S184 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 8, 2009 

went on to complete basic training in 

Fort Sill, OK. He was stationed at Fort 

Carson, CO, and assigned to the 3rd 

Battalion, 16th Field Artillery Regiment, 4th Infantry Division. He deployed to Iraq in 2008. 

Stephen, or Bud, as his mom called 

him, or Zap, as his friends called him— 

he had lots of names—is survived by 

his parents, Gary and Chris, and his 

sister, Ashley, and a very close friend, 

also named Chris, who lived with the 

Zapasniks since he was 15 years old, 

whom Stephen considered to be his 

brother. 

Stephen’s mother described his determination to enter the Army by losing 

over 90 pounds to get in. He was grossly 

overweight, but he made that sacrifice. 

She said she barely recognized him 

after basic training because he lost 

even more weight at that time. 

His friends and fellow soldiers affectionately nicknamed him ‘‘Zap,’’ describing him as a jokester who would 

happily make fun of himself if anyone 

needed to be cheered up. Zap would create short skits and record them on his 

camera in order to share them with 

anyone who would watch. After the accident, many of his fellow soldiers from 

his battalion got together and watched 

the movies he had made, staying up 

throughout the night, telling stories 

about him and laughing—exactly what 

Zap would have wanted them to do. 

Stephen loved video games, particularly his flight simulator game. He 

wanted to become a pilot someday. 

His colleagues described Stephen as a 

fantastic shot, always a qualifying expert in every weapon. Chris Hamil said 

his brother volunteered to man the machine gun on top of his humvee. As we 

all know, and certainly the occupant of 

the Chair knows, that is one of the 

most exposed positions a person can 

take. He was willing to do that. 

In his tribute comments, Staff Sergeant Barry summed Stephen up by 

saying: 

Zap would give the shirt off his back or the 

last dollar in his pocket to anyone that needed it. 

A comment from a friend: 

My family will be forever grateful for 

young men like Stephen who risk themselves 

to provide protection and security to this 

great country of ours . . . 

A spouse stationed at Fort Carson 

wrote: 

Zap was one of my husband’s soldiers and 

friends. Zap left an impression on our lives 

that we will never forget. He would come to 

my house and have the best manners and be 

so respectful . . . Zap always cared about 

others before himself, even offering to babysit my three children so that my husband 

and I could have a date right before he deployed. He left an impression on our lives 

that will never be forgotten and most of all 

my son loved him dearly . . . He was a hero 

in so many ways and he was a respected soldier always giving 100 percent. 

His mom Chris wrote: 

I am so proud of my son and what he accomplished as a member of the military family. I would not take back the man he had 

become or the hero he will always be for anything, even if I could have him beside me 

again. He was an outstanding young man and 

he will live forever in my heart and soul. 

Stephen was committed to what he 

felt he was called to do and fully understood the sacrifice he would be making 

by serving his country in Iraq. All 

those guys and gals over there know 

the risk they are under. They are willing to do that. 

Before Stephen left for Iraq, he said: 

Mom, if I ever don’t come back, you know 

I will always be with you, and I will be with 

Jesus, and I will be fine. 

Stephen had a strong faith in God, a 

strong commitment to his family and 

his friends, and a calling to protect our 

Nation by his service in the Army. 

His mom said: 

I know that he is perfectly safe and spending Christmas up there with Jesus. 

Keep this in mind: This happened 

late on Christmas Eve. 

She also expressed Stephen’s pride to 

serve in the Army and to serve our 

country by fighting terrorism. She told 

me just a few minutes ago what a man 

he had become, and she thanked the 

U.S. Army for doing for him what was 

done for him. 

The pride is now in Stephen, this 

young Oklahoman who enthusiastically joined the military at age 17 and 

was willing to lose 90 pounds in order 

to serve his country. He sacrificed his 

life in order to provide us with the precious freedoms we enjoy each day. His 

life embodies what it means to be a 

hero. 

We remember you today, Stephen, 

your sense of humor, your commitment 

to your family and to the Lord. 

