[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1327-1340]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 RECOVERY REBATES AND ECONOMIC STIMULUS FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ACT OF 
                   2008--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me first express my disappointment 
that we are not able to vote on the economic stimulus package. That 
package was reported out of the Senate Finance Committee last 
Wednesday. Each of us had plenty of opportunity to review the report 
from the Finance Committee and the provisions they added to the House 
package. For reasons I cannot understand, the Republican leadership is 
denying us the opportunity to act quickly on the package.
  One of the major criteria for the economic stimulus package is it 
must be timely. The House took it up, passed it. Now it is our turn. We 
are ready to act. We have the bipartisan recommendations from the 
Senate Finance Committee. Now it is time for us to take action.
  These are very difficult times. Let me review some of the most recent 
economic news. It is not good. The stock market is 11 percent lower 
than it was last October when it reached its peak. The price of oil has 
reached $100 a barrel. That is causing hardships for many families. 
Last month we saw job loss, an actual decline in employment for the 
first time in 4 years, a shrinking workforce. The President submitted 
his budget. He is showing the deficit, by his own numbers, increasing 
from $162 billion to $410 billion. That debt does not include the use 
of Social Security surpluses. It does not include such things as paying 
for the alternative minimum tax that we know we will have to deal with. 
We have tough economic times.
  When one looks at the housing market, there is reason to be 
concerned. In 2007, home sales were down by 13 percent over 2006. There 
are over 4 million properties currently in inventory, a very high level 
of homes that can't seem to move off the market. We are all concerned 
about the subprime foreclosure rates. It is estimated now that we could 
have as many as 2 million subprime foreclosures by the end of next 
year. There are many ripple effects to what is happening in the 
economy. I was talking to some people in Baltimore, where we have the 
General Motors transmission plant. They were telling me that their 
sales of light trucks are down because of the housing industry, because 
so many of the people who work in the housing industry need light 
trucks. We have lost jobs in Baltimore as a result of what is happening 
in the housing market.
  Another interesting fact, it is affecting local governments. It is 
now estimated that as a result of the decline in housing values, local 
governments will lose close to a billion dollars in property tax 
revenues. There is a real ripple effect to what is happening in our 
economy.
  We have a responsibility to act. I congratulate the Federal Reserve 
for taking action on the prime rate. That was helpful. It was directly 
helpful in reducing interest rates, but it was also a clear signal that 
the Fed is going to operate to help the economy. So should we. For us 
to be effective, we must be timely. To be timely, we must vote on this 
bill. I am extremely disappointed that we can't use the time we have 
available today to take the necessary votes so each Member can cast 
their vote as to whether they agree with the Finance Committee, and 
then we can move on and send this bill back to the House and hopefully 
to the President within a short period.
  I am pleased with the work of the Finance package. Another major 
point about a successful economic stimulus package is that it should be 
targeted to those programs that will help create job opportunities 
immediately. It is short term so it needs to be targeted. The Senate 
Finance package incorporates what the other body did in rebates to 
taxpayers, providing business relief through expensing and 
depreciation, but it goes further with some relatively modest changes 
in the total dollar amount but extremely important, if we want to make 
sure the economic stimulus package is targeted to those who need it and 
will help our economy. It also should be targeted to be fair, looking 
after the people who need help, the people who have been disadvantaged 
by a downturn in the economy.
  The Finance Committee is recommending that we include low-income 
seniors. Low-income seniors are hurting today. They don't know where 
they are going to get the money to buy food or pay utility bills or 
medical expenses. There is a misconception that seniors have this 
wonderful health care system called Medicare. Seniors as an age group 
have the highest amount of out-of-pocket health care costs of any age 
group. Seniors are being hurt by the high cost of fuel. Seniors need 
help. Why should we leave them out of the package? Certainly, if we 
want to target it to those who will spend some money to generate 
economic activity, low-income seniors should be high on the list. 
Looking at it from the point of view of fairness, we should want to 
include low-income seniors. Quite frankly, I believe it was an 
oversight by the other body. I don't think this is controversial. It 
should not be controversial. That should be clearly added to the 
package. I congratulate the Finance Committee for including low-income 
seniors.
  The Finance Committee also included disabled veterans. Those 
receiving disability benefits would qualify for a rebate. Let me talk 
about a matter of fairness. We are talking about men and women who 
answered our Nation's call who are now receiving disability benefits. 
That, again, was an oversight by the other body. They clearly wanted to 
include disabled veterans in the tax rebates we are putting forward. I 
don't believe this is a controversial issue. It is a matter of 
fairness, a matter of people who will help our economy, targeting the 
economic stimulus properly.
  The Senate Finance Committee package also included an extension of 
unemployment insurance benefits. I want Members to concentrate on this 
one. When you have economic downturn, people lose their jobs. When they

[[Page 1328]]

lose their jobs, in many cases their sole source of income becomes 
unemployment insurance compensation. The money we give as a safety net 
into which they paid through employment taxes--it is their money--is an 
insurance program. When we go through an economic downturn, it is more 
difficult for someone who has lost a job to find a job, because there 
are less jobs available. Historically we have extended the traditional 
26 weeks of unemployment benefits beyond that, when we have an economic 
downturn. The Finance Committee said, as a matter of fairness, we 
should extend those benefits by an additional 13 weeks. For those 
States that have high levels of unemployment, we should go to 26 weeks 
of additional benefits. That is certainly the fair thing to do, because 
they are the people mostly hurt by the downturn in the economy. If our 
criteria is to target money into people's hands who are going to spend 
it if that is their source of income, we know that is going to get back 
into the economy. So it will help our economy to extend unemployment 
benefits.
  The Finance package also includes an energy package to provide 
incentives for businesses to move toward more efficient energy sources 
and more environmentally friendly energy sources. It would include a 
package that will allow us to energize the economic sector for what we 
call green jobs. We know we need to change our energy policy. We know 
we need to be more sensitive to the environment. We need to be energy 
independent for national security so we don't depend upon other 
countries who are unfriendly toward us for our energy needs. We need to 
do that in order to deal with the problems of greenhouse gas emissions 
and global climate change. We need to get on with an energy policy for 
our economy. We can't sustain abrupt increases in energy costs because 
of the whim of oil producing countries. For all those reasons, we need 
to be energy independent. We all agree--and I have talked to my 
colleagues from around the country on both sides of the aisle--that we 
have to unleash the creativity of America's businesses and the 
creativity of our free market. This package coming out of the Finance 
Committee provides the tools so American businesses can respond to the 
needs we have on creating alternative energy sources and a greener and 
more friendly environmental energy policy.
  The package also includes the net operating loss so businesses that 
have lost money can benefit from this economy and can stay in business 
and can try to help our economy. It also includes a very important 
provision that Senator Kerry offered dealing with mortgage revenue 
bonds. Part of the problem we have in the housing market today is what 
we call a credit crunch. We also have people who are suffering from 
subprime mortgages and need some help as far as refinancing. The 
revenue bonding authority to local governments will help in both cases. 
It allows local governments to buy these mortgages. In many cases they 
will be below par. They will buy them for their value, but then they 
can refinance the property so people who are living in these homes can 
stay in them and are not going to be subjected to potential 
foreclosure. It is certainly in our interest to provide that help. It 
will also help with the credit crunch because the more money out there, 
the more dollars that will be available.
  As I think I related earlier stories I have heard from the State of 
Maryland, I can tell you about homeowners in Salisbury trying to sell 
their homes, but they can't because the buyers can't get a mortgage. 
Everybody is being affected. So the package that includes the mortgage 
revenue bonds is important. The problem in our economy was triggered by 
the housing market. It wasn't caused by the housing market. There are a 
lot of problems out there, and it was certainly not the cause, but it 
was triggered by the housing market. So our stimulus package should try 
to deal with that. The Finance Committee package deals with it.
  I thank the majority leader for adding one substantial change to the 
Finance package. He did that because there was bipartisan agreement. We 
have had Senators on both sides of the aisle urging that the package 
include help for LIHEAP, low-income energy assistance for families who 
can't afford their utility bills. The package will include some help 
for that group. There is consensus that we need to do that, but it is 
also part of the economic downturn, families who cannot afford and have 
to make the decision between food and energy. This will help them a 
little bit. The money will get right back into the economy, helping to 
stimulate the economy and helping us make this downturn as brief as 
possible so we can grow our economy.
  This is a short-term economic stimulus package. It is important for 
us to act quickly. I am disappointed that we are being stalled by the 
Republican leadership and not having a chance to vote on it as promptly 
as we should. We are ready to vote. We know what is in the package. We 
should be voting on it and getting it back to the House so we can get 
to it conference and to the President as quickly as possible. It is 
short term. It will help stimulate the economy.
  Then I hope we will see the same type of bipartisan cooperation 
between the White House and the Democratic leadership in the House to 
deal with deep problems we have in our economy. These are more long 
term. We are not going to reverse it overnight. These are not 
appropriate to be included in the short-term economic stimulus package 
that is on the floor. But these are issues that need to be dealt with. 
Quite frankly, I don't think they can wait until a national election. 
We need to work on them this year. We are in business. Let's get some 
work done. Let's work together, Democrats and Republicans. Let's stop 
stalling. Let's use the time this year to work on the problems of 
energy independence. We could take a major step forward. I have heard 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk about how, if we would 
make a Manhattan type commitment or a commitment as we did to put a 
person on the Moon, we could become energy independent in a relatively 
short period of time. We have to start on that.
  In 2007, we passed an energy bill that was a good bill. But it 
certainly didn't move as far as most of us wish to see us move. Let's 
move forward on that proposal. There is a proposal coming out of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee that contains a step forward on 
America being a leader on dealing with global climate change that the 
Presiding Officer worked on. So this is a bill that I think is very 
important that we move forward on. We can get it done this year. Let's 
not wait. Let's use the spirit of cooperation and understanding. This 
economic downturn occurred because we didn't pay as much attention as 
we should to the underlying problems of our country.
  Let's get on with health care. Let's get a bill to the floor that 
will at least help start to deal with those who are uninsured, take on 
some of the major cost issues in our health care system, whether it is 
the high cost of prescription drugs or the high cost we pay because 
people don't have insurance so they go to emergency rooms or the need 
for medical technology so we have a more efficient system, a better use 
of preventive health care so people can get the care in a less costly 
way.
  Let's move on in 2008. Let's not lose that opportunity, because it is 
going to take us years to accomplish those goals. We are not going to 
accomplish them overnight, but we need to get it done.
  By the way, let's also take a look at this budget that was sent to 
us. I am glad to see my colleagues on both sides of the aisle raise 
very serious problems with the President's budget. Let us this year 
come together on a budget that starts to bring us into balance. We 
started with this administration 7 years ago with a budget that was in 
surplus. I was proud to be a part of the Congress that brought that 
budget into balance. We are going to have to do that again, but let's 
start in 2008. We don't have to wait until 2009. Let us start to get 
these problems resolved. If we do, we will be on a much sounder 
economic basis and we would not have to worry about another trigger 
coming

