[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3204-3225]
[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 assistant 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.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 3 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the leaders 
or their designees.
  Who yields time? The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, this is a chance for us to engage in 
constructive discussion. It is still a very interesting proposition. I 
think it is going to pass, and it will be, in spite of what was said 
last night, bipartisan. In fact, it could not possibly pass without 
that being the fact.
  There are a number of things in here which are called cuts, but I 
think it is very important we remember that these are, for the most 
part, not cuts from the present situation but cuts from the original 
stimulus package, which was cut by over $100 billion, and therefore 
they appear to be cuts, but they are not cuts. They are actually, for 
the most part, additions--substantial additions--to what we already 
have. So if the bill had not passed, a lot of these programs would 
cease to exist.
  So I think it is a positive document. It is not without flaws. We 
have a conference committee coming and that will be very important. I 
look forward to the engagement today and to the conference committee 
and to the passage of the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me ask my friend from Arizona what his 
intentions are at this point because it seems to me it might be 
advantageous to perhaps have those who oppose this bill state their 
case in the beginning, and maybe we can even have some discussion back 
and forth, in the best traditions of the Senate, about that. Then, we 
can, on this side, come back and perhaps offer a few alternatives and 
then go back and forth. I would ask the Senator from Arizona, does that 
make sense?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would say to my colleague from 
Massachusetts, I certainly think that would be a good way to engage in 
this debate. There are at least four speakers on our side who would 
like to engage in this discussion today, possibly one other. We could 
start, if it would be acceptable to you, and then the Democratic side 
respond and simply go back and forth in that way, with the time being 
divided equally.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I think that would be great. Perhaps what 
we could agree upon, so we don't have an imbalance, and we are not 
talking beyond each other, is perhaps have some kind of reasonable 
limitation on the back and forth so we do get to have a legitimate kind 
of debate.
  I will yield the floor and wait for my colleague from Arizona and 
then perhaps come back.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it would be my intention not to take more 
than about 20 minutes. That would certainly then permit the kind of 
discussion the Senator is suggesting.
  Mr. KERRY. I appreciate that, Mr. President.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I think one of the reasons President Obama 
has not had an easy time getting Republicans to support his 
stabilization program is because he has misrepresented the Republican 
approach to this problem, and obviously that is of concern to us. In 
discussing with the American people his approach to the stimulus of our 
economy, he has first used some dangerous words, I would say, in 
describing the emergency nature of this.
  A lot of people have said he is trying to scare the American people. 
I don't think that is true. I think what he is

[[Page 3205]]

trying to do is demonstrate the seriousness of the situation. But I 
also believe it is not an excuse for acting in an inappropriate way, to 
say we have to do something right now, and if we don't, there is going 
to be catastrophe in the land; therefore, suggesting we need to be less 
careful about what we do. We believe the President's initial 
conversations are appropriate and that we need to be careful about how 
we approach this problem, among other things, because of what could 
occur over the long term.
  He has also mistakenly represented the point of view of Republicans 
in two specific ways: First of all, suggesting the only reason 
Republicans oppose this program is because we just believe in tax 
relief. Of course, we believe in tax relief, but we do not believe that 
is the only solution to this problem. In fact, we understand there has 
to be a component that helps people in need, such as the extension of 
unemployment benefits. We understand that certain kinds of spending can 
be very effective at a time such as this.
  Senator McCain specifically noted some military spending. Because of 
the way the military operates, they can get the money out the door 
quickly, and that can be very beneficial. We also focused, first, on 
housing because that is where this problem began, and that is why our 
effort to fix housing first was presented on the Senate floor. Our 
Democratic colleagues rejected that notion. Of course, we also 
demonstrated why some tax relief can also be beneficial. But we have 
never said that only tax relief will work.
  Our Democratic colleagues like to point out a very high percentage of 
their bill is tax relief, apparently agreeing with us that tax relief 
is important. But the two biggest pieces of tax relief in the 
Democratic bill are, first of all, the rebate program, such as the 
rebate program last year. Last year, it was $600; this year, it is $500 
for 2 years. It was not effective last year, and there is nothing to go 
suggest it is going to be any more effective this year to stimulate the 
economy.
  The other part that is discussed is the alternative minimum tax 
relief--so-called AMT. Now, we have been relieving Americans from 
having to pay the AMT for a decade and not as part of a stimulus bill 
but because it is the right thing to do. No one ever intended that 
Americans below the millionaire status would ever be paying the 
alternative minimum tax. So we have been fixing that each year so 
Americans would not have to worry about it. It doesn't do to count that 
as part of the tax relief and suggest it is because of a stimulus 
intention.
  The other thing the President has spoken of that bothers Republicans 
is talking about the ``tired ideologies'' that got us into this problem 
in the first place. Now, if you are going to try to get some bipartisan 
support from Republicans, I submit that is not the way to do it. I 
would like to know exactly what tired ideologies the President is 
talking about. What exactly?
  Now, in his inaugural speech, I think the President hit a couple of 
home runs. He talked about ``reaffirming the greatness of our Nation.'' 
He said:

       It has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of 
     things . . . who have carried us up the long, rugged path 
     toward prosperity and freedom.

  He talked about requiring a new ``era of responsibility,'' and 
emphasized the values of honesty and hard work.
  Now, those are values that are very important to Republicans. We 
believe that, for example, we should have a Tax Code and Government 
regulatory policy that at least does not punish those who are risk-
takers and doers, who have exercised responsibility and who have helped 
to make this Nation what it is, including many of the people who work 
hard and who run the businesses that create the bulk of the jobs in 
this country. So what exactly is it the President is talking about when 
he talks about the tired ideologies of the past and responsibility?
  There is much talk in this bill of all the aid to the States. Now, 
the States have doubled their spending in the last 5 years, and most 
acknowledge they need to get their fiscal houses in order, but many of 
them are simply looking forward to being bailed out by this bill. So I 
ask: Is that the kind of responsibility we want to foster or should we 
expect more of the States so they can do their part in dealing with 
this crisis?
  Does the President believe the tax cuts of 2003 created the 
recession? Obviously, no one believes that. Not only were they not 
responsible for the recession we are in, but they are accredited with 
the job growth and economic stimulus this country received during the 
middle part of this last decade.
  Does the President believe President Bush's efforts to control Fannie 
Mae and Freddie Mac's risky investments and toxic loans caused the 
pickle we are in right now? Obviously not. Indeed, all the evidence is, 
it was the President's cohorts in the Congress who stopped the efforts 
to control Fannie and Freddie and, as a result, this great housing 
bubble was created and burst, to the detriment of everybody in the 
country.
  Would the President suggest the Reinvestment Act might have had 
something to do with it? There is a failed policy of the past, 
essentially making the banks lend money to people who actually couldn't 
afford it. In the long run, they suffered as much as everyone else 
because they couldn't carry the mortgages on the homes they were put 
in. We did not do them a favor, and we didn't do their neighbors a 
favor, who are now sitting next to a home that is in foreclosure.
  It seems to me the President is rather casually throwing out some 
careless language, and if we would be a little more precise and try to 
get together as Republicans and Democrats to identify the problem and 
work together on it, we would get a lot further.
  Let me ask this question. If the question were put to the Senate 
today: If you knew that a bill in the Senate was going to cause a 
recession in 10 years, would you support it? Well, that is what the 
Congressional Budget Office--the bipartisan office that supports our 
efforts in the Congress--says about this legislation; that there will 
be negative economic growth--negative GDP--in a decade as a result of 
this legislation.
  According to the CBO report, dated February 4, sent to Judd Gregg, 
the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, they say:

       CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would 
     reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent.

  Now, that is 10 years from now. That means if this went on for at 
least two quarters, that is the definition of a recession. They note in 
the very beginning that the effects of the legislation would diminish 
rapidly after 2010 and that in the long term, GDP will be reduced.
  If you have a bill before you that you are told by the experts is 
going to result in a recession, would you maybe want to stop and think 
twice about what you are doing? There is evidence that this is kind of 
a sugar high. We put a lot of spending out now, but once the high is 
gone and you crash, you are going to be in a recession. That, in 
effect, is what is stated here. Just as we do not let our kids have too 
much candy, I think we need to be a little careful about legislation 
which we are told is going to result in a recession.
  It is not just the CBO. In December 2008, the National Bureau of 
Economic Research published a document titled ``What are the Effects of 
Fiscal Policy Shocks?'' by Andrew Mountford of the University of London 
and Harald Uhlig. I am quoting:

       The best fiscal policy to stimulate the economy is a 
     deficit-financed tax cut [and] the long-term costs of fiscal 
     expansion through government spending are probably greater 
     than the short-term gains.

  In other words, in effect confirming what the CBO has said.
  They explain why:

       [That's because] government spending shocks crowd out both 
     residential and non-residential investment--

  By the way, the CBO report I cited does talk about the increase in 
the national debt crowding out private investment with the same 
negative effect--

     while the [positive] response of consumption is small and 
     only significantly different from zero on impact.

  But suppose these recent studies were mistaken, I suggest, and the

[[Page 3206]]

spending spree would even work as advertised. We are still left with 
the number of jobs allegedly to be created at a very significant cost, 
well over a quarter million dollars per job.
  The bottom line here is that doing something temporary which is going 
to cost a lot of money and result in long-term economic downturn is not 
the kind of policies we should be pursuing.
  One of the concerns Republicans have had is that it is not only the 
amount of money that is being spent in this bill--and it is a shocker. 
It is over $1 trillion. And incidentally, the deal that was reached 
yesterday still has us spending something like $1.17 trillion, so this 
is still a very big spending bill.
  By the way, the President acknowledged it is a spending bill. He said 
that is the whole point. One of the problems with that is that you 
cannot fix it by simply shaving a little bit off of some of the 
elements of spending, as this deal apparently does. You have to start 
fundamentally at the bottom.
  Actually, Larry Summers, who is the chief economic adviser of the 
President, had it right when he says this of legislation: ``The 
investments,'' he says, ``will be chosen strategically based on what 
yields the highest rate of return for the economy.'' That is the way it 
should be done, built from the bottom up based only on what actually 
does the most good rather than simply throwing a lot of spending at the 
problem and hoping that some of it sticks or actually trickles down and 
actually helps the American people. This legislation, the so-called 
deal here, doesn't build it from the bottom up. It takes the base bill 
and just shaves some off different pieces of it.
  I would note that we do not have text of the legislation yet, so we 
are dealing with a couple of different press releases, which, by the 
way, don't identify who put them out, and they are slightly different 
with respect to what they say. So when we are discussing this deal, we 
still do not know what it is. This is Saturday. We are supposed to vote 
on this on Monday. Obviously, we are not going to be here tomorrow. Is 
this a way to legislate over $1 trillion of spending that is going to 
be a burden on our children and grandchildren? I think not. I think the 
authors of this legislation owe us a little more consideration in 
getting the facts to us about what the bill actually does.
  As I said, the two big tax pieces are the AMT relief--which we have 
done routinely each year, not as part of a stimulus but because it is 
the right thing to do--and the rebate part, which we know did not work 
last time, and there is no reason to believe it is going to work this 
time. There is only about 2.5 percent of the tax part of the bill which 
actually goes to business tax relief, potentially enabling businesses 
to create jobs--for example, allowing them to write off purchases of 
equipment earlier than they otherwise would, therefore incentivizing 
them to hire people and thereby, obviously, creating jobs. That is the 
tax part of this.
  On the spending side, we are told that there are certain reductions 
in certain of the accounts. But, as we look through it, many of the 
things that were criticized before appear to still be there. If you 
take what was added on the Senate floor to the deal that was struck, 
you are at about $827 billion, which is still above the level of the 
House bill which was criticized strongly by proponents of the deal last 
evening on the floor. They called the House bill a Christmas tree. Yet 
this bill in its total amount is above the level of the House bill. 
There may have been a 4.7-percent reduction from the level of spending 
in the House bill, but it obviously doesn't change it from being a 
Christmas tree. It has not been fundamentally altered from the bottom 
up with an effort to invest in things that actually will stimulate 
jobs. It simply shaved off some of the excess spending in the bill.
  For example, as we understand it, in the building account, the 
Federal building account for Federal buildings, the Senate bill had a 
$6 billion amount. Under this deal that was made, it is $2.5 billion. 
So some money was shaved off there. The NOAA facilities construction 
went down from $795 million to $645 million, a $150 million savings. 
That is great, but the fundamental problem is that this is not going to 
create jobs--that remains. Federal auto fleet--they cut that in half, 
the cars for Government workers, from $600 million to $300 million. The 
DC sewer system remained unchanged. They didn't actually cut, that I 
see.
  The bottom line, as my colleague from Maine described on the floor, 
these are the kinds of things that should go through the regular 
appropriations process where they should compete with other worthy 
causes, going through the appropriations process and the appropriators 
make the tough decisions.
  My colleague, who is a member on the committee, had a couple of 
things to say in describing the appropriations process. He pointed out 
that we have the responsibility to be deliberate and consider these 
items carefully in the context of the President's formal budget 
request. Why? Because there are so many worthy things to spend money on 
that it is our job to make the tough decisions about which ones to put 
at the top of the list and which ones, perhaps, to defer or to reduce. 
That is the job these people on the Appropriations Committee do, and 
they do it well. They have to stick with the President's budget.
  What is in this bill is new spending without any kind of tax receipts 
to cover it or offset spending to make up for it. It is emergency 
legislation, just added to the debt.
  As the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee wisely pointed 
out, the kinds of projects that are in this bill should go through the 
appropriations process. It is great that they have been reduced 
somewhat in number, but that does not solve the fundamental problem.
  Let me close here so we can actually engage in this debate. We still 
do not know whether a lot of the earmarks are in the legislation. My 
staff has tried to look. It appears, because they have not specifically 
been taken out, that several of the items, some of the items I 
mentioned--the money for Amtrak, the $1 billion for the census, the new 
money for the Smithsonian, digital television transmission bailout, the 
authorization for benefits for Filipino veterans of World War II--all 
of those things and much more are still in here. Obviously, we will be 
interested to see whether the final version of the bill, when we 
actually get it, corrects these deficiencies, but it doesn't appear 
that they have.
  Again, what Republicans are suggesting here is that it is really a 
four-part process: help those who are in need; target the spending, 
which will actually create jobs; fix housing first; and provide 
targeted tax relief that will actually also help to stimulate the 
economy. That is the Republican approach. I think we have some better 
ideas that could have been incorporated into this legislation if it had 
not been such a partisan exercise.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, with the permission of the manager, I yield 
myself the time that I use this morning.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. That is fine.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona. There is 
an awful lot to try to respond to and to put into appropriate 
perspective. I want to start to try to do that as clearly, and 
hopefully as succinctly, as I can.
  The Senator has suggested that this has been a ``partisan process.'' 
I have to tell him as a Senator who has now been here--this is my 26th 
year here, having witnessed in the last 8 years an unprecedented level 
of changes of the rules, breaking of the rules, refusal to hold 
conferences so we get together and do the normal procedures here, 
unwillingness even to have accountability hearings to allow this side 
to hold hearings, call witnesses--I mean, I can run a long list to 
describe the desert that has been the last 8 years.
  I remind my colleagues, and I do not want to spend too much time on 
this because it is important to go forward, but you cannot go forward 
and have a legitimate discussion of what is real