Having just talked with his mother, 

she reaffirmed how strong Stephen was 

in his love for Jesus. I think we can say 

today—and we understand this—as 

fleeting as life is, this wink of time we 

are here—and I talked with Chris about 

this—that this today is not saying 

goodbye to Stephen, it is saying we 

will see you later. Thanks for your job 

well done. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire. 

f 

ECONOMIC STIMULUS 

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to 

speak about the issue of the economy 

and how we address the question of 

economic stimulus in the context of 

what is a very severe slowdown, recession, and in the context of what is an 

extraordinary situation relative to our 

deficits. 

Just yesterday, the Congressional 

Budget Office reported that the deficit 

this year will be $1.2 trillion. That is a 

number which most of us cannot even 

fathom. To try to put it in context, 

that size of deficit has not occurred in 

this country, if you calculate it as a 

percentage of GDP, since World War II. 

It is a deficit that is extraordinarily 

large. A deficit means we are running 

up debt our children are going to have 

to pay for. So it has a real effect on the 

next generation and generations after 

that and their ability to be prosperous. 

Not only does CBO tell us the deficit 

is going to be $1.2 trillion, but they 

also tell us that with the stimulus 

package that is being proposed—and 

the package that is being talked about 

is in the range of $700 billion to $800 

billion, and when you throw that 

spending on top of the deficit, we are 

talking about a deficit which will be 

closing in on $2 trillion, which is about 

11 percent of GDP. That will be almost 

four times larger than the largest deficit we have run since World War II. 

There are a lot of things causing this, 

of course, and most of them are tied to 

the economic slowdown. The economic 

slowdown is severe, but as we try to 

mute and lessen the impact of that 

slowdown on working Americans and 

on everyday Americans, we have to be 

careful that we don’t do things which 

aggravate significantly in the outyears 

this country’s fiscal strength and our 

children’s ability to have a high quality of life. 

I have said on numerous occasions 

that I believe President-elect Obama is 

on the right track relative to bringing 

forward a very robust and aggressive 

stimulus package. But what is key to 

determining whether that package is a 

good package or a marginal package is 

the policy that underlies it. It is not 

the numbers so much as it is the policy. 

I believe there are a few signposts 

which we should follow as we develop 

such a package. The first is that we not 

unduly aggravate this long-term debt 

situation which we have as a country. 

We know we are facing a fiscal tsunami as a nation. The baby boom generation is about to be into full retirement. During the term of this Presidency, should the President be reelected, the baby boom generation will 

be very close to full retirement. That 

will mean we will have doubled the 

number of people in retirement in this 

country, and the cost of maintaining 

those retirees will put a massive burden on the backs of this tax generation 

but especially the next generation. We 

are talking $60 trillion of unfunded liability that is coming at us. That is 

debt coming at us. That doesn’t count 

the debt we are putting on the books 

today to deal with this economic slowdown. 

So what is very critical as we address 

trying to get the economy going by 

using a stimulus package is we have to 

be very careful that we put in place 

programmatic activity that doesn’t 

add to the long-term debt of the Nation, that are one-time items that will 

basically retract and no longer be part 

of the deficit function or add to the 

deficit function in the outyears. 

The TARP program is a good example. The TARP program was a program 

we put in place to try to stabilize the 

financial institutions of this country, 

and it has. That program basically 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
January 8, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S185 

used investment versus spending relative to tax dollars. We purchased preferred stock in a series of financial institutions across this country. That 

preferred stock, the purchasing of it, 

has helped to stabilize those financial 

institutions and the financial system 

of the Nation. The purchase of that 

preferred stock creates a significant 

jump in the deficit for next year. Depending on how many of the dollars we 

end up using of the TARP, it could be 

$400 billion or $500 billion. But in the 

outyears, we are going to get that 

money back because we are buying assets. In fact, we may get it back with 

interest—or we will get it back with interest and make a little money for the 

taxpayers, which would be good. They 

deserve to make a little money off that 

initiative. 

That type of investment is a onetime event which may aggravate the 

deficit in the short run but does not aggravate the deficit in the long run. 

That is the type of initiative we need 

to look at. 

In the area—and this is being talked 

about a lot—of the Federal Government going out and just spending 

money, not investing money that 

comes back in assets to us, we have to 

take the same approach: that we are 

basically going to put the dollars of the 

stimulus package into initiatives 

which will make our Nation more competitive and more productive in the 

outyears so that we get more tax revenues, hopefully, but at least have more 

jobs created in this country as we compete in the worldwide economy. Thus, 

as we invest in infrastructure, which 

will be a large part of this stimulus 

package, it is absolutely critical that 

we have entry-level tests to be sure 

that the infrastructure we are investing in is infrastructure which is going 

to produce an outyear return to us beyond the dollars that are put into 

them. 