[[Page 1329]]

along that causes us to go through another economic downturn with 
people being hurt.
  But our responsibility at this moment is to deal with the short-term 
economic stimulus package. That is the opportunity we have that we can 
get done this week. That bill we can get to the President this week. 
Every day is important. I know I speak for most of the Members of this 
body that we want to get it done now. The choice is clear. We have the 
package, the bipartisan package from the Senate Finance Committee. 
Let's bring it up and vote on it and let's move forward. I would urge 
my colleagues to do that.
  Mr. President, 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. CONRAD. 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. CONRAD. Mr. President, yesterday, we received the President's 
budget for this year and for the next 5 years. I wish to take a few 
moments to comment on that and then on the need for a stimulus package 
given what is happening in the economy.
  First, I wish to indicate that we have seen under the President's 
leadership a dramatic deterioration in the budget circumstance for the 
country. Last year, the deficit was about $160 billion. They are now 
forecasting, the administration is forecasting that under its budget 
proposal, the deficit for this year will reach $410 billion, the second 
biggest deficit in dollar terms in our Nation's history, and for next 
year, again a deficit of more than $400 billion.
  This does not tell the whole story. This is the deficit story. The 
debt story is far more serious. As I have been saying for a number of 
years, the debt is the threat. However, we will never hear the word 
``debt'' leave the lips of this President. Never. We will never hear 
him talk about the growth of the debt. We will never hear him discuss 
the threat of the debt. We will never hear him discuss a plan to deal 
with the debt. It is as though the debt of the country for this 
President does not exist. Why? Well, perhaps because the debt is 
growing far more rapidly than the deficit.
  (Mrs. McCaskill assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, the President says the deficit for 2008 
will be $410 billion. If you look at his proposals, you see the debt 
will increase under his plan by more than $700 billion. Let me repeat 
that. Under the President's plan, the debt will not increase by the 
advertised deficit of $410 billion; the debt will increase by more than 
$700 billion.
  Why the big difference? The biggest reason is that, under the 
President's plan, nearly $200 billion in Social Security money is being 
taken to pay other bills. If you were doing that in the private sector, 
if you were taking retirement funds of your employees to pay operating 
expenses, you would be on your way to a Federal institution. But it 
would not be the House of Representatives or the White House; you would 
be on your way to the ``big house'' because that is a violation of 
Federal law. But here the President can propose a budget that does it. 
In fact, that is what he has done the entire time he has been in 
office. He has taken trillions of dollars in Social Security money and 
used it to pay other bills. The problem with that, of course, is that 
while none of it is counted in the deficit calculation, it all gets 
added to the debt. The result is that here is what is happening to the 
gross debt of the United States. At the end of the President's first 
year--and we don't hold him responsible for that year because he 
inherited a budget from the previous administration--the debt was $5.8 
trillion, the entire debt of the U.S. Government, the Federal 
Government. We now see that at the end of 2009, which is the last year 
he will be responsible for, the debt will be $10.4 trillion. So he will 
have increased the debt of this country by 80 percent in 8 years. What 
a disastrous legacy this is. He has us on course to have more than $13 
trillion in debt by 2013. This is before the baby boomers retire. We 
cannot pay our bills now. Can you imagine what is going to happen when 
we double, in very short order, the number of people eligible for 
Medicare and Social Security?
  Madam President, perhaps of even greater concern is what this 
President has done to foreign holdings of our debt. It took all of 
these Presidents pictured here on this chart--all of the 42 previous 
Presidents--224 years to run up a trillion dollars of U.S. debt held 
abroad. This President has more than doubled that amount in just 7 
years. He has added over $1.3 trillion of foreign-held debt in his 7 
years. That means we now owe the Japanese nearly $600 billion; we owe 
the Chinese a sum approaching $400 billion; we owe the British over 
$300 billion; we owe the Koreans over $40 billion. That is the legacy 
of this administration.
  Now the President comes with his budget, and says he is going to 
start doing something about the spending side of this equation. He 
said: I want to cut Medicare and Medicaid over the next 10 years by 
$600 billion. No, I didn't misspeak. That is what is in the President's 
budget. He wants to cut Medicare and Medicaid $600 billion over the 
next 10 years. That is health care for those who are Medicare 
eligible--largely the senior citizens of this country. The President 
wants to cut that by $600 billion.
  At the same time, in the same breath, in the same budget, he says: 
While we are doing that, let's cut taxes another $2.2 trillion. Let's 
dig the hole even deeper and add more to the deficit and debt. Let's go 
more in hock to the Chinese, the Japanese, and anybody else who will 
loan us money.
  Madam President, these numbers of the President substantially 
understate how serious it is. Why? Because, magically, he has just left 
things out. On the war, the President has no costs beyond the first 
half of 2009. The President said there should be no timetable on Iraq. 
He has just provided the timetable, hasn't he? He provided the 
timetable for withdrawal in his budget because he says there is going 
to only be funding for next year. The President, who said he is against 
a timetable for withdrawal, just wrote one. His timetable is provided 
in his budget. He says that after 4 months of next year, there is not 
going to be any funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. How much 
will be spent for the wars in 2010? He says zero. Next year, it is $70 
billion, after spending nearly $200 billion this year. This budget 
charitably can be called a great work of fiction because it bears no 
relationship to any reality.
  In addition, regarding the alternative minimum tax, which everybody 
says has to be fixed, he has the money to fix it for 1 year. He doesn't 
have a dime to fix it for any of the next 4 years after that. So we are 
talking about hundreds of billions of dollars that are not in this 
budget.
  Finally, for the fourth year in a row, for the first time in any 
administration's history, the President provides no spending details 
past this coming year. So he has the cuts in there, but he doesn't tell 
you how they are going to be done. More make believe, more fantasy, and 
more fiction--that is what this budget is all about.
  Madam President, the war cost $193 billion this year. Next year, it 
will only cost $70 billion--that is what the President says. That is in 
this budget. Can anybody believe it? I have not found anybody who 
does--not if the President's policy is pursued.
  In terms of the priorities of this budget, they are also subject to 
serious question because if you look at the relative priorities of what 
the President has proposed, here is what you see.
  For those who earn over $1 million a year, the cost of the 
President's tax cuts for that category of earners will cost $51 billion 
in 2009 alone. Let me repeat that. The cost of the tax cuts for those 
earning over $1 million a year will be $51 billion in 1 year alone. On 
the other hand, the President says we have to cut low-income heating 
assistance by $400 million. So you don't have $400 million for low-
income heating assistance, but you do have $51 billion for tax cuts for 
the wealthiest among us.

[[Page 1330]]

  The priorities continue in that same vein. It would take $826 million 
to restore the cuts to education that are in this President's budget--
$826 million for 1 year. Again, the President says, no, it is far more 
important--if you do the math, he is saying it is more than 60 times as 
important to provide additional tax cuts for those earning over a 
million dollars a year, because the tax cuts for that category--the 
cost of the tax cuts are over $51 billion for next year.
  The same is true in law enforcement. In many ways, this is the most 
startling. The President says eliminate the COPS Program, which has put 
more than 100,000 police officers on the street. The President says 
forget it, cut it 100 percent. No additional police on the street. What 
sense does that make when crime is rising? He doesn't say cut it; he 
says eliminate it. It would cost $596 million for 1 year to restore 
that program. Again, the cost of the President's tax cuts for those 
earning over $1 million a year is $51 billion. That is almost 100 times 
as much as restoring funding for police.
  If we look at specific proposals by the President in this budget, we 
see he proposes cutting the COPS Program, as I have indicated, by 100 
percent; weatherization assistance, cut that 100 percent; first 
responders--the aid to our firemen and our emergency personnel--he says 
cut that 78 percent; clean water grants, cut that 21 percent; community 
development block grants which help our cities--and every mayor will 
tell you these are the most flexible funds they get from the Federal 
Government--cut that 20 percent; cut low-income energy assistance 17 
percent.
  Madam President, that brings me to the subject of the need for a 
stimulus package. Economic growth, we are seeing, has slowed 
dramatically. The Congressional Budget Office says economic growth is 
going to slow to 1.5 percent this year.
  By the way, all of the numbers I used, and the President's budget--do 
you know what economic growth number he used? He didn't use 1.5 
percent, which comes from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. 
He says the economy will grow at 2.7 percent. So all those numbers I 
showed are the best-case scenario, because he has a rosy scenario with 
respect to what economic growth will look like. If we look at the last 
quarter of last year, what happened to economic growth? It slowed to 
six-tenths of 1 percent. That should be a tipoff that we have a 
problem.
  Here is what is happening to the housing industry. They are not in a 
recession; they are in a depression. Here is what happened to new home 
building. It has gone from a peak in 2006, and it has virtually 
collapsed. We just met with the homebuilding industry. They say this is 
the worst downturn since the Great Depression. That ought to get 
somebody's attention.
  Energy costs are spiking. We know what happened to fuel prices, 
fertilizer prices, home heating fuel, gasoline, and diesel. As a result 
of that, consumer confidence has taken an enormous hit.
  Here is the index of consumer confidence, which was down very 
dramatically as we went through the months of last year and into the 
early part of this year. This is what signals that we are in serious 
territory and that the economy is seriously at risk.
  The unemployment rate has risen sharply over the past year. We saw in 
the last jobs report that we actually lost 17,000 jobs. This was 
stunning to most economists, who were forecasting there would continue 
to be slow but modest job growth. Instead, it appears the economy hit a 
wall.
  Madam President, this is what the Federal Reserve Chairman told us on 
January 17:

       Any stimulus program should be explicitly temporary, both 
     to avoid unwanted stimulus beyond the near term horizon and, 
     importantly, to preclude an increase in the Federal 
     Government's structural budget deficit.

  He went on to say about an effective stimulus:

       There is good evidence that cash that goes to low and 
     moderate income people is more likely to be spent in the near 
     term. . . . Getting money to people quickly is good, and 
     getting money to low and moderate income people is good, in 
     the sense of getting bang for the buck.