[[Page 3207]]

here unless you put things in their appropriate and honest context.
  The fact is, the Republican President, President Bush, just left 
office a few weeks ago. For 6 of the 8 years he was in office, the 
Republicans ran the Senate. I think we were down as low as around 43 
Senators at one point. We did not have conferences. We were given bills 
that we were ``jammed'' and had to vote on that were rewritten 
completely in conference committee and they came to the floor.
  Notwithstanding all of that, notwithstanding that experience, Senator 
Reid came to the floor of the Senate and completely opened the 
amendment process. He did not fill the tree, he did not use any 
parliamentary procedure to prevent the Republicans from bringing an 
amendment, and, indeed, some of the amendments of our friends on the 
other side of the aisle were agreed to. Senator Isakson has a major 
amendment in here with respect to housing that is a very expensive 
amendment. It added spending to this bill. Senator Specter and a few 
others added some $12 billion for the National Institutes of Health. 
So, please, let's put this in an appropriate and proper perspective.
  Did they lose some votes on things they wanted to do? Yes, because 
the American people voted in November to change the makeup of the 
Senate. The American people experienced what happened over the course 
of the last 8 years, and they are feeling the pain today.
  I am hearing my colleagues on the other side of the aisle keep coming 
over and saying: My gosh, what a terrible thing it will be to add a 
burden to the debt of every family in America. You better believe that 
it is a tragedy. But where were they for the last 8 years when that 
debt was being taken from $5 trillion in 2000 up to $10 trillion today? 
Not once did the President of the United States--not once did he veto 
an appropriations spending bill. Their President--their majority leader 
could have said: We are not accepting this bill. Mr. President, you 
have to veto it. It never happened.
  Now, the reality is we have an economy that is hurting. The President 
of the United States has appropriately said that if we do not do 
something, this may lead to a catastrophe. I believe that, and my 
colleagues believe that. Some people on the other side of the aisle 
believe that. This is an unprecedented economic cycle in which we find 
ourselves.
  Economist after economist, on both sides of the aisle--Mark Zandi of 
Moody's economy.com--he is a Republican economist--strongly suggests we 
have to spend this kind of money in order to get the economy moving 
again. We need to examine that a little bit and examine some of the 
comments of my colleague from Arizona.
  First of all, he claims we rejected housing. I tell you, if it were 
not so--it just really amazes me to hear that. Last January at the 
White House--Senator Kyl was there, Senator McConnell was there, 
Senator Reid was there, Senator Durbin and a few others of us, Speaker 
Pelosi was there, John Boehner was there and the President, the Vice 
President, Secretary Paulson.
  And everybody went around and said what they had to say about that, 
the stimulus package that we were then talking about putting in place, 
a stimulus package a year ago. They went around the table, and it 
finally came my chance to say something. I looked at the President, and 
I said: Mr. President, this may be a little unorthodox because I know 
we are talking about this stimulus bill, but nobody here has mentioned 
housing. I have to tell you, I just came from Brockton, MA, where the 
mayor is struggling with 1,000 foreclosures. There are 400 more coming 
at him. This is pandemic. If we do not keep people in their homes, this 
is going to get worse.
  I then turned to the Secretary of the Treasury, and I said: Mr. 
Secretary, you could be negotiating mortgages now and keeping people in 
their homes at the revalued value of the homes, the devalued value of 
the home, because they can afford to stay in it if they are paying 13.5 
percent or 9.5 percent. But if they get to pay a percentage like most 
of the other people in America who have some influence and access--you 
know, I have not met a business executive in America who is paying 13 
percent or 9 percent, but average Americans were, and they were being 
run out of their homes because of it.
  Well, they all nodded and said, well, that sounds reasonable. We have 
to take a look at it. I came back with Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon 
and together, as members of the Finance Committee, we put it into the 
Finance Committee stimulus package. It came to the floor of the Senate, 
and guess what. My friends on the other side of the aisle opposed it. 
They stripped it out.
  We had a $15 billion mortgage revenue bond to help keep people in 
their homes, and the administration opposed it, even 1 week after the 
President of the United States went to the well of the Congress, and in 
his State of the Union speech said: We need mortgage revenue bonds. 
Everybody applauded, but they came back and stripped it out.
  From that day forward, until, I think it was August or September, 
10,000 people a day were foreclosed on. That is 10,000 Americans a day 
who lost their homes, kicked out, locks changed. No wonder we are where 
we are today. With that many homes, street to street to street to 
street, losing their value, and then the homes next to them losing 
their value, and the people got scared, they lost their jobs--and we 
have lost jobs at a record rate. There were two point-some million jobs 
lost, 568,000 last month alone.
  So I have to tell you, there are a lot of people a lot smarter than 
me to whom I try to listen, and everybody I talk to who is in the 
business of business, of making deals--I am not talking about Wall 
Street theorists or people who arbitrage and play the market, play the 
game; I am talking about people who go out and create wealth, invest; 
people who make judgments about risk, risk taking, and take new ideas 
and turn them into jobs, which is what has always made America great. 
Those people tell me they cannot get the lending; they cannot get the 
credit. Banks that have money are scared to lend the money because if 
they look at the marketplace and they make what a banker has to make, 
which is a prudent judgment about, hey, if I lend the money, are my 
shareholders and the board of directors going to come to me and say, 
why were you so stupid to lend that money when the economy is going 
down, and you did not have a chance of getting it repaid.
  That is the psychology of the marketplace, and Government is the one 
instrument that has the ability to change the psychology. That is why 
it is so important we ``spend'' some money.
  Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say this is a huge 
spending bill. They are going to spend. You know, well, I have to tell 
you, I asked my friend from Alabama yesterday: OK, let's be real about 
this. You say you do not want to borrow the money. What a terrible act 
it is of Government to be for borrowing. Well, what is the alternative 
to borrowing? There are only two alternatives: you can raise taxes--and 
there is not one of them who will vote to do that--or you can cut 
spending. This is not the moment to cut spending; this is the moment to 
prime the pump. This is the moment you have to get money flowing into 
the system.
  Now, therefore, we are stuck. We have to borrow some money, and we 
have to borrow it on the presumption, on the judgment, that we are 
investing this money we borrow in the most intelligent way to break the 
downward psychology of the market and to encourage the creation of new 
jobs.
  Now, I would agree with my colleagues, I do not want to spend money 
on a project that just vanishes, poof, and there is no payback to the 
economy in the long run. We are not going to see long-term benefits to 
our country. But that is not what we are doing here. What we are doing 
here is creating jobs. I mean, how do we get products from point A to 
point B? We drive them on roads or we put them on a train or we fly 
them in airplanes, but our infrastructure that supports all of that is 
falling apart.

[[Page 3208]]

  Other countries are investing far more than we are into their public 
transit systems, into their air systems, and so forth. We have about a 
$1.6 trillion deficit in terms of our infrastructure investment. So 
what we are doing is saying: We are going to invest in some of those 
things now, tomorrow. We can put people to work tomorrow morning. All 
across this country we have projects that are shovel-ready, signed on 
the dotted line. We can do the bidding. In fact, many of them are 
already bid. They do not have the money. There are 45 States in the 
United States of America that have shortages in their budgets, and 
those States are required, unlike the Federal Government, to balance 
their budget.
  So facing the need to balance their budget, what do they do? They cut 
service, they cut firefighters, they cut police, they cut teachers, 
they cut the road projects. That adds to the downward spiral. Everybody 
hears their neighbors saying: Wow, I just lost my job. Then they start 
to fear for their job. As they fear for their job, they retrench in 
spending: I am not going to spend this week. We cannot go out to dinner 
this week. We cannot take that vacation. We cannot take that house. We 
are not going to travel to see the family at Christmas or Easter or 
whatever it is.
  People stop spending. As more of the ripples of job loss go, the more 
afraid people become. So they hunker down for the possibility that they 
may be the next to lose their jobs. That is part of the downward 
psychology. So you have to break it. And, I will tell you, there is 
nothing worse than doing too little to fix it. Nothing would be dumber 
than coming out here and spending too little billions of dollars and 
not knowing that we are doing enough to change the psychology and get 
the job done.
  Now, on the housing package, the Senator from Arizona said: We 
offered a housing package. Well, you know, they did offer a housing 
package. But just because we rejected it does not mean we do not think 
housing is important or we have to do it with what I said earlier about 
housing. We are going to do housing. The President and Larry Summers, 
who has been here meeting, is talking about how we are going to 
approach housing. But the program they offered, first of all, opposed 
any kind of bankruptcy relief so we can actually negotiate keeping 
people in their homes, which is inefficient.
  It did not target the money in an effective way. It had a 4-percent 
mortgage for everyone in the system so that people who do not even need 
the money wind up getting a break in terms of their mortgage. So it was 
not targeted. Moreover, it did not even require the banks to make a 
loan modification or even write down some of the bad loans they had. It 
was not comprehensive. So the fact that it is rejected does not display 
that this is partisan. It simply is a statement by the majority of the 
people representing the people that we do not think it was a very good 
idea, and we are going to come back and fix it; the same thing with 
this issue.
  Incidentally, let me share with a few of my colleagues why this is 
sort of this old ideology versus new. The Senator talked about the 
tired ideology of the past. What is it? Well, I think today Michael 
Steele, the new chairman of the Republican National Committee, made a 
statement on behalf of the Republican Party. He said:

       For the last 2 weeks, we have been trying to force a 
     massive spending bill through Congress under the guise of 
     economic relief.

  Well, we are having votes. This is a democracy. We are not forcing 
anything. We are trying to get the job done because there is an urgency 
to getting it done.
  But then he says:

       The fastest way to help those families is by letting them 
     keep more of the money they earn. Individual empowerment, 
     that is how you stimulate the economy.

  That is a big ideological/philosophical difference about how you most 
rapidly stimulate the economy. Let's think about it for a minute, the 
individual empowerment. OK, we turn around and we give every family in 
America the great big tax cut that the Republicans are talking about. 
Here is what he says: We want to give--the first 16,000 bucks you make, 
you are going to be taxed at a lower percentage.
  Terrific. We lose revenue at the Federal level that we could put into 
schools, fire, police, education, energy investment, investment in 
airports, rail, all of those things for which we do not have enough 
money. But we give it back to the people.
  Then he says: They will go out and buy things. They probably will. 
Some of them may save it. What are they going to buy? Is there a 
guarantee they are going to go out and buy energy-efficient materials? 
No. Is there a guarantee they will go out and buy an American car that 
is a hybrid, that actually does better? No.
  They could go out and buy a car made in China or Japan or Germany. 
That does not help us a lot. Or what if they pay off their credit card 
bill because it is so big that they need the money to pay the bill? 
That is just paying for past things already purchased, for services 
already given. It does not stimulate the economy. Please. And if they 
do have some money to invest, there is no guarantee they will choose to 
invest it in the United States of America. They might think it is much 
better to invest it in some international mutual fund that is investing 
in a country that has a better economy right now.
  So that is a tired old philosophy. That is what we did in the 1980s 
and many of us opposed it. I voted against that tax cut. You know what. 
We took the deficit of this country to an unprecedented level, crowding 
out the private marketplace in terms of borrowing, and we did not 
invest in the things in which we needed to invest in the country.
  Let me share and say to my colleagues that we have a multi-headed 
crisis we are looking at. This is only one part of the package. I also 
want to address the question where the Senator from Arizona said this 
would be a recession way down the road. Well, I disagree with that. We 
are in a recession now. We have to do everything possible to break out 
of the reversion.
  Now, the Congressional Budget Office has concluded that the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act would ``have an immediate and substantial 
impact on the U.S. economy, most noticeably in terms of job growth and 
GDP growth.'' That is the Congressional Budget Office. They say: In our 
efforts in this bill, our No. 1 priority is to put people back to work. 
If tomorrow we spend money on a road construction effort so people who 
go to work at that site will have a job, the people who drive the truck 
to bring the asphalt and the materials will have a job, the people who 
supply the materials to those people will suddenly be ordering again. 
They will pay taxes. They will take home a paycheck over the next year 
or two and that will begin to change the psychology of what we are 
looking at here.
  You have to spend some money. That is what Franklin Roosevelt did. 
This situation cries out for it just as powerfully as that did. The CBO 
report says the recovery package, as reported out of the Senate--I 
emphasize the Senate, the Senate Appropriations and Finance Committee--
would create between 900,000 and 2.4 million new jobs in 2009, this 
year; between 1.3 and 3.9 million jobs next year; and between 600,000 
and 1.9 million jobs in 2011.
  These jobs would correspond to an unemployment rate reduction of .5 
percent to 1.3 percent in 2009; .6 to 2 percent in 2010; and .3 percent 
to 1.0 percent in 2011.
  Additionally, the report estimates that the legislation would grow 
the U.S. domestic product, our GDP, by 1.4 to 4.1 percent this year; 
1.12 percent to 3.6 percent next year in 2010; and .4 to 1.2 percent in 
2011. So there is job-creating potential in this.
  We need to transform the American economy. What is most exciting 
about what we have put together in this bill, it is the first big, 
legitimate effort to do that that I have seen in years. In the height 
of the oil crisis last summer, we were sending over $1 billion a day to 
Saudi Arabia. I would rather send that billion dollars a day down to 
the Southwest, to Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado. There is this 
unbelievable ability to be developing solar

[[Page 3209]]

thermal in America. We have a solar thermal plant in Nevada now. We 
could produce electricity without using oil and gas and fossil fuel. I 
am told--because the Senator from Arizona raised the question--that the 
water tables down there are creating a self-serving cycle, a contained 
cycle so that the water can be reused in a way that doesn't disturb 
water demand. But you can drive electricity. We can produce six times 
the electricity needs of the United States from that region alone. Why 
aren't we doing it?
  If we produce six times the electricity needs of the United States 
from one part of the country and modernize our grid, then people can 
start buying electric cars. We will have an electric car that goes 100 
miles an hour and gets 100-plus miles to the charge which doesn't solve 
all long-distance problems, but for most Americans, the commute is 40 
miles a day. So you could actually do most of your week on electricity, 
never touching a drop of gas and oil which would reduce America's 
dependence on foreign oil, raise our security, raise health standards, 
meet our environmental standards, and do an enormous amount to meet the 
challenge of global warming. If we don't send a billion dollars to 
another country, we are using it here at home to develop more renewable 
energy and more jobs and future jobs in robotics, artificial 
intelligence, communications, and life sciences.
  There are jobs to be created. It depends on how intelligent we are in 
investing the money in the right places. That is what this legislation 
does.
  Let me share this with my colleagues. We have $40 billion going to 
the Department of Energy for development of clean, efficient American 
energy from advanced battery systems for energy efficiency, 
conservation grants, weatherization assistance, all kinds of research 
for clean coal technology. We are about to have a breakthrough 
technology that I believe will allow us to burn coal clean and create a 
construction material called calcium carbonate that can be used as 
cement, concrete for building. It contains the CO2, and it 
helps us to deal with this crisis. Those are new jobs, countless new 
jobs.
  I hope our colleagues will recognize that what is happening is a very 
legitimate, philosophical, perhaps ideological difference. But this is 
not old over here. This is new. This is what America voted for this 
year, a change of direction, in order to get it right.
  We are staring at an economy where health care premiums increased 
approximately 80 percent. Gas prices reached historic highs. They are 
now down temporarily, but they will not stay there. College education 
costs have risen 70 percent. Housing affordability, we all understand, 
is a huge problem across the economy. We will deal with that. Wages of 
average Americans who are working are declining. The benefits they work 
for are declining. Their retirement accounts have been wiped away. 
Workers' earnings for college degree graduates are declining. Job 
creation is the worst in America since Herbert Hoover's administration. 
The unemployment rate rose to the highest level since 1993, and it is 
still rising. We are told it will rise further. The deficit-financed 
Bush tax cuts weren't paid for. They were deficit financed, and we have 
wound up with the least job growth we have had in any kind of recovery 
in modern history.
  Today more American families and children face severe financial 
problems than at any time. That is why this is urgent. It is only a 
part. We have to come back and do housing in a matter of weeks. We have 
to fix the banks in a matter of weeks.
  I am confident if we do this, we are going to turn this around. We 
are going to have the most exciting economy we have had in years. There 
is no question in my mind that if we release American entrepreneurial 
and creative genius to create new products and move us to that future, 
we will do what America has always done--we will continue to lead. That 
is what this debate is about, a new direction, a new time, and a new 
moment.
  I hope our colleagues will embrace it.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to engage with my 
colleague from Massachusetts. I will make five quick points, and then 
either Senator Sessions will follow me or, if a Member on the other 
side wishes to speak in between, he will then follow that individual. 
First let me clear up two things.
  The Senator from Massachusetts talked about deficits and, in effect, 
blamed the Bush administration. I would note the facts which are that 
last year, under a Democratic-controlled Congress, the deficit doubled 
from what it was when Republicans were in control, and it is going to 
double again this year under Democratic control of Congress.
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KYL. Let me try to make my points. I don't want to take less time 
from my colleagues.
  Secondly, I acknowledge that the Senator from Massachusetts did raise 
the issue of housing at the White House. The point I wanted to make was 
not that Democrats and Republicans weren't both concerned, that 
Democrats didn't have some good ideas. Simply, it is not fair to 
characterize the Republican position as wanting to deal with tax relief 
only, that Republicans believe housing needs to be a part of this. In 
fact, we would prefer to fix housing first rather than, as the Senator 
from Massachusetts said, we are going to do housing later.
  Incidentally, the bill to supposedly fix housing passed last June 
with both Democratic and Republican support. It was obviously not 
enough.
  Third, the Senator from Massachusetts talked about debt and said, 
what is the alternative to borrowing, either raise taxes or cut 
spending. That is true. But he said you can't do either in a recession. 
Actually, that is not true. As I quoted before, the National Bureau of 
Economic Research said this about that precise point:

       The best fiscal policy to stimulate the economy is a 
     deficit-financed tax cut. The long-term costs of fiscal 
     expansion through government spending are probably greater 
     than the short-term gains. As between the two, some spending 
     can help. But long-term, it costs more if you have deficit 
     spending, and it provides for relief if you have tax cuts 
     financed through deficit.

  The fourth point: My colleague from Massachusetts disagreed that this 
legislation will result in a recession and noted that the CBO report 
said there would be short-term stimulus. That is exactly right. But 
what I said is also true. On page 5:

       Including the effects of both crowding out of private 
     investment, which would reduce output in the long run, and 
     possibly productive government investment, which could 
     increase output, CBO estimates that by 2019, the Senate 
     legislation would reduce GDP by between one-tenth and three-
     tenths of a percent.

