[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3090-3159]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 1, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1) making supplemental appropriations for job 
     preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy 
     efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and 
     State and local fiscal stabilization, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Inouye/Baucus) amendment No. 98, in the nature of 
     a substitute.
       Murray amendment No. 110 (to amendment No. 98), to 
     strengthen the infrastructure investments made by the bill.
       Baucus (for Dodd) amendment No. 145 (to amendment No. 98), 
     to improve the efforts of the Federal Government in 
     mitigating home foreclosures and to require the Secretary of 
     the Treasury to develop and implement a foreclosure 
     prevention loan modification plan.
       Coburn amendment No. 176 (to amendment No. 98), to require 
     the use of competitive procedures to award contracts, grants, 
     and cooperative agreements funded under this act. (By 1 yea 
     to 96 nays (Vote No. 50), Senate earlier failed to table the 
     amendment.)
       Udall amendment No. 359 (to amendment No. 98), to expand 
     the number of veterans eligible for the employment tax credit 
     for unemployed veterans.
       Coburn amendment No. 309 (to amendment No. 98), to ensure 
     that taxpayer money is not lost on wasteful and 
     nonstimulative projects.
       Sanders/Grassley modified amendment No. 306, to require 
     recipients of TARP funding to meet strict H-1B worker hiring 
     standard to ensure nondisplacement of U.S. workers.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana is 
recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this morning the Senate returns to work on 
its bill creating and saving millions of jobs. As the leader said, and 
we all know, our work has rarely been more urgent.
  Initial jobless claims have hit a 26-year high. I repeat: Initial 
jobless claims, 26-year high. Last week, 626,000 people, each of them 
mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, lost their jobs. That is 
two-thirds of the entire State of Montana--626,000 people in 1 week. 
The number of claims by people continuing to apply for unemployment 
benefits reached a new record. With 4.8 people applying for 
unemployment benefits, we need to respond. We need to complete this 
jobs bill.
  This past November, our Nation conducted a historic and meaningful 
election. America voted for a new era. America voted for change. In 
keeping with the call of our new President, the Senate has, this week, 
conducted itself with levels of openness and accommodation not seen for 
years. I would like to underline that. This has been a very open Senate 
process. We have not seen this in a long time and I hope it continues 
and even grows. The managers have not filled the amendment tree. We 
have not sought to blur issues with second-degree amendments. No tree, 
no second-degree amendments. Senators have gotten votes on their 
amendments. The Senate has put in a long, full week and worked late 
nights. Yesterday, the Senate conducted six rollcall votes and adopted 
five amendments with voice votes and we considered and processed 
numerous other amendments.

[[Page 3091]]

  We have now reached the point in this debate, in the adage familiar 
to most Senators, that everything has been said but not everyone has 
said it. I might underline that everything has been said many times but 
not everyone has said it. I now call on my colleagues to show 
restraint. I urge my colleagues to forgo offering amendments. I urge my 
colleagues to allow the Senate to bring this matter to a close.
  Pending now are seven amendments: The underlying Finance-
Appropriations substitute amendment; the Murray amendment, No. 110, to 
strengthen infrastructure investments; the Dodd amendment, No. 145, 
mitigating home foreclosures; the Coburn amendment, No. 176, on 
competitive bidding; the Udall amendment, No. 359, to expand the number 
of veterans eligible for the employment tax credit; the Coburn 
amendment, No. 309, on particular spending prohibitions; and the 
Sanders-Grassley amendment, No. 306, as modified, to require recipients 
of TARP funding to meet strict H-1B worker hiring standards.
  I hope that in short order the Senate will be able to come to an 
arrangement that will allow us to process the remaining Coburn, Udall 
and Grassley-Sanders amendments. After that, I hope the Senate will be 
able to address amendments by Senators Feingold and Conrad as well as 
the pending Dodd amendment on our side, as well as equal numbers of 
amendments on the Republican side. Then I hope the Senate will be able 
to address amendments by Senators Wyden and Menendez, as well as an 
equal number of amendments on the Republican side.
  After that, we will seek, as much as possible, to allow a fair system 
for the consideration of other Senators' amendments. We will address, 
first, amendments of Senators who are here and willing to offer their 
amendments. But I renew my call for Senators to resist the temptation 
to offer their amendments. We are getting to that point where it is 
becoming a point of diminishing returns. The amendments are coming to 
the point where they do not need to be offered on this bill at this 
time. This is just February. There will be plenty of other 
opportunities for Senators to offer amendments on other bills. We have 
to get this bill finished today. There will be a conference committee. 
The managers will work with Senators in the conference to address their 
concerns. Not everything needs to be said by everyone on the Senate 
floor today. I urge Senators to forbear offering their amendments as 
much as possible.
  We will continue to try to give Senators notice of what will be 
coming up. Abraham Lincoln appealed to the ``better angels of our 
nature.'' I renew that appeal today. Let us work together today in the 
spirit of comity and cooperation that reflects the better angels of the 
Senate. Let us finish this bill today. I thank all Senators for their 
cooperation.
  So we can work out an orderly procedure, I now suggest the absence of 
a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
between now and 11:30 be for debate only, to be equally divided and 
controlled between the two leaders or their designees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, what would 
the manager contemplate at 11:30?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the idea is then to have votes on pending 
amendments.
  Mr. McCAIN. And then would it be agreeable to go back to some more 
debate? There is a number of speakers who want to talk about the entire 
bill as well.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Well, obviously Senators can speak on those amendments, 
which includes the underlying bill. But I would hope we process those 
amendments and then do the next set of amendments after that.
  Mr. McCAIN. I do not object.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I object.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I renew my request and ask unanimous consent that the 
time between now and 11:30 be equally divided and controlled between 
the two leaders or their designees.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 372

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I do not want to take more than 5 
minutes, so let me know when 4 minutes is up.
  I want to talk about an amendment I am going to put in. But, first, I 
think I ought to remind the public at large that here we are on a 
Friday, there are lots of amendments being adopted. We have been told 
cordially by the majority that they will not fill the tree. But if you 
are in the situation where you have to have unanimous consent to get an 
amendment up, it is tantamount to filling the tree. So I hope this 
deliberative body is going to do what it should be doing. I hope we do 
not see a bunch of quorum calls all day where the public back at home 
is looking at a blank screen that says ``quorum call'' when the Senate 
could be working on dozens of amendments we have been waiting to bring 
up for a long period of time, because that is a waste of the taxpayers' 
money.
  If it is extremely important to get on with this legislation, and it 
is extremely important to get on with this legislation, we should not 
be having anybody talk about stonewalling on any political party's 
part, when we are ready to do business, waiting to do business, have 
been waiting to do business, for a long time. We ought to be able to 
offer amendments.
  I want to speak shortly then about an amendment No. 372. It is not 
the most important amendment I have been waiting to bring up, but I 
have spoken about that other amendment before. I want to bring up my 
amendment No. 297. This one is 372. It merely says that any agency that 
receives funds under this bill must comply with congressional requests 
for records. That means our ability as individual Senators to get 
records for money that is going to be spent by Departments under this 
bill. It is an effort to ensure that the vision of transparency that 
President Obama expressed in his Inaugural Address to the Nation is 
fulfilled.
  This is what the President said:

       Those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to 
     account to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our 
     business in the light of the day, because only then can we 
     restore the vital trust between people and their government.

  I agree. Of course, unfortunately, when my colleagues and I in 
Congress ask for documents from the executive branch, we are usually 
stonewalled with bureaucratic excuses and legalese regarding statutes 
that were never intended to prevent Congress from gathering 
information.
  This is not a criticism of the Obama administration, this is 
criticism of previous administrations, Republican and Democratic. I 
want to make sure it does not happen under this new administration. I 
do not think it will, but this legislation will make that certain.
  Sometimes even statutes with explicit exceptions allowing information 
to be given to Congress are used as excuses to keep the people's 
business secret. So to ensure that Members of Congress can gather 
information, this amendment would simply impose an obligation on any 
agency that receives funds to comply with a request from a chairman or 
ranking member of a committee or subcommittee of Congress.

[[Page 3092]]

  If you support open Government, vigorous congressional oversight, as 
President Obama says he does, then you should support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 374

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have been talking for a couple of days 
now about two amendments that if the American people knew we had the 
option to do this, they would be very enthusiastic about joining us.
  We supposedly have a stimulus bill that should be coming in two 
categories, one in tax provisions that would stimulate the economy, and 
the other is in work that needs to be done. I am talking specifically 
about highways.
  I am the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee. The chairman of the Committee, Senator Barbara Boxer of 
California, and I have introduced the amendment No. 374. To me it is a 
little bit naive to think we would have a bill that only has less than 
3 percent of the money that would actually go to highways and to the 
projects that are ready, as they call them spade ready. So this would 
increase that amount to $50 billion. But it is done in a rather unique 
way. The amendment would not take funds, only the funds that would be 
not obligated within a year up to $50 billion from programs in the 
stimulus that are not spending or redirecting them to highways.
  Now, I would assume that if something has been hanging around here 
for 12 months, it is not going to be stimulating the economy 
immediately. So that is what I want to bring up. I at least want to 
make an effort--I would hate to think that after all of this we have 
gone through, that I did not even make an effort to get it up.
  I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside for the 
consideration of the Inhofe-Boxer amendment No. 374.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I object. We are under an agreement where 
we speak on both sides and offer amendments later. So I respectfully 
object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.


                           Amendment No. 198

  Mr. INHOFE. That is fine. I think I have 4 minutes left. I had 
another amendment, which is amendment No. 198.
  We had a rather unpleasant conversation on the floor yesterday with 
myself and the junior Senator from West Virginia. It is regrettable 
because he would not yield for me to respond to accusations that were 
made about me. I even suggested a point of order and was turned down.
  The other amendment I had was one having to do with the subject we 
talked about yesterday; that is, Guantanamo Bay. I have spent time down 
there. I will not go on to the same things, because there is not time 
that is given to me right now.
  But what has happened, what is happening down there, this resource we 
have had since 1903, is something we need today. We all know the 
consequences and certainly even those individuals who want to close 
Guantanamo Bay know if that happened, you would still have to make a 
decision of what to do with the some 110 detainees who are considered 
to be pretty hard-core terrorists.
  Some people say they might be integrated into our U.S. court system. 
We all know the rules of evidence are different and there is a 
possibility they could be released. I do not think anyone wants that. 
There has been a list of some 17 installations within the United States 
to which these detainees might go. One of those happens to be in my 
State of Oklahoma, Fort Sill. We do not want that to happen. And I do 
believe that this is something that we are going to need, so I want to 
at least make the motion.
  I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside for the 
purpose of considering amendment No. 198.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Under the agreement, we are going to alternate sides for 
speakers. I want to ask the Senator from New Hampshire how much time 
she wishes to speak.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, 3 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.


                           Amendment No. 528

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President and fellow Senators, I rise in support of 
amendment No. 528, which has been cosponsored by Senator Schumer and 
enjoys the support of many of the Nation's top education groups, 
including the American Council on Education, the American Association 
of Colleges for Teacher Education, the National Association of 
Independent Colleges and Universities, the American Association of 
State Colleges and Universities, the Association of American 
Universities, and many others.
  America's institutions of higher education are vital to building a 
skilled workforce and to developing leaders who can compete in the 
global marketplace. Unfortunately, many of our colleges and 
universities are feeling the effects of the current economic crisis. As 
a former Governor, I understand that in these difficult times States 
are often forced to cut back on funding for critical programs such as 
education.
  My amendment would provide an additional $2.5 billion to the Higher 
Education Modernization, Renovation, and Repair portion of the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The additional funds will bring 
the total appropriation to $6 billion, the same amount as in the House 
bill. It will fund critical projects and instructional equipment at our 
colleges and universities across the country.
  This amendment is estimated to create an additional 71,000 jobs. As 
we talk about this economic package, one of the things we have all been 
focused on is how do we create jobs. This amendment would do that.
  According to the National Association of Independent Colleges and 
Universities, private colleges in 21 States report they have 572 
projects ready to go, totaling $4.5 billion. The funding in this 
amendment is targeted for those shovel-ready projects that will have an 
immediate impact and spur economic growth on the local level. In New 
Hampshire alone, it will provide an additional $10 million, money that 
can be spent on needed projects such as rebuilding an arts building at 
Colby-Sawyer College, renovating a college and innovation center at 
White Mountains College, general infrastructure repair at the 
University of New Hampshire, and a science building renovation at 
Franklin Pierce University. This additional funding will benefit 
students and colleges across the country and put many people to work.
  I urge Members to join me in support of amendment No. 246.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from 
the American Council on Education that lists those groups in support of 
the amendment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                American Council on Education,

                                 Washington, DC, February 4, 2009.
     Senator Jeanne Shaheen,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Shaheen: On behalf of the nation's two- and 
     four-year, public and non-profit private colleges and 
     universities, we write in support of the amendment you have 
     offered to H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
     of 2009. This amendment would set the amount for 
     infrastructure renovation and repair projects at institutions 
     of higher education at the same level as provided for in the 
     House bill, immediately creating jobs in the short term, and 
     strengthening America's economic future by improving academic 
     capacity.
       This funding is truly stimulative in nature. Public and 
     private colleges and universities undertake a substantial 
     number of infrastructure projects for academic facilities 
     every year. Because of the high cost of borrowing and sharp 
     declines in state and institutional budgets, many of these 
     projects have been delayed or canceled. As well, a number of 
     colleges have halted shovel-ready

[[Page 3093]]

     projects and frozen staff salaries in order to ensure that 
     they will have more aid for needy families. While this is a 
     prudent strategy, it can have a negative economic impact on 
     local communities, where colleges are often the largest 
     employer.
       With more than 4,500 campuses across the country, higher 
     education is a strong presence in communities--urban and 
     rural, large and small. These projects have been identified, 
     developed, and are the very definition of ``shovel-ready.'' 
     If provided funding, such an investment would immediately 
     create jobs, boost local and regional economies, and build a 
     lasting improvement to academic capacity at our nation's 
     colleges and universities.
       In addition to creating an estimated 71,000 new jobs, this 
     amendment would also address the disparities in funding among 
     states identified by the Congressional Research Service in 
     its analysis of the current Senate funding level.
       We thank you for proposing this amendment and offer our 
     strong support for its inclusion in the final stimulus 
     package.
           Sincerely,
                                              Molly Corbett Broad,
                                                        President.
       On behalf of: American Association of Collegiate Registrars 
     and Admissions Officers, American Association of Community 
     Colleges, American Association of State Colleges and 
     Universities, American Council on Education, Association of 
     American Universities, Council of Graduate Schools, EDUCAUSE, 
     National Association of College and University Business 
     Officers, National Association of Independent Colleges and 
     Universities, National Association of State Universities and 
     Land-Grant Colleges, National Association of Student 
     Financial Aid Administrators, United Negro College Fund.

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendments and send my amendment to the desk to be considered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues, on this 
side we have Senators Thune, Graham, Sessions, Coburn, and Alexander 
waiting to speak. I would imagine that, given that, between now and 
11:30, hopefully, we could get most of those in between now and the 
time for voting, of course observing the protocol of those being 
recognized on the other side of the aisle.
  While we are here in the Chamber discussing this issue, we all know 
discussions are being held behind closed doors between two or three or 
four Republicans in order to try to get 60 votes in order to pass this 
legislation. Obviously, the overwhelming majority of Republican 
Senators are opposed to the legislation. That same overwhelming 
majority of Senators are in favor of stimulating our economy and 
creating jobs.
  How did we get here, and where do we go? We got here by the Speaker 
of the House saying: We won, so we wrote the bill. In the years I have 
been here, that is not called bipartisanship. Without the votes of 11 
Democrats and without the vote of a single Republican, the bill emerged 
from the other body and came over here. Again, through the 
Appropriations and Finance Committees, the bill was written without 
significant input or with negligible input from Senators on this side 
of the aisle. There is an old saying: If you are not in on the takeoff, 
you will not be in on the landing.
  We are up to approximately $1.2 trillion in the piece of legislation 
in front of us. The Congressional Budget Office yesterday said that 
this legislation would increase employment by the end of the fourth 
quarter of 2010 by 1.3 million to 3.9 million jobs. I did the math. So 
$1.2 trillion, 3 million jobs, is $923,997 for each job. For 1.3 
million jobs, which is the low end determined by the Congressional 
Budget Office, it is only $307,092 per job.
  The American people are figuring out that this is not a stimulus 
bill. It is a spending bill full of unnecessary spending, unexamined 
policy changes or policy changes that have been examined and rejected 
in the past, and, of course, tax cuts which do not stimulate the 
economy.
  I ask to have printed in the Record examples of the House spending 
provisions and the Senate spending provisions which I find not only 
questionable but obviously, in the view of any objective observer, 
unnecessary, unwanted, and, indeed, wasteful.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


      Examples of the House Spending Provisions (Are they really 
                             ``stimulus?'')

       $1.7 billion to make upgrades in the National Park System.
       $50 million in funding for the National Endowment of the 
     Arts.
       $650 million to extend the DTV coupon program.
       $6 billion for broadband and wireless services in 
     underserved areas.
       $41 billion to local school districts, including a buy 
     American iron and steel requirement on the $14 billion School 
     Modernization and Repair Program.
       $325 million to establish an ``innovation'' fund for 
     academic achievement awards to states and local education 
     agencies or schools.
       $726 million for an after school snack program.
       $39 billion to help unemployed pay for COBRA.
       $44 million for repairs to USDA headquarters.
       $209 million for agricultural research facilities.
       $200 million to ``encourage electric vehicle technologies'' 
     in state and local government motor pools.
       $600 million for new cars for the Federal government.
       $300 million to provide rebates for buying energy efficient 
     Energy Star products.
       $32 billion for energy and transmission system 
     improvements, including $11 billion for the Smart Grid 
     Investment Program.
       $245 million to upgrade the computer systems at the Farm 
     Service Agency.
       $200 million to repair and modernize U.S. Geological Survey 
     facilities and equipment.
       $400 million to NOAA for ``habitat restoration''.
       $70 million for the ``Technology Innovation Program'' at 
     NIST.
       $10 billion for science facilities and research.
       $3 billion for the National Science Foundation, including 
     $100 million to improve instruction in science, math, and 
     engineering.
       $2 billion for NIH Biomedical Research.
       $1.5 billion for NIH to renovate university research 
     facilities and help them compete for biomedical research 
     grants.
       $462 million to enable CDC to complete its Buildings and 
     Facilities Master Plan.
       $1 billion ``to minimize undercounting of minority groups'' 
     in the 2010 census.
       $3 billion for a new ``Prevention and Wellness'' fund.
       $600 million to increase the number of doctors, nurses and 
     dentists.
       $20 billion for health information technology.
       $1.1 billion for Amtrak and Intercity Passenger Rail 
     Construction Grants to improve speed and capacity.
       $500 million to install Aviation Explosive Detection 
     Systems in airports.
       $1 billion for Community Development Block Grants.
       $8 billion for loans for renewable energy power generation 
     and transmission projects.
       $6.7 billion for renovations and repairs to federal 
     buildings.
       $6.9 billion for Local Government Energy Efficiency Block 
     Grants.
       $2.5 billion for Energy Efficiency Housing Retrofits.
       $2 billion for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 
     Research.
       $2 billion for the Advanced Battery Loan Guarantee and 
     Grants Program.
       $6.2 billion for Home Weatherization.
       $2.4 billion for carbon capture and sequestration 
     technology demonstration projects.
       $500 million for Industrial Energy Efficiency manufacturing 
     demonstration projects.
       $300 million for grants and loans to state and local 
     governments for projects that reduce diesel emissions.
       $98.527 million to support the Comprehensive National 
     Cybersecurity Initiative to prevent and address cyber 
     security threats.


                     Examples of Policy Provisions

       Requires TSA to buy 100K employee uniforms from U.S. 
     textile plants.
       Legislation to give federal workers new whistle-blower 
     protections.
       An exemption for yacht-repair companies from paying for 
     federal workers' compensation insurance to cover those hurt 
     on the job (an exemption sought for 6 yrs by the Marine 
     Industries Association of South Florida). Inserted by FL 
     Reps. Deborah Wasserman Schultz and Ron Klein.
       Net neutrality: the bill ``includes language favoring open 
     access--so-called net neutrality--that telecoms have long 
     opposed.''
       Unemployment: the House language ``secures an expansion of 
     unemployment insurance for part-time workers'' that Dems 
     ``have sought for more than a decade.''
       Education: ``the stimulus aims more than'' $125B ``at 
     bolstering public education, an unusual federal intervention 
     in a sphere usually left to state and local governments.''
       Public housing: $5B ``for the construction and repair of 
     public housing. One House GOPer ``depicts it as a quiet 
     reversal of a 30-

[[Page 3094]]

     year trend of the government extracting itself from public 
     housing construction.''
       Health care: the bill expands COBRA and allows workers 
     older than 55, or those who have worked at a company for 10 
     years, to keep their COBRA coverage until they qualify for 
     Medicare or find a new job. But ``among the plan's biggest 
     departures'' from past policy is ``allowing those who are 
     unemployed to enroll in Medicaid.'' That provision ``would 
     temporarily expand'' the program ``to allow millions of 
     unemployed workers to qualify for benefits.''
       $20 Billion to spur the adoption of electronic medical 
     records, which would be, ``by far, the biggest government 
     infusion to enable medical information to follow patients 
     back and forth among doctors' offices, hospitals and other 
     providers.'' Starting in Oct. '10, ``hospitals, doctors and 
     others would be able to get increased payments from Medicare 
     and Medicaid for using such systems.''


      Some of the Questionable Funding in the Senate Stimulus Bill

       $20 million ``for the removal of small- to medium-sized 
     fish passage barriers.''
       $400 million for STD prevention.
       $25 million to rehabilitate off-roading (ATV) trails.
       $34 million to remodel the Department of Commerce 
     Headquarters.
       $70 million to ``Support Supercomputing Activities'' for 
     climate research.
       $1.4 billion to green HUD assisted housing.
       $100 million to teach children green construction skills.
       $20 million for trail repairs in wildlife refuges.
       $25 million for habitat restoration on wildlife refuges.
       $198 million for a school food service equipment.
       $120 million to upgrade WIC computer systems.
       $23 million for repairs to National park Service trails.
       $55 million for the Historic Preservation Fund.
       $40 million to make Park Service offices more energy 
     efficient.
       $150 million for facility improvements at Smithsonian 
     museums.
       $75 million for smoking cessation.
       $88 million for replacement of headquarters of the Health 
     Resources Services Administration.
       $2.9 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program.
       $4.5 billion for Electricity Delivery and Energy 
     Reliability (ie modernizing the electricity grid).
       $430 million for the DOE Science Program including $330 
     million for laboratory infrastructure and construction and 
     $100 million is for computer research and development.
       $1 billion for National Nuclear Security Administration 
     Weapons activities.
       $20 million is for port modernizations in Guam.
       $30 million is for water and wastewater infrastructure 
     needs in Guam.
       $12 million is for electrical transmission line upgrades in 
     Guam.
       $20 million to develop web-based programs for school lunch 
     programs to manage food orders.
       $100 million for grants to state to assist with aquaculture 
     losses.
       $300 million for diesel emission reduction grants.
       $50 million to fund biomass utilization grants.
       $100 million to repair Forest Service trails.
       $20 million for retrofitting BLM offices to make them more 
     energy efficient.
       $20 million for USGS groundwater wells and surface water 
     stations.
       $85 million is provided for new USGS research equipment.
       $25 million for abandoned mine site remediation on forest 
     lands.
  Mr. McCAIN. The distinguished majority leader mentioned that 
economists like Marty Feldstein said we need a stimulus. He certainly 
did. He later said this was not the stimulus we need. There are a large 
number of economists saying that what we are doing is what I know we 
are doing, and that is to lay an unacceptable multitrillion-dollar debt 
on future generations. If the purpose of this legislation is to create 
jobs and get the economy going, why did we reject the trigger amendment 
yesterday which got 44 votes which said: Once we have two quarters of 
positive GDP growth, we are required to embark on spending cuts to stop 
mortgaging our children's futures.
  If we keep running up these debts, history shows that we will have 
debased the currency, printed more money. Hyperinflation takes place, 
which is, obviously, the greatest enemy of the middle class.
  There are provisions such as the ``Buy American'' provision, Davis-
Bacon, a number of other provisions in the bill which have nothing to 
do with jobs, nothing to do with stimulating the economy. In fact, 
Davis-Bacon and ``Buy American'' mean additional costs to the taxpayer.
  The President, last night, speaking to the Democrats, said:

       So then you get the argument this is not a stimulus bill. 
     This is a spending bill. What do you think a stimulus is? 
     That's the whole point.

  The whole point is to enact tax cuts and spending measures that truly 
stimulate the economy. There are billions and tens of billions of 
dollars in this bill which will have no effect within 3, 4, 5 or more 
years, or ever. We are talking about a lot of money.
  I used to come to the floor and object to provisions that were 
thousands of dollars, then hundreds of thousands of dollars, then 
millions--$50 million in funding for the National Endowment for the 
Arts. All of us are for the arts. Tell me how that creates any 
significant number of jobs. An afterschool snack program is probably a 
good idea. Do we really want to spend $726 million on it?
  Here we are. My other colleagues want to speak, and so I will be 
speaking later on. It is important that others do as well. But here we 
are. We are in a situation where the overwhelming majority of 
Republicans--in fact, all--voted for both the trigger amendment and for 
our alternative, which was $421 billion in spending. There are behind-
the-scenes negotiations going on so that they can try to pick off two 
or three Republicans. You cannot call a bill bipartisan if it has two 
or three or four or even five Republicans out of 535 Members of 
Congress. You can call it an agreement, but you cannot call it a 
bipartisan agreement. That is not what the American people want today. 
Yes, unemployment is up to 7.6 percent. The American people expect us 
to sit down together.
  I see the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, the Senator 
from North Dakota. He probably knows as much about budget issues and 
spending as anybody. My recommendation is that he and others be 
appointed by both leaders to sit down in a room so that we can come out 
with a bipartisan agreement. That means leadership. That means 
involvement, not just of a couple or three who may be in some respects 
not reflective of the whole 41 Republican Members of the Senate.
  Maybe we have to go back to square one. Maybe we should go back to 
the beginning because it was flawed when it began, when the authors of 
this legislation from the House said: We won, so we wrote the bill. 
That is not bipartisanship.
  I urge both Senator McConnell and Senator Reid to appoint a group of 
Senators to sit down together and hash this out. We share the same 
goal, the same goal of stimulating this economy and creating jobs. We 
realize we have to spend money to do it. But we also realize--most of 
us should realize--that if we mortgage our children's future, they 
already have a $10 trillion debt; this is another trillion. There is 
going to be an Omnibus appropriations bill coming down the pike. There 
is going to have to be a TARP 3. We are looking at spending as far as 
we can see for which we do not have revenues.
  We can have a modest--I say modest, I take that back. We can have a 
bill that is $400 or $500 billion. We can have a bill that truly 
stimulates this economy, with tax cuts that, in the view of economists, 
do create jobs, not a one-time injection of sending people a check. 
That didn't work the last time we did it under the previous 
administration.
  I urge colleagues not to send a message to the American people that 
we have come out with a bill with 3 or 4 Republicans out of 535 Members 
of Congress. Let's try to sit down one more time, all of us, and come 
out with something that truly creates jobs, truly stimulates the 
economy, and restores the faith and confidence and trust of the 
American people in the Congress, which has badly eroded and is at 
historic lows. These are tough times. Let's act tough for a change and 
get something done, rather than have some partisan result which the 
American people--certainly a significant percentage--will resoundingly 
reject because it does not have fiscal responsibility.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.

[[Page 3095]]


  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the chairman for his extraordinary effort and the 
effort of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
  Maybe now is the time we need to have calm reflection on where we are 
and where we are headed. All of us know this economy is in desperately 
serious trouble. We had a report this morning. Nearly 600,000 jobs were 
lost in the previous month. That means in the last 4 months we have 
lost more than 2 million jobs. All indications are that we will lose 
millions more jobs in this economy.
  What must be done? Clearly, we need an economic recovery package. 
There would be virtually unanimous agreement on that fundamental point.
  What works? Allen Sinai of Decision Economics ran models with his 
well-regarded econometric model that showed the things that work the 
best. The fastest is government purchases of goods and services. The 
second thing that worked the best was transfer payments to States 
because States are otherwise going to cut their budgets.
  Why do those things work the best? Because they inject money into the 
economy the most rapidly and in a way that there is the greatest 
assurance that the money is spent. That is what is the key to a short-
term stimulus. Why? Because if we think about it, demand in the economy 
is falling. That is why GDP is dropping. That is why joblessness is 
increasing. What do we do about it? We can't expect consumers to change 
course because they are worried about losing their jobs. We can't 
expect corporations to increase demand because their orders are 
falling. The only place to look for an increase in aggregate demand is 
to the Federal Government.
  That then raises the question: What is the most effective way for the 
Federal Government to deploy its precious taxpayer dollars to give 
short-term lift to the economy but not to burden us with increased debt 
looking ahead?
  That is why the first tests that were applied to this package were 
that it be timely--that is, that it go into effect quickly--that it be 
targeted on things that have the most bang for the buck, and that it be 
temporary so it does not create a bow wave going forward that increases 
deficits and debt when the economy, we hope, will be in recovery.
  With that said, we also need to remember the lessons of the past. In 
the Great Depression, Roosevelt took action in the 1930s to provide 
stimulus to the economy. Unemployment was at 25 percent. By 1937, 
unemployment was down to 12 percent. The stimulus was working. Then 
they tried to balance the budget in 1937, and unemployment went back up 
to 19 percent.
  So we have to be very careful about when we pivot and move back to 
reducing the deficit and the debt. There is nobody who is more acutely 
aware of how important it is we address those long-term fiscal issues 
than I am. I think anybody who has followed my career for 22 years here 
would know I am very concerned about long-term debt.
  Let's analyze this package. This package--now approximately $925 
billion--79.3 percent of it spends out in the first 2 years. Now, that 
is before we added a few things on the floor. So the numbers might 
change a little bit, but that is roughly right: about 80 percent in the 
first 2 years. That means 20 percent is not in the first 2 years. So I 
submit to my colleagues, the first kind of test, the first kind of 
screen we should apply is that one. But that is not dispositive because 
there are certain investments we are going to make that have long-term 
payoffs for the American people, such as computerizing the health 
records of the American people, such as--and I would put this at the 
top of the list--improving the electrical grid for America.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, if I could have an additional 30 seconds 
to close.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield the Senator 30 seconds.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the chairman.
  Let me say it is critically important we take action. It has to be on 
a rational basis. It has to have criteria that apply to this package, 
that will stand the light of day. But at the end of the day, we must 
act.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues have already 
noted, the jobs numbers today were very bleak and should cause great 
concern for all of us as we look at steps we can take to get this 
economy growing again. But that is why the CBO report that came out 
yesterday also is so troubling because it indicated the Democratic 
proposal, the stimulus plan before us, would create as few as 1.3 
million jobs--as many as 3.9 million, to be fair, but as few as 1.3 
million jobs. Well, a trillion dollars is a terrible price to pay for a 
bill that may create as few as 1.3 million jobs over, I might add, a 2-
year period.
  It also went on to say, the CBO report did, that it would reduce the 
GDP growth in the outyears. So not only does it create potentially a 
very small amount of jobs--1.3 million over a 2-year period--but it 
also diminishes the amount of GDP growth we would experience in later 
years.
  Now, if it, in fact, does create only 1.3 million jobs, if this 
trillion dollar plan--again, all based on borrowing from future 
generations--does create as few as 1.3 million jobs, if you do the 
arithmetic on that, if you spend $1 trillion, and you only create a 
little over a million jobs, that is $800,000 per job. Try and think 
about how you can convince your constituents back in your home States 
about the need to spend $800,000 to create a single job.
  I mentioned this yesterday, but I will repeat it again: For the 
people in my State of South Dakota, the average annual salary is about 
$30,000 per year. So to think about spending $800,000 to create a job 
is something that is going to be very hard to accept for a lot of 
people around this country, which is why I believe, and so many people 
around the country are rallying and saying, this is the wrong direction 
in which to head.
  I happen to agree with that assessment, and I think there are some 
things that could be done that would make this process more fair in 
terms of including ideas that Republicans have to put forward but, more 
importantly, to get a product that is more effective--more effective--
at creating jobs at a lower cost.
  Now, many of us have tried to improve this bill. I supported a McCain 
amendment yesterday, a comprehensive approach that is much better in 
terms of addressing the issue and much better focused in terms of job 
creation at about half the cost of the underlying bill, the majority 
bill we are debating today. So we tried to make this bill more focused 
and more fiscally responsible. I think putting the focus and the 
emphasis on job creation is the right place to be. But many of the 
efforts we have made to that end have failed. We have also offered 
amendments to cut much of the wasteful spending out of this bill, most 
of which have been defeated.
  So what I have sort of concluded is, as much as we tried to make this 
a better bill by cutting wasteful spending, by making the focus on job 
creation, by trying to reduce taxes on small businesses and middle-
income taxpayers, which would get more money back into the economy, and 
emphasize less spending on Government programs in Washington, DC, where 
the bulk of this is committed, that is a much better approach, and many 
of our amendments have been focused in that direction. But, as I said, 
none have been accepted.
  I have one more amendment I have filed and I hope to have an 
opportunity to call up. It is sort of a last-ditch effort to bring some 
reason to this whole debate. But what it essentially would do is take 
the total cost of the Democratic bill--about $900 billion without 
interest; $900 billion, when you add in the interest costs, as I said 
before, you get up to about $1.2 trillion or north of that, all of 
which is borrowed money, borrowed from future generations--but take 
that total amount of $900 billion and divide it by every tax filer in 
this country--anybody who files an income

[[Page 3096]]

tax in this country--and basically write them a check.
  Now, it is probably surprising to most of us here what you could do 
with that. But for an average individual filing a tax return in this 
country, you could write them a check for $5,143; for a couple filing 
jointly, $10,286.
  Now, to be fair, I also wrote the amendment so anybody making more 
than $250,000 a year would not be eligible. I tried to make this so you 
cannot argue this is a tax cut for the rich. So anybody who makes more 
than $250,000 would not be eligible. All filers who have under $250,000 
in taxable income would be eligible under this amendment. You could 
actually write a check to an individual filing for $5,143 dollars; and 
to a couple filing jointly, a check for $10,286.
  I think that is a lot of money in most people's family incomes and it 
makes a lot more sense, in my judgment, than spending $900 billion on 
programs that many of us know will not work, creating new bureaucracies 
in Washington, DC, at a very high cost per job. As I said, if the CBO 
numbers are right on the low end--1.3 million new jobs--and you divide 
that, do the arithmetic on that, you are talking, in round numbers, 
about $800,000 per job. What kind of sense does that make?
  It is pretty clear, in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of most 
of the American people, this is very misdirected in terms of the 
mission of this whole thing. The intention is great, but the substance 
of this particular piece of legislation is very flawed.
  I would add one last thing; that is, we talk about economic models 
and analysis and methodology, but the President's own chief economic 
adviser put together a methodology about a year ago--a little over a 
year ago--that said for every dollar of tax cuts you get a multiplier 
of 2.2 percent increase in GDP. So if you cut taxes by a dollar, GDP 
increases by 2.2 times.
  It seems to me, at least, that you can take that methodology--and it 
seems intuitive to most Americans--when you reduce their taxes, middle-
income families' taxes and taxes on small businesses, which create the 
jobs in this country, you get a much better outcome in terms of GDP 
growth, in job creation, than sending a bunch of money into Government 
programs here in Washington, DC, many of which, I might add, are new 
programs that will not get up and be started for a very long time. 
There will be a tail on them. As a consequence, you will not see the 
result in the short period of time we are trying to target here--the 
temporary approach to this--that actually creates jobs and helps pull 
us out of the economic crisis we are in.
  That is an amendment I have filed. It takes that total amount--$900 
billion--breaks it down on a per-filer basis, and if you are an 
individual filing, you can get a check for $5,143, and if you are a 
couple filing jointly, you can get a check for $10,286.
  But I wish to see us approach this in a different way. A lot of 
amendments, as I said, have been offered--some good alternatives. The 
McCain alternative we voted on yesterday makes a lot of sense to me. It 
does it at about half the cost, and is a lot more effective at creating 
jobs. That was defeated, as have been all the other amendments we have 
offered to make this more fiscally responsible, more focused, and more 
targeted on job creation.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and thank the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from 
Hawaii.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Hawaii.


                           Amendment No. 309

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to express my concerns about 
amendment No. 309 offered by the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Senator Coburn's provision prohibits spending any of the funds in the 
bill for casinos, golf courses, swimming pools, and other recreational 
facilities. I think we can all agree these sound like laudable goals. I 
understand on its face this amendment would seem logical. But I want 
the Senate to understand what it means as it applies to this measure.
  Some of my colleagues might wonder why the House included this 
provision in this bill, and why we do not think it makes sense. The 
House included $1 billion for the Community Development Block Grant 
Program. Under that program, funds go straight to the cities, and 
mayors determine how to spend the funds.
  When the Conference of Mayors presented their views to the country's 
leadership on how to stimulate the economy, the No. 1 program they were 
hoping to have funded was CDBG. But that program does not have 
sufficient safeguards. It can be used to construct recreational 
swimming pools or aquariums or to support museums. On occasion, CDBG 
funds have been used for programs which some would say had questionable 
merit.
  To ensure that the Senate would not be supporting questionable 
programs, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended no funds for 
this program--no funds for CDBG. The House recognized that CDBG funds 
might be used inappropriately if there were no prohibitions on 
questionable programs, so it included the provision which Senator 
Coburn wants attached to this bill.
  We do not need to include the provision because we do not have CDBG 
funding in this bill. The mayors are precluded from funding the 
projects prohibited by the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma. The 
Senate is already protected from possible abuse by denying the funding 
for the program.
  But let me offer another example of how the committee ensured that 
local funds could not be used unwisely. In the bill, the committee has 
included $2.5 billion for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program which 
is designed to improve blighted neighborhoods. However, it is true that 
on occasion funds for this program had been used for community 
development of questionable merit. To avoid that problem, the 
Appropriations Committee recommended bill language under the 
Neighborhood Stabilization Program which only allows the funds to be 
used for replacement of housing. This limitation means the funds cannot 
be used to build community centers or swimming pools.
  We support the idea behind the amendment but not the amendment. 
First, we have not provided funds for programs which can be used 
frivolously. Second, there are no earmarks in this bill. Third, there 
is no CDBG money in this bill. Fourth, the housing programs cannot be 
used for frivolous purposes.
  Members might argue that you could include this amendment as an 
additional safeguard. Well, consider this one example: Among other 
things, the amendment would prohibit construction of swimming pools--no 
exceptions to that. We might all say we agree with that, but it should 
be noted we do not direct the construction of any particular swimming 
pool because that would be an earmark. Well, now comes the crunch. 
However, this bill contains $3.4 billion for needed construction of new 
and infrastructure innovation and repairs at existing VA hospitals. 
Under the terms of this provision, the Veterans' Administration would 
not be able to spend any of their infrastructure funding provided to 
the Department on construction or renovation or therapeutic swimming 
pools at spinal cord injury centers, trauma centers, and other VA 
medical centers. These are very essential to the rehabilitation of 
these wounded warriors.
  The Appropriations Committee is aware the VA has plans for many 
legitimate construction projects, such as pools specifically used for 
medical rehabilitation of wounded soldiers. These are not swimming 
pools for the VA staff, but they would nonetheless be prohibited by 
this amendment.
  While I am confident this was not the intent of the amendment, it 
most certainly could be the result. It is not the only example. Should 
our military be denied from building recreational facilities? Should 
the Coast Guard be told not to build swimming pools where they practice 
training exercises? We expect these men to dive into cold waters in the 
Arctic Sea and rescue men

[[Page 3097]]

and women, so they need special training. Do we want to argue that no 
funds be made available for fixing aging buildings that are ready to 
crumble?
  This amendment is a solution in search of a problem, and let's not 
forget the amendment causes problems. If adopted, this amendment would 
deny our wounded veterans the physical therapy they need and deserve, 
and it could deny other needed programs to support training and quality 
of life for our military forces and their families. I sincerely 
recommend we vote down this amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama is 
recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I see my colleague from South Carolina; 
perhaps he is ahead of me. If he is, I would be pleased to yield to 
him.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Just for 5 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina is 
recognized.
  The minority controls 1\1/2\ minutes at this point.
  Mr. GRAHAM. A minute and a half.
  Well, we are at a crossroads for a minute and a half.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, if the 
distinguished manager would agree, for 5 minutes for the Senator from 
South Carolina, or we will go after the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for 
debate equally divided be extended until 12 noon and add in the other 
time to be equally divided, so on that basis, there is more on this 
side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, I wish to thank the 
manager of the bill for his generosity. I do not object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to thank Chairman Baucus and 
Senator McCain. I don't have anything Earth shattering to say. I do 
appreciate the additional time.
  We are in on Friday. I think this is good for the country that we 
have slowed this process a bit. It is not good for the country if we 
don't act. The jobless rate is going up so we need to stimulate the 
economy. Count me in for doing that. However, we don't need a headline 
that says we rushed through $1 trillion in spending that would not 
stimulate the economy in an effective way but will run up the debt, 
which is already way too high.
  I think we are at a crossroads, if I may say so, about how we 
proceed, not just on this bill but as a Congress and as a nation. I 
think there are plenty of people over here--I can't give you a number; 
people asked me about numbers--who would like to find a way through a 
better process to create a bill that would stimulate the economy in a 
real way, through spending and tax cuts, and if it doesn't help the 
economy in 2 years from a tax cut point of view or a spending point of 
view, then I would argue it doesn't meet the goal of stimulating the 
economy. The spending may be worthwhile, but if it hits 3, 4, 5 years 
from now, then I think we missed the boat because we are not here to 
spend money blindly. We are here to stimulate the economy so the 
jobless rates don't go up.
  I think my dear friend from North Dakota gets this. There are tax 
cuts that may need to be looked at. I believe we need to do more than 
cut taxes, but we need a strategy. To me, the goal should be to get it 
into the economy within 2 years. If you can do that through tax cuts 
and spending, that is the place to start. There are some items that are 
long-term investments that would fit within 2 years but maybe could be 
taken out and put in a separate bill because what is going to happen 
next is the administration is going to ask us for hundreds of billions 
of dollars on top of the TARP money to generate support for the banking 
and financial sector, and they would be right to do so. So every dollar 
we can focus in this bill to creating jobs in the short term through 
tax cuts and spending, and take these other long-term items out, is 
more money we can put into housing and banking.
  I don't think most Americans realize this is a three-legged approach 
in that the stimulus package is just one piece of the puzzle. Quite 
frankly, it is the piece of the puzzle that is hard politically that 
does probably the least for our overall economic problems. If we don't 
fix housing and get credit flowing, we can flow all the money in the 
world into a stimulus package. Let's don't throw any more good money 
after bad.
  We know we have to fix housing. We know we have to do something with 
banking. When we talk about banking, we are talking about a hard sell, 
given the reputation of what has happened in TARP, for any Republican 
or Democrat to come back to the public and say: Give us some more money 
to fix banking. They are going to say: What the heck did you do with 
the money we gave you before? We have a crisis of confidence growing.
  So we are at a crossroads. I want bipartisanship. I couldn't agree 
more with Senator McCain. He is a man who has walked the walk when it 
comes to bipartisanship. He has taken a lot of criticism--so have I--
for reaching across the aisle on emotional issues to find common 
ground. We don't have a process in place that reflects a way to get 
true bipartisanship. Just picking off a few votes is not going to solve 
our Nation's problems. We need strong bipartisan support for a stimulus 
package that is targeted and focused on creating jobs in the near term 
because we are going to need strong bipartisan support to ask for more 
money for banking and housing.
  Let's don't blow it here. Let's don't spend this goodwill that this 
new administration has. I want to help this new President be successful 
in areas where our country needs to be successful. I am not talking 
about tax cuts ideologically; I am talking about a focused plan to 
jumpstart the economy through a stimulus bill that will draw 
bipartisanship. That is not where we are. The public wants us to be 
smart, and they want us to work together. The product we have now is, 
in my opinion, not smart, and the process we created beginning in the 
House is not allowing us to work together. We have a chance to turn it 
around. Let's take advantage of it. Let's get it right so we can come 
back together to the public and fix housing and banking. If we mess it 
up with the stimulus package, if we split in different camps and we 
create a bill the public doesn't support on the stimulus package, we 
are going to ruin our ability as Members of Congress and the new 
administration to fix the entire economy.
  We are at a crossroads. Slow down, get it right. I yield back.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New 
Mexico.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico is 
recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and the chairman of 
the committee very much. I wish to talk today about an amendment I am 
hoping to offer. It is amendment No. 480. It relates to the funding of 
our national public land management agencies so they can create jobs 
and do the important work that needs to be done in their various 
jurisdictions.
  We have had a lot of talk about how it is important that we focus the 
funds we have in this legislation on jobs that can be created quickly. 
We have had lots of talk about how we need to focus these resources on 
the real needs of the country and jobs where we can actively monitor 
the decisions that are made so we know that the money is not being 
wasted. In my view, this amendment does all of those things. It is a 
proposal to add an additional $2.5 billion to funding for the National 
Park Service, for the Forest Service, for the Fish and Wildlife 
Service, for the Bureau of Land Management, and for the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs to carry out the critical land and resource management 
projects they have identified that need to be carried out on our public 
lands.
  Fourteen Senators joined me in cosponsoring the amendment: my 
colleague, Senator Udall of New Mexico, Senator Boxer, Senator Wyden, 
Senator Merkley, Senator Cantwell,

[[Page 3098]]

Senator Murray, Senator Baucus, Senator Tester, Senator Levin, Senator 
Stabenow, as well as Senators Kerry, Leahy, Schumer, and Senator Udall 
from Colorado.
  Now, the estimates we have from the various public land management 
agencies are that this additional funding would allow them to create an 
additional 45,000 jobs between now and the end of the next fiscal year; 
that is, the end of September of 2010. I have heard a lot of criticism 
that the cost per job of this proposed legislation is too much, and I 
have heard the $800,000-per-job figure thrown around. When you look at 
this, all the figures I have indicated that we are talking about 
$56,000 per job for this next 2-year period. These jobs are vitally 
needed and can be carried out quickly.
  Let me give some examples of what I am talking about and what I think 
could be done with this extra funding. One example in the National Park 
Service is we need to complete the stabilization construction for the 
seawall at Ellis Island and the asbestos removal at the Statue of 
Liberty National Monument. These are projects that are underway but 
don't have adequate funding to be completed. We need to repair trails 
at Olympic National Park. We need to replace substandard employee 
housing at Grand Canyon National Park. I am sure my colleagues from 
Arizona will recognize, having seen that substandard housing, that 
would be a good use of public funds. We need funding for road repair 
and replacement at Bandelier National Monument in my home State of New 
Mexico.
  As far as Forest Service funding goes, much more funding is needed to 
thin the forests to reduce wildfire fuels and restore forest health. 
This thinning work is labor intensive. It is work that requires 
chainsaw crews and heavy-equipment operators. These people are out of 
work today. These people can be put to work very quickly doing this 
important work, and this forest thinning work protects our communities 
that are located near these national forests from wildfires.
  The Bureau of Land Management has a tremendous amount of work that 
needs to be done with regard to reclaiming abandoned oil and gas wells 
and mine sites. In my State alone, we have 8,000 acres that are covered 
with abandoned oil wells and hundreds of abandoned mines waiting for 
reclamation funding. Again, there are contractors and there are workers 
who are anxious to have this work, if we would just fund it.
  Regarding State and tribal wildlife grants, there are examples in my 
home State where we need to install fish screens, replace culverts, and 
we need to work in the Rio Grande area to restore cutthroat trout 
habitat, and much work can be accomplished there.
  Mr. President, let me conclude by saying that if we want to put 
public funds into work that is important to the public and if we want 
to put public funds into projects that can create jobs quickly and 
stimulate the economy through that effort, I believe this amendment is 
ideally designed to accomplish that. I hope very much that my 
colleagues will support it.
  There has been a lot of talk about how we need to reduce the size of 
this overall legislation. I don't agree with that. Virtually all of the 
economists--conservative and liberal--have all said, if anything, this 
legislation is too small as it currently stands. But whatever the size 
of the legislation, this is the kind of job-creation funding in which 
we ought to be engaging. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama is 
recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
for 7 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator may proceed.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask to be notified at 7 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will be notified.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, unemployment is rising, and it was not a 
good month. We saw those numbers today, but it was not higher than 
people have been expecting. But it is a very serious thing to have 
unemployment rising as it is, and we know it will continue to rise. I 
believe there are things we in Congress can do to help confront this 
problem.
  My Democratic colleagues are so committed to this legislation and 
saying this bill will save and create jobs and it must be passed now 
and there can be no serious alteration in it. The question really is, 
for the American people, what is in the national interest? What will 
serve this country best both now and in the long run? What is the best 
information we have to make realistic decisions? Finally, will the 
projections we are hearing here actually work? Just to say the bill 
will create jobs is not enough for us in Congress. We are not experts 
in all of this. We do have some experts we rely on, but we need to look 
at it carefully.
  According to our Congressional Budget Office, in a letter written to 
Budget Committee Ranking Member Judd Gregg, whom the President has 
asked to serve as his Secretary of Commerce--dated February 4--
remember, this is a bipartisan organization, and we rely on it for 
reliable data. We depend on it for objective advice. The new leader of 
CBO was selected in a bipartisan way. Our Democratic colleagues clearly 
have a majority in the Senate, and they would not have approved the 
nominee if they didn't think he was a qualified person.
  What did he say just yesterday? This is the truth, I think:

       The Senate legislation would raise output and lower 
     unemployment for several years.

  We certainly hope so. We don't want to spend a lot of money and not 
get any unemployment easing.
  Then it goes on to say:

       In the longer run, the legislation would result in a slight 
     decrease in the gross domestic product (GDP), compared with 
     CBO's baseline economic forecast.

  The baseline economic forecast is without any stimulus package. We 
don't have any stimulus package under current law. The baseline without 
the stimulus package indicates it would do better over 10 years than if 
we passed this bill. I know we are not running for election 10 years 
from now; we are running for election today, some people seem to think. 
But I believe we have a responsibility to the long-term interests of 
this country. It is stunning to me that this report says that over 10 
years, it would be a net negative. And GDP means jobs. If GDP is down--
gross domestic product, which is all the goods and services produced in 
the country--if that is down, jobs are down. If GDP is up, jobs are up.
  What else does the letter say? It says this:

       The macroeconomic impact of any economic stimulus program 
     is very uncertain.

  So we don't know for certain whether we will get any impact at all.
  It goes on to say:

       For those reasons, some economists remain skeptical that 
     there would be any significant effects, while others expect 
     very large ones.

  Quoting from the letter again:

       According to these estimates, implementing the Senate 
     legislation . . . would also increase employment at that 
     point of time [the fourth quarter of 2010, when we would 
     expect the results to be most pronounced] by 1.3 to 3.9 
     million jobs.

  Well, Senator McCain has already explained to us that he has run the 
numbers on that. This is what it would be. The bill is scored at $1.2 
trillion-plus, and with additions, we think it is $1.27 trillion, one 
and a quarter, which is the largest spending package in the history of 
this country or any country, in the history of the world, and much 
larger than anything that has ever been approached. The entire 5-year 
Iraq war has cost around $500 billion, just to give some perspective.
  How much would that be per job? It would add 1.3 million jobs, 
according to CBO. That is on the low end of the estimate. At that 
number and a $1.2 trillion deficit--remember, the bill is about $888 
billion, but with the CBO scoring, the interest on that over the 10-
year budget window, that means it would be $1.2 trillion-plus. So 
Senator McCain worked it out at $1.2 trillion. If you divide that out 
at 1.3 million jobs,

[[Page 3099]]

it turns out to be about $765,000 per job. That is just plain 
mathematics. They say we are going to create jobs and the cost will 
come out on the lower end to about $765,000 per job. If you assume it 
creates jobs on the high end, 3.9 million jobs, it would be $255,000 
per job.
  This is just not good legislation, Mr. President.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used 7 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 
additional minute.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the problem here is that this is not 
good legislation. For the rest of our lifetime, this $1.2 trillion 
debt--I think now really $1.27 trillion--will be a burden on our 
children for years to come, indefinitely. Every penny of this spending 
is debt. We are already in debt, so we are spending on top of our debt. 
There is no way we can deny that. It is just not responsible. A 
smaller, more targeted program, designed to spend out in 2 years, 
create jobs in an effective way, is something I think we can all 
support. This legislation--I truly believe we should not do it. I urge 
my colleagues to study it.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used his time.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Am I correct that, 
for the benefit of our colleagues, now the votes will be put off until 
1?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we may have to 
put off votes until 1 o'clock. That is not determined yet, but there is 
a high probability of that. Around noon, we will ask for an agreement 
to speak for another hour.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the manager. I tell my colleagues that if it 
looks as if we will not vote until 1, there will be time to come over 
and speak.
  Mr. BAUCUS. That will be the case.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota is 
recognized.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. I thank him for 
his good work on this legislation.
  I have come to the floor to ask that the pending amendment be set 
aside, and I ask for consideration of my amendment No. 201, which I 
have at the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, despite the objection, I hope to have 
the opportunity later in the day to include this important amendment in 
the bill. This amendment is cosponsored by Senator Bennett, Senator 
Hatch, and Senator Kohl.
  I first note that my amendment doesn't cost anything. It doesn't add 
any money to this bill. In fact, it saves money in the long term. My 
amendment represents a bipartisan effort to strengthen an important 
part of the bill, which is the health information technology part of 
the bill.
  As we know, technology has transformed our country. I am encouraged 
that this legislation we are working on would develop a national health 
information technology system and create over 200,000 new jobs doing 
it. If implemented thoughtfully, health information technology has the 
potential to reduce waste, rein in costs, stimulate innovation, and 
improve quality.
  As you know, Mr. President, Minnesota is a leader in the health care 
community across this country, with the Mayo Clinic and countless other 
hospitals and clinics in our State. We have been recognized for the 
measured quality outcomes that have resulted from effective information 
technology implementation. So we know what we are doing in Minnesota.
  In this bill, there are, as I mentioned, very good provisions for the 
development of health information technology. There are also some 
privacy provisions, which are necessary and which I support. We 
recently had a hearing on these provisions in the Judiciary Committee. 
Out of that hearing came this amendment. One of the things we 
recognized was that one of the privacy provisions, which is well-
meaning, would have the effect of making it hard to collect data to 
improve the quality of care, which is something Mayo Clinic does so 
well. One example: You will save $50 billion in 4 years in this country 
in taxpayer Medicare spending if every hospital used the protocol Mayo 
Clinic has used for the last 4 years for chronically ill patients. The 
reason they can do that is they collect data, so they know what the 
protocol should be.
  My amendment ensures that the quality assessment research necessary 
to improving our health care system is preserved.
  As the bill currently stands, all forms of health care operations are 
subject to regulations to be put forth by the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services. These regulations have the potential to impose varying 
levels of restriction on the ability of doctors and nurses to share 
information.
  While I support requiring authorization and the use of de-
identifiable data in many areas of the health care system, subjecting 
quality assessment activities to these regulations has the potential to 
limit patient care and clinic research. That is the last thing we want 
to do now, as we are looking at collecting that information to spread 
these protocols across the country to get better assessments of what 
high-quality care means. That is why Senator Hatch and Senator Bennett 
are cosponsoring this amendment with me.
  I also note that this is supported by the American Hospital 
Association, as well as the Association of Medical Colleges.
  With the United States spending $2.3 trillion per year on health 
care, we must bring an end to the inefficiencies of the system. We need 
the information--well-intentioned in the bill--but we must make sure 
the work going on to share information continues.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, at the conclusion of my remarks, I am going 
to ask unanimous consent to print in the Record some recent op-eds. I 
would like to quote from some of them because they reflect the emerging 
consensus of experts around the country as to what this so-called 
stimulus package is all about and what the results of it will be.
  A couple of these I wish to talk about because they are from unlikely 
sources in the political spectrum. One might assume, for example, that 
the Washington Post would be very supportive of moving forward with a 
so-called stimulus bill. But this morning in the Washington Post, there 
is a pretty significant question raised and a concern raised about 
whether the bill should move forward as it is.
  I am advised that because of the division of the time, rather than 15 
minutes remaining, the Republicans have only 1 minute. That probably 
means I have about 30 seconds. What I will do, if we do extend the time 
as the manager indicated after noon, I will conclude my remarks at that 
time, or if the Senator has some time now.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
between 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. be equally divided between Democrats and 
Republicans for debate only.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator may continue.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate the Democratic whip getting that 
cleared for everybody's sake and also for permitting me to continue to 
speak. I appreciate it.
  This Washington Post editorial quotes the President, first of all, 
contending that the opponents of this bill are peddling the same failed 
theories that helped lead us into this crisis.
  I am one who is very skeptical about this bill. I am not quite sure 
what the President is accusing me of. What we asked is that a program 
be built from the bottom up that would be targeted

[[Page 3100]]

at helping people who are in need, that would be targeted at helping to 
create jobs in a quick way, that will actually quickly create jobs that 
could stimulate the economy and that will not put a burden on future 
budgets and on future taxpayers by creating new permanent programs and 
mandatory spending that takes a long time to spend out.
  The Post then goes on to criticize the attempt of the President to 
pin on all of the opponents some ideological objection. As it notes:

       . . . Ideology is not the only reason that senators--from 
     both parties--are balking at the president's plan. As it 
     emerged from the House, it suffered from a confusion of 
     objectives.

