybody thinks we are ever going to change the 
direction we are currently seeing on high energy costs, so getting the 
long-term production in place is also a good idea.
  But I urge my colleagues to think clearly about this choice we are 
going to have; that is, to improve upon the, I am sure, unintended 
consequences the House had in their package by clarifying that seniors 
and veterans deserve to have these benefits, and that these production 
tax credits and investments are smart investments to give business 
predictability and will be stimulative to our economy. Certainly by 
ignoring that, we are at peril of making our problems worse. So I 
encourage my colleagues to support this Finance Committee package that 
has come out in a bipartisan way and move quickly with the House to 
resolve these issues. It is the quickest path forward to getting a bill 
to the President and getting checks into consumers' hands.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). The Senator from 
Louisiana is recognized.


                 Tribute to Rupert Florence Richardson

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a very 
important Louisianan, and really a great leader of our Nation, who 
passed away recently. I come to the floor in her memory, to pause for 
just a moment and to remember this great lady.
  Thursday, January 24, Louisiana and the Nation lost a powerful 
advocate for justice, equality, and opportunity. Rupert Florence 
Richardson was truly a heroine of the civil rights movement, who 
battled throughout her life not only to realize the dream of equal 
opportunity and a colorblind society, but she fought every day that I 
knew her for decent jobs, adequate health care, quality health care, 
and equal opportunities in education for all children.
  During more than half a century of work and devotion to the civil 
rights movement, and to public service generally, Rupert Richardson 
rose into national prominence as one of the longest serving board 
members of the NAACP, serving from 1992 to 1995 as national head. Prior 
to that, she served that prestigious organization for 7 years as vice 
president and also 16 years as the president of the Louisiana chapter.
  Rupert Richardson was a mother, a teacher, a nurse, a sought-after 
speaker, and a leader always. She had an extraordinary voice and 
presence, a really big and wonderful heart, she was a great intellect, 
and she had a passion

[[Page 1230]]