Now, we all love things such as 

beautifying Main Street or putting in 

running tracks. These are all things 

people love to do, and some people even 

love to build halls of fame to this issue 

or that issue. But that is not the type 

of infrastructure investment which is 

going to help us be more competitive 

and create more jobs, and the bottom 

line is to create more jobs. What we 

want to do is invest in what is going to 

create more jobs and make us more 

competitive in the global economy: 

roads, bridges, high-speed broadband in 

areas that aren’t quite as dense population-wise to make it affordable in the 

commercial sense; IT, and especially in 

these quasi-public areas, such as health 

care, where it will give us a return on 

our investment; the military—and we 

have the chairman of the Armed Services Committee sitting in the Chair— 

we have to obviously retool our military. These are investments which give 

us a long-term return. 

So I hope as we get to the stimulus 

package and we send this money out to 

the States, primarily—I suspect that is 

where it is going to go, States and 

communities—there will be some 

entry-level tests they have to meet before they can spend the money so that 

we get a return on those dollars in the 

way of making our Nation more competitive and more productive. I would 

hate to see us just give it to the States 

with very little limitation on how they 

spend it because a lot of the money 

will, unfortunately, be wasted. 

I know in my State every community 

is pulling together their wish lists, and 

I have seen things like putting in 

alarm systems in dorms. You know, 

maybe that is a good idea, but it is not 

the responsibility of the Federal Government to do that. Our responsibility 

would be to replace a bridge or build a 

bridge that is a bottleneck from the 

standpoint of transportation or put 

broadband into a region of the State 

which couldn’t get it otherwise because 

of density issues or give our health 

communities a better way to do their 

IT so they are more efficient. So we do 

need these tests. 

In addition, everything needs a hard 

sunset. Everything in this stimulus 

package needs a hard sunset so that 

when we get to the end of this recession, which we are going to get to because we are inherently a resilient nation, we don’t continue these programs 

into the future. By hard sunset my 

view would be that for a program to 

continue under this it would have to 

have a two-thirds vote. 

Another major initiative in the stimulus package, it appears, will be tax 

initiatives. I respect, and first off I admire, the energy and the focus of the 

Obama team on this issue. I think he 

has put together an extraordinarily 

talented group of people in many areas 

but especially in the fiscal area—with 

Secretary-designate Gardener and 

Larry Summers and Paul Volcker—and 

it is my view that as we look at the tax 

part of this component—and I understand it is going to be fairly big—it 

should be again focused on where we 

create jobs because this is the issue: 

How are we going to create more jobs? 

It is pretty obvious that in our economy jobs aren’t created by big business 

or by government. Jobs are created by 

individual entrepreneurs who go out 

and start something small and it 

builds. So the majority of the tax initiatives, in my opinion, should be focused on job creation and assisting people who are willing to take risks in the 

small business community. 

There is a lot of discussion about a 

major employment tax credit; that if 

you hire people, you get a credit for 

employment. I tend to think that is 

probably not going to generate a whole 

lot of economic activity. If somebody 

is going to hire someone, they are 

going to hire them. And they will take 

advantage of it, obviously, but the odds 

of people actually adding people because they have a credit for adding 

people is slim, I suspect. It is not 

human nature to do that, even for a tax 

credit. I suspect it will just be money 

put out the door and not produce much 

in the way of results. We have a pretty 

good and pretty recent example of how 

this works in the area of tax policy because we did a stimulus package which 

was keyed off a tax rebate last spring, 

and $80 billion of a $160 billion package 

was a tax rebate and it generated virtually no greater consumption. So 

there are some pretty good statistics 

which have shown consumption was 

not increased significantly at all by 

that tax rebate initiative. So a tax rebate approach is probably not going to 

get you a lot in the area of the big 

bang for the buck. 

We want to come out of this slowdown a stronger, more productive nation by making capital investments 

and using tax policy to generate those 

investments so we can compete better 

in the world economy. I would hope 

that would be the approach that is 

taken. 