  Here is the point I wish to emphasize. When the President talked not 
merely of a prescription for short-term spending but a strategy for 
long-term economic growth, here is what the Post says:

       This is precisely the problem. As credible experts, 
     including some Democrats, have pointed out, much of this 
     ``long-term'' spending either won't stimulate the economy 
     now, is of questionable merit, or both. Even potentially 
     meritorious items, such as $2.1 billion for Head Start, or 
     billions more to computerize medical records, do not belong 
     in this legislation, whose reason for being is to give U.S. 
     economic growth a ``jolt,'' as Mr. Obama himself has put it. 
     All other priorities should pass through the normal budget 
     process, which involves hearings, debate and--crucially--
     competition with other programs.

  I think that is right. That is one of the things Republicans have 
been saying. Some of the spending in the bill may be perfectly 
meritorious, but since this is emergency spending, it does not have to 
be accounted for in either reduced spending elsewhere or new tax 
receipts. It is simply added onto the budget deficit.
  What the Post and what we and others have been saying is that 
spending with long-term consequences is nothing more than the kinds of 
items we pass every year in the appropriations process, and it should 
be subjected to that process.
  The so-called stimulus bill should be reserved for those items that 
stimulate quickly. We have all heard the phrase ``timely, targeted, and 
temporary.'' Part of the problem with the bill is that because it 
creates new mandatory spending and it creates new permanent programs, 
it is not temporary. In the discretionary account, more than half the 
money does not even begin to be spent until the year 2011. I know all 
of us hope by 2011 we are out of this recession.
  I think the Post's criticism is very valid. I urge my colleagues to 
look at this a slightly different way. Rather than spending on programs 
that seem like a good idea and may have long-term, positive 
consequences, let's remove those items from this bill and focus 
strictly on the items that would actually stimulate the economy.
  There is a second op-ed piece that was written in my hometown 
newspaper, the Arizona Republic, on February 6, by Bob Robb, a 
columnist there who is very erudite and a good economist. He criticizes 
both Democratic and Republican ideas. He is an equal opportunity 
criticizer. We all benefit from that critique of his from time to time. 
Here is what he says about the Democratic proposal:

       The Democratic stimulus proposals are based upon a false 
     premise and a deceit.
       The false premise is that all Americans are construction 
     workers.
       The Democrats propose that the federal government build new 
     stuff for virtually everyone.
       The Congressional Budget Office has already noted the 
     constraints that exist on government's ability to get 
     hundreds of billions of dollars of construction money out the 
     door quickly. But even that ignores the constraint from those 
     who would need to do the work.
       Residential construction is, of course, in a deep slump. 
     Commercial construction not so much. And residential 
     construction workers are not easily redeployed to do 
     commercial and heavy construction. The skill sets are 
     different.
       The deceit is that all this spending requires suspending 
     ordinary budget constraints to jumpstart the economy. Most of 
     the spending is actually in pursuit of long-term Democratic 
     economic growth strategies.
       Democrats believe that the economy will perform better 
     long-term with significant additional government investments 
     in alternative energy sources, education, health care and 
     social welfare programs.

  And we have heard that during this debate.
  He goes on to conclude:

       Democrats won the election and certainly have the right to 
     try to advance their long-term strategies. But there is 
     nothing about fighting the recession that justifies exempting 
     these long-term strategies from the most basic of budget 
     considerations: How are you going to pay for them?
       Even without the stimulus package, the federal government 
     has already reached post-World War II records for spending 
     and the deficit as percent of GDP.
       The primary economic effect of the Democrat's stimulus 
     proposals will be to inflate private sector commercial 
     construction costs and give the country an even more severe 
     fiscal headache.

  That leads into the third op-ed by George Melloan in today's Wall 
Street Journal that I will have printed in the Record. He is a 
respected commentator and economist in these matters. I am not going to 
quote very much of his op-ed. The title of it is: ``Why `Stimulus' Will 
Mean Inflation.''
  He concludes, as did Bob Robb, that will be the result of all of this 
spending which is declared emergency but is not distinguishable from 
most of the spending that we do in the ordinary appropriations process. 
But his concern is that as we inflate the currency of our country, it 
will be more and more difficult to get people to buy our debt, and the 
net result could be increasingly costly debt financing.
  As he notes, too, the credit for the rest of the economy will become 
more dear as well and entitlements will go up instead of being brought 
under control under this legislation. He predicts this will require the 
Fed to create more dollars, and the end result will be severe inflation 
in our economy.
  That is borne out by the fact that even though the legislation 
purports to end some of the mandatory spending programs after 2 years, 
the cost of 10 years for these programs that will supposedly expire is 
well over $1.3 trillion. I don't think very many of us believe that 
after 2 years we are going to stop this mandatory spending. My 
colleague, John McCain, offered a proposal. In fact, there were two. 
The Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune, offered another one. The idea 
was, once we are out of the recession, once we have had two quarters of 
economic growth, then surely that is the time to stop all this so-
called stimulus spending. That is, in effect, what the proposal said. 
It was rejected by our Democratic colleagues. The reason is very clear: 
They don't intend to stop. They intend to continue it, and that is 
another $1.3 trillion that is not even factored into the cost of this 
$1 trillion-plus bill.
  Take the $1 trillion deficit we have now, $1.3 trillion on the bill 
before us, another $1.3 trillion, and as Everett Dirksen said on this 
floor a long time ago, pretty soon you are talking big money. We are 
talking trillions of dollars, and we should not be in that position 
today.
  Recently, the President spoke to some of our Democratic colleagues. 
He said the Republicans criticize this bill as a spending bill. I am 
paraphrasing. He said: Of course, it is a spending bill; that is the 
whole point. I understand what he was getting at. Many believe 
Government spending can stimulate economic growth, and I suspect in 
certain ways that can be done. A lot of us believe those benefits are 
limited and that there are better ways to stimulate economic growth. 
But that is the Keynesian theory.
  When the President says: Of course, that is a spending bill, that is 
the whole point; he is acknowledging what we have been saying on this 
floor for a week now, which is that this is a spending bill.
  He would say: But it also stimulates. What I said yesterday was that 
is kind of a trickle-down theory. The Government spends $1 trillion, 
throws it against the wall, and hopes some of it trickles down to 
actual families who need the support so they can then get their own 
budgets in balance and, hopefully, have something left over to spend. 
That is where ideas, such as those in the alternative proposed by

[[Page 3101]]

my colleague, Senator McCain, come into play because they actually help 
families in a way that could also have a way of stimulating economic 
growth. That is what this package should be all about.
  I will summarize it this way. This bill spends far too much money for 
far too long a period of time without any requirement that it be offset 
in any way by reductions in spending or tax receipts, which is the 
normal appropriations process and will inevitably result in inflation 
which robs every American and, in particular, retired Americans who 
have to rely on their savings.
  We have to consider the long-term consequences, and I hope the better 
Republican ideas that have been, so far, pretty much rejected by our 
colleagues on the Democratic side can be brought to the floor as 
amendments and will be supported so there can be broader support for 
this legislation. If it is adopted on virtually a party-line basis, 
that is not going to be good for the country, and the end result will 
not stimulate the economy.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
three items. The first is an editorial in the Washington Post, February 
5, called ``The Senate Balks.'' The second is a column in the Arizona 
Republic, dated February 6, ``Bad Stimulus Ideas All Around.'' The 
third is a Wall Street Journal, February 6, George Melloan column, 
``Why `Stimulus' Will Mean Inflation.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, Feb. 5, 2009]

                            The Senate Balks

       Today in The Post, President Obama challenges critics of 
     the $900 billion stimulus plan that was taking shape on 
     Capitol Hill yesterday, accusing them of peddling ``the same 
     failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis'' and 
     warning that, without immediate action, ``Our nation will 
     sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be 
     able to reverse.'' A thinly veiled reference to Senate 
     Republicans, this is a departure from his previous emphasis 
     on bipartisanship. Still, as a matter of policy, Mr. Obama is 
     justified in signaling that the plan should not be tilted in 
     favor of tax cuts--and that the GOP should not waste valuable 
     time trying to achieve this.
       However, ideology is not the only reason that senators--
     from both parties--are balking at the president's plan. As it 
     emerged from the House, it suffered from a confusion of 
     objectives. Mr. Obama praised the package yesterday as ``not 
     merely a prescription for short-term spending'' but a 
     ``strategy for long-term economic growth in areas like 
     renewable energy and health care and education.'' This is 
     precisely the problem. As credible experts, including some 
     Democrats, have pointed out, much of this ``long-term'' 
     spending either won't stimulate the economy now, is of 
     questionable merit, or both. Even potentially meritorious 
     items, such as $2.1 billion for Head Start, or billions more 
     to computerize medical records, do not belong in legislation 
     whose reason for being is to give U.S. economic growth a 
     ``jolt,'' as Mr. Obama himself has put it. All other policy 
     priorities should pass through the normal budget process, 
     which involves hearings, debate and--crucially--competition 
     with other programs.
       Sen. Susan Collins of Maine is one of the moderate 
     Republicans whose support the president must win if he is to 
     garner the 60 Senate votes needed to pass a stimulus package. 
     She and Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska are working on a plan 
     that would carry a lower nominal price tag than the current 
     bill--perhaps $200 billion lower--but which would focus on 
     aid to states, ``shovel-ready'' infrastructure projects, food 
     stamp increases and other items calculated to boost business 
     and consumer spending quickly. On the revenue side, she would 
     keep Mr. Obama's priorities, including a $500-per-worker tax 
     rebate.
       To his credit, Mr. Obama continues to seek bipartisan 
     input, and he met individually with Ms. Collins for a half 
     hour yesterday afternoon. We hope he gives her ideas serious 
     consideration.
                                  ____


                     Bad Stimulus Ideas All Around

       The Democrats have some bad ideas for the stimulus bill. 
     The Republicans also have some bad ideas.
       Unfortunately, the compromise might be to combine the bad 
     ideas of both parties.
       The Democratic stimulus proposals are based upon a false 
     premise and a deceit.
       The false premise is that all Americans are construction 
     workers.
       The Democrats propose that the federal government build new 
     stuff for virtually everyone.
       The Congressional Budget Office has already noted the 
     constraints that exist on government's ability to get 
     hundreds of billions of dollars of construction money out the 
     door quickly. But even that ignores the constraint from those 
     who would need to do the work.
       Residential construction is, of course, in a deep slump. 
     Commercial construction not so much. And residential 
     construction workers are not easily redeployed to do 
     commercial and heavy construction. The skill sets are 
     different.
       The deceit is that all this spending requires suspending 
     ordinary budget constraints to jumpstart the economy. Most of 
     the spending is actually in pursuit of long-term Democratic 
     economic growth strategies.
       Democrats believe that the economy will perform better 
     long-term with significant additional government investments 
     in alternative energy sources, education, health care and 
     social welfare programs.
       Democrats won the election and certainly have a right to 
     try to advance their long-term strategies. But there is 
     nothing about fighting the recession that justifies exempting 
     these long-term strategies from the most basic of budget 
     considerations: How are you going to pay for them?
       Even without the stimulus package, the federal government 
     has already reached post-World War II records for spending 
     and the deficit as a percentage of GDP.
       The primary economic effect of the Democrat's stimulus 
     proposals will be to inflate private sector commercial 
     construction costs and give the country an even more severe 
     fiscal headache.
       The Republicans counter that our financial difficulties are 
     rooted in housing and that's where the fix needs to start.
       Certainly the bursting of the housing bubble was a 
     proximate contributor to the economic downturn. But the heart 
     of the problem was an overinvestment in housing, partially 
     induced by government subsidies. That was compounded by 
     imprudent lending to people without skin in the game in the 
     form of a substantial down payment.
       So, what do Republicans propose? New, more massive federal 
     subsidies. Under their proposal, the federal government would 
     guarantee new mortgage rates of 4 percent. And don't sweat 
     that down payment. The federal government will give you a tax 
     credit of $15,000.
       In the first place, existing mortgage rates are already 
     historically low. Moreover, home sales are trending up, 
     induced by deeply discounted prices.
       The federal government could usefully reduce foreclosures 
     by guaranteeing the refinancing of existing mortgages so that 
     payments don't exceed a certain percentage of income.
       By massively subsidizing new home purchases, however, 
     Republicans are basically proposing to reinflate the housing 
     bubble.
       Republicans also propose to reduce the income tax rates on 
     the two lowest brackets. Rather than truly help low-income 
     Americans, who don't pay much in income taxes, the benefits 
     will primarily flow to the upper middle class, while 
     increasing the marginal tax rate increase faced by the middle 
     class.
       Truly providing income support to low-income Americans, who 
     are most vulnerable in an economic downturn, would be 
     something useful the federal government could do, through 
     such things as temporary payroll tax relief and extended 
     unemployment benefits. But there's only a little over $100 
     billion in such short-term assistance in the stimulus bills.
       The country would be fortunate if Congress would just enact 
     those provisions and then call it a day.
                                  ____


              [From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 6, 2009]

                  Why ``Stimulus'' Will Mean Inflation

                          (By George Melloan)

       As Congress blithely ushers its trillion dollar 
     ``stimulus'' package toward law and the U.S. Treasury 
     prepares to begin writing checks on this vast new 
     appropriation, it might be wise to ask a simple question: 
     Who's going to finance it?
       That might seem like a no-brainer, which perhaps explains 
     why no one has bothered to ask. Treasury securities are 
     selling at high prices and finding buyers even though yields 
     are low, hovering below 3% for 10-year notes. Congress is 
     able to assure itself that it will finance the stimulus with 
     cheap credit. But how long will credit be cheap? Will it 
     still be when the Treasury is scrounging around in the 
     international credit markets six months or a year from now? 
     That seems highly unlikely.
       Let's have a look at the credit market. Treasurys have been 
     strong because the stock market collapse and the mortgage-
     backed securities fiasco sent the whole world running for 
     safety. The best looking port in the storm, as usual, was 
     U.S. Treasury paper. That is what gave the dollar and 
     Treasury securities the lift they now enjoy.
       But that surge was a one-time event and doesn't necessarily 
     mean that a big new batch of Treasury securities will find an 
     equally strong market. Most likely it won't as the global 
     economy spirals downward.
       For one thing, a very important cycle has been interrupted 
     by the crash. For years, the U.S. has run large trade 
     deficits with China

[[Page 3102]]

     and Japan and those two countries have invested their 
     surpluses mostly in U.S. Treasury securities. Their holdings 
     are enormous: As of Nov. 30 last year, China held $682 
     billion in Treasurys, a sharp rise from $459 billion a year 
     earlier. Japan had reduced its holdings, to $577 billion from 
     $590 billion a year earlier, but remains a huge creditor. The 
     two account for almost 65% of total Treasury securities held 
     by foreign owners, 19% of the total U.S. national debt, and 
     over 3o% of Treasurys held by the public.
       In the lush years of the U.S. credit boom, it was 
     rationalized that this circular arrangement was good for all 
     concerned. Exports fueled China's rapid economic growth and 
     created jobs for its huge work force, American workers could 
     raise their living standards by buying cheap Chinese goods. 
     China's dollar surplus gave the U.S. Treasury a captive pool 
     of investment to finance congressional deficits. It was 
     argued, persuasively, that China and Japan had no choice but 
     to buy U.S. bonds if they wanted to keep their exports to the 
     U.S. flowing. They also would hurt their own interests if 
     they tried to unload Treasurys because that would send the 
     value of their remaining holdings down.
       But what if they stopped buying bonds not out of choice but 
     because they were out of money? The virtuous circle so much 
     praised would be broken. Something like that seems to be 
     happening now. As the recession deepens, U.S. consumers are 
     spending less, even on cheap Chinese goods and certainly on 
     Japanese cars and electronic products. Japan, already a 
     smaller market for U.S. debt last November, is now suffering 
     what some have described as ``free fall'' in industrial 
     production. Its two champions, Toyota and Sony, are faltering 
     badly. China's growth also is slowing, and it is plagued by 
     rising unemployment.
       American officials seem not to have noticed this abrupt and 
     dangerous change in global patterns of trade and finance.
       The new Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, at his Senate 
     confirmation hearing harped on that old Treasury mantra about 
     China ``manipulating'' its currency to gain trade advantage. 
     Vice President Joe Biden followed up with a further lecture 
     to the Chinese but said the U.S. will not move 
     ``unilaterally'' to keep out Chinese exports. One would hope 
     not ``unilaterally'' or any other way if the U.S. hopes to 
     keep flogging its Treasurys to the Chinese.
       The Congressional Budget Office is predicting the federal 
     deficit will reach $1.2 trillion this fiscal year. That's 
     more than double the $455 billion deficit posted for fiscal 
     2008, and some private estimates put the likely outcome even 
     higher. That will drive up interest costs in the federal 
     budget even if Treasury yields stay low. But if a drop in 
     world market demand for Treasurys sends borrowing costs 
     upward, there could be a ballooning of the interest cost line 
     in the budget that will worsen an already frightening 
     outlook. Credit for the rest of the economy will become more 
     dear as well, worsening the recession. Treasury's Wednesday 
     announcement that it will sell a record $67 billion in notes 
     and bonds next week and $493 billion in this quarter weakened 
     Treasury prices, revealing market sensitivity to heavy 
     financing.
       So what is the outlook? The stimulus package is rolling 
     through Congress like an express train packed with goodies, 
     so an enormous deficit seems to be a given. Entitlements will 
     go up instead of being brought under better control, auguring 
     big future deficits. Where will the Treasury find all those 
     trillions in a depressed world economy?
       There is only one answer. The Obama administration and 
     Congress will call on Ben Bernanke at the Fed to demand that 
     he create more dollars--lots and lots of them. The Fed 
     already is talking of buying longer-term Treasurys to support 
     the market, so it will be more of the same--much more.
       And what will be the result? Well, the product of this sort 
     of thing is called inflation. The Fed's outpouring of dollar 
     liquidity after the September crash replaced the liquidity 
     lost by the financial sector and has so far caused no 
     significant uptick in consumer prices. But the worry lies in 
     what will happen next.
       Even when the economy and the securities markets are 
     sluggish, the Fed's financing of big federal deficits can be 
     inflationary. We learned that in the late 1970s, when the 
     Fed's deficit financing sent the CPI up to an annual rate of 
     almost 15%. That confounded the Keynesian theorists who 
     believed then, as now, that federal spending ``stimulus'' 
     would restore economic health.
       Inflation is the product of the demand for money as well as 
     of the supply. And if the Fed finances federal deficits in a 
     moribund economy, it can create more money than the economy 
     can use. The result is ``stagflation,'' a term coined to 
     describe the 1970s experience. As the global economy slows 
     and Congress relies more on the Fed to finance a huge 
     deficit, there is a very real danger of a return of 
     stagflation. I wonder why no one in Congress or the Obama 
     administration has thought of that as a potential consequence 
     of their stimulus package.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, again, I thank the manager of the bill and my 
colleague Senator Durbin for allowing me to give these remarks.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want everybody to remember these two 
numbers: 99 percent, 79 percent; 99 percent, 79 percent. What are those 
two numbers? If you take the Finance Committee bill, the bill that is 
in this stimulus bill that the Senate Finance Committee wrote--the 
Senate Finance Committee wrote the tax portion of the underlying bill 
and also the aid to States portion.
  Ninety-nine percent of the spending and the taxes combined in the 
Finance Committee portion of the bill will be spent out in the first 2 
years. Ninety-nine percent of the Finance Committee bill will be spent 
in the first 2 years.
  For those who didn't quite get it, it didn't quite compute, I will 
say it again. Ninety-nine percent of the Finance Committee bill is 
spent in the first 2 years--99 percent. Actually, if you want to break 
it down, it is a little more than that for taxes only because some 
reach to future years. Ninety-nine percent of the Finance Committee 
bill is spent in the first 2 years.
  What is my authority on that? Some economists? It is the Joint 
Committee on Tax and CBO, if you look at their numbers and combine 
them, the Joint Committee on Tax and the Congressional Budget Office, 
that is what it calculates to: 99 percent of the Finance Committee bill 
is spent in the first 2 years, according to the Joint Committee on Tax 
and according to the CBO, combining the two.
  That is my first figure, 99 percent. What is my second figure? Does 
anybody remember it? What was my second figure? It was 79 percent. What 
does 79 percent represent? Seventy-nine percent represents the total 
spending of this bill in the first 2 years. The total spending, if you 
take the Appropriations Committee and the Finance Committee and add 
them together--79 percent of the total spending--in this bill is in the 
first 2 years, 79 percent. Now, what is my authority? The Congressional 
Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation. So I ask Senators to 
go look at the Joint Committee on Taxation data, go to the 
Congressional Budget Office data. It is right there.
  There are a lot of allegations and a lot of statements that are made 
on the Senate floor by lots of Senators on both sides, and one of our 
goals, clearly, is to try to get the facts. One of our goals is to 
listen to the music as well as the words, to separate the wheat from 
the chaff, and to get to what is really going on. What are the right 
numbers?
  Now, of course, no numbers are perfect, but what is close to being 
right or as close as we can tell as we seek the truth? I will tell you, 
the Joint Committee on Taxation is probably one of the most unbiased, 
most reputable bodies here. Now, some don't like their numbers. They 
wish their calculations would be different. But, clearly, they try 
their best. They do their best. It is a bipartisan organization that 
works for both bodies of Congress, and they work for both political 
parties. They work for the Congress. It is not biased.
  The Congressional Budget Office is not biased, and the Joint 
Committee on Taxation is not biased. For those who are not familiar 
with Washington speak, the Joint Committee on Taxation is an 
independent professional group which advises the Congress on tax 
matters and does tax calculations for the Congress on tax matters. The 
Congressional Budget Office basically issues lots of reports and 
advises the Congress on spending items that are nontax items and 
calculations and so forth. Again, it is bipartisan. It serves both 
bodies--the Congressional Budget Office. It is a very reputable body, 
as is the Joint Committee on Taxation.
  So, again, I want to repeat those numbers so it sinks in a little 
more. The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Tax, 
add the figures together, 99 percent of the Finance Committee bill, 
which is a large portion of the bill--I think it is about 60 percent of 
the bill--is spent in the first 2 years. That is 99 percent--almost all 
in the first 2 years. If you take it all together, the Finance 
Committee

[[Page 3103]]

bill and add in the appropriations portion of the bill, 79 percent--
almost 80 percent or almost four-fifths--is spent in the first 2 years.
  Now, Mr. President, we have to get moving. Our country is in deep, 
deep, deep trouble. The American people want us to do something 
responsible about all of this. We all know there are three parts to the 
problem. One is the credit crisis--that is, credit is all frozen; banks 
aren't lending--and there are lots of ways to address that. The second 
part of the problem is housing. We are struggling to get even more 
stimulus to housing. But a third major part of the problem is demand 
and spending. There is about a $1 trillion gap between our potential 
economy in America and the real economy--$1 trillion. If we don't 
address that gap between spending and demand, we are going to find 
ourselves in such deep difficulty, with so many jobs lost, it may be 
equal to the Great Depression. We are not there yet, clearly, but we 
could get pretty close if we don't take some pretty important actions 
here.
  Now, I have heard all kinds of speeches on this matter, whether the 
roughly $800 billion stimulus package is right or not right. I have 
been in rooms with conservative economists and liberal economists and 
middle-of-the-road economists, and they all agree $800 billion is about 
right, and it is needed--and it is needed. Some may quibble about some 
parts, and there have been a lot of Senators on the floor, 
respectfully, Mr. President, who have been quibbling. They have not 
been seeing the forest for the trees. But I submit, if we keep our eye 
on the ball and keep our eye on the forest, we can get this bill passed 
and get it passed pretty quickly.
  I just want to urge those Senators who say not very much is being 
spent out in the first years to go look at the Joint Committee on 
Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office and do the calculations. 
Again, 99 percent of the Finance Committee package is spent in the 
first 2 years, and 79 percent of the total underlying bill is spent in 
the first 2 years. I think that is pretty good. It is not perfect, but 
it is pretty good.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I ask unanimous consent that 
the time during the quorum call, if there is a quorum call, be equally 
divided.
  Frankly, I see the Senator from Tennessee is seeking recognition.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
have come down to speak on this stimulus package before us, and I want 
to thank especially the colleagues on this side of the aisle for 
talking about this particular package. I think most people in the 
country realize that housing and credit are the foundations of this 
country which need to be stabilized so that we can build our economy 
again.
  I know there are a number of people on both sides of the aisle who 
are working in a gang mentality right now, if you will, to try to make 
this package better, and I certainly applaud people who work together 
in a bipartisan way to try to solve problems. In this particular case, 
though, this stimulus package is nothing short of a disaster. I think 
to try to make it 10 percent better, while admirable, is not really 
doing our country the justice it deserves.
  I am one of those people, I guess, who likes to understand all the 
problems together we are facing before taking action on one specific 
aspect. I want to understand everything as it is. And I know the 
administration is coming forth in the next week or so to talk about 
their solution to our financial crisis. I know there are many people in 
this country who believe we have trillions of dollars of losses still 
left in our financial system before we hit bottom. I think everybody in 
our country realizes that as housing continues to drop, it is not just 
hurting our economy directly, it is also dragging our financial system 
down.
  So, again, I appreciate those folks who are trying to work together 
to make this bill, which is a disaster, in my opinion, slightly better. 
I wonder if it wouldn't make more sense for us as a country to just 
wait for a week or two to hear the rest of the administration's plan as 
it relates to solving this problem. I think for us to rush out and put 
forth $1 trillion on spending on top of a projected $1 trillion 
deficit, without fully understanding the other issues our country faces 
and how the administration plans to deal with these other issues, is 
incredibly imprudent.
  It would be like a business person in a company knowing they have a 
crisis at hand, and not fully understanding what all those components 
are, and sort of throwing the whole shooting match into one of those, 
knowing there are other things coming they haven't thought about.
  We have Governors around the country from both sides of the aisle who 
are talking with us about what this is going to do to disrupt their 
States because so much of this spending is programmatic. It has nothing 
whatsoever to do with creating jobs. I have to be honest, I may be 
rare, but I don't understand how any of us could seriously talk about 
aid to States when our Federal Government is in the situation it is 
today. States, generally speaking, run their States in appropriate 
ways. But, truly, Governors on both sides of the aisle are wondering 
what they are going to do to the people coming after them because we 
are building this big fire hose of money coming into the States that 
they have to spend in stovepipe ways that are going to cause their 
successors to truly be in a very difficult situation.
  Look, there are people on both sides of the aisle uneasy about this. 
That is why this gang has been formed because there is tremendous 
unease, even on the other side of the aisle, on this package. Most 
people support this--well, I will not say that--many people, I believe, 
are supporting this package to show support for this new President whom 
we all want to see do well. We all want to see him be successful.
  I have had friends in life who out of friendship to me supported 
something I was doing, when I would have much preferred, after the 
fact, their sharing with me that what I was about to do was a really 
terrible idea. Instead, they just went along, and I ended up probably 
not doing as well as I might have done. I think there is tremendous 
unease in this body with this package, and I think there are a lot of 
people who are holding their nose and supporting it out of support for 
this President whom we all want to lead our country and this world 
successfully.
  I just urge people on both sides of the aisle to think about this, to 
vote their conscience, and not to just go along but, in fact, to stop 
and pause and look at all the issues we are going to be dealing with. 
Let's ask the administration to come forth and talk to us about the 
pricetag of dealing appropriately with the credit markets, with 
housing, and with, maybe, some directed spending on infrastructure or 
something that is not programmatic and would not disrupt the way State 
governments run.
  Mr. President, I thank you for the time, but I feel as though our 
country is getting ready to do something we will regret and generations 
after us will regret. So I am concerned about where we are as a country 
with our economy, and I feel as if we are using resources today so 
inappropriately when we are going to need those resources down the 
road.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Who yields time?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wonder if anybody on our side is seeking 
time?
  The Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, seeks 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and my friend, the Senator from 
Montana, the chairman of the Finance Committee. I thank him for his 
leadership and, frankly, for his strength of character and patience 
throughout the long journey we have taken as a Chamber on this bill. 
When we get it done--and I think we need to get it done quickly--it 
will be in no small measure because of his steadfastness in this time 
of national need.

[[Page 3104]]

  Mr. President, one of the favorite metaphors that is used in time of 
crisis is of a burning house. I wish I could find a different metaphor 
because that one is used so frequently. But, frankly, I can't find one 
that better expresses what I would like to express in a few moments 
this afternoon.
  The fact is obvious: America's economic house is burning. A lot of 
people are being hurt--600,000 people unemployed last month, the second 
month in a row that went over a half million people losing their jobs. 
From one report I heard, it was the largest number of people losing 
jobs in 1 month in America in 35 years. I could go on with a lot of 
statistics, but we don't need them. We have heard them in the debate 
before.
  America's economic house is on fire. But I want to extend the 
metaphor to us, those who are privileged to serve in the Senate. We are 
the firefighters, if you will. And I fear there is a danger that what 
may be happening is, while the house is burning, and we are on our way 
to try to put out the fire, we have stopped the truck because we are 
arguing over what is the best way to get to the fire most quickly. In 
the meantime, we are leaving the house burning and more people are 
being hurt.
  Some people have suggested we go back to the beginning and start 
again or that we wait, as my friend from Tennessee just said, until the 
administration comes in with all its ideas for all of the responses to 
the economic crisis we are in before we act on this one. That simply 
cannot happen because the need and the urgency of the need is too 
great. It is felt in individual lives, it is felt in macroeconomic 
statistics, it is felt in the reports we hear, one after the other, of 
great American businesses doing worse than they did last year and 
terribly worse than they did 2 years ago. It is felt in the growing 
signs of a deep global recession.
  It is clear that demand from the private and personal sector has 
dropped dramatically. Economists estimate about a $1 trillion hole in 
our economy. The proposal President Obama has made comes to us from the 
House. It is not all perfect, believe me, as I will say in a moment, 
but it is $800 billion over 2 years. In fact, it is $800 billion over 
more than 2 years. That means it is less than $400 billion the 
Government is injecting into the economy now, because the private 
sector will not, to try to kick-start the economy and protect people's 
jobs and create new ones. That $400 billion into an economy that is $1 
trillion short is simply necessary and it is urgently necessary.
  Here we are. H.R. 1 is before us. It is larger than some people want 
it to be. It contains items in it that do not appear, on first look, to 
be directly related to economic recovery, stimulating the economy. I 
preferred originally--I said I thought the stimulus bill should be big, 
as big as the problem is; it should be as clean as possible; that is, 
it would be mostly job creating--public works, that kind of 
investment--and then it should be quick because the house is on fire 
and every day we do not do anything, more people suffer and it will be 
harder to get out of it. That is the challenge we have. Yet we, as the 
firefighters, seem to be falling into some old habits, where we are 
argue about how to get to the fire when the house keeps burning.
  In the midst of this, two of our colleagues, Ben Nelson of Nebraska 
and Susan Collins of Maine, have come together to form a bipartisan 
group, a gang--that gives a good name to the term gang--whatever you 
want to call them, moderates, centrists, Independents--basically a 
bipartisan group that wants to find common ground so we can get the 60 
votes we need to pass this so we can get to the fire and help put it 
out so more Americans do not suffer. As part of this--and I have been 
part of this group--we have worked well together and we have been very 
open and honest with one another. We have talked about cuts--I have--in 
programs that I support deeply.
  But I have two things in mind here. One is the urgency of the moment. 
I am going to have to yield on some things I wish to see in that bill 
to make sure we get something done quickly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I wonder if I could ask unanimous consent for 3 
additional minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Would the Senator be OK with 2?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Two? It is a deal. See, that is in the spirit of 
compromise, in this case not bipartisan.
  Mr. BAUCUS. It is compromising toward the intentions of the other 
side.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I am happy to do it.
  Tough decisions had to be made by this bipartisan group. Why did we 
make them? One, because the urgency is to get to 60. I wish we could 
get to 80 but it doesn't seem to be in the offing so I am going to do 
everything I can to get to 60 and hopefully a little over so we can get 
help to the American economy, American businesses, the American people.
  Second, this is not the last appropriations bill. We have an omnibus 
bill coming. We have the regular appropriations process. We can come 
back and find other ways to deal with some of the real needs that will 
not get quite as much as they get now in H.R. 1, to achieve results 
quickly.
  That is my appeal to my colleagues. Let's not get dug in. This is not 
a perfect bill, but it clearly is a very good bill and, most important 
of all, it is a proposal that will pump money into the American 
economy, into the pockets of working Americans and businesses 
throughout this country, that will kick-start the economy, protect 
millions of jobs, and create millions of other jobs. There is nothing 
more important than doing that right now.
  Let's get together, let's support the bipartisan effort, let's shoot 
for 80 but get over 60 so we can get to the fire together and put it 
out.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield time to the Senator from Michigan, 
5 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I apologize, I think Senator Lincoln was 
here earlier. I didn't turn around far enough.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. That is fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of 
the Finance Committee who I know is working so hard. There are so many 
different pieces of this that are so important to the American people.
  I want to take a moment, after listening to colleagues--today and 
throughout the week--on the other side of the aisle, to talk about the 
fact that this package is strongly supported by the majority of our 
caucus and I believe the majority of the American people who know we 
have to do something different than what has been done for the last 8 
years.
  We have been debating whether to go back to policies that have been 
in place for 8 years--tax policies that have been passed on a number of 
occasions, over the last 8 years, under President Bush and when our 
colleagues were in the majority. We have seen those policies in place. 
We have seen the results of those, and they didn't work. I wish they 
had. My State of Michigan has the highest unemployment rate in the 
country, over 10.6 percent, heading up to 11 very quickly. I wish they 
had worked because people in my State then would be working.
  But that is not what has happened. The American people know that. The 
American people understand we have to do something different. I 
remember in those debates in the last 8 years when we came forward 
saying we need to put people to work by focusing on jobs directly, jobs 
rebuilding America, making sure we are focusing on jobs for roads and 
bridges and rebuilding water and sewer systems and rebuilding our 
schools and doing things that would directly stimulate the economy. But 
those were rejected with the same arguments we are hearing now, the 
same arguments.
  We have talked over the last 8 years about the need to aggressively 
move to

[[Page 3105]]

the new green economy so we are not only tackling our dependence on 
foreign oil but creating jobs in this new green energy revolution. 
There were the same arguments in opposition, on the other side of the 
aisle. We have put forward proposals to invest in our people, proposals 
to make sure that people who are hurt by this devastating financial and 
economic crisis--those who are unemployed or fearful of being 
unemployed, who cannot put food on the table and pay the bills and pay 
their mortgage--can get help. Too many times that has been rejected.
  We now find ourselves here. There was an election where those 
policies were debated for a long time--not 1 year but 2 years. Those 
policies the American people took a look at, both sets of policies, and 
they said no. They said no to the policies of the last 8 years. They 
said no to inaction.
  We all know we were talking 2 years ago about the fact that we had to 
address the housing problem, subprime lending, or we were going to see 
a rippling effect in the financial markets. There was inaction. Nothing 
happened. We find ourselves in a position today where we are seeing 
some 600,000 people now--that is the unemployment number for January; 
500,000 the previous month, 500,000 the previous month. It is only 
getting worse and worse. Eleven million people in this country do not 
have a job and that is only the people we are counting.
  We come to this point where, yes, there is a difference. I commend 
colleagues who are working together to get to the necessary 60 votes 
and are working in good faith. But fundamentally we have a difference 
in philosophy of how our economy should operate and, frankly, whom it 
should help. Our proposal, this President's proposal, is to make sure 
the majority of Americans, the overwhelming number of Americans who 
have been left out of this economy in the policies of the last 8 years 
get an opportunity to participate with job, jobs rebuilding America, 
jobs in the green economy, keeping our police officers on the streets, 
our teachers in the schools, retraining for the new economy and making 
sure people who have been hurt, devastated so much, get the help they 
need.
  I urge us to join together in a new direction.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who 
yields time?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, 5 minutes to the Senator from----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Unless Senator Alexander seeks recognition. We want to go 
back and forth to even things out.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I seek recognition for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield to the Senator on his time, on Republican time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, will you please let me know when 60 
seconds remains.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will notify the Senator.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I have been listening to the debate as well. I think 
it is important that all our colleagues and the American people 
understand what we mean by bipartisanship, because there is a 
disconnect between the tone I have been hearing for the last week from 
the administration and from the majority and from the substance I have 
been hearing. Here is what I heard. I heard we are going to work 
together to try to deal with this economy. First we are going to have 
to stimulate the economy. We all know next week the Secretary of the 
Treasury is coming forward to do something about banking and then maybe 
about housing. Then there is an appropriations bill, and then we have 
health care, which the Senator from Montana has been hard at work on. 
We have a great many things to do.
  So what do we mean by bipartisan? I thought what we meant, we thought 
what we meant, was that the President would define an agenda and then 
we would sit down together and take our best ideas. The President put 
his out there. We think we have a better idea. We said fix housing 
first. Housing got us into this mess. Housing can get us out of it.
  So we offered a way to offer up to 40 million Americans a 4- or 4.5-
percent mortgage, 30-year rate, saving them an average of $400 a month. 
We brought it up. Senator Ensign proposed it. Not one single Democratic 
vote.
  Senator Isakson has been offering an amendment for the last year and 
a half to give $15,000 in tax credits to home buyers. That was 
accepted. I hope it survives the conference.
  But the tone has changed overnight. Suddenly the President, instead 
of inviting us to work with him, is saying basically: We won the 
election, we will write the bill. The attitude seems to be: Let's see 
if we can pick off one Republican or two Republicans or three 
Republicans. Then the tone is, well, suddenly: The tired old ideas. I 
didn't hear the President talk about his tax cut proposal for 2 years 
during his campaign as a tired old idea. It is still a part of his 
proposal. It is also a part of our proposal.
  We have offered ways to fix housing first. No. 1, we suggest letting 
people keep more of their own money, as the President has suggested. 
Senator McCain's own bill, which received not one single Democratic 
vote, offered to spend $420 billion, and it included a cut in the 
payroll tax for 1 year and a cut in the lower rates of taxation.
  Then we would like to do as Alice Rivlin, the former head of the 
Budget Office, suggested. We would like to take all of the spending 
that does not create jobs now and put it off and do it later. If we are 
going to borrow money at a time when we are heavily in debt, it ought 
to be targeted, timely, and temporary.
  Senator McCain yesterday offered legislation that received almost 
every Republican vote but no Democratic votes, that would have made it 
temporary. It would have said whatever spending we have, we will have 
it until the economy recovers. But once it starts to recover for 2 
quarters--the gross domestic product goes up for 2 quarters, then the 
spending stops.
  What has happened? This is the easy piece of legislation. This is one 
that most of us agree needs to be done. What we were expecting in this 
era of bipartisanship, given the President's campaign and his comments, 
was that he would offer his idea, we would offer ours, and we would put 
them together and come up with a result.
  Ours are: Fix housing first. That is not in the bill. Ours are: Make 
it temporary. They rejected that without a Democratic vote yesterday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute left.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Ours are: Let's get the spending off the bill that 
does not create jobs now.
  My staff finds that only about $135 billion of the $900 billion goes 
to things that happen in the first couple of years--building roads, 
improving national parks, other things that create jobs now.
  The American people did not hear in the last campaign that the kind 
of change they were voting for was that the first thing we would do 
when we got to Washington is borrow $1 trillion, add it to the debt, 
and then take the position: We won the election, we will write the 
bill. If that is the tone, if that is the substance for the next 
several years, that will not make a very successful Presidency. That 
will not be good for our country. We want this President to be 
successful because we need him to be successful for our country to 
recover.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I intended to offer an amendment to this 
bill to appropriate $1 billion to the Department of Energy Federal 
Energy Management Program, FEMP. The funds would have been used to 
expand the scope of energy savings performance contracts, ESPCs, and 
utility energy savings contracts, UESCs. In the last 10 years, 195 
ESPCs and UESCs have invested about $3 billion in Federal facilities 
and have produced about 28,500 jobs. The costs of these projects have 
been entirely repaid from savings.
  The amendment was necessary and consistent with our stimulus goals 
because it would have multiplied the job creation and the energy 
savings from every dollar of Treasury investment. In

[[Page 3106]]

addition to providing significant financial leverage, ESPC and UESC 
projects comply with the standards the Congress established in section 
432 of EISA--42 U.S.C. section 8253 (f)(1) through (f)(7)--for energy 
projects in Federal facilities: comprehensive energy and water 
conservation and efficiency measures, full utilization of renewable 
energy technologies, and transparency and accountability through long-
term monitoring of project savings.
  The amendment I intended to offer would have given FEMP the incentive 
to quickly clear its pipeline of about $2.2 billion of shovel-ready 
projects, to accelerate the pace of new project development so that we 
would have another $3 billion of projects implemented in the next 2 
years, and enabled FEMP to expand the scope of the ESPC and UESC 
projects by paying for the advanced metering and monitoring systems 
that the Congress has mandated but not yet funded.
  Based on the history of the ESPC and UESC projects, my amendment 
would have assured that about $6 billion of projects would be 
implemented, creating almost 60,000 jobs, at a cost to the Treasury of 
$1 billion. I, therefore, urge the Federal agencies that are receiving 
substantial new appropriations for energy projects to use the ESPC and 
UESC projects as models of what the Congress wants to see accomplished 
with the taxpayers' dollars.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this morning we learned that another 
598,000 jobs were lost in the month of January. Our unemployment rate 
now stands at 7.6 percent and will no doubt be higher still in the 
coming months.
  With that in mind, I would like to have printed in the Record an 
opinion piece authored by Steven Pearlstein that appeared in today's 
Washington Post. The piece does a much better job than I could hope to 
do of explaining the basic economics of why increased Government 
spending in a time of recession is a good thing.
  I encourage my colleagues to take a serious look at this opinion 
piece. In his final sentence, Mr. Pearlstein gives us all a crib sheet 
that I think we all might want to pay a bit more attention to.

       Spending is stimulus, no matter what it's for and who does 
     it. The best spending is that which creates jobs and economic 
     activity now, has big payoffs later and disappears from 
     future budgets.

  As I have been saying all week, the $365.6 billion in spending that 
we include in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act meets these 
simple criteria. I again urge my colleagues to set aside partisan 
differences and work together on this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the opinion piece 
authored by Steven Pearlstein printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, Feb. 6, 2009]

          Wanted: Personal Economic Trainers--Apply at Capitol

                         (By Steven Pearlstein)

       As long as we're about to spend gazillions to stimulate the 
     economy, I'd like to suggest we throw in another $53.5 
     million for a cause dear to all business journalists: 
     economic literacy. And what better place to start than right 
     here in Washington.
       My modest proposal is that lawmakers be authorized to hire 
     personal economic trainers over the coming year to sit by 
     their sides as they fashion the government's response to the 
     economic crisis and prevent them from uttering the kind of 
     nonsense that has characterized the debate over the stimulus 
     bill during the last two weeks.
       At a minimum, we'd be creating jobs for 535 unemployed 
     PhDs. And if we improved government economic policy by a mere 
     1 percent of the trillions of dollars we're dealing with, it 
     would pay for itself many times over.
       Let's review some of the more silly arguments about the 
     stimulus bill, starting with the notion that ``only'' 75 
     percent of the money can be spent in the next two years, and 
     the rest is therefore ``wasted.''
       As any economist will tell you, the economy tends to be 
     forward-looking and emotional. So if businesses and 
     households can see immediate benefits from a program while 
     knowing that a bit more stimulus is on the way, they are 
     likely to feel more confident that the recovery will be 
     sustained. That confidence, in turn, will make them more 
     likely to take the risk of buying big-ticket items now and 
     investing in stocks or future ventures.
       Moreover, much of the money that can't be spent right away 
     is for capital improvements such as building and maintaining 
     schools, roads, bridges and sewer systems, or replacing 
     equipment--stuff we'd have to do eventually. So another way 
     to think of this kind of spending is that we've simply moved 
     it up to a time, to a point when doing it has important 
     economic benefits and when the price will be less.
       Equally specious is the oft-heard complaint that even some 
     of the immediate spending is not stimulative.
       ``This is not a stimulus plan, it's a spending plan,'' 
     Nebraska's freshman senator, Mike Johanns (R), said Wednesday 
     in a maiden floor speech full of budget-balancing orthodoxy 
     that would have made Herbert Hoover proud. The stimulus bill, 
     he declared, ``won't create the promised jobs. It won't 
     activate our economy.''
       Johanns was too busy yesterday to explain this radical 
     departure from standard theory and practice. Where does the 
     senator think the $800 billion will go? Down a rabbit hole? 
     Even if the entire sum were to be stolen by federal employees 
     and spent entirely on fast cars, fancy homes, gambling 
     junkets and fancy clothes, it would still be an $800 billion 
     increase in the demand for goods and services--a pretty good 
     working definition for economic stimulus. The only question 
     is whether spending it on other things would create more 
     long-term value, which it almost certainly would.
       Meanwhile, Nebraska's other senator, Ben Nelson (D), was 
     heading up a centrist group that was determined to cut $100 
     billion from the stimulus bill. Among his targets: $1.1 
     billion for health-care research into what is cost-effective 
     and what is not. An aide explained that, in the senator's 
     opinion, there is ``some spending that was more stimulative 
     than other kinds of spending.''
       Oh really? I'm sure they'd love to have a presentation on 
     that at the next meeting of the American Economic 
     Association. Maybe the senator could use that opportunity to 
     explain why a dollar spent by the government, or government 
     contractor, to hire doctors, statisticians and software 
     programmers is less stimulative than a dollar spent on hiring 
     civil engineers and bulldozer operators and guys waving 
     orange flags to build highways, which is what the senator 
     says he prefers.
       And then there is Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), complaining in 
     Wednesday's Wall Street Journal that of the 3 million jobs 
     that the stimulus package might create or save, one in five 
     will be government jobs, as if there is something inherently 
     inferior or unsatisfactory about that. (Note to Coburn's 
     political director: One in five workers in Oklahoma is 
     employed by government.)
       In the next day's Journal, Coburn won additional support 
     for his theory that public-sector employment and output is 
     less worthy than private-sector output from columnist Daniel 
     Henninger. Henninger weighed in with his own list of horror 
     stories from the stimulus bill, including $325 million for 
     trail repair and remediation of abandoned mines on federal 
     lands, $6 billion to reduce the carbon footprint of federal 
     buildings and--get this!--$462 million to equip, construct 
     and repair labs at the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention.
       ``What is most striking is how much `stimulus'' money is 
     being spent on the government's own infrastructure,'' wrote 
     Henninger. ``This bill isn't economic stimulus. It's self-
     stimulus.''
       Actually, what's striking is that supposedly intelligent 
     people are horrified at the thought that, during a deep 
     recession, government might try to help the economy by buying 
     up-to-date equipment for the people who protect us from 
     epidemics and infectious diseases, by hiring people to repair 
     environmental damage on federal lands and by contracting with 
     private companies to make federal buildings more energy-
     efficient.
       What really irks so many Republicans, of course, is that 
     all the stimulus money isn't being used to cut individual and 
     business taxes, their cure-all for economic ailments, even 
     though all the credible evidence is that tax cuts are only 
     about half as stimulative as direct government spending.
       Many, including John McCain, lined up this week to support 
     a proposal to make the sales tax and interest payments on any 
     new car purchased over the next two years tax-deductible, 
     along with a $15,000 tax credit on a home purchase. These tax 
     credits make for great sound-bites and are music to the ears 
     of politically active car salesmen and real estate brokers. 
     Most economists, however, have warned that such credits will 
     have limited impact at a time when house prices are still 
     falling sharply and consumers are worried about their jobs 
     and their shrinking retirement accounts. Even worse, they 
     wind up wasting a lot of money because they give windfalls to 
     millions of people who would have bought cars and houses 
     anyway.
       What adds insults to injury, however, is that many of the 
     senators who supported these tax breaks then turned around 
     and opposed as ``boondoggles'' much more cost-effective 
     proposals to stimulate auto and housing sales, such as having 
     the government replace its current fleet of cars with hybrids 
     or giving money to local housing authorities to

[[Page 3107]]

     buy up foreclosed properties for use as low-income rental 
     housing.
       Personal economic trainers would confirm all this. Until 
     they're on board, however, here's a little crib sheet on 
     stimulus economics:
       Spending is stimulus, no matter what it's for and who does 
     it. The best spending is that which creates jobs and economic 
     activity now, has big payoffs later and disappears from 
     future budgets.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I was recently approached, along with my 
colleague Senator Shelby and leaders of the House Financial Services 
Committee, by the Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation, Sheila Bair, with a request to increase the FDIC's 
borrowing authority from Treasury from the current $30 billion to $100 
billion, for use by the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund, and for 
temporary additional borrowing authority to weather the economic 
crisis.
  The FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund, DIF, absorbs losses that result 
from the Corporation's obligation to protect insured deposits when 
FDIC-insured financial institutions fail. Insured financial 
institutions pay premiums that support the DIF and under current law 
those premiums can be increased to cover any losses to the fund. At the 
end of the third quarter of last year, the fund held approximately $35 
billion.
  Legislation to substantially and permanently increase this borrowing 
authority has already passed the House, as part of the TARP legislation 
passed in January. A scaled back version of it was also incorporated 
into financial services legislation ordered reported by the House 
Financial Services Committee earlier this week. Treasury Secretary 
Geithner and Chairman Bernanke of the Federal Reserve Board have also 
recently written to me underscoring their support for this request.
  Since the FDIC's borrowing authority was last increased in 1991, the 
asset size of banks has tripled. Even more important, the financial 
system is under considerable stress, and the level of thrift and bank 
failures has been rising. This line of credit is designed strictly to 
serve as a backstop to cover potential losses to the Deposit Insurance 
Fund.
  Though this statutory borrowing authority has historically never been 
tapped, and Chairman Bair has made clear she does not anticipate doing 
so, I agree with Chairman Bair, Secretary Geithner and Chairman 
Bernanke that under current economic circumstances such an increase in 
borrowing authority is both prudent and necessary. While the current 
fund has substantial reserves, it is important that we increase this 
line of borrowing authority so that the FDIC has the funds available 
which might be needed to meet its obligations to protect insured 
depositors and to reassure the public that the government continues to 
stand firmly behind the FDIC's insurance guarantee.
  I had intended to try to incorporate a provision to increase FDIC 
borrowing authority into the Economic Recovery legislation, with 
certain protections to require concurrence from other federal 
officials--including ultimately the President--in exigent 
circumstances, and at least on a temporary basis. I sought to do this 
yesterday. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues made clear that they 
would object to this proposal at this time. And, for this reason, I 
will not offer it today. However, I intend to work with them and those 
in the administration to craft a proposal that satisfies their concerns 
in order to ensure that the FDIC as the borrowing authority that it 
needs going forward.
  I ask unanimous consent that copies of the letters from FDIC Chairman 
Bair, Treasury Secretary Geithner, and Fed Chairman Bernanke be printed 
in the Record. I will continue to work to ensure that the FDIC has 
sufficient borrowing authority going forward to deal with a wide range 
of contingencies.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                   Federal Deposit


                                        Insurance Corporation,

                                 Washington, DC, January 26, 2009.
     Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,
     Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your willingness to meet 
     with me to discuss a proposed increase in the borrowing 
     authority of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to 
     cover losses from failed financial institutions.
       As you know, the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) 
     absorbs losses that result from the Corporation's obligation 
     to protect insured deposits when FDIC-insured financial 
     institutions fail. Insured financial institutions pay 
     premiums that support the DIF and those premiums can be 
     increased to cover losses to the DIF from failed bank 
     activity.
       At the end of the third quarter of 2008, the DIF had a 
     balance of $35 billion available to absorb losses from the 
     failures of insured institutions. In addition, the FDIC has 
     announced premium increases that are designed to return the 
     DIF reserve ratio to within its statutory range in the coming 
     years. Because of our ability to adjust premiums, the FDIC 
     has never needed to draw on its $30 billion line of credit 
     with the Treasury Department to cover losses. Based on our 
     current assumptions, the FDIC should not need to draw on its 
     statutory line in the future. If it ever became necessary to 
     exercise this borrowing authority, the FDIC would ensure 
     repayment of any borrowing over time through assessments on 
     the banking industry.
       Nevertheless, the events of the past year have demonstrated 
     the importance of contingency planning to cover unexpected 
     developments in the financial services industry. Assets in 
     the banking industry have tripled since 1991--the last time 
     the line of credit was adjusted in the FDIC Improvement Act 
     (from $5 billion to $30 billion). The FDIC believes it would 
     be appropriate to adjust the statutory line of credit 
     proportionately to ensure that the public has no confusion or 
     doubt about the government's commitment to insured 
     depositors. Therefore, we are requesting the borrowing 
     authority be increased to $100 billion. We also believe it 
     would be prudent to provide that the line of credit could be 
     adjusted further in exigent circumstances by a request from 
     the FDIC Board requiring the concurrence of the Secretary of 
     the Treasury.
       As I stated above, the FDIC has never used its statutory 
     borrowing authority to cover losses and does not anticipate 
     doing so. However, the banking industry has grown 
     substantially since the current borrowing authority was 
     established. Appropriate adjustments to the current statute 
     would ensure that the FDIC is fully prepared to address any 
     contingency. I respectfully request that Congress increase 
     the FDIC's borrowing authority to provide additional 
     reassurance to depositors that the government stands behind 
     the FDIC's insurance guarantee.
       If you have any questions regarding this issue, please do 
     not hesitate to contact me or Eric Spitler, Director of 
     Legislative Affairs.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Sheila C. Bair,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                                Board of Governors


                                of the Federal Reserve System,

                                 Washington, DC, February 2, 2009.
     Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,
     Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to join the Secretary of 
     the Treasury in expressing my agreement that the authority of 
     the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to borrow 
     from the Treasury Department should be increased to $100 
     billion from its current level of $30 billion. While the FDIC 
     has substantial resources in the Deposit Insurance Fund, the 
     line of credit with the Treasury Department provides an 
     important back-stop to the fund and has not been adjusted 
     since 1991. An increase in the line of credit is a reasonable 
     and prudent step to ensure that the FDIC can effectively meet 
     potential future obligations during periods such as the 
     difficult and uncertain economic climate that we are 
     currently experiencing.
       I also support legislation that would allow the Secretary 
     of the Treasury, in consultation with the Chairman of the 
     Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System if Congress 
     believes that to be appropriate, to increase the FDIC's line 
     of credit with the Treasury in exigent circumstances. This 
     mechanism would allow the FDIC to respond expeditiously to 
     emergency situations that may involve substantial risk to the 
     financial system.
       The Federal Reserve would be happy to work with your staff 
     on this matter, as well as on the other amendments under 
     consideration that would allow the FDIC more flexibility in 
     the timing and scope of assessments that it charges to 
     recover costs to the Deposit Insurance Fund in the event that 
     the systemic risk exception in the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Act has been invoked.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Ben S. Bernanke,
                                                         Chairman.