  As I noted, the definition of a recession is when you have two 
consecutive quarters of negative GDP.
  Finally--and this is probably the most instructive point of all--
there is a clear difference between the parties. But I think it is 
interesting when my colleague from Massachusetts described as one of 
the failed ideologies of the past the notion that individual 
empowerment will do any good, when he ridiculed the idea of letting 
people keep more of their own money. You have a very stark contrast 
between what some Democrats believe and what most Republicans believe. 
Republicans do believe that Americans are better off being allowed to 
keep more of their money. Why? Because they will make wiser decisions 
about what their family needs than will some bureaucrat in Washington. 
I don't mean bureaucrat in a pejorative way. I am a government 
employee. I didn't get any smarter when I came back to Washington. When 
I go back to Phoenix or Tucson, I see people struggling to take care of 
their families, and they are making very important and wise decisions 
about how to deal with their family budgets. It is true, if they get a 
tax rebate, they are more likely to save it or pay off credit card debt 
than to spend it. That is why that kind of tax relief, a rebate, the 
quick fix that is in this bill, doesn't work. Why? Because Americans 
make wise decisions with their

[[Page 3210]]

own money. They know they have to deleverage their own personal 
budgets, as businesses know they have to deleverage all of their debt.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KYL. Let me conclude my remarks.
  Republicans believe that individuals are better off in making 
decisions about their financial future than allowing the government to 
do it for them. That is why we say, as Michael Steele said, let people 
keep more of their own money and not have people in Washington decide 
what is best for them in how they want to spend it.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KYL. I am happy to conclude and let Senators respond on their own 
time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I say to the Senator from Arizona, it probably is a 
good idea if you try to play by the rules here. We are going back and 
forth. Each Senator has a certain amount of time. We can engage, but I 
don't think that you, as my friend and counterpart, should feel you 
need to make a speech after every point that is made on our side. I 
think that is a tendency right now, and it doesn't do service to others 
on your side or my side who want to speak.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have finished what I have to say. My 
colleague Senator Sessions asked if I would respond to Senator Kerry, 
because he responded directly to me. He will follow next. There is no 
rule that says a Senator can't speak twice. Other Senators will rotate 
in time. I think that is the appropriate way to engage in the debate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will only take 2 minutes and then yield 
to a colleague. I think it is good to have this back and forth, 
frankly, because it is a way to shed a little more light on these 
things.
  First, I did not say, in quoting Mr. Steele, that individual 
empowerment is not important. I didn't say that we are not for it. I am 
quoting him:

       Individual empowerment, that is how you stimulate the 
     economy.

  That is his program.
  Forty-two percent of this bill is tax cuts. I have voted for 
countless tax cuts in the Senate. I was one of the authors of zero 
capital gains for new investments. I believe in tax cuts. We have 
terrific tax cuts in this bill. But clearly, there is no discussion in 
Mr. Steele's comments about what we ought to be spending it on, how 
much we ought to be spending, how spending will make a difference.
  Secondly, on the deficit doubling in the last couple years, yes, it 
did. No. 1, because we have a war in Iraq and a war in Afghanistan, a 
war in Iraq that many of us here believed spending $12 billion a month 
wasn't worth, and the American people believed wasn't. But 
nevertheless, that is one reason. Secondly, we passed a stimulus. We 
passed it outside of the budget process, because nobody wanted to pay 
for it. We needed to begin to stimulate the economy already.
  Third--and the Senator knows this--we did a fix to the alternative 
minimum tax so that millions of Americans would not be taxed 
unwittingly and inappropriately. We tried to pay for it. I signed on to 
Senator Conrad's amendment. We had a vote on the floor of the Senate. 
We lost, because the Republicans decided they didn't think we should 
pay for the alternative minimum tax fix. That is why we doubled the 
deficit.
  We had pay as you go in the Senate. We put it back in place to 
restore fiscal responsibility, and it is important to put that in the 
proper context.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would ask my leader from West Virginia 
if I could have my 15 minutes now since Senator Kyl did speak, and then 
I will be done with that 15 minutes.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator 
from California, I need to find out if the Senator from Alabama--
because we are meant to go back and forth--will take time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will tell you.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. If the Senator does not wish to speak, we can do it 
on our side.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will just speak for about 2 minutes.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. All right.
  Mrs. BOXER. Sure
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, all we really have to rely on to help us 
figure out the arguments about how this stimulus package will work is 
our Congressional Budget Office. We just chose a new Director, Mr. 
Elmendorf, who is a very impressive guy. Mr. Elmendorf was really 
chosen by the Democratic majority in the Congress. They have the 
majority and this is who they chose. We like the man, and Republicans 
voted for him too.
  Mr. Elmendorf produced a report the day before yesterday in which he 
said that if you take the number of jobs this bill would create, and 
you take the various numbers that are in the bill, the ranges that are 
in there would be between $600,000 and $300,000 per job. I do not think 
any estimate has come in less than $300,000 per job. One argument was 
it was $900,000 per job. Mr. President, $1.2 trillion at 1.3 million 
jobs is not that good a deal in terms of a return on jobs.
  But the fundamental question is: will the thing work? We know one 
thing. We know it will cost us $1.1 trillion when this bill passes. It 
will not be like the TARP, which was an investment on which we hope to 
get some of the money back. Every bit of this is money is spending and 
it will go right out of the door. The Congressional Budget Office notes 
that this money will be borrowed and that it will cost us about $40 
billion a year to service this borrowed money. The Congressional Budget 
Office notes, in addition to that, we have to get the money from 
somewhere. In addition, this borrowing by the federal government crowds 
out other private companies that are in trouble, and who may want to 
borrow money to keep going until this recession ends. Yet now they 
cannot borrow the money to keep their businesses going.
  The Congressional Budget Office concludes that over the next 10 years 
we will have less growth than if we had not passed this bill in the 
first place. Let me say this: It will be worse the second 10 years 
because all the short-term economic benefit that will come from it will 
be gone completely 10 years from now, and we will then have a $40-
billion-per-year tax burden on the American people.
  How big is $40 billion? That is the annual road budget, highway 
budget for the United States of America. That is a lot of money. So the 
question is, Can we reduce the size of it? Can we have some 
infrastructure spending that can actually be spent quickly and create 
jobs and build something important and permanent for America? Can we 
infuse money into the economy effectively and targeted and temporarily 
to get us out of this difficult time we are in? I think we can. I think 
we can do a lot better than this bill at less of a cost and more of a 
benefit.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I yield 10 to 12 minutes to the 
Senator from California.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I say to Senator Rockefeller, I thought it 
was 15 we had discussed.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, add on 3 more minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you.
  Mr. President, the reason I need the time is, every time one of my 
colleagues gets up, it just amazes me at some of the things they say.
  Now, my friend, the Senator from Alabama, is very worried about going 
into debt because of this economic recovery package. He is calling for 
a small package. I do not know what he believes a ``smaller package'' 
definition is, but we know from economists, Democratic and Republican, 
if the

[[Page 3211]]

package is too small it does no good. He is very worried about the 
debt. We all are worried about the debt. Where were my Republican 
friends--and they are my friends; I work with them every day--where 
were they when George Bush took the debt from $5 trillion to $10 
trillion over 8 years--doubled it--put it on the backs of every man, 
woman, and child--$17,000 of debt for every man, woman, and child? I 
never heard a word. They spent it on Iraq. I say it is time to spend it 
here and help our people. They spent it on tax cuts for the richest 
people, those who did not need it, and they did not care about the 
debt.
  I want to help the middle class and the working poor, the backbone of 
America, because without that backbone, we have nothing. So I think the 
record has to be set straight. I thank those Republicans who worked 
with us Democrats on coming up with a solution. Thank you, thank you, 
thank you. You stepped forward. You listened to President Obama. You 
stepped forward for positive change. You stepped forward to help 
America.
  We are in a deepening economic crisis. In my home State of 
California, the unemployment rate is 9.3 percent. We all know 
California is trend setting. This is one trend I hope the rest of 
America will not follow. But, by God, if we do nothing, if we do not 
embrace the bipartisan package--and I know it is not perfect--but if we 
do nothing, that is, in my view, a hostile act--a hostile act; not a 
passive act--because to do nothing endorses the status quo.
  I wish to spend a minute showing you some charts which illustrate the 
status quo.
  Since 2001, 4.1 million manufacturing jobs lost.
  In 2008, alone, 2,589,000 good-paying American jobs lost, just in 
2008.
  For every 1 percent increase in the national unemployment rate, we 
see a 1 million increase in Medicaid, a 1.1 million increase in the 
uninsured, a $1.4 billion rise in State Medicaid and CHIP spending, a 
$200 billion rise in Federal Medicaid and CHIP spending.
  So what are we saying? If we do nothing, we are not going to save any 
money as a national government. We are not going to let people die on 
the streets or starve to death or not get health care. We will all pull 
together to help them. We need to reverse this so we do not spend money 
this way, so that we create jobs.
  Now, I have a picture to show you. I do not know if you have seen 
this, Mr. President. If you cannot see it from there, it is a crowd of 
people. It looks like folks trying to jam into a rock concert. Do you 
know what it is? One thousand applicants lined up for 35 firefighting 
jobs in Miami, on February 2, 2009. They had to call the police to 
control the crowd.
  Now, I have a list of the layoffs in my State. I ask unanimous 
consent to have some examples from that list printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Employment Development Department

                             LISTING OF WARN NOTICES BY LAYOFF DATE (JAN-JUN)--2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Employees
               Layoff date                       Company name-                   Location             affected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/1/09-.................................  FEDEX Freight System, Inc..  San Jose...................          184
1/1/09..................................  JPMorgan Chase Bank          Irvine.....................            1
                                           (JPMorgan Chase & Co.).
1/1/09..................................  The Boeing Company.........  Anaheim....................            5
1/1/09..................................  The Boeing Company.........  El Segundo.................            8
1/1/09..................................  The Boeing Company.........  Huntington Beach...........           12
1/1/09..................................  The Boeing Company.........  Huntington Beach...........            7
1/1/09..................................  The Boeing Company.........  Long Beach.................            3
1/1/09..................................  The Boeing Company.........  Long Beach.................           47
1/1/09..................................  Virgin Mobile USA..........  Walnut Creek...............          192
1/2/09..................................  AMETEK Programmable Power,   San Diego..................           28
                                           Inc.
1/2/09..................................  AMETEK Programmable Power,   San Diego..................           13
                                           Inc.
1/2/09..................................  Autobytel..................  Irvine.....................            5
1/2/09..................................  James Hardie Building        Fontana....................           26
                                           Products, Inc.
1/2/09..................................  Paramount Pictures           Hollywood..................           14
                                           Corporation.
1/3/09..................................  CONAGRA Foods, Inc.........  Placentia..................            2
1/3/09..................................  JPMorgan Chase Bank          Irvine.....................            3
                                           (JPMorgan Chase & Co.).
1/3/09..................................  JPMorgan Chase Bank          Pleasanton.................            3
                                           (JPMorgan Chase & Co.).
1/3/09..................................  Seagate Technology LLC.....  Milpitas...................           48
1/3/09..................................  Target.....................  Sunnyvale..................          382
1/4/09-.................................  Cadence Design Systems, Inc- San Jose...................          245
                                           --.
1/4/09..................................  Circuit City Stores, Inc...  Concord....................           59
1/4/09..................................  Circuit City Stores, Inc...  Pomona.....................           41
1/4/09..................................  Circuit City Stores, Inc...  Santa Barbara..............           59
1/5/09..................................  EXELIXIS, Inc..............  South San Francisco........           76
1/5/09..................................  FORCE10 Networks...........  San Jose...................           88
1/5/09..................................  Harman Becker Automotive     Northridge.................          325
                                           Systems, Inc.
1/5/09..................................  Jacuzzi Brands Corp........  Chino Hill.................          203
1/5/09..................................  Nextwave Broadband Inc.....  San Diego..................          177
1/5/09..................................  Siemens Medical Solutions..  Mountain View..............            2
1/5/09..................................  Sun Microsystems...........  Sacramento.................            3
1/5/09..................................  Sun Microsystems, Inc......  El Segundo.................            1
1/5/09..................................  Sun Microsystems, Inc......  Irvine.....................            4
1/5/09..................................  Sun Microsystems, Inc......  Menlo Park.................           19
1/5/09..................................  Sun Microsystems, Inc......  Pleasanton.................            5
1/5/09..................................  Sun Microsystems, Inc......  San Diego..................            2
1/6/09..................................  FF Properties LP...........  San Diego..................           69
1/6/09..................................  Fisher Investments.........  San Mateo..................           80
1/6/09..................................  Ghirardelli Chocolate        San Francisco..............          107
                                           Manufactory Ice Cream &
                                           Choc.
1/6/09..................................  Levi Strauss & Co..........  San Francisco..............        50---
1/6/09..................................  Nestle USA, Inc............  Glendale...................            1
1/7/09..................................  Castaic Brick..............  Castaic....................           77
1/7/09..................................  Circle Foods Inc...........  Chula Vista................           21
1/7/09..................................  Circle Foods LLC...........  San Diego..................          112
1/8/09..................................  JPMorgan Chase Bank          San Francisco..............            1
                                           (JPMorgan Chase & Co.).
1/8/09..................................  JPMorgan Chase Bank          Irvine.....................            5
                                           (JPMorgan Chase & Co.).
1/8/09..................................  JPMorgan Chase Bank          Pleasanton.................            2
                                           (JPMorgan Chase & Co.).
1/8/09..................................  JPMorgan Chase Bank          Stockton...................            3
                                           (JPMorgan Chase & Co.).
1/9/09..................................  Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc  San Diego..................          340
1/9/09..................................  Anesiva, Inc...............  South San Francisco........           62
1/9/09..................................  Hubbell Lenoir City, Inc...  San Jose...................            1
1/9/09..................................  James Hardie Building        Fontana....................            8
                                           Products, Inc.
1/9/09..................................  Life Technologies..........  Foster City................           75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, Target laid off 382 people in Sunnyvale; 
Harman Becker Automotive laid off 325 people in Northridge; Ghirardelli 
Chocolate laid off 107 people in San Francisco; Circle Foods laid off 
112 people in San Diego. And it goes on and on and on: 500 laid off, 
1,000 laid off, and on and on and on.
  What happens when someone loses his or her job? And what happens when 
the mom and dad lose their jobs? It is a life-altering change. We know 
this housing crisis got us into this jam, and we need to address it far 
more. That is why President Obama has said: Do this first, get this 
economic recovery on track. Then we will look at housing and do the 
things we need to do. Then we will look at the financial sector. So it 
is a three-legged stool. We have to do all of it. It is what the 
election was all about.
  But we need to step up to the plate now because it is one thing to 
lose your home because you were in a terrible situation with your 
mortgage and your interest rate kicked up to 8.9, 10 percent. That is 
awful. It is even worse to lose your home because you are two paychecks 
away from homelessness. We need to stem the tide.
  I do appreciate my Republican colleagues' newfound respect for fiscal 
responsibility. But we have to admit--admit--they never cared about it 
the last 8 years. And that is how I started off, challenging my friend 
from Alabama. The past 8 years: deepening, deepening debt. Imagine 
this: When George Bush took the oath of office, our budget was in 
surplus. We had a surplus in our yearly budget. The Republicans took 
that to $1 trillion of deficit. We had $5 trillion in debt. It was on 
the way down. Economists said it was going to go to zero. I remember 
saying to my husband, it is going to be so amazing when we do not even 
have to sell Treasury bonds because we are going to be out of debt. 
Well, because of the war in Iraq, and because of these tax cuts to the 
wealthiest, that debt turned around, and, as I said, is a huge burden 
on the backs of our taxpayers.
  So imagine if President Obama inherited a surplus and inherited a 
debt that was going down, and we had a recession, it would be so much 
easier, my friends, than it is right now. I do not like this. I voted 
for balancing the budget under Bill Clinton, and I believe we will get 
back to a balanced budget again. But we have to take care of a crisis. 
We have to stem the bleeding. Every economist tells us that.
  I could stand up and say I do not like the package. I would have had 
X more dollars here; I would have cut out this program there. I lost an 
amendment on the Senate floor with my friend from Nevada that I thought 
was a great tax cut. I got my clock cleaned. I could have taken my 
marbles and gone home, you know, sucked my thumb, pulled the covers 
over my head, and said: I am really mad. I was right and they were 
wrong. But the country is in trouble.
  Mr. President, 1,000 people are lining up for 35 firefighting jobs in 
one of our great States. So guess what. I have to put aside my ego, and 
I have to work with my colleagues.
  Again, I thank my Republican colleagues who moved forward and said: 
We know this election was about change, and we are going to give this

[[Page 3212]]

President a chance. Thank you, I say to them.
  Our country is in economic trouble. The election was about the 
economy. The election was about the economy. I am going to remind 
people about that. It was just a little while ago.
  John McCain, September of 2008: ``The fundamentals of our economy are 
strong.'' Remember? The fundamentals of our economy are strong. His 
chief economic adviser said:

       We have become a Nation of whiners. Constant whining, 
     complaining about a loss of competitiveness, American 
     decline. You've heard of mental depression? This is a mental 
     recession.

