Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I join my colleagues in saying this is a very fine day for the American people. It is a good day. I thank everybody who came together on this issue, particularly Senator Reid and Senator Baucus, who were steadfast leaders as we began to put together a stimulus package. I also thank my colleagues in the House, led by Speaker Pelosi.
We do have a serious economic crisis. Most economists would say we are headed to recession. It is unfortunate; that recession could have been avoided because the housing crisis is at the bull's-eye of that recession. Unfortunately, this administration, with ideological handcuffs around its wrists, was unable to intervene. So the crisis spread. Housing prices declined, and then consumers stopped buying. We had a very weak Christmas season. Housing prices declined. Foreclosures increased. And there is a credit freeze, so many who wish to build and create commercial projects, factories, businesses that wish to borrow can't get the lending they need. As a result, we stand here at the precipice of a fairly severe economic downturn. We must do everything we can to make sure the severe effects of that downturn are mitigated. Today's package does that.
Early on, we enunciated on our side three goals--that a stimulus package be timely, targeted, and temporary.
The package today meets all three of those goals. Leader Reid promised that we would get a package to the President's desk on February 15, that we would not let squabbles, dilatory effects get in the way. The package is on track to be signed by February 15 so that checks can be sent out to the American people as quickly as possible, and they, because they are--most of them--hard pressed, will spend those checks and get the economy revved up.
We added to the package. The House gave us a very good start. Make no mistake about it, the Senate package is based on the House's basic structure. But we fought hard to include 21 million senior citizens and 250,000 disabled veterans. They are now included in the package, and it is a better package than the one that passed the House.
The package in the House was good. The package that is passing the Senate is better. It could have been better still. It could have been best. But our colleagues on the other side of the aisle--again, in those ideological handcuffs--said: We cannot spend money. Tax cuts are OK, spending is not. Well, I know that is part of the old-time, hard-right philosophy. It is outdated now, but it is there.
Economists tell us, for instance, that spending on unemployment insurance is the quickest way to get the money into the economy. The checks will flow, hopefully, in the spring, but they cannot flow more quickly because the IRS needs to gear up its computers, and they are busy with tax returns and tax refunds. If we were to extend unemployment insurance, we would mainstream money into the economy much more quickly. Unemployment insurance gives the biggest bang for the buck: $1.74 for every $1 spent. Tax breaks are good, but they give about $1.19.
So if one were not ideological, did not care if the money went to the rich, the middle class, or the poor but just said, ``Let's get the economy going,'' unemployment insurance and nutrition assistance would be included in the package. But the ideological predispositions of the other side, not listening to economists--Martin Feldstein testified before our Finance Committee, a conservative economist who worked for Republican Presidents, and said unemployment insurance makes sense. They refused to do it. We made a valiant attempt. We tried. We were blocked by the other side by one vote.
We tried to bring in LIHEAP funds. Those of us from Northern States know how hard it is to heat your home with the price of oil and gas through the roof. They said no.
Housing, as I said, is at the bull's-eye of this crisis. We tried to bring in mortgage revenue bonds, which the President himself supported. But those on the other side said no.
So good, better, best. The House package: good; the Senate package: better. It could have been best, except our colleagues on the other side of the aisle decided to block it.
Let me say two other things in conclusion.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes, not to come out of Democratic time, just 2 minutes added on.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, if you want to delay the vote and add 2 minutes to the Republican time, that would be fine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, two other points quickly.
We will come back. There are structural problems in this economy that rebate checks will not solve. There are problems with housing, and we are putting together a good housing package that will include not only mortgage revenue bonds but assistance for loan supervisors, loan counselors, who will help people restructure, and it will encourage Fannie and Freddie to get money so mortgages can be refinanced. There are the conforming loan limits, which should pass in this package. That will help our housing area.
We also will put together a package that deals with infrastructure--a time-honored way of getting the economy moving. Hopefully, there will be some local assistance to help States with their increased Medicaid burden and energy assistance--not just LIHEAP but also the kinds of things the Senator from Washington State, Ms. Cantwell, has pioneered: tax breaks for green energy to create jobs and keep jobs here.
We will put together a package that will do all of that. We expect there will be resistance from the other side. The only thing that will probably stop that is if the economy hurdles south even further.
The second thing I want to say is this: Some asked me outside: Well, did you do this for politics? Absolutely not. We tried to craft--and I know it because I am on the Finance Committee and worked closely with Senator Baucus--we tried to craft the package that would give the economy bang for the buck. But if today Members on the other side of the aisle are squirming because they voted no, that is what democracy is all about. There were real choices here--real choices. Some said yes; some said no. We each should be held accountable by our constituents for that. That is what democracy is all about. So while it was substance--totally substance; I can tell you that, having been there--that motivated our package, the political chips will fall where they may.
This is a great day for the American people, a day to try to improve our economy. I am proud of what we have done and will work hard to make it better.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source