American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009--Conference Report
Floor Speech
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009--CONFERENCE REPORT -- (Senate - February 13, 2009)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to talk about the economic recovery package, a package that will create jobs, put money in the pockets of the middle class, and strengthen our investment--three extremely worthy and necessary goals. It is a package that will turn our economy around--and Lord knows we need it.
Let me say, I have heard much talk from the other side claiming they are against this package because it increases the budget deficit and the national debt too much. For instance, I heard my good friend from Arizona this morning talking about generational theft. There is one surprising thing: When we talked about $1 trillion for the war in Iraq, all told, we never heard about generational theft. When President Bush talked about $2 trillion of tax cuts, mainly for the wealthy, did we ever hear the words ``generational theft''? Did we ever hear we should not do tax cuts for the wealthy or fund the war in Iraq because it was generational theft? Because it would increase the deficit? No, we didn't. I am not commenting on whether those two actions were worthy, but we certainly did not hear any qualms from the other side.
The GOP was a borrow-and-spend party for each of the 8 years President Bush was in office. They doubled the national debt in 8 years and by some estimates added $30 trillion to future liabilities over 8 years. Our friends on the other side of the aisle simply have no credibility when it comes to the issues of deficits and debt because, until 3 months ago, they didn't give a hoot about it. Only now, when there are Government programs for education and health care and transportation, do we hear about Government debt. But we never hear about it when it comes to funding wars overseas, like Iraq, or when it comes to tax cuts for the wealthy--that is perfectly OK. Where were our colleagues on the other side of the aisle for the last 8 years as the debt skyrocketed, as generational theft occurred? Where was my good friend from Arizona, who talked about this earlier today when I was on the floor?
Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SCHUMER. I will only yield, since I have only 5 minutes, on the Senator's time.
Mr. COBURN. I will be happy to yield myself the time. The Senator paints with an awfully broad brush. I have been in this Senate for 4 years. He knows very well that I voted against most appropriations bills. I talked about the debt in almost every speech I have given. So I hope we would talk about individuals rather than a group because it is not necessarily representative of all on my side.
Mr. SCHUMER. Reclaiming my time, I think my colleague from Oklahoma makes a fair point. There have been occasional Members, such as the Senator from Oklahoma, the Senator from Ohio, the Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, who have talked repeatedly about increasing the debt. But by and large, the speakers we have heard this morning and this afternoon and the votes we have seen from the other side of the aisle, both under George Bush and now--we didn't hear much talk about generational debt.
Mr. SANDERS. Will my colleague yield?
Mr. SCHUMER. I am happy to yield on my colleague's time since I only have 3 minute left.
Mr. SANDERS. Sure. Does my friend recall that for many years under President Bush, the Republican leadership told us how imperative it was to repeal the estate tax, which would cost this Nation $1 trillion over a 10-year period? Mr. President, $1 trillion--and who were the beneficiaries of that tax break? The top three-tenths of 1 percent.
We are spending $800 billion, including tax breaks for the middle class, rebuilding this country. What does my friend think about $1 trillion for the top three-tenths of 1 percent as opposed to putting money into the middle-class and working families?
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my friend from Vermont, and, reclaiming my time, he is exactly right. Let's look at it this way: Does anyone really believe that if a Republican President had helped construct a stimulus package with $800 billion of tax cuts, that we would hear talk about generational debt and that we would hear talk about not voting for the bill because it increased the national debt? Obviously not.
Despite the claims to the contrary, the issue that most--not all--Republicans have with this package is not that it is too big. Oh, no; that is a Trojan horse. The issue is plain and simple that they did not like investments--they do not like the Government to spend money on education and schools, they don't like the Federal Government to spend money on helping people with their health care, they don't like the Government to spend money on transportation, helping rebuild our roads and bridges, or spending money on changing our energy policy so we are not dependent on foreign oil. Oh, no. It is OK to spend money on the military--something I usually support--it is OK to spend money on tax cuts for the very wealthy but not to help the middle class with health care and education and transportation.
That is why we took the majority. That is why we will stay in the majority, because the average middle-class person knows. They do not want a profligate government. They do not want a government that wastes money--absolutely not. But I think they want a government that is there for them and makes their lives a little better. They know that all the hue and cry of generational theft and increasing the national debt is only coming because this stimulus package helps the middle class with smart Government programs on education and health care and transportation. It is that simple.
My colleagues, this package is very much needed. Without it, we could end up in a Great Depression, as the deflationary spiral goes down. To talk just ``no,'' as so many on the other side do, is reminiscent of Herbert Hoover. Back in 1930, there was a recession about the level of this one, and Herbert Hoover said, ``Do nothing.'' The recession became a depression.
God forbid that happens now. President Obama is struggling mightily to prevent it from happening. He should have broad support from both sides of the aisle because, simply, this package is a mixture of spending and tax cuts--I think it is 56-44; because this package has accepted major amendments from the Republican side, the largest of all from the Senator from Iowa--a reduction in the alternative minimum tax, something I have long supported. So this is a balanced package.
The horror the other side shows when the Government will get itself involved to help the middle class results in only getting three Republican votes. What more do my colleagues want us to do? Do they want a package just of tax cuts only, no help for health care, no help for education, no help for transportation? Do they want a package that is aimed and skewed at the wealthiest among us who are those who least need the help? We have let them offer amendments. We have accepted a good number of those amendments. Yet we have three votes.
We want to be bipartisan, and we understand that each side mistrusts the other. But I say to my friends, we have reached out, we have accepted suggestions, we have put many tax cuts in this proposal that might not get a majority support on our side alone in an effort to reach out even though we think there are better ways to stimulate the economy.
When we meet you halfway, don't give us the back of your hand and say it is not bipartisan. Don't say: It has to be all our way or 90 percent our way before we will vote with you. Don't let the hard-right base of this Republican Party keep a stranglehold on you and prevent us from marching forward together, because the country needs better. The country needs more. The country does need bipartisanship, but more important even than bipartisanship, as very important as that is, it needs help. It needs help to get this economy out of the mess, to create and preserve 3 to 4 million jobs, to put money in the pockets of the middle class, and to rebuild an infrastructure that is aging and will hurt our economy long after, God willing, this recession is over.
To my colleagues, please, on the next bill--it is too late for this one--rethink the attitude. We are trying. You have had amendments and amendments. A good number have been accepted. Republican input, albeit from three, has been large in this package. Join us. We want you to. We are not going to insist on a bill that is 100 percent spending just as you should not insist on a bill that is 100 percent tax cuts. We are not going to insist on a bill that only invests in the things we care about. We will meet you part of the way. But don't give us the back of your hand because we have made real efforts and we know the arguments about debt and generational theft ring hollow because you didn't make those arguments once in the last 8 years when the deficit ballooned--a few did--when the deficit ballooned because of spending on the Iraq war and spending on tax cuts, largely for the highest income people in America.
I hope we pass this package. It is not perfect. I would draw it differently. My colleague from Vermont would draw it differently than I would. But it is a lot better than sitting here arguing and doing nothing. The country is in tough shape. We have had the most difficult economic time since the Great Depression. It requires concerted and smart action that President Obama has outlined. Please join us and help us move this country away from the difficult times we are now in.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source