  Well, tell that to Mr. Arreola, 27 years old, of Boyle Heights, CA. 
He said: ``You've got to stay positive, but the economy is falling.''
  He is looking for jobs. Every day he goes to north Los Angeles to a 
job center. Two months ago he lost his job at a computer warehouse. He 
said he has had to put his two children into foster homes until he can 
find a new job. He said: ``I'll take anything.''
  Is that a mental recession? The chances of this man finding a job are 
getting slimmer. The pace of job losses has been accelerating. This 
thing is getting worse, the economists tell us.
  We had an election about this. Barack Obama, January 8, 2009:

       I know the scale of this plan is unprecedented, but so is 
     the severity of our situation. We have already tried the 
     wait-and-see approach to our problems and it is the same 
     approach that helped lead us to this day of reckoning.

  So yes, I am mad that my amendment with the Senator from Nevada 
didn't pass. I thought we did a good job in debating it, but I am not 
taking my marbles and going home. I am working with my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle. We have a chance now to get out of this 
recession. Will this package do it alone? It will not. I told my 
colleagues there are three legs to the stool, including the housing 
crisis and the financial crisis. I was an economics major a long time 
ago and I worked on Wall Street as a stock broker. In my lifetime, I 
have never seen a time such as this.
  So if we listen to our colleagues, we will either do nothing--and by 
the way, they are filibustering this bill; let's make it clear. We 
could have voted this out already, but they are filibustering it. That 
is their right. That is their right. I defend their right, but they 
have to take the consequences of stalling it. Maybe we will have to 
stay through the recess, and we will. We will get this done, thanks to 
some independent-minded people on the other side of the aisle working 
with all of us.
  One of my colleagues on the other side said the other day in a very 
emotional fashion: I feel left out of this process. As Senator Kerry 
has said, this is one of the most open processes I have ever seen here: 
amendment after amendment after amendment after amendment; several 
Republican amendments passed. Senator Coburn had one pass. Senator 
Specter had one pass. Senator Isakson had one pass. There were a couple 
of others. So the fact is it is an open process. When my Republican 
colleague held up the bill and he said I feel left out, you know what. 
I don't feel sorry for him. If he was on this floor, he could have 
offered his amendments. He could even pick up the phone and call the 
President of the United States or the Chief of Staff and he knows he 
could get through. He could talk to any one of us any day of the week 
and work with us, but he has chosen to stand apart. He says he feels 
left out. Well, I would rather be him than the family who is left out 
in the cold--in the cold winter because they lost their home, because 
they lost their job, because they lost their health care. So get over 
it. Get over it. Come and talk to us. Come and work with us. This 
election was about change, not the same old same old trickledown tax 
cuts that don't work. Yes, there is 42 percent tax cuts in this bill. 
That is not enough for my friends on the other side. They wanted all 
tax cuts or mostly tax cuts. We tried it. It didn't work. It has gotten 
us where we are today: huge debt, huge deficits, slow growth, no 
growth, recession.
  So in summation, we are headed to a better day. This Senate debate is 
very important. I thought it was terrific that John McCain led the 
debate yesterday. In essence, it relived the debate around the 
election: John McCain and his theory that the fundamentals of the 
economy are strong; we just need to do a few things around the edges, 
versus Barack Obama and his vision of boldness and change. I am glad 
this Senate in a bipartisan way has embraced that vision. I look 
forward to the passage of the bill. I thank the Senator from West 
Virginia for yielding me this time.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia is 
recognized.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I know the manager on the other side 
is not here, so how much time would the Senator from Nebraska require?
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I anticipate about 5 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nebraska is 
recognized.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the legislation 
that is before us that is making its way through the process. Make no 
mistake about this legislation, it is a bill with the largest price tag 
in the history of our Nation--really in the history of the world. A 
mind-boggling $1.2 trillion is going to be acted upon probably in the 
next 72 hours. I would venture to guess that if you went around and 
asked how many zeroes are in that number, many could not answer that 
question. Despite what I believe to be a good-faith effort to cut some 
of the cost out of the bill--a reduction of about $110 billion or 
roughly about 10 percent of the overall cost--I wish to be on the 
record saying that simply is not enough. It is not good enough. What is 
even more troubling to me is that even with those cuts, this 
legislation is roughly about $7 billion over the House version. The 
best efforts to cut wasteful spending still have left us with what 
appears to be a more expensive version than even the House version.
  The sponsors of the amendment assert they have cut about $110 
billion. However, let me be very clear about something. The bill is 
still comprised of wasteful spending in programs that I would suggest 
might be worthy of some support in the appropriations process, but I 
don't see how they stimulate the economy. The wheels on the train have 
completely fallen off in terms of this bill resembling an economic 
stimulus bill. It is a gigantic appropriations bill.
  Now, I wish to be clear about another thing. I am not saying that 
many of these programs are not legitimate programs. In fact, in the 
years I have been in public life, I have fought for many of these 
programs. But someone will have to explain to me how giving money to 
consolidate the Department of Homeland Security headquarters will 
stimulate this Nation's economy. Or how money to NASA for Earth science 
missions will give a shot in the arm to the economy and generate real 
economic activity. Program after program: Motor vehicles for the 
federal government, money for trail maintenance. I could go on and on 
and point out program after program that, again, maybe good within the 
annual appropriations process, but I don't see how it stimulates the 
economy.
  I also wish to talk about the tax portion, if I might, for a moment. 
Many of us have heard time and time again when the President talked 
about helping the middle class, but did my colleagues know the figure 
on what constitutes middle class continues to dwindle away? If what I 
am hearing about the alternative is true--and we haven't seen any 
detail on this--but it appears that the compromise shrinks that yet 
again. It shrinks the composition of those receiving the work 
opportunity tax credit by 44 percent from what the President originally 
defined as the middle class.
  Now, it appears that if the schedule goes on as anticipated, on 
Monday the Senate will be asked to vote to move this compromise 
further, but the American people need to know the facts about this 
amendment and the overall debate. Many on the news, and even today I 
have listened to talk of bipartisanship here, talk of people crossing 
the aisle. At one point in my career

[[Page 3213]]

I was a Governor; at another point before that I was a mayor. I come 
from a very unique perspective. I come from a State that has the only 
unicameral system in the Nation. But what is even more unique is that 
the legislature it is not Republican or Democrat. Our Senators were 
elected on a nonpartisan ticket. In fact, they used to say that they 
held that nonpartisan badge as a badge of honor.
  When I was Governor, or when I was mayor, I can tell you what I 
thought bipartisan was. We would see a problem out there as it arose 
and I would bring the elected people in, literally one at a time, and 
talk to them: What do you think we should do here? What is your best 
idea? How should we approach this issue? That would go on for months 
leading up to the introduction of a bill. Then, on the floor, they 
would work through that bill. Oftentimes there would be groups gathered 
around trying to work on a given section of the bill--Republicans and 
Democrats and Independents. Eventually, a bill would be produced and a 
vote would be taken and some would vote yes and some would vote no and 
sometimes they would send me a bill I didn't like and I would veto it 
and then they would decide whether they wanted to override it. That is 
a bipartisan effort.
  Let me assure my colleagues that unless there is a new meaning 
attached to this word--I have only been here about 26 days--this bill 
resembles nothing I see as bipartisan. It appears to me that most of 
the time only two Republicans were a part of closed-door meetings, and 
in the end, that was announced as a bipartisan effort. I don't 
understand that. If you think about the dynamics of this, less than \4/
10\ of 1 percent of the Congress participated in this on the Republican 
side.
  The one constant I hear over and over again is the pressing need to 
enact this legislation now; that we have to hurry. In fact, I just 
heard the word ``filibuster'' used--that we don't have to do anything 
except get this bill done. Well, let's examine the discussion regarding 
TARP last year, and what we heard or what we read about the need for 
TARP sounds exactly like what is going on now. Now we have TARP, it is 
in place, and congressional investigators are telling us the Treasury 
Department overpaid for bank stocks by $78 billion. I wonder what we 
could have done with that $78 billion that has now been wasted. Nearly 
22 percent of the taxpayer money used for the bailout--22 percent gone 
in an instant. Well, as the old adage says: Fool me once, shame on you. 
Fool me twice, shame on me.
  I am not willing to put aside due diligence. We owe that to the 
American taxpayers. We have a responsibility to make sure we get it 
right this time. We cannot afford to find a few months from now that 
what we thought would work didn't work at all.
  I wish to share a story. I am reading through a stack of newspaper 
clips from all around that my staff prepared for me, and there is this 
little community and they had a road project and it was making its way 
through their capital improvements process. It finally got to this 
year, the year it would be built, and the money is in the bank to do 
that project. Do you know what the article pointed out? That they took 
the money away from that project. Why? Not because they didn't believe 
in the merits of that project, but because they knew that this major 
allocation of funds was going to come from the Federal Government. And 
do you know what? Having been there as a mayor and as a Governor and as 
a city council member and as a county commissioner, that is going to 
happen thousands of times across this country.
  The stimulative effect is not going to happen in the timeline that is 
promised. It won't be long and we will be reading GAO reports about 
waste, fraud, and how this didn't do what it was supposed to do.
  I will wrap up with one last thought. This is literally borrowed 
money. I pointed out last night that we took a lot of votes getting 
here. We are going to take a few more votes to pass the bill. And do 
you know what? We are not going to vote on paying for this. In fact, I 
don't believe anybody alive in the Senate will take a vote on paying 
for this.
  We have left the paying for this bill to another day. I hear the 
debate about who is responsible and this one did that and that one did 
this--I don't think that is what the American people were trying to 
accomplish in November. I think what they were trying to accomplish was 
for us to get our fiscal house in order. I don't think they sent me or 
any of my colleagues here to try to sort out fault. I think they sent 
us here to solve problems. I see the massive amount of money and, 
again, I will reference my experience. I come from a State where our 
Constitution requires a balanced budget. It forbids the elected 
officials from borrowing over $50,000. I used to joke with Nebraskans 
that $50,000, when the Constitution was passed, was probably a handsome 
sum of money. It can't buy very much today.
  Post-9/11, when the Presiding Officer was a Governor and I was a 
Governor and we were struggling with how to balance the budget, I could 
not issue debt. There were only two choices: raise taxes and cut 
spending. I believed in the second choice. I sometimes lost those 
arguments because my unicameral legislature disagreed with me. But we 
had a very clear and straightforward assessment of what our problems 
were and what the costs were. It never occurred to any of us that we 
could go out and tell our kids and grandkids we are going to buy 
ourselves out of the problem and leave it to them to try to figure out 
how to pay for it.
  I will wrap up with this thought. I have only been here 26 days. I 
don't know whose fault this is. I do know and believe that the kind of 
change we were asked to bring here was a different direction in terms 
of how we run our Government. I want to be a part of that. I have 
attended all the meetings on budget balancing to try to educate myself 
as to how overwhelming this problem is. I will tell you that we have to 
grab ahold of this at some point, or there won't be a solution. Our 
dollar won't be worth anything. The foreign purchasers of our debt will 
look at us and say the only solution America knows is to print more 
money, and their money isn't worth much anymore. My generation probably 
won't pay a very heavy price for that, but other generations will.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner). The Senator from West Virginia is 
recognized.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am honored to be here to speak out in 
favor of the economic recovery plan. Anyone in Minnesota can tell you 
that when it is 20 below, as it has been the last month, and your 
battery is dead and you need to get to work, your No. 1 priority is to 
get a jump-start right away, not stand around talking about it and 
debating and using the old ideas from the past.
  That is what this economic recovery plan is about, a jump-start. 
Yesterday, we learned that the U.S. economy lost another 598,000 jobs 
and the unemployment rate jumped to 7.6 percent. We lost more than 
200,000 manufacturing jobs last month--the largest 1-month decline in 
26 years. Since January of 2007, we have lost a staggering 1 million 
jobs in the construction industry. Industries across the board, from 
retail, to transportation, to financial services are shedding jobs.
  In my home State of Minnesota, the unemployment rate rose to 6.9 
percent last month--the highest it has been in over 20 years. With each 
passing day we get more bad news: rounds of layoffs, dropping consumer 
confidence, and increasing debt.
  Behind all the statistics and numbers are real families in Minnesota. 
They are families I have met across our State--families like the woman 
who wrote to us, saying she had inherited a little bit of money and she 
was going to use it for her daughter's wedding, but it was all lost in 
the stock market; families like the one I met in Litchfield, MN, in a 
cafe, who said she was now working three jobs to be able to get her 
kids Christmas presents; families like the man's who wrote and

[[Page 3214]]

said that when they put their daughters to bed, he and his wife sit at 
the kitchen table and put their heads in their hands because they don't 
know how they are going to make ends meet.
  On Thursday, the President told us:

       The time for talk is over. The time for action is now, 
     because we know that if we don't act, a bad situation will 
     become dramatically worse.

  The President called on us to take immediate action. That is what 
this economic recovery plan is about--a bipartisan group of Senators--
and, Mr. President, you and I were involved--who got together and said 
we need to get this done. I thank Senators Nelson and Collins for their 
hard work. It is not a perfect bill, and I don't agree with everything 
in it and with everything that came out, but literally we cannot afford 
to wait any longer to get something passed.
  At the core of this bill is jobs. This bill is about jobs, jobs, 
jobs. It will put Americans to work by rebuilding our roads, highways, 
and bridges, which have been neglected far too long. The U.S. 
Department of Transportation estimates that for every $1 billion of 
highway spending, it creates nearly 48,000 new jobs and generates more 
than $2 billion in economic activity.
  In Minnesota, we know a little bit about the need for spending on 
infrastructure. I live six blocks from that big bridge that fell that 
day in the middle of the Mississippi River. My 13-year-old daughter--
who is up in the gallery today--and I would drive over that bridge 
every day when she would go to visit friends. One day, that bridge fell 
down and 13 people were killed. Many more were injured, and cars were 
in the middle of the river. It shocked America into realizing the 
situation with our declining infrastructure.
  According to the Federal Highway Administration, more than 25 percent 
of the Nation's 600,000 bridges are either structurally deficient or 
functionally obsolete. In his 1963 memoir, ``Mandate for Change,'' 
President Eisenhower famously said that more than any single action by 
the Government since the end of the war, the one that would change the 
face of America is this: transportation--its impact on the American 
economy, the jobs it would produce in manufacturing, construction, and 
the rural areas it would open up is beyond calculation.
  He was right. That is why this economic recovery plan contains 
significant investment in infrastructure and science--in fact, $114 
billion in infrastructure and science.
  Another piece of the plan I want to highlight is the emphasis on 
energy jobs. I spent the last few months traveling around my State. I 
can tell you what I have seen. I have seen the little telephone company 
in Sebeca, MN, that needed a backup power structure because power was 
going out for their customers. They put together a packet with small 
wind and solar, and they sold it to the people in their area. They have 
been selling like hotcakes. The windmills in Pipestone, MN, became so 
popular that they opened up a bed and breakfast. You can go and stay 
overnight with your wife and wake up in the morning and look at the 
wind turbine. That is the package.
  The point of this is that the people in our State see the value of 
these new energy jobs, whether it is a little solar panel factory in 
Starbuck, MN, or a big wind turbine manufacturing factory up in the 
Moorhead area. They see the value of new energy jobs. This energy 
technology revolution--or ET--is different than the information 
technology resolution--IT. When I saw the IT revolution, as big as it 
was, jobs tended to be segmented in certain areas such as the Silicon 
Valley, and they tended to be for people with graduate degrees and 
PhDs. This energy technology revolution will spread jobs across the 
country, in manufacturing jobs, green helmet jobs, and many other jobs 
for the people of this country.
  As Van Jones said, a guy who has written a book called ``The Green-
Collar Economy,'' when you think about the green economy, you don't 
think about Buck Rogers; you think about ``Joe Sixpack'' putting on a 
green hardhat; you think about ``Rosie the Riveter.'' Just think about 
Rosie the Riveter manufacturing solar panels and wind turbines. This is 
President Obama's plan: jobs, jobs, jobs.
  Finally, this plan contains money, significant money for broadband 
and telecommunications infrastructure--$7 billion. When President 
Roosevelt said he was going to put rural electrification in place in 
1935, we only had 12 percent of American farms with electricity. About 
15 years later, 75 percent of the farms had electricity. That is what 
Government action can do.
  Look at broadband. We have gone from fourth in the world to 15th. 
This is not the kind of progress that will keep our country moving and 
get us back on track. For broadband, there is $7 billion in this bill.
  I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation. It is 
about jobs, jobs, jobs. It is time to get America moving again.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I note that my bill managing 
colleague is not here.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think I have inherited that job from 
Senator Kyl. I yield such time as Senator Ensign would choose to use.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, we have an important bill in front of us. 
We all know that. The reason is because our economy is struggling. A 
lot of people have talked about the jobs that have been lost, the 
unemployment rate rising, and people losing their homes, and the fear 
of losing their homes and jobs.
  No State has been more severely affected in this last 12 months than 
my own home State of Nevada. We lead the country in foreclosures. Our 
unemployment rate is over 9 percent now. Many people thought that 
Nevada was almost recession proof, because we had been in an 
unprecedented economic expansion. We led the Nation for 15, 16 straight 
years in not only job creation on a percentage basis, but also 
population growth. It was kind of an economic miracle in our State. Our 
housing prices were skyrocketing for the last decade. When that bubble 
burst, we were one of the four States that was affected most severely.
  There were a lot of causes, we all know, to the reason that the 
prices went up so rapidly. A big part of that, I argue strongly, is 
Government intervention. We, as the Government, said let's increase the 
percentage of home ownership in the United States. Through the 
Community Reinvestment Act, we said: Banks, a certain percent of your 
money will have to go to subprime loans. And, Fannie Mae and Freddie 
Mac, we want you to get into this subprime market. Then what happened, 
to exacerbate the situation, was Wall Street got involved in all of 
this and made it all worse. We took out the person who was loaning the 
money and severed the direct relationship between the lender and the 
borrower. These mortgages were sold overseas and around the world. 
There was no accountability, and we saw a huge runup. While the runup 
was going on, everybody was happy. Jobs were being created in the 
housing market. It was helping the economy throughout the early part of 
the decade. Everybody was happy, and a lot of wealth was being created 
in their homes. We didn't put in a strong regulator back in 2004, when 
people recognized that Fannie and Freddie would cause a major problem 
in our housing market. We didn't put a strong regulator in then. It was 
blocked on party lines in the Banking Committee in the Senate. 
Republicans tried to pass a bill and it was blocked by Senate 
Democrats. Having that strong regulator in over Fannie and Freddie 
could have stopped this whole thing from happening. We all know--and 
all economists agree, and there is no doubt about this.
  Unfortunately, that cancer that was the housing crisis has now spread 
to the rest of the economy and our financial markets.
  The question now is not only what caused it, but what do we do about 
it. How do we actually bring ourselves out of this particular problem?
  I am going to spend a couple of minutes talking about history. I 
think it is important we learn from history. Not all of the things we 
can learn from history are a perfect model, but they give