There is another proposal which addresses the issue of States, and this one 

is the most problematic of all the initiatives in the stimulus package for 

me. There are a lot of States that have 

been fiscally responsible and actually 

have surpluses, and some States have 

said they do not even need this sort of 

support. There are other States with 

revenues that have dropped precipitously because of this economic slowdown which they didn’t have any control over, and they have a legitimate 

claim. They are in dire straits. There 

are other States, however, that have 

simply during the recession spent a lot 

of money which was out of proportion 

with what good fiscal policy allows. So 

I would hope that as we are talking 

about assisting States—and I understand it is probably going to come in 

through the FMAP for the Medicaid 

Programs—that we have some conditionality that says if the State’s financial distress is caused by a drop in revenues, then we will be supportive. But 

if the financial distress is caused by 

the fact they have simply been excessive in their programmatic activity, 

beyond profligate—profligate is probably too strong a term—but excessive 

in their programmatic activities, beyond what is reasonable in these slow 

times, then we should not be underwriting that sort of activity that is inappropriate from the standpoint of fiscal restraint. We should rather be focused on assisting States that have 

seen a significant drop in their revenue. It is difficult to do, but I believe 

it can be done, and I believe it should 

be done. 

It is obvious we need a robust stimulus package right now, and it is very 

obvious we need to have it sooner rather than later. From my standpoint, as 

a member of the Republican Party, 

which is in opposition here arguably, I 

want to work with the other side of the 

aisle and with the President-elect to 

accomplish it because I don’t think we 

can afford partisan politics at this 

time. We need to govern. These issues 

are so huge and are going to have such 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
S186 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 8, 2009 

a devastating impact on our Nation if 

they are not aggressively and boldly 

addressed that we can’t afford this to 

be a party-line event. We need to have 

cooperation. We have a template for 

that. When we took up the TARP bill, 

which was an extraordinary piece of 

legislation, it was done because we recognized the crisis was upon us and action had to be taken, and it was done in 

a totally bipartisan and, I thought, a 

very effective way, and that is a good 

template for moving forward. 

So I just lay these ideas out as an approach to take, and I say, from my 

standpoint, to the extent I can participate—and I hope I can—I am willing to 

listen to any ideas, and I want to see us 

make progress. I want to see it be 

prompt because in this area, it is absolutely critical for the President-elect 

to succeed for the Nation’s good. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois. 

f 

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT—MODIFICATION TO APPOINTMENTS 

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order of 

January 6 with respect to the announcement of Members appointed to 

be Senate tellers for the joint session 

today be modified to reflect that Senator SCHUMER will replace Senator 

FEINSTEIN. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

SUPPORTING THE ECONOMIC 

RECOVERY BILL 

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want 

to follow on the comments of my friend 

from New Hampshire, Senator GREGG. 

Although he and I may disagree on 

some political issues, and we do, the 

fact is, many of the things he just said 

I agree with completely. I think there 

is a sense among Members of Congress 

that we are facing an extraordinary set 

of circumstances in America today. 

The Presiding Officer, from the State 

of Michigan, probably has endured 

more economic bad news than almost 

any of us. If I am not mistaken, one 

out of every eight people in his State is 

currently on food stamps, and it is an 

indication of how his economy is struggling. 

With regard to the economies of some 

of the other States, when you look 

across the United States, the headlines 

are sobering. We have been told repeatedly about the loss of jobs. Look at 

some of the most recent headlines: 

DHL cuts 9,500 U.S. jobs; Chrysler to 

lay off 2,400 in Fenton, MO; AT&T announcing job cuts; Sprint losing jobs; 

Stanley Works, GM, Office Depot—the 

list goes on and on. 

The fact is, yesterday 22,000 Americans lost their jobs. If the latest projections are true, 22,000 more Americans will lose their jobs today, and 

22,000 more Americans will lose their 

jobs tomorrow. That is the state of the 

economy. Instead of creating employment, we are losing jobs at a pace 

which sobers all of us. 

As a student of history, I understand 

the Great Depression that Franklin 

Roosevelt inherited as he became 

President in March of 1933 was much 

deeper and dangerous and wider in 

scope. But when you look at what we 

face today, that is the only historical 

analogy we can point to in recent 

memory that even is close to what we 

are facing. 