for people. She was fondly known as the grand dame of the NAACP and was 
beloved by many in the NAACP civil rights family.
  To us at home, you could always see Rupert coming because of her hats 
of various shapes, sizes and colors--quite decorative--which was her 
signature trademark. She was a vibrant spirit, always busy, working, 
and always generous to those around her.
  Rupert served many years in Baton Rouge and was no stranger to our 
Nation's Capital. She was born in Texas and moved to Lake Charles, LA, 
as an infant. That is where she will be buried tomorrow. For more than 
30 years, Rupert served Louisiana in many spheres of influence, and she 
will be fondly remembered and respectfully remembered. It was truly a 
life of service. Her family, her friends, her sorority sisters, and 
particularly the civil rights family in America owe a great deal to 
this great heroine of civil rights.
  I am happy to come to the floor of the Senate to remember Rupert 
Richardson, to speak of her, and to remind all of us of her great 
contribution. She will be missed very much.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. 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. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the 
economic stimulus package that is now under consideration by the full 
Senate and specifically to address the crucial issue of how this 
package affects our senior citizens. I am particularly glad to be 
delivering these remarks on an occasion when my distinguished colleague 
from Florida is occupying the chair because I know of the extraordinary 
efforts he dedicates in this Chamber on behalf of the citizens of his 
home State of Florida. Like Florida, Rhode Island is a State that has a 
significant senior population, and so the welfare of those seniors and 
the effect on them of this economic stimulus is a matter of great 
concern to both of us.
  I want to tell a quick story. Not long ago, at one of the community 
dinners I give around the State of Rhode Island to get input from 
people, to have a chance to meet folks in our local communities, to 
have them have a chance to talk with me, and for me to have a chance to 
hear their stories, a young man named Travis attended, and he told me a 
story about his grandmother.
  His grandmother is a lovely woman. She lives in Woonsocket, RI. 
Woonsocket is a historic and beautiful city in Rhode Island but a city 
that has faced, for a long time, economic challenges. His grandmother 
is in her nineties, and she still lived in the three-story tenement, on 
her own, that she had lived in all her life in Woonsocket.
  In Rhode Island, there are a lot of buildings where there are three 
apartments, one on top of the other--three-deckers--and she lived on 
the top floor of one of those. God bless her, at age 90, she was able 
to walk up and down those stairs every day, and she did, to go out and 
do her errands, to visit with her grandson, and to go about her life. 
She was fit, and she was proud of her independence. It is not easy to 
go up and down those stairs every day, but she did it. She liked to 
live alone. She was proud of being independent her whole life and 
wanted to remain independent.
  One day, she went down the stairs from that third-story tenement, and 
she walked out, as she often did, to visit her pharmacist, to pick up 
the prescriptions she requires to maintain her health. Everything was 
just as usual, until she got to the pharmacy. She discovered that this 
was not a usual day. She was told by the pharmacist that she had fallen 
into the doughnut hole--the terrible coverage gap in the Part D 
Medicare prescription drug program. She hadn't seen it coming. She was 
blindsided, caught completely by surprise. You can imagine what was 
going through her mind when she was told she couldn't pick up her 
drugs, that she couldn't afford them.
  She went home to that third-floor tenement emptyhanded, without her 
prescriptions, and she walked back up those stairs. Frightened and 
alone, not sure what to do, she called Travis. Fortunately, he was able 
to help. But without any help from her Part D insurance, she couldn't 
afford to pay both her rent and that medicine.
  She was frightened. After years of living on her own, after holding 
on, really with a lot of courage and a lot of heart and a lot of 
determination, to that independence that meant so much to her, even if 
it meant walking up three flights of stairs every day, now she was 
going to lose that--not because of anything she had done wrong, not 
because of anything that had changed in her life, but because she had 
fallen into this trap that was set for her by this Congress when it 
built that hole into the prescription drug program.
  That call from his grandmother shook Travis pretty hard, and that is 
what brought him into my life. It was one of numerous stories I heard 
on the campaign trail from families who had to cope suddenly with 
watching a senior fall into that coverage gap.
  On another occasion, I was coming out of a speech I was giving, and a 
fellow stopped me on the way out and we talked for a while. He said: 
You know, I really want you to fix this prescription drug thing, and I 
want to tell you why. He said: I have a brother--this was a gentleman 
about my age. He said: I have a younger brother, now in his forties. He 
is severely disabled. He has serious mental challenges. He lives in a 
group home, and every week I go by and I take him out. I take him on an 
outing. I take him to the movies, to a ball game, or to walk around the 
mall, and I do it with $50.
  My mother gives me $50 every month to help take care of my brother. 
He said: She is elderly now. She had taken care of him all his life, 
but then he had to move into the group home, and now she is elderly 
herself, and there is not much she can do for her son. She still loves 
him deeply. She still cares for him very much.
  The one last thing she could do for this boy was to give her other 
son $50 a month out of her very sparse resources to take his brother on 
these outings.
  Now, he said, I have the $50. I am going to take my brother on these 
outings anyway. That is not the issue. The issue is that my mom just 
fell in this doughnut hole and, he said, she can't give me that $50 
anymore, and it is breaking her heart to know that after all these 
years of caring for this boy and having this one last thing she could 
still do for him, she couldn't do it any longer. He said: She feels 
like a failure. Her heart is broken. Please, you have to do something 
about this.
  That is an indication of how close so many Americans are to the edge, 
that this mother, whose most important expenditure in her life is to be 
able to help that son and know she was still doing something for him, 
and she couldn't make that payment any longer because everything had to 
go to prescriptions and the basic necessities of just keeping alive.
  We have heard a lot of these stories. I know the distinguished 
Presiding Officer has heard these stories as he goes around Florida.
  As an aside, I think it is worth observing while we are here, what a 
shameful mistake--what a shameful mistake--this Congress made when it 
had the chance and it had the choice to close this terrible gap in this 
coverage for seniors and it chose not to. It chose not to so that it 
could give the wealthy pharmaceutical industry--one of the richest and 
most successful industries in the country--one of the fattest perks, 
one of the biggest benefits, one of the biggest insider deals that has 
ever come through this building--something almost unique in the annals 
of corporate special favors. What a racket. It gave them the ability to 
avoid having Medicare and Medicaid negotiate with them over the price 
of their pharmaceuticals. What a racket. And we did that. The extra 
cost that puts into that system means you have to maintain that hole 
and that seniors are going to fall into that trap over and over again.

[[Page 1231]]