[[Page 3215]]

us a lot of guidance. We have a couple of examples. Obviously, the 
Great Depression in our own country is a great place to go back and 
look at what happened. We can look at what led us into the Great 
Depression and what things worked to get us out of the Great Depression 
and what didn't.
  First of all, during the 1920s--they called it the Roaring Twenties. 
Why did they call it the Roaring Twenties? It is because the economy 
grew. Unemployment was almost nonexistent in the United States because 
President Coolidge at the time recognized that low tax rates encouraged 
the private sector to invest, and this would be a good thing. People 
got very excited. Jobs were created. Everybody was doing great. But the 
stock market became overvalued. It was a kind of frenzy, similar to 
today's housing crisis or the dot-com bubble during the 1990s. Just 
like the dot-com bubble that burst during the 1990s, the stock market 
burst in 1929. That was a correction. That was a correction in the 
stock market. That was not the start of the Great Depression. What led 
to the Great Depression then were the policies implemented by a 
Republican President by the name of Hoover. What did he do? He 
increased taxes, tremendously increased Government spending, especially 
on infrastructure projects, and, worst of all, instituted what are 
known as the Smoot-Hawley laws, which were protectionist laws. It 
stopped trade around the world. Unemployment rates over the next couple 
of years kept going up and up, eventually up to as high as 25 percent 
in this country, way higher than they are today.
  Then we had the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He saw that 
the answer to this was to have massive Government spending. So he put 
into place what we all know now as the New Deal. People argue today 
that the reason the Great Depression continued on was because Roosevelt 
would spend money and back off, spend money and back off, spend money 
and back off. They didn't feel as though they did enough spending at 
the time, nor did they keep the spending going.
  Going into 1937, there were some other mistakes. Once again, taxes 
were raised. There was a depression within a depression in 1937.
  We have to ask ourselves this fundamental question: Even if you 
believe the New Deal was helpful, do we really want to take 5, 7, 10 
years to get out of the economic problems we have today? The New Deal 
never brought us out of the Depression. Never did. The only thing that 
brought us out of the Depression was World War II.
  By the way, World War II was not the answer to our economic problems. 
There were severe sacrifices made by Americans all across the country. 
Everybody was working on the war effort. But there were tremendous 
sacrifices that were made--rationing of food, rationing of gasoline, 
rationing of any kind of consumer product that we take for granted 
today. And the economy was very tough after World War II. As a matter 
of fact, the stock market in the United States never recovered. After 
that crash in 1929, it never recovered until the mid-1950s. Do any of 
us here want to wait 25 years for our stock market to recover and to 
start back up the path beyond what it was just a year ago?
  I want to discuss not only parts of the stimulus bill but also what 
we have done in the last several years.
  First, this chart shows the percentage of Federal debt that is held 
by the public as a percentage of GDP--this is the most accurate way to 
measure the debt, as a percentage of our economy.
  The early 2000s started growing, started growing, but then in the 
last several years debt went up dramatically. The deficits and the 
addition to the debt were going up much faster than this chart looks, 
but not as a percentage of our economy because our economy was growing 
very fast.
  People have argued that the money was spent on tax cuts. The evidence 
is very clear on this point. The tax rate cuts, just like under Ronald 
Reagan and just like under John F. Kennedy and just like under Calvin 
Coolidge, actually led to more tax revenues because they stimulated 
economic investment, they stimulated people to work harder, to invest 
and create jobs, and therefore we ended up with more tax revenue. The 
problem with this last decade under President Bush is that we spent too 
much money.
  By the way, who is responsible for this spending? Has anybody read 
the Constitution? Congress holds the purse strings. The President 
cannot spend the money that we do not authorize him to spend. In this 
body and the other body across the Capitol, we spent too much money. 
There were only about 20 of us who kept voting no on these massive 
spending bills. There were about 20 Republicans. The rest of the 
Republicans and Democrats sent the last President bill after bill that 
added to Government spending that added to the size of our Government.
  This chart shows total Government spending as a percentage of GDP. We 
can see when President Bush took over it kept rising, kept rising, kept 
rising. Now we can see what is going to happen with spending as a 
percentage of GDP. This is not sustainable.
  The spending bill that is before us today is part of the reason for 
that line. We understand that Secretary Geithner is going to bring us 
at least another $500 billion, the third round of TARP. We still have 
to pass an omnibus spending bill.
  The next chart shows some of these items. We have to pass an omnibus 
bill. There is going to be a war supplemental bill that is going to be 
passed this year. Some people are saying this is just the first 
stimulus bill we are going to pass because the arguments I have heard 
coming from the economists who believe that Government spending is the 
answer just believe that during the Depression, there was not enough 
Government spending, so we have to do a massive amount of it.
  We are talking $350 billion for the first part of the TARP, and $39 
billion was just added with the Children's Health Insurance Program. By 
the way, this number, $39 billion, is way low because they are saying 
this program is going to stop in a couple years. We know that is not 
going to happen. The truer cost is well over $100 billion. The second 
round of TARP is another $350 billion. This stimulus package, when we 
count interest that has to be paid over the next 10 years, is $1.2 
trillion. The omnibus bill is estimated around $400 billion; $70 
billion for a war supplemental; TARP III is estimated at $550 billion.
  When do we stop? When are we going to be responsible to future 
generations? Do you know what this all adds up to? Higher taxes. It is 
impossible not to have higher taxes in the future, and in the very near 
future.
  The President came out and said that in the next several years, we 
are going to have over $1 trillion deficits for the next 4 or 5 years. 
That is not sustainable. Right now, the only reason we have not had a 
complete economic collapse is because other countries around the 
world--they are called sovereign wealth funds--have been buying our 
Treasury bills. It is smart for them to do that because if they don't, 
their economy collapses too. What happens if political pressure mounts? 
What happens if all these countries say: We are not sure U.S. Treasurys 
are good to buy anymore. They are a little too risky now. If that 
happens, our economy goes off a cliff and there is no way to save it. 
So we have to be concerned about the amount of spending that is in this 
bill. It has to be responsible.
  I believe in infrastructure spending if it is done and it is done 
right. But what we shouldn't do is just spend money for the sake of 
spending money.
  The President said the other night that spending equals stimulus. 
That was basically what he was saying. Not all spending is stimulus. 
Certain spending is good stimulus, but not all spending is stimulus.
  We also have to be careful about the size of the spending because we 
cannot just keep printing money like this. Not only will we have to 
have higher taxes in the future, but it causes inflation. It is a basic 
economic principle. It is just like a family who lives beyond their 
means or a business that lives beyond its means or a State government. 
At a certain point, living beyond your means catches up with you. So we 
are

[[Page 3216]]

going to hurt--and according to the CBO, they said there will be some 
short-term stimulus in this bill, we all know, there will be stimulus, 
but the long-term problems we are creating with this stimulus package 
can be very severe.
  Let me point out a couple of things. First, before I point out a 
couple things in this spending bill, I want to talk about Japan for 
just a little bit.
  Japan, during the 1990s, had severe economic problems. They said: We 
are going to pass stimulus bills. As a matter of fact, during the 
nineties, I think they passed six stimulus bills, if I am correct.
  This is Japan on this chart. These blue bars are government spending 
as, once again, a percentage of their economy. In the late eighties, 
nineties, it kept going up, up, and up. This red line is unemployment 
in Japan. As they kept spending, if government spending was the answer, 
we would see a reduction in unemployment, wouldn't we? That isn't what 
happened in Japan. As a matter of fact, the 1990s in Japan is called 
the lost decade. They had bad monetary policy, and there was bad 
monetary policy during the Depression as well.
  Hopefully, we are not doing that today. But it isn't just Government 
spending that is going to get us out of this mess we are in today.
  This compromise plan before us--first of all, nobody has seen it. It 
is not available yet. I think the only copy is at the desk because it 
was not in a form you could copy it. None of us have seen this bill. 
None of our staff have on either side of this aisle. Nobody has seen 
this complete substitute before us today. It is a $1.2 trillion bill 
when we add in the interest.
  If you assume the optimistic projections of 4 million jobs, this is 
about $300,000 per job that is either created or saved. It used to be 
just created, now it is created or saved--$300,000 per job. If the low 
end of the projections are correct--you always have a high end and low 
end; I was being optimistic--at the low end, about 1.3 million jobs, 
the price tag per job is over $600,000. Don't you think we can do 
better than between $300,000 and $600,000 per job? Common sense, don't 
we think we can spend the money and create more jobs for that much 
money?
  We have heard about the pork in this bill, and Senator Coburn had an 
amendment yesterday--I am glad it was adopted--that would take out some 
of the pork in this bill. The unfortunate thing is, what they did was 
they asked for a wish list of Governors and mayors across the country. 
These kinds of items could still be allowed: $6.1 million for corporate 
jet hangars in Fayetteville, AR; $8 million for citywide bicycle 
facilities in Miami, FL; $15 million for pedestrian ways in St. Louis, 
MO; $47 million for new bike paths throughout the country.
  I cycle. I like bike paths. I love to see them out there. I ride my 
bike almost every weekend--not this weekend because we are stuck in DC. 
But I love to cycle. This is not a time to build these kinds of things. 
If we are going to invest in infrastructure, invest in infrastructure 
that actually makes the economy more efficient, such as roads that are 
needed.
  By the way, in Japan, when I put up that chart before, a lot of that 
spending they did ended up being bridges and roads to nowhere. If you 
do not target this money correctly--and the only way to do that is to 
take our time. When we rush through bills, we are going to see bridges 
to nowhere, we are going to see bicycle paths that people feel good 
about riding, but it is not going to help the economy. We need to take 
our time. If we rush through this bill, I believe we are going to have 
some very serious regrets in the years to come. We are going to have 
inflation. We are going to have to have higher taxes, and in the long 
run, we are going to do a huge amount of damage to our economy.
  Let's get together. Let's sit down, not as Republicans and Democrats 
but as Americans. That is the way the process should have been done in 
the first place. I have told the folks on the other side that if they 
want a bipartisan bill, they need to start in a bipartisan fashion. The 
President said he wanted a bipartisan process. You don't bring a 
Democratic bill from the House of Representatives, jam it through here, 
send it over to the House with no Republican input in either the House 
or the Senate, and then just allow amendments to happen but not at the 
crafting of the bill.
  I believe this stimulus package could have been put together with 
Republicans and Democrats and probably had 80 votes in the Senate 
because neither side has all the right ideas. Neither side does. Our 
side doesn't have all the right ideas; their side doesn't have all the 
right ideas. So to put the best ideas together, we should have sat down 
together, taken our time, and gotten this thing right.
  Mr. President, $1 trillion is not something where you can afford to 
blow it all. If you don't get $1 trillion right, you have made a 
massive mistake that you may not be able to recover from. That is why 
we need to slow down and do what is right for this country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from 
New Mexico, Mr. Udall.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West 
Virginia for managing this effort, and I am honored to be with you 
today.
  The first thing I want to say is, I think the important thing that 
has happened is we have seen several Republicans step forward to work 
with us on this economic package, and I would congratulate them and 
thank them for their bipartisanship--the two Senators from Maine and 
the Senator from Pennsylvania--who have seen that we have a very 
serious economic crisis facing us, and we need to focus on that with an 
urgency to do something. So they understand that and they are willing 
to work with us to make sure we get this done in a timely fashion.
  Now, I have been listening to the debate for almost 2 hours, and 
there have been several assertions that have been made by our friends 
across the aisle. No. 1 is, the President has misrepresented tax cuts 
and the Republican position; and, No. 2, the assertion which has to do 
with a failed ideology. They do not understand that.
  Well, it is pretty clear to me what the difference is, and there is a 
big difference. During the 8 years under George Bush and the Congress 
that supported him--the Republican Congress--we had tax cuts for the 
wealthy, and that was the solution to things. What we have in this 
package--and this is the big difference--is what we call--and President 
Obama has worked with the Senate and the House on this--a make work pay 
tax credit. This is a tax cut for working families. This is money that 
is going to be spent by working families that will flow through the 
community and get our economy growing again.
  Now, on the issue of failed ideology--and I am not trying to read 
President Obama's mind or anything--I think what President Obama was 
talking about when he talked about failed ideology and failed policies 
is, if you look at the Bush Presidency, and you look at the 8 years he 
was in office, we have seen a couple of things happen: massive debt. 
During his 8 years, the debt has grown from $5 trillion to $10 
trillion. When he took over, the country was in a surplus. We projected 
over 10 years that we had a $5.6 trillion surplus. Today, we have a $10 
trillion or more deficit. And, by the way, that is the biggest swing we 
have seen in our history, from a surplus to a deficit. That has put us 
as a nation in a horrible hole. So we know we have a big problem, and 
President Bush created that.
  The Bush economic policies over the last 6 years have hurt the middle 
class. We have seen middle-class incomes decline by $2,000 a year. The 
economic policies he has put in place have hurt middle-class and 
working families. And there is something we have inherited, and we need 
to be frank about it. It is a massive financial collapse on his watch--
Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, AIG, and the list goes on and on. 
Everybody who is analyzing that now says it is due to deregulation, 
laissez-