  Here are the elements that represent improvements in the Senate 
stimulus package. We cover 20 million seniors who were not covered in 
the House package, and 250,000 disabled veterans are included in the 
Senate package but not in the House's. We have higher rebates for low-
income households--$500 versus $300. It extends unemployment insurance 
benefits, which gives us the biggest bang for the buck. We prohibit 
illegal aliens from receiving rebates. That was not brought to their 
attention in an effective way, so, unfortunately, it is conceivable 
that illegal aliens could get rebates under the House package. We have 
prevented that in the Senate package. We also have better targeted 
business provisions, especially the net operating loss carryback. I am 
proud to have authored an amendment that losses in 2008 could be 
carried back to profitable years, so that companies that are in this 
depression--those in the homebuilding industry--will qualify for 
assistance to prevent them from having even steeper layoffs and cuts.
  Finally, we encourage investment in alternative energy. Let me just 
point out that some say, in terms of incentives, that the extension for 
1 year, for example, of the wind energy tax incentives, that is not 
stimulative. Really?
  Tell that to the company in North Dakota that makes the big blades 
for wind turbines. They have told me, if the wind energy tax provision 
is not extended, they are going to start laying off people. They employ 
hundreds of people in my State. When people say the energy package is 
not stimulative, I tell you in my State it is because we have 
manufacturing facilities that make the giant blades for the wind 
turbines.
  I have commented on the President's budget because the President is 
going to dump a debt bomb on the desk of the next President. That is 
what is going to occur. He has nearly doubled the national debt. He has 
it going up at a rate of $800 billion a year, not the $400 billion of 
deficit we read about in the paper. The debt is going up twice as much, 
$800 billion a year, after this next year when it is going up $700 
billion.
  The next President is walking into a fiscal meltdown of historic 
proportion. This President has been the most wildly irresponsible 
fiscal steward in this country's history. That is a fact. The next 
President and the next Congress better get ready because they are 
walking into an absolute fiscal quagmire.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
my remarks, the Senator from Michigan be given 10 minutes, the Senator 
from Colorado 10 minutes, and if any Republicans come to the floor 
seeking recognition, that they be intervening between the Democrats.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, first, I thank our budget Chair, 
Senator Conrad, for presenting to us what has been given to Congress to 
consider from the President and the White House concerning our budget. 
I, too, am here this afternoon to talk about President Bush's proposed 
budget because, as we all know, we began debating it in our Budget 
Committee today. We have all had a look at this proposal now, and I 
think many of my colleagues on the Budget Committee agreed we could say 
it was nothing short of being dishonest and irresponsible and, frankly, 
unacceptable to many of us.
  We are facing some pretty serious problems in this country today, but 
the budget President Bush sent to us on Monday fails to take any of 
those challenges into consideration. We are out here trying to pass an 
economic stimulus package in response to the fact that more than 1 
million workers lost their jobs last year in this country. Across the 
country, we are seeing unemployment claims rise. People are very 
concerned about what is happening to their paychecks. They are worried 
about whether they are going to be able to pay for food or their 
mortgages in the future.

[[Page 1331]]

  On top of that, we see as many as 2 million Americans who are losing 
their homes because of the current subprime mortgage crisis. Economists 
now are telling us that problem is going to get worse before it gets 
better.
  So here we are, and the President sends his budget to us on Monday. 
It is his eighth and final budget request. He had a chance to send us a 
budget that would set us off on a fiscally responsible path, one that 
would help us strengthen this economy, invest in our country's future, 
and help those families who are struggling today to keep their homes 
and pay their bills. But instead, the President gave us more of the 
same, more of what we have seen for the last 7 years. Instead of taking 
steps in his final budget to help American families get back on their 
feet, he cut programs, such as heating assistance and job training. Can 
you imagine how that feels if you are worried about how you are going 
to pay your home heating bill or if you just lost your job?
  Instead of laying the groundwork to reduce our debt, which the 
chairman of our Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, has repeatedly told 
us is a huge issue facing us, instead of dealing with that, he gave us 
a dishonest budget that fails to state the true cost of war. He sent us 
a budget that put out a blueprint of $70 billion. He is asking $190 
billion or $200 billion for this year alone. Does that mean the 
President is going to bring our troops home? No. He is simply being 
dishonest about what his programs and his proposals cost. The budget he 
sent us is going to require us to borrow billions from foreign 
governments to meet our expenses. I think that is irresponsible.
  Over the last 7 years, America has paid dearly for the investments 
this President has failed to make, and this year in his budget we see 
nothing different. The Bush budget that was sent to us cuts critical 
programs at the Veterans' Administration, including medical research. 
When we have veterans coming home today who have post-traumatic stress 
syndrome, who have traumatic brain injury, who have lost their limbs, 
who are suffering from very debilitating issues, he cuts the medical 
research budget. He cuts funding for extended care facilities, even 
though we know the number of troops coming home who will need extended 
care is growing. And he asks the next generation of combat veterans to 
risk their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan and then says to them they are 
going to have to pay for part of the cost of their health care as a 
result of their serving this country.
  The budget proposal he sent us cuts $484 million from critical 
workforce training programs right at the time that 7.7 million people 
are out of work and asking: How can I get trained for the next job out 
there?
  The budget he sent to us, as Senator Conrad talked about, freezes 
Medicare reimbursement levels for our hospitals, for our hospices, for 
ambulance services, and long-term care facilities, even though it 
threatens access to facilities that are already stretched to the limit. 
This is going to affect every one of us who will need access to our 
hospitals, long-term health care facilities for ourselves and our 
parents in the coming years.
  And for the fourth year in a row, amazingly, the President is 
proposing deep cuts to community development block grants. These are 
programs that every mayor in every city has told us are the most 
flexible dollars the Federal Government sends to them that helps them 
create jobs right at a time when they are facing these tough economic 
times.
  Sadly, the President is slashing funding for section 8 and other low-
income housing programs, even as more of our families are set to lose 
their homes than at any time since the Great Depression.
  In the last 7 years, we have gone from a budget surplus to a record 
deficit, our roads and our bridges are crumbling, and we are paying for 
a misguided war on the backs of our grandchildren. People desperately 
want to see leadership that invests in those priorities and helps begin 
to turn this economy around.
  People at home say to me: Invest in our future at home. But sadly, I 
think the legacy of this administration is going to be red ink and 
broken promises.
  We have some hard work ahead of us as we try to repair the economy 
and build a budget in the Congress that matches our country's real 
priorities. That was pretty obvious today at our first hearing of the 
Budget Committee.
  During that hearing, we listened to our OMB Director, Mr. Nussle. He 
talked a good game about wanting to work with Congress on his budget. 
But when we began to ask him critical questions, it was pretty clear 
how little President Bush and his Cabinet understand the priorities of 
the American people today. It was clear when I asked Director Nussle 
about why the President is proposing deep cuts to the Veterans' 
Administration construction budget when thousands of new veterans are 
entering the system every year.
  We all remember what happened at Walter Reed a year ago, when it 
exposed the deplorable conditions at our VA facilities across this 
Nation, where we are sending those Iraqi war veterans and veterans from 
previous wars in horrible conditions. He stood with us and said we are 
going to fix this situation. Yet today, we get a budget that cuts the 
construction budget. How are we going to rebuild those facilities and 
make them into a place Americans can be proud of if the President 
doesn't ask for the money to do it? It was clear when Mr. Nussle 
refused to estimate the full cost of the Iraq war even for this year 
that they were not serious about this budget.
  Just like any American family that is sitting down to balance its own 
checkbook, we are going to have some pretty tough decisions ahead in 
this Congress. We have to do it now. We have to be honest about what 
our obligations are and the expenses we face. It is time we take stock 
of our finances and get our books back in order. We have to invest in 
the priorities of America's families, and it is going to take a true 
commitment, but that is certainly something the President's budget 
failed to do.
  We need an economic plan that works for everyone in this country. We 
need the economic stimulus package that we are trying to get passed 
that the Finance Committee did an excellent job in the Senate to put 
forward that will help provide short-term economic stimulus that is 
dramatically needed. Beyond that, we need a budget that invests in the 
American people and their priorities so our families can begin to feel 
strong once again. That is how we are going to get this economy moving.
  It is time for a change, and I am looking forward to getting it 
started now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I first lend my voice to that of the 
Senator from Washington and the Senator from North Dakota, our 
distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. I, too, am a member of 
the Budget Committee and am extremely disappointed that the President's 
budget this year is simply more of the same, in some cases worse--
higher deficits, more cuts in a number of areas, and certainly the 
wrong priorities for families in America. It takes us in exactly the 
wrong direction from where we need to be going.
  We are going to do what we have done in other years, which is put 
forward a very different vision for America, one that focuses on paying 
down the debt rather than increasing the debt, focuses on health care 
and education and investing in areas that will clean our water and our 
air and protect our lands and focus on the economy and good-paying jobs 
for middle-class families who are being hurt all across this country.
  We heard today a larger number than I have even been using about what 
is being spent on this war. The number now is $16 billion a month, $4 
billion a week on this war, and yet at the same time, the President 
believes we should eliminate funding for the COPS Program for local 
police officers and firefighters, makes dramatic cuts in Medicare and 
Medicaid, health care programs, cuts 48 different educational programs, 
and the list goes on and on.

[[Page 1332]]

