John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Again, to my colleague from Tennessee, I thank him for his leadership on this issue and particularly for bringing to the forefront of the debate the housing issue which, as so many have mentioned already, really is an integral, essential part of the solution. If we don't deal with that, then I think we are not going to be able to lead our country out of the recession. I don't think anybody will dispute the fact that housing played a very important role in where we are today, and I think trying to recover is going to require a good amount of focus and attention on that issue which, in this bill, is very light. In fact, if you look at what is included in the bill--let me see--1 percent of the Senate bill goes toward fixing housing. Even the $15,000 new home buyer credit that was reportedly cut in half in the final version of the bill, I am told--and I don't know the answer to this because I have not seen the final bill, nor, I don't think, have any of us seen the details in it--that entire housing tax credit may, in fact, be gone which would eliminate any commitment to helping to repair that aspect of our economy--the housing sector of the economy-- which I think is going to be so important in helping us to recover. So 1 percent of the Senate bill goes toward housing currently, 2.3 percent of the Senate bill goes toward small business tax relief, and, as I mentioned before, small businesses create two-thirds or three- fourths of all of the new jobs in our economy. It seems to me at least that ought to be a very proper and important focus of this legislation. Of course, some of the alternatives we voted on last week, one of which was the McCain alternative which we referenced earlier, did include a significant amount of incentive for small businesses to invest and to create jobs. I offered a couple of tax amendments to a couple of alternatives to the bill which really did focus on tax relief for middle-income families and for small businesses. That, of course, was defeated as well. I guess my point is, the bill as we have it in front of us is going to be very much oriented toward spending, and spending on government programs and spending which, in many cases, doesn't go away; that isn't temporary, that, in fact, makes obligations and commitments and liabilities well into the future. We talked about up to about $200 billion of funding in the bill being what we call mandatory spending; in other words, spending that is built into the baseline, that isn't temporary, and it is hard to see how that fits into the definition of temporary, targeted, and timely, which was the criteria that was set out by the President and by the Democratic leadership in developing this bill in the first place. The Senator from Tennessee, when he touched upon the amount of money his State of Tennessee will receive and what the State's need is--and I would repeat what I said earlier, that under this bill, we are not giving States what they have estimated their amount is to cover the increased Medicaid enrollment due to the economic downturn. We are giving them--if you can believe this--almost eight times the amount of money they would need to cover additional enrollment due to the economic downturn. Why? States, of course, aren't going to refuse it. Which Governor out there will turn down additional resources? It is estimated that States would need about $11 billion in additional funding to cover enrollment-driven growth in State Medicaid Programs. Under this bill, we provide $87 billion with absolutely no strings attached and no requirements that States get their own spending and fraud and abuse under control. I hope we have pointed out--and we will continue to point out--the ways in which the funding under this bill is being spent. Again, I mention some of the particular earmarks here, much of which go to Government agencies: $20 million for the removal of fish barriers; $300 million for new cars for Government workers; $645 million for new and repaired facilities at the NOAA; and $750 million for the new computer center for the Social Security Administration. It is hard to argue that these things are stimulus. Perhaps they are needed and, in fact, perhaps ought to be debated, but it ought to be done in the regular order, handled through the normal annual appropriations process, not included in a bill that is being sold to the American people as stimulating the economy and creating jobs. There is little in here I can see that meets that definition. I want to make a final point with regard to the whole issue of job creation, because the CBO, in a letter dated February 11, 2009, clearly describes the false economic theories behind this Government spending bill. The CBO letter encompasses the majority of the economists' views on this legislation. Specifically, the letter states that beyond the year 2014, this legislation is estimated to reduce gross domestic product by up to two-tenths of 1 percent. The reduction in GDP is therefore estimated to be reflected in lower wages, rather than lower employment. Workers will be less productive because the capital stock is smaller. The legislation's long-run impact on output also would depend on whether it permanently changed incentives to work or save. The legislation would not have any significant permanent effects on those incentives. Those are quotes from the CBO letter that came out last week. Even the most optimistic CBO projection states that long-run GDP growth will increase by zero percent. Even the most optimistic projection is built on an assumption that all of the relevant investments, on average, would add as much to output as would a comparable amount of private investment. The Government spending included in the House and Senate bills doesn't change GDP at all due to Government spending crowding out private investment. Most of us would agree--I think most of us on this side would agree-- that we are much better served in terms of creating economic growth and jobs, in seeing that the jobs are created in the private sector, and that we are providing the necessary incentives for investments in new jobs. This bill is very light on the types of incentives that would lead small businesses to go out and invest and do the sorts of things that actually will create jobs and help us recover and build a better and more prosperous future for our children and grandchildren which, as I said earlier, in my view, is in serious jeopardy because of this legislation--primarily because of the enormous amount of borrowing it includes and how much it adds to the debt for every man, woman, and child in America, and $35,000 is that share of the debt. Under this bill, that would grow $2,700 per every man, woman, and child in America. What we are doing to future generations is wrong, it is not fair to them. This Government needs to learn to live within its means. We need to think about building and sacrificing so that our children and grandchildren and future generations will have a brighter future. That is the way it has always been in this country. It is part of our culture and ethic that we work hard and sacrifice so that future generations can have a brighter and better future. This completely turns that whole history, that legacy, we have as a nation on its head by asking future generations to sacrifice for us. That is the wrong thing to do. I hope we will reject this legislation and go back to the drawing board and do something that is effective and creates jobs and does work and will give the American taxpayer a good return on their investment. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Tennessee yielding and the comments of my colleague from Wyoming in focusing this debate where it should be, on things that are actually stimulus, that actually do create jobs in the economy, that actually do stimulate the economy and create growth and economic opportunity for more Americans. I would say to my colleague from Tennessee that there are lots of things about this bill that do not meet that criteria, that do not meet that definition. You used the phrase ``timely, targeted, and temporary.'' I would argue that much of the substance of this bill is much different than that. In fact, it is slow, it is unfocused, and it is unending. Again, we do not know exactly what is in it, unfortunately, because we have yet to see the bill. All we know is it is going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $800 billion in face amount. When you add in the interest to that--some $350 billion--you are talking about almost $1.2 trillion in obligations we are handing off to future generations. I think whenever you talk about that, you need to make sure you are understanding what you are getting for that amount of investment and what that means to future generations. For example, a lot of people do not realize or think about the debt we have today. The gross Federal debt is $10.7 trillion. Now, that means that every man, woman, and child in the United States owes approximately $35,000. That is their personal part of the Federal debt. CBO projects the fiscal year 2009 deficit to be $1.2 trillion before--before--any additional stimulus measures are considered. So when you start adding that in, the deficit as a percentage of our gross domestic product will be 10 percent, which is the highest level--the last time we saw that kind of a deficit-to- GDP ratio was back in 1945 when it was 8 percent. That is the amount of debt we are talking about. I heard my colleague from Tennessee say before that this generation of Americans will be the first generation of Americans who will not have the same standard of living as their parents. If you think about what we are doing, we are making matters much worse. We have a lot of young people out there who do not have a voice in this debate. I would characterize them as the ``silent generation'' who are not going to be heard. Somebody needs to be their voice in this debate too. Somebody needs to bring some rhyme or reason to what is happening here and hope we can get something reasonable passed through the Senate that is focused on job creation, that is temporary, that is targeted, that is timely--all the things we have talked about should be but this bill is not.