[[Page 3217]]

faire Government policies, and an approach by that administration to 
just let people regulate themselves.
  I remember when Chris Cox stepped forward and said, it was a mistake 
to let them regulate themselves. Well, that is what he did with his 
leadership over there at the SEC. So what President Obama is trying to 
do, and what the Senate and the House are trying to do now, is to fix 
the problems we have inherited from this administration--these serious 
economic problems, financial problems. We very much appreciate the 
support of Republicans in doing that, especially the three who have 
stepped forward to work with us.
  So I don't think there is any doubt there have been failed policies, 
but in talking about the economic recovery, we are talking about 
several things we are going to do. First of all, in the package that is 
before us, that I believe we are going to get out sometime soon, we are 
talking about a financial and banking recovery. We are also talking 
about stabilizing housing and making sure foreclosures are stopped so 
we don't go to 8 million foreclosures and those sorts of things. But 
what we should be focusing on, which this package does, and which is 
very important, is helping the States so they do not contribute to the 
downward spiral.
  My State of New Mexico, our Governor, has proposed to the 
legislature, which is sitting right now--the New Mexico Legislature is 
sitting--$454 million in cuts. That is 10 percent of the State budget, 
roughly in that range. So what will that do in our State of New Mexico? 
That will lay people off, projects will slow down, and we will be 
contributing to the downturn. What this package does that I think is 
tremendously important is, it allows the States to not make those kinds 
of cuts.
  A number of my colleagues have talked about how important this 
legislation is. Economists agree that a recovery package simply must be 
passed. If we do not act, we face double-digit employment--with 
millions more workers who cannot make ends meet because their hours 
have been cut and their pay is too low.
  We have the power to help. We must use it.
  Some of my friends who oppose this bill seem to think that we should 
pass a recovery package, but we should not to do anything to address 
our long-term prosperity. They say that this compromise bill is being 
used as an excuse to do the things we want to do anyway. If that means 
that this bill is not about creating jobs, then it is just plain wrong. 
This bill will create jobs. Economists from across the political 
spectrum will tell you that.
  But my friends have a point. This bill will do things that should 
have been done years ago. It addresses concerns that would be very real 
even if we did not face an economic crisis.
  Let me give you an example. A business in my State just had to lay 
off almost its entire workforce because it couldn't raise capital. This 
business has devoted itself to designing technologies that will make 
America a global leader in clean energy. The bill we're considering 
today could help companies like this get their technologies to market. 
For this one firm, that could have meant 55 jobs. Someone could say 
that the recovery package is pursuing goals that are not just about 
economic recovery.
  But let me ask: if you are going to create 55 jobs, why not end 
America's dependence on foreign oil? Why not create the jobs of the 
future--jobs that cannot be sent overseas?
  Let me give you another example. In Indian country, more than a 
quarter of all Native Americans live in poverty. The unemployment rates 
reach as much as 80 percent on some reservations. And the economic 
hardships facing all Americans today, are only compounded in Native 
American communities. As Chairman Dorgan said, ``Nowhere in this nation 
are jobs and construction improvements more needed than on American 
Indian reservations . . . Where tribal communities have faced 
longstanding infrastructure needs.''
  In this legislation today, we direct investments to Native 
communities. To improve Indian Reservation Road Infrastructure. To make 
sure Native people have access to clean drinking water. And to make 
sure Native children have an opportunity to thrive by investing in 
their nutrition, and in their educations. So, again, I have to ask: if 
our goal here is to create jobs, and uplift our economy, why not 
provide a Native American family with an income . . . with hope for the 
future? This legislation helps to do just that.
  That is not to say that this recovery package is perfect. We would 
all make adjustments if we could. But we must compromise. And we must 
get it done. We all realize the long-term consequences if we fail.
  Short-term thinking helped get us into this mess. And if we solve 
today's economic problems without thinking about our future, we will be 
back here again. Nobody wants that.
  More importantly, when this bill is signed into law, our 
responsibility as Senators and as citizens will not be over. The bill 
we are considering is an act of trust in the American people. Much of 
the money in this bill will not be spent by Washington. It will be 
spent by Governors and mayors, State agencies and school boards--the 
men and women who make up the strong base of our representative 
democracy. This is a time for active citizenship. When this bill is 
signed into law, men and women across this country need to watch how it 
is spent. We need to make sure that our local governments get the money 
to families that need help and businesses that will create jobs. This 
recovery package contains unprecedented provisions to provide oversight 
and demand accountability. But it will not work unless we make it work.
  I look forward to working with State and local officials in New 
Mexico to make sure the taxpayers' money is spent wisely. I will be 
working to make sure this money creates jobs today. I will be working 
to make sure it lays the groundwork for a brighter future. And I 
encourage my constituents to do the same.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would ask the Chair to notify me after 
8 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, there are some fundamental things that 
are important in America that can't be denied. They are like the law of 
gravity. They won't go away. One of them is that there is no free 
lunch. Nothing comes from nothing. Something has to be produced by 
somebody at a cost, and debts must be paid. If we incur debt, we incur 
an obligation. Money does not come from the air, and if we were to be 
irresponsible and print large amounts of money to use to pay our debts, 
we would inflate the currency and debase the value of every asset held 
by every American and the value of the dollar, which has very 
pernicious consequences for us.
  I would like to take a moment to share some thoughts. This is a quote 
from Larry Summers, President Obama's No. 1 economic adviser and a very 
experienced man. I am not quoting Mr. Summers to claim that he has 
changed his position; I am quoting Mr. Summers because fundamentally 
these statements are accurate statements. Mr. Summers has said that:

       As with any potent medicine, stimulus, if misadministered, 
     could do more harm than good by increasing instability and 
     creating long run problems. A stimulus program should be 
     timely, targeted, and temporary.

  That was in January of last year. I think that is a fundamentally 
true statement. And one of the things I am worried about in this bill 
is that it is so diffuse, it is so untargeted and so large that it does 
not meet any of the standards mentioned by Mr. Summers.
  Mr. Summers has also said that:

       Fiscal stimulus, to be maximally effective, must be clearly 
     and credibly targeted . . . with no significant adverse 
     impact on the deficit for more than a year or two after 
     implementation.

  I believe that the bill before us violates the criteria Mr. Summers 
outlined in this statement. In January of last year Mr. Summers said:


[[Page 3218]]

       Poorly provided fiscal stimulus can have worse side effects 
     than the disease that is to be cured.

  Now, that is why I have cited the Congressional Budget Office report 
of just 2 days ago so often. In this report, Mr. Elmendorf concluded:

       Over the 10-year period, the growth of the economy would be 
     less if we pass the stimulus than if we had no stimulus at 
     all.

  I didn't make that up. It is difficult to accept that you can't 
create something from nothing very easily. We can get a little bump in 
the economy now by reaching into the future and bringing $1.1 trillion 
or $2 trillion and spending it now and let our children worry about 
paying it. You can get that. But it quickly gets away from us.
  So in 10 years, the Government borrowing $1 trillion-plus from the 
marketplace crowds out credit and denies small businesses and other 
people the ability to get loans. So there are costs in this. It is just 
critically important that every dollar be properly accounted for and 
that we not stick in a bunch of programs that may be ineffectual and 
that don't go through the normal committee process.
  President Clinton's Budget Director, Alice Rivlin, warned a few days 
ago that:

       A long term investment plan should not be put together 
     hastily and lumped in with the anti-recession package. The 
     elements of the investment programs must be carefully planned 
     and will not create many jobs right away.

  To interpret that language, the long-term investment plan means new 
programs--new health care programs, new environmental programs, and new 
energy programs. Alice Rivlin warned that these programs shouldn't be 
lumped in with an antirecession package. She warned that the elements 
of the investment programs are the things that will continue to be out 
there for a long time. She says that these programs are not going to 
create jobs right away. In addition, money could be wasted because the 
investment elements may not be carefully crafted.
  We have to be careful in crafting this bill or we will not create 
jobs; we will create ineffectual programs. Yet we are going to run them 
through without going through the normal budgetary process and the 
normal authorization committee process. We have all kinds of bills in 
here, all kinds of legislation in this bill that would normally be the 
product of committee hearings and public debate. They have just been 
stuck in and they are being run through with a few days of debate. The 
proponents of these programs like them. They think they sound good and 
they are pushing them forward. I don't dispute their integrity or their 
goodwill, I am just saying history tells us we have to be careful.
  I supported ethanol, and I know Senator Grassley did. Some now think 
we went too far. Senator Grassley doesn't. I don't know where we are on 
it, but we were all excited at the time. We thought we were going to 
fix all our problems.
  I would also like to point out that Senator Conrad, the chairman of 
the Budget Committee, a Democratic leader in the Senate here, really a 
fine Senator, has repeatedly expressed his grave concern about a bow 
wave that is being created with the stimulus. In other words, the 
stimulus, in perspective, seems to be legislation that will be one-
time, temporary, and targeted. But Chairman Conrad says there are at 
least $120 billion of programmatic changes that are not going to quit, 
and therefore we are increasing our permanent expenditure baseline by 
$123 billion. Senator Coburn from Oklahoma believes it is a $300 
billion bow wave of permanent spending in this bill that is never going 
to end. It is very difficult. We are doing it so rapidly that it is 
troubling.
  I want to say one more thing. Senator Rockefeller and Senator 
Grassley have been here longer than I, but if you look at what we are 
doing--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 8 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use 2 more 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, if you look at what we are doing, it 
does not reflect well on the Congress and the Senate.
  Last fall, we were told by Secretary Paulson that we had to pass a 
$700 billion bailout for Wall Street. I remember one day they told us 
we had to pass it before the next day, before the Asian markets opened. 
Do you remember that? You have to do it before the Asian markets open. 
We fiddled around and were panicked and pushed and shoved and 
threatened and everything. Eventually Congress folded up and passed the 
$700 billion TARP program. Only $350 billion of that has been spent to 
date, so it obviously was not the most important thing in the world. 
Furthermore, most economists think it has done very little good.
  Now we come up with a stimulus. All of that was in addition to our 
debt. It was classified as emergency spending and went outside of the 
budget process with very few hearings. Every penny of this bill is now 
going to the debt. None of this money is going to be returned to the 
Government. Once we sign the bill, the money goes out of the door and 
gets spent. That is another $1.1 trillion. It did not go to the 
authorizing committees and in-depth hearings on all these programs were 
not held.
  We know in another few days we are going to have another 
multibillion, maybe $500 billion plan proposed by the administration 
for the second part of the Wall Street bailout and maybe additional 
legislation for housing.
  I say to my colleagues, somehow all of this is spent outside the 
budget. We pass a budget and we are supposed to stay within that 
budget. Yet all of these huge, unprecedented expenditures are spent 
without any requirement that those expenditures compete with other 
programs. We want to do hybrid cars, but it doesn't compete with other 
legitimate efforts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We just 
stick it into this bill without any hearings.
  I am really worried about it. I think we are losing our discipline. I 
think Congress has been rubberstamping the Executive. I voted against 
President Bush's request to give this money to Wall Street, and I am 
going to vote against this stimulus package unless it is substantially 
changed.
  I do believe Senator McCain's legislation is one of the best 
alternatives proposed thus far. I support it. It is over $400 billion. 
It has more for roads and highways than this bill. This bill only has 
$30 billion for highways and bridges. It is supposed to be an 
infrastructure bill, yet $30 billion is less than 3 percent of the 
entire package. This funding represents even less than 3 percent if you 
count the $347 billion in interest the bill would cost.
  It is a very troubling bill. It is being ramrodded through. It is not 
going to have the kind of impact on this country's economy that we 
would like it to have. Indeed, I am afraid that unfortunately the 
Congressional Budget Office is right. Whereas we might have a temporary 
boost in the economy for the first 2 or 3 years, over the next 10 years 
it will be negative, and over the next 10 years after that it will be a 
flat negative with no benefit whatsoever to the economy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from West Virginia 
for being here today. I thank my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, 
for being here today, and all my other colleagues who are here.
  When I left the seventh grade basketball game in the morning at 8 
o'clock, my children wanted to know--they are used to me working on 
Saturdays, but usually it is in Arkansas. They said to me, ``You are 
going into the Capitol? What are you doing, Mom?'' I said we have 
something very important facing this country right now, the gravity of 
the situation we find ourselves in as a nation right now, looking for 
the solutions to the challenges we face in this great country. I told 
them we are so blessed to live in this country, it is

[[Page 3219]]

worth coming in on a Saturday to talk through the issues, the 
challenges we face, and what the solutions are for this country moving 
forward.
  I have to say I am glad to be here, and I am glad to be joined by 
such compassionate and pragmatic Members who are also here to talk 
about how we get ourselves out of this. We can talk about history, we 
can talk about what got us here. The most important thing to talk about 
is how we put our country back on track.
  The most important challenge we have been faced with here is 
obviously our economy. There are lots of others that will feed in. As 
the Senator just mentioned, we have other opportunities down the road 
to deal with those. But I am proud of the effort in the Senate.
  President Obama gave us a good beginning in his recommendations of 
his recovery package. The House worked on theirs. We are here now, the 
deliberative body, to look at how it is we can improve upon this.
  I have to say, I think about some of the best advice I have ever 
gotten in life. Life is about choices, and we all are faced with 
choices and the many hats we wear in our lives. We have choices of how 
to be good parents, how to make those choices. We have choices in how 
to be responsive and to be a good wife and to be a good daughter to 
aging parents. And yes, how to be good Senators, coming together to 
represent the interests of our State but also the well-being of the 50 
United States, this great Nation of which we are a part. That is what 
we are here about right now. That is why we worked late into the night 
last night. Everyone was tired. Now we have come back today to begin, 
hopefully, a bigger and better discussion of how we face these 
challenges and where we find these solutions.
  I was extremely proud of my colleagues, Senator Collins, Senator Ben 
Nelson from Nebraska, and the others who came together. I joined that 
group to listen and talk about how we can bring balance to these 
solutions, those who have concerns about how much is spending in this 
bill and how much is tax cuts, and where do we go to create that 
balance that will help us move forward in this country to create the 
economy we need to create without creating outrageous debt that could 
be harmful to our children. It is a delicate balance, and that is why 
that group came together; it was to see how do we find a bipartisan way 
to come up with these solutions.
  Trimming about $100 billion is what came out of that. It was a good 
thing. It was a good thing to say, yes, they are all things we are 
passionate about. Nobody is against education. We do not want to 
demonize the programs that exist in what people are passionate about. 
But is this the place to do it? Can't we maybe reduce some of that 
extra spending we put in this bill to make it comparable to what it is 
that everybody wants to see? That was a good step. It was something we 
should be proud of in this body, that in a bipartisan way people did 
come together to say: What are our challenges, what are our options, 
how do we balance this?
  There are great ideas out there. I tend to disagree a little bit--new 
ideas can be good ideas. We have to look for the new ideas. We have to 
move from an old energy economy to a new energy economy. We have to 
look at the new ways of health care where we can find efficiencies and 
effectiveness that will bring us greater quality of care at a lower 
cost, accessibility to more Americans in health care needs and in 
health insurance. These are things we can do. But we cannot do them if 
we do not work together and we are not willing to take steps forward. 
If all we do is look back, look in the past and worry about what got us 
here and worry about all of those things as opposed to working 
together, we will never make it.
  One of the other critical pieces of this recipe is patience. We have 
to be patient. Yes, this is timely. It is much needed. We are in a 
grave situation in this country in terms of our economy. We have to 
deal with this crisis and put ourselves back on track. We can do it 
with timely and targeted and temporary measures. My colleague from Iowa 
mentions that often, and it is a wonderful thing for each of us to 
remember as we go through these things.
  We also have great passion for a lot of the different specifics that 
are important to our States. We have to have patience with that. There 
will be other trains leaving this station. We will do an omnibus bill, 
we will do an appropriations bill, we will do a move into that new 
energy economy, we will do an energy bill, we will do health care 
reform, and we will do tax reform. We are dedicated to doing those 
things. But this right now should be our focus, should be our most 
important focus, of moving forward. We all, when we have an important 
job to do, get very anxious. Now we need to have patience. We need to 
move in a calculating way, working hard, to come up with the solution 
we need to have. But we do need to do something now. We are here today 
because we want to get it right, we want to work hard with others in a 
bipartisan way, across the aisle, to make sure what we are doing is 
going to be important.
  I would say to my colleagues, look at what we have done. Look at 
where we have come over the course of the last week. We have already 
brought about a balanced package, frankly, in terms of spending and tax 
cuts. Those are positive things. We are going to have to spend 
something. We are talking about dealing with this economic crisis, 
spurring the economy, giving the ability to the people, the hard-
working families of this country--look at what we have done on the tax 
side: support for small businesses, tax relief for small businesses 
that want to keep their payrolls going, that want to keep those jobs 
going, that want to make sure those working families are still going to 
be getting their payroll checks and putting into the GDP through the 
consumption their families need.
  We have an awful lot to do. But I hope the Members of this body will 
not give up, will not torture themselves about what other people have 
done and will remember who we are in this body and our ability to come 
together and work. We have done it in the past.
  When our country needs us the most, it is absolutely essential that 
we put down all of what may be behind us and make sure we are working 
hard to get this right. We can, we must, for the sake of this great 
country, the sake of the blessing each and every one of us has in 
living in this great country. It is our responsibility, it is our duty, 
and it should be our honor to come together and work these problems 
out.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have two or three items of this 
legislation I want to discuss with my colleagues, some items I hope can 
still be worked into the final package.
  The first deals with the idea that President Obama put forth in his 
campaign about the zero capital gains. If you look at what is possibly 
going to be passing this Senate, you find that this bill contains only 
about $21 billion in net tax relief for businesses, and that is for the 
purpose of encouraging investment because investment creates jobs and 
these are long-term jobs. I don't find any fault with the business 
incentives that are in here, but $21 billion, for the most part--it is 
tax relief going to just big business.
  That has to be a result of the $19 billion dollar net operating loss 
carryback provisions which are in this bill, mostly benefitting large 
corporations.
  Well, how much tax relief for small business is in this $827 billion 
bill? Not much. I think it is a pretty puny amount. So I stand to 
encourage support of a proposal by President Obama to eliminate capital 
gains on sale of stock in small business and startup corporations.
  Under present law, under section 1202 of the Internal Revenue Code, 
50 percent of the gains realized on the sale or exchange of certain 
small business stocks held for more than 5 years is excludable from 
gross income. That 5 years is very important because we want to look at 
long-term investment, not the just the get in quick and get