  I am looking forward, as a member of the Budget Committee, to put 
forward a very different vision. We intend to change the priorities of 
this country and put them back on those priorities that directly affect 
middle-class families and help them survive and thrive in an economy 
that is having a very tough time, where they are being hit on all sides 
with increased costs.
  I wish to take a moment to speak about the stimulus package. As a 
member of the Finance Committee, I am very pleased with what we have 
been able to do working together on a bipartisan basis to come forward, 
again, with something that reflects a stimulus in the short run and 
focuses on critical areas, and we make sure a number of folks who were 
left out of the House package are not left out.
  We start with 20 million seniors. I should also say we are going to 
have in this body two votes: a vote on whether to include 20 million 
seniors or a vote on whether to leave them out. That is the reality. 
Unfortunately, seniors on fixed incomes, whose only income is Social 
Security, have been left out of the House package. We, on a bipartisan 
basis, have put it into the Senate package.
  So the question will be: Do my colleagues support and join with AARP 
and all the senior organizations that have been pushing and advocating 
and sending cards and letters and phone calls and urging us not to 
forget them, will you join with them, 20 million seniors, or will they 
be left out? We also want to make sure our disabled veterans are not 
left out.
  I am proud of the fact that we, in this new majority, this Democratic 
majority, have put veterans health care at the top and last year 
included real improvements in health care funding for the first time 
since that war began--the largest funding increases to support our 
veterans since the war began. This is another step in supporting our 
veterans. Two hundred and fifty thousand disabled veterans will be left 
out if the House bill is passed.
  So we have a choice when we vote. We vote yes on 250,000 veterans--
our disabled veterans, who have given more than I will give or most of 
us will give for our country--250,000 disabled veterans get the rebates 
and are part of the stimulus or they are not. The Senate package puts 
them in, the House package leaves them out.
  There is another very important piece of this package, and that goes 
to the question of millions of middle-class Americans, who, through no 
fault of their own, have found themselves in a situation without a job. 
I have spoken many other times on the floor about the reasons for 
that--from not enforcing our trade policies and not investing in the 
technologies and the infrastructure and the things that we need to be 
doing to grow a 21st century manufacturing base and to be able to keep 
manufacturing jobs, middle-class jobs, all across this country.
  There are many reasons for the fact that we have millions of people 
who are currently unemployed, but the fact is we do. We have middle-
class Americans who find themselves on unemployment insurance, which 
pays about 40 percent of the normal wage, while they are trying to keep 
the house, keep up the mortgage payment, put food on the table, keep 
the lights on, pay for the kids' clothes that they need, and to put gas 
in the car so they can survive until they can get that next job.
  Now, some have said, well, it is not that bad. I come from a State 
with the highest unemployment in the country. We have about 7.6 percent 
unemployment, and we are seeing not only in Michigan and a few States 
around the country that have been hit first, that this unemployment 
situation is beginning to creep out into millions of people, millions 
of middle-class families all across the country. So we are now hearing 
from Goldman Sachs and from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that while, 
as of January of this year, the unemployment rate was 5 percent, by 
next year the prediction is 6.5 percent. That is not Michigan, that is 
nationally. That is national unemployment.
  So one of the things that is important about the Senate package is 
that instead of being behind the curve--and economists talk about our 
being behind the curve on a stimulus--we actually are putting in place 
a way to respond quickly to be ahead of the curve; to be there to 
extend unemployment compensation for 13 weeks and an additional 13 
weeks if you hit this 6.5-percent unemployment, which, unfortunately, 
too many are saying we will reach. I hope they are wrong. I hope it 
goes in this direction. I certainly hope it goes in this direction for 
the great men and women in Michigan who have been working so hard. But 
the reality is it is most likely to be going in the direction of the 
6.5 percent.
  So for millions of middle-class families that have done nothing but 
play by the rules, care about their families, working for the American 
dream, proud to be Americans, sending their children or husbands and 
wives off to war, this package in the Senate will give them the dignity 
of knowing they can keep the household together while they are looking 
for their next job.
  Now, a lot of folks say, well, this is going to discourage--in fact, 
I heard this from the Secretary of the Treasury this morning in the 
Finance Committee--that this may discourage people from looking for a 
job. Well, let us look at the reality of this. Let us look at the 
reality of what is happening right now in an economy where we have not 
focused on making sure we have a strong middle class, where we have not 
focused on enforcing our trade laws, where we are exporting jobs, not 
just products. Let us look at what is happening right now.
  We have 7.7 million Americans--7.7 million Americans--competing for 4 
million jobs. That is the reality in America today. So when we talk 
about the need to support and to help those 7.7 million Americans, this 
becomes absolutely critical as we look at our economy. The good news is 
that every economist, from the most liberal to the most conservative, 
as well as the Congressional Budget Office and so many others, has said 
that one of the best ways to stimulate this economy, in the short run, 
is to extend unemployment benefits. For every $1 in benefits, you 
generate $1.64. For every $1 that you put into unemployment benefits. 
Why? Because if you are unemployed, you don't have the option of 
saving. You are going to spend every single nickel you get.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute to close.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. So when we look at this package, we have a choice 
between including or excluding 20 million seniors, excluding or 
including 250,000 disabled veterans, including or excluding millions of 
middle-class Americans looking for a job and, in addition to that, 
create jobs through alternative energy production and efforts to help 
the home-building industry, which is at the heart of what has been 
happening in terms of our economy. I am very pleased we have addressed 
those businesses that have operating losses now, to help them through 
the tax system and be able to keep going and not find themselves in a 
vice this year in terms of having fire sales to eliminate their 
inventory. I am pleased we have been able to include a $10 million 
revolving loan fund for States and local governments to help with 
refinancing of subprime loans.
  We have a number of very important provisions, and it is very 
exciting to see the broad coalition that has come together, from 
business to labor, to seniors, to the environmentalists, to those 
creating energy jobs, to those in the housing workplace; and from 
homebuilders to those who are involved with State and local 
governments, and millions and millions of middle-class families all 
across this country who are counting on us to do more than provide a 
check but to create the ability for investments and for jobs that will 
grow the economy.
  So I am very hopeful we will come together with the necessary votes 
to stop the filibuster that is happening here. I wish we could simply 
have an up-or-down vote on this. We certainly have the votes. But 
because of the situation we are in, because of the Republican 
filibuster, it is necessary to get 60 votes to be able to stop the 
filibuster.

[[Page 1333]]

So I am very hopeful we will have enough colleagues joining together on 
a bipartisan basis in order to be able to do that.
  Madam President, I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I wish to thank my colleague from 
Michigan for her great leadership on the Finance and Budget Committees 
and raising these issues that are so important to America. I think 
particularly when you come from a State such as her State of Michigan, 
where they have an unemployment rate that is knocking on the door of 8 
percent, she knows how hard it is for families in Michigan and the 
families across America as they see our economy spiraling downward and 
going into a ditch, which essentially makes what we are trying to do in 
the Senate today more important than at any other time.
  Madam President, I wish to start first by asking unanimous consent 
that I be permitted to speak on the Finance Committee stimulus package 
for such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I wish to first comment on the Finance 
Committee and the way that committee works.
  First, we are on the floor of the Senate with a Finance Committee 
package in large part because we have two great Senators who have been 
a part of this Chamber, a part of this institution for a very long time 
and who make it their priority to get results. They transcend partisan 
politics for the public purpose for which they were elected.
  It is in that vein that time and time again the packages we have 
brought forth from the Finance Committee have had both Democratic and 
Republican support as we have tried to move forward to confront the 
challenges that face our country today. This economic stimulus package 
that is before us today is no exception. It was voted out of the 
Finance Committee, a committee I am very proud to be a part of, with a 
bipartisan vote, in a bipartisan spirit, and with the sense that we 
needed to give a flu shot to this economy before it gets sicker; and 
with the sense that we need to help this economy go into a positive 
direction as opposed to getting further and further stuck in the ditch 
of disrepair, where it has been headed for the last several months.
  So this is a very important package that comes before the Senate 
today, and we must remember its genesis in the Finance Committee is in 
fact a bipartisan genesis to respond to what the President has asked 
the Congress to do, not only in his State of the Union speech but even 
before that, when he said we need to have a stimulus package to help 
get our economy back on track. Well, we have done our level best to try 
to put together that package in the Finance Committee. I am proud to 
support it, and I hope that when we get to a vote on the Finance 
Committee package tomorrow, we are able to get Republicans and 
Democrats to stand together in a resounding positive vote for moving 
forward with this Finance Committee package. I hope the vote is not 
just a vote that gets us to 60 but hopefully gets us to 70 or 75.
  Now, why is it important that we move forward and jump-start our 
economy? Well, it is important for the American families whose lives 
are very much affected by the actions we take on the floor of the 
Senate. It is important to embrace what the President and the House of 
Representatives have done, which is to say we ought to put money back 
into the pockets of the American consumer so they can spend that money 
which then helps create jobs in America and helps to stabilize our 
economy. But what the White House and the House of Representatives did 
in their negotiations with Secretary Paulson and others is something 
that can be improved on, and certainly the bipartisan work of the great 
team on the Finance Committee, which includes the staff of that 
committee, has brought forth what is a significantly improved package 
over what came out of the House of Representatives.
  The first of those improvements has to do with dealing with those 
Americans who were left out: 20 million elders, 20 million seniors, 20 
million people who have given their lives to give us the opportunities 
we have in America today. I am speaking about those who came before us 
and who now depend on Social Security. The package out of the House 
excluded 20 million seniors because it says you have to have earned 
income in order to qualify for this tax check that is going to go out 
from the Government to the people of America. Why should we exclude 
these 20 million seniors who are receiving Social Security? Because 
Social Security is not earned income. Therefore, they are excluded 
under the provisions that came out of the House bill.
  So if we are to honor what I believe is one of the fundamental values 
of America--that is to honor our elders, to respect our seniors--then 
it is important for us to make sure we change the package to include 
the 20 million seniors of America.
  The one thing we do know, from what all the economists have told us, 
is that if you put this money into the pockets of 20 million elder 
Americans, those 20 million elder Americans are going to spend that 
money, which means it is going to help stimulate our economy. So that 
is one improvement.
  Are there other improvements that could be made to this economic 
stimulus package? Well, the fact is there are other improvements that 
can be made. A second improvement we made in this package that we 
deliberated and worked out in the Finance Committee has to do with our 
disabled veterans. We have 250,000 disabled veterans in America today; 
250,000 disabled veterans. Many of these veterans are veterans from 
World War II, some of them from the Korean conflict, some of them from 
the Korean war, and some of them are part of the 1.5 million veterans 
who have served in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring 
Freedom.
  Why should these 250,000 veterans not receive the benefits we are 
providing all the rest of America today? It makes no sense, in my view, 
if we are trying to stimulate the economy. We put, probably for a 
family of four, $1,600 checks into their pockets. They are going to 
spend this money to help stimulate the economy. It is the right thing 
to do for us to uphold the American values and to support our veterans 
here in America. It is absolutely the right thing to do.
  It is also the right thing to do in terms of one of the objectives 
which we have, which is to help stimulate our economy. Third, when I 
ask the question, can we improve this bill--yes, we can improve it by 
adding 20 million seniors. We can improve it by adding the 250,000 
disabled veterans. But we can also deal with the reality of 
unemployment.
  Maybe some people around here have not dealt with families that have 
been unemployed. But when you lose your job, you lose everything that 
creates a quality of life for you. Because you cannot take care of your 
family, you cannot take care of making your mortgage payment, you 
cannot take care of buying medicine for your children. And, yes, we 
have now States in America that are reaching an unemployment rate of 8 
percent, and the economists are saying there are a number of States 
that are going to be up into 6 to 7 percent before too long. So 
extending unemployment benefits is also an important improvement in 
this package.
  But it is not that we can take care only of seniors and disabled 
veterans and extend unemployment benefits; there are other things, I 
believe, we can do to help make sure that we improve upon the stimulus 
package for America we are considering here today, and that is to help 
the business community of America, make sure that business community 
remains in a way where it can continue to create jobs for the people of 
this country.
  The incentive we have created in this legislation with the expensing 
provisions relating to small business, with bonus depreciation for 
businesses that expend money on equipment, will help keep America 
strong. Without those businesses creating jobs for America, we are 
going to continue to spiral

