American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Floor Speech
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 -- (Senate - February 06, 2009)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DODD. I find myself sort of in an awkward position. I don't want to be in the position of disagreeing with trying to do something about foreclosure mitigation. But we end up doing this and the next and we get to 75 or in excess of $75 billion for this particular issue, we are getting excessive, it seems to me, without knowing whether a smaller amount might achieve the job. If we are mandating it with two provisions, then we are excluding resources that could be used for other things, including job creation, which is the debate about the stimulus package. My friend from North Dakota and I have talked about this privately, and I thank my colleagues for raising the issue. I truly have mixed emotions about this because I like what they are doing on the one hand, but I am concerned that as between the two choices--the one Senators Martinez, Reid, and I will offer and this one--I think we offer a more comprehensive one, one that relies on greater flexibility and uses TARP money rather than stimulant money to achieve the result.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I agree completely with my colleague's sentiments. Why, in this hard fought bill, where we don't have enough money for everything else and we are all worried about it and we know we have money from the TARP, $50 to $100 billion promised to deal with housing, why take the money out of here when we need it for infrastructure and for middle-class tax cuts and all the other things. I ask my colleague, in effect, to the people being foreclosed upon, is there any difference if we take the money out of TARP or take the money out of this stimulus, even though we know there is a huge difference to all the other people who will suffer $20 billion in cuts? Is there any difference, in effect, on their lives and on how we can help them?
Mr. DODD. There is only in this sense. This bill has a specific requirement that a particular plan be adopted and funded with this proposal. I admire Sheila Bair's proposal, but we also recognize there are others. At the same time, if we are dealing with foreclosure mitigation but not getting that person who is probably in foreclosure because they may have lost a job, if we don't make it possible for them to get back to work because we minimize the resources in the stimulus, saving their home but not saving their job ends up with sort of a very mixed message.
Mr. SCHUMER. Excellent point.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President, and I thank my friend from Connecticut, our leader and chairman of the Banking Committee, for his time and his words.
Let me be clear to my colleagues, this is not about whether you want to help people who face foreclosure. It has been a fight I have been making since a year and a half ago, when Senators Brown and Casey and I put money into the appropriations bill of 2008 for counselors. Nor is it about the priorities of where you should cut that specifically are laid out by my friend and great chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad. This is very simple common sense. We are sitting here. A bill may not even pass because we cannot decide where we can make cuts. We have some who want a number lower. We have some who want a number higher. The fights are over important issues such as education and health care and roads and broadband and all of the things we think we need to get this economy working again--some short term, some long term.
We all agree with that. We all agree with helping those who need help because their homes may be foreclosed upon. However, the reason I think we should have an overwhelming vote against the amendment of my good friend from North Dakota is simple: The money comes from the wrong place.
We have $50 billion to $100 billion in the TARP--the second half of the TARP--that has been committed by President Obama to do the very things my colleague wishes to take out of the stimulus bill. Why don't we wait? We are going to have an announcement early next week about those moneys. Wouldn't it be foolish to take those moneys out of this bill when we are so hurting and we have so limited money? It is as if we have seven children in a bed and enough blanket for five and there is a struggle as to whose feet are going to be stuck out or who is not going to be covered? Wouldn't it be embarrassing if next week the administration announces they are taking this very money out of the TARP? It just does not make any sense, in my judgment, in my humble judgment.
So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, whatever side they are on. If they think the money should not be taken out of the specific list Senator Conrad has compiled, if they think it should go to foreclosure and come from something else----
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, would my colleague have 2 more minutes? Are we limited in time?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague.
So under the amendment of my friend from North Dakota, the money would not come from the banks but come from all these programs we like. Under the next amendment that will be offered by the chairman of the Banking Committee, the Senator from Connecticut, the money will come--instead of going to banks, it will go directly into foreclosure. If we do what the Senator from North Dakota wants, there is going to be $150 billion to $100 billion more going to the banks.
I think many of us think that money that was in the first $350 billion was not wisely spent. If we do what the Senator from Connecticut will propose shortly, the money will not come out of education and health care and broadband, but it will come out of giving more money to the banks. So if you want extra money for the banks, the amendment from the Senator from North Dakota is in order.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to my friend from South Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. The point I am trying to make, I say to the Senator, is, I may be wrong, but I do not believe the remaining amount of money in TARP--$310 billion, I believe it is--will take care of what we need to do with our banking problem and our housing problem. Am I wrong?
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I think my colleague may not be wrong. But I would add this, given that it is my time: Whether we only need $200 billion or $310 billion or $500 billion or $600 billion more, let's take the money we have out of this pocket, which is not being spent well, from the banks, and use it instead of money out of this hardly fought economic recovery bill. That is my basic point.
I thank my colleague for yielding.
I hope, with a great deal of respect, we will reject the amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota and then do the same thing but take the money from the banks by supporting the amendment offered by the Senator from Connecticut.
I yield the floor and yield back my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source