Mr. THUNE.--to do it, almost eight times the amount of money they would need just to cover additional enrollment due to the downturn. Eight times the amount the States would need to get that done is what we are going to be shipping out there and, as the Senator from Tennessee mentioned, borrowing from future generations and piling on to that $35,000 that every man, woman, and child in America already owes as their part or their share of the Federal debt. This is a very bad direction, in my view, to be heading for the country. I think we have had some opportunities to improve the bill, to make it better. We have had some alternatives offered. The McCain alternative which the Senator mentioned was one that I think, again, was very well balanced, focused on housing and tax relief and infrastructure and had the kind of fiscal responsibility and discipline in it that makes sure a lot of the spending doesn't go on ad infinitum--forever. So I would concur with the points and the arguments that have been made by my colleague from Tennessee and say that we ought to be thinking not just about today but about the next generation because we have always had a history in this country--for 200 years Americans have sacrificed to make the next generation's lives better, to create a better life for our children and grandchildren. We are asking our children and grandchildren to sacrifice for us. That is a reversal of 200 years of American history. For generation after generation after generation, we have attempted to build a better, brighter, more prosperous future for our children and grandchildren. What we are essentially asking them to do is to loan us $1 trillion to do these things--some of which I mentioned and that I think are just completely outside the realm of anything that fits within the mission of job creation or stimulating the economy--at enormous cost to them because it is going to pile additional debt on top of the $35,000 they already owe, their share of the Federal debt we have today. So I hope in the end people will come to the realization that this is a mistake and that we will see the necessary votes to defeat it and perhaps go back to the drawing board and put something together that really does, in fact, address the fundamental problem we are facing in the country right now, to get the focus back on housing, to get the focus back on the American people and families and small businesses, and to make sure we are doing it in a fiscally responsible way.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE. That would have improved this bill dramatically. But this bill is the wrong way to go, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I want to take issue with something that was said on the Senate floor earlier about this being rushed and that Republicans are blocking this or slowing this down or delaying this bill. I have to take issue with that. If you think about the enormity of what we are dealing with, we are talking about spending $1 trillion of our hard-working American tax dollars. We have been on this bill literally since last Tuesday. So 4 days last week and today--it seems to me, at least by Washington standards, that is pretty much light speed for moving anything around here. So to suggest that somehow Republicans are blocking or delaying this bill is a complete misstatement of the facts with regard to anything historical in the Senate. When you are dealing with big issues, when you are dealing with issues of consequence, the Senate typically takes a certain amount of time and considers amendments. We have had 26 rollcall votes on this bill, only 5 amendments have been accepted. Unfortunately, most of the amendments that have been voted on and been accepted are amendments that have added to the cost rather than reduced the cost. But the point simply is the 4 or 5 days of time in the Senate to spend $1 trillion. I said this before, but I will repeat it: $800 billion, which is the base amount of the bill, when you add in the interest costs of about $350 billion, it gets you up to almost $1.2 trillion. But I said this last week: Between the Revolutionary War and the Presidency of Jimmy Carter, we only, as a nation, borrowed, cumulatively, $800 billion. We are talking about borrowing $800 billion from future generations in this one piece of legislation. This is historic. It is unprecedented. It is stunning in terms of the size and scope and scale, and it certainly ought to be given the consideration I think something of this consequence and magnitude to the American people deserves. I think it could be said about this legislation: The more things change, the more they stay the same. I said before, when we saw this bill come over from the House, it was about $820 billion. It got added to in the Senate, got up to a little over $900 billion. Then this last week there was this big debate about we are going to be able to reduce its size; we are going to change some of the ways in which it is funded, make it more stimulative and more oriented toward job creation. But the reality is, in spite of all those statements to the contrary, we are faced with a bill today that is essentially larger than the bill that came to us from the House. The so-called compromise, which was designed to cut extraneous wasteful spending from this bill, reduced the overall amounts in some specific categories, but it didn't eliminate the categories. We are now spending on the same types of wasteful nonstimulative items--we are just spending slightly less than we were going to under the original bill we had last week in front of us. In fact, compared, as I said, to the bloated House bill to which so many people across the country reacted negatively, we are actually spending more. So the Senate bill, the so-called compromise, is actually not smaller but, rather, larger than the House bill. Second, the same shotgun approach to funding programs that are not temporary and not targeted is being employed. So we continue to fund budget items that still reflect bad policy and bad precedent. We just do so a little less. Expansions of Medicaid, COBRA, the first ever foray by the Federal Government into school construction--they are all policy and precedent-setting changes from which it will be very hard to retreat. Make no mistake about it, with this bill we start down a path to a bigger and more pervasive Federal role, thereby changing the traditional dynamic between the Federal Government and State and local government. I do not believe this is the bargain the American people thought they were getting. Just where are we in this process, as we end up on the Senate floor this Monday afternoon? We still have a $800 billion bill, more than $800 billion. As I said earlier, it is larger than the House bill. The House bill came over at $820 billion. The Senate added to it, got it up close to $940 billion. It got cut back under the so-called compromise that emerged last week. But the compromise leaves us at a point where we are actually spending more, $827 billion, than the bill that originally came to us from the House, which was scored at $800 billion. Add in the interest: $1.2 trillion. It really has not been reduced from the levels that most Americans found to be very disturbing about the House bill. In fact, the Senate bill is actually larger, not smaller, as I said before, than the House bill. Second, it continues to be poorly targeted, spraying money at all kinds of programs, new and old, that have little hope of creating private sector jobs. We got the report from CBO last week which suggested, again, that there could be as few as 1.3 million jobs created from the previous Senate bill. My assumption, of course, is although this has been reduced--not by much--the overall job creation will be less under the so-called compromise than it was under the original bill introduced last week. Third, it is not timely. Much of the job creation in here will take years, due to the number of new programs that are created which will require new bureaucracies to be stood up, regulations to be issued, and all the redtape that is attendant to the creation of new Government programs. Fourth, it is not temporary. The mandatory funding in this bill will be added to the baseline, creating long-term spending programs and liabilities that are permanent. Let's not fool ourselves. Much of the spending in this bill is not going away. Fifth, every penny is borrowed from future generations. There is no way we can get around what we are doing to our children and grandchildren. Not only are we handing them all this debt, according to CBO, passing this bill will cost us in GDP growth down the road, making it even harder for our children to experience the growth in the economy that will be necessary to retire this kind of debt, not to mention the inevitable increase in inflation and interest rates that come with greater Government borrowing. Finally, lest there be any confusion about the magnitude of what we are doing, let's remember again what $1 trillion represents. As I said before, more than the total amount of borrowing between the Revolutionary War and the Presidency of Jimmy Carter. The debt service alone on that amount of money, that amount of borrowing, is almost $350 billion over a 10-year period. The deficit for this fiscal year alone will exceed 10 percent of our gross domestic product, a level we have not seen since World War II. I was a business student years ago. When we did financial calculations, we used a Texas Instrument Business Analyst II calculator to do our financial calculations. That calculator would be inadequate to today's debate. There was not enough room on the screen to accommodate the number of zeros we are talking about. This is serious business. We better get it right. This bill misses the mark. It spends too much, and it does too little. We offered lots of amendments last