[[Page 1334]]

downward. It is important that we do that.
  I want to point out one provision relating to our efforts to try to 
support the business community of America here today, and it has to do 
with housing. The other day when we heard from the many economists who 
have come before the Finance Committee, one thing was very clear. One 
of my colleagues, Senator Baucus, talked about how the housing crisis 
itself was a canary in the coal mine. It is a signal to us that our 
economy is in trouble. The housing sector of our economy demonstrates 
that perhaps in a way that very few other sectors of the economy do. So 
it is important that we do something for the housing issues facing our 
country today.
  The chart that is here by me demonstrates what is happening with 
housing across America. You look at what Moody's said would happen in 
terms of what they forecast to be, where we will end up as we move 
forward into these difficult economic times with respect to the housing 
market.
  They predict that housing prices will decline by 15 percent before we 
see bottom. How many people in America own a house, and how many people 
in America have most of their value tied up in that house? When you see 
these times of declines in housing values, you know the people of 
America, the people who are watching us debate here on the Senate 
floor, know there is pain in the economy here in America today. When 
you lose 15 percent of what is your most valuable asset, you know there 
is a major issue with the economy. So it is important that we address 
the housing issues of America, and we are doing that partially in this 
legislation by including revenue bonds. There are other things we are 
going that have to do with the housing crisis we face here in America.
  It is my hope one of the things we are able to do is to come back and 
address the housing issues, along with energy, along with the farm 
bill, in a chapter 2 of our economic agenda in the Senate. But it is 
also important, as you look at this chart, to look at what is happening 
with housing starts in America. We are in the worst shape today in 
housing starts in America than we have ever been. In fact, those who 
are associated with the home building industry will tell you we are in 
worse shape today than we have ever been since the Great Depression. 
There is no end in sight when this housing crisis is going to end with 
respect to the decline in housing starts that we see.
  The economists out of Moody's project that housing starts are down 60 
percent, at the bottom of this trough, with no end in sight. Who knows 
how far that will go down?
  What we have done, spearheaded by Senator Conrad and with the help of 
Senator Stabenow and Senator Smith, is included in this legislation 
that will address the operating loss carryback provisions that apply to 
the housing industry. That economic injection will help the housing 
industry continue to stay afloat to weather the very troubled times 
ahead. Now, some people will say: Why are you bailing out the housing 
industry? Well, we are not bailing out the housing industry, we are 
trying to keep one of the sectors that is pivotal to a successful 
economy alive here in the United States of America.
  Across my State, I know how many people work in the housing industry, 
from the roofers to the plumbers to those who put up the drywall. We 
know how many of them work. There are 300,000 people in America who are 
working in the housing industry today. So if the housing industry 
continues to go downward, if it continues to spiral downward, we are 
going to see the bankrupting of one of the most important industries 
today.
  This stimulus package does include some legislation that will allow 
them to take their carryback losses in a manner that makes sense for 
them economically so that they will not be forced into the halls of the 
bankruptcy court.
  For a lot of reasons, I believe this stimulus package which is before 
us is a solid package. It is very significantly improved from what we 
were seeing come over from the House of Representatives. I would hope 
that the President of the United States, his Cabinet, Secretary 
Paulson, others, Secretary Gutierrez, join us in helping move this 
Senate Finance package through to the finish line.
  The final point I would make is that though we hope we will get this 
package through, we know that our work here on the economic issues of 
America is not yet done. A second and short-term phase, which I believe 
we should undertake here in the next month or so, is we need to deal 
more comprehensively with the housing issues that face our country. We 
need to deal with the 2007 farm bill and get that through conference 
and get that done to ensure the food and fuel security of America.
  We need to return to that Finance Committee-produced package on 
energy that would have fueled the clean energy future of America for 
the 21st century. We need to go to that as soon as we get the stimulus 
package through. I am hopeful that we will be able to move in that 
direction.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I have listened with some interest today 
to many of my colleagues who have come to the floor to speak about what 
is called a stimulus package. I have never quite understood the word 
``stimulus'' as it applies to economics. I did teach economics in 
college at one point. I guess the notion of a stimulus is to excite the 
economy, to do something to expand the economy.
  The fact is, until a couple of months ago, the President was telling 
us the economy was doing really well; we have a strong, sound economy. 
The Secretary of the Treasury was telling us the economy is solid and 
we are on solid ground. Of course, most Americans knew better. Now we 
discover that the economy needs a stimulus. Let me describe why that is 
the case, and a response to some of the discussion on the floor of the 
Senate today.
  We have had an almost unbelievable 7 years. President Bush came to 
the Congress at the start of his Presidency, and he said: President 
Clinton has left a large budget surplus. Alan Greenspan said he 
couldn't even sleep; the surplus was so big. He was worried the surplus 
was so large it was going to be a problem.
  President Bush saw this projected surplus, a surplus in the first 
year of his Presidency and then projected for the next 10 years. He was 
so excited, he rushed to the Congress and said: You have to help me. We 
need to get rid of this projected surplus. We need to provide very big 
tax cuts. By the way, if you earn a $1 million a year in income or $10 
million a year, brace yourself, I have big things in mind for you. I am 
going to give you a very big tax cut.
  Some of us said: Mr. President, you said you were a compassionate 
conservative. Where is the conservative part of this? What if something 
goes wrong? These are just projections. Let's wait and see if these 
surpluses materialize.
  The President said: Don't worry. Be happy. We want to give tax cuts, 
with the biggest tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans.
  Sure enough, he got that through the House and the Senate--but not 
with my support. I did not vote for it. But almost instantly we saw, 
No. 1, the country move into a recession in 2001. Then we had 9/11 and 
the devastating attack by terrorists. Then we had a war in Afghanistan 
pursuing Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. Then we went to war in Iraq 
and had all of the homeland security issues. All of a sudden, we had 
all of this extra expense, and we had a downturn in the economy. What 
had been budget surpluses turned into very large budget deficits.
  The President, oblivious to all of that, said: It doesn't matter. 
Things are the same, as far as I am concerned. We want more and more 
tax cuts for upper income Americans.

[[Page 1335]]

  So that has been the fiscal policy for 7 years: ignore the obvious, 
ignore reality, and just preach the positive message and hope 
everything turns out all right.
  The fact is, everything has turned out all right for some. If you are 
at the top of the income ladder, you have to be ecstatic. Your share of 
the assets and wealth of this country has dramatically increased. But 
if you are someone at the bottom of the economic ladder, working two 
jobs, trying to make ends meet for your family, if you are someone who 
is trying to buy a home, somebody who is trying to hang on to a job in 
a plant that the owners want to move to China in search of 30-cent 
labor, if you are someone who works in a company that has now told you 
times have changed, you no longer get health care and your retirement 
program is gone and if you don't accept a $2-an-hour decrease, your job 
is going to Shenzhen, China, you are somebody who is having a tough 
time with things in recent years.
  Then, all of a sudden, we see the subprime mortgage scandal. The 
subprime mortgage scandal is an unbelievable scandal with greed in 
every direction, the brokers making massive amounts of money with fast-
talking sales pitches to a lot of folks, putting them in a new subprime 
loan at a 2-percent interest rate that will reset 3 years later at 
rates people have no capability of paying; just buy it and flip it in 2 
years, and you will make a lot of money.
  The mortgage companies that were advertising on television were 
saying: Hey, get a mortgage from us. If you have had bankruptcy, no 
problem. You have trouble, you have bad credit, no problem. Can't pay 
your monthly home bills, no problem. We will give you a loan. Come to 
us. Bad credit, come to us.
  You saw the ads. All of us saw those ads. Those mortgage companies 
and brokers together ratcheted up this huge bubble. Then what they did 
is, when they sold these subprime mortgages, they cut them up like 
sausage. Just like meat-packing plants filled sausage with sawdust for 
filler, they sliced up these mortgages, collateralized debt 
obligations--some subprime, some decent loans--and securitized them and 
sold them, and nobody knew what they had. All of a sudden, people can't 
pay their house payments. Interest rates get reset. They have no 
capability of paying. We have substantial bankruptcy, home 
foreclosures--it is a huge mess. It has caused a serious drag on the 
economy.
  Couple that with this President's fiscal policy in which we have a 
$600 billion requirement to borrow in this fiscal year alone and a $700 
billion trade deficit, $2 billion a year that we import more than we 
export. That is $1.3 trillion in debt this year on a $13 trillion 
economy. That is a 10 percent indebtedness in 1 year on top of the 
greed that comes from a subprime loan scandal and an economy that seems 
to have come to a dead stop.
  Then they say: We need to stimulate the economy. Yes, we probably do. 
This economy probably needs a lot more than stimulus. We need to hook 
up some jumper cables to something.
  The Federal Reserve Board--a board that has gotten a lot of my 
attention over the years--has taken aggressive action. They seldom take 
aggressive action on anything. They did two cuts, a three-quarters of a 
percent interest rate cut and a half a percent interest rate cut. The 
fact is, that is a bold move for the Federal Reserve Board.
  Now it is up to Congress to do something on the fiscal policy side. 
But it is just a step, an important step. Psychologically, we must take 
this step, or markets and others would have an apoplectic seizure. So 
we write a piece of legislation in the Finance Committee, try to bring 
it to the floor of the Senate, and we have people doing all kinds of 
gymnastics on the floor. They say: Well, this is loading up a bill with 
ornaments and goodies and projects and so on.
  I guess they want to avoid the obvious. The obvious difference that 
exists with this stimulus package is very simple. This stimulus bill, 
coming out of the Finance Committee, is supported by the Democratic 
chairman and the Republican ranking member. Senators Baucus and 
Grassley said this: If you are going to stimulate the economy and you 
are going to give $500 rebates, you need to include the 20 million 
lower-income senior citizens who would not get a rebate under the 
House-passed stimulus plan.
  Folks who work in this Chamber, take a shower in the morning, put on 
a blue suit, and come to work, are not, in most cases, trying to count 
their pennies to see if they will have enough for soup and medicine the 
rest of the week. But there are a whole lot of folks, senior citizens 
especially, living on fixed incomes who have an awful time making it 
stretch month to month. I meet a lot of them, especially a lot of older 
women living alone in many cases, trying to figure out: How do I make 
this income stretch to be able to pay for my medicine and to buy the 
food and pay the rent?
  I mentioned medicine. Senior citizens are about 12 percent of the 
population. They consume one-third of all prescription drugs. One of 
the fastest growing elements of health care is the cost of prescription 
drugs. You can't do a stimulus package and decide that some 20 million 
senior citizens should not participate. You are going to give a rebate 
to the American people to try to stimulate the economy, and you are 
going to say grandpa and grandma don't apply, they don't count? What 
kind of approach is that? Grandpa and grandma don't count? We inherit 
this place from them. They were the stewards of this country of ours. 
They helped build this country. They provided the roots by which we, 
the branches, have been able to succeed. But now we have people in this 
Chamber who say grandpa and grandma don't count; millions of senior 
citizens shouldn't be a part of this.
  The difference in the stimulus package being debated is one that is 
pretty stark: 20 million lower income seniors, many of whom need it 
most, under our proposal would get a rebate check of $500. To some, 
that doesn't mean much, I suppose. There are people around here who 
lose a cuff link worth $500, I reckon. But to a lot of people, $500 is 
very significant. We cannot--I emphasize--we cannot pass a stimulus 
package and walk out of that door with our heads high if we decide 20 
million senior citizens don't count, that these senior citizens won't 
be included.
  There is another issue in this piece of legislation that we passed 
out of the Finance Committee. It is something that for anyone who has 
studied rudimentary economics 101. It is one of the economic 
stabilizers in our economy: When there is an economic slowdown, you 
extend unemployment benefits. It is axiomatic that when there is a 
slowdown in the economy, you must extend unemployment insurance 
benefits. We have always done that. Yet those who object to what we 
have passed out of the Senate Finance Committee are saying, no, you 
can't do that. Don't support that. We don't support giving rebates to 
senior citizens who need it and we don't support extending unemployment 
insurance benefits to those at the bottom of the economic ladder who 
have lost their jobs.
  Again, there is no one in this Chamber who would have lost their job 
during this slowdown. No one in this Chamber is going to go home and 
say, Honey, today wasn't a very good day. I was given notice that my 
job was over. It wasn't my fault. I worked pretty hard, but I was given 
notice that I am no longer needed. Nobody in this Chamber will have to 
get that message. But there are a whole lot of people in this country 
who have experienced that.
  So when we talk about the economic stimulus package that came out of 
the Finance Committee, the major differences are simple and easy to 
understand. We say 20 million senior citizens cannot be left out of an 
opportunity for the rebate check. They too will stimulate this economy. 
They especially need that help. We say when those who have lost their 
jobs during an economic downturn and have run out of unemployment 
benefits, that their benefits should be extended, as we have always 
extended them during an economic downturn.