[[Page 3220]]

out quick that has created a lot of economic problems.
  Now, beyond that, the remaining gain is taxed at the rate of 28 
percent. So excluding half the gain from tax, and taking the other half 
at 28 percent, you end up at 14 percent. However, regular capital gains 
are currently taxed at 15 percent, so you can see section 1202, which 
was intended to encourage investment in small business corporations is 
not very effective.
  A tax rate of 14 percent, pretty simply, is not much better than 15 
percent and, consequently, does not do much good. It is actually even a 
worse situation in that that portion of excluded gain is subject to the 
alternative minimum income tax. Therefore, this bill should go further 
than it does.
  Now, obviously, the underlying piece of legislation tries to address 
the small business investment but not the way President Obama 
suggested. So I am back to where President Obama was. This bill should 
be amended, and I have an amendment that would do three different 
things:
  First, it would increase the section 1202 exclusion to 100 percent of 
the gain realized upon the sale of qualifying small business stock, 
instead of the 75-percent exclusion included in the underlying bill; 
second, it would make the section 1202 gain not subject to the 
alternative minimum tax; and, third, it would increase from $50 million 
to $75 million the amount of aggregate gross asset the corporation 
could have and still qualify as a qualified small business corporation. 
Again, this amendment would implement President Obama's campaign 
proposal to eliminate capital gains tax on sale of stocks in small 
businesses and startups.
  Would you please note the President's campaign proposal was not 
merely to bring down the capital gains rate on small business to 7 
percent, as the stimulus bill now written would provide but, very 
importantly, eliminate capital gains for the sale of stock of small 
businesses and startup corporations.
  If you wonder why the President's as well as my emphasis upon small 
business investment is--you know it better than I do, or as well as I 
do--70 to 80 percent of the new jobs are created in new business and 
you realize, in 2007, I believe it was, maybe it was 2006, whenever we 
had the latest figures, the only net gain in employment in the United 
States was in small business, while there was probably a downturn in 
big business at that time.
  So we ought to move forward. What I would like to have you note is 
the main policy justification for preferential tax treatment for 
capital gains is because of the risk inherent in many investments in 
capital assets that are taxed at ordinary rates would discourage risk-
taking, because ordinary tax treatment would take a large share of the 
upside but would not help the taxpayer in the case of the investment 
not working out, on the downside.
  To correct this imbalance in our law, capital gains are given 
preferential treatment. I explained to you the importance of giving to 
it small business because they are the employment machine of our free 
market economy. This argument concerning risk-taking is especially 
strong regarding investment in originally issued stock from small 
corporations such as we are discussing in this legislation, in a little 
smaller way.
  With small corporations especially, it is still in startup mode and 
still raising new capital. The risk of failure is especially high. That 
is even more so, given the fragile nature of today's economy, which 
leads me then to my next two points: I have spoken about the importance 
of the stimulus bill being targeted and temporary; that is, if the word 
``stimulus'' is to have any real meaning, the bill should be targeted 
and temporary.
  The question is, Is this provision--I suppose you could raise it 
about the provision in the bill, which is a smaller version of what 
President Obama recommended. Is this provision concerning elimination 
of capital gains tax on the sale of small business corporation stock 
targeted and temporary?
  Well, you know the answer is obviously yes on targeted. The provision 
is targeted with where relief is needed. One thing all of us heard over 
and over again is capital markets are one, frozen; two, people are not 
loaning money; and, three, they are not investing money in anything 
very risky, but rather than simply putting their money in Treasury 
bills or cash, very safe, risk-free places. So small businesses are 
starved for the capital needed to invest, and they need to invest in 
new capital, new equipment, and new employees.
  What will it take to encourage people to invest new equity in small 
corporations? Well, I believe this provision will help by giving 
favorable tax treatment for such investment. Note that the favorable 
tax treatment described in this amendment will not be extended to the 
purchase of small business corporate stock on the secondary market. If 
an individual buys already-issued small business corporate stock from 
another individual, this does not get the new capital to the small 
business itself; rather, the favorable tax treatment described in this 
bill would only be for originally issued stock of corporations issued 
after the date of enactment of this legislation.
  Why only for originally issued stock? Because that is the stock 
issued for direct capital injections from the investor into the 
corporation. By targeting this amendment in such originally issued 
stock, this will result in new capital investment in small business 
corporations where jobs are created in America.
  Now, targeted, yes; temporary, yes. So the provision must be 
temporary under this legislation. This provision would only apply to 
the purchase of originally issued stock after the date of enactment, 
2009 through January 1 of 2011. Of course, all of us hope our current 
economic problems will have eased by that date, 2011. Thus, to make 
sure this provision is targeted during the time it is needed most, it 
is targeted for the remainder of this year and next year.
  According to the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, this 
provision has a 10-year cost of $1.5 billion. You can surely see that 
with the job creation machine small business brings about, this is a 
good investment. Please do not count on me to say this again, but I 
have the audacity to hope that this proposal will attract large 
bipartisan support, this proposal of the President is actually change 
we can believe in. I encourage support for that provision.
  Going to another issue, a large portion of this bill is devoted to 
health care, so also I will bring up that. In the Senate, we are giving 
States more money for Medicaid; giving subsidies so people who lost 
their jobs can pay for health insurance and throw billions of dollars 
at pet projects related to health care.
  Over in the House, they are going even further. They are expanding 
who is eligible for Medicaid, letting people stay on their employer's 
health plan for up to 35 years after they are fired and ultimately have 
the taxpayers foot that part of the bill.
  Last week the Wall Street Journal summed up these reforms with an op-
ed entitled, ``Democratic Stealth Care.'' Under the title, the article 
quotes:

       With the Nation preoccupied by financial crisis, Democrats 
     have been quietly working to nationalize health care.

  Now, some may think this is just a conspiracy theory, but between the 
Children's Health Insurance Program last week and now the stimulus this 
week, I begin to wonder.
  The Government-run Children's Health Insurance Program alone is going 
to cause 2.4 million people to drop out of the private market, the 
private market where people already have health insurance and where 
they are already paying for it, and join the taxpayer-funded program 
and that probably the additional kids who need to be in that program 
will not be in it.
  Now this is a big victory for the people who want the Government to 
change over our health care system. But they are not going to stop 
there. Some say Medicaid spending in this stimulus bill is meant to 
help States get people already enrolled. Well, who is going to argue 
with that? But I

[[Page 3221]]

think you have to look at it beyond that.
  If you just wanted to shore up existing Medicaid programs, why does 
this bill provide billions more than what the Congressional Budget 
Office says States will actually need to meet that responsibility? When 
we marked up this bill in the Finance Committee, I said: Anything in 
this stimulus package should meet the three Ts test that we hear: 
timely, targeted, and temporary.
  But that also applies to these health provisions. Well, I do not see 
how giving States billions more for Medicaid dollars than they need so 
they can add more people to the program we already cannot afford meets 
any of these tests. I am not saying that about people who are 
unemployed and would otherwise qualify, I am talking about beyond that. 
It also is not very targeted to give the same CEOs who got $18 billion 
in bonuses last week a Government handout to buy health insurance. But 
under this bill, you can get a subsidy to pay for health insurance 
regardless of how much you make.
  The budget deficit for this year is already targeted and projected to 
be over $1 trillion. After the stimulus bill and other legislation, the 
deficit is going to grow to over $2 trillion. It is critical that we 
must be fiscally responsible with these taxpayers' dollars. I do not 
see how giving a millionaire, who maybe got fired from a corporation, 
money to buy insurance is fiscally responsible. But this legislation 
allows that because there is not an income cap for getting on Medicaid.
  The Wall Street Journal article I mentioned goes on to say: ``In this 
new health care nirvana, even the rich are welcome.''
  It also says that: If you add it all up, ``the Democrats may move ten 
million more people under the Federal health umbrella in just 4 
weeks.''
  This certainly sounds, of course, like a big step toward too much 
Government-run health care for this Senator. I thought Republicans and 
Democrats were going to work together on our reform of our health care 
system. Well, I must have missed some memo along that line because it 
looks like this bill is taking steps a lot further with things that are 
normally in a health care reform package.
  Quite frankly, we do have a bipartisan process going on that I am a 
part of. I am glad to be a part of it. But some of those moves make me 
somewhat cynical.
  On another point, something in this stimulus package appropriates 
money for the National Science Foundation. I wish to speak about an 
issue there. Not that they should not have the money, but we have to 
change things at the National Science Foundation if that money is going 
to be spent wisely. Last week, I sent a letter to the National Science 
Foundation asking about the inspector general's semiannual report. The 
IG found extensive use of National Science Foundation computers to view 
sexually explicit material.
  A particularly severe incident described in the semiannual report 
involved a manager at the National Science Foundation spending, would 
you believe it, up to 20 percent of his official worktime viewing 
pornography, over a 2-year period of time, at a cost to taxpayers, us, 
just for his salary of $58,000. Now, he is no longer there. But there 
is a culture hit there that encourages this sort of thing. The IG 
estimated that, obviously, that is a waste of taxpayer money and spoke 
about that.
  As my investigators began digging around the National Science 
Foundation, they found that pornography is not necessarily the main 
problem. It is only a sign that the National Science Foundation has not 
been subjected to too much scrutiny over the years. We are going to put 
a damper on that misuse of taxpayer money, because I have some very 
powerful cosponsors of my amendments in Senator Mikulski and Senator 
Shelby, who are the chair and ranking member of the Appropriations 
subcommittee that oversees the National Science Foundation budget. They 
are also involved with the extra money for the National Science 
Foundation in this stimulus bill.
  To make sure the National Science Foundation gets a very clear 
message that Congress is serious about ensuring accountability of 
taxpayers' money, this amendment freezes $3 million of the additional 
billions of dollars going to NSF for a short period in the money that 
is going as operating funds directly to the Office of Director of the 
National Science Foundation. This money will become available when the 
National Science Foundation Director does what he is supposed to be 
doing. If he had been doing that, we wouldn't have these problems we 
are trying to fix.
  The tasks are, No. 1, the National Science Foundation Director needs 
to submit a report to Congress detailing the steps the National Science 
Foundation has taken to remove pornography from the foundation 
computers. By the way, this report is only based upon one server. I 
don't know how many servers they have, but they have, obviously, more 
than one that needs to be gone through. The inspector general found 
problems after searching that one and believes there is a more 
extensive problem.
  No. 2, the National Science Foundation Director submits a report to 
Congress detailing an appropriate response of the National Science 
Foundation IG semiannual report where all this information came from. 
This will include actions taken to stop people watching pornography 
while on the job at the National Science Foundation.
  No. 3, the National Science Board needs to hire an independent 
general counsel. The board is supposed to provide oversight over the 
National Science Foundation, but they have been relying on the National 
Science Foundation's own attorney for legal advice. This is pretty 
silly and raises concerns about the independence of the National 
Science Foundation's own attorney. So we are going to want them to have 
somebody more independent.
  I am certain this will not fix all of the problems at NSF, but with 
the help of Senators Mikulski and Shelby, we are on a road to making 
this organization more accountable to the taxpayers. We will have a lot 
more work to do at the agency, but I am happy that Senator Mikulski is 
in position there.
  In the $800 billion bill we have before us, it calls for more 
congressional oversight. I know most everybody knows that. But I want 
to point out some problems we have to take care of to make sure all 
Members of Congress are able to do congressional oversight with an 
amendment simply ensuring that we in Congress can keep a watchful eye 
on the extraordinary amounts of money being spent in the stimulus bill 
over the next 2 years. We need this oversight. Over the years, under 
both Republican and Democratic administrations, I have taken on the 
responsibility of asking a lot of the tough questions of the executive 
branch, regardless of whether the President was of my party or the 
other. Day in and day out, many Members of Congress--this one 
included--write letters asking questions about how laws we pass are 
being carried out. We ask about allegations of waste, fraud, and abuse 
that come to our offices on a regular basis. In order to get to the 
bottom of these allegations and truly understand how executive branches 
under both Republicans and Democrats are conducting the people's 
business, it is not enough to rely upon assurances from bureaucrats 
that there is nothing to worry about.
  We need access to documents, records generated by the agencies that 
we are trying to oversee. We need to access those records in order to 
act as a constitutional check on the executive branch to verify that 
what they are telling us is more than just spin. Documents and records 
created at taxpayer expense ought to be available to their elected 
representatives in Congress. It is that simple. It is fundamental to 
our constitutional system of checks and balances. Too often, however, 
unelected bureaucrats, sometimes political appointees, misinterpret the 
law and deny congressional requests for information without any 
legitimate legal reason for doing so.
  My amendment would take away those bogus legal arguments by making 
the will of this body crystal clear.

[[Page 3222]]

If an agency gets money under this bill and if the agency gets a 
request for records from the chair or ranking member of congressional 
committees, the agency must provide those records. A vote for this 
amendment is a vote to make sure that Congress has the information it 
needs to do its duty under the Constitution. We cannot act as a check 
and a balance if we allow ourselves to be kept in the dark about what 
is going on in the executive branch, particularly when we are 
appropriating almost $800 billion over the next 2 years as a stimulus.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask unanimous consent that the time be extended 
until 3:30, but it already has been. By what mechanism, I know not, but 
it doesn't make any difference. That is why the Senator from Iowa was 
able to continue.
  Since it is now 7 of and Senator Nelson and I both wish to speak, I 
ask unanimous consent that the time for debate be extended until 3:30, 
with the time equally divided between the leaders or their designees 
under the same provisions of the previous order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, most of the Senators know how 
much I love the Senate and how I love individual Senators who are quite 
extraordinary individuals. It is because of that love that I have 
concern we continue to see excessive partisanship in the Senate, what 
is described as the most deliberative body in the world. This is not to 
say that because we are the most deliberative body, we should not have 
our political fights and sharply disagree. But when crisis faces the 
Nation, it seems to this Senator there ought to be a focus on finding 
common ground instead of that which separates us.
  I want to give two examples of where I thought it was a very fine 
hour that the Nation found common ground in a bipartisan way. The first 
was when I had the privilege of serving in the House of Representatives 
in 1983. Social Security was facing a financial default within a 6-
month period. Two old Irishmen, who would fight every day but at the 
end of the day could walk through the door as personal friends and had 
a personal relationship so that they could get things done, those two 
old Irishmen--one being the President of the United States, Ronald 
Reagan, and the other one being the Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill--
realized that if we were going to solve the potential default of the 
Social Security system, we had to come together in a bipartisan way. 
Indeed, they said: We are going to take this third rail of American 
politics off the table at the next election. It will not be an election 
issue. We are going to solve it. We are going to use the mechanism of a 
bipartisan commission to come and bring a solution.
  That is exactly what happened. The solution was brought by the 
commission. The Congress passed it overwhelmingly. There had to be give 
and take and shared pain by all different sectors. It was not used as a 
political weapon in the next election. Social Security was made 
actuarially sound for the next 75 years. That is one example.
  Another example of unity in a bipartisan way was in the aftermath of 
September 11, 2001. Of course, I will never forget in that day that we 
had dispersed to all parts of Washington, because we had to flee the 
Capitol when we thought the fourth airplane was in-bound to destroy 
this magnificent symbol of America, later that day, into the evening, 
Members of Congress, the House and the Senate, spontaneously gathered 
on the center steps of the east side of the Capitol and broke out 
spontaneously singing ``God Bless America'' in a show of unity.
  I will never forget the weekly caucuses that we separate here, where 
the Democrats meet in one place and the Republicans meet in another 
place, there was a joint caucus bringing about unity in the aftermath 
of crisis.
  It occasions this Senator to wonder, where is that unity in this 
crisis? Do we not think this crisis is of sufficient magnitude that we 
ought to be coming together? We say we have a bipartisan solution, but 
it takes all 58 Democratic Senators, plus three Republican Senators to 
get over the 60-vote threshold mark in order to pass this legislation 
on next Monday and Tuesday. That is technically bipartisan, but it is 
not really. Is this crisis not of sufficient magnitude?
  Look back last fall. After the defaults of a number of major 
financial institutions and suddenly Lehman having a financial hole so 
big that regulators decided they had to let it go, the confidence went 
completely out of the system. In a rushed manner, we passed the 
Troubled Assets Relief Program, with the acronym TARP. It injected 
capital in the system. None of us is happy as to how we have seen the 
first segment of $350 billion spent. But at least it put funds in to 
inject some confidence that the Federal Government was going to stand 
behind the banking system and not let it go down the tubes. So we 
started working our way through that.
  Look at it from the standpoint of bankers. They need capital. They 
need investment. We are seeing that the Secretary of the Treasury is 
going to come out next Monday with a proposal that is going to inject 
new capital by, this time, instead guaranteeing those troubled assets, 
the Federal Government. This is a role for government, in that the 
Federal Government, in addition, is going to put money so that loans 
can be made for students, for small business, to pay off credit card 
debt, and to go out and buy automobiles. That is necessary. Banks need 
to make loans, but they can't if people make a run on their bank and 
start pulling out their assets. Thus, the need for more confidence 
injected into the system. That is what we are trying to do with TARP 
and now this fiscal stimulus plan.
  This plan: 42 percent of the stimulus is coming from tax cuts; 58 
percent is coming from fiscal stimulus by additional spending. In order 
to get three Republican votes to get us over the 60-vote threshold, 
$110 billion was cut; $25 billion off of the tax cuts and $85 billion 
off of the spending, with a $110 billion reduction of the overall 
stimulus plan. Yet we still do not have unity.
  I cannot understand why, when the Senator from Georgia, who is my 
dear friend, and I think one of the most effective Members of the 
Senate, passes what is a very attractive amendment, upping a $15,000 
tax credit for the purchase of a home, the total of which, the pricetag 
for that tax credit is approximately $35 billion--and I am told the 
Senator from Georgia, with that provision in the bill, is not going to 
support it on final passage or on the motion for cloture, which we have 
to have to cut off debate to get to the bill.
  Where is the unity and where is the bipartisanship? We masquerade as 
bipartisans, and yet this lingering insidious attempt to always divide 
instead of reconcile still hangs over the Capitol of the United States 
of America. It would be certainly this Senator's hope that as we get on 
down the line, and it goes into a conference committee to iron out the 
differences between the House and the Senate, that maybe there will be 
more Senators who can come together and say at this critical time in 
our country, when the financial institutions were about to go under, 
with a complete economic cardiac arrest on the horizon, we could reach 
out and, as the Good Book says: reason together.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD, Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate considered an 
amendment offered by Senator Coburn that would prohibit stimulus funds 
from being directed to institutions of cultural merit in communities 
throughout the country.
  As well intentioned as Senator Coburn's amendment may be, it is 
misguided. Among the many institutions that would be prohibited from 
receiving stimulus funding under the Coburn amendment are museums, 
theaters, art centers, zoos, aquariums, and community parks. And while 
the amendment would correctly prohibit funding for casinos and golf 
courses, I question the judgment of grouping institutions of