week to make it better, all of which were rejected. But I submit there is a better way. This bill has the votes to pass. We know that based on the agreement that was reached. But it is not too late to put the brakes on and actually sit down and work on a true bipartisan basis on a solution that sticks with the mantle of fiscal responsibility and actually would create jobs. I hope my colleagues will defeat this bill and avoid making a mistake for which our children and grandchildren will pay for generations to come. We know there are other installations of borrowing that are coming. We know the debate that was going to occur in the House last week on the first ever $1 trillion Omnibus appropriations bill was delayed because they didn't want to get it conflicted with the other $1 trillion we are going to be spending for stimulus. So we have a $1 trillion bill coming, an appropriations bill coming, a $1 trillion stimulus. We know the announcement is going to be coming tomorrow from Secretary Geithner about what their intentions are with respect to market stabilization and additional liabilities the country will acquire as a result of that effort. As my colleague from North Dakota earlier today noted, there is the Bloomberg story today about the trillions and trillions of dollars which Americans are being put on the hook for in the future. We have lots of additional liabilities, obligations, debt that is coming down the pike. It is going to affect our children and grandchildren for generations to come. There was something said earlier about Republicans do not have any ideas; they do not have any alternatives. We offered lots of amendments. I offered two substitutes last week----

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I want to come back to the one point I neglected to make earlier or did not have the time to make in my remarks; that is, even though I made the point that the House bill when it came over was at a certain funding level, $820 billion, the Senate compromise is $827 billion, and that actually the compromise is more costly than was the bill that so many people complained about as being pork laden when it came over from the House. There are those who are saying this bill is going to get bigger in the conference committee when the House and Senate get together to work out their differences. I want to note what one of the Senators from Michigan said recently, and that is: I expect there will be some significant improvements over the package that comes out of the Senate. He said: There would be a push for more spending on infrastructure, education, and aid to the States. The President indicated recently: ``I will be honest with you, the Senate version cut a lot of education dollars. I would like to see some of this restored.'' We talk about cuts in this program as if we are actually cutting something that already exists. We are talking about $1 trillion in new spending, an unprecedented amount of spending that has not been authorized. It did not go through regular order. Now we are actually talking as if somehow because the Senate bill, although as large as it is, larger than the House bill, is smaller than it was relative to where it was a week ago, which was over $900 billion, that somehow that bill has been cut, and that when we go in conference we are going to restore some of this money. So I guess the only point I would make is, as this bill makes its way through the legislative process, we are not talking about a bill that is going to be smaller, we are talking about a bill that is going to be increasingly larger. I suggest when it goes to the conference committee with the House of Representatives, that this will not--if it is at 820 in the House and at 827 in the Senate--you can bank on it, that is going to be the minimum--it is probably going to get significantly larger. As I said before, we believe there is a much better way of doing this. First, there was a great comprehensive approach last week put forward by the Senator from Arizona, which many of us supported, which invested in infrastructure, which addressed the housing issue, which many of us believe is central to our ability to emerge from this crisis, and which also appropriately targeted a lot of the stimulus toward job creation in the form of tax relief for small businesses, which, frankly, create most of the jobs in our economy, at least a good share. Two-thirds to three-quarters of the jobs in our economy are created by small businesses. It also directed a lot of that particular approach and package to tax relief for middle-income families, putting more money into their pockets and allowing them to get out and to spend and to take advantage of something that might benefit them more than some government program that is going to be funded in Washington, DC, from which they probably will derive very little benefit. So this is not getting smaller, it is getting larger at every step in the process. There are better ideas and better alternatives out there. This has been proven, at least by the CBO, to have very, I think, questionable ability to create jobs and also to do more long-term damage to the economy down the road. In their study which came out last week, it suggested that if in fact this stimulus bill was enacted, it would lead to lower GDP growth in the outyears. I see some of my colleagues have arrived. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to use whatever time allotted to our side until the next Republican speaker arrives.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana, the manager of this bill, for yielding and for the opportunity to offer this amendment. As I have indicated, I will start by saying I am very uncomfortable with the notion of spending almost $1 trillion--over $1 trillion if you include interest--on this undertaking when, in my view, it is not timely, temporary, and targeted--as has been suggested should be the criteria for this legislation--but, rather, it is slow, unfocused, and unending. As a consequence of that, as I said, I am very concerned about the size of this and I am very concerned about the substance of it. I don't believe we ought to spend this amount. I have supported amendments, including Senator McCain's amendment, that were significantly smaller in terms of the size, much more, in my judgment, fiscally responsible, much more targeted and focused on job creation, and doing the types of things I believe will help get the economy growing again. Unfortunately, those amendments--those amendments I have supported, and I have even offered a substitute of my own--have all failed. I say that to preface my comments as I offer this amendment, to make the point that I am not in favor of or supportive of this size of spending and this size of borrowing from future generations in order to accomplish what, in my judgment, are very questionable job creation goals--frankly, I think based on the CBO study we saw yesterday, very questionable goals in terms of what this might achieve. I have concluded, however, that with all the amendments that have been offered, many of which are amendments that in my view would reduce some of the wasteful spending in this bill, some of which would refocus it more toward tax relief, more toward infrastructure, and more toward housing--things I think are important in this debate--I have concluded that the way to perhaps shape this is to offer an amendment that, frankly, will clarify what the difference is in this debate. Because I think it all comes down to who spends this money: does Washington spend it or do the American people spend these dollars that are going to come in? If we are going to commit to spending $936 billion, what my amendment essentially would do is to say that the $936 billion ought to be divided evenly among people who file income tax returns in this country. There are 182 million filers, all of whom would have a significant tax cut if you took a $936 billion pricetag and divided it up among those 182 million filers. My amendment I think also illustrates the simplicity of this debate, because this is nine pages long. This amendment is nine pages long. The underlying bill is 735 pages long. It takes 735 pages, I would argue, to go through all the various types of spending programs that are created in this bill, many of which are new programs that are going to create liabilities and obligations for the taxpayers well beyond the so-called targeted period in which this assistance is designed to take effect. But my nine-page amendment basically spells out a clearer option that I think we ought to rally around. Again, as I said before, it is very straightforward. If you are a taxpaying person in this country, if you are someone who files an income tax return--and there are 182 million filers in America--and you make less than $250,000--if you have $250,000 or less in terms of adjusted gross income--then you would be eligible for, if you are a single filer, $5,143 in terms of a tax cut or tax rebate in 2009. This would all spend out in 2009. If you are a married couple filing a joint return, you would get a tax cut totaling $10,286 in 2009. One of the Democrat arguments for the $1 trillion stimulus is they believe the GDP will shrink by that amount in the near future, primarily because of a decrease in consumer spending, which accounts for approximately 70 percent of gross domestic product. This amendment would inject $936 billion into the economy by the end of 2009 in the form of a recovery rebate for middle-class tax filers. These tax cuts total approximately 6 to 7 percent of our gross domestic product. Consumers and taxpayers, not government bureaucrats, would determine how to spend this money. Consumers could decide to make a downpayment on a new home, purchase a new car, get ahead of day-to-day bills, or save and invest for the future. I suggest this is a far more efficient way of stimulating the economy relative to improving fish barriers or designing polar ice breakers or purchasing supercomputers for climate research. One of the primary arguments my colleagues on the other side, I am sure, will make against this amendment is that most consumers decided to save their tax rebates in 2008 rather than spend the checks they received in the amount of $600 for a single filer and $1,200 for married filing jointly. Well, first, this economic recovery rebate is much larger, which increases the likelihood of a positive impact on consumer spending. Second, with the advent of the financial crisis, we are at a very different situation relative to January 2008. Even if individuals choose to save half of this tax cut, that would mean a $450 billion infusion of capital into our banking system, which would also help stabilize our financial institutions, and that is a critical part of our economic recovery. I believe the American people are tired of business as usual in Washington. I think the stimulus package we have before us is a perfect example of how Washington works. It is loaded with a lot of spending, in many cases, as I said before, spending on new programs and a lot of special interest spending. I hope my colleagues will listen to the American people, who I think are following this debate and are, frankly, outraged with the size of the stimulus plan and the notion that it is going to be spent on many of the things they find objectionable. I argue that the American people should be given the choice between a 9-page, very simple and straightforward approach to this, which puts money back in their pockets--in fact, a lot of money; $5,143 if you are a single filer and $10,286 if you are a married couple filing jointly--or a 735-page bill which includes spending for all kinds of things that in my view are not going to be successful when it comes to creating jobs or helping get this economy back on track. That is the amendment. It is very straightforward. It is very simple. It takes $936 billion and divides it by 182 million tax filers. If they make under $250,000 year it gives them a tax rebate in the amount of $5,143 for a single filer, $10,286 for a married filer filing jointly, married couple filing jointly. I yield the floor. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues have already noted, the jobs numbers today were very bleak and should cause great concern for all of us as we look at steps we can take to get this economy growing again. But that is why the CBO report that came out yesterday also is so troubling because it indicated the Democratic proposal, the stimulus plan before us, would create as few as 1.3 million jobs--as many as 3.9 million, to be fair, but as few as 1.3 million jobs. Well, a trillion dollars is a terrible price to pay for a bill that may create as few as 1.3 million jobs over, I might add, a 2- year period. It also went on to say, the CBO report did, that it would reduce the GDP growth in the outyears. So not only does it create potentially a very small amount of jobs--1.3 million over a 2-year period--but it also diminishes the amount of GDP growth we would experience in later years. Now, if it, in fact, does create only 1.3 million jobs, if this trillion dollar plan--again, all based on borrowing from future generations--does create as few as 1.3 million jobs, if you do the arithmetic on that, if you spend $1 trillion, and you only create a little over a million jobs, that is $800,000 per job. Try and think about how you can convince your constituents back in your home States about the need to spend $800,000 to create a single job. I mentioned this yesterday, but I will repeat it again: For the people in my State of South Dakota, the average annual salary is about $30,000 per year. So to think about spending $800,000 to create a job is something that is going to be very hard to accept for a lot of people around this country, which is why I believe, and so many people around the country are rallying and saying, this is the wrong direction in which to head. I happen to agree with that assessment, and I think there are some things that could be done that would make this process more fair in terms of including ideas that Republicans have to put forward but, more importantly, to get a product that is more effective--more effective-- at creating jobs at a lower cost. Now, many of us have tried to improve this bill. I supported a McCain amendment yesterday, a comprehensive approach that is much better in terms of addressing the issue and much better focused in terms of job creation at about half the cost of the underlying bill, the majority bill we are debating today. So we tried to make this bill more focused and more fiscally responsible. I think putting the focus and the emphasis on job creation is the right place to be. But many of the efforts we have made to that end have failed. We have also offered amendments to cut much of the wasteful spending out of this bill, most of which have been defeated. So what I have sort of concluded is, as much as we tried to make this a better bill by cutting wasteful spending, by making the focus on job creation, by trying to reduce taxes on small businesses and middle-income taxpayers, which would get more money back into the economy, and emphasize less spending on Government programs in Washington, DC, where the bulk of this is committed, that is a much better approach, and many of our amendments have been focused in that direction. But, as I said, none have been accepted. I have one more amendment I have filed and I hope to have an opportunity to call up. It is sort of a last-ditch effort to bring some reason to this whole debate. But what it essentially would do is take the total cost of the Democratic bill--about $900 billion without interest; $900 billion, when you add in the interest costs, as I said before, you get up to about $1.2 trillion or north of that, all of which is borrowed money, borrowed from future generations--but take that total amount of $900 billion and divide it by every tax filer in this country--anybody who files an income tax in this country--and basically write them a check. Now, it is probably surprising to most of us here what you could do with that. But for an average individual filing a tax return in this country, you could write them a check for $5,143; for a couple filing jointly, $10,286. Now, to be fair, I also wrote the amendment so anybody making more than $250,000 a year would not be eligible. I tried to make this so you cannot argue this is a tax cut for the rich. So anybody who makes more than $250,000 would not be eligible. All filers who have under $250,000 in taxable income would be eligible under this amendment. You could actually write a check to an individual filing for $5,143 dollars; and to a couple filing jointly, a check for $10,286. I think that is a lot of money in most people's family incomes and it makes a lot more sense, in my judgment, than spending $900 billion on programs that many of us know will not work, creating new bureaucracies in Washington, DC, at a very high cost per job. As I said, if the CBO numbers are right on the low end--1.3 million new jobs--and you divide that, do the arithmetic on that, you are talking, in round numbers, about $800,000 per job. What kind of sense does that make? It is pretty clear, in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of most of the American people, this is very misdirected in terms of the mission of this whole thing. The intention is great, but the substance of this particular piece of legislation is very flawed. I would add one last thing; that is, we talk about economic models and analysis and methodology, but the President's own chief economic adviser put together a methodology about a year ago--a little over a year ago--that said for every dollar of tax cuts you get a multiplier of 2.2 percent increase in GDP. So if you cut taxes by a dollar, GDP increases by 2.2 times. It seems to me, at least, that you can take that methodology--and it seems intuitive to most Americans--when you reduce their taxes, middle- income families' taxes and taxes on small businesses, which create the jobs in this country, you get a much better outcome in terms of GDP growth, in job creation, than sending a bunch of money into Government programs here in Washington, DC, many of which, I might add, are new programs that will not get up and be started for a very long time. There will be a tail on them. As a consequence, you will not see the result in the short period of time we are trying to target here--the temporary approach to this--that actually creates jobs and helps pull us out of the economic crisis we are in. That is an amendment I have filed. It takes that total amount--$900 billion--breaks it down on a per-filer basis, and if you are an individual filing, you can get a check for $5,143, and if you are a couple filing jointly, you can get a check for $10,286. But I wish to see us approach this in a different way. A lot of amendments, as I said, have been offered--some good alternatives. The McCain alternative we voted on yesterday makes a lot of sense to me. It does it at about half the cost, and is a lot more effective at creating jobs. That was defeated, as have been all the other amendments we have offered to make this more fiscally responsible, more focused, and more targeted on job creation. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and thank the Chair.

Mr. THUNE. I appreciate the question because I think that is one of the arguments that have been made against a lot of the tax amendments we have filed. This was drafted in a way so it is refundable, so all the Americans that you are talking about would also receive that benefit.

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

Mr. THUNE. Will the Senator yield for a clarification?