[[Page 1336]]

  Yesterday, President Bush sent us a new budget, and it reflects much 
of what I have described of the priorities that seem to be completely 
backwards. The President's priorities are: Let's continue to borrow, 
borrow, borrow more money. Let's decide to cut substantially here at 
home the investments we should make in this country.
  I spoke to a group about a half an hour ago that is very interested 
in rural water investments. All of us who come from rural States 
understand the urgency of getting good water to our communities. Rural 
water systems are unbelievably important. The President, as one example 
in this budget, said: Let's cut funding for the Corps of Engineers by 
$851 million. Let's cut funding for the Bureau of Reclamation by $183 
billion. He said: Let's cut water funding for projects that will bring 
quality drinking water to people around this country in rural areas; 
let's cut that by about $1 billion.
  I say consider this: In the President's budget, he said, let's cut 
water project funding in our country--the infrastructure investment 
that will bring dividends for years--let's cut that by $1 billion. This 
is from the Special Inspector General for Iraq. The Special Inspector 
General for Iraq says, we are now, American taxpayers, funding 967 
water projects in the country of Iraq. We are going to cut $1 billion 
in water projects in this country, and we are funding 967 water 
projects in Iraq. We are designing and constructing the Ifraz main 
water supply project, $194 million. We are doing the Haditha project, 
the Baladrooz water supply project; we are building the water supply 
project at Meshkab. We are designing and constructing the water supply 
project at Nassriya. The list is long--I could read this for a long 
while. The water treatment plant in Sadr City, the water treatment 
plant in Al Wathba.
  There is plenty of money, apparently, as long as it is overseas 
someplace. There is just not enough money to take care of things here 
at home. It is unbelievable to me.
  By the way, while I am at it, most of this is done with contract 
work. We hire contractors. There is the greatest waste, fraud, and 
abuse in the history of this country with the hiring of those 
contractors. I brought this item to the floor a number of times--and I 
want to do it again, because I held about 17 hearings on this subject. 
I ask unanimous consent to show this towel on the floor of the Senate.
  This towel was brought to us by Henry Bunting. Henry Bunting was a 
purchaser in Kuwait for the Halliburton Corporation, their subsidiary 
Kellogg, Brown, & Root. I had a hearing about waste, fraud, and abuse 
in contracting which is hair raising: $45 for a case of Coca Cola, 
$7,500 to rent an SUV per month. How 50,000 pounds of nails that were 
ordered to Iraq and they were too short. They are laying in the sand 
now, discarded, because none of that matters. Henry Bunting said 
Halliburton said: Don't worry about it. The taxpayer picks up the tab. 
He held up this towel. He said: This is an example of everything that 
is wrong. My job was to order towels for the troops, among many other 
things. He said: I filled out a requisition to order towels for 
American troops in Iraq, and I ordered white towels. He said: My 
supervisor at Kellogg, Brown, & Root said, No, no, no, that is not the 
towel we are going to order. You are going to order a towel that has 
KBR embroidered on the towel, the initials of the contracting company, 
the Halliburton subsidiary. Henry said: Yes, but that is going to 
quadruple the cost. It is going to cost four times more to buy a towel 
like that. His supervisor said: It doesn't matter. This is a cost-plus 
contract. The taxpayers are going to pay for this. This is just a 
towel. It is a towel that costs four times what it should have cost for 
the American taxpayer. But it is not just a towel; it is a brand new 
$85,000 truck that has a flat tire, and because it has a flat tire and 
they cannot fix it on the road because they didn't have the right 
wrench, they leave it there to be torched; or an $85,000 brand new 
truck that has a plugged fuel line that is left to be set on fire. Why? 
The American taxpayer will pay for all of that. That is not a problem. 
Nobody will even know, except I know, and some of my colleagues know. 
Nobody seems to care, however, in the executive branch. Nobody.
  When I see what is now coming to us in this budget--it is 
interesting. When I talk about this issue of a hand towel with the 
embroidered initials of the Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & 
Root, that cost four times more, but they said, don't worry, it doesn't 
matter, the taxpayers pay for that. We don't care about that. All of 
this is funded out of these emergency requests sent to us by the 
President. Here is what he has done. It starts again this year.
  In 2002, the President said: We are going to fight a war, and I want 
$49 billion, and I want it now, and I want it declared an emergency, 
and we are not going to pay for it. We are going to put it on top of 
the debt.
  In 2003, he said: I want $76 billion. I want all of it declared an 
emergency and we are going to put it on the debt. We need that for the 
war. In 2004, he said: I want $87 billion. We are not going to pay for 
it. Add it to the debt. In 2005: I want $82 billion. In 2006: I want 
$92 billion. In 2007, he said: I want $103 billion. Last year, for 
fiscal year 2008, he said: I want $193 billion. That is $16 billion a 
month, $4 billion a week. He said: I don't want any of this paid for. I 
want to add it to the debt, because I am sending soldiers to war and 
they are going to come back and help pay the bill. Now, that is nearly 
$700 billion--nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars, not a penny 
of it paid for. Not a cent.
  Don't ever talk to me again about what is liberal or what is 
conservative. If this is a conservative President, as he claims, saying 
let's add almost three-quarters of a trillion dollars to Federal 
indebtedness because we don't have the courage to ask the American 
people to do what we should do, and that is pay for that which we are 
pursuing in Iraq--on top of this added to the debt, the budget we 
received yesterday is an almost unbelievable description of what has 
gone wrong and what will continue to go wrong as long as this 
administration doesn't recognize the unbelievable danger that comes 
from fiscal policy debt and trade debt.
  As I indicated earlier, we are doing a stimulus package. I strongly 
support that which came out of the Senate Finance Committee. I strongly 
support the notion that we must include lower income seniors; we must 
include, for example, the stabilizers we have always included of 
extending unemployment insurance. All of that is very important. When 
we are finished with that, we must say to this President and to the 
next occupant of the White House that we have structural problems that 
cannot wait. We cannot possibly have a growing, vibrant American 
economy that expands opportunity for the American people unless we put 
our fiscal house in order. In terms of priorities, we can't be American 
leaders and say: Oh, by the way, let's cut $1 billion in water projects 
in the United States, and Katy bar the door, here are 967 separate 
water projects we want to fund in Iraq. We are going to say we can't 
build hospitals in the United States, but we will build hospitals in 
Iraq. We say we don't have enough money to rehabilitate the schools in 
the United States, but we will build the schools in Iraq.
  My point is it is long past the time to start taking care of a few 
things here at home, and this President's budget is a completely 
bankrupt budget. This President's budget says the following: This 
President's budget says he will take our Federal debt from $8.9 
trillion to $12.2 trillion in the next 6 years. Think of that. That is 
a complete abdication of responsibility. It means we have no 
leadership. It falls on our shoulders, it seems to me, to begin using 
some modicum of common sense, and we intend to do that.
  I have some other things I was going to visit about today, but I want 
to wait because some of my colleagues are on the floor. I don't know 
whether Senator Reid is ready with the unanimous consent request, but 
when he is, I certainly would want him to do that. I also know my 
colleague Senator Sanders from Vermont is on the floor as well.

[[Page 1337]]

  I would be happy to wait until after Senator Sanders makes a 
presentation. But I want to make a presentation about a couple 
additional issues that relates to some of this.
  At this point let me relinquish the floor, and perhaps I could ask 
unanimous consent that after Senator Sanders is finished, I be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The majority leader 
is recognized.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I tried to be very patient. I have been 
waiting for an hour to have some Republican come to the floor so I may 
offer a unanimous consent request. I don't know how much more patient I 
need to be. The unanimous consent simply says we are doing nothing 
today; can't we at least have amendments offered on FISA. I was talking 
with staff, Republican and Democratic staff. I understood that was 
something we could do. But now maybe we can't even do that.
  I have called Senators. I have called Senator Dodd and he is willing 
to come here and offer his amendment. Senator Feingold is willing to 
come and offer two amendments. Senator Whitehouse is willing to come 
and offer his amendment. We have people ready to work. But this is 
Super Tuesday, and at this late hour--Senator Klobuchar is leaving in a 
few minutes to go back to Minnesota. They have a primary there tonight. 
The same in Illinois. A number of other Senators have left.
  But we are willing to debate these amendments to speed up what we are 
trying to do. The President came out today with--it is difficult to 
comprehend this. He came out with a veto threat on FISA. Now, try that 
one on for size, everybody. The President has issued a veto threat on 
FISA today when we don't have anything for him to veto. Maybe he has 
come to the conclusion that he doesn't like the Intelligence Committee-
reported bill. But that is where we are. The President has stated he 
wants to veto FISA. I guess he is becoming impatient to become 
relevant. I don't know what to say.
  It is obvious there would be an objection, because we can't even get 
someone here to object, so I won't offer this because I would like to 
have one of my colleagues here, but I was going to ask unanimous 
consent to resume consideration of the FISA legislation, 
notwithstanding rule XXII. I was going to specifically mention 
amendments my folks are willing to offer. The Republicans also have 
amendments to offer. Senator Bond has a couple. But it is obvious that 
this is slowdown time, so I will not offer the unanimous consent 
request unless I hear something from--here it is 4:15 in the afternoon, 
and the only thing we have heard today dealing with FISA is the 
President's threat to veto something that doesn't exist.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
resume consideration of S. 2248, the FISA legislation, notwithstanding 
rule XXII, and that the pending amendments be set aside for the purpose 
of offering amendments as follows: Nos. 3912, 3913, 3907, two by 
Senator Feingold and one by Senators Dodd and Feingold; and that this 
would be for debate only--they are on the list, and the unanimous 
consent is now before the body--and that all time count postcloture to 
the stimulus package now before us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I 
will not object, we had a vigorous discussion at lunch about moving 
forward on this bill. I think I am safe in saying that the overwhelming 
majority of the members of the Republican caucus would like to have 
been voting today on amendments; nevertheless, that appears not to be 
possible. So at least we can debate these three amendments and get 
started in that way. I think that is a step in the right direction.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, further, other Senators may want to come and 
consult with my friend, the Republican leader, to see if there would be 
opportunities to offer their amendments. Senator Bond has two. Senators 
Whitehouse and Specter have one. They agreed to come over. I think 
Senator Feinstein has an amendment. This would be a big help, to get 
rid of these three today.
  There is an order before the body that when Senator Sanders finishes 
his statement, the Senator from North Dakota will be recognized. How 
long will he be speaking?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will be no more than 10 minutes and probably not that 
long.
  Mr. REID. Would Senator Feingold be ready then?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes.
  Mr. REID. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me concur with Senator Reid. The 
American people want us to begin to get work done for them. It is high 
time we did that.
  I also congratulate the Senator from North Dakota and share his 
concerns about many of the points he made, not the least of which, if 
we are going to spend hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars on 
this war in Iraq, that bill should not be left to our children and our 
grandchildren. We should at least have the decency to pay for that 
ourselves.
  Mr. President, I wish to say a few words this afternoon about the 
budget President Bush brought before us yesterday and tell you I was 
extremely dismayed by what was in that budget and what was not in that 
budget. Frankly, in my view, this budget is unconscionable, and it 
reflects priorities that are hard to imagine and are way out of step 
with what ordinary Americans feel and believe.
  While providing hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks for the 
wealthiest people in our country--the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 
percent--over the next decade, the President, at the same time, has 
proposed major cuts in health care, in low-income heating assistance, 
in weatherization, in nutrition, in housing programs, and in other 
basic needs of low- and moderate-income Americans. That is a set of 
values which I think reflect badly on the White House and does not 
reflect the values of the American people.
  In my view, this is a Robin Hood-in-reverse budget. This is a budget 
which takes from the poor to give to the rich. This is a budget which 
cuts programming for those most in need and gives billions of dollars 
in tax breaks for those least in need. This proposed budget simply 
tells us--again, if we didn't need this reminder--just how out of touch 
this administration is with the needs of working Americans.
  Let me be very clear. I am a member of the Budget Committee, and I 
intend to do everything I can to make sure that President Bush's budget 
is rejected and that we bring forth in the Senate a new budget that 
reflects the priorities of the vast majority of the people in our 
country and not just the wealthy few.
  Most Americans understand that our health care system is 
disintegrating. Everybody knows that. Since President Bush has been in 
office, 8.5 million Americans have lost their health insurance, 47 
million Americans are now uninsured, and the cost of health care is 
soaring. How does President Bush respond to the growing crisis in 
health care? Well, it is an unusual response: He slashes funding for 
Medicare. He slashes funds for Medicaid. He cuts rural health care 
programs. In other words, he is making a bad situation even worse.
  As I have said, Mr. President, we are living in a period where our 
health care system is disintegrating. More and more people lack health 
insurance. The costs are soaring, premiums are going up, copayments are 
going up, and deductibles are going up. The President's response to 
this crisis is to savagely cut Medicare, Medicaid, rural health care 
programs, and other health care programs. What logic is there in making 
a bad situation even worse? But it is not just health care.
  I understand that it would be asking too much for this President to 
take on the insurance companies and take on the drug companies and move 
us toward a national health care program, which every other major 
country on Earth has. We are the only country in the industrialized 
world that doesn't guarantee health care to all people. I understand 
the President is not going to do that, but at the very least, he

[[Page 1338]]

should not be adding more people to the rolls of the uninsured. At the 
very least, at a time when we have some 17,000 Americans who are dying 
every year because they lack health insurance, he need not make a 
terrible situation even worse.
  In the State of Vermont and throughout many parts of our country, we 
have experienced extremely cold weather this winter. There are parts of 
America where we have seen 20-below-zero weather. At the same time, the 
price of home heating oil is soaring. In fact, it has more than doubled 
since President Bush has been in office. The result is that the LIHEAP 
program, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which keeps 
millions of seniors and lower income households warm in the winter, is 
stretched to the breaking point. The simple truth is that when home 
heating costs soar, either States will cut back per person or they will 
deny large numbers of people any heating oil at all. That is the 
reality the States face.
  I understand President Bush has no problem with the fact that his 
friends at ExxonMobil have just announced the largest profits in the 
history of the world for the third consecutive year--over $40 billion 
in profits in 2007. I know he has no problem with that. I know he has 
no great problem with the fact that home heating oil prices are now at 
over $3.30 a gallon. I know he is not worried about the fact that a few 
years ago, the former CEO of ExxonMobil, Mr. Raymond, received a $400 
million retirement package from that company. From President Bush's 
perspective and ideology, I suppose those are good things.
  Despite the President's lack of concern about rising fuel costs, it 
really is beyond comprehension that he would slash the LIHEAP program 
by $570 million in his budget--a 22-percent reduction from last year. 
Imagine that. The cost of home heating oil is soaring, LIHEAP is under 
great strain and it cannot do what it did last year for lack of 
funding, and President Bush's response is: Let's cut another half-
billion dollars from LIHEAP.
  What are people supposed to do next year under Bush's budget when the 
weather gets cold? What do old people who are living on Social Security 
and cannot afford the outrageously high prices for home heating oil do? 
Do they freeze to death? Do they move in with their kids? How many 
blankets do they have to throw on themselves? How do you treat old 
people when it gets cold? You don't slash LIHEAP by $570 million. That 
is pretty cruel.
  At a time when millions of low-income seniors are struggling to 
survive on inadequate Social Security benefits, this President, in his 
budget, wants to cut back on nutrition programs for low-income seniors, 
in addition to cutting back on senior housing.
  There is a program which, in Vermont, works very well--the Commodity 
Supplemental Food Program. It provides a free package of groceries 
every month to low-income seniors. People all over the country utilize 
this program. They need this program. The President may not know this, 
but hunger is on the upsurge in America. In this great country, more 
and more fellow citizens are going hungry. What we are seeing is 
emergency food shelves not having enough food to feed desperate people 
all over America. And the President's response to this crisis is to cut 
back or eliminate the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. What is the 
moral justification for doing that? I don't know.
  I am a member of the Veterans' Committee, and I am proud that last 
year, against opposition from the White House, we substantially 
increased funding for the VA and are providing billions more so that 
veterans can gain access to quality care in VA hospitals and clinics. 
Despite all of his rhetoric about how much he loves and respects the 
troops, this President, in his budget, has proposed a very large 
increase in health care fees for veterans who access VA facilities. The 
increases would range from $250 to $750. What is the goal there? It is 
very clear. The goal is to drive veterans--low-income veterans--out of 
the VA system so the VA can save money. Thank you very much, Mr. 
President.
  A week ago, the President, in his State of the Union Address, was 
telling us how much he loved and respected the veterans. Now he is 
raising fees for VA health care with the explicit goal of driving 
veterans out of the VA health care system. That is wrong but, frankly, 
it is consistent with what President Bush did some years ago when he 
completely eliminated access to the VA for so-called category 8 
veterans, who were too wealthy. These were veterans who didn't have 
service-connected disabilities, were not wounded, but had incomes of 
over $27,000 a year. They were too wealthy to access VA health care.
  Well, I say to President Bush, at a time when tens of thousands of 
our soldiers have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, please do not 
balance your budget on the backs of our veterans.
  Since George W. Bush has been in office, we have seen recordbreaking 
deficits, and our national debt is now $9.2 trillion--$3 trillion more 
than when he came into office.
  All of us in Congress want to move this country toward a balanced 
budget and to make sure our kids and grandchildren are not left with 
this enormous debt Bush has accumulated. But there are right ways to 
move us toward a balanced budget and there are wrong ways to do it and 
George W. Bush's budget moves us exactly in the wrong direction.
  As many Americans know, since President Bush has been in office, the 
middle class has been decimated, poverty has increased, and the gap 
between the very wealthiest people in our society and everyone else has 
grown wider. In fact--and we do not talk about this terribly much, 
although we should be talking about it--the United States today has by 
far the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major 
country on Earth. In fact, our distribution of wealth and income is 
increasingly looking like Mexico, it is looking like Brazil, it is 
looking like those poor developing countries and certainly not looking 
like Europe, Scandinavia, Canada or other industrialized nations.
  Mr. President, as you are more than aware, there are a lot of facts 
and figures that are thrown out on the floor of the Senate, but let me 
mention one statistic that I hope all Americans will pay attention to 
and to which I hope my colleagues in the Senate will pay attention. And 
that is, according to the latest available statistics, the wealthiest 
300,000 Americans--men, women, and children--300,000 take in more 
income than the bottom 150 million. In other words, the upper one-tenth 
of 1 percent, 300,000, people earn more income than do the bottom 50 
percent. One-tenth of 1 percent, 50 percent, more income for the top 
one-tenth of 1 percent. In my view, that is not what America is 
supposed to be about, but that is the direction in which we are moving. 
That gap between the people on top, a handful of people, and everybody 
else is getting wider and wider.
  For those people who live in the bottom 90 percent of the population, 
the overwhelming majority of our people, their average income was 
$33,000 way back in 1973 before globalization, before computers, before 
a huge increase in worker productivity. Thirty-five years have come and 
gone, and today, inflation accounted for dollars, that average income 
has declined from $33,000 to $29,000. That is a $75-a-week pay cut. 
That is called the collapse of the middle class: people working longer 
hours, they are making lower wages. That is the reality facing tens of 
millions of our fellow citizens.
  That explains to my mind why in yesterday's Washington Post a front 
page story was headlined: ``U.S. Concern Over Economy is Highest in 
Years.'' It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. People go to the 
gas pump and pay $3.15 for a gallon of gas. They go to work and the 
boss says: Sorry, you no longer have health insurance. Oh, I can't 
afford to pay my mortgage; I am losing my house. Oh, too bad, 3 million 
Americans lost their pensions last year.
  In area after area, in almost every aspect of middle-class life, 
people are getting hit. Then when they go to the grocery store and have 
to use their