[[Page 3108]]

     
                                  ____
                                   Department of the Treasury,

                                Washington, DC., February 2, 2009.
     Hon. Christopher J. Dodd, 
     Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express my support for 
     the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's (FDIC's) current 
     request to increase its permanent statutory borrowing 
     authority under its line of credit with the Treasury 
     Department from $30 billion to $100 billion. Since the last 
     increase in that authority in 1991, the banking industry's 
     assets have tripled. More importantly, the financial and 
     credit markets continue to be under acute stress, and the 
     level of thrift and bank failures has been rising. Although 
     the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund remains substantial at $35 
     billion, and the FDIC has never needed to tap the existing 
     line of credit with the Treasury Department in the past, the 
     proposed increase in the limit is a reasonable and prudent 
     step to ensure that the FDIC can effectively meet any 
     potential future obligations.
       The Treasury Department also supports the FDIC's request to 
     make future adjustments to the line of credit based on 
     exigent circumstances, but recommends that such future 
     adjustments require the concurrence of both the Secretary of 
     the Treasury and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of 
     the Federal Reserve System. This future adjustment mechanism 
     would provide an additional layer of protection for insured 
     depositors and enhance the confidence of financial markets 
     during this turbulent period.
       The Treasury Department also supports the FDIC having 
     authority to determine the time period for recovering any 
     loss to the insurance fund resulting from actions taken after 
     a systemic risk determination by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury.
       I hope that you find our views useful in the Committee's 
     consideration of the FDIC's request. Thank you for the 
     opportunity to share these views.
           Sincerely,
                                              Timothy F. Geithner,
                                        Secretary of the Treasury.


                           Amendment No. 427

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an amendment, 
amendment No. 427, that Senators Bingaman, Isakson, and I offered to 
help mitigate the foreclosure crisis, which is at the root of our 
economic downturn. Currently, foreclosures are being filed at the rate 
of nearly 10,000 a day; one in six homeowners are underwater; and a 
recent study shows that U.S. homeowners lost a cumulative $3.3 trillion 
in home equity during 2008. Addressing the foreclosure crisis is key to 
restoring growth to the economy.
  According to Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, the most effective 
way to reduce foreclosures is to restore positive equity by writing 
down mortgage principal. In fact, the HOPE for Homeowners program 
requires principal write-down for participation.
  Yet, under current tax law, most people who get loan modifications 
involving principal reductions would have to pay taxes on the amount of 
the loan forgiven. This is a significant barrier to people 
participating in effective loan modifications and a terrible burden to 
put on struggling families.
  In 2007, the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act provided a tax 
exemption for forgiven mortgage debt if that mortgage debt was used 
exclusively to purchase or substantially improve the home.
  However, many homeowners, including a majority of subprime borrowers, 
did not get their current loans to buy a home. Rather, in many cases, 
they were steered by unscrupulous mortgage brokers into high-cost 
refinance loans with hidden features that they did not understand. In 
some cases, these funds were used to pay health care costs, educational 
or other expenses. Many of these borrowers are now delinquent and 
seeking loan modifications. Too many will end up in foreclosure.
  These borrowers do not qualify for this current exemption. The threat 
of a large tax bill has dissuaded many homeowners from getting loan 
modifications.
  In fact, in their 2008 Annual Report to Congress, the IRS National 
Taxpayer Advocate wrote ``[we] recommend that Congress pass legislation 
to make it easier for financially distressed taxpayers to exclude 
cancelled [forgiven debt] from gross income.''
  This amendment, by eliminating the income tax on all forgiven 
mortgage debt, would remove a significant obstacle to loan 
modifications at a cost of $98 million over the next 10 years. This 
benefit would still expire, as it currently stands, at the end of 2012.
  In addition, I urge the IRS to ease the burden of complying with the 
reporting requirements that taxpayers face when claiming this 
exclusion.
  In its 2008 Annual Report to Congress, the IRS's Office of the 
National Taxpayer Advocate stated that current reporting requirements 
``are so complex that many and probably most taxpayers who qualify to 
exclude [QPRI] from their gross income do not do so.'' QPRI or 
qualified principle residence indebtedness is the technical term the 
IRS uses for tax exempt forgiven mortgage debt. One way the IRS can 
ease this burden, is by allowing taxpayers claiming the exemption to 
calculate the fair market value based on the appraisal value of the 
originating loan, which should ease the tax filing burden on the 
millions of Americans who were tricked by predatory lenders. In 
addition, the IRS should simplify the reporting requirement to claim 
this tax exemption. Right now, taxpayers who claim the QPRI exclusion 
must file a form, Form 982, that is not well known, is not supported by 
most tax software programs or Volunteer Income Tax Assistance--VITA--
programs, and is extremely complicated. The IRS estimates that it takes 
the average business taxpayer 10 hours and 43 minutes to complete this 
form.
  The goals of this amendment are both to expand the definition of QPRI 
to include home equity indebtedness and also to relieve taxpayers from 
the burden of filing any forms that they would not otherwise need to 
file but for receiving the benefit of the QPRI exclusion. Specifically, 
I urge the IRS to change Form 1099-C, used for all cancelled debts, not 
just mortgage debts, to include ``check boxes'' for lenders to check 
off when they are forgiving debt that is ``QPRI'' under the new 
definition. These check boxes--similar to the check box currently 
provided for debts discharged in bankruptcy should identify whether the 
taxpayer is receiving QPRI debt forgiveness and should indicate whether 
the taxpayer has lost their home, due to a foreclosure, short sale, or 
deed-in-lieu-of-foreclosure, or will continue to own the home as a 
result of a loan modification.
  Check boxes that make clear whether the taxpayer has lost the home 
are important because a taxpayer should not be required to make 
adjustments to the tax basis of the home that they no longer live in. 
If the homeowner continues to live in their home and the appropriate 
box is checked, the Form 1099-C will provide the IRS with complete 
information about the basis adjustments that will be required due to 
the QPRI exclusion at the time of the property's sale or disposition. 
Thus, as in the case of bankruptcy, the Form 1099-C should provide the 
IRS with sufficient information so that the taxpayer will not be 
required to fill out a Form 982 or use the long form 1040 to claim the 
QPRI, and taxpayers who are exempt from filing tax returns will not 
have to file returns solely to claim this exclusion.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to comment on my 
cosponsorship of an amendment to H.R. 1, the Economic Recovery Act, 
which would increase funding in the bill for mass transit by $6.5 
billion. I am cosponsoring this amendment, offered by Senator Schumer, 
because it will increase funding for ready-to-go public transit 
projects that will create both jobs and transportation options. While 
the underlying bill contains $8.4 billion for transit, public transit 
agencies across the Nation identified over $50 billion worth of 
projects that could be put under contract within a 2-year economic 
recovery bill, and $12.2 billion which could be implemented within 90 
days of Federal funding being allocated. I have heard from transit 
agencies across Pennsylvania that are ready to put people to work and 
improve transportation options in their communities if Federal stimulus 
funding is provided. An investment in public transit would also have 
the benefit of reducing oil consumption and vehicle emissions in 
instances where increased public transit capacity encourages a shift 
from automobiles.
  However, despite my cosponsorship of this amendment due to its 
potential for stimulus and for improving transportation systems across 
Pennsylvania

[[Page 3109]]

and the Nation, I am not committed to voting for it without an offset. 
Since adopting this amendment would add $6.5 billion to the size of the 
bill and to the national deficit, an offset to reduce spending 
elsewhere in the bill by an equal amount would be preferable. We should 
make every effort to identify offset to reduce the total size of the 
economic recovery bill.


                           Amendment No. 390

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee 
on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I wish to speak to amendment 
No. 390 which would hold recipients of the Troubled Asset Relief 
Program, TARP, funds accountable for the promises they have made to 
American taxpayers. This amendment would require that financial 
institutions, without major capital shortfalls, that receive TARP 
funds, must increase lending to individuals and businesses--including 
small businesses--above their lending levels at the time they received 
Federal assistance.
  This is a timely and vital amendment for those who are still unable 
to get financing for home and car purchases, business expenses, student 
loans and credit lines, including credit cards. Despite an investment 
of $700 billion in taxpayer funds for the purpose of addressing our 
country's major capital shortfalls, our citizens are still struggling 
to access capital. Recent reports from the Government Accountability 
Office and TARP's Congressional Oversight Panel have indicated that 
banks are not using TARP funds for lending, and more specifically, that 
lending to businesses and individuals has not experienced a noticeable 
increase since Congress passed TARP late last year. Further, the 
Federal Reserve's Senior Loan Officer Survey for January indicated that 
U.S. lending institutions have further tightened their business lending 
stance in the past 3 months.
  Congress's intent was for TARP to restore credit and liquidity to the 
financial system so that individuals and businesses can access the 
capital upon which our system of commerce depends. It is vital to our 
country's economic recovery that TARP funds be used to spur lending and 
get capital flowing through our economy quickly, effectively and 
transparently.
  On January 29, 2009, I sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy 
Geithner to express my concerns about TARP recipients not using Federal 
funds for its intended use. I also expressed to Secretary Geithner my 
disappointment in the Department's opposition to explicitly requiring 
firms that received Federal funds in the first tranche of TARP 
distributions to increase lending above baseline levels. The Treasury 
Department has refused to apply these conditions to TARP fund 
recipients retroactively, despite an assurance by National Economic 
Council Director Lawrence Summers in a January 15, 2009, letter to 
Congress that, ``As a condition of federal assistance, healthy banks 
without major capital shortfalls will increase lending above baseline 
levels.''
  By taking Federal dollars and not adhering to Congress's intent, 
recipients are adding to an already dire economic situation. We must 
demand that TARP funds be used to spur new lending. Our amendment will 
mandate that as a condition of receiving TARP funds, financial 
institutions without major capital shortfalls must increase their 
lending above baseline levels. Additionally, the amendment contains a 
provision requiring such financial institutions to immediately repay 
assistance provided under the TARP if the Secretary of the Treasury 
determines that they have not made sufficient progress toward achieving 
these requirements.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to have 
this amendment included in the stimulus bill to help ensure that 
taxpayer funds are used to judiciously rebuild our Nation's economy.


                           Amendment No. 525

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of Senator 
Reid's amendment 525, which I cosponsored.
  This amendment will improve renewable energy permitting and give 
renewable energy companies grants to replace the renewable energy tax 
credits.
  Specifically, Senator Reid's amendment would appropriate $25 million 
to the Department of Energy and the Department of Interior to assist in 
renewable energy permitting; establish pilot offices in Western States 
to focus on renewable energy permitting, to be funded with oil and gas 
royalties; allow projects utilizing new renewable energy technology, 
not just ``commercial'' technology, to apply for Federal renewable 
energy loan guarantees; and establish a DOE grant program for renewable 
energy development, to substitute for the solar investment tax credit 
and the renewable production tax credit.
  Let me explain why this amendment is needed.
  First, let me discuss permitting.
  First, Senator Reid and I propose $25 million to assist in renewable 
energy permitting. In California, BLM has more than 200 solar 
applications pending, and it has yet to complete a single application 
review.
  The Bureau is overwhelmed, and it needs a relatively small investment 
in resources to ensure that it can quickly analyze how these project 
proposals impact water resources, endangered species habitat, and 
wilderness areas. Without these resources, we simply will not build the 
renewable energy projects that we need in the West.
  In addition to adding financial resources, the amendment would 
establish pilot offices in Western States to focus on renewable energy 
permitting.
  Senator Tester and I introduced legislation to establish these 
offices, and BLM established them administratively in January. The 
offices would be funded with oil and gas royalties, to assure that they 
have the resources necessary to process the rapid influx of 
applications.
  Second, let me discuss financing.
  The amendment would also modify the title 17 renewable loan guarantee 
program so that it may guarantee loans for emerging renewable 
technology, not just ``commercial'' technology.
  Solar thermal facilities, the most advanced wind turbines, and 
enhanced geothermal projects are often the most economical renewable 
projects available, but they are considered emerging because they are 
the first of their type in the world.
  The loan guarantee program in this legislation would exclude them. 
This change allows them to compete with wind projects.
  Finally, let me explain the need for a grant program to replace the 
current tax credit system.
  The amendment would establish a DOE grant program for renewable 
energy development. Grants would equal the value of the solar 
investment tax credit or the renewable production tax credit, which it 
would replace. For the next 2 years, renewable projects could claim the 
grants at a time when tax equity markets simply cannot support 
significant renewable energy production.
  Last year Congress made a significant investment in solar and other 
renewable energy by passing a long term extension to the renewable 
energy investment and production tax credits.
  But renewable energy companies must go to big banks--JP Morgan, Wells 
Fargo, or Bank of America--in order to use these tax credits, and today 
those banks don't have profits and are sending renewable developers 
away emptyhanded.
  The ``tax equity'' market has gone from $5 billion to $2 billion in 1 
year. One good wind developer recently told me he went to 42 banks and 
couldn't find a partner.
  The few banks still in the business are increasing their profit 
margin. This is all transaction costs, benefiting the bankers and the 
lawyers who write these contracts but not renewable energy development. 
As the bank's cut goes up, the cost of renewable energy goes up as 
well.
  As a result, solar and wind companies are contracting. Some have shut 
down, some have scaled back, but no one is building renewable energy 
infrastructure. We are losing both green jobs and the fight against 
climate change.
  The DOE grants program in this amendment would replace the tax 
credits.

[[Page 3110]]

  The shrinking tax equity market would no longer harm renewable energy 
developers, who could get back to the business of shifting the United 
States away from coal and gas towards renewable energy.
  According to a study by Navigant Consulting in 2008, the 8-year 
extension to the solar investment tax credit should produce 276,000 
jobs by 2016.
  Mr. President, 150,000 of these jobs were forecast to be located in 
California. If the freeze in the available credit for solar project 
development is allowed to continue, not only will these jobs not 
materialize, but current ``green jobs'' will be lost.
  This legislation provides some assistance to renewable energy, but 
without this amendment, I fear the bill will not have its intended 
effect of spurring immediate construction of renewable energy projects.
  Right now renewable energy projects--which are massive capital 
investments--are not being built. Developers face a series of problems: 
Many projects await permits from DOE, the Forest Service, and the 
Department of Interior. Developers cannot use tax equity markets in 
order to utilize Federal tax credits, and without these tax credits, 
projects cannot secure private financing.
  This amendment--put simply--addresses these three major challenges 
that prevent us from building renewable energy projects in the United 
States.
  To address permitting, it establishes offices at BLM whose only job 
will be to evaluate and issue permit decisions.
  To address the tax issue, this amendment creates a DOE grant program 
that should cost the Treasury nothing we didn't already expect to 
spend. But it will allow projects to proceed that would not be able to 
without it.
  Finally, to address the credit crisis, this amendment modifies the 
loan guarantee program to assure that innovative ideas also qualify.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to support it.
  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.
 Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as we consider the provisions of 
this legislation that provide significant incentives for the adoption 
of health information technology I would like to take this opportunity 
to explain a seemingly technical element of the language. The term 
``qualified electronic health record,'' as defined in section 3000 of 
the Public Health Service Act, as added by section 13101 of the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is intended to include 
computerized provider order entry systems. Such systems are electronic 
records of health information on an individual. They include patient 
demographic data and health information, such as medical history and 
problem lists, including patient age, gender and allergy information as 
well as laboratory reports. Computerized provider order entry systems 
also have the capacity to provide clinical decision support such as 
medication dosing and interaction alerts, to capture and query 
information related to health care quality such as changes in 
laboratory values, and responses and reaction to medications, and to 
exchange electronic health information with, and integrate such 
information from other sources such as medication lists from a pharmacy 
or clinical information from a provider practice. Of course, the end 
goal is development and implementation of comprehensive, integrated 
electronic health records, and computerized provider order entry 
systems are an important intermediate step.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, at this most consequential of 
times, in support of the amendment that I have submitted, together with 
Senator Pryor, on behalf of our Nation's struggling communities that 
are negatively affected by base closures or realignments. During even 
the best of economic times, the closure or realignment of a military 
base can devastate a local economy. With the gravity of our economic 
circumstances--the most dire we have witnessed since the Great 
Depression--it is more difficult than ever for these communities to 
redevelop and stem job losses.
  My amendment would recognize that communities affected by base 
closures and realignments face particular challenges in this dismal 
economy and therefore special consideration should be given to provide 
assistance and relief under this stimulus act to those communities. I 
must point out that this amendment would not create a preference or 
entitlement, but would remind all of the critical need to help 
communities impinged by the closure or realignment of military 
installations.
  For instance, with the closure of Naval Air Station Brunswick, NASB, 
in my home State of Maine, the entire midcoast region of Maine will 
experience profoundly negative economic consequences attributable to an 
estimated loss of 6,500 jobs and $140 million in annual income. Given 
these challenging economic times, it is imperative that we make every 
effort to foster redevelopment in communities affected by base 
closures.
  I respectfully ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. President, I wish to speak about an issue of regional equity with 
regard to the recovery package and specifically about our forestry 
programs. I strongly believe that in order for our forest economies to 
work we must collaborate on national forestry whether it is Federal 
lands, or private lands. I am concerned that this proposal will 
strongly benefit one region with Federal lands over those with private 
lands and strongly urge leadership to overhaul the structure of this 
proposal with regard to our forest economies.
  Our Nation's forests are a strategic national resource which span 
from Maine to California and Alaska to Puerto Rico. Over 60 percent are 
in private ownership. In order to provide regional equity, it is 
important that within the broad categories of construction and wildland 
fire management, flexibility will be provided to address a wide range 
of actions all aimed at stimulating the Nation's economy. These include 
maintaining and enhancing the Nation's forest products industry; 
hazardous fuels reduction; improvements in forest health; wood-to-
energy grants; rehabilitation and restoration activities on Federal, 
State, and private lands; assisting State and local fire agencies 
responsible for wildfire preparedness and suppression, and urban and 
community forest enhancements.
  These activities can be accomplished through existing State and 
private forestry authorizations and programs. In order to address 
current economic conditions, I believe this economic stimulus bill 
should not require any matching funds and shall seek to maximize 
economic activity, job retention, and creation.
  I look forward to working with the Appropriations Committee chair on 
this critical issue.
  Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small 
Business and Entrepreneurship, I wish today, with Senator Landrieu, to 
file this bipartisan and commonsense amendment that would strengthen 
the innovative opportunities of small businesses who participate in the 
Small Business Innovation Research, SBIR, and Small Business Technology 
Transfer, STTR, programs and help them receive funding provided in the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, H.R. 1.
  Our amendment would require that any qualifying participating Federal 
agency allocate a percentage of its research and development funding 
gained from this economic stimulus bill to their respective SBIR or 
STTR programs. The SBIR and STTR programs award Federal research and 
development funds to small businesses to encourage them to innovate and 
commercialize new technologies, products, and services. These programs 
provide more than $2 billion in Federal research and development 
funding each year to small businesses, and the benefit to my State of 
Maine cannot be overstated. According to the most recent data, in 
fiscal year 2005, Maine's technology-based small businesses received 
more than $4.5 million in SBIR total awards.
  Since the SBIR program was created, small hi-tech firms have 
submitted

[[Page 3111]]

more than 250,000 proposals, resulting in more than 60,000 awards worth 
approximately $19 billion. At a time when our national economy is 
flagging due to failing financial markets and a correcting housing 
market, the SBIR program is more essential than ever, if we are to 
capitalize on the groundbreaking capacities of our Nation's pioneering 
small businesses.
  Now, more than ever, we in Congress must do everything within our 
power to help small businesses drive the recovery of our economy. It is 
imperative that we do everything we can to stimulate our economy and 
the small-tech firms of this Nation can help lead the way.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this amendment and to provide all innovative small businesses 
with opportunities to grow our Nation's innovative infrastructure.
  Mr. President, the Tax Code currently requires small business owners 
to prepay their income taxes on a quarterly basis. To determine what is 
owed, the owners calculate 110 percent of the previous year's tax 
liability and then pay one-fourth of that amount each quarter of the 
following year.
  The purpose of requiring businesses to pay 110 percent of the 
previous year's tax liability is so that the government is sure to 
collect the taxes owed, even when businesses are growing. 
Unfortunately, our economy has been in a recession and climbing out of 
it is not likely to be quick. We are in a credit crunch and the cash 
flow of American businesses is slow. Because of the recession and the 
credit crunch, the overpayment of quarterly income taxes by America's 
small businesses is both unnecessary and harmful.
  It is unnecessary because in this recession there will be few 
businesses that meet the hurdle of a 10-percent rate of growth to match 
a 10-percent overpayment of taxes. Perhaps bankruptcy lawyers will be 
able to meet or exceed this growth target, but having the Tax Code push 
more customers their way is what I would like to avoid. Having small 
business owners pay 110 percent of their 2008 tax liability imposes one 
more cash flow burden that I fear could push small businesses into dire 
straits.
  Paying 10 percent more taxes than were owed for 2008 imposes a 
significant cash flow burden on small business. This additional tax is 
likely to end up as an interest free loan to the U.S. Government 
because the excess tax will be refunded after the 2009 return is filed. 
It makes no sense for small businesses to be floating the government an 
interest free loan at a time when we are trying to find ways to 
alleviate their cash flow troubles and find ways to create or maintain 
jobs.
  I will offer an amendment to help small businesses with their cash 
flow and not require them to give the government an interest-free loan 
in 2009. The amendment is written so that on a quarterly basis, 
individuals who earned less than $500,000 in 2008 and, earned more than 
half of their income from a business with 500 or fewer employees, would 
certify to this information on their quarterly return. Then they would 
be allowed to make quarterly payments of only 75 percent of their 2008 
tax liability, rather than 110 percent. There are small business owners 
who make less than $150,000 who are required to prepay 100 percent of 
the previous year's liability who will also be allowed to make 
quarterly payments of 75 percent of the previous year's liability.
  Small business owners are most often taxed as sole proprietorships, 
subchapter S corporations or partnerships. In any of these forms of 
ownership, the business income is reflected on each individual owner's 
taxes. The amendment helps small business cash flow by not forcing the 
business to make bigger distributions to help pay bigger quarterly tax 
bills. Not every investor in a partnership or a subchapter S 
corporation is making their living running the business but this 
amendment tries to get to those who need it most by requiring more than 
half of a taxpayer's income must be from businesses that have fewer 
than 500 employees.
  For businesses, like bankruptcy lawyers, who know they are having a 
banner year, my amendment is silent. I do not require that they 
withhold only 75 percent. They are free to continue voluntarily sending 
more to the IRS to cover their expected good earnings and increased tax 
liability.
  I do not have an estimate of the cost of this amendment from the 
Joint Committee on Taxation. However, I would expect the revenue 
estimate to be modest since this is a 1-year cash flow difference 
between taxes due quarterly during 2009 and the final tax bill that is 
due in 2010. Since the 110 percent payments would have likely resulted 
in tax refunds in 2010, I wouldn't expect there to be much revenue 
lost.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. President, I wish to speak on amendment No. 539 I am offering 
which could help to steer our economy toward economic recovery. There 
is no question that America's small businesses are the engine that 
drives our Nation's economy, constituting 99.7 percent of all employer 
firms, employing nearly half of the private sector workforce, and 
create three-quarters of net new jobs annually over the last decade. If 
an economic stimulus plan is to succeed, it must include a sharp focus 
on job creation by small businesses. To that end, I humbly request that 
my colleagues support this noncontroversial amendment that will ensure 
small businesses--our Nation's true job generators--will not be 
shortchanged at a time when the economy is struggling to grow and 
create jobs.
  Mr. President, my amendment builds upon this initiative to underscore 
the economic value of small businesses in Federal agencies across the 
board. This measure would mobilize existing Federal loan guarantee 
programs by requiring the heads of key agencies, including the 
Department of Agriculture; the Department of Energy; the Department of 
Homeland Security; the Department of Labor; and the Environmental 
Protection Agency, to work with the Administrator of the SBA to the 
maximum extent practicable, to guarantee robust small business 
participation in each agency's respective loan programs.
  As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship, I wholeheartedly believe that small businesses play a 
central role in our economy and that the Federal Government should 
foster a nurturing entrepreneurial environment that fully equips our 
small businesses with the tools not just to mitigate and stem this 
economic crisis, but to be a catalyst for helping to address and 
ultimately solve it.
  That is why Senator Landrieu, the new chair of the Small Business 
Committee, and I have called on President Obama, in a joint letter we 
sent on January 29, 2009, to sign an Executive order to elevate the 
Administrator of the Small Business Administration, SBA, to Cabinet-
level status within the first 100 days of his administration.
  This designation will send a clear signal that small business will 
drive our Nation out of this recession. The SBA is the primary agency 
within the Federal Government tasked with the responsibility of 
assisting small businesses, and it should have a seat at the table when 
it comes to revitalizing the economy, a top national priority. Frankly, 
in the past, the Federal Government has neglected to place enough 
emphasis on the resources and programs that could benefit America's 26 
million small businesses.
  The present economic crisis presents an opportunity to get capital 
now to small businesses so they can create jobs now. This amendment 
would take the swiftest path by mobilizing presently existing, 
presently funded Federal programs that have already been authorized by 
Congress, to include the interests of small business in their loan 
programs.
  I respectfully ask my colleagues on both sides of the political aisle 
to support this amendment to facilitate the strength of small 
businesses in helping our Nation create jobs and grow during this 
economic crisis.
  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)

[[Page 3112]]




                     Health Information Technology

 Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to ask a question 
through the Chair to my good friend from Massachusetts, Senator 
Kennedy. Is my friend aware that the legislation before us today, the 
Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, contains a provision 
which would establish the Office of the National Coordinator for Health 
Information Technology within the Department of Health and Human 
Services and instruct the National Coordinator to support and 
facilitate the use of electronic health records for Americans?
  Mr. KENNEDY. That is correct. There are a few provisions in the 
legislation that address this issue directly. Subsection 
3001(c)(3)(A)(ii) of the bill tasks the national coordinator with 
updating the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan to include specific 
objectives, milestones, and metrics with respect to ``the utilization 
of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 
2014.'' Subsection 3001(c)(6)(E) requires the national coordinator to 
``estimate and publish resources required annually to reach the goal of 
utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the 
United States by 2014, including the required level of Federal funding, 
expectations for regional, State, and private investment, and the 
expected contributions by volunteers to activities for the utilization 
of such records.'' In addition, subsection 3002(b)(2)(B)(iii) of the 
bill designates the Health Information Technology Policy Committee with 
the task of making recommendations to the national coordinator for the 
``utilization of a certified electronic health record for each person 
in the United States by 2014.''
  Mr. HATCH. It will come as no surprise to anyone to know that many 
Americans will be skeptical of the creation of a national database and 
central repository of health records. Indeed, one group which is 
particularly concerned with this provision would be those who do not 
use medical treatment or interact with the health deliver services in 
this country. Therefore, I would again ask my friend, through the 
chair, does the language in these subsections attempting to establish 
``the utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the 
United States by 2014'' require those who do not use medical treatment 
to go to a doctor for a physical examination in order to have an 
electronic health record created?
  Mr. KENNEDY. No, it does not. Nothing in this bill should be 
interpreted as requiring those who do not use medical care to have an 
electronic health record, or requiring any individual to have an 
electronic record. The intention is that the national coordinator will 
work towards the goal of having all patients that utilize the services 
of ``health care providers,'' as defined in this act, to have available 
to them records in an interoperable electronic format instead of merely 
in paper form by the year 2014. Those who do not receive care and 
services from ``health care providers'' will not be required to have an 
electronic health record, nor will any individual be required to have 
an electronic medical record. This bill does not require the use of 
electronic medical records, but seeks to make such records more broadly 
available.


        Direct and Guaranteed Farm Ownership and Operating Loans

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, while the current economic downturn did 
not begin in rural America, the full brunt of the impact is certainly 
being felt by many of our farmers and small rural communities now. The 
dairy sector has been especially hard hit in Wisconsin and across the 
Nation as evidenced by a call last week for the USDA to take additional 
actions to help remove a surplus of dairy products from our markets in 
a letter led by the senior Senator from Wisconsin and myself and signed 
by 33 other Members including the distinguished chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee. A provision in the current legislation also 
takes another important step to help soften the landing for farmers 
facing drops in the prices they receive of approximately 50 percent as 
we are seeing in dairy over the recent months. I am very appreciative 
of the fact that the Appropriations Committee includes critically 
needed farm loan funding for direct and guaranteed ownership and 
operation loans for our Nation's family farmers who are struggling 
along with everyone else through this economic recession. It is 
critical they get access to the financing they need to stay in business 
and keep their operations intact. It is my assumption that the interest 
of both the Appropriations and the authorizing committee in having this 
farm loan funding in the bill is to ensure that current farming 
operations and facilities can continue to operate and that small family 
farms and beginning and minority farmers have access to capital to 
secure new farming opportunities. I also think it is important to 
ensure that USDA loan programs such of these do not inadvertently 
encourage expanded production in sectors of agriculture, including 
dairy, where prices are depressed and farmers are trying to cope with 
revenues below the cost of production prices. I hope to continue to 
work with the chairman of both the Agriculture Committee and 
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee to oversee the utilization of 
these funds to minimize any inadvertent negative effects if they exist.
  Mr. KOHL. I appreciate my colleague's remarks. I was pleased to 
collaborate with him on the dairy letter he just referenced, and I am 
glad to note his support for the work the committee has done to address 
the credit demands confronting family farmers. My expectation is that 
the USDA will utilize these resources in accordance with the programs 
and priorities set forth in the farm bill. Family farming and ranching 
businesses are facing many of the same challenges confronting our 
broader economy and the operating and farm loans contemplated under the 
bill are extremely important.
  Mr. HARKIN. I would like to first thank the distinguished chairman of 
the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee for working to include Farm 
Service Agency loan program money in this bill. In the coming months 
farmers will be applying for operating loans for the spring planting 
season. They will face tighter credit standards from lenders. Some 
farmers who were eligible for commercial credit last year may not be 
eligible this year.
  Access to adequate and affordable credit is vital to our Nation's 
farmers and ranchers--particularly now. Like many people across the 
Nation, farmers are feeling the impact of the economic downturn. The 
decline in commodity prices, high input costs, and declining exports 
have significantly strained producers' fiscal circumstances. It is 
important the money provided in this bill be used in accordance with 
the priorities established in the farm loan programs and focus on those 
eligible borrowers who are struggling to maintain their farming 
operations.
  Regarding the recent sharp decline in dairy prices, I was pleased to 
work my colleagues on the letter to Secretary Vilsack to help remove a 
surplus of dairy products from the markets which they have both 
mentioned.


                Comparative Effectiveness Research Funds

  Mr. BAUCUS. I understand Senator Enzi has comments regarding the 
provisions for comparative clinical effectiveness research included in 
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 which is being 
considered in the Senate this week.
  Mr. ENZI. I thank the Senator. It is my understanding that the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has in its health 
provisions $1.1 billion in new funds for comparative clinical 
effectiveness research. This is an important issue to me as HELP 
Committee ranking member. I am pleased to see that in its consideration 
of this bill, the Appropriations Committee made sure this research will 
evaluate comparative clinical effectiveness, not comparative cost-
effectiveness. In addition, the committee's report language references 
provisions of the existing comparative effectiveness research program 
at HHS that ensure that the agency developing comparative information 
does not use it to set national practice standards or coverage 
restrictions. I also believe that comparative effectiveness research 
must be

[[Page 3113]]

conducted using an open and transparent process, and must consider 
differences in how people respond to treatment. It is my understanding 
that the Comparative Effectiveness Research Act of 2008, which you 
introduced with Senator Conrad last Congress, is consistent with these 
principles. I would like to see the $1.1 billion used consistently with 
these principles, and ask that you advocate for these principles in 
conference.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator for his support of these principles. 
I agree with the Senator's summary of S. 3408, the Comparative 
Effectiveness Research Act of 2008, which would create a permanent 
institute to prioritize and provide for comparative clinical 
effectiveness research for the U.S. I support including short-term 
funds for such research in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 
I applaud the Appropriations Committee for clarifying that research 
should evaluate comparative clinical effectiveness, not cost-
effectiveness. And I agree that the $1.1 billion should be used 
consistently with the principles in S. 3408 from the 110th Congress. 
Senator Conrad and I plan to reintroduce our bill because we still need 
a long-term framework for this type of research in the U.S.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank Senator Enzi for his support of these principles. 
Comparative clinical effectiveness research needs to be a permanent 
part of our health system. It is one of the ways we will improve health 
care for all Americans. I look forward to working with him on this 
effort.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I appreciate the remarks of Senator Enzi. Comparative 
effectiveness research should focus on clinical outcomes and produce 
information that patients and providers can use to make better 
decisions about their treatment options. I look forward to working with 
my colleagues on this important issue.
  Mr. CARPER. Like my colleagues, I support comparative effectiveness 
research that builds on the principles set forth in S. 3408 from the 
110th Congress. Clinical comparative effectiveness research has the 
capability of improving health care quality by advancing evidence-based 
decisionmaking in our health care system. I look forward to working 
with my colleagues on this important issue.
  Mr. HATCH. I agree that the primary focus of comparative 
effectiveness research should be clinical effectiveness not cost. We 
can all agree that the ``one size fits all'' approach is the wrong 
approach for the American health care system. Based on our own personal 
experiences we all know that what works best for one person, does not 
always work the same for another. I look forward to working in a 
bipartisan and inclusive manner to come up with prudent legislation 
that will not only help us realize the true potential of comparative 
effectiveness but also preserve patient choice and innovation--the two 
hallmarks of our health care system.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I would associate myself with the remarks of Senator 
Enzi, and would underscore that it is very important to require full 
openness, transparency and accountability in how research priorities 
are set and how studies are conducted and communicated. Without this 
openness, patients have no assurance that their voice will be heard in 
the process, and no ability to understand how results are being used in 
decisions that directly affect their health. I look forward to working 
with my colleagues to ensure that strong provisions for openness, 
transparency, and accountability are put in place.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank my colleagues for their efforts on this 
issue. I agree that comparative effectiveness research holds great 
promise to improve medical care by giving physicians and patients 
valuable information on treatment options.
  It is my understanding that the new Federal coordinating council 
included in the language is intended to coordinate the comparative 
effectiveness research efforts taking place across Federal agencies and 
with funds we are providing in this bill. However, there is some 
concern that the language, as currently written, allows the council to 
expand its activities beyond mere coordination. I think my colleagues 
would agree that the purpose of the council is to coordinate 
comparative effectiveness research activities with the goal of reducing 
duplicative efforts and encouraging coordinated and complementary use 
of resources.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank Senator Feinstein for pointing that out. I agree. 
The coordinating council should look across agencies to coordinate 
resources and activities of the federal government with respect to 
comparative effectiveness research. Its charge should not go beyond 
that. The language of the bill could be clarified to make that point 
clear. And I will support clarification of it in conference.


                           Workforce training

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would like to engage my good friend, 
the Senator from Iowa and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, 
HHS, and Education Appropriations in a colloquy.
  I would like to take this opportunity to commend my good friend on 
his strong support for the education and training of America's workers. 
As you know, I serve as chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on 
Employment and Workplace Safety. The Senator and I have worked together 
on many initiatives on behalf of our workforce. That is why I would 
like to clarify certain provisions contained in the bill before us 
today that pertain to job training for U.S. workers.
  First, is it the Senator's understanding that the additional funding 
provided through the Workforce Investment Act formula grants for adults 
and dislocated workers will be used predominantly for the direct 
delivery of services to those who are the most heavily impacted by this 
recession--the unemployed and the underemployed?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes, the Senator's understanding is correct. I included a 
provision in this recovery bill that reinforces the requirement in the 
WIA to use adult State grant funding to serve certain priority 
populations, such as those with low incomes or on public assistance. I 
believe that we should target these funds on the delivery of services 
to those who have been adversely impacted by our recent economic 
crisis. I also believe local workforce boards should utilize existing 
authority to support needs-related payments to help engage individuals 
in training, if such support is appropriate and effective.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Is it also the Senator's understanding that the most 
innovative strategies with proven effectiveness in putting people back 
to work in high demand occupations, including sector-based and career 
pathways initiatives that are focused on green jobs, health care and 
other viable industries, should be utilized to the extent possible in 
carrying out the delivery of these employment and training services?
  Mr. HARKIN. Absolutely, it is essential that the workforce services 
provided through this legislation, are delivered through the most 
effective means possible, ensuring that the unemployed and 
underemployed are provided with relevant employment and training 
assistance that will enable them to find good, family sustaining jobs. 
It is also essential that these programs provide the skills that are 
relevant to local and regional employers that will help to rebuild our 
regional and U.S. economies.
  Mrs. MURRAY. As my friend from Iowa knows, older workers have been 
particularly devastated by our current economic downturn. A recent 
Urban Institute publication reported that job loss for older workers is 
at a 31-year high. Is it the intent of this legislation that older 
workers will be a key population targeted for services with these 
additional resources?
  Is it further the understanding of the chairman that funding under 
the adult formula grants will focus on serving individuals with 
multiple barriers to employment, particularly those with low skill 
levels, to obtain the education, skills training and support services 
they need to obtain jobs in high demand occupations, particularly in 
green jobs, healthcare, and other viable industries?

[[Page 3114]]


  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is correct. As chairman of the Labor 
Appropriations subcommittee, I supported the $120 million in the 
recovery bill for the senior community service employment program. 
These funds will support employment and training opportunities for low-
income, older Americans. The funds benefit both older Americans hurt by 
the current economic crisis and community service organizations 
struggling to keep up with increased demand under decreasing budgets.
  Individuals with multiple barriers to employment, including older 
workers, those with low skill levels, and individuals with 
disabilities, should indeed be an important focus of services for the 
funding provided to the Department of Labor. Offering these workers, 
particularly low skilled workers, the tools they need to secure good 
jobs in new or growing industry sectors can help them enhance their 
quality of life and achieve economic self-sufficiency as a member of 
the middle class.
  Mrs. MURRAY. With regard to the funding for youth activities under 
the legislation, is it the Senator's understanding that in addition to 
summer and year-round employment opportunities, this funding may be 
used to provide related educational enrichment, including remediation, 
skills training, and supportive services that enable participants to 
work in high demand occupational areas, such as in the green jobs and 
health care industries, with the goal that such employment and 
enrichment activities will lead to further education or employment?
  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is correct. While the primary purpose of this 
funding is to provide meaningful paid work experiences for at risk 
youth, educational enrichment, necessary skills training, and support 
services that enable young people to participate and succeed in these 
and future endeavors are necessary and fully support the intent of the 
legislation.
  Mrs. MURRAY. In the workforce provisions under consideration, we 
provide that training may be provided for jobs in high-demand 
occupations, through the award of contracts to institutions of higher 
education, as long as a customer's choice is not limited. Is it the 
Senator's understanding that such training may include the provision of 
adult basic education or English language education services, as long 
as these services are provided in connection with a job for which the 
individual is preparing? Is it the Senator's further understanding that 
these services may be provided through community colleges and other 
high quality public programs that offer postsecondary education and 
training within a community or region?
  Mr. HARKIN. My colleague is correct. This provision was included in 
the recovery bill to facilitate the use of funds provided to train 
individuals in the areas needed in their local community. It would be 
my expectation that a very significant portion of the funds provided 
would be spent quickly and effectively in training individuals in 
health care and other high-demand occupations, as well as emerging 
``green'' industries.


                     Investing in America's Workers

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I would like to engage my friend and 
colleague, the Senator from Washington State, in a colloquy.
  I want to commend my good friend's work on behalf of America's 
workers, including the growing number of workers who have lost their 
jobs and need skill training and other services to secure good jobs in 
new or viable industries, including those that are retrofitting 
themselves to improve longer term global competitiveness. These 
industries promote energy efficiency, energy conservation, and 
environmental protection in such industries as advanced manufacturing, 
auto, aerospace, health care, and others.
  As Senator Murray has rightly stated during conversations on this 
recovery bill, investing in job creation should be accompanied by 
investments in workers, an essential component to strengthening our 
Nation's productivity and long-term competitiveness. These workers 
include the increasing number unemployed or underemployed individuals 
across the country and the thousands of manufacturing workers who have 
lost their jobs, such as those in the aerospace industry and the 
automotive industry. In her role as chairman of the Senate Subcommittee 
on Employment and Workplace Safety, we have worked together to help 
workers, particularly those in distressed industries, acquire the 
skills they need to secure family-supporting jobs in viable and 
emerging industries including the energy efficient and advanced drive 
train vehicle industry, the biofuels industry, and the energy-efficient 
building, construction, and retrofits industries. That is why I would 
like to clarify several provisions contained in the bill before us 
today that pertain to job training for workers. As the Senator knows, 
my home State of Michigan has experienced major economic dislocations 
from manufacturing plant closures and industry layoffs.
  I would like to first ask the esteemed Senator from Washington State 
if it is her understanding that worker training in these industries 
would be eligible for consideration by the Secretary of Labor under the 
national emergency grant and competitive grant funding sections of the 
workforce provisions of this bill?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Yes, the Senator from Michigan State is correct. It is 
my understanding that the Secretary of Labor will use these funds to 
help retool workers who have lost their jobs due to the recession and 
declining industries, including those in the green- collar industries 
the Senator mentioned.
  Ms. STABENOW. Is it also the Senator's understanding that the most 
effective strategies in helping workers maintain and secure new jobs in 
emerging and viable industries, including the energy efficient and 
advanced drive train vehicle industry, the biofuels industry, the 
energy-efficient building, construction, and retrofits industries, and 
the aerospace industry are those supported by strategic partnerships 
among State and local workforce boards; institutions of higher 
education, including community colleges and other training providers; 
labor organizations; industry; and economic development entities that 
use sector or cluster-based training approaches for developing job 
training strategies and career pathway initiatives that lead to 
economic self-sufficiency?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Michigan is correct and makes an 
important point. Effective strategies for helping workers retool for 
jobs in viable industries should be informed by the critical 
stakeholders she noted. It is my hope that when distributing these 
funds, the Secretary of Labor gives due deference to those eligible 
entities with strategic partnerships among representatives from the 
affected industries, labor organizations, workforce investment boards, 
elected officials, and institutions of higher education, including 
community colleges and other training providers.
  Ms. STABENOW. I would like to thank my distinguished colleague from 
Washington. I look forward to working with her in the future to ensure 
that investing in America's workers remains a critical component of our 
national economic recovery and growth strategy.


                             Long-Term Care

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to enter a colloquy with my good 
friend, the Senator from Montana, and the senior Senator from 
Wisconsin, one of the chief authors of this amendment and the 
distinguished chair of the Special Committee on Aging. I would like to 
talk about the importance of investing in the long-term care workforce 
in order to provide good care for seniors and the disabled. 
Specifically, I would like to discuss the inclusion of long-term care 
reforms in the health reform bill.
  Chairman Kohl and I have worked together on the Long-Term Care Worker 
Recruitment and Investment Demonstration Program Amendment to the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 because direct care jobs 
are a 21st century growth industry. With the aging of the baby boomer 
generation, this workforce will need to grow substantially if we are to 
meet the coming demand for both medical and nonmedical support services 
delivered

[[Page 3115]]

in the home and in small community residences, as well as in more 
traditional nursing homes and assisted living facilities. However, 
today, we are not on track to achieve this goal.
  In order to meet the future health needs of older adults and recruit 
and retain a stable and competent long-term care workforce, the 
Congress, State governments, and the Obama administration need to work 
together.
  Mr. KOHL. We already have a shortage of health care workers who are 
trained and devoted to caring for older Americans and those with 
disabilities--a fact that is well documented in the report issued by 
the Institute of Medicine last year. This shortage is one that will 
only grow more desperate as our country ages rapidly. The United States 
will not be able to meet the approaching demand for health care and 
long-term care without a workforce that is prepared for the job.
  Between 2005 and 2030, it is estimated that the number of adults aged 
65 and older will almost double from 37 million to over 70 million, 
increasing from 12 percent of the population of the United States to 
almost 20 percent of the population. So it is not surprising that the 
Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that personal 
or home care aides and home health aides will represent the second and 
third fastest growing occupations between 2006 and 2016.
  Only last week, the New York Times published an editorial concluding 
that, ``With more jobs being lost all the time across the board--more 
than 71,000 layoffs in the United States were announced on Monday and 
Tuesday alone--there should be comfort in the fact that one sector, 
health care, continues to add jobs.'' I will ask to have this editorial 
printed in the Record.
  Government has a special obligation to care for vulnerable 
populations. Inadequate training in geriatrics, gerontology, chronic 
care management, and long-term care is known to cause misdiagnoses, 
medication errors, and inadequate coordination of services and 
treatments that result in poor care and are costly for the health care 
system as a whole. Yet personal and home care aides are not subject to 
any Federal requirements related to training or education, and States 
have very different requirements for this key part of the direct care 
workforce. Furthermore, Federal training requirements for nurse aides 
and home health aides have not been updated for more than 20 years. It 
is time to review and improve training standards for all direct care 
workers. Current training protocols focus too much on tasks and too 
little on teaching how workers can deliver person-centered care. 
Further, often training does not reflect the increasingly complex needs 
of the frail elderly. Inadequate training has been found to be a major 
contributor to high turnover rates among direct care workers, while 
more training is correlated with better staff recruitment and 
retention.
  Equally important, the IOM report recommends that State Medicaid 
programs increase pay and fringe benefits for direct care workers. 
Investment in direct care jobs would significantly benefit our economy 
by providing greater economic opportunity to low-income workers, while 
also strengthening health services for our aging and disabled family 
members and friends.
  Mr. WYDEN. Long-term care is in need of rethinking. Right now it is a 
form of Russian roulette for many Americans who pray they can avoid it, 
and with it a fatal financial bullet. Under the current system, we are 
sending older Americans into a long-term care system that is more 
fragile than they are. States are staggering under the weight of 
projected Medicaid long-term care costs and fear that they will face 
economic calamity as their baby boom population begins to need 
services. Similarly, the staggering weight of family caregiving for 
many ``sandwiched'' adult children, who are caring for their children 
as well as their elderly parents with serious health problems, makes 
some family members feel like they are staggering too.
  Every 15 years, since the days of Harry Truman, health care advocates 
have woken up, looked around, and said, ``This is the moment. This time 
my dream of universal health care will be achieved.'' Then something 
goes wrong. That vision is not returned by the powers that be, and the 
dream of finding a health care solution is dashed on the rocks of harsh 
reality.
  That 15-year reawakening is upon us again, but this time I believe 
this story might have a different ending because of the leadership of 
the Senator from Montana and the commitments of Chairmen Kennedy and 
Kohl and President Obama.
  As we work together to tackle health reform and entitlement reform, I 
want to work with you and Chairman Kohl to include thoughtful health 
care workforce reforms. Long-term care has been too often overlooked as 
the health care stepchild, and as we move into what I and many experts 
think will be our next real window for health reform this year, it will 
be important to make sure that long-term care is not left behind in the 
health reform debate.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I agree with my distinguished colleagues that as we work 
to reform our health care system it is important to consider how the 
health care workforce fits into these efforts. Creating a strong, well-
trained workforce is a critical part of adequately addressing the needs 
of older adults and individuals with disabilities. An estimated 69 
percent of people turning 65 years old will need some form of long-term 
assistance as they age. Most individuals that need long-term care 
services and supports prefer to receive assistance in their homes or 
communities. This demand and the need for direct care professionals 
will only grow as the baby boom population turns 65.
  Various studies suggest present and future shortages of 
paraprofessionals and health care professionals. Effective recruitment 
and retention strategies are needed. Training programs should be 
designed that address the competencies required of a 21st century 
workforce. As part of this effort we also should look at the skills of 
those currently delivering long term care services.
  The purpose of health reform is to achieve a high-performing health 
system. Achieving this goal requires an investment in our health 
professional and paraprofessional workforce.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the chairman for his recognition of this important 
issue. I look forward to working with him during our consideration of 
health care reform this year.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank Senator Wyden and Senator Baucus for their 
attention to these important policies and look forward to working with 
them in the weeks ahead.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial to which I 
referred be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times; Jan. 28, 2009]

                       Caring for the Caregivers

       With more jobs being lost all the time across the board--
     more than 71,000 layoffs in the United States were announced 
     on Monday and Tuesday alone--there should be comfort in the 
     fact that one sector, health care, continues to add jobs. In 
     December, employers added 32,000 health-related positions.
       Unfortunately, one of the fastest-growing areas within the 
     health care field--home care for the elderly--also is one of 
     the lowest paid and most exploitable.
       Outdated labor rules from 1975 allow home care aides to be 
     defined as companions, which exempts their employers, usually 
     private agencies, from federal standards governing overtime 
     and minimum wages. As the population has aged, however, 
     demand for home care has grown and the work has evolved far 
     beyond companionship. It is not uncommon for home care 
     workers to perform significant housekeeping chores and to 
     help their elderly clients move, dress and eat, make sure 
     they take their medicines and go to doctors' appointments.
       In its last days in office in 2001, the Clinton 
     administration proposed a revision to the labor rules to 
     allow federal protections to apply to personal home care 
     aides, but the Bush administration promptly threw that out 
     and reasserted the status quo. A 2007 Supreme Court ruling 
     upheld the rules, and a push that year by House and Senate 
     Democrats to pass a bill to update the law went nowhere.
       According to the Labor Department, personal and home care 
     aides are expected to be the second fastest-growing 
     occupation in the United States from 2006-2016, increasing by 
     51 percent, slightly behind the expected

[[Page 3116]]

     growth in systems and data communications analysts.
       Most home care aides are women, low income and minority, 
     and many of them are immigrants. Some states have taken steps 
     to provide them with basic labor protections. Efforts to 
     unionize home care workers in some states also has led to 
     wage gains and better conditions. But the progress is 
     incomplete without a federal law to recognize and protect the 
     home care work force. It is unconscionable that workers who 
     are entrusted with the care of some of the nation's most 
     vulnerable citizens are themselves unprotected by basic labor 
     standards.
       It is also unwise, because poor pay for long hours leads to 
     high turnover, which undermines the quality of care. Turnover 
     also drives up the cost of providing home care--a needless 
     drain on Medicaid, which pays for many home care services. 
     And that is not the only way that poor quality home care jobs 
     end up costing taxpayers. Nearly half of home care workers 
     rely on food stamps or other public assistance, so taxpayers 
     ultimately compensate for their low pay and inadequate 
     benefits.
       Of necessity, job creation and job quality will be the 
     focus of the Obama administration in 2009, and, most likely, 
     for many years. The Department of Labor could rewrite the 
     rules to extend federal protections to home care workers. Or 
     Congress and the White House could work together to pass a 
     law granting those protections. Either way, the point is to 
     ensure that home care, a 21st-century growth industry, 
     creates good jobs.