Mr. THUNE. Let me say, if I have not already, I ask it be pending. It was filed at the desk.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, my colleagues have described it well, but we all should remember what this is. This is still an $827 billion debt we are handing off to future generations. This is the largest intergenerational transfer of debt in human history, and we spent 3 days now--4 days, I guess, if you count today--debating it. I think the managers of the bill have been patient in allowing us to offer some of our amendments, but to suggest for a minute that the Republicans are slowing this down or that we have had way more than enough time to debate this misses the point. A trillion dollars--a trillion dollars--is something I think most of us have a hard time grasping. In fact, the borrowing amount that is included in this bill does represent the equivalent of what America as a nation borrowed between the time of the Revolutionary War and the Presidency of Jimmy Carter. We borrowed $800 billion between the Revolutionary War and the Presidency of Jimmy Carter, and we are going to borrow that amount of money in one fell swoop from future generations with this bill. Much has been said about the discussions in the last few days and how this is going to be a ``bipartisan compromise,'' they are going to reduce the size of the bill. The irony in all this is that the bill as it came over from the House, as has already been noted by my colleagues, was about $820 billion. The bill that we now have in front of us, the so-called compromise, is $827 billion. So it has not gotten smaller coming from the House, it has gotten larger. A lot of people have gotten up in the Chamber and complained about the House bill and its dimensions and its size, and I think the American people have picked up on that theme because everywhere you go, they talk about this pork-laden bill that came out of the House, and surely the Senate will do something to improve upon it to shrink it in size and get rid of some of the wasteful spending, and yet here we are. We have a so-called compromise, an agreement that is actually larger in size and scope than the bill that came over from the House. So make no mistake about it, we are borrowing this money from future generations. It is a larger amount of borrowing than was included in the bill that left the House of Representatives. Frankly, we do not know--because we have not seen it yet--about many of the provisions that were included. Many of us have reacted and I think the American public has reacted negatively to much of the wasteful spending that is included in the bill. We have all highlighted the things we think are extraneous and wasteful and do not stimulate the economy, do not grow the economy, do not create jobs. So we will have an opportunity, hopefully over the weekend, to take a look at it and digest it a little bit. But I think it is fair to say, if at least you are talking about the overall macronumber, that this thing has not gotten any smaller; it has gotten bigger. I would bet by the time we have analyzed this legislation closely, many of the new programs that were created in the bill that was passed by the House and the bill we were debating earlier in the week are continued, and a lot of the new programs that create mandatory spending--not one-time spending--that are allegedly designed to stimulate the economy on a short-term, temporary basis but will have spending that is going to go on and on and on and is going to be a liability for generations to come. So as we move toward perhaps a final vote on this at some time this weekend--and I suspect the votes are there--the other point I would make--and make no mistake about this either--you cannot call this a bipartisan effort without redefining the word ``bipartisan.'' This came out of the House of Representatives without a single Republican vote. In fact, 11 Democrats in the House voted against it. And here in the Senate, there will be two, perhaps at most three, Republicans who will vote for this. So out of 535 Members of Congress and some 220 or thereabouts Republicans in the Congress, to have 2 hardly qualifies this particular effort as a bipartisan effort. It went through the House quickly. Republicans were not given an opportunity over there to have impact or have amendments considered. We have had some amendments here. Most of the amendments we have offered that have tried to reduce the size of this thing and change some of the substance of it so it is more targeted, more focused, more focused on job creation--most of those amendments have been defeated. We are faced today with a bill that is actually larger than where we started when this whole initiative got underway in the House of Representatives last week. So, Mr. President, I hope the American people, as they tune in to the debate, will look very closely at this so-called compromise and give consideration to how this is going to impact them and their family budgets. We all know the statistics. We all know there are people who are hurting in this country, people who have lost their jobs. The people who are going to be hurting the most, however, are the children and grandchildren whom we are going to be handing this debt to--a trillion dollars in debt that we will be handing to our children and our grandchildren--and adding to already what has become a historic high level of debt for this country, so historic that it exceeds by almost two times the average deficit to GDP of many of our allies in the European Union. We are talking about enormous amounts of debt, enormous amounts of borrowing. As my colleague from Arizona noted, the CBO estimates on job creation as few as 1.3 million jobs for over $800 billion in borrowing. What does that come down to on a per-job basis? Hundreds of thousands of dollars per job. We can do this better. We can do it in a way that is responsible to the next generation of Americans. I hope when this comes up for a final vote we will be able to defeat it. The American people will get engaged in this effort and let their Senators know how they feel. I believe when that happens, you will start seeing people change their minds about the effort that is in front of us this evening. Mr. President, I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, there are two ways to stimulate the economy with a trillion dollars. One is to have the Government do it. The other is to have the American people do it. We are going to spend $1 trillion. Seventy percent of our gross domestic product is in the form of consumer spending. What better way than to give consumers' dollars back into their hands and allow them to stimulate the economy. If we are going to borrow a trillion dollars from our children and grandchildren, let's at least do it in a way that helps American families. Under my amendment, if you are someone who makes under $250,000 a year, you are going to be eligible for a check in the amount of $5,143. If you are a married couple filing jointly, you are going to be eligible for a check for $10,286. Anybody who files a tax return is going to be eligible for a rebate in that amount. I think this is a way to provide real stimulus to the American economy, and I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I would ask to waive the applicable point of order, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, with my amendment we get more with less, more job creation at less cost. What this amendment would do is substitute the underlying bill with an amendment that consists primarily of tax relief for families and small businesses. Specifically the legislation would provide $444 billion of tax relief, more than the tax relief contained in the Senate stimulus bill. It provides $34 billion in spending which is $598 billion less than the underlying bill. According to the economic models developed by the President's economic advisers, this proposal would create twice as many jobs for half the cost. It would create 6.2 million new jobs at $480 billion, compared to the 3 million or so which, with the latest from CBO, may be a lot less than that under the Democratic proposal. I urge support for the amendment.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the McCain amendment. Before I speak a little bit to the amendment itself, I want to remind my colleagues why this debate is so important and why the McCain amendment is so important to this debate. Again, we are talking about a $1 trillion bill--$800 billion, up now into $900 billion. When you add in interest, it is $1.2 trillion and change. It seems as if every amendment that has been offered--we have had a lot of Republican amendments that have attempted to cut out some of the wasteful spending, eliminate some of what I think is probably most egregious about the bill, none of which has been accepted, ironically. Ironically, the only amendments that have been accepted so far have not decreased the size of the bill. They have added to the size of the bill. This bill has gotten bigger. I remind my colleagues--and I think it is important for the American people to tune in because we throw numbers around here in Washington in an abstract way: millions, billions, trillions of dollars--exactly what the dimensions are of what we are talking about. A trillion dollars: If you took one-hundred-dollar bills and lined them end to end, you could literally go around the Equator almost 39 times; 969,000 miles of one-hundred-dollar bills lined end to end, going around the entire Earth right at the Equator almost 39 times. That is what we are talking about when we talk about the dimensions of $1 trillion. I might also add that if we look at where this is coming from, we are borrowing. Let's be honest with the American people. We are borrowing this money from future generations. A lot has been said on the floor about who is going to get hurt if we don't do this, and I agree there are a lot of people hurting. Unemployment is high. Frankly, let's think about the people who are going to be hurting the most, and that is the next generation of Americans who are going to inherit this enormous debt we are passing on to them. To put it into perspective, between the Revolutionary War and Jimmy Carter's Presidency, the United States of America borrowed $800 billion. From the entire time of the Revolutionary War to the Carter Presidency, there was $800 billion worth of borrowing. We are borrowing more than $800 billion for this one piece of legislation, not to mention what comes next. We know we have a $1 trillion catchall spending bill coming at us which is the first time that the discretionary appropriations bill is going to exceed $1 trillion. We know we are going to have a request for