[[Page 1339]]

credit card to buy their groceries because they don't have the cash 
available, they find they are paying 28 percent in interest rates so 
Wall Street can become wealthier. That is what is going on, and that is 
why the American people are outraged about what is going on in terms of 
the middle class.
  I have to tell you I find it literally beyond belief that with 
poverty in America increasing, with the middle class shrinking and with 
the wealthiest people in our country having it better than at any time 
since the late 1920s--incomes are soaring for millionaires and 
billionaires, a huge growth in the number of millionaires and 
billionaires--in the middle of all that, what President Bush is saying 
is he wants to repeal the estate tax which would provide $1 trillion in 
tax relief to whom? To the top three-tenths of 1 percent; $1 trillion 
going to the top three-tenths of 1 percent. That is what this budget, 
this Robin-Hood-in-reverse budget is all about.
  If you are old and you are having a difficult time heating your home, 
President Bush is going to cut the program that keeps you warm. If you 
are low income or a working person in need of health care, President 
Bush wants to cut the programs that help you. If you are a veteran who 
has put your life on the line defending this country, the President 
wants to make it harder for you to access VA health care by 
substantially increasing your fees. If you are a low-income person in a 
home which lacks insulation and you are spending all kinds of money 
trying to keep your house warm, the President wants to completely cut 
back and eliminate the weatherization program. That is the bad news. 
But if you are a billionaire, if you are one of the wealthiest families 
in America, in this very same budget, the President wants to give you 
huge tax breaks. Cutbacks for those in need; tax breaks for 
billionaires.
  Let me give one example. If the estate tax is completely repealed, as 
President Bush wants that to take place, one family, the Walton family, 
which owns Wal-Mart, which is worth about $82 billion, that one family 
will receive over $30 billion in tax relief.
  We hear on this Senate floor a lot about morality, right? We hear a 
lot about values. I want to know what kind of moral values there are 
when there are some people, including the President, who would give one 
family, an enormously wealthy family, a multibillion-dollar family, $30 
billion in tax breaks and then cut back on the needs of millions and 
millions of low-income and working families? What kind of moral values 
does that speak to?
  We have a lot of work in front of us. We have to completely rewrite 
President Bush's budget. We need to work hard so the people of our 
country once again begin to have faith in their Government, that they 
know those of us who are elected are prepared to stand with them rather 
than the millionaires and the billionaires and their lobbyists who have 
so much power over this institution.
  We need, for a start, to reject the President's budget, rewrite that 
budget so it works for ordinary people. We need to pass a stimulus 
package which represents the needs of our seniors, our veterans, the 
middle class, working people. We need to do that now, and we need to 
build on that. Not only do we need to reject the President's disastrous 
budget, but more importantly, we need to reclaim the faith of the 
American people. Mr. President, I look forward to working with you to 
do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                  Private Debt Collection for the IRS

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I had wished to conclude a couple of 
comments in morning business, after which I believe the Senator from 
Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, will want to begin discussing an amendment. I 
talked about the stimulus package and about the economy generally. I 
wished to talk about two issues I have been working on that I think 
need to be resolved.
  First, it is almost unbelievable to me, but there is a tiny little 
issue--not so tiny perhaps to some--that needs to get fixed. This 
administration decided they wanted to farm out the collection of taxes 
owed to the Federal Government to private debt collectors. A number of 
us--myself, Senator Murray, and others--objected strenuously. We tried 
that before, and it didn't work. The administration pushed ahead. We 
passed a funding prohibition through the Senate Appropriations 
Committee. The full U.S. House passed a bill saying don't do this. 
Nonetheless, the Internal Revenue Service and the Bush administration 
pushed and pushed very quickly. So they decided to farm out tax debt 
collection.
  What they did was put taxes that were owed and not paid in the hands 
of private debt collectors. Now we have had 1 year of experience with 
it, and I want to share with my colleagues what has happened. It is 
almost breathtaking to hear.
  What has happened at the end of a year is the cost of administering 
the program to provide these delinquent taxes to debt collectors for 
collection has exceeded the revenue by $50 million. In other words, we 
have a project where the Internal Revenue Service says we are going to 
take some of these areas where the taxes haven't been paid, we are 
going to give them to private debt collectors, and we are going to give 
them a commission for collecting it. So at the end of a year, the IRS 
lost $50 million.
  I don't know how you lose $50 million when you are collecting taxes. 
That takes some genius apparently. It was estimated by the National 
Taxpayer Advocate that if the same money, just over $70 million that 
was invested in this program, had been invested in hiring the agents at 
the Internal Revenue Service, generally based on what they calculate, 
they would have collected $1.4 billion. So for this investment, the IRS 
could collect $1.4 billion or they could lose $50 million. Talk about 
staggering gross incompetence.
  It would be kind of nice to put in the Record the names of every 
person who was involved in the administration so they can somehow be 
recognized in a ``Hall of Shame.'' How on Earth do you lose $50 million 
at the Internal Revenue Service with a program as goofy as this one? 
Again, take delinquent taxes, give them to private debt collection, and 
lose $50 million, or take the same amount of money and invest it in IRS 
collection and collect $1.4 billion.
  What is the choice? The President's people said the choice is to give 
it to the private collection agencies because we like to privatize 
everything, and they end up losing $50 million. That is unbelievable.
  We are going to try once again this year--and I think we will 
succeed--to shut this program down. Aside from losing $50 million, we 
have had experience with this program before. It was tried before. It 
was a miserable failure when it was tried previously. We have examples 
of what happens when private debt collectors get ahold of these things. 
First of all, you have very sensitive information about people's lives, 
the financial information on tax returns. There are criminal penalties 
for dealing with that information. You are going to farm that out. They 
say: We will farm it out, but we will protect the information.
  It makes no sense at all to have been through this and then to farm 
it out to a private debt collection agency and find one elderly couple 
who gets 150 telephone calls over 27 day from a collection agency. It 
turns out they were not the taxpayers who were being called but, 
nonetheless, their phone rang 150 times. That is the kind of thing that 
goes on and shouldn't, in addition to the incompetence of losing $50 
million.
  Senator Murray, myself, and many others are going to fix this 
problem. It is important the American people understand what happened, 
and someone needs to be accountable for it.


                      Strategic Petroleum Reserve

  I wish to mention one additional point because tomorrow Secretary 
Bodman is coming to Capitol Hill. He is the Secretary of Energy. I have 
great respect for Secretary Bodman. I work closely with the Department 
of Energy. I chair the appropriations subcommittee that funds all the 
water and energy projects in our country. So I have a relationship with 
the Department of Energy. I like the Secretary

[[Page 1340]]

and I like some of the people who work for him down at the Department 
of Energy. But there is something going on down there that bothers me a 
lot, and I intend to talk to the Secretary about it tomorrow.
  At a time when oil is priced at $90 to $100 per barrel and when the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve--that is oil we stick underground that is 
saved for a rainy day, a national emergency or a time when we 
desperately need the oil--at a time when the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve is 97 percent filled, this administration is taking oil through 
royalty-in-kind payments from producers in the Gulf of Mexico and 
sticking it underground. They are taking oil out of the supply pipeline 
that should have gone into the supply pipeline, at a time when we have 
these unbelievable prices for oil, and sticking it underground in domes 
to increase the supply in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It is 
exactly the wrong thing to do at this point in time. It is exactly what 
we should not be doing.
  From August of 2007 to January 2008, 8.4 million barrels of oil were 
taken out of the supply. That is oil that was given as a payment in 
kind for the royalties our Government was owed. Instead of taking that 
and putting it into the supply, using the money to reduce the Federal 
debt and having the oil in the supply pipeline, the Dept. Of Energy 
stuck it underground. So at nearly a hundred dollars per barrel, we are 
putting oil underground, which tends to price gasoline at a much higher 
rate because you are diminishing supply at a time when that is the last 
thing we should do.
  Now, the strategic petroleum reserve is filled with about 700 million 
barrels of oil. The administration's approach is: Well, let's top it 
off. Let's fill it to 727 million barrels of oil. The administration 
just awarded three companies contracts--Shell, Sunoco Logistics, and 
B.P. North America--to place an additional 12.3 million barrels of 
royalty-in-kind oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for the next 6 
months. So that means another 12 million barrels will be taken out of 
supply and stuck underground.
  I mean, can anybody think of something that makes less sense at a 
time when $100 or $90 or $80 a barrel of oil exists? People are driving 
to the gas pump and having to consider a mortgage to fill their tank. 
Can't anybody think of something that we should rather do than take oil 
out of the supply pipeline and stick it underground? It makes no sense 
to me at all.
  So I am going to propose legislation that says no more for filling 
the strategic petroleum reserve for the next year, unless oil drops 
below $50 a barrel. Let's take that royalty-in-kind oil and put it in 
the supply pipeline and make sure it contributes to an increasing 
supply and, therefore, lower prices for gasoline. Instead, the 
administration is intent on taking that oil and sticking it 
underground. That will have the impetus of pushing gas prices up.
  Now, some would say: We are not talking about a large portion of oil 
here. Well, no, it is true, we are only talking about 12.3 million 
barrels in the next 6 months--8.4 million barrels from August to 
January. Is that a massive quantity of oil? No. But we have had 
witnesses testify before the Senate Energy Subcommittee and the 
Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations that the 
government is taking light sweet crude, which is part of a smaller 
subset of more valuable oil, and putting it underground that has the 
effect of increasing the price of gasoline.
  So I am going to ask the Secretary a lot about this issue tomorrow 
when he appears before the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, 
and I intend to address this in the appropriations process this year so 
that we can prevent this from happening further. At least until the 
point we have seen the price of oil come back down. My legislation 
proposes a prohibition from filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for 
1 year or at least until a time when the price of oil comes back below 
$50 a barrel.
  Again, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is nearly 96 percent filled. 
Why would we put upward pressure on gas prices? Because the Federal 
Government has decided to do things that would put upward pressure on 
gas prices by putting oil underground at a time when we have hundred-
dollar-per-barrel oil. It defies common sense. You couldn't find two 
people in Mike's Bar in Regent, ND, to make a judgment like that after 
they have been there a couple hours. Just common sense would tell you 
this makes no sense and we ought to stop it, and I intend to visit 
about this at some length with the Secretary tomorrow when he comes 
before the Senate Energy Committee.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________