  Well, that is a fight we are going to continue. I know the Senator 
from Florida feels strongly about it, I feel strongly about it, and 
many others feel strongly about that. It is wrong to have seniors such 
as Travis's grandmother or the lady who can't make her $50 contribution 
to help her son be the ones to lose and an industry making billions, 
which has everything it needs, win out over them.
  So now we have this stimulus package. Our Nation is confronting 
uncertain economic times, and Congress is working diligently to try to 
put together a package to prevent us from sliding further into the Bush 
recession. However, when the initial agreement was announced between 
the administration and the House of Representatives, I was concerned--
as the Senator from Florida was; we spoke about it--that many seniors, 
one of the groups who most need our help, were excluded from that deal.
  Most seniors, who rely on Social Security benefits and savings, do 
not pay income taxes, and they would not be eligible for an income tax 
rebate based on taxable income and delivered through the Internal 
Revenue Service. It just wouldn't reach them. Indeed, 61 percent of 
seniors who received Social Security benefits did not pay income taxes 
in 2006, the last year for which there is data. Sixty-one percent would 
have gotten nothing under that package.
  Well, today, more than 138,000 Rhode Islanders--to the Senator from a 
great big State such as Florida, that may not seem like a big number, 
but 138,000 in a State with a population of just 1 million is a lot of 
people--138,000 Rhode Islanders over the age of 65 receive Social 
Security benefits.
  It is not a big benefit, it is not a generous benefit. It averages 
$12,374 a year. Based on the national percentage of recipients who pay 
income tax, it means more than 84,000 Rhode Islanders would receive 
nothing under the House proposal, 84,000 Rhode Island seniors, zippo, 
nothing for them.
  Nationwide that number climbs to 21.1 million seniors. More than 20 
million seniors would not receive a dime in tax rebates under the House 
bill. That is not fair. That is not fair.
  As long as we are putting funds out in the economy in order to 
stimulate the economy, we should make sure the program reaches fairly 
to different segments of the population and certainly not leave out 
seniors. Extending the rebate plan to seniors will give much-needed 
breathing room to so many seniors who struggle every day to get by.
  But in addition to being more fair, it also makes economic sense. 
According to the Department of Labor, Americans over 65 are responsible 
for 14 percent of all consumer spending, and they spend an average of 
92 percent of their income every year.
  In 2006 alone, they purchased more than $800 billion in consumer 
goods. So if you are looking to push consumer spending, seniors are a 
good place. That data suggests any rebate we are able to provide 
seniors will provide the kind of stimulus our country needs.
  Furthermore, older Americans are more likely to spend the money they 
receive and to spend it on goods and services that will help our 
economy grow, and they will spend it sooner. They will spend it faster. 
As we all know, one of the key purposes of this stimulus is to put the 
stimulus into the economy quickly.
  In a Budget Committee hearing a few days ago, I asked Peter Orszag, 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office, which would be a faster 
stimulus to the economy, Social Security or tax rebates. He testified: 
Social Security. So if we can help seniors get this through Social 
Security, better still.
  Last week, I wrote the Democratic and Republican leaders in the 
Senate about my concerns. I urged them to make seniors a priority in 
any stimulus package we consider. I am very encouraged and very 
pleased, standing on the floor right now, that the Senate Finance 
Committee, chaired by our distinguished colleague from Montana, Senator 
Max Baucus, has reported out of his committee, in bipartisanship 
fashion, a bill that would allow most seniors to receive a $500 rebate 
under the Finance Committee proposal.
       Social Security benefits would be considered as income for 
     this limited purpose. Seniors with at least $3,000 in Social 
     Security income, Social Security benefits, but we are 
     treating it this one time as income for 2007, this past year, 
     could claim the $500-per-person rebate simply by filing a tax 
     return.
  Now, of course as we know, many seniors do not have enough taxable 
income to require them to file tax returns. They may not have filed in 
years and they may not be familiar with the process. So as we go 
forward, should this proposal become law, I hope it does, we must do 
all we can to inform seniors about the rebates to which they are 
entitled and to help them claim these much-needed rebates.
  We need to call on our friends who are accountants, social service 
workers, lawyers in the tax area, who can volunteer their time to work 
at senior centers in high-rises, work with our seniors to make sure 
seniors know they can do this and help them fill out this form so they 
can get this benefit.
  So many seniors desperately could use an extra $500. That is nearly a 
whole year of this gentleman I mentioned, of his mom being able to help 
her son. Her whole thing every year was $600. It meant the world to her 
and it was only $600. And she could not do this. But this $500 will 
make a big difference in these seniors' lives.
  So we have to make sure no senior loses out on this money because of 
misinformation or difficulty in navigating the tax forms. The solution 
is a strong step forward. I applaud the work of Chairman Baucus and the 
Republican ranking member of the Finance Committee, Chuck Grassley.
  I look forward to continuing our efforts to pass an economic stimulus 
proposal that meets the pressing needs of America's seniors while 
accelerating the stimulus the economy needs.
  I will close by saying once again how fortunate I feel to be on the 
floor delivering these remarks at a time when the distinguished 
Senator, Bill Nelson, for those who cannot see him, of Florida, is in 
the Presiding Officer's chair. Because again, his strength and 
determination on issues that affect seniors in Florida is renowned in 
this Chamber, and I could not hope for a better audience as someone 
with such care and dedication to American seniors to be here.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, it has been a long week, and our list of 
accomplishments--on paper--are not very much. But, hopefully, we are 
headed toward a real good week next week.

                          ____________________