additional moneys coming from Secretary Geithner to stabilize the financial markets to the tune of several hundred billion dollars. We know there is going to be a supplemental spending bill request for the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ironically, according to CBO, the bill that was passed previously on SCHIP actually leads to $41 billion of deficit spending. So all this spending we are doing, all this borrowing we are doing is being passed on to the next generation, and they are the people who are going to feel the brunt and the impact and hurt the most if we don't do the responsible thing here today. I think it is important that this particular amendment Senator McCain has put forward and a number of us are cosponsoring be heard and fair consideration be given because I think there are several things about it that differentiate and distinguish it from the bill we are debating, the Democratic proposal that is on the floor. One of the most important distinctions--and Senator McCain already mentioned it--is it comes in at less than half the cost: $421 billion. So we are talking about borrowing over $800 billion--all the time from the Revolutionary War to the Carter Presidency is the equivalent of what we are doing here--versus a much smaller approach and, in my view, much more fiscally responsible approach and, frankly, much more targeted. Because the criteria that has been laid out at the beginning of this debate for what makes sense in terms of a stimulus is it should be targeted, temporary, and timely. What we have before us is none of the above. It is slow, it is unfocused, and it is unending. Mr. President, $140 billion of this bill is going to be very difficult to shut off because it adds to the baseline as a lot of mandatory spending is included. I wish to also show my colleagues what the President's chief economic adviser, Larry Summers, said. He said this in the Financial Times on January 6 of this year: ``Poorly provided fiscal stimulus can have worse side effects than the disease that is to be cured.'' Now, we have all talked about what is in this bill, and all the spending in it, including the $600 million for cars for Federal employees, the money that goes into the seven-point-whatever-billion- dollars it is here that goes into Federal buildings--all good things. Senator McCain talked about smoking cessation. That is something we all support and believe in. But that ought to be handled in regular order. Those are not stimulus. Those are things that do nothing to contribute in the short term to creating jobs and helping get our economy back on track. In fact, the CBO said that 12 percent of the total amount in the bill we have before us would be spent in this year--2009--and less than half in 2009 and 2010, so much of what we are talking about is going to be pushed off into the future when it is not going to do anything to stimulate the economy. It does create some jobs--most of them are jobs here in Washington, DC--at great cost. For example, there are some jobs created at the State Department. The average cost per job created at the State Department according to this is over $1 million. On average, you take $900 billion and you divide it by about 3 million jobs, which is the estimate of what this would create, and we are talking about $300,000 per job. Now, I might add that the average annual salary in my State of South Dakota is under $30,000. Imagine how difficult it is to explain to my constituents that we are going to borrow $1 trillion from their children and grandchildren to create jobs at a cost of $300,000 per job. That is an awfully difficult sell, particularly when they look at how a lot of this money is spent. We have some requests from mayors and city officials around the country, and these are all good things. I am not downplaying at all the importance of many of these projects, but there are requests here for 42 swimming pools, water slides, golf courses, all sorts of things that you can't argue we ought to be borrowing $1 trillion from our children and grandchildren to fund and to support. So it is important we have something we can be for and that does, in fact, create jobs; that does, in fact, add to the economic recovery, and that is fiscally responsible. I wish to point out, as Senator McCain mentioned in his opening remarks, some of the things that are in his bill. It is appropriately focused on housing because we believe--and I think rightly so--that housing got us into this recession and housing is going to lead us out of this recession. It is focused on getting dollars into the hands of the American taxpayers. The debate about whether you want to have government spend the money or the American people spend the money is a very simple one. I happen to believe if you allow the American people to spend the money, you get a much better return. When we get money back into the hands of Americans, they will help grow the economy. Two- thirds of our gross domestic product is in the form of consumer spending. You provide incentives for small businesses which create two- thirds or three-fourths of the jobs in our economy and that helps get the economy back on track. That is in this bill. Reducing marginal income tax rates from 15 down to 10, 10 down to 5, cutting the payroll tax in half for a year for employees gets money back into the hands of the American people so they can go out and help stimulate the economy and create jobs. It also, as was noted earlier, makes some changes with regard to the underlying bill where defense is concerned. We have some very serious needs. Senator McCain mentioned this in his remarks and he talked about the defense spending in his bill. There is some, frankly, defense money in the Democratic proposal--about $10 billion--mostly for military construction projects, but there is no money for reset. We have serious needs out there. Senator McCain's amendment adds $7 billion for reset, to repair military equipment and replace direct battle losses, including $6.5 billion for the Army, $600 million for the Marines, $62 million for the Navy, and $83 million for the Air Force, which adds money for direct repair of military infrastructure and facilities. These are things that need to be done and can be done quickly that will put money to good use, that do create jobs and serve an important national purpose. Now, the other thing his bill does is it puts money in for infrastructure. Infrastructure arguably is something that does create jobs out there, if they are shovel-ready projects that you can actually get going quickly. I think that is a good use in a reasonable way, not adding all kinds of projects that you are not going to do for many years to come. But if you are getting money out there that actually can help fund projects that can get done in the short term, that is a good thing. Unfortunately, much of the money in the Democratic proposal, as I said earlier, isn't going to get spent out for years. I offered an amendment last night not to fund new programs, assuming it was going to take new programs a long time to get implemented and up and running. That amendment was defeated. The point of all this is to do things that in the short term create jobs. So there is $45 billion in the McCain proposal for infrastructure. The other thing I will say, which I think is critical--critical--in this debate, because I said earlier that if we don't put some restraints or some safeguards in here, this is going to get--the spending is going to go on forever. Senator McCain's proposal includes a hard trigger so that when we recognize two consecutive quarters of economic growth, positive GDP, this funding terminates. It is a fiscally responsible approach. He offered a freestanding amendment last night that received 44 votes. I haven't seen any evidence in this Chamber yet that anybody here is serious about adding any measure of fiscal responsibility or sanity to spending $1 trillion of our children's and grandchildren's money. I think it is important that this amendment get a vote. I urge my colleagues on both sides to support this amendment, to try and do something that is fiscally responsible, that reduces the overall size of this, that addresses substantively the things in the bill--the shortcomings in the Democratic proposal--and do some things that actually will help stimulate the economy and create jobs. Senator McCain's proposal represents a much better direction in which to head. It costs a lot less, it does a lot more, so I hope my colleagues will be able to support it. One of my colleagues on the Democratic side got up a little earlier and said, Well, if it costs a little bit of money this year to do this or that, there isn't anything in this bill that costs a little bit of money. Everything in this bill costs a lot of money, and the people who are going to get hurt the most are the next generation who are going to be handed the bill. I hope my colleagues will, in fact, support the McCain amendment, and I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I guess my understanding is--and it wasn't locked in, in the form of a unanimous consent request--that we were going to ping-pong back and forth with speakers. I have an amendment I wish to speak to, if that is okay with the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise to speak today in support of my substitute amendment, which is No. 197. This amendment has been modeled after the substitute amendment that was offered by the Republicans in the House of Representatives. I think the big question we have to ask, and the question before the House is, if we are serious about doing something for this economy to recover and to create jobs, what is the best and most effective way to do that? We have in front of us a proposal that emphasizes more heavily government spending and doing it through government programs. What I have chosen to offer to my colleagues here in the Senate is an opportunity to vote on something that does it in a different way. It allows the American people to spend the money that we use to infuse the economy with dollars that hopefully will grow the economy and create jobs. Our Nation has lost millions of jobs over the last several months. Families are hurting and businesses are struggling to survive. As our Nation weathers this turbulent economic time, we do have this decision to make: Should the Congress take hundreds of billions of tax dollars and invest them in an expanded Federal Government or, on the other hand, should Congress return tax dollars directly into the economy in the form of tax relief, which will create jobs and economic opportunity? The response the Democratic majority has put in front of us is to put more money into Federal agencies, to renovate Federal buildings, and buy new cars for Federal employees. I believe we ought to follow a different path and let the people of this country keep more of their hard-earned dollars and let them decide how best to spend, save, invest, and to turn this economy around. People know better how to spend their money than unelected bureaucrats here in Washington, DC. And tax relief, not government spending--reductions in taxes for the American people--will create jobs and get us out of this recession. This is what President Kennedy knew, this is what President Reagan knew, this is what I believe the American public, with their lackluster response to the $1 trillion spending program in front of us, knows as well. This substitute amendment does several things. It shifts, as I said, the focus from government spending to meaningful tax relief in four ways: First, it provides tax relief for individuals and families; second, tax relief for small businesses--the job creators in our economy; thirdly, it provides housing assistance; and, finally, it provides temporary assistance to those who are dealing with the current recession. Now, first, the bill provides meaningful tax relief for working taxpaying families. Under the ``Making Work Pay Credit,'' the tax provision in the bill--the majority bill--7 million households are going to receive a check from the government that is larger than both their payroll tax and their income tax liability. In other words, rather than a one-time credit, what my amendment would do is reduce the lowest two marginal income tax rates for years 2009 and 2010. Essentially, the 10-percent rate would go down to 5 percent and the 5 percent rate will go down to 10 percent. This is a real tax reduction and will benefit all income taxpayers in this country. In total, there are 100 million taxpayers who would receive, on average, tax relief of $1,250 per filer each year. Married couples could receive up to $3,400 in lower taxes each year. Consumer spending accounts for 70 percent of our gross domestic product. As consumer spending declined for a record 6 months in 2008, it is no surprise that our economy contracted over the same period of time. If we want to spur consumer spending, we should not implement single shot policies like a one-time credit, and we certainly should not pour hundreds of billions of dollars into Government programs. Instead, the best way to stimulate consumer spending is an immediate meaningful reduction of marginal income tax rates. With respect to small businesses, the second part of this bill focuses on small business tax relief. Small businesses, as I said, create up to 80 percent of all new jobs and represent 99 percent of the 27 million businesses in the United States. If we want to create new jobs, we should start with helping small business, not expanding Federal bureaucracies. This amendment expands small business bonus depreciation and expensing to encourage investment in this current year, which is when we need it the most. The amendment expands the net operating loss carryback period, permitting businesses to carry back their operating loss deductions for 5 years rather than 2. Several of these provisions, granted, are included in the underlying bill. This amendment, however, provides an additional $47 billion of small business tax relief. My amendment includes a new provision that would allow small businesses to deduct 20 percent of their business income. This provision significantly reduces the tax burden on small businesses which would allow them to continue to hire and retain hard- working Americans. This provision would also allow small businesses to maximize their earnings and increase in value, which will also give them better access to credit markets and another critical component to a recovery. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy and, unbelievably, only 2 percent of the total in this bill, the underlying bill, the majority bill, is dedicated to tax relief for small businesses. The lack of small business incentives in this bill, in my judgment, is a serious flaw, and my amendment seeks to improve it substantially. I also understand people are hurting on account of the economic downturn. Across America we have hard-working men and women who are being layed off because of no fault of their own. Today they are sitting at the kitchen table wondering how to make ends meet. Earlier this year, Congress acted to extend unemployment insurance to provide a safety net for those who are in need. My amendment would extend the expanded unemployment insurance provisions through the end of this year. Additionally, the amendment would eliminate the income tax on unemployment insurance. This is an automatic increase in the real benefit of unemployment insurance to those who derive it. It never made sense to me that individuals would pay taxes to the Government to fund unemployment insurance and, once they are unemployed, receive the benefits and then have to pay taxes on the benefit as well. This amendment would correct that. It would also make health care more affordable for the self-employed and other families without employer- provided health insurance because, for the first time, this amendment would provide an above-the-line deduction for health insurance costs. Finally, with respect to the housing market, this amendment addresses our housing market prices. The housing market is what led us into this recession. In fixing the housing market, we will help lead us out. My amendment would extend the $7,500 home buyer tax credit through December 31, 2009, while expanding the benefit to all primary residences. This amendment would eliminate the complicated recapture rules which currently require home buyers to pay the Government back if they claim this credit. In the end, this provision would help stimulate the faltering housing market and encourage responsible home ownership. According to the Congressional Budget Office, there are some real issues associated with the decision we make about whether to stimulate the economy with Federal spending, with Government spending or with tax relief. I wish to read for you a couple things the CBO has said: Reductions in Federal taxes [would] have most of their effects . . . in 2009 and 2010. That is the very period we are targeting to provide the greatest economic stimulus and hope of job creation. They also stated: ``Purchases of goods and services, either directly or in the form of grants to States and local government, would take years to complete.'' They go on, it will be ``difficult to properly manage and oversee a rapid expansion of existing programs.'' Finally, they say: ``[M]any of the larger projects initiated would take up to 5 to 7 years to complete.'' If we want to approach this problem with a solution that delivers assistance quickly, that is quick hitting, that gets money into the economy quickly, that creates jobs quickly, the way to go about doing that is not to have the Government spend the money, to have it come out of Washington, send our money to Washington, have the Government take more money out of the economy, and then decide how to spend it here. It is to get money into the hands of hard-working Americans and small businesses, where the real power for job creation exists. Interestingly enough, this legislation, the amendment I offer, was run through an analysis that was used--it is a methodology that was developed by the President's chair of the Counsel of Economic Advisers. Her name is Dr. Christina Romer and Dr. Jared Bernstein, the adviser to the Vice President. This was a methodology they used back in 2007, that considers the multiplier effect of various policy decisions and fiscal decisions that are made by the Congress. What they suggested in that analysis is, if you reduce taxes on the American public, you get a 2.2 multiplier in terms of GDP. My amendment reduces taxes as a percentage of our gross domestic product by 2.8 percent. If you take that by their multiplier 2.2, you get 6.1 percent in GDP growth as a result of cutting taxes. If you go on further, they suggest that for every 1 percent increase in GDP, you get three-quarters of a percentage change in jobs. So if you take the 6.1-percent growth in GDP and multiply it by .75 you get a 4.6-percent increase in the number of jobs. You take the full size of our workforce today, about 133,876,000 employees, and you plug in that 4.6-percent increase and you get a job growth increase--a job increase over the course of the next 2 years, as a result of making these changes in tax policy, of almost a 6.2-percent increase in jobs. The proposal we have before us suggests they could get up to another 3 million jobs, perhaps, from this. But I suggest, if we can create double that amount, 6 million jobs, as a result of reducing taxes, it is a much better solution for our country to get our economy back on track and is also done at a lot less cost. The overall cost, according to CBO, of my amendment, is about $440 billion, compared to the $900 billion it will cost for the proposal the Democratic majority has in front of us; twice the jobs at half the cost. That sounds like a solution that makes a lot of sense. It makes a lot of sense to the American people, who understand clearly you do not send your money to Washington and hope the Government can spend it to create jobs. The way to create jobs is to get money back in the hands of the American people, back in the hands of small businesses. That is what will lead us to that growth in gross domestic product, the expanding economy and the job creation associated with that. Twice the jobs for half the cost. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. It is a much better approach to dealing with what is a very serious economic crisis for this country. I think the American people believe that. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will support it as well. Let me say, the cosponsors on this amendment are Senators Kyl, DeMint, Johanns, and Hatch. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable provisions under the Budget Act with respect to my amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I wish to speak to an amendment that I introduced and filed and was made pending at the desk earlier today. What that amendment will do is eliminate new Government programs that are created by the proposed $1 trillion stimulus legislation that is before the Senate today. Earlier yesterday, I presented some information about the size and scope of this legislation and tried to put in very visual terms the immense amount of money we are talking about when you start looking at $1 trillion. It is $900 billion, but when you add interest on top of this--$340 billion, $350 billion in interest--you have $1.2 trillion in new spending included in the stimulus bill. I say that because I think it is important to point out that is not the end; it is, frankly, the beginning. We know for a fact the Omnibus appropriations bill--the sort of catchall appropriations bill we didn't complete last year--is going to be coming before the Congress, before the House first and then before the Senate. For the first time ever, that is going to exceed $1 trillion. So we have $1 trillion in the catchall appropriations bill. We expect at least a request from the administration for additional TARP authority--emergency funding to provide stabilization to the financial markets--to the tune of several hundred billion dollars. We don't know exactly what it will be, but we know it will be in the multiples with respect to hundreds of billions of dollars. We also have a supplemental appropriations bill that will be coming shortly after that to fund the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. My point simply is this: This is trillions of dollars of spending. This is a spending spree that is unprecedented even in this city, which is known for spending lots of money on lots of programs. What this amendment attempts to do is to put a little bit of restraint on some of that spending in the stimulus bill. Granted, many of us believe there are some things we should be doing, some steps we should be taking that would help the economy to recover, that would stimulate the economy and create jobs. Regrettably, the stimulus bill that is in front of us goes way beyond that. The President's top economic adviser suggested when this whole debate began that whatever we do in terms of stimulus, it should be temporary, it should be targeted, and it should be timely. Much of what is included in this bill is none of the above. In fact, it is slow and unfocused and unending. So I am attempting, with this amendment, to say that new programs that are created in this bill have to have been authorized by February 1 of this year. In other words, earlier this week. So if there is not an authorization for this new program--and we would ask OMB to make that determination--that spending would be knocked out of the bill, essentially. The whole purpose of the amendment is, again, to say that if we are going to do something that is meaningful in terms of stimulating the economy, it should be temporary and it should be targeted and it should be focused. Much of the spending that is in this bill is anything but that. History has shown, time and again, when you put new programs on the books, you almost always take a long time to get those programs off the ground. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has examined this issue and they offered this insight: Brand new programs pose additional challenges. Developing procedures and criteria, issuing the necessary regulations, and reviewing plans and proposals would make distributing money quickly even more difficult--as can be seen, for example, in the lack of any disbursements to date under loan programs established for automakers last summer to invest in producing energy-efficient vehicles. Throughout the Federal Government, spending for new programs has frequently been slower than expected and rarely been faster. Again, that is the Congressional Budget Office. Given the current state of the economy, we simply can't afford to enact costly new programs that have little hope of making any real meaningful impact now, when the American people need it the most. There may be programs in this proposed legislation that are worthy of support--I am not arguing that point--but surely not under the guise of economic stimulus. There are new programs that are created that will add to the size of this, and many of us have reacted to the size of it. As I have said already, we know for a fact there is going to be a lot of additional spending coming down the pike that we are going to be asked to consider. But adding to that $1 trillion for something that arguably does not create economic stimulus, does not create jobs, seems to me to be the wrong direction in which to head. My amendment would simply prevent any new funding under the economic stimulus plan from going toward new programs that were not authorized before February 1 of this year--2009. As I said before, the amendment calls on the Office of Management and Budget to determine if a program was authorized before February of 2009. If the program fails to meet that standard, the program will not receive funding from the economic stimulus proposal. Now, I would argue that this is a very commonsense proposal that protects the taxpayer and ensures funds are spent in a timely and effective manner. That isn't to say--and I will repeat myself--as I said earlier, that many of these programs are not worthwhile and, frankly, we ought to consider them. But we ought to do it under the regular order and procedures that we have in the Senate. We ought to have committee action, we ought to have hearings, we ought to have the necessary oversight, and we ought to be able to put these things on the floor where they can be debated. We have a process for doing that. There are lots of programs that are included in the stimulus bill which, I would argue, don't meet that criteria. They aren't stimulus because they are not targeted, they are not timely, and they are not temporary. They are, in fact, creating new programs which, as I said earlier, the Congressional Budget Office has told us sometimes take a very long time to roll out. I think any of us can speak from experience on that point; that whenever we create any sort of a new Federal program, we have agencies that have to interpret it, regulations have to be promulgated, in many cases we are setting up new bureaucracies and people have to be hired and it makes no sense to me whatsoever for us to, in the context of an economic stimulus bill, start talking about new programs. I would also say the whole purpose of this exercise, in my opinion at least, is job creation. It is to get the economy back on track and recovering and creating jobs. We have been losing jobs. The economy is hemorrhaging and a lot of people are hurting throughout the country. What they don't need is more spending on Government programs in Washington, DC. What we ought to be doing, on the other hand, is getting more money into the hands of the American people so they can spend it--more incentives for small businesses to begin to invest and create jobs because that is what they do best. In fact, two-thirds to three-fourths of all the jobs created in our economy are created by small businesses. Now, $900 billion, the principal amount--and with interest it is over $1 trillion in new spending--is proposed in the stimulus legislation. If you divide that by the number of jobs that are proposed to be created-- somewhere around 3 million--that comes out to $300,000 per job. The average annual wage in my State of South Dakota is under $30,000 a year. It is very difficult to explain to a constituent of mine in South Dakota how the Federal Government proposes to spend $300,000 of their tax dollars to create one job at a time when we are handing the largest burden of debt to the next generation in American history. Many of these jobs that are proposed are Government jobs. The Government can create Government jobs, and many of the spending programs in this bill do put money into Federal agencies which create Government jobs but at an enormous cost. I will use the example of the State Department, where it is over $1 million--I think $1.3 million, something to that effect--per job created. That doesn't seem to be a very good use of taxpayer dollars, and it doesn't get us the bang for the buck everybody has been coming to the floor and talking about. As I said, it is a straightforward amendment. All it simply says is: No new Government programs created in the stimulus. If that program was not authorized by February 1 of this year, then any funding for it in the economic stimulus proposal would be denied. It is a commonsense proposal that does protect the taxpayers, ensures the funds will be spent in a timely and effective way, and that we focus on keeping jobs out there in the economy, putting people back to work. It is not spending on new Government programs in Washington DC which, however well intended, needs to go through a normal regular order process where Members of the Senate have an opportunity to evaluate those at the committee level and go through all the appropriate oversight that we normally include when it comes to create a new Government program. Frankly, I do not think creating new Government programs, in the first place, is the way to do this, but at least this amendment brings some semblance of sanity to a bill which, as I said, is sort of a shotgun approach. It throws money at all kinds of different programs in hopes it will do something to stimulate the economy--knowing full well, I believe, that many of these are not going to be stimulative but on the other hand are creating new programs that people have wanted for a long time but have never had the opportunity. That is not what this is about. This economic stimulus debate ought to be focused on creating jobs and getting the economy on the pathway to recovery. That is the amendment. I encourage my colleagues to support it. I think it is very straightforward, very commonsensical, and, hopefully, it will meet with the approval of the majority of the Members of the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, what my amendment very simply says is that any of the funding in this bill that was not authorized as of February 1 of this year could not be funded under the bill. The point very simply is that, in order for a stimulus to be effective, it has to be timely, it has to be targeted, it has to be temporary. Funding in this or programs in this that are created that are new programs are going to be none of the above. It is going to take a long time, as we all know, to get regulations in place and create the bureaucracies. All these programs that are new programs included in this legislation are going to take a very long time to implement and, therefore, I do not believe ought to be considered stimulus and they ought not be funded as a part of this stimulus bill. My amendment simply says any program that was not authorized as of February 1 of this year will not be funded under the stimulus bill. It is a way of trimming the cost of this bill back and doing something that actually I think eliminates a lot of the extraneous spending that is included in the bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. THUNE. I ask for the yeas and nays.