[[Page 3223]]

significant cultural merit, such as museums, with these other 
superfluous uses. I also question the notion that Washington knows 
better than the communities and States themselves which projects will 
stimulate their local economies and preserve jobs and which will not.
  In 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt put millions of people back to 
work through the Works Progress Administration. Job creation was not 
limited to only public works and housing, but also included efforts to 
strengthen art and culture. The Federal Art Project, Writers Project, 
and Theater Project provided jobs to thousands of the unemployed. 
President Roosevelt understood the benefit in investing in America's 
infrastructure and the long-term economic value in fostering the 
Nation's cultural development.
  Educational and cultural institutions are the economic anchor in many 
communities. In Connecticut, cultural institutions contribute 
approximately $9 billion annually to the State's economy and support 
roughly 110,000 jobs. These institutes of learning bring educational 
programming to schools in surrounding communities. These institutions 
are employers. They stimulate the local economy and bring patrons to 
small businesses and revenue to our communities and States.
  Our museums, theaters, art centers, zoos, and aquariums are not 
outcasts. These institutions are members of our communities that have 
been hard hit by the economic downturn. While facing understandably 
reduced attendance during times of economic crisis, they have also 
suffered from reduced charitable giving and slashed local and State 
aid.
  The crisis can be seen throughout Connecticut. In June, the Mark 
Twain House and Museum, a National Historic Landmark, was almost forced 
to close its doors. In November, the Maritime Aquarium in Norwalk 
announced layoffs because of an unsteady economy and declining 
attendance. In December, Mystic Seaport faced a similar situation and 
was forced to eliminate 23 full-time positions. And just this week, the 
Connecticut Opera, which is the sixth-oldest continuously performing 
opera company in the country, was forced to halt operations. These 
stories are not unique to my home State--they are being echoed 
throughout the country.
  Yesterday's New York Times featured a cover story on the successes 
and failures of Japan's actions to stimulate the economy in the early 
1990s. Dr. Ihori of the University of Tokyo determined, ``decisions on 
how to spend money were made behind closed doors by bureaucrats, 
politicians and the construction industry, and often reflected 
political considerations more than economic.''
  Mr. President, the amendment offered by Senator Coburn is just that--
a decision more reflective of political considerations than economic. 
The amendment will unfairly tie the hands of our governors and local 
officials who know best what will stabilize and stimulate their local 
economies in order to retain badly needed jobs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The Senator from 
West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. President, I wish to clear up a couple of quick points. I think I 
will be the last speaker from our side, and I am not sure about the 
other side. But we have until 3:30, and I will not speak that long.
  I think it is important to point out a couple things.
  No. 1, the point has been made that we rushed this thing and we are 
jamming it down the throats of people. Well, first of all, if we are 
doing that, we are not doing it in quite as numerically an advantageous 
way as we should.
  Secondly, I think two of the most important committees that handle 
this whole matter--the Finance Committee and the Appropriations 
Committee--have been through full markup, have had hearings on this. I 
remember our markup in the Senate Finance Committee lasted 12 
consecutive hours on our section of this bill. So it has been very well 
thought through. It has been very well debated. Amendments have been 
raised. Amendments have been rejected. We had 45 votes on the floor 
about this. They have been debated back and forth. They have been 
discussed. It is not clear to me if we did this for another week that 
we would be any wiser or we would have any crisper or more targeted 
bill than we have today.
  The second point I wish to make is, when it is pointed out that as a 
percentage of total spending State spending is doubled, tripled, and 
all the rest of this--as if the States have been acting in some kind of 
very irresponsible fashion--I was a Governor. And Governors are capable 
of doing that from time to time. But I want to point out that as a 
percentage of total spending, State spending has not increased at a 
greater rate than any other of the sectors in our economy. It is just 
that the price of health care and the price of everything else--
inflation, all of it--has caused that. So people can say it is a $1.2 
trillion bill, but that does not take into account all the reasons I 
have enumerated.
  There are a lot of costs that are going to go up, and that is why at 
the end of a period of time it may be that, but we are not voting on 
something which is 5 years in the future or 8 years in the future. We 
are voting on something which has to take effect right now.
  That brings me to what I want to say, and that is two points. We have 
wandered, it seems to me, a bit in this debate away from the people who 
I think haunt us in their tragedy. I regret that. People have talked 
about individual amendments they want to get. There is an enormous--42 
percent of it is in tax cuts. That is probably more than most Democrats 
would do. But, on the other hand, the tax cuts tend to be more toward 
the middle class and small business, which is what the ranking member 
of the Finance Committee wants. He wants more, and I understand that. 
But we all want more or less of something. But what we do not want is 
for the American people to suffer, as they are now suffering. That is 
the only reason we are here. It is the only reason we are here.
  This is only the beginning. We have at least two other major bills we 
are going to have that are going to require a lot of money that we are 
going to have to deal with. This is the first one. This is our first 
test. I think it is extraordinary, the point the Senator from Florida 
made, and others have made, that it took three Republicans and one 
Democrat to come together in essence to put forward a bill which I 
think is going to end up passing if we can work out our differences 
with the House in conference, which I think we will be able to do.
  Now, why do I say this? I say this because we have no choice but to 
come to the aid of the American people. I am not saying that Government 
spending is the answer to everything, as I am not saying that tax cuts 
are also the answer to everything. And incentives are good. The tax 
cuts over the last 8 years, which went to primarily people who did not 
need those tax cuts--I do not think that ended up in more jobs. It may 
have ended up in more money and, therefore, more income tax revenue for 
the Government, but it was not stimulative in the way we are trying to 
do today.
  So we want jobs. We want road construction. We want education. We 
have had to cut--I have my list of tragedy here of all of the programs 
we have had to cut in order to meet the needs of the more moderate 
bill, the $780 billion bill. I look down at this list, and I look at so 
many programs that I think need to be increased. But then I stop and I 
think: Well, they are being increased. They are not being increased by 
as much as the Democrats, as a main, wanted, and so we call them what 
is stated here: ``Quick Review of Cuts Made.'' That is not cuts made to 
the program from where they are now. That is cuts made to where we 
wanted to put them.
  Why did we want to put them there? Because that would help stimulate 
the economy and to bring more jobs to our people. You cannot make light 
of this. You cannot talk about this without talking about what is 
happening to American families. You cannot do that.

[[Page 3224]]

I come from a State which is not wealthy but which is full of 
incredibly hard-working people, incredibly hard-working people who have 
been working hard all their lives to stay afloat because that is the 
nature of our State and it is the nature of our topography, it is the 
nature of the resources we have and the way they have been handled. So, 
yes, I battle for them and, on the other hand, I also have to battle 
for the entire Nation through this program because we all live or die 
together.
  Part of this is in the mind. People have to have confidence that the 
Senate has passed a bill and that we are moving in the right direction. 
It is not a question just of supporting a President from a Senator from 
this side of the aisle who happens to be a Democrat. It is a question 
of doing the right thing by the American people. And if it takes as 
many billions of dollars--$780 billion--to do that, then I say we have 
to do it. We have no choice.
  Sometimes I have the feeling from the other side that what they want 
to do is adjust a number of amendments to increase the number of tax 
cuts, but that the plight of the American people is talked about, is 
used in not rhetoric but in their words, and used stirringly, but their 
real thinking is not there, it is in getting more to the way the other 
party has chosen to see progress hopefully happen in this country, and 
that is through tax cuts.
  I cannot help but reiterate what has been said; that is, when 
President Clinton left office, he left a $5.6 trillion surplus. To some 
degree, I criticized him for something he actually could not have done 
but he could have done morally, and that is to go to the Congress, call 
a special session or whatever, and say: We have $5.6 trillion. We also 
have a whole world to confront, wars to fight, an entire Nation to 
rebuild--which was going to be my second point--and we can start right 
now doing that. That was while the economy was still prosperous. He was 
still President.
  Then we entered into this massive period of borrowing for wars, which 
the intelligence showed was not right in this Senator's judgment. And 
now we are in Afghanistan and now we are in Pakistan, and who knows 
where it will stop. Well, al-Qaida is in 50 or 60 other countries, so 
it may not stop for quite a while.
  I will say to the Presiding Officer, I can remember when I was a 
Peace Corps volunteer in the Philippines. I suspect the Presiding 
Officer had not been born yet. I was in the southern part of Mindanao 
in the city called Zamboanga City. It is the headquarters of Abu 
Sayyaf, who is the al-Qaida leader for Southeast Asia, and all of the 
same kind of slaughtering and mass killing between ethnic groups or 
religious groups was taking place then.
  It is taking place all over the world--has been for centuries. You 
can go back to the English kings and the way they tortured people. What 
we do in this country is not something we can always be proud of. So it 
is the nature of people to fight.
  The whole question of the war on terror, on one hand, trying to 
control that, but then, on the other hand, how do we mitigate the need 
for it, gets into questions of something that nobody wants to talk 
about. Nobody ever has wanted to talk about it, and that is substantial 
amounts of foreign aid, to give people in other countries a feeling 
that we care about more than just killing high-value targets or 
Guantanamo or whatever, but we care about their lives.
  First, we have to start by showing the American people that we care 
about their lives. That is why we are here. This is the first of three 
bills. This bill has to pass. This bill is a good bill. It is not the 
bill I would have written. There are cuts made which are very painful 
to me in terms of not just my State objective, but also my 
responsibilities in the Senate over the Commerce Committee and then 
over the Intelligence Committee. But we have to do that. We have to do 
that. We have to do that because people are suffering. When people are 
suffering, they turn to their ministers for a while, but essentially 
they know it is only the government that can come in, in emergencies, 
in critical situations, in desperate situations, and infuse money in 
certain areas which will create jobs.
  Now, the President has been very clear that some of these jobs will 
come more quickly, saying a lot of them will--and a lot of the tax cuts 
will become available by September of next year. That is some time. A 
lot of them before that. Some of the jobs would not take place right 
away because you can't suddenly build a bridge. You have to have your 
plans, they all have to work, and it takes time. But we have to do 
that. We have to do that. We have to put people back to work. People 
without work who can work and who have families to support have no 
reason to have hope. If they give up hope, then they become part of not 
just people who are unemployed but people who have given up on 
employment, and they don't show up in the unemployment figures. They 
are called the people who have given up.
  My own feeling is the unemployment rate is probably closer to 13 or 
14 percent in this country right now. A lot of people have just lost 
all hope. They are the same people, they have the same values, the same 
families as others do.
  So I hope we can pass this bill. I hope this is not a matter of 
anytime the Government intervenes, it wastes money. When the Government 
intervenes, sometimes, yes, it does. When Wall Street gives out bonuses 
and takes trips to spas and things of that sort, I call that wasting 
money, and I think we are paying attention to that. So it is part of 
human nature. Yet I think we are going to have an enormous effort on 
oversight of this program. I know the President is, I know the Congress 
will, so that as little money as possible will be wasted and people 
will get back to work.
  Work is what people want to do. Work is what gives people dignity. I 
remember that from my early days in West Virginia when I went to a 
place where nobody had work and they couldn't hold their heads up high. 
Sometimes even people I love and who changed my life, who were what I 
call my secular rebirth in life, sometimes the men, when we had 
community meetings, would squat on their haunches and face away from 
the meeting. Psychologically, they were saying: I don't really believe 
what is going to come out of this is going to help me. I am here 
because you asked me to come, but I am not really here because I don't 
have faith.
  We have to restore that faith, and we do that by giving people a 
sense that things are on the move, that things are going to get better, 
that bills pass as opposed to fail.
  I don't want to see a bill which is mostly passed by Democratic votes 
and with a very few Republican votes. I don't want to see that. I will 
take it because it will get the program under way, but it is not the 
way it should be. Senator Nelson is correct. This looming partisanship 
is still a part of our problem in the Senate. The discipline of the 
party on the other side is usually a bit better than the party on my 
side, so they can be very effective in slowing things down, as I think 
we have seen.
  The last point I wish to make is, this is not just a matter of 
helping people in desperate need and helping them as quickly as 
possible. Nonaction is not an option. Standing by and watching is not 
an option. It doesn't do any good for anybody to vote against this 
bill, even if it isn't what they want, because it will create activity. 
It will create confidence. It will create momentum.
  The final point I wish to make is, it will create something more. We 
need in this country--and we have needed it for a long time, and it is 
why I wish President Clinton had taken that $5.6 trillion, pulled us 
all together and said, OK, we are going to spend 4 trillion of these 
dollars on re-creating America, re-creating schools, re-creating higher 
education, science and technology, re-creating a sense of fairness. 
Yes, arts, yes--not just $20 million contracts for athletes but people 
who add to the luster of our Nation. We have a long way to go. We don't 
have an air traffic control system which is digitalized. Mongolia is 
building them. We are behind Mongolia. Every other industrial country 
in the world has an air traffic control system which is digitalized and 
operates off a GPS system. Therefore, we

[[Page 3225]]

have 33 percent more air traffic congestion than we need, and danger is 
increased. So we have to rebuild an entire Nation: elementary schools, 
secondary schools, high schools, colleges, postgraduate. We have to 
attract scholars into the areas where we need innovation. There is 
nothing like innovation. Senator Nelson knows this better than anybody 
because of what happens at NASA, but we need it.
  We need people who want to serve in government. We want people to go 
into public service. If I had my way, I think I would probably get 
quite a few cosponsors who would say we ought to have a bill that 
requires every single American to take a period of 2 years out of their 
life and commit it to public service, community service. They could go 
into the military. They could go into teaching. They could go into 
nursing homes, home care, research, whatever, but 2 years out of their 
track so they could look at themselves and their country, so they 
wouldn't just be doing the same thing every day.
  I was lucky to have that experience twice in my life, and it has made 
me a better person. I think it is the way you bring America together 
again so that you have everybody in the trenches together. Everyone is 
equal. The rich don't get a break; the poor don't get help. If they 
can't afford not to do this without help, then they get help. That 
would be expensive, but I think it is something this Nation needs in 
order to heal itself.
  So let me end by saying we have absolutely no excuse whatsoever for 
not passing this bill or what comes out of the conference. We have no 
excuse. It would be a shame and an act of cruelty to do that to the 
American people who are now suffering. In the process of so doing, and 
of helping them, and of giving them some sense of hope about their own 
lives which, let's face it, is very important in how hard people choose 
to try and fight, participate in community affairs, and do all kinds of 
things. But we need to rebuild our Nation. If this crisis had never 
happened, I would be giving the second half of my speech. We have to 
rebuild the Nation, Mr. President, because we have let it slide over 
the last 50 years. Infrastructure is the most obvious example. I can 
name so many other areas. Broadband gets cut. That hurts me because 
that is the way people can achieve much faster communication, through 
the Internet. Long distance learning has been cut. It is still much 
more than it is now, but it has been cut from the original Democratic 
bill. That is the way people in a poor county in southern West Virginia 
learn Japanese from the University of Nebraska because they can do it 
online and then remake their careers and give themselves hope.
  So I hope we will be large in our thinking, small in our politics, 
and generous and encouraging to the American people by passing the bill 
before us.
  I thank the Chair and 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.

                          ____________________