                             trial projects

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as the Senate works to boost our ailing 
economy, I want to clarify that funding provided to the National Park 
Service for trail projects would not be limited to only certain trails. 
The bill provides $158 million for the operation of the National Park 
System, of which $23 million is recommended in the report for deferred 
maintenance of trails. I understand this funding could be used for any 
trails in the National Park System, including the eight National Scenic 
Trails. Is that correct?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is accurate. The $23 million in funding for 
trail maintenance could be used for any of the eight National Scenic 
Trails in this country. Many of these trails are in disrepair, have 
unsafe crossings and uncompleted sections that could be repaired with 
this funding, creating jobs and generating economic value for 
surrounding communities.
  Mr. LEVIN. The North Country National Scenic Trail, the longest 
scenic trail designed in America, traversing seven States including the 
State of Michigan, has great needs and could use the funding provided 
in this economic recovery package. In Michigan alone, the North Country 
National Scenic Trail has maintenance needs totaling $2.5 million that 
have been postponed for too many years. These trail upgrades and 
maintenance projects would put people to work right away and spur 
additional economic activity. I was concerned the report accompanying 
the economic recovery bill could be misinterpreted to limit this 
funding to so-called units of the National Park System. Only three of 
the eight National Scenic Trails have unit status, and limiting funding 
in that way would be arbitrary and unfair. I believe this funding 
should be available for any NPS-administered National Scenic Trail, 
whether designated as a unit or not, for trail construction, 
rehabilitation and maintenance. Is that the Senator's intent as 
chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and I believe the 
sponsor of the language?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, that is our intent. All of the National Scenic 
Trails would be eligible for this funding, which would create jobs, 
generate economic value, and provide healthy recreational 
opportunities.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank Chairman Feinstein for including this funding and 
clarifying its use.


                   wastewater infrastructure funding

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, at this time I would like to discuss a 
letter Senators Wyden, Feingold, McCaskill, Schumer, Levin, Stabenow, 
and I sent to the Appropriations Committee arguing for an increase in 
wastewater infrastructure funding in this legislation. My colleagues 
and I believe it necessary to pay special attention to projects that 
are known as combined sewage overflows, or CSOs. As Senator Feinstein 
knows, combined sewage overflows are very expensive projects that many 
of our nation's older sewer systems are required to complete in order 
to separate storm water run-off from sanitary sewer systems. In fact, 
our hard-pressed cities and small towns are facing billions of dollars 
in costs to address this problem.
  We supported the infrastructure amendment offered by Chairman 
Feinstein and Chairman Murray to add an additional $7 billion to the 
bill for clean and drinking water projects. We also strongly support 
the $4 billion included in the underlying bill for clean water 
infrastructure. Would Chairman Feinstein agree that the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency should make funding for CSO projects 
one of its Recovery Act priorities?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. First, I would like to commend my colleagues for 
bringing this important matter before the Senate. EPA estimates that 
combined sewage overflows are responsible for releasing more than a 
trillion gallons of untreated and undertreated wastewater into our 
Nation's water bodies every year. I believe that additional funding 
provided through the Recovery Act for the Clean Water State Revolving 
Funds program will help alleviate the combined sewage overflow problem. 
I share the Senator's belief that the EPA should strongly encourage the 
completion of combined sewage overflow projects and I look forward to 
working with the Senator to address this serious problem in the years 
ahead.
  Mr. BROWN. We sincerely appreciate the Senator's leadership on this 
matter. In my State of Ohio over 80 communities, from small towns like 
Mingo Junction and Defiance, to big cities like Akron and Cincinnati, 
must invest over $6 billion to complete combined sewage overflow 
projects. Without assistance, ratepayers will be faced with 
skyrocketing bills, public health is at risk, and our lakes, streams, 
and rivers will remain polluted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1 p.m. 
today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following 
amendments in the order listed; that no amendments be in order to these 
amendments prior to the vote; with 2 minutes of debate prior to each 
vote, equally divided and controlled; with 10-minute vote limitations 
after the first vote in the sequence: Sanders amendment No. 330, as 
modified; Coburn amendment No. 309; Udall amendment No. 359; Coburn 
amendment No. 176.
  Further, that upon disposition of the above-listed amendments, the 
Senate then consider the following amendments and that they be 
considered in rotating fashion back and forth to each side; that no 
amendments be in order to these amendments prior to a vote in relation 
to the amendments: Conrad-Graham No. 501; Dodd No. 145, and that when a 
vote is scheduled in relation to amendments Nos. 501 and 145, the vote 
would occur first on 501; Cantwell amendment No. 274, with the 
modification which is at the desk; Feingold amendment No. 485; Grassley 
amendment No. 297; Enzi amendment No. 293; Vitter amendment No. 107; 
Bunning amendment No. 531; Wyden amendment No. 468; and Thune amendment 
No. 538.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, there is no objection on this side. We 
appreciate the accommodations of the manager of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I wish to a say special thanks to 
Chairman Baucus as well as Chairman Inouye. Having been given the task 
of working hard, their staffs have been amazing in coming together and 
trying to produce a package that will be a job creator, a stimulus to 
our economy, a recovery to the economic crisis we face in this great 
Nation. They have done a tremendous job with the time they have been 
given.
  Of course, we are all here because we believe we have something to 
add to that process and to that solution. I come today to speak briefly 
about a couple of amendments I have.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Vitter of 
Louisiana

[[Page 3117]]

be added as a cosponsor of my amendment No. 199.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 199

  Mrs. LINCOLN. The amendment I will be offering here today, along with 
Senators Cornyn, Murray, Pryor, and Vitter, will bring relief to the 
forest products industry, which has been devastated by the downturn in 
the housing market.
  My colleague from Tennessee has just spoken about the housing issue, 
the concerns we have there. Well, it has had a devastating effect on 
our timber industry as well. This industry is an integral part of the 
economy of many Southern and Northwestern States. In my home State of 
Arkansas, the forest products industry is a foundation of our economy, 
our culture, our way of life, and particularly those living in rural 
America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank my good friend from Mississippi for that kind 
statement.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for purposes of a 
question?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Absolutely.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, would it be in order at this point to lock 
in a time to speak after the tranche of votes?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest that we agree to 5 minutes in 
rotating fashion for each side and that Senator Kerry be first 
recognized after the votes.
  Mr. KERRY. Are we limited to 5? Would it be possible to get 10 
minutes?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I will say 10 minutes. I want to hold it to four speakers 
until we get a better handle on what is going on.
  Mr. KERRY. I appreciate that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  More than 50 percent of Arkansas land is forested. Much of this is 
sustainably managed to create products we use every single day. In 
addition, there are jobs associated with the growing of the forests and 
the manufacture of these great products we manufacture here at home. 
More than 32,000 Arkansas men and women work in our woods and at our 
sawmills and our paper mills. These are good jobs located in our small 
rural communities, making a huge part of the fabric of this country. 
These are jobs that we must protect.
  During this economic crisis, the forest products industry has 
suffered immensely. Since 2006, the industry has lost more than 181,000 
jobs or roughly 14 percent of its workforce. The lumber side has been 
particularly hard hit, with a 20-percent drop in employment. In 
Arkansas, the impact has been even greater.
  Our amendment will help our domestic timber industry remain 
competitive and will help ensure against further domestic timber 
manufacturing job losses. We are talking about job creation. We are 
talking about job recovery. We are talking about ensuring that we do 
not lose any more of these vital jobs in rural America that sustain 
this country.
  It would extend provisions enacted in the farm bill set to expire 
this year which help large integrated and small family-owned companies, 
as well as the shareholders of timber REITs. In short, the amendment 
would provide a uniform 15-percent rate for cutting timber and 
additionally would reform the timber REIT rules.
  This policy change has strong bipartisan support. It has passed the 
Senate in the past and will do a great deal to protect our timber jobs 
right here at home.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment to 
protect the jobs we have in rural America in our timber and forest 
products industry.


                           Amendment No. 249

  Mr. President, I would also like to touch on the second amendment I 
will offer. It is a 2-year, 5-percent rural home health add-on.
  Access to health care, particularly in home health services that help 
keep chronically ill and disabled adults out of institutions, is a 
critical issue facing rural America. We put a benefit add-on to rural 
home health back in early 2000. We have lowered that add-on. But the 
fact is, it expired again on December 31, 2006, and has not been 
reinstated.
  The National Association for Home Care and Hospice estimates that the 
5-percent rural add-on would create approximately 2,500 jobs in rural 
America, not to mention the people who would be served.
  In many rural areas, home health agencies are the primary caregivers 
for homebound beneficiaries who have limited access to transportation 
and other supportive resources. The negative effects of losing the 
rural home health add-on include agencies having to reduce their 
service areas and some agencies having to turn away high-resource-use 
patients.
  Rural home health agencies are at a greater disadvantage than their 
urban counterparts. Rural agencies are often smaller, they have fewer 
patients. This means they have fixed costs that are spread over a 
smaller number of patients and visits, increasing overall per-patient 
and per-visit operational cost, not to mention the travel expenses, the 
input costs they have getting to these patients. With what we have seen 
in the increase in the roller coaster ride of gasoline prices, that 
also is added in. Rural agencies also have more difficulties hiring or 
contracting with rehabilitative therapists, requiring the use of nurses 
to provide these vital services. Given the nationwide nursing workforce 
shortages, rural agencies must offer competitive wages compared with 
hospitals and agencies located in urban areas in order to recruit and 
retain qualified workers.
  This is about keeping jobs, making sure these jobs are in rural 
areas, but also servicing patients who truly need these types of 
services. These are great job creators, job sustainers, and great 
services to the people of this country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of 
the Finance Committee. I have had very little to do with this bill in 
the sense of writing it. I think most of us feel somewhat the same way. 
I am growing increasingly concerned about the bill, as to whether it is 
really going to be a stimulus. I come from a State which has more 
people unemployed today than the population of a dozen States; a State 
where the breadlines are growing, where the need for assistance is 
growing, where the State has a huge deficit, where counties are unable 
to fund their operating maintenance, where all capital projects have 
stopped, and where the State is now furloughing employees. I think 
while we dither, Rome burns. This crisis is so multidimensional and the 
dominoes are falling so much more rapidly than any of us thought and 
they are pushed from so many different points.
  The fact is that people cannot get credit--credit for your big 
corporations to open a new hotel; credit, if you are a small employer, 
to pay your payroll. Credit remains frozen. The housing crisis 
continues to work its problems.
  What, in my view, a stimulus is not, candidly speaking, is a tax 
package. I do not believe in this economy tax cuts are stimulus. The 
current state of the package, as I understand it, is that tax cuts are 
roughly 40 percent of the package; 20 percent is local assistance, 
State and local assistance; 15 percent is safety net spending; 15 
percent is infrastructure spending--that is all--and 10 percent is 
other spending.
  I do not know how many jobs are going to come out of this because it 
is

[[Page 3118]]

my belief that people's buying patterns have changed.
  This morning, a number of my colleagues talked about a report from 
the Congressional Budget Office, and what they did not do is they did 
not quote from certain parts of it. I would like to quote on what they 
found. Here it is:

       A dollar's worth of a temporary tax cut would have a 
     smaller effect on GDP than a dollar's worth of direct 
     purchase or transfers, because a significant share of the tax 
     cut would probably be saved.

  As a matter of fact, we have evidence of that. Last year, we approved 
more than $130 billion in tax cuts, primarily through a $600-per-person 
tax refund. After all of that money was spent in two tranches going 
out, there was little or no perceptible impact on the economy.
  But we do not learn. In fact, study after study shows that upper 
income taxpayers are less likely to spend the refund checks they 
receive than those with low incomes.
  According to a recent CRS analysis, tax cuts are likely to have a 
``diminished stimulus effect.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 1 additional 
minute.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I point out that at the end of the day, I think there 
have been some significant layoffs. All along the retail industry, 
whether it is Starbucks or whether it is various retail establishments; 
like Gottschalks department stores--38 stores in California--going into 
bankruptcy; whether you have banks closing; whether you have Macy's 
laying off 10,000 people, buying patterns have changed. I read a study 
where people are not buying as much toothpaste. That is an indication 
that there is an angst out there, a worry about this economy.
  The point of this package is to get jobs out to people. I reserve the 
right, at the end of the day, to vote against a package that I don't 
think puts those jobs out there. That is my point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in order to clarify some confusion that 
may exist as to what the proceedings are after the first group of 
votes, let me ask unanimous consent that the request I further 
propounded with respect to that period be vitiated. Instead, I ask 
unanimous consent that following the next group of votes, there be 20 
minutes available, equally divided in the usual form, for debate only.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa questioned State aid 
provisions in our substitute so I wish to take a few moments to explain 
them. When our country was founded, there was a great debate about the 
roles of the Federal and State governments, and our Founding Fathers 
debated which should be more powerful. Should it be the States or the 
Federal Government? Which should retain what privileges and how to 
ensure an effective union of the States? Alexander Hamilton, the first 
Secretary of the Treasury, advocated for the Federal Government to buy 
the States' Revolutionary War debt. The idea was controversial, but the 
merits of the proposal have proven sound.
  In the year 1790, there were two main reasons he suggested the 
Federal Government assume State debt. First, the Federal Government was 
in a better position to issue and sell bonds to satisfy the debt. 
Second, the assumption of State debt would serve to rally local 
economic interests to promote broader national goals.
  Many things have changed since 1790, but some things remain the same. 
During recessionary periods, State revenue suffers. Unlike the Federal 
Government, States must balance their budgets. Just as in 1790, the 
Federal Government was still in a better position to assume the debt.
  These difficult times also call for unity among the States. Every 
State is suffering, but we must band together to help those among us 
who are worse off. We need to hold back our personal interests and 
focus instead on our national interests.
  In addition to the arguments set forth by Hamilton over 200 years 
ago, modern economists tell us that State fiscal relief is an effective 
means to stimulate the economy. Economists also advise that targeted 
relief to those most in need--not based on circumstances of States' own 
making but based on true measures of distress--is the best measure of 
distribution. The bill before us today provides much-needed relief to 
every State with a temporary increase in the Federal match rate for 
Medicaid expenses. The bill also provides additional aid targeted to 
States facing the most precarious fiscal situations, measured by an 
increase in unemployment. This temporary assistance will help States 
avoid having to make tough choices, like whether to make significant 
budget cuts or raise taxes, both of which could make this economic 
crisis worse.
  It is important we strike a balance in this bill between spending too 
little and too much. Some of my colleagues are worried that we are 
spending beyond what is needed and will end up passing along too much 
debt to future generations. This package is significant, but the risk 
of doing too little has been overlooked. In fact, I think the risk of 
too little is worse than the risk of too much. During times of economic 
distress, Medicaid suffers from the blows of a one-two punch; that is, 
when State revenues are lowest, the demand for Medicaid is the highest. 
If we do not give States enough money, States won't be able to protect 
their Medicaid programs against the blows thrown by the economy. That 
means fewer services will be available to fewer people at a time when 
the need is increasing. We are talking about low-income health care. 
This is about people who are thrown off Medicaid because States are 
finding that is the best way to balance their budgets. That is not 
right.
  Giving States more money than they need won't stimulate the economy. 
In order to stimulate the economy, this money must be spent quickly, 
and it must go toward job creation or protection of vulnerable 
populations. To be stimulative and get the economy moving again, State 
fiscal relief must prevent any exacerbation of an already bad 
situation. By preventing Medicaid cuts, this bill does that.
  This bill makes sure we will not see a big increase in the number of 
Americans without health insurance. We must remember that having so 
many uninsured Americans is not without cost, let alone the personal 
tragedy. Instead, the cost of caring for the uninsured has shifted to 
the insured. It is in all our best interests to prevent more Americans 
from losing their health insurance. This package, I believe, has the 
right balance--it is not perfect, but it is pretty close--giving States 
enough support without giving them too much. The State fiscal relief 
provisions will not eliminate State budgetary difficulties. That is for 
sure. But they will provide a cushion, not a full cushion but a partial 
cushion. This package will not fix everything, but it is a big step in 
the right direction.
  While not all States have responded to the economic downturn in the 
same way, no State is immune to the impact of a national recession. 
Looking back on past recessionary periods, we can see that some States, 
often those with large commerce-based economies, feel the blow faster 
and earlier than others. The impact on States with commodity-based 
economies, on the other hand, is often delayed. The difference between 
commerce-based States and commodity-based States is more delay in 
commodity-based States. Because no two States will experience the 
impact of the recession at precisely the same time or to exactly the 
same extent, it is important the relief be targeted to those States 
that are most in need and when they need it.
  In 1790, some States had already paid off their Revolutionary War 
debt. But it was important to the Nation as a whole that all States be 
relieved. On top of a generous across-the-board increase for all 
States, this package provides additional aid to those States

[[Page 3119]]

with high unemployment. The basic formula is based upon the wealth of 
the State, but the bonus on top of it is based on unemployment.
  If a State's unemployment continues to increase, the State may 
qualify for even more relief. Unemployment is an effective measure of a 
State's fiscal condition. Often when people lose their jobs, they also 
lose their health insurance. This places a higher demand on Medicaid. 
It is estimated that a 1-percent increase in unemployment increases 
enrollment in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program by 1 
million people. Let me repeat that. A 1-percent increase in 
unemployment increases enrollment in Medicaid and the Children's Health 
Insurance Program by 1 million people. Increasing the FMAP 
percentages--that is the Federal share--is the quickest way to get 
relief to the States. In addition to preventing cuts to Medicaid, this 
aid will provide for much-needed economic activity. People will be more 
productive. Jobs will be saved. Industries that rely on and contribute 
to the strength of our health care system will remain sound. This 
provision will not only improve the health of Medicaid beneficiaries, 
but it will also improve the fiscal health of each State. This is a key 
element of any attempt to pull the national economy out of its 
recession.
  We have done this before, and we know it is effective. In the year 
2003, we provided $20 billion in State fiscal relief, evenly split 
between grants and an FMAP increase. That is the Federal Medicaid 
share. The FMAP increase proved successful in preventing planned 
Medicaid cuts and restoring some previous cutbacks. However, an 
analysis by the Urban Institute found we could have done a better job 
back in the year 2003.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the chairman has expired.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an additional 2 
minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. If the other side is granted 2 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent for 5 more minutes, evenly 
divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. However, an analysis by the Urban Institute found we 
could have done a better job back in the year 2003. Despite the 
immediacy and complexity of the situation, the fiscal relief was 
delayed and uniform. Some States were forced to take action before 
relief was available. Because the economic downturn of each State 
varied, some States didn't get enough assistance, and some States got 
assistance at the wrong time.
  Let's learn from our mistakes. The partially targeted approach of 
this package will be better. It will give all States some assistance, a 
method that is effective and simple. But it will also give more money 
to States with the greatest need, which will help ensure we get the 
biggest bang for our buck.
  These are difficult times, but our country is resilient. We are proud 
as Americans of our resiliency. We must draw on the wisdom of our 
Founding Fathers and stick together. We are more than a country. We are 
a union of States. Let us remember the good judgment of Alexander 
Hamilton and come together as a nation to help each of our States.
  Over the Presiding Officer is our national motto, ``e pluribus 
unum.'' It could not be more appropriate than at this moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to return to the Congressional 
Budget Office report in response to the remarks of the Senator from 
Montana again to the Congressional Budget Office. It says the 
legislation would result in a slight decrease in gross domestic 
product. It said it would increase employment at the end of the fourth 
quarter of 2010 by 1.3 million to 3.9 million jobs. I urge my 
colleagues to do the math. This is a $1.2 trillion bill. If it creates 
1.3 million jobs, that is $923,000 per job. If it creates 3.9 million 
jobs, that is $307,000 of taxpayer dollars.
  As the President stated last night, this is a spending bill. He is 
right. I agree with him. It is a spending bill. Most of us were under 
the impression that what we wanted was a job creation and economic 
stimulus bill. We can pass spending bills all the time. We do it all 
the time. We have laid a $10 trillion debt on future generations of 
Americans. Very interestingly, the report continues:

       Senate legislation would reduce output slightly in the long 
     run, CBO estimates, as would other similar proposals. The 
     principal channel for this effect is that the legislation 
     would result in an increase in government debt. To the extent 
     that people hold their wealth as government bonds rather than 
     in a form that can be used to finance private investment, an 
     increased debt would tend to reduce the stock of productive 
     capital. In economic parlance, the debt would ``crowd out'' 
     private investment. CBO's basic assumption is that in the 
     long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a 
     third of a dollar's worth of private domestic capital.

  This is something that has been abundantly clear for years and the 
reason why we don't have socialism in this country, because the 
Government is less efficient in using dollars than the private 
enterprise system is. Perhaps more alarming than anything else, the 
reason why it was so disappointing is we did not pass the trigger. That 
was an amendment we voted down, actually with a couple of Democratic 
votes, that provided that once the economy recovers, we have to be on a 
path to a balanced budget. CBO estimates that by 2019, the Senate 
legislation would reduce gross domestic product by .1 percent to .3 
percent. In other words, we will not grow the economy in the long run 
unless we get our fiscal house in order.
  Why are the American people unhappy? Why is it that my office and 
others are inundated with phone calls? Because we put in unnecessary 
and even wasteful and nonproductive programs to the tune of billions 
and billions of dollars: $300 million dollars for Violence Against 
Women Act grants to the Department of Justice because ``as job losses 
loom and the economy worsens, service providers across the country are 
reporting an increase in calls related to domestic violence.'' I am 
glad to fund any program that would help address the issue of domestic 
violence. But it is not creating jobs. We will hear from the other side 
about how worthwhile this long list of porkbarrel projects is, but the 
fact is, they don't create jobs. That is what we are supposed to be 
doing in a ``stimulus'' bill.
  I want to comment again: We all know there are negotiations going on 
now of the called ``Gang of 18.'' I was one of the Gang of 14. That was 
7 Republicans, 7 Democrats. That is bipartisan. Now it is 15 Democrats, 
3 Republicans. That is not bipartisan. If they come up with an 
agreement, then it will mean 3 Republicans out of 535 Members of 
Congress have supported this unnecessary, wasteful bill that could have 
been so much better.
  It started out wrong, when the Speaker of the House said: We won, so 
we write the bill. And it is ending up wrong because we have not done 
what we need to do and has been the product of a true bipartisan 
agreement, and that is to sit down together, Republican and Democrat.
  Mr. President, I want to close by pointing out, again, we want to 
have legislation that stimulates this economy. But we want it to 
stimulate the economy and not mortgage the future of our children and 
our grandchildren by the kind of fiscal profligate spending that is 
embodied in this legislation to the tune--it goes higher as we speak--
of over $1 trillion.
  I am told Monday we are going to have another TARP proposed--another 
one. How many trillions? We are setting some kind of record, and there 
is no fiscal discipline.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to consider carefully--consider 
carefully--this legislation. The American people have figured it out. 
Let's figure it out.
  (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)

[[Page 3120]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Expressions of approval or disapproval are not 
allowed in the Chamber.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remains 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. For my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, for the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma the 
remaining 2\1/2\ minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the question we need to ask ourselves is, 
What is the real problem we have in the economy? And what is the best 
way of fixing it? Not whether somebody looks good or looks bad. How do 
we do what is in the best long-term interest of the country?
  The problem with this bill, once you really see it--and even a $100 
billion smaller bill--is, it does not address the real problem. We are 
going to be treating symptoms, and we are going to be highly 
inefficient as we do that. We say we want to have a stimulus bill. Yet 
what we are going to do is stimulate a baseline increase in the budget 
every year from now on of at least $124 billion, probably closer to 
$300 billion, because we have not done what we say we are doing with 
this bill.
  The other thing is, the fear that is driving this bill and what might 
happen if we do not hurry up and get a bill is probably the worst 
motivation we could have. The real fear we ought to have is, have we 
done it right and have we not created a situation in which generations 
that follow us, especially the next two, will say: What were they 
thinking? Why didn't they do it right? Why didn't they target the money 
truly to stimulus instead of creating this worst of all habits--which 
we are now going to ensure that the States pick up and learn from us. 
It is a virus. It is a virus we have that says: You do not have to 
worry about what it costs in the long run. You do not have to target 
it. You do not have to be efficient. You do not have to look at 
programs and make sure they are working. You do not have to have 
metrics.
  Now that the States are in trouble, we are going to absorb a portion 
of the problems the States have because they have not been fiscally 
prudent, and we are going to say: We are going to bail you out. Well, 
think about what that says to State legislators all across the country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Montana has 1 minute.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I do not see any speakers here. I will 
yield back that time, unless the Senator from Vermont wishes to speak.
  I yield back that time so we can get to the vote.
  I yield back the time.


                     Amendment No. 306, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2 
minutes of debate on the amendment No. 306, as modified, offered by the 
Senator from Vermont, Mr. Sanders.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  This amendment, as modified, is being cosponsored by Senator Grassley 
and has been cleared by both sides. This amendment simply requires 
recipients of TARP funding to meet strict H-1B worker hiring standards 
to prevent displacement of U.S. workers.
  I thank Chairman Baucus for working with me on changes to my original 
amendment, and I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I urge Senators to accept this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, 
as modified.
  The amendment (No. 306), as modified, was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 309

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2 
minutes of debate on amendment No. 309, offered by the Senator from 
Oklahoma.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is a simple amendment that says we 
ought to have a priority of what we do. It is not about being against 
swimming pools, zoos, museums, or anything else. It is about saying to 
the American people we are going to prioritize the spending on this 
legislation.
  What this amendment does is prohibit money to go to low-priority, 
low-infrastructure things. We have 233,000 bridges in this country that 
are in trouble--233,000. Instead of spending money planting trees along 
a causeway, what we ought to be doing is fixing the bridge that is on 
that causeway.
  So this amendment is designed to prohibit money going into these 
areas so we will have money next year and the year after that, or maybe 
redirect money within the bill to actually do something we are going to 
have to spend money on anyhow, rather than do something that is 
optional and low priority.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to express my concerns about 
amendment No. 309, introduced by the Senator from Oklahoma. Senator 
Coburn's amendment would add a provision to this bill which was 
included in the House-passed bill.
  The provision prohibits spending any of the funds in this bill on 
casinos, golf courses, swimming pools, and other specified recreational 
facilities. I think we can all agree these sound like laudable goals. 
And I understand that on its face this amendment may seem logical, but 
I want the Senate to understand what it means as it applies to this 
bill.
  Some of my colleagues might wonder why the House included this 
provision in their bill and why we don't think it makes sense.
  The House included $1 billion for the Community Development Block 
Grant, CDBG, program. Under that program, funds go straight to the 
cities and mayors determine how to spend the funds. When the Conference 
of Mayors presented their views to the country's leadership on how to 
stimulate the economy, the No. 1 program they were hoping to have 
funded was CDBG. But the CDBG Program does not have sufficient 
safeguards. It can be used to construct recreational swimming pools or 
aquariums or to support museums. On occasion CDBG funds have been used 
for programs which some would say were of questionable merit.
  To ensure that the Senate would not be supporting questionable 
programs, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended no funds for 
this program. The House recognized that CDBG funds might be used 
inappropriately if there were no prohibitions on questionable programs, 
so it included the provision which Senator Coburn wants to attach to 
the Senate bill.
  We do not need to include the provision because we do not have CDBG 
funding in this bill. The mayors are precluded from funding the 
projects prohibited by the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma. The 
Senate is already protected from possible abuse by denying the funding 
for the program.
  Let me offer a second example of how the committee ensured that local 
funds could not be used unwisely. In the bill, the committee has 
included $2.5 billion for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program which 
is designed to improve blighted neighborhoods. However, it is true that 
on occasion funds for this program have been used for community 
development that was of questionable merit. To avoid that problem, the 
Appropriations Committee recommended bill language under the 
Neighborhood Stabilization Program which only allows the funds to be 
used for the replacement of housing. This limitation means the funds 
cannot be used to build community centers or swimming pools.
  We support the idea behind the amendment but not the amendment. 
First, we have not provided funds for programs which can be used 
frivolously. Second, there are no earmarks in this bill. Third, there 
is no CDBG money in this bill. Fourth, the housing

[[Page 3121]]

programs cannot be used for frivolous purposes.
  Members might argue you could include the amendment as an additional 
safeguard. Well, consider just this one example. Among other things, 
the amendment would prohibit the construction of swimming pools no 
exceptions. It should be noted that we do not direct the construction 
of any particular swimming pool that would be an earmark.
  However, this bill contains $3.4 billion for needed construction of 
new and infrastructure renovation and repairs at existing VA hospitals. 
Under the terms of this provision the VA would not be able to spend any 
of the infrastructure funding provided to the Department on 
construction or renovation of therapeutic swimming pools at spinal cord 
injury centers, trauma centers, or other VA medical centers.
  The Appropriations Committee is aware that the VA has plans for many 
legitimate construction projects such as pools specifically used for 
medical rehabilitation of wounded soldiers. These are not swimming 
pools for VA staff, but they would nonetheless be prohibited by this 
amendment.
  While I am confident this was not the intent of the amendment, it 
most certainly could be the result. It is not the only example. Should 
our military be denied from building recreational facilities? Should 
the Coast Guard be told not to build swimming pools where they practice 
training exercises? Do we want to argue that no funds should be 
available for fixing aging buildings?
  This amendment is a solution in search of a problem. But, Mr. 
President, let's not forget that the amendment causes problems. If 
adopted, this amendment could deny our wounded veterans the physical 
therapy they need and deserve, and it could deny other needed programs 
to support training and quality of life for our military forces and 
their families.
  I recommend that you vote against this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield back the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 73, nays 24, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 51 Leg.]

                                YEAS--73

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--24

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Burris
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Menendez
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Shaheen
     Webb
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Gregg
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 309) was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I voted against Senate amendment No. 309 
because the language of this amendment was too broad and would have 
excluded funding for important projects in California that will create 
jobs, help our veterans, promote tourism, protect our natural 
resources, and stimulate the economy.
  If the Coburn amendment had prevented economic recovery money from 
going to casinos, I would have supported the amendment. Gaming 
facilities and casinos do not deserve to receive funding in this bill.
  But by prohibiting funds for parks, highway beautification projects, 
and other community projects, the Coburn amendment would have 
eliminated from funding consideration important job-creating 
initiatives throughout California.
  It is important to note that there are no earmarks in this bill. No 
parks, community centers, casinos, swimming pools, or similar projects 
receive direct funding in the recovery bill.
  But there are some important investments that the Coburn amendment 
would prevent Federal, State, and local leaders from allocating 
resources to, such as construction and rehabilitation projects in State 
parks--which create jobs and protect natural resources--and highway 
beautification projects--which create jobs and help stimulate local 
economies.
  One example of how the Coburn amendment would prevent funding for 
worthy projects involves disabled veterans. There is $3.4 billion in 
this bill for construction and renovation of Veterans Administration 
hospitals. Because of the Coburn amendment, the VA will not be able to 
spend any of the funding it receives on construction of therapeutic 
recovery pools at trauma centers, spinal cord injury centers, and other 
medical centers for disabled veterans to use when recovering from 
traumatic injuries.


                           Amendment No. 359

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2 
minutes of debate on amendment No. 359, offered by the Senator from New 
Mexico, Mr. Udall.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. The current language in the substitute 
amendment provides a tax incentive to employers hiring veterans who 
have been discharged from the armed services in 2008, 2009, and 2010.
  My amendment would expand this tax incentive to employers to include 
veterans discharged from the armed services between September 2001 and 
December 2010, including veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom and 
Operation Iraqi Freedom.
  This group of veterans has a 6.1-percent rate of unemployment. 
Expanding the tax incentive to employers will help ensure that we do 
not leave these veterans out in the cold. It ensures that employers are 
encouraged to hire these men and women and to put them back to work. I 
hope my colleagues will join me in adopting this amendment. I thank 
both sides for working with me on this.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
  The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we have looked at this amendment and think 
it is a good one. We are prepared to accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 359) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 176

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2 
minutes of debate on amendment No. 176 offered by the Senator from 
Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn.
  Mr. COBURN. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is yielded back.
  Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

[[Page 3122]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 52 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Gregg
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 176) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 20 
minutes equally divided for debate only.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the next Senator to speak is on his way 
here, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts. Is there someone on the other 
side who wishes to speak? We have 10 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Nebraska, followed by the 
Senator from Iowa, will have 5 minutes. If I can ask the distinguished 
manager, my understanding is that after the 20 minutes, there will then 
be a period for filing amendments and debate.
  Mr. BAUCUS. After the 20 minutes, there then is a period during which 
Senators can call up their amendments, but they are only amendments 
that have been agreed to by an earlier UC.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the manager.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise to elaborate on a couple points I 
made a day or so ago on this stimulus package.
  Many in this body and constituents across Nebraska know I am a former 
mayor, a former city counsel person, a former county commissioner, and 
a former Governor. I have had the opportunity to govern during very 
good times when the revenues were available. I have had the opportunity 
to govern during very tough times, where we were trying to figure out 
how to balance our budget.
  I point out, again, that in the State I come from, we not only have 
to balance the budget, but we are prohibited by our Constitution from 
borrowing money. So the State has no debt.
  I have been in those positions, the beneficiary of programs such as 
this package but much smaller programs. I have never been, nor has 
anyone else been in the history of this country, the beneficiary of a 
spending bill this large. To describe this as large is not to do 
justice to the discussion. This is enormous.
  I am sure what is happening across the country in mayors' offices and 
Governors' offices as they try to figure out how to deal with this 
massive amount of money that is being dedicated to what I would argue 
are valuable programs in the normal budget process--Medicaid, 
education, special education, parks facilities, whatever it is, 
although we addressed that with an amendment--what is happening is 
this: mayors and Governors are looking at their budgets and they are 
recognizing that there is money that is going to come in huge amounts 
from the Federal Government. So they are looking at their capital 
improvements process in their budget and they are saying: What is it 
that I can now take my local dollars or my State dollars and set to the 
side and fund with this massive amount of Federal spending that is 
occurring that is going to rain down on my local government or my State 
government?
  As I said, these are valuable programs, there is no doubt about that. 
I funded all these programs at one point in my life. What I suggest to 
this body is you are not going to get any kind of stimulative impact 
from what you are trying to accomplish. The Governor or the mayor is 
simply going to look at these dollars as found money, and they are 
going to take their State and local dollars, set them to the side, and 
spend the Federal dollars, and no stimulation will happen to the 
economy. No new jobs will be created. In fact, I would even suggest you 
will be very hard pressed in the year or 2 years of this stimulus 
package to even find a new project that would not have otherwise been 
funded through the normal State or local process.
  I also wish to talk about one last piece of this that is very 
important, and we acted on this with an amendment. But I need to say 
something that is very important because this needs to survive whatever 
process is left, and that is this whole issue of competitive bidding.
  This is a massive amount of money. The temptation to ignore the 
transparency of the bidding process is simply going to be too great 
unless we act, not only today but as this process goes forward. The 
temptation to allocate this money with the transparency of the bidding 
process will take control and literally we will be looking back and we 
will be fighting this and recognizing that money got doled out, it got 
handed out without any kind of transparency in the competitive bidding 
process.
  I have been there in those offices, where I have had members of the 
administration come in and say: Governor or mayor, we need to waive the 
bidding process.
  Let me wrap up with this thought. These are valuable programs. I have 
funded these programs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. JOHANNS. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Massachusetts. Actually, I prefer they use the remaining 5 minutes on 
the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, many folks on the other side of the 
aisle claim that spending is better stimulus than tax relief for 
working men and women. This is certainly not a unanimous opinion among 
economists, so I would share some recent economic research that 
analyzes data--not building models--to answer the question of whether 
spending or tax relief is more effective for economic stimulus.
  Christina Romer, who is the Obama administration's Chair of the 
Council of Economic Advisers, and David Romer, from the University of 
California at Berkeley, find that $1 of tax relief raises the gross 
domestic product by about $3. Robert Hall, from Stanford, and Susan 
Woodward, who is chair of Sand Hill Econometrics, find that $1 of 
Government spending raises gross domestic product by about $1. Andrew 
Mountford, from the University of London, and Harold Uhlig, from the 
University of Chicago, conclude that deficit-financed tax relief works 
better than either deficit-financed or

[[Page 3123]]

balanced-budget Government spending increases to improve the gross 
domestic product. These experts calculate that each $1 of tax relief 
amounts to $5 of additional gross domestic product 5 years after the 
shock of recession. Olivier Blanchard, who is the chief economist at 
the IMF, and Roberto Perotti, from IGIER University, assert that a 
combination of both tax increases and Government spending increases has 
a strong negative impact on private investment spending.
  In addition to the opinions of these economic experts, a look back at 
the picture that developed following the 2003 tax relief is also very 
instructive.
  After the 2001 recession ended, both the economy and labor markets 
continued to sputter. But a significant turnaround occurred soon after 
the passage of the 2003 tax relief bill. Following nine straight 
quarters of decline, business investment grew at an annual rate of 6.6 
percent between the enactment of the 2003 tax bill and the start of the 
current recession. Similarly, a period of job growth following the 2003 
tax relief was the longest streak of monthly job growth on record.
  We have spent a lot of time in this body discussing the balance 
sheets of financial institutions. The balance sheets of families and 
individuals throughout the country have been suffering significantly as 
well. From the third quarter of 2007 to the third quarter of 2008, the 
net worth of households and nonprofit organizations has dropped by $7.1 
trillion, or 8.9 percent.
  Families and individuals who receive tax reductions will likely save 
some of their tax cut to pay down household debt. Some erroneously 
suggest that this is bad for the economy. Quite to the contrary. When 
people pay down their debt, their credit improves. Improved credit 
leads to freeing up bank lending. Reduced debt for families and 
individuals also increases the amount of long-term income available for 
spending. So we should not look at households improving their balance 
sheets as a bad thing economically.
  Finally, evidence suggests that permanent tax reductions are more 
likely to be spent by consumers than one-time stimulus checks or 
credits. Our focus should be on permanent tax relief to get the engine 
of our economy running.
  Our economy is like the Titanic, and while it continues to go down, 
the only proposal on the other side is to spend over $700 billion to 
buy new deck chairs.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I reserve the remainder of the 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired.
  Who wishes to yield time? The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman for his 
efforts on this bill and on this issue as a whole.
  I have been listening for the last few days to our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle talk as if the last 8 years hasn't happened, as 
if they have no responsibility for it, and then come back to the floor 
of the Senate today, and in the last few days, with proposals that have 
already been tested and, frankly, proven hollow and empty and 
inadequate. It is kind of surprising to me to see the absence of common 
sense that has been at the center of the arguments over the course of 
the last couple of days.
  Let me give an example. We keep hearing about how the spending, 
spending, spending is too big and it is a problem. In fact, spending 
itself, we have heard in the arguments, is not going to solve this 
problem. Well, over 40 States in this country now have budget 
shortfalls--40 States--and the Governors in those States are already 
cutting essential services. They face the choice of cutting police, 
fire, teachers, and other critical services. The fact is that as they 
cut, those people are not able to pay mortgages, not able to go to the 
store and buy whatever it was they planned to buy, because they are out 
of a job and therefore lacking cash. They may even become at risk for 
foreclosure on their homes. So if you want to contribute to toxic 
assets, the best way to do it is to continue to adopt the policy that 
you don't put cash into the hands of Americans.
  Now, that alone is not going to solve the problem. The normal debt 
ratio of a household in our country is about--income to household 
debt--50 percent. Right now, the average household in America is 
carrying a debt-to-income ratio of about 150 percent. And if all you do 
is give a tax cut that puts cash into the hands of people--which I 
understand, incidentally, our proposal does give a tax cut--if that is 
all you do, a large percentage of that is going to simply go to paying 
for past acquisitions, for past services provided. It is going to be 
used by taxpayers to pay off their credit card bills, to pay their 
debt, but it isn't going to create the kind of spending and consumption 
that is at the heart of the American economy.
  Mr. President, 72 percent of American GDP comes from consumption. 
Unless we recognize how you stop the tailspin and begin to turn things 
around, we are ignoring reality. I have heard a lot of talk about we 
ought to do a tax cut, we ought to do a tax cut. I have supported many 
tax cuts during my years here, and there are tax cuts in this proposal. 
But a tax cut is nontargeted. If you put a tax cut into the hands of 
either a business or an individual today, there is no guarantee they 
are going to invest their money. There is no guarantee they are going 
to invest their money in the United States. They are free to invest 
anywhere they want, if they choose to invest.
  Let's look at that. When you have a tailspin in the economy, as we do 
today, and confidence is declining, as it is today, if you are a banker 
and if somebody comes in to borrow money from you, you have to look at 
the prudent lending practices and standards by which you are going to 
make that loan. In today's climate, the inclination of a prudent banker 
is not to make the loan. Why? Because they see consumerism contracting, 
because they see the tailspin in housing, because they see the lack of 
new building, new contracts, and you are locked into a vicious cycle--
not a virtuous cycle, a vicious cycle, a downward cycle. This effort is 
to break that cycle.
  Almost every major economist has suggested that it is going to take a 
very significant component of that ugly word ``spending'' in order to 
prime the pump and begin to shift the psychology and turn things 
around. Now, is that all we need to do? No. And President Obama has 
said that is not all we need to do.
  To the Senator from Tennessee, who has been talking about housing and 
you have to stop the housing slide first, let me say to him 
respectfully that I sat in the White House a year ago with Secretary 
Paulson, President Bush, and Vice President Cheney, and I was the only 
person in the room who said: Mr. President, if you are going to do a 
stimulus now, you ought to put housing into this package. And I turned 
to the Secretary and I said: Mr. Secretary, you could be negotiating 
right now to keep people in their homes at a fixed mortgage rate and a 
new valuation, and you should do it. And their heads nodded, and they 
said: That sounds like a good idea.
  Gordon Smith and I came back to the Senate, and we put in a $15 
billion provision in the Finance Committee, which passed the Finance 
Committee 20 to 1. It came to the floor of the Senate, and guess what. 
The very people who are here on the floor now saying we have to do 
housing stripped it out of that provision. The President and the 
administration opposed it. And for 9 months they sat there while 10,000 
homes a day were being foreclosed, and they allowed us to slide into 
where we are today. So when I hear my colleagues come and say we have 
to fix housing now, they are about 10 months to a year late on that 
effort. They have created, because of their indifference a year ago, a 
situation where it is out of control. Every major economist in the 
country is now telling us: You have to stop the fall.
  If 40 States in our country are facing a predicament, it is incumbent 
on us to

[[Page 3124]]

help those States not lay off those firefighters, not lay off those 
teachers, and help them go with a readymade project.
  I have heard colleague after colleague say: Well, what job is going 
to be created through this spending? Well, let me tell you very 
directly. If you have a shovel-ready project, we can put that into 
place tomorrow. There are thousands of them across the country ready to 
go.
  We have a $1.6 trillion infrastructure deficit. While other countries 
have been investing in high-speed rail transportation, schools, and 
other parts of their economy, we haven't. We have been giving tax cuts 
to the wealthiest people in the country. And the price of that is that 
today we have the largest gap between the middle class and the wealthy 
that we have ever had in this country. The fact is, none of those 
people are guaranteed to invest that money in any of the new projects 
the way we are. So Government--yes, Government--has the ability to be 
able to make a decision that the private sector won't necessarily make 
today.
  I have supported almost every private sector effort through here over 
the years. I have supported 100 percent a zero capital gains reduction 
so that we could excite investment and venture capital into new 
enterprises with respect to energy and alternative fuel and new 
materials and nanotechnology and communications and artificial 
intelligence--all the things that would provide the high value-added 
job base of the future for our country. And most economists will tell 
each of my colleagues, without a party label, that if we were to invest 
now in those future efforts, we would be creating a much stronger base 
for our jobs in the future.
  That is what this seeks to do. This bill, this stimulus effort, seeks 
to break the downward cycle and encourage investment in those kinds of 
products that provide a high value-added job and strengthen America's 
economy for the long run.
  The fact is that doing the stimulus and doing housing aren't going to 
fix this crisis either. The truth is that the majority of our banks in 
this country are fundamentally insolvent. Paul Krugman has referred to 
a number of large banks as zombie banks because their assets and 
liabilities are almost either even or negative. But if you look at 
those assets in many of them, they are in the toxic category. And if 
they legitimately mark their books today at the value of the 
marketplace, they would not be, according to most standards, solvent.
  So we are going to visit on this floor within a short period of time 
how we are going to recapitalize the banks. This effort will not be 
satisfied with what we are doing here alone. But I guarantee you, every 
day that we dawdle, every day we keep this going, forgetting about 
reality and debating what are old and, frankly, discredited approaches 
to the economy, we are going to create more toxic assets, more people 
are going to lose their jobs, and more confidence will be lost as we 
continue to go down.
  Frankly, the difference between $50 billion on this bill or $100 
billion--let's get it moving--that is not going to make the difference 
to the economy. What will make the difference to the economy is whether 
we express on this floor a real understanding of what is happening and 
a real concentrated effort across party lines to address it. That is 
what the American people are waiting for.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 seconds.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.
  I hope we are going to get to the common sense that is at the center 
of this and do what we need to do for the American people quickly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The 
Senator from Louisiana is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 107

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the second 
Vitter amendment I have at the desk, which I am very hopeful will be 
voted on later in the day. As I have explained on the floor of the 
Senate several times in this debate, I am one of those folks, very 
concerned that overall this so-called stimulus bill is just a long 
laundry list of Washington big government spending programs, not 
anything focused or disciplined that will really create jobs in the 
short term in this economy. But my amendment I am discussing now is 
focused on a very specific item in that long laundry list that I 
believe is not only unproductive but is truly offensive, given the 
history of the last several years. That is an item of almost $2.25 
billion in the present underlying Senate bill that could go toward 
neighborhood stabilization, that would be available for nonprofit 
groups, including ACORN, to access. I might add, that figure in the 
House bill is $4.2 billion with at least $100 million virtually 
earmarked for nonprofit groups such as ACORN.
  Why do I find this so objectionable and so offensive? Two simple 
reasons. No. 1, this would further part of the Government policy that 
got us in this mess to begin with, that started on the housing side by 
encouraging so much subprime lending that led to enormous, and in fact 
predictable, defaults that started this decline. No. 2, I believe with 
regard to a group such as ACORN, this is little more than a political 
payoff because ACORN acted as a truly partisan organization in their 
campaign activities for the last several years, including this fall, 
and was guilty of egregious fraud with regard to voter registration 
activities.
  Let me take point No. 1 first. We all know many factors led us to 
this current economic crisis. But one of them, one big one, was 
certainly Government policy and Government programs--and there was a 
lot of it--that built up and encouraged the subprime lending mess. 
Certainly, major funding over several years that went to ACORN and 
similar groups was exactly part of that. Are we going to learn from our 
experience and at least stop that policy, stop that encouragement of 
subprime lending that could not be supported, that led to more and more 
foreclosures and a plummeting housing market, eventually a plummeting 
economy overall? Are we going to stop that and correct it? With this 
sort of money in the stimulus bill available to a group such as ACORN, 
in fact, we would be advancing even more of that bad policy.
  Make no mistake about it, that is exactly the sort of housing 
activity ACORN focuses on, what they are known for, what they are proud 
of. Let me give one clear example to make the point, which is from the 
New Mexico chapter of ACORN, New Mexico ACORN Fair Housing. They 
received a grant of about $100,000, among others, in 2007. They got 
this grant for a very specific program with the title, ``How To Take 
Advantage Of Subprime Mortgages.''
  I give them an A for truth in advertising. That is exactly what they 
were about in New Mexico and across the country, how to take advantage 
of subprime mortgages which encourages stuff--let's build it up--and, 
in fact, they helped build it up and, in fact, it cratered. As you 
know, that has been ACORN's housing mission in communities around the 
country.
  My second point is perhaps even more fundamental, which is that ACORN 
has been guilty of egregious fraud and politicization of what they do 
with taxpayer funds for several years, including the last election 
cycle. We should not be sending more taxpayer dollars to them in light 
of this history. I would go so far as to say the effort by some to do 
that is little more than political payoff.
  What am I talking about? I think we have heard these stories from the 
past campaign: registering thousands of voters who were either asked to 
register multiple times or people who were registered without their 
knowledge or the registering of voters who outright did not exist. That 
was a very common practice by this organization. ACORN employees have 
admitted to it, who told sad stories of feeling incredible pressure to 
register voters to meet completely unrealistic quota numbers. That is 
sad indeed.
  A good example is Washington State where felony charges were actually 
filed against seven persons for committing the single largest case of 
voter fraud in the State's history. This was

[[Page 3125]]

in response to the King County Canvassing Board's revocation of 1,762 
allegedly fraudulent voter registrations submitted by ACORN. In this 
case the prosecuting attorney told the board that six ACORN workers had 
admitted to filling out registration forms with names they found in 
phone books the previous October. ACORN further actually agreed to 
reimburse King County $25,000 for all the investigative and other costs 
they had to bring to that case. Not exactly innocent mistakes but 
outright voter registration fraud.
  Fraud and criminality are nothing new to the organization. As we have 
read in 1999 and 2000, nearly $1 million was embezzled by Dale Rathke, 
brother of the ACORN founder, through faulty credit card charges and 
other means.
  Given this very clear history, a history of promoting one of the main 
problems that led us to this mess in the subprime market, a history of 
being a political organization and in a very partisan way committing 
outright voter and voter registration fraud, I do not think we should 
be putting taxpayer dollars in this stimulus bill which can go to and 
benefit ACORN.
  My amendment is very plain and very simple. It says no money in the 
stimulus bill can go to--will go to, under any circumstances, ACORN.
  I look forward to a debate and vote on this amendment. I will be 
asking for a rollcall vote on this amendment so we can get a strong 
sense of the Senate on the record, particularly if this issue proceeds 
to conference.
  Mr. President with that, before I yield the floor, I ask that the 
amendment be made pending.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Objection. That is not allowed in this agreement. I am 
sorry.
  I misunderstood. I thought you wanted a queue for a vote.
  Mr. VITTER. No, I would like the amendment pending.
  Mr. BAUCUS. You can call up your amendment and it will be made 
pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. VITTER. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 107 to amendment No. 98.

  Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: Prohibiting direct or indirect use of funds to fund the 
     Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN))

       On page 431, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

     SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS BY OR FOR ACORN.

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by this Act may be used directly or indirectly to fund the 
     Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now 
     (ACORN).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, there are a series of amendments under the 
order under which Senators can call up specified amendments. I would 
like to go back and forth, Republican and Democrat and so forth. I also 
urge Senators to enter into time agreements for their speeches when 
they call up their amendments. I urge us now to move to amendment No. 
501, called up by Senators Conrad and Graham.
  Let me ask Senator Conrad what kind of time agreement might be 
reasonable for him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask my colleague, Senator Graham, how much time would 
he need?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Ten minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Ten minutes each?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I make that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Montana please repeat 
the agreement?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent the time on the Conrad-Graham 
amendment be limited to 10 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall 
not, I wonder if the distinguished senior Senator from Montana could 
give me some idea regarding the broadband amendment which I had 
pending, when it would be coming up.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I might say to my good friend from Vermont, there is a 
previous order entered into which listed amendments under which 
Senators could call up their amendments. I think it is about 10 or 12, 
roughly. I do not see the name of the Senator on this list.
  Following disposition of this list, we will then enter a different 
period when different action can be taken by the Senate. I would have 
to consult with the leader to see what he wants to do following 
disposition of this list.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as I said, I shall not object, but I note I 
have been trying for several days, since the time I submitted that 
amendment, to bring it up. It will require a slight modification, 
agreed to by both the Republican and Democratic side. I just want to 
have some idea when it might come. I have no objection to the unanimous 
consent request.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I also 
have an amendment on the E-Verify system that I believe very strongly 
should be voted on or perhaps accepted. It is in the House bill. I 
wonder what kind of confidence Senator Baucus can give us. That would 
be a matter that would be voted on. It is not in the next group of 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I say to my friend, there are many Senators who 
approached me, asking if we could take up their amendment following 
this list of amendments now. I cannot give a specific answer to any 
Senator at this point except to say that we will go through this list 
we are on right now under which Senators can call up amendments, and I 
will be consulting with the leader to try to figure out what is the 
next order of business. I will make it as fair as possible. I think the 
Senator will acknowledge that all day long--yesterday--we have gone 
back and forth to try to make it fair for both sides. But I cannot say 
what the exact procedure will be following the disposition of these 
amendments. I will try my very best to accommodate the Senator, as I 
will every other Senator, but I have to consult with the leader first 
to know what that is.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator Baucus. I know he has an incredibly 
difficult job in working through all of this. I would say, I am uneasy 
about this. I will not object now, but I do want to have some assurance 
this very important amendment would at least have a right to have a 
vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate that very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I renew my request that the time on the Conrad-Graham 
amendment be limited to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I think we had 10 minutes each.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I misunderstood. Ten each. That is the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, is there some time in 
opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is a good question.
  Five minutes to the Senator from Connecticut to speak in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request as modified? 
Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from South Carolina is 
recognized.


          Amendment No. 501, as Modified, to Amendment No. 98

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I believe we have a modification of the 
amendment at the desk. I ask that be incorporated. It is amendment No. 
501. I ask it be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so

[[Page 3126]]

ordered. The clerk will report the amendment as modified.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. Graham], for himself 
     and Mr. Conrad, proposes an amendment numbered 501, as 
     modified, to amendment No. 98.

  Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To limit wasteful spending, to fund a systematic program of 
   foreclosure prevention, to be administered by the Federal Deposit 
             Insurance Corporation, and for other purposes)

       On page 6, strike lines 1 through 4.
       On page 37, strike lines 1 through 5.
       On page 37, line 10, strike ``$9,000,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$8,800,000,000''.
       On page 37, line 13, strike ``not'' and all that follows 
     through ``libraries:'' on line 16.
       On page 44, line 18, strike ``$300,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$275,000,000''.
       On page 44, line 25, after the semicolon insert ``and''.
       On page 45, line 2, strike ``; and'' and insert a period.
       On page 45, strike lines 3 through 5.
       On page 57, line 10, strike ``$1,169,291,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,069,291,000''.
       On page 57, line 14, strike ``$571,843,000'' and insert 
     ``$531,843,000''.
       On page 57, line 18, strike ``$112,167,000'' and insert 
     ``$92,167,000''.
       On page 57, line 22, strike ``$927,113,000'' and insert 
     ``$887,113,000''.
       On page 92, strike lines 1 through 20.
       On page 93, line 7, strike ``$9,048,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$8,048,000,000''.
       On page 93, line 12, strike ``$6,000,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$5,000,000,000''.
       On page 93, line 23, strike ``$7,000,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$6,000,000,000''.
       On page 95, strike lines 1 through 8.
       On page 123, line 9, strike ``$3,250,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,050,000,000''.
       On page 123, strike line 18 and all that follows through 
     page 124, line 9.
       On page 124, line 10, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(2)''.
       On page 124, line 13, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       On page 124, line 15, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(4)''.
       On page 125, line 1, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(5)''.
       On page 127, line 23, strike ``$1,088,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,000,000,000''.
       On page 127, line 24, strike ``of which'' and all that 
     follows through ``and'' on page 128, line 3.
       On page 128, strike lines 8 through 22.
       On page 130, strike lines 4 through 10.
       On page 213, line 22, strike ``$64,961,000'' and insert 
     ``$59,476,000''.
       On page 213, line 25, strike ``; and'' and all that follows 
     through ``initiatives'' on lines 25 and 26.
       On page 137, line 17, strike ``$5,800,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$5,325,000,000''.
       On page 139, line 22, after ``funds:'' insert ``Provided 
     further, That none of the amounts available under this 
     paragraph may be used for the screening or prevention of any 
     sexually transmitted disease or for any smoking cessation 
     activities.''
       On page 391, line 5, strike ``$79,000,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$62,150,000,000''.
       At the end of division A, add the following:

       TITLE XVII--FORECLOSURE PREVENTION MORTGAGE MODIFICATIONS

     SEC. 1701. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title--
       (1) the term ``Corporation'' means the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Corporation;
       (2) the term ``Chairperson'' means the Chairperson of the 
     Board of Directors of the Corporation;
       (3) the term ``Secretaries'' means the Secretary of the 
     Treasury and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, 
     jointly;
       (4) the term ``program'' means the foreclosure prevention 
     and mortgage modification program established under this 
     section; and
       (5) the term ``eligible mortgage'' means an extension of 
     credit that is secured by real property that is the primary 
     residence of the borrower.

     SEC. 1702. LOAN MODIFICATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--The Chairperson shall establish a 
     systematic foreclosure prevention and mortgage modification 
     program, in consultation with the Secretaries, that--
       (1) provides lenders and loan servicers with compensation 
     to cover administrative costs for each eligible mortgage 
     modified according to the required standards; and
       (2) provides loss sharing or guarantees for certain losses 
     incurred if a modified eligible mortgage should subsequently 
     redefault.
       (b) Program Components.--The program established under 
     subsection (a) shall include the following components:
       (1) Exclusion for early payment default.--To promote 
     sustainable mortgages, loss sharing or guarantees under the 
     program shall be available only after the borrower has made a 
     specified minimum number of payments on the modified 
     mortgage, as determined by the Chairperson.
       (2) Standard net present value test.--In order to promote 
     consistency and simplicity in implementation and auditing 
     under the program, the Chairperson shall prescribe and 
     require lenders and loan servicers to apply a standardized 
     net present value analysis for participating lenders and loan 
     servicers that compares the expected net present value of 
     modifying past due mortgage loans with the net present value 
     of foreclosing on such mortgage loans. The Chairperson shall 
     use standard industry assumptions to ensure that a consistent 
     standard for affordability is provided, based on a ratio of 
     the borrower's mortgage-related expenses to gross monthly 
     income specified by the Chairperson.
       (3) Systematic loan review by participating lenders and 
     servicers.--
       (A) Requirement.--Any lender or loan servicer that 
     participates in the program shall be required--
       (i) to undertake a systematic review of all of the eligible 
     mortgage loans under its management;
       (ii) to subject each such eligible mortgage loan to the 
     standard net present value test prescribed by the Chairperson 
     to determine whether it is suitable for modification under 
     the program; and
       (iii) to offer modifications for all eligible mortgages 
     that meet such test.
       (B) Disqualification.--Any lender or loan servicer that 
     fails to undertake a systematic review and to carry out 
     modifications where they are justified, as required by 
     subparagraph (A), shall be disqualified from further 
     participation in the program, pending proof of compliance 
     with subparagraph (A).
       (4) Modifications.--Modifications to eligible mortgages 
     under the program may include--
       (A) reduction in interest rates and fees;
       (B) term or amortization extensions;
       (C) forbearance or forgiveness of principal; and
       (D) other similar modifications, as determined appropriate 
     by the Chairperson.
       (5) Loss share calculation.--In order to ensure the 
     administrative efficiency and effective operation of the 
     program and to provide adequate incentive to lenders and loan 
     servicers to modify eligible mortgages and avoid unnecessary 
     foreclosures, the Chairperson shall define appropriate 
     standardized measures for loss sharing or guarantees.
       (6) De minimis test.--The Chairperson shall implement a de 
     minimis test to exclude from loss sharing under the program 
     any modification that does not lower the monthly loan payment 
     to the borrower by at least 7 to 15 percent, at the 
     determination of the Chairperson.
       (7) Time limit on loss sharing payment.--At the 
     determination of the Chairperson, a loss sharing guarantee 
     under the program shall terminate between 5 and 15 years 
     after the date on which the mortgage modification is 
     consummated, as determined by the Chairperson.

     SEC. 1703. ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS.

       (a) In General.--The Chairperson may, with the approval of 
     the Secretaries, and after making the certifications to 
     Congress required by subsection (b), implement foreclosure 
     prevention and mitigation actions other than those authorized 
     under section 1702.
       (b) Certification to Congress.--The Chairperson shall 
     certify to Congress that the Chairperson believes the 
     alternative foreclosure mitigation actions would provide 
     equivalent or greater impact or have a more cost-effective 
     impact on foreclosure mitigation than those authorized under 
     section 1702. Such certification shall contain quantitative 
     projections of the benefit of pursuing the alternative 
     actions in place of or in addition to the actions authorized 
     under section 1702.

     SEC. 1704. TIMELY IMPLEMENTATION.

       The Chairperson shall begin implementation of, and shall 
     allow lenders and loan servicers to begin participation in, 
     the mortgage modification program under this title not later 
     than 1 month after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 1705. SAFE HARBOR FOR LOAN SERVICERS.

       (a) Loan Modifications and Workout Plans.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, and notwithstanding any 
     investment contract between a loan servicer and a 
     securitization vehicle or investor, a loan servicer that acts 
     consistent with the duty set forth in section 129A(a) of 
     Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1639a) shall not be liable 
     for entering into a loan modification or workout plan under 
     the program established under this title, or with respect to 
     any mortgage that meets all of the criteria set forth in 
     subsection (b)(2), to--
       (1) any person, based on that person's ownership of a 
     residential mortgage loan or any interest in a pool of 
     residential mortgage loans or in securities that distribute 
     payments out of the principal, interest, and other payments 
     on loans in the pool;
       (2) any person who is obligated to make payments determined 
     in reference to any loan or any interest referred to in 
     paragraph (1); or
       (3) any person that insures any loan or any interest 
     referred to in paragraph (1) under any provision of law or 
     regulation of the United States or of any State or political 
     subdivision of any State.

[[Page 3127]]

       (b) Ability to Modify Mortgages.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, and notwithstanding any investment contract between a 
     loan servicer and a securitization vehicle or investor, with 
     respect to any mortgage loan that meets all of the criteria 
     set forth in paragraph (2), or which is modified in 
     accordance with the loan modification program established 
     under this title, a loan servicer--
       (A) shall not be limited in the ability to modify 
     mortgages, the number of mortgages that can be modified, the 
     frequency of loan modifications, or the range of permissible 
     modifications;
       (B) shall not be obligated to repurchase loans from or 
     otherwise make payments to the securitization vehicle on 
     account of a modification, workout, or other loss mitigation 
     plan for a residential mortgage or a class of residential 
     mortgages that constitute a part or all of the mortgages in 
     the securitization vehicle; and
       (C) shall not lose the safe harbor protection provided 
     under subsection (a) due to actions taken in accordance with 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B).
       (2) Criteria.--A mortgage loan described in this paragraph 
     is a mortgage loan with respect to which--
       (A) default on the payment of such mortgage has occurred or 
     is reasonably foreseeable;
       (B) the property securing such mortgage is occupied by the 
     mortgagor; and
       (C) the loan servicer reasonably and in good faith believes 
     that the anticipated recovery on the principal outstanding 
     obligation of the mortgage under the particular modification 
     or workout plan or other loss mitigation action will exceed, 
     on a net present value basis, the anticipated recovery on the 
     principal outstanding obligation of the mortgage to be 
     realized through foreclosure.
       (c) Applicability.--This section shall apply only with 
     respect to modifications, workouts, and other loss mitigation 
     plans initiated before July 1, 2010.
       (d) Reporting.--Each loan servicer that engages in loan 
     modifications or workout plans subject to the safe harbor in 
     this section shall report to the Chairperson on a regular 
     basis regarding the extent, scope, and results of the loan 
     servicer's modification activities, subject to the rules of 
     the Chairperson regarding the form, content, and timing of 
     such reports.
       (e) Definition of Securitization Vehicles.--For purposes of 
     this section, the term `securitization vehicle' means a 
     trust, corporation, partnership, limited liability entity, 
     special purpose entity, or other structure that--
       (1) is the issuer, or is created by the issuer, of mortgage 
     pass-through certificates, participation certificates, 
     mortgage-backed securities, or other similar securities 
     backed by a pool of assets that includes residential mortgage 
     loans; and
       (2) holds such mortgages.

     SEC. 1706. FUNDING.

       There is appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury to 
     cover the costs incurred by the Corporation in carrying out 
     the mortgage modification program established under this 
     title, $22,725,000,000. Funds that are unused by July 1, 
     2010, shall be returned to the General Fund of the Treasury 
     of the United States, unless otherwise directed by Congress.

     SEC. 1707. FDIC COSTS AND AUTHORITY.

       (a) Transfer From Secretary.--The Chairperson shall, from 
     time to time, request payment of the anticipated costs of 
     carrying out the program, including any administrative costs, 
     and the Secretary of the Treasury shall immediately pay the 
     amounts requested to the Corporation from the funds made 
     available under section 1706.
       (b) Corporation Authority.--In carrying out its 
     responsibilities under this title, the Corporation may 
     exercise its authority under section 9 of the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Act.

     SEC. 1708. REPORT.

       Before the end of the 2-month period beginning on the date 
     of enactment of this Act and every 3 months thereafter, the 
     Chairperson shall submit a report to the Congress detailing 
     the implementation results and costs of the mortgage 
     modification program, and containing such recommendations for 
     legislative or administrative action as the Chairperson may 
     determine to be appropriate.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 501

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will try to make this as quick as 
possible. This is as a result of the ``gang of two.'' I would encourage 
everybody here to form your own gang and see if you can save some money 
and do some good for the taxpayer. But it has been a real pleasure 
working with Senator Conrad, who is the chairman of the Budget 
Committee, who knows more than I will ever hope to know about this, and 
has probably forgotten more than most of us know about budgeting and 
spending.
  We have looked at this bill, and we have similar concerns. One of the 
things we agree on, I think pretty strongly, is that no amount of 
stimulus package, no matter how well constructed, is going to solve the 
Nation's problems unless you do something about housing and banking.
  We found some common ground on the housing part. Sheila Bair, who is 
the Director of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, who was 
allowed to stay in her position by President Obama--and I compliment 
him for doing that; she is a very smart lady--she has been telling 
people throughout the country that there is a way to get ahead of the 
foreclosure problem if she had some money to modify mortgages that are 
troubled. So what we have done is we have answered her call. She has 
indicated to us, through a letter, and what we have done is taken 
$22.725 billion, transferred it to her organization, and she will be 
able to use that money to deal with service providers to renegotiate 
mortgage loans that are underwater or about to go into default, make 
sure that the overall payments of the mortgageholder are no more than 
31 percent so people can afford it. The lender and investors would be 
required to achieve reductions through a combination of interest rate 
reduction, extended amortization, and principal forbearance.
  In other words, she tells us if we gave her this amount of money, she 
could sit down with the private sector and do the following:

       This proposal is no silver bullet. But we do estimate that 
     it could reduce projected foreclosures by some 1.5 million, 
     assuming the program would last around 14 months.

  Now, let me say that again. Some 1.5 million Americans, with this 
amount of money, in her opinion, could avoid having their homes 
foreclosed on. I don't have names and faces, but imagine for a moment 
people you know. That is a very big deal to me. And the money, $26-plus 
billion, is taken out of the underlying bill. We offset it. And as a 
compliment to my friend from North Dakota, it took us about 3 minutes 
to find offsets in this bill.
  What we are able to do is we took a $75 billion fund for States that 
was undesignated spending, no real rhyme or reason how it will 
stimulate the economy in the near term, and we said, wait a minute, we 
know $16.85 billion, if given to the FDIC organization, Ms. Bair, if 
they got $16 billion of that pot of money, they could save 1.5 million 
people from foreclosure. If we would do that, it would help the housing 
market in general.
  Again, my colleagues, we can print money until the press breaks. If 
you do not deal with housing and banking, we are never going to shore 
up this economy. This is, I think, a very responsible amendment. We 
could do a lot more with this bill. But we have the ability to transfer 
funds from the underlying bill to the FDIC that could be used in a way 
to work with the private sector financial managers to help 1.5 million 
people from going into foreclosure in the next 14 months.
  I am very proud of the amendment. I am sure it is no silver bullet, 
as she indicates, but it shows you what we can do around here if we 
keep our eye on the ball. At the end of the day, whatever amount this 
bill comes out to be, we have done very little for housing and nothing 
for banking.
  Our dear friend, Senator Dodd, on the Banking Committee, knows, and 
the rest of us should know, that if you do not get credit flowing, if 
you do not shore up housing, there is no amount of stimulus in the 
world that is going to bring this economy back.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, because it 
will help Americans in the near term save their home from foreclosure. 
It is responsibly spent, and the offsets, I think, are reasonable.
  I will let my friend from North Dakota tell you about the stimulative 
effect of the offsets to our economy versus the stimulative effect of 
the protection of housing of our amendment.
  With that, I yield to my friend from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank Senator Graham from South Carolina for

[[Page 3128]]

teaming up on this amendment. I think it is critically important that 
this amendment be adopted, because it goes right to the heart of the 
financial crisis we are facing.
  Housing is right at the center of the economic meltdown that is 
occurring, and precious little is being done in this economic recovery 
bill to address it.
  I salute Senator Isakson for his amendment the other night, because 
that is the other half of a package I think makes sense for housing. 
The Isakson amendment broadens the credit, an amendment that I offered 
in the Finance Committee that was adopted. Now we have the second piece 
of the puzzle, that is, to address foreclosures.
  Some will say, we will wait. We will do this in the TARP. Well, No. 
1, there is not sufficient funding in TARP to deal with housing and the 
financial sector. In fact, the testimony before the Budget Committee--
Senator Graham heard it, I heard it--said we are going to need $300 to 
$500 billion more in the TARP for the financial sector, without 
addressing at all the housing crisis.
  I say to my colleagues, I urge my colleagues to think very carefully 
about this prospect. We know this economy cannot recover without 
housing being healthier, and without the financial sector being 
healthier.
  This amendment addresses housing, and it does it by reallocating 
funding, not adding more money to this package, but reallocating money 
within the package. It is fully paid for, $22.8 billion that is needed 
to have the FDIC go forward with its plan to reduce foreclosures in 
America.
  The Senator from South Carolina said it well. The letter from Sheila 
Bair makes it clear. This amendment, under her estimate, would avert 
1.5 million home foreclosures in this country. I do not think we should 
wait. I do not think we should count on a TARP plan that is already 
underfunded to deal with the financial crisis as the basis for funding 
this approach. I think we should do it here. I think we should do it 
now. And I think we should do it in a way that is paid for.
  There is a certain level of expectation that occurs when a package 
comes over from the House, and various allocations are made. The 
problem is, that is not going to be the final bill leaving this 
Chamber. That is clear. So adjustments are going to have to be made. 
Priorities are going to have to be determined.
  I assert to my colleagues, housing ought to be certainly one of the 
highest priorities to be addressed in any economic recovery package. 
There are other things in this legislation that may be meritorious, may 
be good, some of them stimulative, some of them less so. We have tried 
to focus on those things that are of questionable value in terms of 
stimulus. We started with the so-called stabilization fund. Now 
Governors are going to get several hundred billion dollars under this 
plan. But one part of it, the economic stabilization fund, constitutes 
a slush fund if ever there was one.
  There are absolutely no strings attached. Governors can use it for 
any purpose. We have reduced that by some 70 percent. That is the 
biggest pay-for here. Then we have taken other items that have become 
the object of ridicule, $400 million for sexually transmitted diseases, 
$75 million for smoking cessation, and on it goes, things that are of 
questionable value with respect to stimulus, things that, some of them, 
have very slow spend-out rates. In one of them, only 17 percent of the 
money is spent in the first 2 years, so 83 percent is beyond 2 years.
  We have tried to be careful and judicious with respect to the pay-
fors to fund what I think has to be a critical priority.
  Mr. President, how much time have I consumed?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to say this before we give Senator 
Graham another chance, and then we are happy to hear Senator Dodd's 
concern. This is a critical moment for this bill. Are we going to 
address one of the two major crises facing this country, or are we 
going to largely say wait for another day? Wait for another day. Wait 
for the TARP funds that are already oversubscribed.
  There is about $300 billion left in TARP funds. The testimony before 
the Budget Committee was crystal clear, from economists across a broad 
spectrum, Republicans and Democrats, that you are going to need another 
$300 to $500 billion in the TARP to deal with the financial crisis.
  I say to my colleagues, if we want to deal with something fundamental 
with respect to housing, here is our opportunity to do so.
  I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as I understand the TARP funding 
situation, we are somewhere in the $310 billion range in terms of funds 
left. I voted for TARP. It was a very tough vote for all of us. And the 
first $350 billion, let's put it this way, I do not think inspired a 
lot of confidence in the American people. I was told we were going to 
buy toxic assets with the money, that we were going to get those bad 
debts off the balance sheets so people could lend money. Unfortunately, 
most of the money went to banks. And I do not have any idea what bank 
got what, and I have no idea what they did with the money. I know the 
chairman of the Banking Committee is trying to figure that out.
  The confidence level of the American people in us is pretty low right 
now. Do we understand what we are doing and how are we going to get 
there? I can assure you there is going to be more money requested for 
housing and banking.
  Every dollar we spend in the stimulus package that is off the mark is 
borrowed money, and it is going to make it harder to get new money for 
housing and banking. So, dear colleague, the next time we go to the 
American people and ask them to trust us with more of their money to 
fix banking and housing, they are going to judge us by TARP and this 
stimulus package. I am afraid we are not doing very well in their 
sight. This amendment will help in a small way. We can do a lot more.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bond be added as 
a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record the letter from Sheila Bair to me and Senator Conrad about 
what this would do for housing: 1.5 million people would avoid 
foreclosure if this program were enacted for 14 months. That is a 
pretty good use of money.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                   Federal Deposit


                                        Insurance Corporation,

                                 Washington, DC, February 4, 2009.
     Hon. Lindsey Graham,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: This letter is in response to your 
     inquiry regarding the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 
     proposal to reduce unnecessary foreclosures by providing 
     partial guarantees against future loss for distressed 
     mortgages that are restructured to provide affordable 
     payments over the life of the loan. We believe the best way 
     to address the problem of unnecessary foreclosures in scale 
     is to provide appropriate economic incentives for the 
     systematic restructuring of unaffordable mortgages into 
     affordable, sustainable obligations.
       Specifically, our proposal would require lenders and 
     mortgage investors to restructure unaffordable mortgages into 
     loans with payments no greater than 31 percent of the 
     borrower's income. Lender and investors would be required to 
     achieve these reductions through a combination of interest 
     rate reductions, extended amortization, and principal 
     forebearance. In return, the government would agree to share 
     a portion of the losses if the loan later defaulted. In 
     developing this proposal, we have drawn from our long 
     experience in restructuring the troubled loans of failed 
     banks into performing assets, thereby enhancing their value 
     on sale. As millions of unnecessary foreclosures drag down 
     home prices and harm our economy, we believe there is an 
     urgent need for a federal program to provide appropriate 
     incentives for loan modifications as an alternative. More 
     widescale loan restructuring would help our economy and 
     preserve homeownership, while making good business sense as

[[Page 3129]]

     the value of a performing mortgage will generally be greater 
     than that of a foreclosed home.
       This proposal is no silver bullet, but we do estimate that 
     it could reduce projected foreclosures by some 1.5 million, 
     assuming the program would last around 14 months. The 
     projected costs of the program are $24.4 billion or less.
       The enclosed document from our website provides additional 
     details about our loss sharing proposal. Please let me know 
     if we can provide additional information.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Sheila C. Bair,
                                                         Chairman.
       Enclosure.

  FDIC Loss Sharing Proposal to Promote Affordable Loan Modifications


                               Background

       Although foreclosures are costly to lenders, borrowers and 
     communities, the pace of loan modifications continues to be 
     extremely slow (around 4 percent of seriously delinquent 
     loans each month). It is imperative to provide incentives to 
     achieve a sufficient scale in loan modifications to stem the 
     reductions in housing prices and rising foreclosures.
       Modifications should be provided using a systematic and 
     sustainable process. The FDIC has initiated a systematic loan 
     modification program at IndyMac Federal Bank to reduce first 
     lien mortgage payments to as low as 31% of monthly income. 
     Modifications are based on interest rate reductions, 
     extension of term, and principal forebearance. A loss share 
     guarantee on redefaults of modified mortgages can provide the 
     necessary incentive to modify mortgages on a sufficient 
     scale, while leveraging available government funds to affect 
     more mortgages than outright purchases or specific incentives 
     for every modification. The FDIC would be prepared to serve 
     as contractor for Treasury and already has extensive 
     experience in the IndyMac modification process.


                 Basic Structure and Scope of Proposal

       This proposal is designed to promote wider adoption of such 
     a systematic loan modification program:
       1. by paying servicers $1,000 to cover expenses for each 
     loan modified according to the required standards; and
       2. sharing a proportion of losses incurred if a modified 
     loan should subsequently re-default
       We envision that the program can be applied to the 
     estimated 1.4 million non-GSE mortgage loans that were 60 
     days or more past due as of June 2008, plus an additional 3 
     million non-GSE loans that are projected to become delinquent 
     by year-end 2009. Of this total of approximately 4.4 million 
     problem loans, we expect that about half can be modified, 
     resulting in some 2.2 million loan modifications under the 
     plan.


                       Details on Program Design

       Eligible Borrowers: The program will be limited to loans 
     secured by owner-occupied properties.
       Exclusion for Early Payment Default: To promote sustainable 
     mortgages, government loss sharing would be available only 
     after the borrower has made a minimum number of payments on 
     the modified mortgage.
       Standard NPV Test: In order to promote consistency and 
     simplicity in implementation and audit, a standard test 
     comparing the expected net present value (NPV) of modifying 
     past due loans compared to the strategy of foreclosing on 
     them will be applied. Under this NPV test, standard 
     assumptions will be used to ensure that a consistent standard 
     for affordability is provided based on a 31% borrower 
     mortgage debt-to-income ratio.
       Systematic Loan Review by Participating Servicers: 
     Participating servicers would be required to undertake a 
     systematic review of all of the loans under their management, 
     to subject each loan to a standard NPV test to determine 
     whether it is a suitable candidate for modification, and to 
     modify all loans that pass this test. The penalty for failing 
     to undertake such a systematic review and to carry out 
     modifications where they are justified would be 
     disqualification from further participation in the program 
     until such a systematic program was introduced.
       Simplified Loss Share Calculation: In order to ensure the 
     administrative efficiency of this program, the calculation of 
     loss share basis would be as simple as possible. In general 
     terms, the calculation would be based on the difference 
     between the net present value of the modified loan and the 
     amount of recoveries obtained in a disposition by 
     refinancing, short sale or REO sale, net of disposal costs as 
     estimated according to industry standards. Interim 
     modifications would be allowed.
       De minimis Test: To lower administrative costs, a de 
     minimis test excludes from loss sharing any modification that 
     did not lower the monthly payment at least 10 percent.
       Eight-year Limit on Loss Sharing Payments: The loss sharing 
     guarantee ends eight years of the modification.


                         Impact of the Program

       The table below outlines some of the basic assumptions 
     behind the scale of the plan and its expected costs. To 
     summarize, we expect that about half of the projected 4.4 
     million problem loans between now and year-end 2009 can be 
     modified. Assuming a redefault rate of 33 percent, this plan 
     could reduce the number of foreclosures during this period by 
     some 1.5 million at a projected program cost of $24.4 
     billion.

Projected Number of Cost of Loan Modifications Under FDIC Loss Sharing 
                                Proposal

       1.6 million total loans 60+/90+ past due now
       GSE loans make up about 13 percent of problem loans at 
     present
       Net: 1.4 million non-GSE problem loans at present
       3.8 million new total loans 60+/90+ past due by y.e. 2009
       Assume: GSE loans make up 20 percent of new problem loans 
     through y.e. 2009
       Net 3.04 million new non-GSE problem loans through y.e. 
     2009
       Total non-GSE problem loans through y.e. 2009: 4.44 million
       Modify 1/2, or 2.22 million loans
       Avg. loan size $200,000
       Total book value of loans modified = $444 billion
       Avg. program cost (FDIC assumptions) = 5.5 percent
       Est. total program cost = $24.4 billion
       Assuming redefault rate of 33 percent, almost 1.5 million 
     foreclosures avoided

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. First, let me begin by thanking both of my colleagues from 
North Dakota and South Carolina for their interest in the subject 
matter.
  Now, as I pointed out, 2 years ago tomorrow, I think it was, February 
7, 2007, as the new chairman of the Banking Committee, I held my first 
hearings, and the first hearings were on the foreclosure crisis.
  At that time, a fellow by the name of Eakes testified before the 
committee and predicted 2.2 million foreclosures in the country. He was 
scoffed at all across the country for having such an outrageous 
prediction.
  In fact, the criticism was correct. It was an outrageous prediction, 
because it was not 2.2 million, it is now 8 million.
  I see my friend from New Jersey, Bob Menendez, who was at that 
hearing 2 years ago today. And he predicted a tsunami, were his words--
I will never forget them--of how foreclosures were occurring in the 
country. And again, people laughed and ridiculed and suggested that we 
were somehow predicting things that were never going to happen.
  We have all learned, painfully, the results. We are in the pickle we 
are in today because we didn't respond to the foreclosure crisis at the 
time. This is a major problem that deserves major attention. When we 
wrote the so-called TARP legislation in September, we required four 
things. I won't bother with the first three; they were accountability, 
taxpayer issues. One of the four points was to mitigate against 
foreclosures. We have learned, painfully over the last number of weeks, 
that virtually nothing was done about foreclosure mitigation with the 
original $350 billion tranche.
  My concerns--and I appreciate immensely the effort we are finally 
getting some attention to this issue and looking for resources--are the 
following: One, I am not sure foreclosure mitigation ought to be a part 
of a stimulus package. You can make a case for doing something about 
foreclosures, but that is why we have the TARP program. It is not only 
the financial system. They are, of course, interrelated. It is not like 
there is a housing issue and a financial system at risk that are 
separate issues. They are the same issue, the foreclosure issue and the 
financial mess.
  I am going to be offering shortly, along with Senators Reid and 
Martinez, legislation that requires that of the $310 to $350 billion in 
the second tranche, that $50 billion be dedicated to foreclosure 
mitigation because that was what the intention was originally. While I 
am attracted to the proposal made by Sheila Bair at FDIC--and I mention 
that in the amendment as one of the ideas, but there are a number of 
ideas. I say, respectfully, to both my good friends, Senators Graham 
and Conrad, as I read the amendment, it would require the adoption of 
the Sheila Bair approach. To me, that is worrisome because it is one 
idea but not the only idea, to allocate $20-some-odd billion to one 
idea at a time when we ought to be looking at various ideas that might 
actually work to mitigate

[[Page 3130]]

foreclosures. She believes $25 billion would do 1.2. She thinks $50 
would double that number to 2.2 or close to 3. We have a lot of numbers 
that get thrown around here.
  My point is, it ought to be something we try not to congressionally 
mandate. We are good at a lot of things in the Congress, but when we 
start micromanaging ideas such as this, we get ourselves into trouble. 
That is why, hopefully, we have smart people out there who will 
consider ideas and manage them well. But up here, when you try to set 
accounting standards or rigidly determine a particular formulation, I 
get uneasy.
  The amendment we will offer goes beyond foreclosure mitigation. We 
also clean up HOPE for Homeowners, which we all supported last summer--
almost all of us did--as a way to try and also deal with foreclosure 
mitigation. My concern would be that the adoption of this amendment 
would preclude the adoption of the second amendment. I, respectfully, 
suggest that what we have offered as our second amendment is a more 
comprehensive approach.
  I have held 82 hearings. I see my friend from Kentucky, Senator 
Bunning, a member of the committee. We spent a lot of time over the 
last 2 years on these issues. We haven't all agreed every time on 
everything--but 82 hearings and meetings, a third of which were on this 
subject matter alone. I know we all respect each other for doing the 
jobs we try to do. But having spent this much time trying to figure out 
what is the best answer, it seems to me TARP resources ought to be 
used, stimulant money ought to be used for job creation. Not that I 
wouldn't like to have extra resources to deal with this. We ought to 
have a broad approach so we are not rigidly locked into a 
congressionally mandated formula.
  I won't bother to address offsets. My colleagues are trying very hard 
to do what we all ought to do and that is to pay for various things. I 
will let others go down the list and whether they like or dislike the 
various offsets.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. I find myself sort of in an awkward position. I don't want 
to be in the position of disagreeing with trying to do something about 
foreclosure mitigation. But we end up doing this and the next and we 
get to 75 or in excess of $75 billion for this particular issue, we are 
getting excessive, it seems to me, without knowing whether a smaller 
amount might achieve the job. If we are mandating it with two 
provisions, then we are excluding resources that could be used for 
other things, including job creation, which is the debate about the 
stimulus package. My friend from North Dakota and I have talked about 
this privately, and I thank my colleagues for raising the issue. I 
truly have mixed emotions about this because I like what they are doing 
on the one hand, but I am concerned that as between the two choices--
the one Senators Martinez, Reid, and I will offer and this one--I think 
we offer a more comprehensive one, one that relies on greater 
flexibility and uses TARP money rather than stimulant money to achieve 
the result.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will my colleague yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes to ask a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I agree completely with my colleague's 
sentiments. Why, in this hard fought bill, where we don't have enough 
money for everything else and we are all worried about it and we know 
we have money from the TARP, $50 to $100 billion promised to deal with 
housing, why take the money out of here when we need it for 
infrastructure and for middle-class tax cuts and all the other things. 
I ask my colleague, in effect, to the people being foreclosed upon, is 
there any difference if we take the money out of TARP or take the money 
out of this stimulus, even though we know there is a huge difference to 
all the other people who will suffer $20 billion in cuts? Is there any 
difference, in effect, on their lives and on how we can help them?
  Mr. DODD. There is only in this sense. This bill has a specific 
requirement that a particular plan be adopted and funded with this 
proposal. I admire Sheila Bair's proposal, but we also recognize there 
are others. At the same time, if we are dealing with foreclosure 
mitigation but not getting that person who is probably in foreclosure 
because they may have lost a job, if we don't make it possible for them 
to get back to work because we minimize the resources in the stimulus, 
saving their home but not saving their job ends up with sort of a very 
mixed message.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Excellent point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I submit we will not save people's jobs or 
their homes unless we have a comprehensive strategy to address both. 
The problem with the economic recovery package is there is precious 
little in here that does anything about the housing crisis. We hear the 
assurance that we can take the money from the TARP. The problem is the 
TARP, by testimony before the Budget Committee, is oversubscribed as it 
is.
  Let's do the math. There is about $300 billion left in the TARP. The 
testimony before the Budget Committee is, we need $300 to $500 billion 
on top of that $300 billion just to deal with the financial crisis. 
That doesn't leave any money for the housing crisis. Here we have 
before us a vehicle to face up to foreclosures. Senator Dodd is 
absolutely right. I remember well his holding a hearing on 
foreclosures. I remember well his coming to this floor with 
legislation. I remember well filibuster after filibuster against 
dealing with it. Now is the time. We should not wait to take on the 
foreclosure crisis in America. More foreclosures, more homes lost, more 
people unable to pay, more banks have their capital impaired, fewer 
loans being made, more jobs lost. This is an opportunity to deal with 
the housing crisis and to have it paid for and to have it paid for out 
of economic recovery funds.
  I don't know how I would explain to my constituents that housing 
wasn't a key part of an economic recovery package.
  How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONRAD. I retain that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. If I believed we could fix housing and the banking 
situation with $310 billion, I would sit down and withdraw the 
amendment. I don't think we can. I am trying to help. As to my friend 
from New York, if you think it is more important to spend $400 million 
to deal with sexually transmitted diseases than it is to save 1.5 
million homes, vote against us. I have an offset here. Go through this. 
If you think this is a better use of money than allocating money to 
save people from losing their homes, vote no. We are not in a perfect 
world. We are in a miserable world. We have a stimulus package that has 
very little to do with stimulating the economy and a lot to do with 
growing the Government. We have a housing problem and a banking problem 
that are going to cost a lot more than $300 billion. That is what we 
are trying to say to our colleagues. The problems are massive. The 
spending bill is too large. We are trying to create some sense of 
priorities and urgency. So the $16 billion slush fund that is not going 
to create any job, if you think it is better to have that than it is to 
save 1.5 million homes from foreclosure with a program that Sheila Bair 
thinks will work, let's do it.
  I wish to work with Senator Dodd to improve the funding available to 
deal with foreclosures. This is not a silver bullet, but it will help. 
We have our priorities mixed up. We have a spending bill that doesn't 
create jobs. It grows the Government. We don't have enough money to fix 
housing and the underlying banking problem because we have been 
incompetent with the first $350 billion. I am not blaming anybody. I am 
telling America the worst is

[[Page 3131]]

yet to come, and we are wasting money and wasting time. This is not a 
perfect world. This is a Congress making it up as we go. I would like 
to get some rhyme or reason as to what we are doing. This amendment has 
a rhyme or reason about what we are doing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent that 10 more minutes be allocated 
to the Conrad-Graham amendment, equally divided, because there are some 
who still want to speak in opposition to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Who 
yields time?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee who 
is managing the bill. Maybe I will just take a few minutes. I 
understand we have another colleague who is on his way and wants to 
speak.
  The comment was made that this amendment requires us to use the 
Sheila Bair approach. Let me say, in this whole crisis, the Government 
official who shines the brightest and the best has been Sheila Bair. 
She is the person who has warned us that this tsunami of foreclosures 
was coming. She is the one who warned us of the financial crisis. She 
is the one who had the most consistent track record about dealing with 
it and dealing with it effectively. Institution after institution she 
has taken over, under the rules and the law, have been dealt with in 
the most economically rational way.
  Now she has come forward with a plan that observers and economists of 
every stripe have said is outstanding. It has the best prospects for 
success at preventing people from losing their homes.
  This is much more than numbers on a page. When we talk about 1.5 
million people not going through foreclosure if our amendment is 
adopted, according to Sheila Bair and her professional staff, 1.5 
million people, this is much more than that number. Think of what is 
happening in those families, when they have the sense they are going to 
lose their homes and start through a legal process that sucks them 
down. I read yesterday what was happening in courts locally as people 
went in facing foreclosure, the absolute desperation of the people, the 
confusion, the chaos in their lives. With this amendment, we have a 
chance to avert 1.5 million American families from going through 
foreclosure. It is paid for. It is paid for in the least painful way.
  Let me conclude on the notion of waiting for TARP. The TARP funds are 
simply insufficient to deal with the financial crisis and the housing 
crisis. There can be no question. I predict right here, right now, this 
administration will be coming to us in the weeks ahead asking for 
between $400 and $500 billion more of TARP funds just to deal with the 
financial crisis. Senator Graham was there. We had three of the most 
outstanding economists in the country, Democrats and Republicans, 
telling us exactly that. To hope and pray that somehow the TARP funds 
are going to be the savior for housing foreclosure is not something I 
would want to count on.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Does the Senator agree with me that whether we can get 
the public to buy into $500 billion, $400 billion more, has a lot to do 
with their confidence level in how we are spending their money through 
the TARP and through the stimulus package? We are trying to improve 
their confidence level by having offsets that make sense; does he agree 
that is the purpose?
  Mr. CONRAD. I think it is just fundamental that one way to build 
confidence with the American people is to show them we are using their 
precious taxpayer dollars in the highest priority areas and we are 
doing it in a responsible way--not adding to deficits and debt, not 
creating a huge bow wave for the Federal budget going forward. Some of 
the items we have taken out only spend out 17 percent in the next 2 
years; 83 percent is beyond.
  So I hope my colleagues are listening carefully to this debate 
because this one really matters. Mr. President, 1.5 million homes can 
avoid foreclosure.
  Let me say, we have not locked in a rigid approach on the FDIC 
proposal on dealing with foreclosures. We have allowed them to make 
modifications in their plan so it can take in the best ideas of others. 
But I think every observer, every economist who has looked at the FDIC 
plan has confirmed what Sheila Bair has told us in writing today: that 
this amendment, voted on today, could help prevent 1.5 million people 
from losing their homes and creating a further downdraft in this 
economy--more foreclosures, more banks cannot lend, more jobs lost. 
That is exactly what an economic recovery package should be about.
  Mr. President, how much time do I retain?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes for the proponents of the 
amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am happy to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield whatever time my colleague from New 
York would need.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Three minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President, and I thank my friend from 
Connecticut, our leader and chairman of the Banking Committee, for his 
time and his words.
  Let me be clear to my colleagues, this is not about whether you want 
to help people who face foreclosure. It has been a fight I have been 
making since a year and a half ago, when Senators Brown and Casey and I 
put money into the appropriations bill of 2008 for counselors. Nor is 
it about the priorities of where you should cut that specifically are 
laid out by my friend and great chairman of the Budget Committee, 
Senator Conrad. This is very simple common sense. We are sitting here. 
A bill may not even pass because we cannot decide where we can make 
cuts. We have some who want a number lower. We have some who want a 
number higher. The fights are over important issues such as education 
and health care and roads and broadband and all of the things we think 
we need to get this economy working again--some short term, some long 
term.
  We all agree with that. We all agree with helping those who need help 
because their homes may be foreclosed upon. However, the reason I think 
we should have an overwhelming vote against the amendment of my good 
friend from North Dakota is simple: The money comes from the wrong 
place.
  We have $50 billion to $100 billion in the TARP--the second half of 
the TARP--that has been committed by President Obama to do the very 
things my colleague wishes to take out of the stimulus bill. Why don't 
we wait? We are going to have an announcement early next week about 
those moneys. Wouldn't it be foolish to take those moneys out of this 
bill when we are so hurting and we have so limited money? It is as if 
we have seven children in a bed and enough blanket for five and there 
is a struggle as to whose feet are going to be stuck out or who is not 
going to be covered? Wouldn't it be embarrassing if next week the 
administration announces they are taking this very money out of the 
TARP? It just does not make any sense, in my judgment, in my humble 
judgment.
  So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, whatever side they 
are on. If they think the money should not be taken out of the specific 
list Senator Conrad has compiled, if they think it should go to 
foreclosure and come from something else----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, would my colleague have 2 more minutes? 
Are we limited in time?
  Mr. BAUCUS. We are limited, Mr. President.
  I am sorry. The Senator is managing the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this is, obviously, a discussion that has 
provoked

[[Page 3132]]

a bit more discussion than I think any of us anticipated, and it is a 
worthwhile discussion. So I ask unanimous consent that there be an 
additional 10 minutes because I know there are several other Members 
who want to be heard on this amendment, and certainly my colleague from 
North Dakota may request some additional time as well. We may not use 
it all, but to give us enough time to flesh this out, if we can, I ask 
for 10 additional minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Is that equally divided?
  Mr. DODD. Yes, equally divided. I do not know how much time we will 
need, but just to--and I will yield whatever time my colleague from New 
York needs. Two minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague.
  So under the amendment of my friend from North Dakota, the money 
would not come from the banks but come from all these programs we like. 
Under the next amendment that will be offered by the chairman of the 
Banking Committee, the Senator from Connecticut, the money will come--
instead of going to banks, it will go directly into foreclosure. If we 
do what the Senator from North Dakota wants, there is going to be $150 
billion to $100 billion more going to the banks.
  I think many of us think that money that was in the first $350 
billion was not wisely spent. If we do what the Senator from 
Connecticut will propose shortly, the money will not come out of 
education and health care and broadband, but it will come out of giving 
more money to the banks. So if you want extra money for the banks, the 
amendment from the Senator from North Dakota is in order.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to my friend from 
South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. The point I am trying to make, I say to the Senator, is, 
I may be wrong, but I do not believe the remaining amount of money in 
TARP--$310 billion, I believe it is--will take care of what we need to 
do with our banking problem and our housing problem. Am I wrong?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I think my colleague may not be wrong. 
But I would add this, given that it is my time: Whether we only need 
$200 billion or $310 billion or $500 billion or $600 billion more, 
let's take the money we have out of this pocket, which is not being 
spent well, from the banks, and use it instead of money out of this 
hardly fought economic recovery bill. That is my basic point.
  I thank my colleague for yielding.
  I hope, with a great deal of respect, we will reject the amendment 
offered by the Senator from North Dakota and then do the same thing but 
take the money from the banks by supporting the amendment offered by 
the Senator from Connecticut.
  I yield the floor and yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have heard now from the Senator from New 
York that we should wait to deal with foreclosures--we should wait. 
Well, that is the opportunity that is before us. We can make a choice 
on this amendment. We can wait some more to deal with foreclosures or 
we can take action today.
  Sheila Bair, the much respected head of the FDIC, has said that if 
our amendment passes, we can avert 1.5 million Americans from being 
foreclosed upon. You want to wait on that? What are you going to wait 
for? You are going to wait to take the money out of the TARP when there 
is insufficient money in the TARP to deal with the financial crisis, 
much less the housing crisis and the financial crisis?
  Look, this is the curious sort of Washington math that has us in deep 
trouble. We talk about using money that has already been spoken for, 
and somehow we are supposed to use it twice, maybe three times. I 
suggest it is much better to act now and to use real money to pay for 
it rather than be counting on a fund that is already oversubscribed.
  Now, this notion of waiting leaves me cold. Mr. President, 1.5 
million people are out there facing foreclosure, and those families 
could have the foreclosure averted if we act. This is not the time to 
wait. This is the time to act.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am happy to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. If our colleagues looked at the items we are using to 
offset, do you agree with me, I say to the Senator, not only could most 
of these items wait, it would be probably good we never spent the money 
at all?
  So when you talk about priorities between 1.5 million people who 
could be saved from foreclosure in 14 months with this money versus 
what we are offsetting--and only 17 percent of the offset money, I say 
to the Senator, I believe, is spent in the first year--the $22 billion 
we give to the FDIC to manage foreclosures would save 1.5 million homes 
in 14 months.
  So I would argue we are not shortchanging anyone by offsetting this 
money, that what is in the offset not only could wait, a lot of it 
could wait till hell froze over because it makes no sense to spend it 
to begin with.
  So it is not as if we are robbing somebody with a useful program. We 
have looked into this $800 billion, $900 billion--whatever it is--bill, 
I say to the Senator, and we are astonished to find that maybe there is 
some money in here that does not make a whole lot of sense in terms of 
stimulating the economy, saving housing or banking, and I think we have 
done a pretty good job of offsetting it.
  I would ask my colleagues one simple question, and I will end with a 
question to the Senator from North Dakota. If you assume we are going 
to be asking the American people for more money to fix their housing 
problem and their banking problem, the question I have is, one, why 
wait when we can do something now? And why would you put what is in 
this bill in this offset ahead of housing? I just do not understand 
that. Do you, as the Senator from North Dakota?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
  I really do not. I really do not understand the logic of waiting. We 
could take action today, action that is paid for, and save money out of 
the TARP fund that is already oversubscribed. It is as clear as it can 
be, there are not sufficient funds in the TARP to do all that is being 
demanded of it. I do not know how anything makes more sense or is of a 
higher priority in an economic recovery program than to avert 
foreclosure. It ties directly to jobs because if a house is foreclosed 
on, all the houses in the neighborhood lose value. Then what happens? 
Then more homes are upside down.
  Already, one in every four or one in every five homes in America is 
upside down. They owe more than the house is worth. If more houses go 
through foreclosure, more homes lose value, more people start not to 
make their payments, the banks have less capital, they are less able to 
lend, businesses are less able to carry on their activity, more jobs 
are lost, and more foreclosure occurs.
  The critical thing is to break the chain. That is the opportunity 
this amendment presents.
  Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, acting now or acting later--
assuming we vote on this amendment offered by my friends from South 
Carolina and North Dakota, within minutes after that, I will be 
offering the amendment that would require that the $50 billion come out 
of the TARP money. I do not know what delay we are talking about.
  We are promoting the same piece of legislation. The money has already 
been appropriated to deal TARP, so it is there. So the question is not 
about

[[Page 3133]]

delaying one in favor of the other. The question is, Which pot do you 
want to draw from?
  This is sort of a disconnect amendment. We were debating a stimulus 
package, I thought. Maybe we are not. I know there is some debate about 
that in the Chamber.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I hate to do this because I hate it when 
people do it to me, but I just want to ask a question, if I could.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague for a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields.
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I think the Banking Committee chairman has a major 
dilemma on his hands, at no fault of his own. If I thought $310 billion 
would do it, I would not be here. I think you are going to need more 
money, and if you take 50 out of the TARP, you are going to have 
whatever the math is left, and that is still not enough.
  So what we are trying to do is get money for housing and taking it 
out of a bill that I think has a lot of room to be offset. I am trying 
to help, not hurt. I think you are going to need both.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of my colleague. I 
only have 1 minute. I have not been directly involved in the Finance or 
Appropriations Committees, but I have listened to the debate over the 
last several days, and I think the debate is this: Is this bill a 
stimulus bill? If it is a stimulus bill, we are talking about job 
creation. Is it a foreclosure bill? Maybe we changed the debate. If it 
is a foreclosure debate, I thought I was on something else. So if we 
want to talk about putting people to work and simultaneously now we are 
going to take $23 billion out of the stimulus bill and put it in 
foreclosure mitigation, it seems to me this is a different debate.
  I would just say to my colleagues as someone who has chairmanship 
with jurisdiction over TARP at this point: No, the money has not been 
allocated. In fact, we have the Secretary of the Treasury coming to our 
committee on Tuesday to describe exactly what their intentions are with 
the $310 billion to $350 billion, and I don't know what it is yet.
  This much I will tell you. I went through all the debate and the 
discussion last fall with the previous administration, and we as a body 
said: We want you to do three or four things with that money, one of 
which is foreclosure mitigation. I got the commitments, all the 
handshakes, and not a nickel of it was spent on it. I am assuming this 
new crowd may be a bit different on that subject matter. But if you 
were to ask me whether I have a commitment that any of that $310 
billion or $350 billion is going to be spent on housing, my answer is I 
don't know.
  I have an amendment with Senator Martinez and Senator Reid in a 
minute that mandates that $50 billion go to foreclosure mitigation out 
of the TARP funds. No debate any longer, you have to do it. You know, 
burn me once, burn me twice--we all know the expression. So I am not 
going to run the risk of watching another TARP come along and end up 
going to Citi and Bank of America and everyone else and nothing 
happening on foreclosure mitigation.
  So it is a choice we have to make. We have a stimulus bill to do 
something about job creation. That is the debate over the last week. 
Many of my colleagues on the other side have raised issues about 
whether we are spending money to actually create jobs in the country. 
That is a legitimate debate. But you can't on the one hand complain 
about this bill because it doesn't create jobs and then offer a $24 
billion amendment that doesn't do anything about jobs. It deals with 
foreclosure.
  Now, if you are going to take $75 billion and dedicate it to a 
subject matter that can be handled with a lot less, that is a waste of 
money. So it is a matter of choices. We are bypassing each other. The 
debate is about stimulus.
  Now, $16 billion, $17 billion of the money comes out of one fund for 
States. My colleagues ought to look at this. There is a lot of other 
spending. I am not going to pretend to understand this; I don't serve 
on the committee. I respect those who think some of this is unnecessary 
spending. But $17 billion going back to the States for job creation, I 
would remind my colleagues, is what they cut out of the bill if this 
amendment is adopted. I suspect the States all across this country may 
be counting on some of that for job creation, maybe not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Equally divided.
  Mr. DODD. Well, then 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. We are going round and round on this, but I find this 
debate--again, I want to make the point that I am grateful to both of 
my colleagues for raising the issue of foreclosures in housing. I find 
myself somewhat at cross-purposes because, on the one hand I agree with 
what they are trying to do; on the other hand--I say this 
respectfully--I think we are undermining our cause by approaching it 
this way. We are diminishing the effect of the stimulus bill by doing 
something on housing, which is a legitimate issue but is not the 
subject of the debate of the underlying bill, and we are simultaneously 
potentially denying our opportunity to mandate that this new 
administration dedicate resources within the TARP to deal exactly with 
the underlying cause of the economic crisis.
  So that is the real choice involved. Again, I say it is an awkward 
debate and argument. I know Senator Inouye and others wish to be heard 
on these appropriations issues and, particularly, I suspect the $16 
billion to the States. I will let my colleagues make that case. I know 
Senator Inouye would like some time on that to address that issue. But 
that is the real point in a sense. I have listened to my colleagues say 
this bill is loaded up with things that don't effect job creation, and 
I would say, respectfully, by insisting upon foreclosure mitigation in 
this bill, it seems to me we are just contributing to the very 
arguments being made about the underlying criticism of the legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, there are very few Members for whom I have 
higher regard or greater affection than the Senator from Connecticut. 
So I say that I could not more profoundly disagree when I hear him say 
foreclosure mitigation has nothing to do with jobs.
  Why is this economy in free fall? Well, one central reason is the 
housing crisis. Foreclosures are a symptom of the underlying disease, 
and if you don't treat it, this body is getting sicker and sicker and 
sicker. The Senator offers as an alternative to take $50 billion out of 
the existing TARP fund. The problem is the existing TARP fund doesn't 
have enough money for the purpose for which it was created, which was 
to deal with the fiscal crisis.
  So this has everything to do with economic recovery. It has 
everything to do with jobs. It has everything to do with strengthening 
the economy. I know Senator Graham is seeking recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Connecticut has 
asked a very good question. What are we doing here? Are we trying to 
spend TARP money? Well, apparently we are going to do that next. I 
thought we were stimulating the economy.
  The President said this is a spending bill. Well, all spending 
doesn't stimulate the economy: $400 million for sexually transmitted 
disease research and $75 million to get people to quit smoking--those 
things don't stimulate the economy in the near term. They may be very 
worthwhile. You have issues with TARP. I didn't think we were going to 
come over here and divide TARP. I am with you, Senator Dodd, I don't 
think you have enough money.
  What I want to do with my colleague from North Dakota is to let the 
body

[[Page 3134]]

know we are spending a lot of money--more than any American can 
appreciate--on things that don't stimulate the economy. If you want to 
get our economy back on its feet, take some of the money we are going 
to waste in this bill and put it into a program that will save 1.5 
million people from foreclosure. I think it is smart to do that now. I 
think it is smart to look at TARP and maybe grow the fund if it is 
necessary.
  That is the point. This bill has lost focus. For one person it is 
spending. For the other person it is rearranging TARP. For us it is 
trying to save housing. I don't think we know what we are doing. I 
think we need to understand we don't have enough money in TARP to fix 
America's problems with housing and banking, and every dollar we waste 
here and what we are taking out of this bill is purely waste, in my 
opinion.
  To help housing is smart. If you don't think it is smart, vote no. I 
will respect you. But this whole process has gotten out of hand.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to remind my colleagues there 
are a number of Senators waiting to propose amendments, and I think 
this amendment has been very much debated. I look forward to Senator 
Bunning and Senator Grassley and other Senators who are waiting to 
present amendments.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona is absolutely 
correct. It has been a good debate we have had on the Dodd-Conrad-
Graham issue.
  The next amendment that can be called up on the list would be on the 
Republican side of the aisle. I don't know who wants to call up his 
amendment next, but someone on the Republican side of the aisle should 
do so, and I am hoping perhaps we could enter into some kind of time 
agreement.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, 5 minutes for me.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Say 10 minutes equally divided; is that all right?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, which 
amendment are we talking about?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Grassley No. 297. There would be a time limit for debate 
only, no vote on the amendment.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. How much time?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Ten minutes equally divided has been the suggestion.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Could we move that to 20 minutes equally divided?
  Mr. BAUCUS. We could, equally divided.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would just as soon leave it at 5 
minutes because we have all of these other colleagues. We just spent an 
hour on one amendment, and we have plenty of people on both sides of 
the aisle. I think we ought to be tolerant toward our colleagues and 
make this debate very short. If you want me to do it in 4 minutes, I 
will do it in 4 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate that, but unfortunately there are Senators 
on this side of the aisle who want to speak in opposition, and the 
total time they want to use is more than 4 minutes. I will hold it to 
20 minutes equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, I think 5 minutes on this 
side and 10 minutes on your side.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate that, but if we don't get an agreement, it 
is going to be longer. So discretion being the better part of valor, I 
suggest 20 minutes equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.


                 Amendment No. 297 to Amendment No. 98

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, amendment No. 297 is an FMAP amendment. 
This amendment is about $2.3 billion of the $87 billion that is in this 
bill for Medicare. There will be no less money spent in Medicare 
overall. It will still be $87 billion. We are talking about the $87 
billion and the formula as to how it is divided.
  Let me ask my colleagues a question: If Congress is going to give 
States $87 billion in Medicaid funds, shouldn't the formula be fair? 
The exceedingly complex formula in this bill is simply not fair to 
certain States. It is not fair to States with low unemployment rates or 
States that have not seen the recession hit full force yet, and for 
those States where the recession hasn't hit, it is just around the 
corner. For instance, in the Midwest agricultural areas, we tend to be 
countercyclical. We tend to be lagging when we hit recession. Yet we 
will be coming along into recession when the other parts of the country 
are recovering.
  Now, those States I just mentioned that have low unemployment, as an 
example, will see less of the $87 billion than other States. My 
amendment gives each State a flat 9.5-percent increase in their FMAP 
payments, and the States can choose which 9 consecutive quarters in any 
11-quarter period best fits the economic needs of their State. That is 
a better, more fair way to spend the $87 billion.
  This amendment is budget neutral. According to data provided by the 
Government Accountability Office, my amendment redistributes about $2.3 
billion of FMAP spending in the bill. Almost 75 percent of that 
redistribution comes from four States: California, Illinois, 
Massachusetts, and New York. With a redistribution, nearly 75 percent 
of which comes from four States, 34 States will receive more Medicaid 
FMAP funds under this amendment.
  If Congress is going to spend $87 billion on States through Medicaid 
FMAP, I believe we have to do it more fairly.
  I wish to quickly run through the States that will do better so you 
can decide if you want your State to have more money or less money. 
More money will go to Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, the District 
of Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, 
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, 
New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, 
Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, 
Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
  Before I yield the floor and reserve my time, under the unanimous 
consent agreement that has been entered into, I call up my amendment 
No. 297 and make it pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 297.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide the same temporary increase in the FMAP for all 
States and to permit States to choose the period through June 2011 for 
                        receiving the increase)

       Beginning on page 714, strike line 1 and all that follows 
     through page 725, line 14, and insert the following:

     SEC. 5001. TEMPORARY INCREASE OF MEDICAID FMAP.

       (a) Permitting Maintenance of Fmap.--Subject to subsections 
     (d), (e), (f), and (g) if the FMAP determined without regard 
     to this section for a State for--
       (1) fiscal year 2009 is less than the FMAP as so determined 
     for fiscal year 2008, the FMAP for the State for fiscal year 
     2008 shall be substituted for the State's FMAP for fiscal 
     year 2009, before the application of this section;
       (2) fiscal year 2010 is less than the FMAP as so determined 
     for fiscal year 2008 or fiscal year 2009 (after the 
     application of paragraph (1)), the greater of such FMAP for 
     the State for fiscal year 2008 or fiscal year 2009 shall be 
     substituted for the State's FMAP for fiscal year 2010, before 
     the application of this section; and
       (3) fiscal year 2011 is less than the FMAP as so determined 
     for fiscal year 2008, fiscal year 2009 (after the application 
     of paragraph (1)), or fiscal year 2010 (after the application 
     of paragraph (2)), the greatest of such FMAP for the State 
     for fiscal year 2008, fiscal year 2009, or fiscal year 2010 
     shall be substituted for the State's FMAP for fiscal year 
     2011, before the application of this section, but only for 
     the first, second, and third calendar quarters in fiscal year 
     2011.
       (b) General 9.5 Percentage Point Increase.--Subject to 
     subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g), for each State for 
     calendar quarters during the recession adjustment period (as 
     defined in subsection (h)(2)), the FMAP (after the 
     application of subsection (a)) shall be increased (without 
     regard to any limitation otherwise specified in section 
     1905(b) of the Social Security Act) by 9.5 percentage points.
       (c) Increase in Cap on Medicaid Payments to Territories.--
     Subject to subsections (e),

[[Page 3135]]

     (f), and (g), with respect to entire fiscal years occurring 
     during the recession adjustment period and with respect to 
     fiscal years only a portion of which occurs during such 
     period (and in proportion to the portion of the fiscal year 
     that occurs during such period), the amounts otherwise 
     determined for Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the 
     Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa under 
     subsections (f) and (g) of section 1108 of the Social 
     Security Act (42 6 U.S.C. 1308) shall each be increased by 
     9.5 percent.
       (d) Scope of Application.--The increases in the FMAP for a 
     State under this section shall apply for purposes of title 
     XIX of the Social Security Act and shall not apply with 
     respect to--
       (1) disproportionate share hospital payments described in 
     section 1923 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-4);
       (2) payments under title IV of such Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et 
     seq.) (except that the increases under subsections (a) and 
     (b) shall apply to payments under part E of title IV of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 670 et seq.));
       (3) payments under title XXI of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1397aa 
     et seq.);
       (4) any payments under title XIX of such Act that are based 
     on the enhanced FMAP described in section 2105(b) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(b)); or
       (5) any payments under title XIX of such Act that are 
     attributable to expenditures for medical assistance provided 
     to individuals made eligible under a State plan under title 
     XIX of the Social Security Act (including under any waiver 
     under such title or under section 1115 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1315)) because of income standards (expressed as a percentage 
     of the poverty line) for eligibility for medical assistance 
     that are higher than the income standards (as so expressed) 
     for such eligibility as in effect on July 1, 2008.
       (e) State Ineligibility.--
       (1) Maintenance of eligibility requirements.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), a 
     State is not eligible for an increase in its FMAP under 
     subsection (a) or (b), or an increase in a cap amount under 
     subsection (c), if eligibility standards, methodologies, or 
     procedures under its State plan under title XIX of the Social 
     Security Act (including any waiver under such title or under 
     section 1115 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1315)) are more 
     restrictive than the eligibility standards, methodologies, or 
     procedures, respectively, under such plan (or waiver) as in 
     effect on July 1, 2008.
       (B) State reinstatement of eligibility permitted.--Subject 
     to subparagraph (C), a State that has restricted eligibility 
     standards, methodologies, or procedures under its State plan 
     under title XIX of the Social Security Act (including any 
     waiver under such title or under section 1115 of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1315)) after July 1, 2008, is no longer ineligible 
     under subparagraph (A) beginning with the first calendar 
     quarter in which the State has reinstated eligibility 
     standards, methodologies, or procedures that are no more 
     restrictive than the eligibility standards, methodologies, or 
     procedures, respectively, under such plan (or waiver) as in 
     effect on July 1, 2008.
       (C) Special rules.--A State shall not be ineligible under 
     subparagraph (A)--
       (i) for the calendar quarters before July 1, 2009, on the 
     basis of a restriction that was applied after July 1, 2008, 
     and before the date of the enactment of this Act, if the 
     State prior to July 1, 2009, has reinstated eligibility 
     standards, methodologies, or procedures that are no more 
     restrictive than the eligibility standards, methodologies, or 
     procedures, respectively, under such plan (or waiver) as in 
     effect on July 1, 2008; or
       (ii) on the basis of a restriction that was directed to be 
     made under State law as of July 1, 2008, and would have been 
     in effect as of such date, but for a delay in the request 
     for, and approval of, a waiver under section 1115 of such Act 
     with respect to such restriction.
       (2) Compliance with prompt pay requirements.--No State 
     shall be eligible for an increased FMAP rate as provided 
     under this section for any claim submitted by a provider 
     subject to the terms of section 1902(a)(37)(A) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(37)(A)) during any period in 
     which that State has failed to pay claims in accordance with 
     section 1902(a)(37)(A) of such Act. Each State shall report 
     to the Secretary, no later than 30 days following the 1st day 
     of the month, its compliance with the requirements of section 
     1902(a)(37)(A) of the Social Security Act as they pertain to 
     claims made for covered services during the preceding month.
       (3) No waiver authority.--The Secretary may not waive the 
     application of this subsection or subsection (f) under 
     section 1115 of the Social Security Act or otherwise.
       (f) Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--A State may not deposit or credit the 
     additional Federal funds paid to the State as a result of 
     this section to any reserve or rainy day fund maintained by 
     the State.
       (2) State reports.--Each State that is paid additional 
     Federal funds as a result of this section shall, not later 
     than September 30, 2011, submit a report to the Secretary, in 
     such form and such manner as the Secretary shall determine, 
     regarding how the additional Federal funds were expended.
       (3) Additional requirement for certain states.--In the case 
     of a State that requires political subdivisions within the 
     State to contribute toward the non-Federal share of 
     expenditures under the State Medicaid plan required under 
     section 1902(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396a(a)(2)), the State is not eligible for an increase in 
     its FMAP under subsection (b), or an increase in a cap amount 
     under subsection (c), if it requires that such political 
     subdivisions pay for quarters during the recession adjustment 
     period a greater percentage of the non-Federal share of such 
     expenditures, or a greater percentage of the non-Federal 
     share of payments under section 1923, than the respective 
     percentage that would have been required by the State under 
     such plan on September 30, 2008, prior to application of this 
     section.
       (g) State Selection of Recession Adjustment Relief 
     Period.--The increase in a State's FMAP under subsection (a) 
     or (b), or an increase in a State's cap amount under 
     subsection (c), shall only apply to the State for 9 
     consecutive calendar quarters during the recession adjustment 
     period. Each State shall notify the Secretary of the 9-
     calendar quarter period for which the State elects to receive 
     such increase.
       (h) Definitions.--In this section, except as otherwise 
     provided:
       (1) FMAP.--The term ``FMAP'' means the Federal medical 
     assistance percentage, as defined in section 1905(b) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)), as determined 
     without regard to this section except as otherwise specified.
       (2) Poverty line.--The term ``poverty line'' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 673(2) of the Community 
     Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)), including any 
     revision required by such section.
       (3) Recession adjustment period.--The term ``recession 
     adjustment period'' means the period beginning on October 1, 
     2008, and ending on June 20, 2011.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.
       (5) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given such 
     term for purposes of title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396 et seq.).
       (i) Sunset.--This section shall not apply to items and 
     services furnished after the end of the recession adjustment 
     period.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I wish to submit a question to the 
Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield, Mr. President.
  Mr. BUNNING. I ask Senator Grassley, is it accurate to say that my 
State of Kentucky will get an additional $92 million in Medicare funds 
if the Senator's amendment passes; if the amendment fails, that money 
would go to California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes, from the figures I have, the Senator is absolutely 
right. That number is that amount.
  Mr. BUNNING. Thank you very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from West 
Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I first would point out that in the 
Grassley amendment the amount of Medicaid money--not Medicare money but 
Medicaid--is not affected. What is affected and what is at stake is the 
formula.
  Do you give it across the board to every State equally or do you give 
the majority of it across the board but you keep a part of it, which 
goes to States that are particularly distressed?
  In 2006, the GAO issued a report that said two major things: 1, the 
best measure of Medicaid distress is unemployment; 2, it is more 
efficient to target funding to States with the greatest need. That is a 
fact. We all know that.
  This bill accomplishes those very clear recommendations made by the 
GAO. It ties Medicaid relief to unemployment and it targets relief to 
States that need it the most.
  The Grassley amendment would make Medicaid relief less efficient and 
prolong the budget woes in States experiencing the greatest economic 
distress. I think it is a matter of fairness and not complicated. It 
doesn't attack the integrity of the Medicaid Program itself.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Grassley amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

[[Page 3136]]


  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to 
Senator Grassley's amendment, which removes the targeted assistance for 
the temporary increase in Federal Medicaid funding contained in this 
bill.
  It is well established that Medicaid enrollment increases in direct 
relation to unemployment growth. For every percentage increase in 
unemployment, States see an additional 1 million people seeking 
Medicaid assistance. I find it deeply troubling that at a point when 
health care is most needed, Minnesota and other States will not be 
given the assistance the situation demands.
  By eliminating the portion of assistance that is targeted based on 
States' unemployment rates, Senator Grassley's amendment would 
significantly reduce assistance for States facing the largest increases 
in their unemployment rates and the largest budget deficits.
  Instead of providing aid to those who need it most, his amendment 
provides relief for States that are, in some cases, even enjoying a 
budget surplus. Nineteen of the 20 States facing the smallest increase 
in unemployment would get more assistance under this amendment. Is that 
an effective use of Federal money? At a time when we should be focusing 
all our efforts on ways we can best spend taxpayer dollars, sending aid 
to States that have less need doesn't make sense.
  I ask my colleagues to consider this. This is about accountability to 
the people of this country. This is about targeted assistance. We have 
heard a lot about targeting spending, putting spending where we need 
it. This is also about targeted assistance to the States that need it 
most.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New 
Jersey.
  The Presiding officer. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in very strong opposition to this 
amendment. It is interesting--I guess the arguments for and against 
this bill move, depending upon your point of view, especially those who 
are against the bill overall. They have certain standards, and then 
they obliterate those standards when it doesn't work for them. For 
example, targeting. What does the Government Accountability Office say? 
They say targeting is important.
  According to a letter from the GAO--Members of Congress implied that 
it is more efficient to target funding to States with what? Greater 
need. That larger amounts of funding are needed to get the same 
stimulative effect if an across-the-board approach is used. With less 
targeting, more funding goes to States with less need; less funding 
goes to States that need it the most. So much for it being targeted. 
The Government Accountability Office says targeting means you want to 
do it the way that was devised originally--by the way, this came over 
from the House with a 50/50 proposition. Then the chairman of the 
Finance Committee said, well, let's try to work that out in a more 
conciliatory way and put it at 60/40. Amendments were offered that made 
it 80/20. We are talking about States that have higher unemployment, 
more people who don't have a job, who cannot put food on the table, and 
at the end of the day find themselves in desperate need. So States with 
higher unemployment clearly have a greater need for assistance. The 
higher the State's unemployment, the more people qualify for Medicaid 
and the less revenue a State has to pay for those increased Medicaid 
rolls.
  Therefore, increases in unemployment, which is where the underlying 
bill is, and was even in a greater way, is the recognition. It is not 
about just spreading the wealth across the process and, more 
importantly, spreading the amount of taxpayer money across the process; 
this is about targeting where greater numbers of people are unemployed. 
States like my own that have high percentages of unemployment, would be 
happy to give you the unemployment in your States and not realize it in 
our States at higher levels. But it seems to me the way this is being 
pursued--this particular amendment--by eliminating targeting, that 
reduces assistance to the States with the worst economic problems and 
thus the greatest need for relief.
  So by eliminating the portion of assistance targeted based on a 
State's unemployment rates, the amendment significantly reduces 
assistance for States facing the largest increases in their 
unemployment rate. That doesn't make sense. In addition, this 
amendment, at a time in which we are saying we want it to be 
stimulative--and I have heard arguments on how the money doesn't get 
out there quickly enough--well, this amendment permits the States to 
delay by 6 months, potentially reducing the stimulative effect of this 
portion of the legislation.
  Finally, 19 of the 20 States facing the smallest increase in 
unemployment would get more assistance under this amendment--a little 
counterintuitive. If the State has more unemployment, it would get less 
money. For all of those reasons, and because this is already 
dramatically shifted in the way my colleague from Iowa wants, this 
amendment should be defeated both in the Nation's interest, in the 
pursuit of targeted and stimulative and, at the same time, basic 
fairness.
  I reserve whatever time I have remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am going to tell the Senator from New 
Jersey that I agree with him totally on part of the money that is in 
this $87 billion. He is absolutely right on his argument for $10.8 
billion of the money that is in there. That is the money we have had 
the CBO say is going to be spent for Medicaid for the unemployed. But 
what about the other $75 billion or $76 billion? We don't apologize for 
it somehow. It is a slush fund to States.
  There is no rationale for that part of the money to go out under the 
same circumstances as the result of the recession--the fact that people 
are going to need more medical care. I ask him to consider that the 
Senator is right for a small part of this $87 billion--$10.8 billion of 
it--but wrong about the remaining amount of it. So that is why I have 
my amendment as a matter of fairness for money being distributed to the 
States, unrelated to unemployment, or medical care that is needed 
because of unemployment.
  I want to spend my few minutes telling you what States benefit: 
Alabama, $41 million; Alaska, $45 million; Arizona, $58 million; 
Arkansas, $99 million; District of Columbia, $43 million; Georgia, $31 
million; Idaho, $16 million; Indiana, $29 million; Iowa, $128 million; 
Kansas, $61 million; Kentucky, $92 million; Louisiana, $158 million; 
Maine, $23 million; Maryland, $1 million; Mississippi, $102 million; 
Missouri, $51 million; Montana, $25 million; Nebraska, $52 million; New 
Hampshire, $22 million; New Mexico, $86 million; North Carolina, $54 
million; North Dakota, $25 million; Ohio, $78 million; Oklahoma, $86 
million; Oregon, $4 million; South Carolina, $47 million; South Dakota, 
$24 million; Tennessee, $32 million; Texas, $547 million; Utah, $59 
million; Vermont, $2 million; West Virginia, $86 million; Wisconsin, 
$55 million; Wyoming, $13 million.
  I think what we are talking about here is a matter of fairness for 
those States--for the portion of the FMAP that doesn't need to be 
needed except for medical care for the unemployed. The part going to 
States under the FMAP formula needs a more fair distribution.
  I will yield back my time.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I reserved the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Then I will not yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.

[[Page 3137]]


  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I appreciate what my distinguished 
colleague from Iowa is trying to do--bring more money to his State. The 
question is whether it is fundamentally fair. The answer is no.
  Let me tell you the States that will get hit pretty badly here: 
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, 
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, 
Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington, to name a few.
  The fundamental question is whether we are going to live to this 
credo of whether targeted is important or whether timely is important. 
Well, we have the Government Accountability Office saying that the way 
we are doing it--the way that would be undone by the Senator from Iowa 
would undo the targeted; it would undo the ability to have the greatest 
impact to be stimulative. In essence, it would hurt States that have 
the greatest need. We are one country. I often have voted for issues 
that have very little benefit for my State, but I understand that at a 
given moment in time, they are in the greatest interest of the country. 
Agriculture is one example, and there are others. The bottom line is 
that we have rising numbers of people, higher unemployment rates, more 
demand on Medicaid, and less opportunity for individuals to be able to 
get the resources in States that are already cash strapped. I have 
listened to moral hazard. There has been no talk about that. We want to 
teach the States a lesson now. There was no talk about moral hazard 
when the regulators were asleep at the switch and Wall Street was 
getting billions. You want to teach States a lesson now? You are going 
to hurt people. This amendment will hurt people who otherwise would 
have resources under the bill that have already been adjusted to give 
States such as my colleagues' more research.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, GAO's argument about targeting applies 
to decreases in Medicaid due to the recession. This isn't about 
targeting. This is seven times more than is needed for Medicaid. I will 
agree to targeting for that $10.8 billion. The rest should be more 
fairly targeted.
  This amendment should be a simple vote. The complex funding formula 
for spending the $87 billion in Medicare in this bill is not fair. It 
should be a flat increase to all States.
  That is what my amendment does. Thirty-four States do better with the 
formula under my amendment. So you can vote to give your State its fair 
share or, if you vote against it, you are voting not to give them that 
fair share.
  I yield the floor. As long as the other side's time is used up, I 
yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in the spirit of agreement, there will now 
be an amendment on the Democratic side. I suggest Senator Cantwell be 
recognized for the purpose of calling up her amendment. I ask the 
Senator to agree to a time agreement of 10 minutes equally divided. I 
think it is going to be accepted.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Five minutes equally.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Ten minutes equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


          Amendment No. 274, as Modified, to Amendment No. 98

  Ms. CANTWELL. I call up amendment No. 274, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Ms. Cantwell], for herself, 
     Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Carper, Mr. Schumer and Mr. Hatch, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 274, as modified, to amendment No. 98.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To improve provisions relating to energy tax incentives and 
 provisions relating manufacturing tax incentives for energy property)

       On page 457, line 15, strike ``Section'' and insert the 
     following:
       (a) In General.--Section
       On page 457, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       (b) Clarification With Respect to Green Community 
     Programs.--Clause (ii) of section 54D(f)(1)(A) is amended by 
     inserting ``(including the use of loans, grants, or other 
     repayment mechanisms to implement such programs)'' after 
     ``green community programs''.
       Beginning on page 457, line 18, strike all through page 
     458, line 16, and insert the following:

     SEC. 1121. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF CREDIT FOR 
                   NONBUSINESS ENERGY PROPERTY.

       (a) In General.--Section 25C is amended by striking 
     subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the following new 
     subsections:
       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual, 
     there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by 
     this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to 30 
     percent of the sum of--
       ``(1) the amount paid or incurred by the taxpayer during 
     such taxable year for qualified energy efficiency 
     improvements, and
       ``(2) the amount of the residential energy property 
     expenditures paid or incurred by the taxpayer during such 
     taxable year.
       ``(b) Limitation.--The aggregate amount of the credits 
     allowed under this section for taxable years beginning in 
     2009 and 2010 with respect to any taxpayer shall not exceed 
     $1,500.''.
       (b) Modifications of Standards for Energy-Efficient 
     Building Property.--
       (1) Electric heat pumps.--Subparagraph (B) of section 
     25C(d)(3) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) an electric heat pump which achieves the highest 
     efficiency tier established by the Consortium for Energy 
     Efficiency, as in effect on January 1, 2009.''.
       (2) Central air conditioners.--Subparagraph (C) of section 
     25C(d)(3) is amended by striking ``2006'' and inserting 
     ``2009''.
       (3) Water heaters.--Subparagraph (D) of section 25C(d)(3) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(E) a natural gas, propane, or oil water heater which has 
     either an energy factor of at least 0.82 or a thermal 
     efficiency of at least 90 percent.''.
       (4) Wood stoves.--Subparagraph (E) of section 25C(d)(3) is 
     amended by inserting ``, as measured using a lower heating 
     value'' after ``75 percent''.
       (c) Modifications of Standards for Oil Furnaces and Hot 
     Water Boilers.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (4) of section 25C(d) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(4) Qualified natural gas, propane, and oil furnaces and 
     hot water boilers.--
       ``(A) Qualified natural gas furnace.--The term `qualified 
     natural gas furnace' means any natural gas furnace which 
     achieves an annual fuel utilization efficiency rate of not 
     less than 95.
       ``(B) Qualified natural gas hot water boiler.--The term 
     `qualified natural gas hot water boiler' means any natural 
     gas hot water boiler which achieves an annual fuel 
     utilization efficiency rate of not less than 90.
       ``(C) Qualified propane furnace.--The term `qualified 
     propane furnace' means any propane furnace which achieves an 
     annual fuel utilization efficiency rate of not less than 95.
       ``(D) Qualified propane hot water boiler.--The term 
     `qualified propane hot water boiler' means any propane hot 
     water boiler which achieves an annual fuel utilization 
     efficiency rate of not less than 90.
       ``(E) Qualified oil furnaces.--The term `qualified oil 
     furnace' means any oil furnace which achieves an annual fuel 
     utilization efficiency rate of not less than 90.
       ``(F) Qualified oil hot water boiler.--The term `qualified 
     oil hot water boiler' means any oil hot water boiler which 
     achieves an annual fuel utilization efficiency rate of not 
     less than 90.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Clause (ii) of section 
     25C(d)(2)(A) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(ii) any qualified natural gas furnace, qualified propane 
     furnace, qualified oil furnace, qualified natural gas hot 
     water boiler, qualified propane hot water boiler, or 
     qualified oil hot water boiler, or''.
       (d) Modifications of Standards for Qualified Energy 
     Efficiency Improvements.--
       (1) Qualifications for exterior windows, doors, and 
     skylights.--Subsection (c) of section 25C is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Qualifications for exterior windows, doors, and 
     skylights.--Such term shall not include any component 
     described in subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (2) unless 
     such component is equal to or below a U factor of 0.30 and 
     SHGC of 0.30.''.
       (2) Additional qualification for insulation.--Subparagraph 
     (A) of section 25C(c)(2) is amended by inserting ``and meets 
     the prescriptive criteria for such material or system 
     established by the 2009 International Energy Conservation 
     Code, as such Code (including supplements) is in effect on 
     the date of the enactment of the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009'' after ``such dwelling unit''.
       (e) Extension.--Section 25C(g)(2) is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December 31, 2010''.
       (f) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2008.

[[Page 3138]]

       (2) Efficiency standards.--The amendments made by 
     paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (b) and 
     subsections (c) and (d) shall apply to property placed in 
     service after December 31, 2009.

       On page 461, strike lines 8 to 10 and insert the following:
       (b) Ensuring Consumer Accessibility to Alternative Fuel 
     Vehicle Refueling Property in the Case of Electricity.--
     Section 179(d)(3) is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(B) for the recharging of motor vehicles propelled by 
     electricity, but only if--
       ``(i) the property complies with the Society of Automotive 
     Engineers' connection standards,
       ``(ii) the property provides for non-restrictive access for 
     charging and for payment interoperability with other systems, 
     and
       ``(iii) the property--

       ``(I) is located on property owned by the taxpayer, or
       ``(II) is located on property owned by another person, is 
     placed in service with the permission of such other person, 
     and is fully maintained by the taxpayer.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2008.

     SEC. 1124. RECOVERY PERIOD FOR DEPRECIATION OF SMART METERS 
                   AND SMART GRID SYSTEMS.

       (a) 5-Year Recovery Period.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (B) of section 168(e)(3) is 
     amended by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (vi), by 
     striking the period at the end of clause (vii) and inserting 
     ``, and'', and by adding at the end the following new 
     clauses:
       ``(viii) any qualified smart electric meter, and
       ``(ix) any qualified smart electric grid system.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Subparagraph (D) of section 
     168(e)(3) is amended by inserting ``and'' at the end of 
     clause (i), by striking the comma at the end of clause (ii) 
     and inserting a period, and by striking clauses (iii) and 
     (iv).
       (b) Technical Amendments.--Paragraphs (18)(A)(ii) and 
     (19)(A)(ii) of section 168(i) are each amended by striking 
     ``16 years'' and inserting ``10 years''.
       (c) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to property 
     placed in service after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (2) Technical amendment.--The amendments made by subsection 
     (b) shall take effect as if included in section 306 of the 
     Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008.

       On page 467, strike lines 1 through 18, and insert the 
     following:

    PART VI--MODIFICATION OF CREDIT FOR CARBON DIOXIDE SEQUESTRATION

     SEC. 1151. APPLICATION OF MONITORING REQUIREMENTS TO CARBON 
                   DIOXIDE USED AS A TERTIARY INJECTANT.

       (a) In General.--Section 45Q(a)(2) is amended by striking 
     ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A), by striking the 
     period at the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting ``, 
     and'', and by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) disposed of by the taxpayer in secure geological 
     storage.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 45Q(d)(2) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``subsection (a)(1)(B)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (1)(B) or (2)(C) of subsection (a)'',
       (B) by striking ``and unminable coal seems'' and inserting 
     ``, oil and gas reservoirs, and unminable coal seams'', and
       (C) by inserting ``the Secretary of Energy, and the 
     Secretary of the Interior,'' after ``Environmental Protection 
     Agency''.
       (2) Section 45Q(e) is amended by striking ``captured and 
     disposed of or used as a tertiary injectant'' and inserting 
     ``taken into account in accordance with subsection (a)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to carbon dioxide captured after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

       Beginning on page 467, strike line 21 and all that follows 
     through page 470, line 23, and insert the following:

     SEC. 1161. MODIFICATION OF CREDIT FOR QUALIFIED PLUG-IN 
                   ELECTRIC MOTOR VEHICLES.

       (a) Increase in Vehicles Eligible for Credit.--Section 
     30D(b)(2)(B) is amended by striking ``250,000'' and inserting 
     ``500,000''.
       (b) Exclusion of Neighborhood Electric Vehicles From 
     Existing Credit.--Section 30D(e)(1) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(1) Motor vehicle.--The term `motor vehicle' means a 
     motor vehicle (as defined in section 30(c)(2)), which is 
     treated as a motor vehicle for purposes of title II of the 
     Clean Air Act.''.
       (c) Credit for Certain Other Vehicles.--Section 30D is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections 
     (g) and (h), respectively, and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(f) Credit for Certain Other Vehicles.--For purposes of 
     this section--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of a specified vehicle, this 
     section shall be applied with the following modifications:
       ``(A) For purposes of subsection (a)(1), in lieu of the 
     applicable amount determined under subsection (a)(2), the 
     applicable amount shall be 10 percent of so much of the cost 
     of the specified vehicle as does not exceed $40,000.
       ``(B) Subsection (b) shall not apply and no specified 
     vehicle shall be taken into account under subsection (b)(2).
       ``(C) In the case of a specified vehicle which is a 2- or 
     3-wheeled motor vehicle, subsection (c)(1) shall be applied 
     by substituting `2.5 kilowatt hours' for `4 kilowatt hours'.
       ``(D) In the case of a specified vehicle which is a low-
     speed motor vehicle, subsection (c)(3) shall not apply.
       ``(2) Specified vehicle.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `specified vehicle' means--
       ``(i) any 2- or 3-wheeled motor vehicle, or
       ``(ii) any low-speed motor vehicle,
     which is placed in service after December 31, 2009, and 
     before January 1, 2012.
       ``(B) 2- or 3-wheeled motor vehicle.--The term `2- or 3-
     wheeled motor vehicle' means any vehicle--
       ``(i) which would be described in section 30(c)(2) except 
     that it has 2 or 3 wheels,
       ``(ii) with motive power having a seat or saddle for the 
     use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than 3 
     wheels in contact with the ground,
       ``(iii) which has an electric motor that produces in excess 
     of 5-brake horsepower,
       ``(iv) which draws propulsion from 1 or more traction 
     batteries, and
       ``(v) which has been certified to the Department of 
     Transportation pursuant to section 567 of title 49, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, as conforming to all applicable Federal 
     motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of the 
     manufacture of the vehicle.
       ``(C) Low-speed motor vehicle.--The term `low-speed motor 
     vehicle' means a motor vehicle (as defined in section 
     30(c)(2)) which--
       ``(i) is placed in service after December 31, 2009, and
       ``(ii) meets the requirements of section 571.500 of title 
     49, Code of Federal Regulations.''.
       (d) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--The amendment made by subsections (a) and 
     (c) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (2) Other modifications.--The amendments made by subsection 
     (b) shall apply to property placed in service after December 
     31, 2009, in taxable years beginning after such date.

     SEC. 1162. CONVERSION KITS.

       (a) In General.--Section 30B (relating to alternative motor 
     vehicle credit) is amended by redesignating subsections (i) 
     and (j) as subsections (j) and (k), respectively, and by 
     inserting after subsection (h) the following new subsection:
       ``(i) Plug-In Conversion Credit.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the 
     plug-in conversion credit determined under this subsection 
     with respect to any motor vehicle which is converted to a 
     qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle is 10 percent 
     of so much of the cost of the converting such vehicle as does 
     not exceed $40,000.
       ``(2) Definitions and special rules.--For purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) Qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle.--The 
     term `qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle' means 
     any new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle (as 
     defined in section 30D(c), determined without regard to 
     paragraphs (4) and (6) thereof).
       ``(B) Plug-in traction battery module.--The term `plug-in 
     traction battery module' means an electro-chemical energy 
     storage device which--
       ``(i) which has a traction battery capacity of not less 
     than 2.5 kilowatt hours,
       ``(ii) which is equipped with an electrical plug by means 
     of which it can be energized and recharged when plugged into 
     an external source of electric power,
       ``(iii) which consists of a standardized configuration and 
     is mass produced,
       ``(iv) which has been tested and approved by the National 
     Highway Transportation Safety Administration as compliant 
     with applicable motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment 
     safety standards when installed by a mechanic with 
     standardized training in protocols established by the battery 
     manufacturer as part of a nationwide distribution program,
       ``(v) which complies with the requirements of section 32918 
     of title 49, United States Code, and
       ``(vi) which is certified by a battery manufacturer as 
     meeting the requirements of clauses (i) through (v).
       ``(C) Credit allowed to lessor of battery module.--In the 
     case of a plug-in traction battery module which is leased to 
     the taxpayer, the credit allowed under this subsection shall 
     be allowed to the lessor of the plug-in traction battery 
     module.
       ``(D) Credit allowed in addition to other credits.--The 
     credit allowed under this subsection shall be allowed with 
     respect to a motor vehicle notwithstanding whether a credit 
     has been allowed with respect to such motor vehicle under 
     this section (other than this subsection) in any preceding 
     taxable year.

[[Page 3139]]

       ``(3) Termination.--This subsection shall not apply to 
     conversions made after December 31, 2012.''.
       (b) Credit Treated as Part of Alternative Motor Vehicle 
     Credit.--Section 30B(a) is amended by striking ``and'' at the 
     end of paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end of 
     paragraph (4) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) the plug-in conversion credit determined under 
     subsection (i).''.
       (c) No Recapture for Vehicles Converted to Qualified Plug-
     in Electric Drive Motor Vehicles.--Paragraph (8) of section 
     30B(h) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``, 
     except that no benefit shall be recaptured if such property 
     ceases to be eligible for such credit by reason of conversion 
     to a qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service after December 31, 
     2008, in taxable years beginning after such date.

       Beginning on page 518, strike line 1 and all that follows 
     through page 521, line 23, and insert the following:
       ``(2) Certain qualified progress expenditures rules made 
     applicable.--Rules similar to the rules of subsections (c)(4) 
     and (d) of section 46 (as in effect on the day before the 
     enactment of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990) shall 
     apply for purposes of this section.
       ``(3) Limitation.--The amount which is treated for all 
     taxable years with respect to any qualifying advanced energy 
     project shall not exceed the amount designated by the 
     Secretary as eligible for the credit under this section.
       ``(c) Definitions.--
       ``(1) Qualifying advanced energy project.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualifying advanced energy 
     project' means a project--
       ``(i) which re-equips, expands, or establishes a 
     manufacturing facility for the production of property which 
     is--

       ``(I) designed to be used to produce energy from the sun, 
     wind, geothermal deposits (within the meaning of section 
     613(e)(2)), or other renewable resources,
       ``(II) designed to manufacture fuel cells, microturbines, 
     or an energy storage system for use with electric or hybrid-
     electric motor vehicles,
       ``(III) designed to manufacture electric grids to support 
     the transmission of intermittent sources of renewable energy, 
     including storage of such energy,
       ``(IV) designed to capture and sequester carbon dioxide 
     emissions,
       ``(V) designed to refine or blend renewable fuels or to 
     produce energy conservation technologies (including energy-
     conserving lighting technologies and smart grid 
     technologies), or
       ``(VI) other advanced energy property designed to reduce 
     greenhouse gas emissions as may be determined by the 
     Secretary, and

       ``(ii) any portion of the qualified investment of which is 
     certified by the Secretary under subsection (d) as eligible 
     for a credit under this section.
       ``(B) Exception.--Such term shall not include any portion 
     of a project for the production of any property which is used 
     in the refining or blending of any transportation fuel (other 
     than renewable fuels).
       ``(2) Eligible property.--The term `eligible property' 
     means any property which is part of a qualifying advanced 
     energy project and is necessary for the production of 
     property described in paragraph (1)(A)(i).
       ``(d) Qualifying Advanced Energy Project Program.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Energy, shall establish a qualifying 
     advanced energy project program to consider and award 
     certifications for qualified investments eligible for credits 
     under this section to qualifying advanced energy project 
     sponsors.
       ``(B) Limitation.--The total amount of credits that may be 
     allocated under the program shall not exceed $2,000,000,000.
       ``(2) Certification.--
       ``(A) Application period.--Each applicant for certification 
     under this paragraph shall submit an application containing 
     such information as the Secretary may require during the 3-
     year period beginning on the date the Secretary establishes 
     the program under paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Time to meet criteria for certification.--Each 
     applicant for certification shall have 2 years from the date 
     of acceptance by the Secretary of the application during 
     which to provide to the Secretary evidence that the 
     requirements of the certification have been met.
       ``(C) Period of issuance.--An applicant which receives a 
     certification shall have 5 years from the date of issuance of 
     the certification in order to place the project in service 
     and if such project is not placed in service by that time 
     period then the certification shall no longer be valid.
       ``(3) Selection criteria.--In determining which qualifying 
     advanced energy projects to certify under this section, the 
     Secretary--
       ``(A) shall take into consideration only those projects 
     where there is a reasonable expectation of commercial 
     viability, and
       ``(B) shall take into consideration which projects--
       ``(i) will provide the greatest domestic job creation (both 
     direct and indirect) during the credit period,
       ``(ii) will provide the greatest net impact in avoiding or 
     reducing air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of 
     greenhouse gases,
       ``(iii) have the greatest readiness for commercial 
     employment, replication, and further commercial use in the 
     United States,
       ``(iv) will provide the greatest benefit in terms of 
     newness in the commercial market,
       ``(v) have the lowest levelized cost of generated or stored 
     energy, or of measured reduction in energy consumption or 
     greenhouse gas emission (based on costs of the full supply 
     chain), and
       ``(vi) have the shortest project time from certification to 
     completion.

       On page 524, after line 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 1303. INCENTIVES FOR MANUFACTURING FACILITIES PRODUCING 
                   PLUG-IN ELECTRIC DRIVE MOTOR VEHICLES AND 
                   COMPONENTS.

       (a) Deduction for Manufacturing Facilities.--Part VI of 
     subchapter B of chapter 1 (relating to itemized deductions 
     for individuals and corporations) is amended by inserting 
     after section 179E the following new section:

     ``SEC. 179F. ELECTION TO EXPENSE MANUFACTURING FACILITIES 
                   PRODUCING PLUG-IN ELECTRIC DRIVE MOTOR VEHICLES 
                   AND COMPONENTS.

       ``(a) Treatment as Expenses.--A taxpayer may elect to treat 
     the applicable percentage of the cost of any qualified plug-
     in electric drive motor vehicle manufacturing facility 
     property as an expense which is not chargeable to a capital 
     account. Any cost so treated shall be allowed as a deduction 
     for the taxable year in which the qualified manufacturing 
     facility property is placed in service.
       ``(b) Applicable Percentage.--For purposes of subsection 
     (a), the applicable percentage is--
       ``(1) 100 percent, in the case of qualified plug-in 
     electric drive motor vehicle manufacturing facility property 
     which is placed in service before January 1, 2012, and
       ``(2) 50 percent, in the case of qualified plug-in electric 
     drive motor vehicle manufacturing facility property which is 
     placed in service after December 31, 2011, and before January 
     1, 2015.
       ``(c) Election.--
       ``(1) In general.--An election under this section for any 
     taxable year shall be made on the taxpayer's return of the 
     tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year. Such 
     election shall be made in such manner as the Secretary may by 
     regulations prescribe.
       ``(2) Election irrevocable.--Any election made under this 
     section may not be revoked except with the consent of the 
     Secretary.
       ``(d) Qualified Plug-In Electric Drive Motor Vehicle 
     Manufacturing Facility Property.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `qualified plug-in electric 
     drive motor vehicle manufacturing facility property' means 
     any qualified property--
       ``(A) the original use of which commences with the 
     taxpayer,
       ``(B) which is placed in service by the taxpayer after the 
     date of the enactment of this section and before January 1, 
     2015, and
       ``(C) no written binding contract for the construction of 
     which was in effect on or before the date of the enactment of 
     this section.
       ``(2) Qualified property.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified property' means any 
     property which is a facility or a portion of a facility used 
     for the production of--
       ``(i) any new qualified plug-in electric drive motor 
     vehicle (as defined by section 30D(c)), or
       ``(ii) any eligible component.
       ``(B) Eligible component.--The term `eligible component' 
     means any battery, any electric motor or generator, or any 
     power control unit which is designed specifically for use 
     with a new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle (as 
     so defined).
       ``(e) Special Rule for Dual Use Property.--In the case of 
     any qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle 
     manufacturing facility property which is used to produce both 
     qualified property and other property which is not qualified 
     property, the amount of costs taken into account under 
     subsection (a) shall be reduced by an amount equal to--
       ``(1) the total amount of such costs (determined before the 
     application of this subsection), multiplied by
       ``(2) the percentage of property expected to be produced 
     which is not qualified property.
       ``(f) Election to Receive Loan in Lieu of Deduction.--
       ``(1) In general.--If a taxpayer elects to have this 
     subsection apply for any taxable year--
       ``(A) subsection (a) shall not apply to any qualified plug-
     in electric drive motor vehicle manufacturing facility 
     property placed in service by the taxpayer,
       ``(B) such taxpayer shall receive a loan from the Secretary 
     in an amount and under such terms as provided in section 
     1303(b) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 
     2009, and

[[Page 3140]]

       ``(C) in the taxable year in which such qualified loan is 
     repaid, each of the limitations described in paragraph (2) 
     shall be increased by the qualified plug-in electric drive 
     motor vehicle manufacturing facility amount which is--
       ``(i) determined under paragraph (3), and
       ``(ii) allocated to such limitation under paragraph (4).
       ``(2) Limitations to be increased.--The limitations 
     described in this paragraph are--
       ``(A) the limitation imposed by section 38(c), and
       ``(B) the limitation imposed by section 53(c).
       ``(3) Qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle 
     manufacturing facility amount.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph--
       ``(A) In general.--The qualified plug-in electric drive 
     motor vehicle manufacturing facility amount is an amount 
     equal to the applicable percentage of any qualified plug-in 
     electric drive motor vehicle manufacturing facility which is 
     placed in service during the taxable year.
       ``(B) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), the applicable percentage is--
       ``(i) 35 percent, in the case of qualified plug-in electric 
     drive motor vehicle manufacturing facility property which is 
     placed in service before January 1, 2012, and
       ``(ii) 17.5 percent, in the case of qualified plug-in 
     electric drive motor vehicle manufacturing facility property 
     which is placed in service after December 31, 2011, and 
     before January 1, 2015.
       ``(C) Special rule for dual use property.--In the case of 
     any qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle 
     manufacturing facility property which is used to produce both 
     qualified property and other property which is not qualified 
     property, the amount of costs taken into account under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be reduced by an amount equal to--
       ``(i) the total amount of such costs (determined before the 
     application of this subparagraph), multiplied by
       ``(ii) the percentage of property expected to be produced 
     which is not qualified property.
       ``(4) Allocation of qualified plug-in electric drive motor 
     vehicle manufacturing facility amount.--The taxpayer shall, 
     at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may 
     prescribe, specify the portion (if any) of the qualified 
     plug-in electric drive motor vehicle manufacturing facility 
     amount for the taxable year which is to be allocated to each 
     of the limitations described in paragraph (2) for such 
     taxable year.
       ``(5) Election.--
       ``(A) In general.--An election under this subsection for 
     any taxable year shall be made on the taxpayer's return of 
     the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year. Such 
     election shall be made in such manner as the Secretary may by 
     regulations prescribe.
       ``(B) Election irrevocable.--Any election made under this 
     subsection may not be revoked except with the consent of the 
     Secretary.''.
       (b) Loan Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury (or the 
     Secretary's delegate) shall provide a loan to any person who 
     is allowed a deduction under section 179F of the Internal 
     Revenue Code and who makes an election under section 179F(f) 
     of such Code in an amount equal to the qualified plug-in 
     electric drive motor vehicle manufacturing facility amount 
     (as defined in such section 179F(f)).
       (2) Term.--Such loan shall be in the form of a senior note 
     issued by the taxpayer to the Secretary of the Treasury, 
     secured by the qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle 
     manufacturing facility property (as defined in section 179F 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) of the taxpayer, and 
     having a term of 20 years and interest payable at the 
     applicable Federal rate (as determined under section 1274(d) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).
       (3) Appropriations.--There is hereby appropriated to the 
     Secretary of the Treasury such sums as may be necessary to 
     carry out this subsection.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part VI 
     of subchapter B of chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 179F. Election to expense manufacturing facilities producing 
              plug-in electric drive motor vehicle and components.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.


                 Amendment No. 274, as Further Modified

  Ms. CANTWELL. I ask that the amendment be further modified with the 
changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 457, line 15, strike ``Section'' and insert the 
     following:
       (a) In General.--Section
       On page 457, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       (b) Clarification With Respect to Green Community 
     Programs.--Clause (ii) of section 54D(f)(1)(A) is amended by 
     inserting ``(including the use of loans, grants, or other 
     repayment mechanisms to implement such programs)'' after 
     ``green community programs''.
       Beginning on page 457, line 18, strike all through page 
     458, line 16, and insert the following:

     SEC. 1121. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF CREDIT FOR 
                   NONBUSINESS ENERGY PROPERTY.

       (a) In General.--Section 25C is amended by striking 
     subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the following new 
     subsections:
       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual, 
     there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by 
     this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to 30 
     percent of the sum of--
       ``(1) the amount paid or incurred by the taxpayer during 
     such taxable year for qualified energy efficiency 
     improvements, and
       ``(2) the amount of the residential energy property 
     expenditures paid or incurred by the taxpayer during such 
     taxable year.
       ``(b) Limitation.--The aggregate amount of the credits 
     allowed under this section for taxable years beginning in 
     2009 and 2010 with respect to any taxpayer shall not exceed 
     $1,500.''.
       (b) Modifications of Standards for Energy-Efficient 
     Building Property.--
       (1) Electric heat pumps.--Subparagraph (B) of section 
     25C(d)(3) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) an electric heat pump which achieves the highest 
     efficiency tier established by the Consortium for Energy 
     Efficiency, as in effect on January 1, 2009.''.
       (2) Central air conditioners.--Subparagraph (C) of section 
     25C(d)(3) is amended by striking ``2006'' and inserting 
     ``2009''.
       (3) Water heaters.--Subparagraph (D) of section 25C(d)(3) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(E) a natural gas, propane, or oil water heater which has 
     either an energy factor of at least 0.82 or a thermal 
     efficiency of at least 90 percent.''.
       (4) Wood stoves.--Subparagraph (E) of section 25C(d)(3) is 
     amended by inserting ``, as measured using a lower heating 
     value'' after ``75 percent''.
       (c) Modifications of Standards for Oil Furnaces and Hot 
     Water Boilers.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (4) of section 25C(d) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(4) Qualified natural gas, propane, and oil furnaces and 
     hot water boilers.--
       ``(A) Qualified natural gas furnace.--The term `qualified 
     natural gas furnace' means any natural gas furnace which 
     achieves an annual fuel utilization efficiency rate of not 
     less than 95.
       ``(B) Qualified natural gas hot water boiler.--The term 
     `qualified natural gas hot water boiler' means any natural 
     gas hot water boiler which achieves an annual fuel 
     utilization efficiency rate of not less than 90.
       ``(C) Qualified propane furnace.--The term `qualified 
     propane furnace' means any propane furnace which achieves an 
     annual fuel utilization efficiency rate of not less than 95.
       ``(D) Qualified propane hot water boiler.--The term 
     `qualified propane hot water boiler' means any propane hot 
     water boiler which achieves an annual fuel utilization 
     efficiency rate of not less than 90.
       ``(E) Qualified oil furnaces.--The term `qualified oil 
     furnace' means any oil furnace which achieves an annual fuel 
     utilization efficiency rate of not less than 90.
       ``(F) Qualified oil hot water boiler.--The term `qualified 
     oil hot water boiler' means any oil hot water boiler which 
     achieves an annual fuel utilization efficiency rate of not 
     less than 90.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Clause (ii) of section 
     25C(d)(2)(A) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(ii) any qualified natural gas furnace, qualified propane 
     furnace, qualified oil furnace, qualified natural gas hot 
     water boiler, qualified propane hot water boiler, or 
     qualified oil hot water boiler, or''.
       (d) Modifications of Standards for Qualified Energy 
     Efficiency Improvements.--
       (1) Qualifications for exterior windows, doors, and 
     skylights.--Subsection (c) of section 25C is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Qualifications for exterior windows, doors, and 
     skylights.--Such term shall not include any component 
     described in subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (2) unless 
     such component is equal to or below a U factor of 0.30 and 
     SHGC of 0.30.''.
       (2) Additional qualification for insulation.--Subparagraph 
     (A) of section 25C(c)(2) is amended by inserting ``and meets 
     the prescriptive criteria for such material or system 
     established by the 2009 International Energy Conservation 
     Code, as such Code (including supplements) is in effect on 
     the date of the enactment of the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009'' after ``such dwelling unit''.
       (e) Extension.--Section 25C(g)(2) is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December 31, 2010''.
       (f) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2008.

[[Page 3141]]

       (2) Efficiency standards.--The amendments made by 
     paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (b) and 
     subsections (c) and (d) shall apply to property placed in 
     service after December 31, 2009.
       On page 461, strike lines 8 to 10 and insert the following:
       (b) Ensuring Consumer Accessibility to Alternative Fuel 
     Vehicle Refueling Property in the Case of Electricity.--
     Section 179(d)(3) is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(B) for the recharging of motor vehicles propelled by 
     electricity, but only if--
       ``(i) the property complies with the Society of Automotive 
     Engineers' connection standards,
       ``(ii) the property provides for non-restrictive access for 
     charging and for payment interoperability with other systems, 
     and
       ``(iii) the property--

       ``(I) is located on property owned by the taxpayer, or
       ``(II) is located on property owned by another person, is 
     placed in service with the permission of such other person, 
     and is fully maintained by the taxpayer.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2008.

     SEC. 1124. RECOVERY PERIOD FOR DEPRECIATION OF SMART METERS.

       (a) Temporary 5-Year Recovery Period.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (B) of section 168(e)(3) is 
     amended by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (vi), by 
     striking the period at the end of clause (vii) and inserting 
     ``, and'', and by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(viii) any qualified smart electric meter which is placed 
     in service before January 1, 2011.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Clause (iii) of section 
     168(e)(3)(D) is amended by inserting ``which is placed in 
     service after December 31, 2010'' after ``electric meter''.
       (b) Technical Amendments.--Paragraphs (18)(A)(ii) and 
     (19)(A)(ii) of section 168(i) are each amended by striking 
     ``16 years'' and inserting ``10 years''.
       (c) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to property 
     placed in service after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (2) Technical amendment.--The amendments made by subsection 
     (b) shall take effect as if included in section 306 of the 
     Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008.
       On page 467, strike lines 1 through 18, and insert the 
     following:

    PART VI--MODIFICATION OF CREDIT FOR CARBON DIOXIDE SEQUESTRATION

     SEC. 1151. APPLICATION OF MONITORING REQUIREMENTS TO CARBON 
                   DIOXIDE USED AS A TERTIARY INJECTANT.

       (a) In General.--Section 45Q(a)(2) is amended by striking 
     ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A), by striking the 
     period at the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting ``, 
     and'', and by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) disposed of by the taxpayer in secure geological 
     storage.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 45Q(d)(2) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``subsection (a)(1)(B)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (1)(B) or (2)(C) of subsection (a)'',
       (B) by striking ``and unminable coal seems'' and inserting 
     ``, oil and gas reservoirs, and unminable coal seams'', and
       (C) by inserting ``the Secretary of Energy, and the 
     Secretary of the Interior,'' after ``Environmental Protection 
     Agency''.
       (2) Section 45Q(e) is amended by striking ``captured and 
     disposed of or used as a tertiary injectant'' and inserting 
     ``taken into account in accordance with subsection (a)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to carbon dioxide captured after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       Beginning on page 467, strike line 21 and all that follows 
     through page 470, line 23, and insert the following:

     SEC. 1161. MODIFICATION OF CREDIT FOR QUALIFIED PLUG-IN 
                   ELECTRIC MOTOR VEHICLES.

       (a) Increase in Vehicles Eligible for Credit.--Section 
     30D(b)(2)(B) is amended by striking ``250,000'' and inserting 
     ``500,000''.
       (b) Exclusion of Neighborhood Electric Vehicles From 
     Existing Credit.--Section 30D(e)(1) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(1) Motor vehicle.--The term `motor vehicle' means a 
     motor vehicle (as defined in section 30(c)(2)), which is 
     treated as a motor vehicle for purposes of title II of the 
     Clean Air Act.''.
       (c) Credit for Certain Other Vehicles.--Section 30D is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections 
     (g) and (h), respectively, and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(f) Credit for Certain Other Vehicles.--For purposes of 
     this section--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of a specified vehicle, this 
     section shall be applied with the following modifications:
       ``(A) For purposes of subsection (a)(1), in lieu of the 
     applicable amount determined under subsection (a)(2), the 
     applicable amount shall be 10 percent of so much of the cost 
     of the specified vehicle as does not exceed $40,000.
       ``(B) Subsection (b) shall not apply and no specified 
     vehicle shall be taken into account under subsection (b)(2).
       ``(C) In the case of a specified vehicle which is a 2- or 
     3-wheeled motor vehicle, subsection (c)(1) shall be applied 
     by substituting `2.5 kilowatt hours' for `4 kilowatt hours'.
       ``(D) In the case of a specified vehicle which is a low-
     speed motor vehicle, subsection (c)(3) shall not apply.
       ``(2) Specified vehicle.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `specified vehicle' means--
       ``(i) any 2- or 3-wheeled motor vehicle, or
       ``(ii) any low-speed motor vehicle,
     which is placed in service after December 31, 2009, and 
     before January 1, 2012.
       ``(B) 2- or 3-wheeled motor vehicle.--The term `2- or 3-
     wheeled motor vehicle' means any vehicle--
       ``(i) which would be described in section 30(c)(2) except 
     that it has 2 or 3 wheels,
       ``(ii) with motive power having a seat or saddle for the 
     use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than 3 
     wheels in contact with the ground,
       ``(iii) which has an electric motor that produces in excess 
     of 5-brake horsepower,
       ``(iv) which draws propulsion from 1 or more traction 
     batteries, and
       ``(v) which has been certified to the Department of 
     Transportation pursuant to section 567 of title 49, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, as conforming to all applicable Federal 
     motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of the 
     manufacture of the vehicle.
       ``(C) Low-speed motor vehicle.--The term `low-speed motor 
     vehicle' means a motor vehicle (as defined in section 
     30(c)(2)) which--
       ``(i) is placed in service after December 31, 2009, and
       ``(ii) meets the requirements of section 571.500 of title 
     49, Code of Federal Regulations.''.
       (d) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--The amendment made by subsections (a) and 
     (c) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (2) Other modifications.--The amendments made by subsection 
     (b) shall apply to property placed in service after December 
     31, 2009, in taxable years beginning after such date.

     SEC. 1162. CONVERSION KITS.

       (a) In General.--Section 30B (relating to alternative motor 
     vehicle credit) is amended by redesignating subsections (i) 
     and (j) as subsections (j) and (k), respectively, and by 
     inserting after subsection (h) the following new subsection:
       ``(i) Plug-In Conversion Credit.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the 
     plug-in conversion credit determined under this subsection 
     with respect to any motor vehicle which is converted to a 
     qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle is 10 percent 
     of so much of the cost of the converting such vehicle as does 
     not exceed $40,000.
       ``(2) Definitions and special rules.--For purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) Qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle.--The 
     term `qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle' means 
     any new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle (as 
     defined in section 30D(c), determined without regard to 
     paragraphs (4) and (6) thereof).
       ``(B) Plug-in traction battery module.--The term `plug-in 
     traction battery module' means an electro-chemical energy 
     storage device which--
       ``(i) which has a traction battery capacity of not less 
     than 2.5 kilowatt hours,
       ``(ii) which is equipped with an electrical plug by means 
     of which it can be energized and recharged when plugged into 
     an external source of electric power,
       ``(iii) which consists of a standardized configuration and 
     is mass produced,
       ``(iv) which has been tested and approved by the National 
     Highway Transportation Safety Administration as compliant 
     with applicable motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment 
     safety standards when installed by a mechanic with 
     standardized training in protocols established by the battery 
     manufacturer as part of a nationwide distribution program,
       ``(v) which complies with the requirements of section 32918 
     of title 49, United States Code, and
       ``(vi) which is certified by a battery manufacturer as 
     meeting the requirements of clauses (i) through (v).
       ``(C) Credit allowed to lessor of battery module.--In the 
     case of a plug-in traction battery module which is leased to 
     the taxpayer, the credit allowed under this subsection shall 
     be allowed to the lessor of the plug-in traction battery 
     module.
       ``(D) Credit allowed in addition to other credits.--The 
     credit allowed under this subsection shall be allowed with 
     respect to a motor vehicle notwithstanding whether a credit 
     has been allowed with respect to such motor vehicle under 
     this section (other than this subsection) in any preceding 
     taxable year.

[[Page 3142]]

       ``(3) Termination.--This subsection shall not apply to 
     conversions made after December 31, 2012.''.
       (b) Credit Treated as Part of Alternative Motor Vehicle 
     Credit.--Section 30B(a) is amended by striking ``and'' at the 
     end of paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end of 
     paragraph (4) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) the plug-in conversion credit determined under 
     subsection (i).''.
       (c) No Recapture for Vehicles Converted to Qualified Plug-
     in Electric Drive Motor Vehicles.--Paragraph (8) of section 
     30B(h) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``, 
     except that no benefit shall be recaptured if such property 
     ceases to be eligible for such credit by reason of conversion 
     to a qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service after December 31, 
     2008, in taxable years beginning after such date.
       Beginning on page 518, strike line 1 and all that follows 
     through page 521, line 23, and insert the following:
       ``(2) Certain qualified progress expenditures rules made 
     applicable.--Rules similar to the rules of subsections (c)(4) 
     and (d) of section 46 (as in effect on the day before the 
     enactment of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990) shall 
     apply for purposes of this section.
       ``(3) Limitation.--The amount which is treated for all 
     taxable years with respect to any qualifying advanced energy 
     project shall not exceed the amount designated by the 
     Secretary as eligible for the credit under this section.
       ``(c) Definitions.--
       ``(1) Qualifying advanced energy project.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualifying advanced energy 
     project' means a project--
       ``(i) which re-equips, expands, or establishes a 
     manufacturing facility for the production of property which 
     is--

       ``(I) designed to be used to produce energy from the sun, 
     wind, geothermal deposits (within the meaning of section 
     613(e)(2)), or other renewable resources,
       ``(II) designed to manufacture fuel cells, microturbines, 
     or an energy storage system for use with electric or hybrid-
     electric motor vehicles,
       ``(III) designed to manufacture electric grids to support 
     the transmission of intermittent sources of renewable energy, 
     including storage of such energy,
       ``(IV) designed to capture and sequester carbon dioxide 
     emissions,
       ``(V) designed to refine or blend renewable fuels or to 
     produce energy conservation technologies (including energy-
     conserving lighting technologies and smart grid 
     technologies), or
       ``(VI) other advanced energy property designed to reduce 
     greenhouse gas emissions as may be determined by the 
     Secretary, and

       ``(ii) any portion of the qualified investment of which is 
     certified by the Secretary under subsection (d) as eligible 
     for a credit under this section.
       ``(B) Exception.--Such term shall not include any portion 
     of a project for the production of any property which is used 
     in the refining or blending of any transportation fuel (other 
     than renewable fuels).
       ``(2) Eligible property.--The term `eligible property' 
     means any property which is part of a qualifying advanced 
     energy project and is necessary for the production of 
     property described in paragraph (1)(A)(i).
       ``(d) Qualifying Advanced Energy Project Program.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Energy, shall establish a qualifying 
     advanced energy project program to consider and award 
     certifications for qualified investments eligible for credits 
     under this section to qualifying advanced energy project 
     sponsors.
       ``(B) Limitation.--The total amount of credits that may be 
     allocated under the program shall not exceed $2,000,000,000.
       ``(2) Certification.--
       ``(A) Application period.--Each applicant for certification 
     under this paragraph shall submit an application containing 
     such information as the Secretary may require during the 3-
     year period beginning on the date the Secretary establishes 
     the program under paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Time to meet criteria for certification.--Each 
     applicant for certification shall have 2 years from the date 
     of acceptance by the Secretary of the application during 
     which to provide to the Secretary evidence that the 
     requirements of the certification have been met.
       ``(C) Period of issuance.--An applicant which receives a 
     certification shall have 5 years from the date of issuance of 
     the certification in order to place the project in service 
     and if such project is not placed in service by that time 
     period then the certification shall no longer be valid.
       ``(3) Selection criteria.--In determining which qualifying 
     advanced energy projects to certify under this section, the 
     Secretary--
       ``(A) shall take into consideration only those projects 
     where there is a reasonable expectation of commercial 
     viability, and
       ``(B) shall take into consideration which projects--
       ``(i) will provide the greatest domestic job creation (both 
     direct and indirect) during the credit period,
       ``(ii) will provide the greatest net impact in avoiding or 
     reducing air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of 
     greenhouse gases,
       ``(iii) have the greatest readiness for commercial 
     employment, replication, and further commercial use in the 
     United States,
       ``(iv) will provide the greatest benefit in terms of 
     newness in the commercial market,
       ``(v) have the lowest levelized cost of generated or stored 
     energy, or of measured reduction in energy consumption or 
     greenhouse gas emission (based on costs of the full supply 
     chain), and
       ``(vi) have the shortest project time from certification to 
     completion.
       On page 524, after line 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 1303. INCENTIVES FOR MANUFACTURING FACILITIES PRODUCING 
                   PLUG-IN ELECTRIC DRIVE MOTOR VEHICLES AND 
                   COMPONENTS.

       (a) Deduction for Manufacturing Facilities.--Part VI of 
     subchapter B of chapter 1 (relating to itemized deductions 
     for individuals and corporations) is amended by inserting 
     after section 179E the following new section:

     ``SEC. 179F. ELECTION TO EXPENSE MANUFACTURING FACILITIES 
                   PRODUCING PLUG-IN ELECTRIC DRIVE MOTOR VEHICLES 
                   AND COMPONENTS.

       ``(a) Treatment as Expenses.--A taxpayer may elect to treat 
     the applicable percentage of the cost of any qualified plug-
     in electric drive motor vehicle manufacturing facility 
     property as an expense which is not chargeable to a capital 
     account. Any cost so treated shall be allowed as a deduction 
     for the taxable year in which the qualified manufacturing 
     facility property is placed in service.
       ``(b) Applicable Percentage.--For purposes of subsection 
     (a), the applicable percentage is--
       ``(1) 100 percent, in the case of qualified plug-in 
     electric drive motor vehicle manufacturing facility property 
     which is placed in service before January 1, 2012, and
       ``(2) 50 percent, in the case of qualified plug-in electric 
     drive motor vehicle manufacturing facility property which is 
     placed in service after December 31, 2011, and before January 
     1, 2015.
       ``(c) Election.--
       ``(1) In general.--An election under this section for any 
     taxable year shall be made on the taxpayer's return of the 
     tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year. Such 
     election shall be made in such manner as the Secretary may by 
     regulations prescribe.
       ``(2) Election irrevocable.--Any election made under this 
     section may not be revoked except with the consent of the 
     Secretary.
       ``(d) Qualified Plug-In Electric Drive Motor Vehicle 
     Manufacturing Facility Property.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `qualified plug-in electric 
     drive motor vehicle manufacturing facility property' means 
     any qualified property--
       ``(A) the original use of which commences with the 
     taxpayer,
       ``(B) which is placed in service by the taxpayer after the 
     date of the enactment of this section and before January 1, 
     2015, and
       ``(C) no written binding contract for the construction of 
     which was in effect on or before the date of the enactment of 
     this section.
       ``(2) Qualified property.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified property' means any 
     property which is a facility or a portion of a facility used 
     for the production of--
       ``(i) any new qualified plug-in electric drive motor 
     vehicle (as defined by section 30D(c)), or
       ``(ii) any eligible component.
       ``(B) Eligible component.--The term `eligible component' 
     means any battery, any electric motor or generator, or any 
     power control unit which is designed specifically for use 
     with a new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle (as 
     so defined).
       ``(e) Special Rule for Dual Use Property.--In the case of 
     any qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle 
     manufacturing facility property which is used to produce both 
     qualified property and other property which is not qualified 
     property, the amount of costs taken into account under 
     subsection (a) shall be reduced by an amount equal to--
       ``(1) the total amount of such costs (determined before the 
     application of this subsection), multiplied by
       ``(2) the percentage of property expected to be produced 
     which is not qualified property.
       ``(f) Election to Receive Loan in Lieu of Deduction.--
       ``(1) In general.--If a taxpayer elects to have this 
     subsection apply for any taxable year--
       ``(A) subsection (a) shall not apply to any qualified plug-
     in electric drive motor vehicle manufacturing facility 
     property placed in service by the taxpayer,
       ``(B) such taxpayer shall receive a loan from the Secretary 
     in an amount and under such terms as provided in section 
     1303(b) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 
     2009, and

[[Page 3143]]

       ``(C) in the taxable year in which such qualified loan is 
     repaid, each of the limitations described in paragraph (2) 
     shall be increased by the qualified plug-in electric drive 
     motor vehicle manufacturing facility amount which is--
       ``(i) determined under paragraph (3), and
       ``(ii) allocated to such limitation under paragraph (4).
       ``(2) Limitations to be increased.--The limitations 
     described in this paragraph are--
       ``(A) the limitation imposed by section 38(c), and
       ``(B) the limitation imposed by section 53(c).
       ``(3) Qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle 
     manufacturing facility amount.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph--
       ``(A) In general.--The qualified plug-in electric drive 
     motor vehicle manufacturing facility amount is an amount 
     equal to the applicable percentage of any qualified plug-in 
     electric drive motor vehicle manufacturing facility which is 
     placed in service during the taxable year.
       ``(B) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), the applicable percentage is--
       ``(i) 35 percent, in the case of qualified plug-in electric 
     drive motor vehicle manufacturing facility property which is 
     placed in service before January 1, 2012, and
       ``(ii) 17.5 percent, in the case of qualified plug-in 
     electric drive motor vehicle manufacturing facility property 
     which is placed in service after December 31, 2011, and 
     before January 1, 2015.
       ``(C) Special rule for dual use property.--In the case of 
     any qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle 
     manufacturing facility property which is used to produce both 
     qualified property and other property which is not qualified 
     property, the amount of costs taken into account under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be reduced by an amount equal to--
       ``(i) the total amount of such costs (determined before the 
     application of this subparagraph), multiplied by
       ``(ii) the percentage of property expected to be produced 
     which is not qualified property.
       ``(4) Allocation of qualified plug-in electric drive motor 
     vehicle manufacturing facility amount.--The taxpayer shall, 
     at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may 
     prescribe, specify the portion (if any) of the qualified 
     plug-in electric drive motor vehicle manufacturing facility 
     amount for the taxable year which is to be allocated to each 
     of the limitations described in paragraph (2) for such 
     taxable year.
       ``(5) Election.--
       ``(A) In general.--An election under this subsection for 
     any taxable year shall be made on the taxpayer's return of 
     the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year. Such 
     election shall be made in such manner as the Secretary may by 
     regulations prescribe.
       ``(B) Election irrevocable.--Any election made under this 
     subsection may not be revoked except with the consent of the 
     Secretary.''.
       (b) Loan Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury (or the 
     Secretary's delegate) shall provide a loan to any person who 
     is allowed a deduction under section 179F of the Internal 
     Revenue Code and who makes an election under section 179F(f) 
     of such Code in an amount equal to the qualified plug-in 
     electric drive motor vehicle manufacturing facility amount 
     (as defined in such section 179F(f)).
       (2) Term.--Such loan shall be in the form of a senior note 
     issued by the taxpayer to the Secretary of the Treasury, 
     secured by the qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle 
     manufacturing facility property (as defined in section 179F 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) of the taxpayer, and 
     having a term of 20 years and interest payable at the 
     applicable Federal rate (as determined under section 1274(d) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).
       (3) Appropriations.--There is hereby appropriated to the 
     Secretary of the Treasury such sums as may be necessary to 
     carry out this subsection.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part VI 
     of subchapter B of chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 179F. Election to expense manufacturing facilities producing 
              plug-in electric drive motor vehicle and components.''.

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senator Hatch and 
Senator Bingaman, for helping us work on this modified language--
Senator Bingaman, particularly--related to plug-in vehicles. I thank my 
colleagues who have worked on additional amendments as part of this 
qualification of the ITC manufacturing credit; conservation bonds in 
the underlying bill that I know my colleague, Senator Feingold, has 
worked on; Senators Bingaman and Carper on a technical fix to carbon 
sequestration; I know the Senators in the Northeast and the Northwest 
have worked on provisions of existing modifications to the wood stove 
amendment we helped in the 2007 bill; and my colleagues, Senators 
Snowe, Feinstein, Bingaman, and Kerry on updates for the enhancement 
effectiveness of home energy efficiency in the Tax Code.
  I think all of these things make for a very important amendment for 
the stimulus package because it is about immediate stimulus and it is 
about job creation, both in the near term and the opportunity for 
tremendous job creation in the long term.
  The underlying amendment deals with the issue of creating and 
expensing for those who invest in plug-in battery technology or 
components. The United States currently is the leader in research and 
development of battery technology. Unfortunately, the number of 
manufacturing facilities in the United States that take advantage of 
that R&D is zero--zero opportunities currently in manufacturing in the 
United States.
  What we know around the globe is that countries, such as China, have 
over 250,000 people working on battery technology and over 150 
partners. We know Europeans and others are quick to work on this 
technology. Why? Because many people believe we are going to make this 
transformation off fossil fuel and on to cars powered by our 
electricity grid. So we know we are moving in that direction, but we 
are not doing anything to provide incentives so that manufacturing can 
take place in the United States.
  I am not talking necessarily about domestic manufacturers. I am not 
saying we are not talking about them. We are talking about making 
sure--whether it is Toyota, whether it is Tesla Motors, or someone not 
even on the horizon today, or what is happening in Detroit--that the 
United States does not continue to import their battery technology but 
starts manufacturing in the United States.
  This is a great opportunity for us in manufacturing to complement the 
ITC manufacturing credit that went to other renewable energy sources, 
such as wind and solar, to bring some of that manufacturing into the 
United States. I think that provision is tremendously important, but I 
say to my colleagues on the Senate floor, I cannot think of a bigger 
opportunity for job creation in the future than helping to make this 
transition off fossil fuel and on to the grid. If we fail to make this 
step now, we will be as dependent on foreign battery technology as we 
are on Mideast fossil fuel today. We don't want to make that mistake.
  We know in the small business provisions of this bill, we are giving 
expensing opportunities so that with the depreciation rate takedown, 
people will make more investments now. That is the same thing we are 
doing here, making investments in plug-in technology to stimulate job 
creation around this technology and help us with millions of long-term 
jobs and an opportunity to get off fossil fuel and deliver for our 
constituents a cheaper source of transportation in the future.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I support the Cantwell amendment. Frankly, 
in the regular order, somebody who opposes the Cantwell amendment 
should be speaking. I will take a little of her time. It is a good 
amendment, and I hope it gets adopted. I don't think anybody wants to 
speak in opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask the manager if I might have 2 
minutes. Just 2 minutes. I would like to respond.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Fine.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, from what we understand so far, one part 
of this bill is $9 billion. It scores at $9 billion. We have a strong 
commitment to hybrid automobiles. I have supported that in the past. We 
are dealing with that issue in the Energy Committee. As I understand 
it, this is spending in addition to what is already in the bill. I 
think that is going to cause concerns.

[[Page 3144]]

  I ask my colleagues to be cautious about signing on to a bill that 
has not gone through committee and represents such a huge expenditure 
of money that is unpaid.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Does the Senator from Washington have time remaining?
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, in response to my colleague, the notion 
of plug-in technology was discussed in the Finance Committee. We 
decided to offer this amendment on the floor instead. We know the 
economic opportunity we are going to lose by not making this investment 
is great.
  What is so unique about this is that it is stimulative now, it is job 
creation, and it, as the President says, puts us in a position in a key 
technology area in which we know the United States wants to be 
competitive. I believe it is a very winning proposition for the 
stimulus bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, briefly, I appreciate Senator Cantwell. 
I know she is one of the leaders in the effort to reduce our dependence 
on foreign oil and reduce emissions. But I will note, the amount of 
money going into hybrids reaches a point where we have to be careful.
  Diesel engines get about 40 percent more mileage than regular 
gasoline engines. Europeans have half their vehicles in diesel. We have 
about 3 percent. We have to be careful when we have this kind of 
incentive that it is going at the best possible thing.
  I am not prepared to say this is not the best way to do it, for sure. 
I believe the Energy Committee and maybe EPW ought to be able to have 
hearings on this before we make such a dramatic change.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I urge the Chair to recognize Senator 
Bunning to call up his amendment.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I would like 10 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Ten minutes equally divided.
  Mr. BUNNING. Ten minutes for Senator Bunning.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Ten minutes to the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. BUNNING. The Senator can give whatever time he chooses to the 
other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 531 to Amendment No. 98

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 531.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 531 to amendment No. 98.

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To temporarily increase the limitations on offsetting 
ordinary income with capital losses and to strike the 5-year carryback 
                      of general business credits)

       On page 464, strike lines 2 and 23, and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 1141. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN PERSONAL CAPITAL LOSS 
                   DEDUCTION LIMITATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 1211 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Special Rule for Taxable Years Beginning in 2009.--In 
     the case of a taxable year beginning after December 31, 2008, 
     and before January 1, 2010, subsection (b)(1) shall be 
     applied--
       ``(1) by substituting `$15,000' for `$3,000', and
       ``(2) by substituting `$7,500' for `$1,500'.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2008.

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, our economy is ailing--everybody knows 
that--and the symptoms are a sharp drop in consumer spending and a 
large rise in unemployment. As many of my colleagues have already 
observed, this bill treats the symptoms only and it does it so 
ineffectively.
  There are some Democrats, even in the White House, who agree with 
this. Just the other day, one House Democrat said his leadership ``does 
not care'' what is in the bill; ``they just want to pass it and they 
want it to be unanimous.'' They don't care. That is just shameful.
  The unemployment statistics we are seeing are just staggering. Never 
in our history have we seen job cuts at the rate and severity we are 
seeing today: over 500,000 losses per month for the last 5 months. Over 
600,000 in losses were reported just last Tuesday.
  This bill really does very little to help businesses keep people 
employed. It gives the poorest Americans $500 in cash and the prospect 
of a government job on a construction site, but it does not get to the 
heart of the problem in the private sector.
  It is our responsibility on behalf of every child who will pay for 
this massive amount of spending in this bill to get the solution right, 
and we can do better, much better.
  One of the best economists in this country--one who predicted this 
crisis in advance--said recently that he believes most U.S. banks are 
insolvent. Their equity has been wiped out due to the massive leveraged 
bets related to housing. Unfortunately, bank regulators, such as Tim 
Geithner, Ben Bernanke, and Alan Greenspan, failed to properly assess 
the danger to the economy presented by these irresponsible bets.
  Many experts are now acknowledging what I have said for years: that 
currency manipulation by China and other countries fueled the credit 
bubble in the United States and Europe that drove up housing prices to 
unsustainable levels.
  As a direct result, many households are now insolvent as well. They 
are carrying mortgage debts that exceed the value of their homes, and 
even with the $500 from the make work pay credit, they will not go out 
and spend it until the problem is addressed.
  This amendment I am offering today will address a major injustice in 
the Tax Code that many taxpayers will encounter for the first time this 
year. This problem will drive the effective tax rates of many taxpayers 
to European confiscatory levels at the worst possible time. I am 
referring to the limit on capital losses.
  Since the peak of the markets in 2007, investors have lost $7.5 
trillion in wealth. More than half of this amount is in taxable 
accounts. If we do not adjust the limits, taxpayers will be unable to 
deduct real economic losses from their income tax, and this will result 
in higher effective tax rates.
  Two respected economists have recommended my amendment as a way to 
stimulate the economy. In an article in the Wall Street Journal titled 
``Let's Stimulate Private Risk Taking,'' economists from Harvard 
University and the University of Chicago wrote that my amendment would 
stimulate risk taking by rewarding the downside of new investments and 
increasing the upside.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 21, 2009]

                  Let's Stimulate Private Risk Taking

                (By Alberto Alesina and Luigi Zingales)

       In virtually all economics classes, including those taught 
     by the many excellent economists on the Obama team, the idea 
     of government spending as an engine for growth is not a 
     popular topic. Yet despite their skepticism of Keynesianism 
     in the classroom, when it comes to public policy, these 
     economists happily endorse a large stimulus package that 
     could bring our deficit to 10% of GDP. Why?
       One explanation is that these economists think this 
     recession is an extraordinary one. In normal recessions--the 
     argument goes--an increase in discretionary government 
     spending is unnecessary and even counterproductive. But in 
     the event that a recession becomes a depression, a Keynesian 
     stimulus package might work.
       There are certainly economic models that show how 
     government spending can shift the economy from a bad 
     equilibrium (where people do not search for jobs because they 
     do not expect to find them, and firms do not invest because 
     they do not expect to sell), to a good equilibrium (where 
     people search for jobs, and firms invest and generate demand 
     for their goods).
       But this particular recession is unique not in its 
     dimensions, but in its sources. First, it is the result of a 
     financial crisis that severely affected stock-market 
     valuations. The

[[Page 3145]]

     bad equilibrium did not originate in the labor market, but in 
     the credit market, where investors are reluctant to lend to 
     risky firms. This reluctance is making it difficult for these 
     firms to refinance their debt, forcing them to default on 
     their credit, further validating investors' fear. Thus, the 
     problem is how to increase investors' willingness to take 
     risk. It's unclear how the proposed stimulus package would 
     help inspire investors to do so.
       The second reason this recession is unusual is that it was 
     caused in large part by a significant current-account 
     imbalance due to the low savings rate of Americans (families 
     and government). Even assuming that more public spending 
     would increase private consumption--a big if--such a measure 
     would cause even more imbalance.
       So how do we stimulate the economy without increasing the 
     already large current-account deficit? It's not easy, but 
     here is an idea: Create the incentive for people to take more 
     risk and move their savings from government bonds to risky 
     assets. There is no better way to encourage this than a 
     temporary elimination of the capital-gains tax for all the 
     investments begun during 2009 and held for at least two 
     years.
       If we fear this is not enough, we can temporarily increase 
     the size of the capital loss that is deductible against 
     ordinary income. This will reduce the downside of new 
     investments and increase the upside.
       More savings need to be invested, and firms need an 
     incentive to invest in order to help aggregate demand in the 
     short term and promote long-term growth. The best way to do 
     this is to make all capital expenditures and research and 
     development investments done in 2009 fully tax deductible in 
     the current fiscal year.
       A large temporary tax incentive may be just enough to jolt 
     investors from their current paralysis to take action. Such a 
     switch will also be fueled by the temporary capital-gains tax 
     cut mentioned above, which will motivate people to move their 
     savings from money-market funds to stocks, increasing 
     valuations, investments and confidence.
       Many are concerned about what we can do to help the poor 
     weather this crisis. Unlike during the Great Depression, we 
     have an unemployment subsidy that protects the poor from the 
     most severe consequences of this recession. If we want to 
     further protect them, it is better to extend this 
     unemployment subsidy than to invest in hasty public projects. 
     Furthermore, tax cuts have a much better effect on job 
     creation than highway rehabilitation.
       No doubt, it is much easier to sell the public and Congress 
     a plan for more public works than tax cuts, particularly 
     while Main Street despises Wall Street--with some good 
     reason. But the role of a good economic team is to 
     courageously propose the right economic policy, even when it 
     is unpopular. The role of a president is to sell it 
     politically, as real change we can believe in.

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, since 2007, investors have lost $1.7 
trillion in stock market values. Nearly half these losses are taxable 
accounts and their owners are subject to a $3,000 limit on capital 
losses.
  The way this limit works is that no matter how much money you lose in 
stocks or real estate, you are only allowed to deduct $3,000 per year 
against other income. The remaining loss is ignored.
  Given the state of the markets, millions of taxpayers have stock 
losses that far exceed $3,000. Nevertheless, the Tax Code will treat 
these people as though they earned much more during the year.
  For an example, a family that earns $100,000 and pays $30,000 in 
Federal and State taxes has a tax rate of 30 percent. If the family 
loses $40,000 in savings and it is only able to deduct $3,000, it will 
push the family's effective tax rate up to 48.5 percent.
  The $3,000 fixed limit on capital losses was last adjusted in 1976. 
Before the midseventies, the tax writers in Congress were not as 
knowledgeable about what inflation can do to savings as we are today. 
It was common for Congress to write dollar limits into the Tax Code 
without any thought of what inflation would do to its value in future 
years. Since 1977, inflation has eroded the value of the limit by more 
than 71 percent. My amendment would adjust the limit for inflation, 
increasing it to $15,000 for any losses incurred this year.
  When I offered this amendment in the Finance Committee, Chairman 
Baucus committed to addressing the problem on a permanent basis 
sometime this year. I welcome this opportunity to work with him on this 
long-term overdue problem.
  My amendment also reduces the cost of the bill by about $4.9 billion 
because I am also striking a remarkable provision that for the first 
time would allow corporations to use tax credits even if they have no 
income. This is nothing more than corporate welfare and Soviet-style 
industrial policy. Never before has this body endorsed a refundable tax 
credit for corporations. This one costs a staggering $10.9 billion. It 
is bad policy and the money should be spent on broad-based individual 
tax relief that will stimulate our economy.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment to ensure that 
taxpayers do not experience an increase in tax rate in the depth of 
this recession we are now in.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky has an 
interesting idea, an interesting proposition, and we did discuss it in 
committee. I did say in the committee that I think it is an issue that 
should appropriately be addressed, and I again thank the Senator for 
bringing up this issue.
  I suggest that we now go to Senator Feingold for the purposes of 
offering an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The Senator from Wisconsin is 
recognized.


                 Amendment No. 485 to Amendment No. 98

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendment be set aside so that I may call up amendment No. 485.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 485 to amendment No. 98.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To clarify that certain programs constitute a qualified 
     conservation purpose for qualified energy conservation bonds)

       On page 457, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       (b) Clarification With Respect to Green Community 
     Programs.--Clause (ii) of section 54D(f)(1)(A) is amended by 
     inserting ``(including the use of loans, grants, or other 
     repayment mechanisms to implement such programs)'' after 
     ``green community programs''.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
Stabenow as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment is based on my Community 
Revitalization Energy Conservation Act, S. 222, and I am very pleased 
to be joined by the Senator from Michigan in offering it.
  This amendment will address our energy and economic challenges while 
putting Americans to work. Supporting energy efficiency improvements to 
America's homes and businesses is one of the smartest ways we can face 
these challenges to create jobs and reduce our energy consumption.
  The goal of this amendment is to decrease energy consumption, create 
green jobs, and increase the number of energy efficient projects by 
reducing the significant cost barriers, such as the prohibitive upfront 
costs to homeowners and businesses who want to make improvements to 
their homes and buildings.
  Aggressively pursuing energy efficiency will help put us on a path 
toward energy security. Presently, buildings account for 40 percent of 
total U.S. energy consumption and 70 percent of U.S. electricity 
consumption. In order for us to decrease our reliance on fossil-based 
fuels, this has to change. We can achieve 20 to 30 percent energy 
reduction through better insulation, lighting, and HVAC equipment and 
controls. Potentially, we have the opportunity to save over $200 
billion through building efficiency alone.
  The economic recovery package increases the bond limit for the 
Qualified Energy Conservation Bond Program, which supports conservation 
upgrades to buildings. It does that by taking that number from $800 
million to $3.2 billion. I support this provision, and the Feingold-
Stabenow amendment builds on it by modifying the Qualified

[[Page 3146]]

Energy Conservation Bond Program to include conservation in private 
buildings using a financing mechanism that would eliminate the 
prohibitive upfront costs of energy efficiency improvements between 
homeowners and businesses.
  Meanwhile, the amendment would allow State and local governments to 
promote energy efficiency products by use of electric and water 
utilities as intermediaries. By using utilities as intermediaries, 
homeowners and businesses incur no upfront costs and they can then 
gradually pay back the cost of the energy efficiency retrofits through 
their electricity or water bills at a rate that does not exceed what 
they have historically paid.
  For example, if a monthly water bill before improvements is $150, and 
with the improvement the energy costs are down to $110, at most a 
homeowner or business would pay $40 more monthly toward paying off the 
cost of the energy efficiency building retrofits which were made 
possible by this program.
  This has worked. Already several States and cities, including Hawaii, 
Michigan, Berkeley, CA, and Babylon, NY, are beginning to tackle the 
issue of energy efficiency in residential buildings. In my home State 
of Wisconsin, efforts are already underway in Milwaukee to use this 
novel financing mechanism to promote energy efficiency. In partnership 
with the Center on Wisconsin Strategy, the city is pursuing Me2, or the 
Milwaukee Energy Efficiency Program. Initial estimates from the Center 
on Wisconsin Strategy suggest that if you could retrofit nearly all of 
the existing housing stock in Milwaukee, an initial investment of just 
under $250 million, it could result in annual energy savings of over 
$80 million.
  All of these efforts to conserve energy require investments in time 
and money. By combining efforts on two of our greatest challenges, 
energy and employment, we can create a great opportunity. Energy 
efficiency and conservation are, of course, in our national interest 
for our long-term economic well-being, for the health and safety of our 
citizens and the world as we mitigate the effects of climate change, 
and for our independence and security as well.
  This amendment is endorsed by many key groups, including the Apollo 
Alliance, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Air 
Conditioning Contractors of America, National Electrical Contractors 
Association, and the Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors National 
Association.
  I thank the Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus, for working with me 
on this amendment and for his support on the amendment. I urge my all 
of my colleagues to support it. It will support green jobs and help get 
our economy on the right track.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest that Senator Thune be recognized 
for the purpose of offering his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.


                 Amendment No. 538 to Amendment No. 98

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana, the 
manager of this bill, for yielding and for the opportunity to offer 
this amendment.
  As I have indicated, I will start by saying I am very uncomfortable 
with the notion of spending almost $1 trillion--over $1 trillion if you 
include interest--on this undertaking when, in my view, it is not 
timely, temporary, and targeted--as has been suggested should be the 
criteria for this legislation--but, rather, it is slow, unfocused, and 
unending. As a consequence of that, as I said, I am very concerned 
about the size of this and I am very concerned about the substance of 
it.
  I don't believe we ought to spend this amount. I have supported 
amendments, including Senator McCain's amendment, that were 
significantly smaller in terms of the size, much more, in my judgment, 
fiscally responsible, much more targeted and focused on job creation, 
and doing the types of things I believe will help get the economy 
growing again. Unfortunately, those amendments--those amendments I have 
supported, and I have even offered a substitute of my own--have all 
failed.
  I say that to preface my comments as I offer this amendment, to make 
the point that I am not in favor of or supportive of this size of 
spending and this size of borrowing from future generations in order to 
accomplish what, in my judgment, are very questionable job creation 
goals--frankly, I think based on the CBO study we saw yesterday, very 
questionable goals in terms of what this might achieve.
  I have concluded, however, that with all the amendments that have 
been offered, many of which are amendments that in my view would reduce 
some of the wasteful spending in this bill, some of which would refocus 
it more toward tax relief, more toward infrastructure, and more toward 
housing--things I think are important in this debate--I have concluded 
that the way to perhaps shape this is to offer an amendment that, 
frankly, will clarify what the difference is in this debate. Because I 
think it all comes down to who spends this money: does Washington spend 
it or do the American people spend these dollars that are going to come 
in?
  If we are going to commit to spending $936 billion, what my amendment 
essentially would do is to say that the $936 billion ought to be 
divided evenly among people who file income tax returns in this 
country. There are 182 million filers, all of whom would have a 
significant tax cut if you took a $936 billion pricetag and divided it 
up among those 182 million filers.
  My amendment I think also illustrates the simplicity of this debate, 
because this is nine pages long. This amendment is nine pages long. The 
underlying bill is 735 pages long. It takes 735 pages, I would argue, 
to go through all the various types of spending programs that are 
created in this bill, many of which are new programs that are going to 
create liabilities and obligations for the taxpayers well beyond the 
so-called targeted period in which this assistance is designed to take 
effect. But my nine-page amendment basically spells out a clearer 
option that I think we ought to rally around.
  Again, as I said before, it is very straightforward. If you are a 
taxpaying person in this country, if you are someone who files an 
income tax return--and there are 182 million filers in America--and you 
make less than $250,000--if you have $250,000 or less in terms of 
adjusted gross income--then you would be eligible for, if you are a 
single filer, $5,143 in terms of a tax cut or tax rebate in 2009. This 
would all spend out in 2009. If you are a married couple filing a joint 
return, you would get a tax cut totaling $10,286 in 2009.
  One of the Democrat arguments for the $1 trillion stimulus is they 
believe the GDP will shrink by that amount in the near future, 
primarily because of a decrease in consumer spending, which accounts 
for approximately 70 percent of gross domestic product. This amendment 
would inject $936 billion into the economy by the end of 2009 in the 
form of a recovery rebate for middle-class tax filers. These tax cuts 
total approximately 6 to 7 percent of our gross domestic product.
  Consumers and taxpayers, not government bureaucrats, would determine 
how to spend this money. Consumers could decide to make a downpayment 
on a new home, purchase a new car, get ahead of day-to-day bills, or 
save and invest for the future. I suggest this is a far more efficient 
way of stimulating the economy relative to improving fish barriers or 
designing polar ice breakers or purchasing supercomputers for climate 
research.
  One of the primary arguments my colleagues on the other side, I am 
sure, will make against this amendment is that most consumers decided 
to save their tax rebates in 2008 rather than spend the checks they 
received in the amount of $600 for a single filer and $1,200 for 
married filing jointly. Well, first, this economic recovery rebate is 
much larger, which increases the likelihood of a positive impact on 
consumer spending.
  Second, with the advent of the financial crisis, we are at a very 
different situation relative to January 2008.

[[Page 3147]]

Even if individuals choose to save half of this tax cut, that would 
mean a $450 billion infusion of capital into our banking system, which 
would also help stabilize our financial institutions, and that is a 
critical part of our economic recovery.
  I believe the American people are tired of business as usual in 
Washington. I think the stimulus package we have before us is a perfect 
example of how Washington works. It is loaded with a lot of spending, 
in many cases, as I said before, spending on new programs and a lot of 
special interest spending. I hope my colleagues will listen to the 
American people, who I think are following this debate and are, 
frankly, outraged with the size of the stimulus plan and the notion 
that it is going to be spent on many of the things they find 
objectionable. I argue that the American people should be given the 
choice between a 9-page, very simple and straightforward approach to 
this, which puts money back in their pockets--in fact, a lot of money; 
$5,143 if you are a single filer and $10,286 if you are a married 
couple filing jointly--or a 735-page bill which includes spending for 
all kinds of things that in my view are not going to be successful when 
it comes to creating jobs or helping get this economy back on track.
  That is the amendment. It is very straightforward. It is very simple. 
It takes $936 billion and divides it by 182 million tax filers. If they 
make under $250,000 year it gives them a tax rebate in the amount of 
$5,143 for a single filer, $10,286 for a married filer filing jointly, 
married couple filing jointly.
  I yield the floor. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Has the Senator offered the amendment?
  Mr. THUNE. Let me say, if I have not already, I ask it be pending. It 
was filed at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune)] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 538 to amendment No. 98.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To replace all spending and tax provisions with a direct 
              rebate to all Americans filing a tax return)

       On page 1, beginning with line 6, strike all through page 
     735, line 7, and insert the following:

     SEC. 2. REBATE TO ALL AMERICANS FILING A TAX RETURN.

       (a) In General.--Section 6429 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 6429. 2009 RECOVERY REBATES FOR INDIVIDUALS.

       ``(a) In General.--In the case of an eligible individual 
     who has filed a return of tax under chapter 1 for any taxable 
     year beginning in 2007, there shall be allowed a credit 
     against the tax imposed by subtitle A for the taxpayer's 
     first taxable year beginning in 2009 an amount equal to 
     $5,143 ($10,286 in the case of a joint return).
       ``(b) Limitation Based on Adjusted Gross Income.--The 
     amount of the credit allowed by subsection (a) (determined 
     without regard to this subsection and subsection (f)) shall 
     be zero if the taxpayer's adjusted gross income exceeds 
     $250,000.
       ``(c) Treatment of Credit.--The credit allowed by 
     subsection (a) shall be treated as allowed by subpart C of 
     part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1.
       ``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Net income tax liability.--The term `net income tax 
     liability' means the excess of--
       ``(A) the sum of the taxpayer's regular tax liability 
     (within the meaning of section 26(b)) and the tax imposed by 
     section 55 for the taxable year, over
       ``(B) the credits allowed by part IV (other than section 24 
     and subpart C thereof) of subchapter A of chapter 1.
       ``(2) Eligible individual.--The term `eligible individual' 
     means any individual other than--
       ``(A) any nonresident alien individual,
       ``(B) any individual with respect to whom a deduction under 
     section 151 is allowable to another taxpayer for a taxable 
     year beginning in the calendar year in which the individual's 
     taxable year begins, and
       ``(C) an estate or trust.
       ``(e) Coordination With Advance Refunds of Credit.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount of credit which would (but 
     for this paragraph) be allowable under this section shall be 
     reduced (but not below zero) by the aggregate refunds and 
     credits made or allowed to the taxpayer under subsection (e). 
     Any failure to so reduce the credit shall be treated as 
     arising out of a mathematical or clerical error and assessed 
     according to section 6213(b)(1).
       ``(2) Joint returns.--In the case of a refund or credit 
     made or allowed under subsection (f) with respect to a joint 
     return, half of such refund or credit shall be treated as 
     having been made or allowed to each individual filing such 
     return.
       ``(f) Advance Refunds and Credits.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each individual who was an eligible 
     individual for such individual's first taxable year beginning 
     in 2007, and who filed a return of tax under chapter 1 for 
     such first taxable year, shall be treated as having made a 
     payment against the tax imposed by chapter 1 for such first 
     taxable year in an amount equal to the advance refund amount 
     for such taxable year.
       ``(2) Advance refund amount.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the advance refund amount is the amount that would have 
     been allowed as a credit under this section for such first 
     taxable year if this section (other than this subsection) had 
     applied to such taxable year.
       ``(3) Timing of payments.--The Secretary shall, subject to 
     the provisions of this title, refund or credit any 
     overpayment attributable to this section as rapidly as 
     possible. No refund or credit shall be made or allowed under 
     this subsection after December 31, 2009.
       ``(4) No interest.--No interest shall be allowed on any 
     overpayment attributable to this section.
       ``(g) Identification Number Requirement.--
       ``(1) In general.--No credit shall be allowed under 
     subsection (a) to an eligible individual who does not include 
     on the return of tax for the taxable year--
       ``(A) such individual's valid identification number, and
       ``(B) in the case of a joint return, the valid 
     identification number of such individual's spouse.
       ``(2) Valid identification number.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1), the term `valid identification number' means a 
     social security number issued to an individual by the Social 
     Security Administration. Such term shall not include a TIN 
     issued by the Internal Revenue Service.
       ``(3) Special rule for members of the armed forces.--
     Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a joint return where at 
     least 1 spouse was a member of the Armed Forces of the United 
     States at any time during the taxable year.''.
       (b)  Treatment of Possessions.--
       (1) Payments to possessions.--
       (A) Mirror code possession.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall pay to each possession of the United States with a 
     mirror code tax system amounts equal to the loss to that 
     possession by reason of the amendments made by this section. 
     Such amounts shall be determined by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury based on information provided by the government of 
     the respective possession.
       (B) Other possessions.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     pay to each possession of the United States which does not 
     have a mirror code tax system amounts estimated by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury as being equal to the aggregate 
     benefits that would have been provided to residents of such 
     possession by reason of the amendments made by this section 
     if a mirror code tax system had been in effect in such 
     possession. The preceding sentence shall not apply with 
     respect to any possession of the United States unless such 
     possession has a plan, which has been approved by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, under which such possession will 
     promptly distribute such payments to the residents of such 
     possession.
       (2) Coordination with credit allowed against united states 
     income taxes.--No credit shall be allowed against United 
     States income taxes for any taxable year under section 6429 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as amended by this 
     section) to any person--
       (A) to whom a credit is allowed against taxes imposed by 
     the possession by reason of the amendments made by this 
     section for such taxable year, or
       (B) who is eligible for a payment under a plan described in 
     paragraph (1)(B) with respect to such taxable year.
       (3) Definitions and special rules.--
       (A) Possession of the united states.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term ``possession of the United States'' 
     includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Commonwealth 
     of the Northern Mariana Islands.
       (B) Mirror code tax system.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term ``mirror code tax system'' means, with 
     respect to any possession of the United States, the income 
     tax system of such possession if the income tax liability of 
     the residents of such possession under such system is 
     determined by reference to the income tax laws of the United 
     States as if such possession were the United States.
       (C) Treatment of payments.--For purposes of section 
     1324(b)(2) of title 31, United States Code, the payments 
     under this subsection shall be treated in the same manner as 
     a refund due from the credit allowed under section 36A of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this section).
       (c) Refunds Disregarded in the Administration of Federal 
     Programs and Federally Assisted Programs.--Any credit or 
     refund allowed or made to any individual by

[[Page 3148]]

     reason of section 6429 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (as amended by this section) or by reason of subsection (b) 
     of this section shall not be taken into account as income and 
     shall not be taken into account as resources for the month of 
     receipt and the following 2 months, for purposes of 
     determining the eligibility of such individual or any other 
     individual for benefits or assistance, or the amount or 
     extent of benefits or assistance, under any Federal program 
     or under any State or local program financed in whole or in 
     part with Federal funds.
       (d) Authority Relating to Clerical Errors.--Section 
     6213(g)(2)(L) is amended by striking ``or 6428'' and 
     inserting ``6428, or 6429''.
       (e) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 6211(b)(4)(A) is amended by striking ``and 
     6428'' and inserting ``6428, and 6429''.
       (2) Section 1324(b)(2) of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``or 6428'' and inserting ``6428, or 
     6429''.
       (3) The table of sections for subchapter B of chapter 65 is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 6429 and 
     inserting the following new item:

``Sec. 6429. 2009 recovery rebates for individuals.''.

       (f) Effective Date.--This section, and the amendments made 
     by this section, shall apply to taxable years beginning after 
     December 31, 2008.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am reminded of the great Baltimore Sun 
journalist H.L. Menken who said for every complicated problem there is 
a simple solution--and it is usually wrong.
  We have a complicated problem: how to get our country going again. 
With all due respect, this is a very simple solution and, with all due 
respect, it has deep problems.
  What are they? First of all, there are 49 million Americans who will 
not get any tax break from this proposal. Who are they? They are the 
Americans who are working, but they do not earn enough income to pay 
income taxes. Therefore, they get no deduction. They are not paying 
taxes. They are not in the 5-percent bracket. They are not in the 10-
percent bracket. They just do not earn enough to pay income taxes. So 
when you talk about reducing taxes, giving rebates to those Americans 
who pay taxes, those 49 million Americans who are working, who pay 
payroll taxes, will get no break. Their taxes are not reduced.
  I say that because the amendment strikes the whole bill. As I 
understand the amendment, it takes the amount of the bill and adds it 
back to taxpayers. The rebate goes to the taxpayers?
  Mr. THUNE. Will the Senator yield for a clarification?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I am happy to.
  Mr. THUNE. I appreciate the question because I think that is one of 
the arguments that have been made against a lot of the tax amendments 
we have filed. This was drafted in a way so it is refundable, so all 
the Americans that you are talking about would also receive that 
benefit.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I might say, Mr. President, reclaiming my time, this 
amendment strikes the underlying bill. What about States taking people 
off Medicaid, called FMAP? This bill gives about $86 billion to States 
so they can keep people on Medicaid, so they are not thrown off 
Medicaid. What about all the dollars in here that go to help build 
roads and highways and bridges?
  Earlier, I asked my colleagues to remember two figures. What were 
they again--99 and 79. What is that? Just to repeat, 99 is the percent 
of dollars in the Finance Committee portion of this bill that are spent 
in the first 2 years; 99 percent of the whole Finance Committee bill is 
spent in the first 2 years. That is CBO, and it is Joint Tax. It is 
their figures. Just do the math.
  The other figure I mentioned was 79--79 percent. What does 79 percent 
represent? All of the dollars in the whole bill, the Finance Committee 
bill and the Appropriations bill, total it all up--99 percent of the 
total bill will be spent in the first 2 years; 99 percent of the 
Finance Committee bill, 79 percent of the whole bill.
  Next question: how efficiently are those dollars spent? I have just 
established that most of the dollars, by far, are going to be spent in 
the first 2 years--by far. The next question: How efficiently? To what 
degree will those dollars create jobs? A day or two ago the 
Congressional Budget Office released a letter that discusses the 
effects of this bill on jobs, on job creation. The letter says:

       For all of the categories that would be affected by the 
     Senate legislation, the resulting budgetary changes are 
     estimated to raise output [and jobs] . . . albeit by 
     different amounts . . . [as follows.]

  What does that say? Without taking too much time, it makes it very 
clear more jobs are created when we spend dollars for the purchase of 
goods and services. According to CBO--that is a quote:

       Direct purchases of goods and services . . . tend to have 
     large effects on GDP.

  What tends to have less of an effect? I know it is a mantra, I know 
it is ideology, but the fact is, what has less effect, to be honest 
about it, is tax cuts. And the higher the income bracket, according to 
CBO, the less stimulative effect on the economy.
  For example, let's take AMT: 1-year tax cuts for people who pay the 
alternative minimum tax. What is the stimulative effect? There is a 
range. CBO does not know the exact amount, but it is a range between 10 
cents on the dollar and 50 cents on the dollar. That is how much goes 
out into the economy. Not very much.
  What is the range for purchase of goods and services by Uncle Sam, 
between $1 and $2.50; for transfers to State and local governments for 
infrastructure, between $1 and $2.50; for transfers to State and local 
governments not for infrastructure, between 70 cents to $1.90 on the 
dollar.
  Get this: unemployment benefits, between 80 cents on the dollar and 
$2.20 on the dollar. Payments to persons for unemployment benefits has 
a much greater stimulative effect, by far, than does reduction in 
taxes. I mentioned already the effect of AMT.
  My only point, it is interesting to hear what the Senator from South 
Dakota is saying, and I appreciate him correcting me by saying that 49 
million Americans who otherwise do not pay income tax would also get a 
rebate. I am not sure the size of the rebate. I guess everybody gets 
the same amount, whether you are an individual or you are married. But 
we can create a lot more jobs by structuring the payment as it is in 
this legislation.
  A lot of time and thought has gone into it. Virtually every--I will 
not say every. The bulk of economists, mainstream economists, will say 
clearly that the job creation effect is much greater with 
infrastructure than it is for tax cuts. You like to have tax cuts. 
People like to have dollars in their pockets. But the goal is 
infrastructure. It is job creation. Spend it early. I might add, I 
don't know the exact percentage, but a large portion of this bill is 
already tax cuts. It is large. I think it is 40 percent--40 percent of 
this bill is tax cuts. I don't think all the bill should be tax cuts. 
Rather, it should be spread out in a little more complicated way, 
following the advice of the Baltimore Sun journalist, H.L. Menken.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask the manager, do we have a time 
agreement on this amendment?
  Mr. BAUCUS. There is no time agreement, I say to my friend.
  Mr. McCAIN. Could the parties agree to a time agreement?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I think we are finished on this one unless the Senator 
from South Dakota wants to make some remarks.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield, Mr. President.
  Mr. THUNE. Just a couple of points, if I might. I appreciate the 
observations of the Senator from Montana regarding the amendment, but I 
do want to make a couple of corrections. One, of course, is we did 
apply this in a way that it is refundable so everyone benefits from it. 
It is delivered in a very straightforward way. It doesn't matter where 
you are on the income scale, as long as you make under $250,000 a year. 
I might add, as well, people who make above that amount, I agree, 
probably are less likely to spend than are those who make under that 
amount. But this was capped. Eligibility for this refund is based upon 
how much you make. Your adjusted gross income has to be less than 
$250,000 a year. So it is not

[[Page 3149]]

skewed toward the rich. It does skew toward those who are more likely 
to spend these dollars and put them back into the economy.
  I still believe when you start talking about over $5,000 for a single 
person, over $10,000 for a couple, that is real money to most families, 
and I suggest a lot of that money is going to be spent. Granted, there 
will be some who will put it away and save it. As I said before, I 
don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. We ought to encourage 
saving, and furthermore it will help get liquidity in the banking 
system. If they put half into the banks, that is $450 billion that will 
go into the banking system of our country.
  Just with respect to the multiplier effect--there are lots of 
different analyses that have been done, spending versus tax relief. I 
draw, of course, on history. If you look back, in the 1960s under 
Kennedy, 1980s under Reagan, more recently under President Bush, the 
impact when you reduce the marginal income tax rate, when you reduce 
the taxes on investment and job creation, in most cases you get more 
revenue and not less, and you also get a better return in terms of jobs 
created. In fact, the President's own economist, Dr. Christina Romer, 
back in March of 2007 did a study that suggested for each dollar of tax 
cut, you get a 2.2 multiplier effect. In other words, for each percent 
of GDP that you reduce taxes, you get 2.2 times that in terms of 
economic growth.
  So I simply say, again, when you are allowing American families to 
keep more of what they earn, and particularly when you start talking 
about the amounts that we are discussing here, and when you cap it at 
$250,000 for eligibility so it is not a tax cut for the high end, for 
the rich--it is for people who are actually more likely to need it, to 
be able to do all the things they have to do to keep their families 
going on a daily basis--and you also write it in such a way so that it 
is refundable so income-tax payers on the lower end of the income scale 
are also eligible for it, as the Senator from Montana noted, and it is 
true--it is a very simple approach if you are going to do this--
sometimes I think the simple approach is the best approach.
  Arguably, 9 pages versus 735 is in the underlying bill. It is a small 
amount of ink and print by this city's standards. But it is a very 
straightforward approach which I think the American people will 
understand and appreciate because they are going to receive this, 
rather than having this money, all this money we are going to be 
borrowing from future generations, going into spending programs from 
which they may not derive any benefit.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is time to go to the next Senator. I 
might say, the language of the amendment offered by the Senator from 
South Dakota, the language says an eligible individual is one who has 
filed a tax return. Many people who work don't file tax returns because 
they don't make enough money, so a lot of people are getting left off.
  Next, I suggest the Chair recognize Senator Dodd from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 501

  Mr. DODD. I see my good friend from Arizona and my friend from 
Oregon. They have been patient. We debated my amendment already so I am 
just going to be very brief.
  Senators Conrad and Graham and I were discussing the Conrad-Graham 
amendment. I talked about the alternative idea that I am proposing with 
Senator Martinez and Senator Reid of Nevada, and that is to acquire in 
this bill--I realize it doesn't relate to the funding in this bill--it 
would require that $50 billion of TARP money that will now be allocated 
be dedicated to foreclosure mitigation, including looking at the Sheila 
Baird FDIC proposal, but not exclusively so. Also, as a second part of 
that amendment, I suggest some alterations to the Hope For Homeowners 
Program that we think would make the program far more effective than it 
has been.
  Despite the good intentions of its authors last summer, myself 
included, it has not produced anywhere near the results we desired. 
These were suggested by Treasury and others who thought it would help 
make it more attractive to those in foreclosure.
  At the appropriate time, myself and Senators Martinez and Reid will 
offer this amendment. Again, I say to my good friend Senator Conrad and 
good friend Lindsey Graham, I respect the effort they are making. I 
don't think what they are talking about in the stimulus bill is 
justified when we can do it out of TARP, and the money that is being 
suggested should be more focused on stimulation and job creation.
  For those reasons, I oppose the Conrad amendment. I remind my 
colleagues this amendment that Senator Martinez and I will be offering 
is the right approach for us to be taking regarding TARP funding, which 
was dedicated initially, at least in part, toward foreclosure 
mitigation. We are going to require it statutorily, lest there be any 
doubt in the minds of those managing the program what our congressional 
intention was when we passed it back late in October.
  Mr. President, with that, I apologize for taking any time at all and 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I don't see Senator Enzi. He was next entitled to offer 
his amendment, so I urge the Chair to recognize Senator Wyden to offer 
an amendment.
  Senator Enzi is on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask, again, is there a time agreement 
that would be reasonable?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask Senator Enzi if he is agreeable to, say, a 5-minute 
limitation on his amendment.
  Mr. ENZI. I have no problem with 5 minutes. I do not think there is 
anyone in opposition. I will try and keep it under 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Wyoming is 
recognized.


          Amendment No. 293, as Modified, to Amendment No. 98

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I call up amendment number 293, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 293, as modified, to amendment No. 98.

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

            (Purpose: To provide for a manager's amendment)

       On page 265, line 2, add at the end the following: 
     ``community mental health center (as defined in section 
     1913(b)), renal dialysis facility, blood center, ambulatory 
     surgical center described in section 1833(i) of the Social 
     Security Act,''.
       On page 265, line 23, strike ``means'' and insert 
     ``includes''.
       On page 266, line 2, insert ``access,'' after 
     ``maintenance,''.
       On page 270, strike lines 1 through 11, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(1) Standards.--The National Coordinator shall--
       ``(A) review and determine whether to endorse each 
     standard, implementation specification, and certification 
     criterion for the electronic exchange and use of health 
     information that is recommended by the HIT Standards 
     Committee under section 3003 for purposes of adoption under 
     section 3004;
       ``(B) make such determinations under subparagraph (A), and 
     report to the Secretary such determinations, not later than 
     45 days after the date the recommendation is received by the 
     Coordinator;
       ``(C) review Federal health information technology 
     investments to ensure that Federal health information 
     technology programs are meeting the objectives of the 
     strategic plan published under paragraph (3); and
       ``(D) provide comments and advice regarding specific 
     Federal health information technology programs, at the 
     request of the Office of Management and Budget.''.
       Beginning on page 273, strike line 21, and all that follows 
     through line 8 on page 274, and insert the following:
       ``(5) Harmonization.--The Secretary may recognize an entity 
     or entities for the purpose of harmonizing or updating 
     standards and implementation specifications in order to 
     achieve uniform and consistent implementation of the 
     standards and implementation specifications.

[[Page 3150]]

       ``(6) Certification.--
       ``(A) In general.--The National Coordinator, in 
     consultation with the Director of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology, shall recognize a program or 
     programs for the voluntary certification of health 
     information technology as being in compliance with applicable 
     certification criteria adopted under this subtitle. Such 
     program shall include, as appropriate, testing of the 
     technology in accordance with section 14201(b) of the Health 
     Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health 
     Act.''.
       On page 276, strike lines 15 through 24, and insert the 
     following:
       (E) Resource requirements.--The National Coordinator shall 
     estimate and publish resources required annually to reach the 
     goal of utilization of an electronic health record for each 
     person in the United States by 2014, including--
       (i) the required level of Federal funding;
       (ii) expectations for regional, State, and private 
     investment;
       (iii) the expected contributions by volunteers to 
     activities for the utilization of such records; and
       (iv) the resources needed to establish or expand education 
     programs in medical and health informatics and health 
     information management to train health care and information 
     technology students and provide a health information 
     technology workforce sufficient to ensure the rapid and 
     effective deployment and utilization of health information 
     technologies.
       On page 277, strike lines 8 through 11, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(8) Governance for nationwide health information 
     network.--The National Coordinator shall implement the 
     recommendations made by the HIT Policy Committee regarding 
     the governance of the nationwide health information 
     network.''.
       On page 282, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
       ``(vi) The use of electronic systems to ensure the 
     comprehensive collection of patient demographic data, 
     including, at a minimum, race, ethnicity, primary language, 
     and gender information.
       ``(vii) Technologies and design features that address the 
     needs of children and other vulnerable populations.''.
       On page 283, strike lines 10 through 12, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(ix) Methods to facilitate secure access by an individual 
     to such individual's protected health information.
       ``(x) Methods, guidelines, and safeguards to facilitate 
     secure access to patient information by a family member, 
     caregiver, or guardian acting on behalf of a patient due to 
     age-related and other disability, cognitive impairment, or 
     dementia that prevents a patient from accessing the patient's 
     individually identifiable health information.''.
       On page 283, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
       ``(4) Consistency with evaluation conducted under mippa.--
       ``(A) Requirement for consistency.--The HIT Policy 
     Committee shall ensure that recommendations made under 
     paragraph (2)(B)(vi) are consistent with the evaluation 
     conducted under section 1809(a) of the Social Security Act.
       ``(B) Scope.--Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall be 
     construed to limit the recommendations under paragraph 
     (2)(B)(vi) to the elements described in section 1809(a)(3) of 
     the Social Security Act.
       ``(C) Timing.--The requirement under subparagraph (A) shall 
     be applicable to the extent that evaluations have been 
     conducted under section 1809(a) of the Social Security Act, 
     regardless of whether the report described in subsection (b) 
     of such section has been submitted.''.
       On page 284, strike lines 1 through 13, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(2) Membership.--The HIT Policy Committee shall be 
     composed of members to be appointed as follows:
       ``(A) One member shall be appointed by the Secretary.
       ``(B) One member shall be appointed by the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs who shall represent the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs.
       ``(C) One member shall be appointed by the Secretary of 
     Defense who shall represent the Department of Defense.
       ``(D) One member shall be appointed by the Majority Leader 
     of the Senate.
       ``(E) One member shall be appointed by the Minority Leader 
     of the Senate.
       ``(F) One member shall be appointed by the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives.
       ``(G) One member shall be appointed by the Minority Leader 
     of the House of Representatives.
       ``(H) Eleven members shall be appointed by the Comptroller 
     General of the United States, of whom--
       ``(i) three members shall represent patients or consumers;
       ``(ii) one member shall represent health care providers;
       ``(iii) one member shall be from a labor organization 
     representing health care workers;
       ``(iv) one member shall have expertise in privacy and 
     security;
       ``(v) one member shall have expertise in improving the 
     health of vulnerable populations;
       ``(vi) one member shall represent health plans or other 
     third party payers;
       ``(vii) one member shall represent information technology 
     vendors;
       ``(viii) one member shall represent purchasers or 
     employers; and
       ``(ix) one member shall have expertise in health care 
     quality measurement and reporting.
       ``(3) Chairperson and vice chairperson.--The HIT Policy 
     Committee shall designate one member to serve as the 
     chairperson and one member to serve as the vice chairperson 
     of the Policy Committee.
       ``(4) National coordinator.--The National Coordinator shall 
     serve as a member of the HIT Policy Committee and act as a 
     liaison among the HIT Policy Committee, the HIT Standards 
     Committee, and the Federal Government.
       ``(5) Participation.--The members of the HIT Policy 
     Committee appointed under paragraph (2) shall represent a 
     balance among various sectors of the health care system so 
     that no single sector unduly influences the recommendations 
     of the Policy Committee.
       ``(6) Terms.--
       ``(A) In general.--The terms of the members of the HIT 
     Policy Committee shall be for 3 years, except that the 
     Comptroller General shall designate staggered terms for the 
     members first appointed.
       ``(B) Vacancies.--Any member appointed to fill a vacancy in 
     the membership of the HIT Policy Committee that occurs prior 
     to the expiration of the term for which the member's 
     predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only for the 
     remainder of that term. A member may serve after the 
     expiration of that member's term until a successor has been 
     appointed. A vacancy in the HIT Policy Committee shall be 
     filled in the manner in which the original appointment was 
     made.
       ``(7) Outside involvement.--The HIT Policy Committee shall 
     ensure an adequate opportunity for the participation of 
     outside advisors, including individuals with expertise in--
       ``(A) health information privacy and security;
       ``(B) improving the health of vulnerable populations;
       ``(C) health care quality and patient safety, including 
     individuals with expertise in the measurement and use of 
     health information technology to capture data to improve 
     health care quality and patient safety;
       ``(D) long-term care and aging services;
       ``(E) medical and clinical research; and
       ``(F) data exchange and developing health information 
     technology standards and new health information technology.
       ``(8) Quorum.--Ten members of the HIT Policy Committee 
     shall constitute a quorum for purposes of voting, but a 
     lesser number of members may meet and hold hearings.
       ``(9) Failure of initial appointment.--If, on the date that 
     is 120 days after the date of enactment of this title, an 
     official authorized under paragraph (2) to appoint one or 
     more members of the HIT Policy Committee has not appointed 
     the full number of members that such paragraph authorizes 
     such official to appoint--
       ``(A) the number of members that such official is 
     authorized to appoint shall be reduced to the number that 
     such official has appointed as of that date; and
       ``(B) the number prescribed in paragraph (8) as the quorum 
     shall be reduced to the smallest whole number that is greater 
     than one-half of the total number of members who have been 
     appointed as of that date.
       ``(10) Consideration.--The National Coordinator shall 
     ensure that the relevant recommendations and comments from 
     the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics are 
     considered in the development of policies.''.
       On page 287, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       ``(5) Consideration.--The National Coordinator shall ensure 
     that the relevant recommendations and comments from the 
     National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics are 
     considered in the development of standards.''.
       On page 288, strike lines 4 through 19 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(3) Broad participation.--There is broad participation in 
     the HIT Standards Committee by a variety of public and 
     private stakeholders, either through membership in the 
     Committee or through another means.
       ``(4) Chairperson; vice chairperson.--The HIT Standards 
     Committee may designate one member to serve as the 
     chairperson and one member to serve as the vice chairperson.
       ``(5) Department membership.--The Secretary shall be a 
     member of the HIT Standards Committee. The National 
     Coordinator shall act as a liaison among the HIT Standards 
     Committee, the HIT Policy Committee, and the Federal 
     Government.
       ``(6) Balance among sectors.--In developing the procedures 
     for conducting the activities of the HIT Standards Committee, 
     the HIT Standards Committee shall act to ensure a balance 
     among various sectors of the health care system so that no 
     single sector unduly influences the actions of the HIT 
     Standards Committee.
       ``(7) Assistance.--For the purposes of carrying out this 
     section, the Secretary may provide or ensure that financial 
     assistance is provided by the HIT Standards Committee to 
     defray in whole or in part any membership

[[Page 3151]]

      fees or dues charged by such Committee to those consumer 
     advocacy groups and not for profit entities that work in the 
     public interest as a part of their mission.
       ``(d) Open and Public Process.--In providing for the 
     establishment of the HIT Standards Committee pursuant to 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall ensure the following:
       ``(1) Consensus approach; open process.--The HIT Standards 
     Committee shall use a consensus approach and a fair and open 
     process to support the development, harmonization, and 
     recognition of standards described in subsection (a)(1).
       ``(2) Participation of outside advisers.--The HIT Standards 
     Committee shall ensure an adequate opportunity for the 
     participation of outside advisors, including individuals with 
     expertise in--
       ``(A) health information privacy;
       ``(B) health information security;
       ``(C) health care quality and patient safety, including 
     individuals with expertise in utilizing health information 
     technology to improve healthcare quality and patient safety;
       ``(D) long-term care and aging services; and
       ``(E) data exchange and developing health information 
     technology standards and new health information technology.
       ``(3) Open meetings.--Plenary and other regularly scheduled 
     formal meetings of the HIT Standards Committee (or 
     established subgroups thereof) shall be open to the public.
       ``(4) Publication of meeting notices and materials prior to 
     meetings.--The HIT Standards Committee shall develop and 
     maintain an Internet website on which it publishes, prior to 
     each meeting, a meeting notice, a meeting agenda, and meeting 
     materials.
       ``(5) Opportunity for public comment.--The HIT Standards 
     Committee shall develop a process that allows for public 
     comment during the process by which the Entity develops, 
     harmonizes, or recognizes standards and implementation 
     specifications.
       ``(e) Voluntary Consensus Standard Body.--The provisions of 
     section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 
     Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) and the Office 
     of Management and Budget circular 119 shall apply to the HIT 
     Standards Committee.''.
       On page 290, line 14, strike ``Initial Set of''.
       On page 291, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
       ``(3) Subsequent standards activity.--The Secretary shall 
     adopt additional standards, implementation specifications, 
     and certification criteria as necessary and consistent with 
     the schedule published under section 3003(b)(2).''.
       Beginning on page 293, strike line 7 and all that follows 
     through line 2 on page 295, and insert the following:

     SEC. 3008. TRANSITIONS.

       ``(a) ONCHIT.--Nothing in section 3001 shall be construed 
     as requiring the creation of a new entity to the extent that 
     the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information 
     Technology established pursuant to Executive Order 13335 is 
     consistent with the provisions of section 3001.
       ``(b) National EHealth Collaborative.--Nothing in sections 
     3002 or 3003 or this subsection shall be construed as 
     prohibiting the National eHealth Collaborative from modifying 
     its charter, duties, membership, and any other structure or 
     function required to be consistent with the requirements of a 
     voluntary consensus standards body so as to allow the 
     Secretary to recognize the National eHealth Collaborative as 
     the HIT Standards Committee.
       ``(c) Consistency of Recommendations.--In carrying out 
     section 3003(b)(1)(A), until recommendations are made by the 
     HIT Policy Committee, recommendations of the HIT Standards 
     Committee shall be consistent with the most recent 
     recommendations made by such AHIC Successor, Inc.''.
       On page 292, strike lines 6 through 12, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(a) In General.--The National Coordinator shall support 
     the development and routine updating of qualified electronic 
     health record technology (as defined in section 3000) 
     consistent with subsections (b) and (c) and make available 
     such qualified electronic health record technology unless the 
     Secretary and the HIT Policy Committee determine through an 
     assessment that the needs and demands of providers are being 
     substantially and adequately met through the marketplace.''.
       On page 305, strike line 5, strike ``shall coordinate'' and 
     insert ``may review''.
       On page 320, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
       ``(10) establishing and supporting health record banking 
     models to further consumer-based consent models that promote 
     lifetime access to qualified health records, if such 
     activities are included in the plan described in subsection 
     (e), and may contain smart card functionality; and''.
       On page 342, line 2, insert before the period the 
     following: ``in return for such payment for such offer or 
     maintenance''.
       On page 355, line 25, insert before the period the 
     following: ``and the information necessary to improve patient 
     outcomes and to detect, prevent, and manage chronic 
     disease''.
       Beginning on page 357, strike line 1 and all that follows 
     through line 12 on page 359, and insert the following:
       ``(1) In general.--In applying section 164.528 of title 45, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, in the case that a covered 
     entity uses or maintains an electronic health record with 
     respect to protected health information--
       ``(A) the exception under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of such 
     section shall not apply to disclosures through an electronic 
     health record made by such entity of such information; and
       ``(B) an individual shall have a right to receive an 
     accounting of disclosures described in such paragraph of such 
     information made by such covered entity during only the three 
     years prior to the date on which the accounting is requested.
       ``(2) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations on what disclosures must be included in an 
     accounting referred to in paragraph (1)(A) and what 
     information must be collected about each such disclosure not 
     later than 18 months after the date on which the Secretary 
     adopts standards on accounting for disclosure described in 
     the section 3002(b)(2)(B)(iv) of the Public Health Service 
     Act, as added by section 13101. Such regulations shall only 
     require such information to be collected through an 
     electronic health record in a manner that takes into account 
     the interests of individuals in learning when their protected 
     health information was disclosed and to whom it was 
     disclosed, and the usefulness of such information to the 
     individual, and takes into account the administrative and 
     cost burden of accounting for such disclosures.
       ``(3) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     construed as--
       ``(A) requiring a covered entity to account for disclosures 
     of protected health information that are not made by such 
     covered entity; or
       ``(B) requiring a business associate of a covered entity to 
     account for disclosures of protected health information that 
     are not made by such business associate.
       ``(4) Reasonable fee.--A covered entity may impose a 
     reasonable fee on an individual for an accounting performed 
     under paragraph (1)(B). Any such fee shall not be greater 
     than the entity's labor costs in responding to the request.
       ``(5) Effective date.--
       ``(A) Current users of electronic records.--In the case of 
     a covered entity insofar as it acquired an electronic health 
     record as of January 1, 2009, paragraph (1) shall apply to 
     disclosures, with respect to protected health information, 
     made by the covered entity from such a record on and after 
     January 1, 2014.
       ``(B) Others.--In the case of a covered entity insofar as 
     it acquires an electronic health record after January 1, 
     2009, paragraph (1) shall apply to disclosures, with respect 
     to protected health information, made by the covered entity 
     from such record on and after the later of the following:
       ``(i) January 1, 2011; or
       ``(ii) the date that it acquires an electronic health 
     record.
       ``(C) Later date.--The Secretary may set an effective date 
     that is later that the date specified under subparagraph (A) 
     or (B) if the Secretary determines that such later date it 
     necessary, but in no case may the date specified under--
       ``(i) subparagraph (A) be later than 2018; or
       ``(ii) subparagraph (B) be later than 2014.''.
       On page 359, line 15, strike ``shall'' and all that follows 
     through ``those'' on line 18, and insert the following: 
     ``shall review and evaluate the definition of health care 
     operations under section 164.501 of title 45, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, and to the extent appropriate, eliminate by 
     regulation''.
       On page 359, line 22, insert ``In promulgating such 
     regulations, the Secretary shall not require that data be de-
     identified or require valid authorization for use or 
     disclosure for activities described in paragraph (1) of the 
     definition of health care operations under such section 
     164.501.'' after ``disclosure.''.
       On page 360, line 6, insert at the end the following: 
     ``Nothing in this subsection may be construed to supersede 
     any provision under subsection (e) or section 13406(a).''.
       On page 361, line 2, strike ``and'' and all that follows 
     through ``pose'' on line 5.
       On page 361, line 7, strike ``and'' and all that follows 
     through line 10, and insert the following: ``, subject to any 
     regulation that the Secretary may promulgate to prevent 
     protected health information from inappropriate access, use, 
     or disclosure.''.
       On page 362, strike lines 9 through 13, and insert the 
     following:
       (3) Regulations.--Not later than 18 months after the date 
     of enactment of this title, the Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations to carry out this subsection. In promulgating 
     such regulations, the Secretary--
       (A) shall evaluate the impact of restricting the exception 
     described in paragraph (2)(A) to require that the price 
     charged for the purposes described in such paragraph reflects 
     the costs of the preparation and transmittal of the data for 
     such purpose, on research or public health activities, 
     including those conducted by or for the use of the Food and 
     Drug Administration; and

[[Page 3152]]

       (B) may further restrict the exception described in 
     paragraph (2)(A) to require that the price charged for the 
     purposes described in such paragraph reflects the costs of 
     the preparation and transmittal of the data for such purpose, 
     if the Secretary finds that such further restriction will not 
     impede such research or public health activities.
       Beginning on page 364, strike line 1 and all that follows 
     through line 3 on page 365, and insert the following:
       (2) Payment for certain communications.--A communication by 
     a covered entity or business associate that is described in 
     subparagraph (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1) of the 
     definition of marketing in section 164.501 of title 45, Code 
     of Federal Regulations, shall not be considered a health care 
     operation for purposes of subpart E of part 164 of title 45, 
     Code of Federal Regulations if the covered entity receives or 
     has received direct or indirect payment in exchange for 
     making such communication, except where--
       (A) such communication describes only a health care item or 
     service that has previously been prescribed for or 
     administered to the recipient of the communication, or a 
     family member of such recipient;
       (B) each of the following conditions apply--
       (i) the communication is made by the covered entity; and
       (ii) the covered entity making such communication obtains 
     from the recipient of the communication, in accordance with 
     section 164.508 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, a 
     valid authorization (as described in paragraph (b) of such 
     section) with respect to such communication; or
       (C) each of the following conditions apply--
       (i) the communication is made on behalf of the covered 
     entity;
       (ii) the communication is consistent with the written 
     contract (or other written arrangement described in section 
     164.502(e)(2) of such title) between such business associate 
     and covered entity; and
       (iii) the business associate making such communication, or 
     the covered entity on behalf of which the communication is 
     made, obtains from the recipient of the communication, in 
     accordance with section 164.508 of title 45, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, a valid authorization (as described in paragraph 
     (b) of such section) with respect to such communication.
       On page 365, strike lines 4 through 7.
       On page 369, lines 10 and 11, strike ``Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services shall'' and insert ``the Federal Trade 
     Commission shall, in accordance with section 553 of title 5, 
     United States Code,''.
       On page 390, after line 21, insert the following:
       (e) Report Required.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Government Accountability 
     Office shall submit to Congress and the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services a report on the impact of any of the 
     provisions of, or amendments made by, this division or 
     division B that are related to the Health Insurance 
     Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and section 552a 
     of title 5, United States Code, on health insurance premiums 
     and overall health care costs.

  Mr. ENZI. This is an extremely important bill for the section that 
deals with Health IT. Senator Kennedy and I have been working on that 
for 3 years as well as many others in this Chamber. If we are going to 
have health care in this country that improves, we are going to have to 
have Health IT, and I think everybody realizes that.
  We have tried to come up with a mechanism for getting 
interoperability. We have had good success on that without being able 
to get the bill passed that we have been working on for 3 years.
  But there is a provision that moves Health IT along in this bill, but 
it needed some modifications so it actually would work. I am ever so 
pleased people on both sides of the aisle, particularly Senators 
Baucus, Kennedy, and Grassley, have helped and worked on this. The 
reason there had to be a modification was a little while ago we were 
able to clear up one more difficulty in that bill.
  Without this, it will not work well. There are still other things 
that ought to be done with it. There are still other things I would 
like to have with Health IT. There are some things in there that I 
would not like to have. But this is the part we were able to get 
agreement on in order to make it work a lot better.
  The Certification Commission for Health IT, or CCHIT, has done a lot 
of great work to accelerate the adoption of health IT by creating a 
credible, efficient certification process. Many companies have already 
begun voluntarily participating in the certification process. This 
system is working and is putting us on the right path to 
interoperability. Unfortunately, CCHIT is concerned certain details of 
the underlying bill will cause an ``unintended slowdown in the adoption 
of health IT''. This amendment allows CCHIT to continue their current 
mission without changing their priorities. CCHIT sent me a letter 
stating ``the amended language makes the path forward much clearer, and 
will build on current health IT momentum rather than disrupting it''.
  This amendment puts the standards section back on the right track by 
building upon the progress of Secretary Leavitt and the Bush 
administration. Secretary Leavitt worked tirelessly to create the 
American Health Information Community, AHIC, a public-private 
partnership designed to ensure the Government and the private sector 
could work together on interoperability standards. Under Secretary 
Leavitt's leadership, the AHIC recently transitioned into the National 
eHealth Collaborative, a voluntary consensus standards body.
  I strongly support the collaborative and I want to ensure it is able 
to continue. The bill before the Senate, however, threatens to ``take'' 
the assets of the collaborative and nationalize the collaborative. My 
amendment prevents that from happening. I have been working with the 
leaders of the collaborative and they ``strongly support my proposed 
amendment''.
  The amendment will also ensure that Federal investments in IT comply 
with technology standards harmonized by the Healthcare Information 
Technology Standards Panel and certified by the Certification 
Commission for Health IT, and at a minimum this bill should accelerate 
the work of those two entities rather than delay it.
  My amendment also makes other changes that were included in the 
bipartisan ``Wired for Health Care Quality Act'' that were left out of 
the bill before us today. Those changes include making sure the 
membership of the Health IT Standards Committee and the Health IT 
Policy Committee is balanced so that no single sector of the health 
care industry influences the actions of the committees. The amendment 
also specifies an appointment process for the HIT Policy Committee and 
adds back a lot of the other ``good government'' provisions that were 
included in the ``Wired Act'' but left out of this bill.
  In order for health IT to achieve this potential, however, it must be 
done right. It must be interoperable, and the standards of 
interoperability should be defined by standards developed by all the 
stakeholders. Consensus will help prevent Government bureaucrats from 
mandating the equivalent of Beta Max standards in a VHS world, while 
assuring doctors and hospitals that their IT purchases will not be like 
investing in compact discs the day before iTunes launched.
  I strongly believe all of these changes are critical to ensuring we 
don't backtrack on the progress we have made. I want to be clear 
though, I would have preferred to continue working with the other bill 
authors of the Wired for Health Care Quality Act. The ``Wired Act'' 
took a much more fiscally sustainable approach with regard to 
responsibly funding health IT for providers experiencing financial 
hardship. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated 90 percent of 
providers will adopt health IT by 2030 without spending any Federal 
dollars. This bill spends roughly 28 billion in hard-earned taxpayer's 
dollars to achieve that same 90 percent adoption rate, a few years 
earlier. This is not a wise use of the taxpayer's dollars and I do not 
support these provisions.
  I feel the ``Wired Act'' also did a better job balancing patient 
privacy with proper access to health information. If information is 
wrapped up in so much red tape that doctors and their staff are not 
able to access it when they need it, patients will suffer and costs 
will increase. It will take time and hard work, but we must find the 
right balance so patient care does not suffer.
  In closing, I would like urge all members to support this amendment. 
I have been working on this amendment with members from both sides of 
the aisle and I believe it reflects a bipartisan agreement. We need to 
make sure we continue the progress we have made rather than backtrack.

[[Page 3153]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask the Chair now to recognize Senator Wyden.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                 Amendment No. 468 to Amendment No. 98

 (Purpose: To require financial institutions receiving TARP assistance 
to redeem from the United States preferred stock in an amount equal to 
   excess bonuses for 2008 or to pay a 35 percent tax on such amount)

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendment No. 468.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden], for himself, Ms. 
     Snowe, and Mrs. Lincoln, proposes an amendment numbered 468 
     to amendment No. 98.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title I of division B, insert the following:

     SEC. 1903. TREATMENT OF EXCESSIVE BONUSES BY TARP RECIPIENTS.

       (a) In General.--If, before the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the preferred stock of a financial institution was 
     purchased by the Government using funds provided under the 
     Troubled Asset Relief Program established pursuant to the 
     Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, then, 
     notwithstanding any otherwise applicable restriction on the 
     redeemability of such preferred stock, such financial 
     institution shall redeem an amount of such preferred stock 
     equal to the aggregate amount of all excessive bonuses paid 
     or payable to all covered individuals.
       (b) Timing.--Each financial institution described in 
     subsection (a) shall comply with the requirements of 
     subsection (a)--
       (1) not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, with respect to excessive bonuses (or portions 
     thereof) paid before the date of enactment of this Act; and
       (2) not later than the day before an excessive bonus (or 
     portion thereof) is paid, with respect to any excessive bonus 
     (or portion thereof) paid on or after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       (c) Definitions.--As used in this section, the following 
     definitions shall apply:
       (1) Excessive bonus.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``excessive bonus'' means the 
     portion of the applicable bonus payments made to a covered 
     individual in excess of $100,000.
       (B) Applicable bonus payments.--
       (i) In general.--The term ``applicable bonus payment'' 
     means any bonus payment to a covered individual--

       (I) which is paid or payable by reason of services 
     performed by such individual in a taxable year of the 
     financial institution (or any member of a controlled group 
     described in subparagraph (D)) ending in 2008, and
       (II) the amount of which was first communicated to such 
     individual during the period beginning on January 1, 2008, 
     and ending January 31, 2009, or was based on a resolution of 
     the board of directors of such institution that was adopted 
     before the end of such taxable year.

       (ii) Certain payments and conditions disregarded.--In 
     determining whether a bonus payment is described in clause 
     (i)(I)--

       (I) a bonus payment that relates to services performed in 
     any taxable year before the taxable year described in such 
     clause and that is wholly or partially contingent on the 
     performance of services in the taxable year so described 
     shall be disregarded, and
       (II) any condition on a bonus payment for services 
     performed in the taxable year so described that the employee 
     perform services in taxable years after the taxable year so 
     described shall be disregarded.

       (C) Bonus payment.--The term ``bonus payment'' means any 
     payment which--
       (i) is a discretionary payment to a covered individual by a 
     financial institution (or any member of a controlled group 
     described in subparagraph (D)) for services rendered,
       (ii) is in addition to any amount payable to such 
     individual for services performed by such individual at a 
     regular hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, or similar periodic 
     rate, and
       (iii) is paid or payable in cash or other property other 
     than--

       (I) stock in such institution or member, or
       (II) an interest in a troubled asset (within the meaning of 
     the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008) held 
     directly or indirectly by such institution or member.

     Such term does not include payments to an employee as 
     commissions, welfare and fringe benefits, or expense 
     reimbursements.
       (D) Covered individual.--The term ``covered individual'' 
     means, with respect to any financial institution, any 
     director or officer or other employee of such financial 
     institution or of any member of a controlled group of 
     corporations (within the meaning of section 52(a) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986) that includes such financial 
     institution.
       (2) Financial institution.--The term ``financial 
     institution'' has the same meaning as in section 3 of the 
     Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 
     5252).
       (d) Excise Tax on TARP Companies That Fail to Redeem 
     Certain Securities From United States.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 46 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to excise tax on golden parachute payments) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 4999A. FAILURE TO REDEEM CERTAIN SECURITIES FROM 
                   UNITED STATES.

       ``(a) Imposition of Tax.--There is hereby imposed a tax on 
     any financial institution which--
       ``(1) is required to redeem an amount of its preferred 
     stock from the United States pursuant to section 1903(a) of 
     the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009, and
       ``(2) fails to redeem all or any portion of such amount 
     within the period prescribed for such redemption.
       ``(b) Amount of Tax.--The amount of the tax imposed by 
     subsection (a) shall be equal to 35 percent of the amount 
     which the financial institution failed to redeem within the 
     time prescribed under 1903(b) of the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009.
       ``(c) Administrative Provisions.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subtitle F, any tax 
     imposed by this section shall be treated as a tax imposed by 
     subtitle A for the taxable year in which a deduction is 
     allowed for any excessive bonus with respect to which the 
     redemption described in subsection (a)(1) is required to be 
     made.
       ``(2) Extension of time.--The due date for payment of tax 
     imposed by this section shall in no event be earlier than the 
     150th day following the date of the enactment of this 
     section.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) The heading for chapter 46 of such Code are amended to 
     read as follows:

          ``Chapter 46-Taxes on Certain Excessive Remuneration

``Sec. 4999. Golden parachute payments.
``Sec. 4999A. Failure to redeem certain securities from United 
              States.''.

       (B) The item relating to chapter 46 in the table of 
     chapters for subtitle D of such Code is amended to read as 
     follows:

``Chapter 46. Taxes on excessive remuneration.''.

       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply to failures described in section 4999A(a)(2) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 occurring after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, Senators are working to limit the cost of 
the stimulus legislation. This bipartisan amendment that I offer with 
Senator Snowe and Senator Lincoln, holds down the cost of the stimulus 
legislation by bringing back to the taxpayers billions and billions of 
dollars.
  This amendment provides a way to quickly return to taxpayers much of 
the $18 billion that has been paid out in excessive bonuses to 
companies under the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
  Americans were horrified recently to learn that Citigroup and others 
that had received extensive Federal support had paid out billions of 
dollars in excessive bonuses. This bipartisan amendment makes it clear 
it is not enough to say the excessive Wall Street bonuses were wrong, 
it makes clear they have to be paid back.
  Our amendment gives those companies that receive Federal bailout 
money and pay the unjustified large bonuses a choice: Pay back the cash 
portion of any bonus paid in excess of $100,000 within 120 days of the 
amendment's enactment, or pay an excise tax of 35 percent on what is 
not returned to the Treasury.
  The money can be repaid by the financial firms buying back the 
preferred stock the Federal Government owns in these companies or in 
any other fashion the institution chooses.
  Senator Snowe, Senator Lincoln, and I have received extensive legal 
analysis with respect to this amendment. It is clear our approach 
passes constitutional muster. Recently, I had printed in the Record a 
letter to me from Edward Kleinbard, head of the Joint Committee on 
Taxation, on this matter.
  I also wish to thank Mr. Kleinbard and his very professional staff 
for their analysis of this legislation. No other bipartisan bill 
proposed in either this body or the other body would force the 
repayment of these bonuses and actually protect the taxpayer. This 
amendment has real teeth, and it is supported by colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle.
  Let me close by saying, first, I wish to thank the distinguished 
chairman of the Finance Committee and our wonderful staff. They have 
been so gracious, as always, to assist me on this. I would close by 
saying I think the President summed it up. The President

[[Page 3154]]

said these bonuses ``were shameful.'' Now it is time for us to do our 
job and pass legislation with teeth that requires that these bonuses 
are repaid and the taxpayers are protected.
  I urge my colleagues to join Senator Snowe, Senator Lincoln, and 
myself in supporting a bipartisan approach in this area. It is 
particularly relevant this afternoon.
  I see my colleague and friend, a former chair, Senator McCain on the 
floor. He has done yeoman's work in terms of blowing the whistle for 
unjustifiable Federal spending. This is a bipartisan way, colleagues, 
to hold down the cost of the stimulus legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 468 be made pending. I 
know of no opposition at this point. No colleague has spoken in 
opposition and urge my colleagues to approve it. My sense is, it can 
probably be done on a voice vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I think that concludes all the amendments 
on the list. We are now awaiting an attempt to drop a unanimous consent 
request so we can start voting on those amendments. That is in the 
process right now. Pending the completion of that list, it is probably 
advisable that we keep the Senate open for debate equally divided until 
the hour of 5 o'clock.
  If we get the consent agreed to before then, we can ask to vitiate 
that agreement where debate be allocated equally so we can propound the 
other consent.
  I ask unanimous consent that the time until 5 o'clock be time 
available for debate only, equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I probably 
will not object, if I understand the Senator from Montana, we most 
likely will have a vote about 5 o'clock.
  Mr. BAUCUS. We will try to.
  Mr. McCAIN. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to share a few thoughts about 
where we are. The enormity of the legislation that is before us can 
hardly be comprehended. The bill, with interest, scored by the 
Congressional Budget Office, is $1.25 trillion. That is more than twice 
as much as the 5-year Iraq war has cost. It is the largest expenditure 
in the history of this country or any country in the history of the 
world.
  Remember, we have a big budget. We are spending a lot of money, too 
much money, most people think, in our normal budget. Every penny of 
this money is debt. We do not have the money to pay for it. We already 
are in deficit. This increases the size of that deficit.
  It increases the interest we will have to pay on it. I would note the 
Congressional Budget Office, which is our nonpartisan group, hired a 
new Director--the Democrats have a majority, but it is a bipartisan 
selection, so, of course, he is approved by everybody, a good leader.
  Their numbers show the interest on the debt today, this year, will be 
$195 billion. We are very fortunate because low interest rates, in the 
very short term, are out there today. But by 2014, when you add the 
stimulus package into that, we will be looking at a deficit of $440 
billion each year and thereafter. It could be higher if interest rates 
go higher. That is the equivalent each year of the Iraq war, for 
example--almost.
  This is how big the numbers are. I think the American people 
understand what is happening. They are very uneasy. I talked to my 90-
year-old shut-in aunt a little earlier today. She said: Who do they 
think is going to pay that money back? That is a pretty good question, 
is it not?
  Let me give perspective to my colleagues on how big and how dangerous 
a condition our economy is in. These are numbers that are important. 
Back in 2004, that is when we had the largest deficit ever, after 9/11, 
after the Iraq efforts and the slowdown in the economy, it hit $413 
billion.
  President Bush was roundly criticized by members of this body, many 
on the other side who are supporting this trillion-dollar bill, for 
allowing the deficit to go to $413 billion. That was 3.6 percent of the 
total gross domestic product in America, to give some perspective. But 
we whittled it down a little bit. In 2005, it dropped to $318 billion; 
in 2006, $248; and in 2007, the year before last, the budget deficit 
fell to $161 billion.
  I am a member of the Budget Committee. I kept an eye on that. I felt 
like we were going in the right direction. I thought we were. It was 
1.2 percent of GDP. I felt the deficit was heading in the right 
direction. We were not there, but I was pleased.
  Then, last year about this time, President Bush decided we were 
heading into economic troubled waters and that we should stimulate the 
economy. They came up with an idea to send everybody a check. I am sure 
most people enjoyed receiving their checks. They went out, though, and 
it cost us over $150 billion right there.
  It was all debt because, see, we were already in deficit. It just 
about doubled the deficit to $455 billion last year. Now, this is what 
the Congressional Budget Office says the deficit will be this year, 
when we complete the fiscal year, September 30, how much it is going to 
be for 2009.
  Well, the numbers--you can see what a dramatic thing it is--total 
$1.4 trillion, almost three times as much as the largest debt we have 
ever had in the history of the Republic.
  Now, this is scoring about $200 billion-plus, a little over $200 
billion out of the financial bailout, that $700 billion. They are 
saying that will be lost during this period of time.
  We will lose that much on that. They are scoring money for Freddie 
and Fannie, bailing out those institutions that helped get us in this 
fix. Add this gray area down here, this is the stimulus. They are 
projecting out of the trillion dollars we would have 232 sent this 
year. The Freddie and Fannie and the Wall Street bailout, the $700 
billion, they are scoring right now as a one-time cost. The next year, 
with those one-time costs out, we are still over a trillion, $1.16, 
almost $1.2 trillion. These are huge numbers, and they impact us so 
severely. They will burden us forever, and we are not going to pay this 
back. We are just going to borrow the money and pay the interest on it. 
There is no way in our expectation that we will get the money to pay 
this debt back.
  Therefore, we should listen to what the Congressional Budget Office 
wrote. They conclude that the effects of this legislation would 
``diminish rapidly after 2010.'' They say that over the 10-year period, 
the stimulus package ``would be a net negative to the economy.'' They 
say that the gross domestic product over 10 years will be less if we 
pass this bill than if we don't.
  We all want to do the right thing. I had a feeling that this was not 
good legislation in the long run. That is why I have been opposed to 
it. People I respect questioned it. Now we have our own independent 
Congressional Budget Office issuing a report yesterday, saying that 
over 10 years, already, we would be hurt by the legislation more than 
benefited. Then think about the next 10 years or the next 10 years or 
the next 10 years. A lot of people living today will still be alive 30 
years from now. I probably won't be one of them. But I will just say 
that they are going to be feeling the negative pressure of the interest 
burden every year for as long as we can foresee. It portends dangerous 
times.
  Where does the money come from that will pay this debt? That is what 
an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal today, written by 
George Melloan, asked:

       As Congress blithely ushers its trillion dollar 
     ``stimulus'' package toward law and the U.S. Treasury 
     prepares to begin writing checks on this vast new 
     appropriation, it might be wise to ask a simple question: 
     Who's going to finance it?

  Where does the money come from?
  He goes on:

       That might seem like a no-brainer, which perhaps explains 
     why no one has bothered to ask.


[[Page 3155]]


  He makes the point that right now we have low interest rates. He then 
says:

       Congress is able to assure itself that it will finance the 
     stimulus with cheap credit. But how long will credit be 
     cheap? Will it still be when the Treasury is scrounging 
     around in the international credit markets six months or a 
     year from now? That seems highly unlikely.

  Senator Conrad, chairman of the Budget Committee, a fine Member of 
the Senate, really worried about the debt, a Democratic leader and a 
fine leader in the Senate, passed out an article in the Budget 
Committee the week before last from the New York Times.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. The article said that China's trade surplus with the 
United States had dropped from $50 billion a month to $20 billion a 
month. They are going to spend more on their own economy. The question 
is, How could they buy more and more and more of our debt, even if they 
wanted to, when they don't have the money to do so? It portends higher 
interest rates, as Mr. Melloan wrote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. While we had a lull in the offering of amendments, I 
thought I would come to the floor and speak about two amendments I 
would like to have considered later on this evening as we continue with 
this debate on this important bill. First let me say that there are 
some really exciting opportunities in this bill to move our country 
forward, to give people hope and confidence that this Government 
finally, after many years of inaction and negligence, is ready to act 
and try to be as focused as possible on creating and sustaining jobs, 
strengthening our financial sector, and thawing the capital markets, 
not just for what it means to Americans but for the world.
  A group of us have been trying through the week to reach out to 
Members on the other side and to live up to the call of the new 
President to try to build this bill from the center, to try to build 
common ground, to open dialog, to try to reach some accommodation so we 
can do this together. I have found in my time in the Senate that some 
of the best things that have been accomplished have been accomplished 
in that way.
  I wanted to speak for a minute and publicly thank Senator Nelson for 
his leadership, the Senator from Nebraska, who has worked so very hard 
on this. I would like to also mention others who have been part of this 
effort--Senator Bayh and Senator Tester, Senator Lincoln, Senator Webb, 
some of the new Senators who have joined us, Senators who have now 
several terms of experience, Senator Carper, Senator Begich from 
Alaska, and others, Senator McCaskill. I have been part of this group 
as well, working to try to forge some common ground.
  When this bill came out of the Senate Appropriations Committee--and I 
am a member of that committee--we were told that there could be some 
work done on the floor to improve it. Our group took that to heart and 
said: Could we trim out some of the fat, add in some muscle, add in 
some focus, and reach out to the other side?
  There were Republicans who voted for the bill in committee. The 
ranking member, Thad Cochran, gave support to the chairman, Senator 
Inouye, and said: I am moving this bill forward in an effort to see if 
we can improve it.
  We have made some significant improvements on the floor over the last 
week. It has been tough--late nights, early mornings--but we are going 
to continue that work. I am proud of the work of this centrist group, 
which is getting larger, not smaller, Members who come from the east 
coast and the west, the South and the Midwest, across geographic 
bounds, working with Members on the other side. The Senators from Maine 
have been particularly helpful, both on Appropriations and Finance. 
There have been other Senators I have enjoyed working with on many 
issues, whether it is coastal issues or Corps of Engineers issues. 
Hopefully, this centrist group will come together.
  Unfortunately, there are a few Members--and maybe a few too many on 
this floor--who, no matter what showed up, no matter if it was the 
perfect bill, would still say no because they don't want to move 
forward. I hope that a majority of us would heed the President's call 
and pull together and try our very best to move this debate forward.
  In the last minute and a half I have, I want to mention two things 
that could slightly improve. Again, there are some good things in this 
underlying bill, but I still think we need to cut out a great deal. 
Hopefully, we can come to some arrangement. It needs to be a 
substantial adjustment so that we can take out some fat and add some 
muscle. As we are adding some muscle, I suggest that we add some 
infrastructure funding in a broader array.
  We all think highways are a great way to get people back to work, 
invest in brick and mortar and highways. But we also think that about 
revolving-loan funds, particularly for smaller cities and parishes and 
counties in other States, parishes in Louisiana--we have a huge 
backlog--waterways. And this is what I want to stress for the last 
minute or so.
  I realize when you poll, highways always poll very high because we 
are always on them, roads and highways. In some parts of the country, 
mass transit and high-speed rail will poll well, particularly on the 
northeast corridor, because a lot of people ride trains.
  But I come from a place where there is a lot of water. Where I come 
from, there are levees. Sometimes they hold and sometimes they don't. 
But not many people get on the other side of those levees, so they 
don't always see these waterways that make our commerce move, that 
support the manufacturing base and the business base of this country. 
Sometimes we forget that we need to invest in not just highways and not 
just rail, which is very important, but also our waterways. That is why 
I have an amendment pending that will add a billion dollars to the 
Corps of Engineers for restoration and water projects. I hope we can 
take that up.
  I commend Byron Dorgan, the chairman of our committee, for adding 
$4.6 billion because there was nothing in the bill when it started, and 
not just for Louisiana but for Illinois, for Washington State, for 
Florida. These ports, inland waterways, are very important. There is a 
backlog of $61 billion. I know there is about $15 to $20 billion in the 
pipeline, but there is $61 billion in backlog. I think adding a little 
bit more for the Corps of Engineers and restoration projects for the 
Great Lakes, for the Gulf of Mexico, and for other areas would be 
important.
  I also think it is not just hiring welders and carpenters and 
construction managers that is important, but some of our Members have 
said we should invest in the National Science Foundation because hiring 
a scientist is a good thing to build a new experiment or to build a new 
way. It is not just building brick and mortar. So the National Science 
Foundation, in my view, is very much part of the new infrastructure of 
America because it is not just about steel and concrete and 
shipbuilding and fabrication. The new infrastructure is also about 
intellectual property, and it is also about strengthening our 
scientific investments.
  Our group feels that a broader infrastructure piece that would not 
only be about highways but about waterways, about high-speed rail, 
about investing in the scientific base of our country would be an 
important investment to make.
  I know my 5 minutes has passed. I know we have a vote at about 5 
o'clock. I look forward to working with my colleagues in a team spirit 
to see if, as we progress, one or two of these amendments could be 
offered.
  I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page 3156]]


  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, there are some procedural situations on 
the other side of the aisle, and I understand that, and I will 
certainly be patient while those are resolved. I would just like to say 
we have been following a procedure today that seems to be largely 
satisfactory to most Members: that we consider a body of amendments 
that are considered and then voted on en bloc or as a series. I hope we 
would be able to continue that. There are, I believe, eight pending 
amendments. We could vote on those and then move on to other 
amendments. It is a procedure we have been following throughout the 
day. I hope we continue it and continue to make progress on the bill.
  So I note the Senator from Montana is not on the floor, nor is 
leadership. But I hope the leadership would come out soon and give us 
an idea as to what the plans are for the remainder of the evening and 
tomorrow.
  Mr. President, 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. BROWNBACK. 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. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to make a few comments based 
upon the hearing we had this morning----
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, will my colleague from Kansas yield for 
just a moment?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Sorry?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Will my colleague from Kansas yield for a moment?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Yield for what?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. For a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes, I will be happy to.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
from now until 5:30 be for general debate purposes only and that it be 
evenly divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I believe I have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas has the floor.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, as I was stating----
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, might I ask the Senator from Kansas, how 
long do you wish to speak?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Probably less than 10 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. OK. Thank you. Fine.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, as I was mentioning, we had a hearing 
in the Joint Economic Committee this morning on Bureau of Labor 
Statistics numbers for this past month of January. They are not good, 
obviously. There are nearly 600,000 job losses taking place. What has 
happened up until about 3 months ago--the crisis was centered in 
housing, primarily, as everybody knows. Then it spread out to the rest 
of the economy. Then we have seen that spread out, make more impact, 
now getting to unemployment rates that have been rising substantially 
during those past 3 months.
  Obviously, the economy is ailing. Everybody knows that. American 
families are suffering. But there are two things I want to bring out 
from this study that I think are a little bit different, and I hope my 
colleagues are watching these particular items.
  There are two sectors in the economy that are still producing jobs. 
It is in health care, and it is in education. Obviously, we wish they 
were producing more jobs in those sectors, but the point of the matter 
they were making and saying is that these two sectors are doing well 
without stimulus. They are continuing to move on forward.
  It would be my hope that as people move forward on this process in 
the stimulus bill, we would say: Let's target in and focus on the areas 
that are not creating jobs, that have lost a huge number of jobs, and 
target much more of our effort there rather than in areas such as 
health care and education that have continued to produce jobs.
  The auto industry--Senator Mikulski and I had an amendment that was 
adopted that, if this gets to conference, I would hope would be 
maintained in conference, of taking interest on a new car purchase in 
2009 and allowing that interest to be tax deductible. That would be 
something that would stimulate a sector of the economy that is 
obviously in great trouble. And while we have limited resources, we 
need to target it to areas that have difficulty and not areas that are 
doing relatively well compared to the rest of the economy and do not 
need stimulus, areas that are performing and look as if they are going 
to be able to continue to perform. So with the limited resources we 
have, we have to target and get into those areas that actually need to 
be stimulated and stimulate the economy in those zones.
  I was just reading an article on the front page of the New York Times 
today. They were talking about Japan's lost decade that a number of 
people have cited with pretty extensive writing: infrastructure 
projects that did not produce yield, and then they were left with 10 
years of pretty radical Government spending and not much to show for 
it; and only with global economic activity picking up did the Japanese 
economy pick up out of that, and then they were left with this towering 
debt.
  Point No. 1 on this issue is that for those sectors performing 
relatively well--although not great--let's take those stimulus dollars 
and focus them into areas that are not performing, like in the auto 
industry or in housing, which is where this started. I think that is a 
great point we need to do.
  The second point on this--we just put out a paper on this on the 
Republican side of the Joint Economic Committee--is that we need a 
stimulus, and we need it to be a stimulus, and we need to have some 
criteria of stimulus. A number of people have studied this and looked 
at past experiences in this country and other places, and I would 
simply ask my colleagues, let's make sure to put all of those proposals 
through a stimulus grid and ask, does it actually produce stimulus, 
does it actually create jobs, and not have a multiple set of targets 
taking place of, well, OK, we want to do this in the energy field, we 
want to do this in the environment field, we want to do this in other 
fields. All of these are fine objectives, but right now the economy is 
in this crisis situation, and that is what we have to have as a laser 
focus.
  I have seen too many times around here where we get a multiple set of 
targets and we do not hit any of them very well. We have one target: We 
have to get the economy going again. We have one job, and we probably 
have one bullet the size we are talking about with this one. We can 
only hit one target with this, and we need to hit that target.
  In looking at these tax multipliers, President Obama's Chair of the 
Council of Economic Advisers has done studies on this and found that 
the tax multiplier from tax cuts is nearly 3 to 1--every $1 of tax cuts 
producing $3 of GDP activity. I have other papers--and I am going to 
submit those for the Record--showing the efforts for stimulus packages 
that are focused on Government spending have as low a yield as $0.33 
per $1 of economic activity spent on them. We cannot at all afford to 
have that low of a yield on a Government spending package. We have this 
from studies from Robert Hall of Stanford and Susan Woodward, the chair 
of Sand Hill Econometrics, and a Harvard study by Robert Barro, showing 
a multiplier of 0.8 in some of the Government spending.
  My point in saying all this is I think there is a stimulus package to 
be had out there that has 75, 80 votes for it from the Senate. I think 
we have to slow up and get that package that gets that number of votes 
and have one criteria for it: Does it stimulate the economy? And if it 
does not have a multiplier of at least 1.5--I think it should

[[Page 3157]]

be 2, but if it does not have a multiplier of at least 1.5, we should 
not be doing it because what if we are 6 months down the road and this 
spreads into another sector or we have more banking problems, and you 
need resources again, and you have already piled up this level of debt, 
and you are going to add more to it, and you do not have another bullet 
in the chamber to be able to do it?
  A simple taking of a couple more weeks to get this hit on the 
target--it is far more important that we hit the target, that we have 2 
or 3 more weeks to target in on it. We have good models, and there is 
good will to do this. The pleas from these hearings we had this morning 
on the unemployment rate say we have to hit the targets and the sectors 
that need it, not the targets and the sectors that do not need it as 
much as in some of these manufacturing pieces and some of the 
construction pieces that are there.
  Our economy is ailing, American families are suffering. They are 
looking to us to help get the economy moving again without dooming 
future generations to decades of economic stagnation and decreased 
opportunity. Just like the patient who counts on his doctor to 
prescribe the right medication when he is ill, the American people are 
counting on us to deliver the right medicine--medicine that will help 
the economy recover.
  I am concerned that we are on the verge of prescribing the wrong 
medicine for the economy. The medicine we are on the verge of 
prescribing--a permanent and significant increase in the size of 
government--may well leave our economy buried under a mountain of debt 
with no appreciable impact on improving the long-term health of our 
economy and little actual short-term ``stimulus.''
  Time and again during this debate, Members of this body have taken to 
this floor to proclaim that tax cuts don't stimulate the economy and 
create jobs. We have been told that spending is more effective at 
stimulating economic growth than reducing tax burdens as though that 
were settled economic fact.
  However, the multipliers cited are more the result of how the macro 
models are constructed than they are from any statistical analysis of 
the data. These models are built upon the assumption that spending by 
the Government is more effective in stimulating the economy than tax 
relief to individuals and their families. When you construct an 
economic model with assumptions that ensure large multiplier effects 
from Government spending--guess what--you get large effects from 
Government spending: multiplier in, by assumption, multiplier out.
  But the consumer doesn't necessarily march to the tune of an 
``omniscient government,'' and might save some of the money instead of 
spending it all. Well, if we think that an American family might save 
half of any relief we give them, why not double the amount we give them 
and get the type of multiplier effects we want. Let the American 
people, and not the Government, choose. I have a basic problem with the 
basic notion that the Government is a better allocator of resources 
than American families. Yet, we hear these multipliers bandied about as 
though they represented settled economic fact.
  That simply is not the case. In fact, there is a good deal of recent 
economic research that analyzes data as opposed to building models on 
Keynesian assumptions.
  I want to briefly cite a couple of examples of that research--
research that looks at historical data and experience, not results 
produced by theoretical models of the economy.
  First, and some of my colleagues have alluded to this, Christina 
Romer, President Obama's Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors and 
her husband, David Romer of the University of California at Berkeley, 
found a tax multiplier of about three--a dollar of tax cut raises the 
gross domestic product, GDP, by about three dollars.
  In a recent paper published by the National Bureau of Economic 
Research, Andrew Mountford of the University of London and Harald Uhlig 
of the University of Chicago, evaluated the effectiveness of three 
policy options. Let me quote from their findings:

       We find that deficit-financed tax cuts work best among 
     these three scenarios to improve GDP, with a maximal . . . 
     multiplier of five dollars of total additional GDP per each 
     dollar of the total cut in government revenue five years 
     after the shock.

  They found a maximal multiplier of 5.33 after 14 quarters for a 
deficit-financed tax cut. What did they find the maximum result of 
deficit-financed Government spending was? Mr. President, 0.65-- after 
one quarter.
  Robert Hall of Stanford and Susan Woodward, the chair of Sand Hill 
Econometrics, find a general Government spending multiplier of about 
one. Robert Barro of Harvard recently noted in the Wall Street Journal 
that his research showed a 0.8 multiplier for war-time spending. When 
he attempted to estimate directly the multiplier associated with 
peacetime Government spending, he got a number insignificantly 
different from zero.
  While the other side is fond of criticizing the 2001 and 2003 tax 
cuts, they often forget that they produced revenues that were greater 
than estimated by CBO before they were passed. There is no question 
that private investment and the jobs market improved dramatically and 
quickly after the passage of the 2003 tax cuts. Capital repatriated to 
this country from abroad skyrocketed when we had a 1-year reduction in 
the tax on earnings brought back to this country from abroad.
  I want to impress upon my colleagues that these multipliers that are 
cited to support broad increases in spending are not supported by much 
solid academic research. They are supported by models whose assumptions 
largely drive the result.
  Now I want to turn briefly to one aspect of this spending bill that 
needs some emphasis. The proponents talk about creating jobs. This bill 
spends large amounts of money on worthwhile programs such as education 
and healthcare. This morning, the BLS reported that payroll employment 
in the education and health services sectors increased by 54,000 during 
January 2009. Payroll employment in those sectors has registered 
positive growth for 52 consecutive months. During that period, payroll 
employment in those sectors has increased by 2,164,000. Over the past 
year, payroll employment in the education and health services sectors 
has increased by 530,000.
  It is not the education and health services sectors that need 
stimulus to create jobs; it is already creating them. We should be 
targeting sectors that have suffered severe declines, like the motor 
vehicle and parts subsector where employment has declined by more than 
20% in just the past year and 40% since January 2001. We should be 
looking at data to target incentives for enterprise to create jobs that 
are permanent and part of private-sector activity, not Government.
  We need to also be careful to avoid reinflating the bubble. The 
construction sector lost 111,000 jobs in January and has seen 935,000 
jobs lost over 19 consecutive months of decline. Yet even with that 
decline, construction-sector jobs are within 1 percent of January 2001 
prehousing-bubble levels. We need to make sure that we aren't simply 
creating temporary Government funded jobs that will vanish and leave 
American families in the same situation they find themselves in today.
  Lastly, I want to again address this concern over the fact that 
consumers might save tax reductions or equivalently pay down debt. This 
bill takes the approach that consumers won't do the right thing and 
rush out and spend the money. What is wrong with a family making the 
decision to improve its balance sheet rather than recklessly spend what 
they might not be able to afford? The household and nonprofit sectors 
lost $7 trillion in net worth between the third quarter of 2007 and the 
third quarter of 2008. We have poured hundreds of billions into helping 
banks improve their balance sheets, but when a taxpayer chooses to do 
what he believes is best for his family, somehow we manage to criticize 
that.
  Rushing to pass a bill because of the fear that support is slowly but 
surely fading under the face of pressure from

[[Page 3158]]

the American people is a foolhardy exercise. We should act with due 
speed, but not haste. Let's take this bill down, send it back to 
committee, and focus on creating a bill that will stimulate the economy 
and does not use the current crisis to shoehorn permanent expansions of 
Government programs into a stimulus bill under the guise of stimulus.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman.
  Earlier today we adopted an amendment that prohibits appropriations 
under this act to aquariums or zoos or beautification projects or other 
such entities, and Rhode Island was specifically targeted by the 
Senator who offered that amendment. He mocked a zoo that belongs to the 
city of Providence that would be, I think, a potential area of support 
from this bill. He mocked a tree-planting program within the city of 
Providence.
  I urge my colleagues, at their leisure, to reconsider the wisdom of 
that vote, perhaps in conference.
  The Roger Williams Park Zoo is a wonderful facility. Children come 
through it to get educated through schools. People are employed there. 
It opens minds to the wonders of nature. It has wonderful science 
programs. And it's a municipal business that is run for the benefit of 
the people of Providence. And it needs work. As long as it needs work, 
as long as cities are broke in this economy, I don't understand why one 
would single out a zoo as opposed to the Department of Motor Vehicles 
or some other structure that might need repair. Why take that job away?
  Is the Senator who offered this so infallible? Does he know so much 
about other States he has never even visited that he can impose his 
views? I would never dream of suggesting that I know more about towns 
and cities in Oklahoma than the local political establishments of those 
towns as to what is wise. I really think that that is a mistake.
  If a city needs tree planting and that brings real jobs and it puts 
people and their trucks and their trees and their nurserymen to work, 
and if it provides shade, and it provides greenness, and if it absorbs 
carbon, and if it engages in traffic calming, there are all sorts of 
good reasons why people would want to do that. Why is it necessary for 
one Senator to tell the city of Providence that he knows better, having 
never visited?
  And, finally, we don't have an aquarium, but there was a story in the 
New York Times about ``Japan's Big-Works Stimulus.'' It talks about a 
bridge they built with their stimulus money. As to the bridge, here is 
what they say:

       ``The bridge? It's a dud,'' said Masahiro Shimada, 70, a 
     retired city official who was fishing near the port. ``Maybe 
     we could use it for bungee jumping,'' he joked.

  Here is what he concluded:

       Among Hamada's many public works projects, the biggest 
     benefits had come from the prison, the university, and the 
     Aquas aquarium. These had created hundreds of permanent jobs 
     and attracted students and families with children to live in 
     a city where nearly a third of residents were over 65.

  Of the hundreds and hundreds of projects Japan did for stimulus in 
Hamada, the three best included an aquarium--and we have ruled that out 
because one Senator from a State far from Rhode Island who has never 
been to my State purports to know more about what we should do in our 
cities than we do ourselves.
  I urge that we have a little bit of the spirit of Ben Franklin at the 
closing of the discussion over the Constitution when he urged all of 
the Members who were present to doubt a little bit of their own 
infallibility so that we can get together and get something done. I 
urge the Senator who proposed this amendment to doubt a little of his 
own infallibility, and I urge that we have a little bit more confidence 
in our own local judgments about what might actually provide the most 
bang for the buck.
  I thank the chairman for allowing me this moment and I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, later this evening or tomorrow, I will 
offer an amendment that will put money back where it belongs: into the 
pockets of retirees who earn those dollars and who will spend those 
dollars. I wish to thank Senator Voinovich, my colleague from Ohio, as 
well as Senator Durbin from Illinois, Senators Schumer and Gillibrand 
from New York, and Senator Casey from Pennsylvania for joining me in 
this effort.
  Our amendment would drive economic activity and confront a policy 
that has blindsided too many American retirees--retirees from all over 
the country, from many sectors of our economy.
  Mr. President, 44 million Americans rely on the Pension Benefit 
Guaranty Corporation--PBGC--to protect their retirement income in 
today's volatile economic climate. When pension plans are terminated, 
the PBGC steps in. Six hundred forty thousand Americans are covered 
under the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. It is a crucial 
institution to maintaining a decent standard of living for American 
retirees. But in administering pension plans, the PBGC can pay out 
benefits for years, based on preliminary estimates of the guaranteed 
amount. Determination of the final benefit amount routinely takes 
several years to calculate and sometimes results in ``overpayments.''
  I wish to put this term in context. When the PBGC takes over a 
pension--when a corporation, in essence, dumps its pension on the PBGC 
which it has paid premiums into--it is a government agency but one that 
relies on premiums paid by companies--when PBGC takes over a pension, 
benefits are routinely cut--dramatically cut--for retirees. So if you 
are receiving $2,000 a month from your company, it declares bankruptcy, 
you are thrown into the PBGC, you don't get $2,000 a month, you get 
appreciably less, sometimes $800 $900, $1,200, $1,400--way less a month 
than you were getting before. So when PBGC makes a mistake with these 
overpayments, they don't make retirees flush, they are dollars at the 
margin that reflect the difference between initial and final pension 
benefits. In other words, most retirees covered under PBGC are 
receiving significantly lower pension payouts with or without these 
temporary overpayments, so it is never good news for the retiree. They 
are virtually never getting what they were promised by their company 
when they worked for that company and after they retired from that 
company.
  Retirees have no control over the amount they are paid by PBGC. They 
have no control over when PBGC will come up with final benefit 
determinations or whether these determinations will be different from 
the initial estimates. But they are still required to pay the price for 
any difference between estimated and actual benefits, and that price 
can be steep.
  Let me share a story. For privacy's sake, I am going to use first 
names only. Richard owes $53,415.60. He was told when he was working in 
a steel mill that he would get a monthly pension benefit of around 
$2,400. When PBGC assumed trusteeship, he was told he would get a 
benefit of $1,088. Now he is being told that he will get $325 minus a 
recoupment deduction of 10 percent, yielding $292 before taxes. Now, 
Richard, as I said, was initially getting a pension when he retired--a 
promised pension, a commitment, a pledge from this company of $2,400. 
That was the promise. That was the covenant he had. Now, because of all 
of this, he is getting $292 before taxes.
  Louis. Louis put in nearly 34 years at Republic Technologies in 
Lorain, OH, where I lived for many years. PBGC has informed him he will 
be paying back pension money until he is 95 years old.
  These are Ohio stories, but Ohioans are not the only ones who have 
been hit with pension cut after pension cut after pension cut. Not only 
Republic Technology retirees such as Richard and Louis, but retirees 
from Oneida,

[[Page 3159]]

Pillotex, Bethlehem Steel, Huffy, Penn Traffic, National Steel, 
Reliable Insurance, U.S. Air, Eastern Airlines, Pan Am, Delta, United 
Airlines--retirees from all of those companies have been blindsided by 
overpayment recoupment.
  Our amendment is simple. It gives a little relief to the 30,000 
retirees whose pensions are being garnished by PBGC.
  Under our amendment, these retirees receive a simple reprieve from 
PBGC requirements for 24 months. Their pensions wouldn't be garnished 
and they wouldn't be liable for those dollars--now or ever. If we want 
to stimulate the economy, giving a few dollars back to retirees who 
never thought they would lose them and who desperately need them is an 
excellent way to do it.
  Conservative estimates place the cost of this amendment at $20 
million. Those dollars will go straight into the pockets of American 
retirees to be spent immediately in our country, and it will help the 
economy, and it will certainly help those thousands of retirees.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there will be votes later on this evening. 
We are going to have a Democratic caucus starting in 7 minutes, at 
5:30. We hope to complete that in 45 minutes or thereabouts, but 
caucuses sometimes don't work out as quickly as we wish. We will come 
back after that and hopefully at that time work toward disposing of 
these amendments that are now pending. We have a number of them that 
need to have votes. I repeat, we are going to have some votes later on 
tonight. I apologize for not having anything more definite than that, 
but at this stage that is the best I can do.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________