Over 9,000 American families lost 

their homes to foreclosure yesterday, 

more than 9,000 families will lose their 

homes today, and another 9,000 the day 

after and every day that succeeds. The 

reason, of course, is that we have so 

many bad mortgages—the subprime 

mortgages. Many people were misled 

into signing up for mortgages they 

couldn’t afford, and now, as the terms 

reset and come due, families can’t keep 

up with them and are losing homes. 

It is not just a problem for that person who lives down the street, the family who had to move out; it is your 

problem too. In my hometown of 

Springfield, IL, a small Midwestern 

town, with relatively stable real estate 

values, my home is diminished in value 

because of the foreclosures that are occurring in our community and the general state of the economy so even families dutifully making their mortgage 

payments are falling behind because 

their core assets, such as the value of 

their home, are diminishing. 

Every day this economic crisis 

deepens and claims more victims. Families who have worked so hard for so 

many years are finding it difficult to 

maintain even the most basic standards of the middle class. This is the 

worst economic time our Nation has 

seen since the Great Depression 75 

years ago. We can observe it, lament it, 

give our speeches about it or we can do 

something. This morning, Presidentelect Barack Obama, my former Illinois Senate colleague, gave a speech at 

George Mason University, right outside 

Washington, DC, in Fairfax, VA. He 

talked about what we are facing and 

what we need to do about it. He said: 

. . . equally certain are the consequences 

of doing little or nothing at all, for that will 

lead to an even greater deficit of jobs, incomes, and confidence in the economy. 

President-elect Obama said: 

That is why we need to act boldly and act 

now to reverse these cycles. That’s why we 

need to put money in the pockets of the 

American people, create new jobs, and invest 

in our future. That’s why we need to restart 

the flow of credit and restore the rules of the 

road that will ensure a crisis like this never 

happens again. 

That work begins with a plan, a plan 

that he says he is confident ‘‘will save 

or create at least 3 million jobs over 

the next few years.’’ He talks about the 

priorities we need to invest in, such as 

energy and education, health care and 

new infrastructure, that are necessary 

to keep us strong and competitive in 

the 21st century. 

Yesterday, the designate for the new 

Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu, 

came to my office. He is a man who is 

widely respected for his academic expertise and knowledge of energy issues. 

He finds it a little challenging and 

daunting, as he thinks about facing 

Members of Congress and the massive 

level of employment of personnel at his 

Department, but he talked in terms of 

energy, and he said it is ironic we have 

reached a point in history that the 

United States is not on the cutting 

edge of developing new forms of energy 

technology. The windmills we are constructing across America are, by and 

large, built or designed in Europe. Nuclear energy we have not touched for 

some 20 years in this country and have 

ceded the research to other countries. 

There are areas where we need to invest in America. As President-elect 

Obama said this morning at George 

Mason University, this energy investment is important for our future to 

move toward energy independence. 

President-elect Obama in a few days 

will take the oath of office not far from 

here and then will count on Congress 

to move quickly to pass the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Plan. He is 

urging we do it boldly and swiftly and 

that we bring transparency and openness to the process so the American 

people see their money is being well 

spent on investments in America’s future—investments when it comes to 

education and energy and health care; 

investments that will bring down the 

cost of health care for many American 

families who are struggling today, not 

to mention those who have no health 

protection whatsoever. 

He also calls on us to stabilize and 

repair our financial system on which 

we all depend. I think we know what 

we are talking about. When a man 

named Bernard Madoff can, over the 

span of 10 or 20 years, lure investors 

into what has turned out to be a Ponzi 

scheme, causing many of them to lose 

millions of dollars, and his wrongdoing 

goes unnoticed by major regulatory 

agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, it is clear more 

has to be done. 

When the ratings agencies, major 

ratings agencies that set the standards 

for whether a company is doing well 

basically ignore their responsibility 

and fail to make accurate reports, everyone loses as a result of it. 

President-elect Obama said in closing 

today: 

It is time to set a new course for this economy, and that change must begin now. We 

should have an open and honest discussion 

about this recovery plan in the days ahead, 

but I urge Congress to move as quickly as 

possible on behalf of the American people. 

For every day we wait or point fingers or 

drag our feet, more Americans will lose their 

jobs. More families will lose their savings. 

More dreams will be deferred and denied. 

And our Nation will sink deeper into a crisis 

that, at some point, we may not be able to 

reverse. 

I hope what I am about to say is a reminder to all of us of the responsibility 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE