Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 157 (Wednesday, November 14, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 157 (Wednesday, November 14, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11744-S11783]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND ASSISTANCE FOR AMERICAN WORKERS ACT OF 2001

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of H.R. 3090, which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 3090) to provide tax incentives for economic
recovery.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

Committee Amendment, Withdrawn

Mr. BAUCUS. On behalf of the Finance Committee, I withdraw the
committee amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2125

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus] proposes an amendment
numbered 2125.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia reserves the
right to object.

[[Page S11745]]

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized when the Senator
from Montana yields the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I remove my reservation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the reading of the
amendment is dispensed with.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I say to my good friend from West
Virginia, I intend to speak for only 2 or 3 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. The Senator may take whatever time he wants.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered makes several
changes to the bill reported by the Finance Committee. It deletes the
rural development provisions in sections 811 and 815 of the bill. These
provisions generated considerable controversy, with some Senators
questioning whether they provided economic stimulus. I support the
provisions, and I think they are very important to the rural economy,
but a similar set of provisions is being developed as part of a farm
bill, and I think it is appropriate to defer to that debate at that
time.
I note that I have not deleted provisions providing agriculture
disaster assistance to farmers and ranchers because I think they are
critical provisions of the bill.
My amendment also incorporates three Medicaid provisions which were
filed in the committee but we did not have time to consider. One
proposed amendment by Senator Bingaman temporarily increases the caps
for States with extremely low disproportionate share hospitals. That is
the so-called DSH cap.
The second proposed amendment by Senator Lincoln establishes a 6-
month moratorium on changes to the Medicare upper payment limit rules.
The third proposed amendment by Senator Breaux revises and simplifies
the transitional medical assistance program.
I also have provisions relating to the taxation of life insurance
companies. Senator Kerry proposed a committee amendment addressing
section 809 of the code to maintain balance. The amendment I am
offering also addresses section 815.
There are also a few other corrections contained in the amendment.
That is essentially a brief explanation of the amendment I am offering.
At this point, we are on the bill. I might say neither side has
enough votes to pass the bill. The Senator from Texas correctly said we
might as well get to negotiations and get to the heart of the matter
because the current bill probably does not have the sufficient 60 votes
to get it passed and enacted.
The same is true for the alternative bill proposed by the President
and/or the minority party. There are not 60 votes for that either. So I
agree very much with the main import of the point made by the Senator
from Texas; namely, let us get on with it. Let us sit down. Let us
start negotiating.
We are doing the country a disservice by continuing a partisan,
rhetorical harangue, one side against the other. It is something I do
not like. It is something I know most Senators do not like. I hope the
leadership of both bodies, both the House and the Senate, on both sides
of the aisle, find a way for us to put together negotiations where the
leadership of the Finance Committee and of the House Ways and Means
Committee, in conjunction with the White House, can sit down and put
together a good, solid economic stimulus package quickly so Americans
are served in the way they deserve to be.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). Under the previous order, the
Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
Many times my colleagues have seen me reach into my shirt pocket and
pull out the Constitution of the United States. The distinguished whip,
the majority whip, also carries a copy of that Constitution, as do
several other Senators on both sides of the aisle. I have supplied them
with this shirt pocket copy. I will refer to it as the ``shirt pocket
copy.''
Alexander the Great put foremost, among all books, among all
histories and among all literature, ``The Iliad.'' Alexander the
Great's copy of ``The Iliad'' was referred to as the ``casket copy.''
He slept with ``The Iliad'' under his pillow.
I do not sleep with the Constitution under my pillow, but I carry it
next to my heart, the Constitution of the United States.

Now, let's read for a moment the preamble of the Constitution. Those
who have shirt pocket copies, take out your Constitutions; and those of
you who don't happen to have a shirt pocket copy, take the Constitution
off the desk or the shelf, if it is nearby.
The Preamble reads as follows:

WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect Union--

Now, the President of the United States has said he wants to set a
new tone in Washington: Do away with partisanship; do away with all the
quibbling, the argumentation, as it were, to form a more perfect union.
That is the way I would interpret what he said.
I continue to read from the Preamble of the Constitution:

. . . establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence--

Let me read that again: ``provide for the common defence.'' It
doesn't say anything about defending ourselves in Afghanistan. It says
``provide for the common defence.'' It means to provide for the defense
of our homeland, as well. ``Provide for the common defence.''
``Common'' means common. It is everywhere. It is common to all. It
doesn't single out any particular person, place, territory, or city. It
provides for the common defence.
I continue to read:

. . . promote the general Welfare--

That doesn't say promote the welfare of the rich; it doesn't say
promote the welfare of Sophia, WV, my little hometown which you can
hardly see on a map. ``Provide for the common defence, promote the
general Welfare.'' The Preamble isn't talking about those people who
are on welfare rolls. It says ``promote''--that means to push forward,
to lift up, to advocate. To ``promote the general Welfare and secure
the Blessings of Liberty.''
Aha, that word liberty!--``and secure the Blessings of Liberty''--to
whom? ``. . . to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish
this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America.''
Who said this? It says ``do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION. .
. .''
In speaking of liberty to ourselves, who is doing the talking? Who is
doing the talking? Let me tell you who is doing the talking. I will
start with New Hampshire, Nicholas Gilman and John Langdon were the
signatories for New Hampshire.
Next we will take Massachusetts. Who were the signatories? Rufus King
and Nathaniel Gorham.
Then what is the next State? Connecticut. William Samuel Johnson
and--who is that fellow who signed all those great documents from
Connecticut? Who was he? Roger Sherman, Connecticut.
What is the next State? New York. New York, Alexander Hamilton. Only
had one signator, the great State of New York.
And on down. Those were the men who signed this document. Immortal?
This Constitution will live as long as the Earth stands. Immortal
document, this is, indeed. These are the 39 signers.
I have just read the preamble to the Constitution. I have done so
because it adequately and perfectly fits as the preamble to what I am
going to say and what I am going to advocate. I am going to talk about
the homeland defense piece of this measure before the Senate. Defense;
homeland defense. The preamble of the Constitution introduces the
preamble, as it were, to that portion of the package which my staff and
I, at the request of the distinguished majority leader, developed for
this amendment. ``Homeland defense,'' that is the title of this
amendment. ``Homeland'' defense. Not homeland infrastructure. Not
homeland pork. But ``homeland defense.''
Mr. President, hear me now! Fear has gripped the American people. It
threatens the U.S. economy. I don't call my portion of this package a
stimulus

[[Page S11746]]

package. I am not calling it a ``stimulus'' although it does help to
stimulate the economy. Anything that puts confidence back into the
hearts and minds and pocketbooks and bookkeeping ledgers of the
American people is a stimulus to the economy. But to those who thought
they would see Robert Byrd bring out a package with a lot of
infrastructure in it are sorely dismayed and disappointed. It ``ain't''
here.
Infrastructure is needed in this country to be sure. If you want
something that is true stimulus, put $1 billion into highways and you
will employ 43,000 people. Or put $1 billion into school construction
and you will employ 24,000 people.
But I am not doing that. I was asked at first by the majority leader
to develop some options that would help to stimulate the economy. So my
staff and I--I have excellent staff; they are not excelled by anybody
anywhere in the world. That is what I think of them. My excellent staff
and I were asked to prepare some options. We did that. We did a $10
billion option, a $5 billion option, a $20 billion option, a $30
billion option. So we have options all over the place. And in more than
one of them I had infrastructure, something that would provide jobs.

But then something happened. We know, because we have read chapter
and verse of the recent history in which we saw the awesome, terrible,
horrific picture of two airplanes sailing into the Twin Towers in New
York City. We saw the showers of bricks and mortar falling upon people,
upon firefighters, upon policemen, upon men and women and children. And
then there came anthrax, a weapon that has been spread among us.
I haven't been in my office in the Hart Building in weeks. The office
is closed. My staff people are not in there. I haven't read the mail
that has been sent to my office in the Hart Building in weeks. There
are other Senators here who can say the same, on both sides of the
aisle.
Fear has gripped the American people, and it threatens the U.S.
economy. You can see it. You can see it in the vacant streets of our
major cities on the weekends. Walk the streets of Washington on the
weekends. You can see it in the half-full airplanes taking off from our
airports--half full. Some of them not half full. You can see it in the
empty shopping malls less than 2 weeks before the start of the holiday
shopping season--less than 2 weeks. Go to the shopping malls. Go to the
national parks.
Here is a headline: ``National Park Entrance Fees to be Waived.''
Aha, you can go for free.

National Park entrance fees to be waived over Veterans Day
weekend to inspire national unity, hope, and healing.

So we see a repetition of the free passes, for example, that Metro
issued here in the city, and in Northern Virginia, free passes that
were issued by Metro so that people would ride, hopefully, into
Washington, DC, and shop, spend money to stimulate the economy. There
were the restaurants in Washington, DC, that offered a free glass of
wine to the people who would come to those restaurants.
Now I have just read that the national park entrance fees were to be
waived over Veterans Day weekend, which has just passed--for what
reason? To inspire national unity, national hope, and national healing.
You can see it on Wall Street. Just watch Lou Dobbs. Watch him on
television every day. You can see this fear spreading like oil, slowly,
slowly--fear. You can see it on Wall Street. At one point, on Monday,
November 12, the day after Armistice Day, Veterans Day, the Dow Jones
Industrial Average dropped 198 points following the news of a possible
terrorist attack on American Airlines flight 587. We saw the drop in
the Dow Jones after the plane crashed in the streets of Queens, New
York. Wall Street was already trying to recover from the troubling
economic news of recent weeks. The Commerce Department reported on
October 31 that the economy contracted by .4 percent between July and
September of this year, the first quarter of negative growth since
1991--10 years.
The Labor Department reported on November 2 that the economy shed
415,000 jobs in October, increasing the unemployment rate to 5.4
percent from 4.9 percent in September, the largest jump since 1980.
Wall Street has been able to shrug off negative economic news in
recent months, but traders seem less able to do so recently. The
lingering anthrax scare has spread to victims beyond the news media and
the Federal Government. The Attorney General has issued vague yet
sobering warnings to the American people about anticipated terrorist
attacks. National Guard troops can be seen patrolling the Golden Gate
Bridge.
The American people, facing the fears of a new era, are looking to
their elected leaders--you, Mr. President, the Presiding Officer and
you, Mr. President, at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue--and me and
other Members of this body and members of other legislative bodies,
looking to their Government for reassurance. Parents want to hear that
their children will be safe in their own neighborhoods. Families want
assurances that it is safe to take that vacation they had planned
earlier this year. The American people want assurances that they can
open letters free from worries about biological weapons. They are
looking to their elected leaders for security.
If a son asks his father for bread, will the father give the son a
stone? If the son asks for a fish, will the father give him a serpent?
If the son asks for an egg, will the father give the son a scorpion? Go
back to the Gospel of Luke. The people are asking for ``bread,'' in the
form of Security. What do we, as elected representatives, give to our
people when they ask for bread? Do we give them a stone when they ask
for safety? What do we give them? A tax cut?
The people are looking to their elected leaders for security. What do
we give them?
Do we reject this package which I shall explain momentarily? Do we
reject it when the people ask for security against anthrax, when they
ask for security against possible smallpox epidemics? What do we give
them? Do we give them a stone?
When the people ask that the loopholes be closed along the northern
border and the southern border, when they ask for security from
terrorists who would come across those borders when they are not
patrolled; when the people ask for security against terrorists who
would slink across the borders, do we give them a stone? Do we give
them a scorpion? Do we give them a serpent? Do we respond to their
cries when they want safety? What do we give them?
We can start to alleviate the concerns of the American people right
here--today--by addressing those vulnerabilities the terrorists are
seeking to exploit.
My staff and I have crafted a $15 billion package which would be a
first step in giving back to the American people a small part of the
sense of security that was blasted away on September 11.
A point of order will be made against the package that contains this
``bread.'' Our people ask for bread. That is a good metaphor when one
thinks of the security for which people are asking us.
A point of order will be made claiming that there is no emergency.
The point of order will be made based on the claim that this $15
billion package is not an ``emergency.''
Hear me now! Keep in mind that a point of order is being lodged
against this homeland defense measure. And, keep in mind the preamble
of the Constitution of the United States--that phrase which says
``provide for the common defense''.
The first bit of this graph that I point to is that section--that
piece of the overall pie chart--which reads ``Bioterrorism Prevention
and Response.'' See it? ``Bioterrorism Prevention and Response--Food
Safety, $4 billion.''
Ask the one physician in this body, the one surgeon. Ask Dr. Frist,
Senator Frist from Tennessee, if he thinks that we need $4 billion for
bioterrorism prevention and response and food safety. Ask him. He is a
renowned physician. I know he is a politician, too. So was Jesus a
great physician. He was a politician also. Ask Senator Frist if this is
``pork.'' Ask him if it is ``pork'' to provide $4 billion for
bioterrorism prevention and response and food safety.
We must reassure the American people whether their elected leaders
are doing all they can to prepare against a

[[Page S11747]]

biological or chemical attack. Anthrax, smallpox, and the plague are no
longer the stuff of fiction but are deadly realities.
My proposal includes $4 billion for bioterrorism prevention and
response and food safety. This is money that would primarily be used
for upgrading State and local lab capacities--get this now--State and
local health departments, for example, in Raleigh County in southern
West Virginia, and Sophia, WVA, my little town of 1,180 souls.
Ask the Governors of the States, Republicans and Democrats, whether
they need that money to upgrade State and local Lab capacities. Ask the
mayors throughout the country if they need this. These funds would help
local health departments to train emergency health responders in
recognizing the symptoms of an incidence of bioterrorism, and would
enhance the ability to diagnose and to treat such illnesses as anthrax
and smallpox.
My proposal will also allow State and local governments to plan for a
variety of emergencies and to upgrade State and local information
sharing systems.
Preparation and prevention are critical to waging the war against
terrorism that is currently being fought. Where? On our home soil. That
is getting pretty close to home, isn't it, on our own soil. We would do
well to remember that it was a doctor in Florida who had just received
training from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, who
thought to test for anthrax when treating the first victims of that
unusual disease. It is an unusual disease. But it is an old disease.
Read about it. Read about the 10 plagues of Egypt. Read about the
murrain on the cattle, and the boils on human beings. Go to a
dictionary and look up the word ``murrain.'' It means, for example,
anthrax among the cattle, the camels, and other livestock. Look at how
old it is. It has been around a long time--thousands of years.
Here is a headline in today's paper. I will read it.

State Department Fears--

There is that word ``fear'' again

State Department Fears Another Anthrax-Tainted Letter.

What does this say?
Well, Cassius was nearsighted. I am not nearsighted, but I do need
glasses to read. So here we go. I quote from this. The title of the
article in today's paper of Wednesday, November 14, 2001, is: ``State
Department fears another anthrax-tainted letter.'' I will just read a
few excerpts from this news story in the Washington Times.

There it is. So these funds--$4 billion--would also be used to expand
the Federal pharmaceutical stockpile by contracting for the development
of 300 million doses of smallpox vaccine to be delivered by the end of
2002 to prepare for a potential outbreak of that dreaded disease.
No American has been vaccinated for smallpox since 1972, and the
medical community is debating whether those who were vaccinated may
still possess any degree of immunity.
Now, I was one of those children in the public schools of West
Virginia many decades ago who were vaccinated for smallpox. That is
where I received my vaccination. The scar is still there on my left
arm.
Let's see what this headline says in the Washington Post of
Wednesday, November 7, 2001. Here it is: ``HHS''--that is Health and
Human Services--``Set to Order Smallpox Vaccine for All Americans.''
And it ain't free. It is not free. Let me just read excerpts from this
story:

Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson said
yesterday that he expects to sign a contract this weekend to
purchase enough smallpox vaccine for every American but that
he has warned the White House--

Hear him. Hear Tommy Thompson down there at the White House. Hear
him.

. . .he has warned the White House the cost could be
quadruple the $509 million he originally estimated--or
equivalent to the department's entire $1.9 billion
bioterrorism budget. . . .
The previously announced administration effort to vaccinate
all Americans against smallpox, a deadly disease that was
eradicated in the 1970s, took on a renewed sense of urgency
as one of the leading smallpox authorities warned it was
conceivable that former Soviet scientists were helping to
``weaponize'' the smallpox virus for nations such as Iran,
Iraq, Libya, and North Korea.

These are referred to as ``rogue states.''

``Many [Russian] scientists are really quite desperate for
money''--
Cicero said: ``There is no fortress that money cannot buy.''
And here we read a warning by Donald A. Henderson, director of the
new Office of Public Health Preparedness.

U.S. intelligence indicates that several have been
recruited by ``rogue states'' and were in a position to
smuggle out a vial of the virus . . . .'' That's a very great
worry.''

He said: ``Many [Russian] scientists are really quite desperate for
money.''

In addition, Henderson said, there is evidence that the
former Soviet Union succeeded in weaponizing the virus and
manufacturing up to 100 tons annually at a plant outside
Moscow.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have both of these
newspaper articles printed in the Record following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. BYRD. If anthrax can make the public jittery--and we have seen
that it can and has made the public jittery--the prospect of smallpox,
a contagious and vicious disease, could incite panic--panic! Funds in
this bill, in my amendment, will be used to upgrade lab security at the
National Institutes of Health and at the CDC, and to improve security
at the U.S. Department of Agriculture labs, by hiring additional
inspectors for import inspections, food supply monitoring, and lab
equipment. There you are.
Now, the next section of the chart I wish to point out is the section
denominated ``Federal, State, and Local Antiterrorism Law Enforcement,
$3 billion.''
Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials have been working
around the clock since September 11. When it comes to law enforcement
and homeland defense--remember what the preamble said, ``provide for
the common defense''--this is where the rubber meets the road.
My package includes $3 billion for Federal, State, and local
antiterrorism law enforcement.
Of that $3 billion, this package includes $1 billion for Federal law
enforcement antiterrorism investments. This money would be used to
improve communications among Federal agencies, for the Coast Guard to
increase surveillance and improve communications with the Defense
Department and other civilian terrorist/disaster response agencies, for
the FAA to increase the number of safety inspectors and research on new
safety technologies, and for the Drug Enforcement Agency, the U.S.
Attorneys, the Judiciary, and the U.S. Marshals Service to improve
security in courtrooms, for example, camera, x-ray machines and mylar
on windows, and provide better facilities for police.
The remaining $2 billion would be allocated for State and local law
enforcement--again, State and local. Senators talk with your local
mayors. Talk with your mayors in your home States. Talk with the police
departments. See what they have to say.
The remaining $2 billion would be allocated for State and local
antiterrorism investments to improve the capacity of State and local
police departments across the Nation to prevent and respond to
terrorist attacks.
Municipal officials need billions of dollars--call them on the phone;
hear what they say--municipal officials need billions of dollars for
their cities' hazardous materials response teams to fully equip their
search and rescue

[[Page S11748]]

teams and to outfit the law enforcement officials who likely will be
first at the scene of a chemical or biological attack.
Remember the day before yesterday? Who were the first people to go
out to the scene of the plane crash? That wasn't a chemical or
biological attack, but it was a sudden and terrible emergency. Who were
the first? The policemen, the firemen, the paramedics.
Here is a letter addressed to me by the National Governors
Association, addressed to me and my counterpart on the Appropriations
Committee, Senator Ted Stevens. In writing to us about an economic
stimulus package, this letter from the National Governors Association
says:

Our recommendations also reflect the further deterioration
of states' fiscal positions as detailed in the
``economy.com'' report sent to you earlier this week. With
respect to our fiscal position,--

This is the National Governors Association talking now--

most states have made a series of spending cuts. Many are now
implementing a second round, and in some cases a third. A
number of states now have revenue shortfalls in excess of $1
billion and many are scheduling special legislative sessions
to address mounting fiscal problems.

And a Senator will soon make a point of order against this to say it
is not an emergency, that this situation that prevails over this
country and about which the National Governors Association is writing
is not an emergency. Tell that to the National Governors Association!
I read further from the letter:

The cumulative states' current revenue shortfall is $10
billion and growing. Moreover, new and unprecedented state
responsibilities for homeland security are exacerbating
serious fiscal conditions.

Let me read that sentence again for those who would say that this is
not an emergency. Here is what the Governors say: New and
unprecedented--what is an emergency? Something that is new,
unanticipated?

Moreover, new and unprecedented state responsibilities for
homeland security are exacerbating serious fiscal conditions.

Tell the Governors, tell the mayors, tell the chiefs of police of the
departments throughout the land that this is not an emergency that we
are dealing with and that a point of order should lie against this
amendment because it is not an emergency?
Mr. REID. May I ask the Senator a question?
Mr. BYRD. Yes. I am glad to yield.
Mr. REID. I know the Senator from West Virginia is a parliamentary
expert on what goes on in the Senate. Did I hear the Senator right; he
has heard, as I have, that they are going to raise a point of order
that the homeland defense part of the bill is not an emergency?
Mr. BYRD. Not an emergency.
Mr. REID. Am I hearing the Senator right, that there is going to be a
point of order raised that that which he has laid out dealing with our
security is not an emergency?
Mr. BYRD. Yes, that is exactly what they are going to say.
I say to all Senators, a point of order is going to be made against
this package because those who offer the point of order say it is not
an emergency and, therefore, it should be stricken from the bill. Not
an emergency? Let them tell that to the Governors of the country.

I continue to read the letter from the National Governors
Association:

Similarly, absent any changes in the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) or new federal
funding for HIPAA implementation in state-administered
programs, states will have little choice but to divert scarce
funds to comply with this federal mandate. This means that
significantly less state funds will be available for
education, critical state services, capital investment,
infrastructure improvement, and additional efforts to respond
to bioterrorism and other threats to homeland security.

Luke said, if the son asks his father for bread, will the father give
him a stone? Here are the cities of this land asking their elected
officials for ``bread'' as it were. Those who make the point of order
will say: Give them a stone. Let them eat stones. Let them have a stone
for security. Let them have a stone to protect them against a smallpox
epidemic; give them a stone!
I hope that Senators, when they vote on this point of order, will
understand that the people back home are going to remember all of us,
how we vote when the people, when the mayors, when the Governors, when
the law enforcement officers of this country ask for ``bread,'' when
they ask for security, when they ask for money to provide security to
those little towns and hamlets and cities all across this land, I hope
that those who vote for this iniquitous point of order, will be
remembered by the people of this country come the next election.
Let's talk now about the FEMA firefighters program. This package
contains $600 million in grants to State and local communities to
expand and improve firefighting programs through FEMA firefighting
grants. Over 50 percent of that funding goes to volunteer fire
departments in rural communities in the countryside, and the volunteer
fire department is the first and only entity available to deal with the
crisis.
Last year Congress took action to begin to address this serious
deficiency by creating a Federal program to provide direct assistance
to fire departments. Administered by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, FEMA, the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program received an
initial appropriation of $100 million. This funding was quickly
depleted by tremendous demand. The Agency received more than 31,000
applications, totaling nearly $3 billion in requested funds, almost 30
times the amount appropriated.
To those who would say that this package is wasteful spending, to
those who would say it is porkbarrel spending, I say that one-half, a
full 50 percent, would be allocated for bioterrorism prevention and
antiterrorism law enforcement; Federal, State, and local antiterrorism
law enforcement, $3 billion.
Now as to transportation vulnerabilities, much has been done in the
weeks following the September 11 attacks to improve our transportation
security. I am not talking about building highways at the moment--to
anyone whose skin might quiver at my use of the word
``transportation.'' This is transportation security. But each step we
have taken to plug the holes in our transportation security has
revealed another hole that must be filled. This package includes $2.2
billion to address simultaneously these vulnerabilities. Municipal
officials need funds to protect their mass transit system. Of that $2.2
billion, this package provides $1.2 billion for enhanced surveillance
of transit stations and improved emergency response systems.
Amtrak requires funding to address the critical safety
vulnerabilities of its facilities, including tunnels. Have you ever
gone through a tunnel on a train? Go to West Virginia. You will travel
through several tunnels on Amtrak. But this money that we are talking
about includes tunnels in and around New York City. It must improve its
station surveillance. Out of that $2.2 billion, this package provides
$760 million for that purpose. The purpose is this: Amtrak requires
funding to address the critical safety vulnerabilities of its
facilities, including tunnels in and around New York.
Another $150 million would be used to improve the security at our
Nation's ports, ferries, and freight rail. This is a recommendation by
Senator Fritz Hollings. I have been surprised to find that only 2
percent of the cargo that comes by sea to our Nation's ports is
inspected and only one-third of the cargo that crosses over the
boundaries by truck is inspected. This package finds moneys for
addressing these border and these port security needs.
Airport security. Airports have to respond to the substantial costs
of the FAA's new, rigorous security directives issued since September
11. Airports need funds to increase the visibility of law enforcement
personnel for deterring, identifying, and responding to potential
security threats. Additional staff is needed to conduct security and
employee identification checks throughout airports. Airports with
tighter budgets, particularly smaller airports in rural areas, are
unable to absorb these new costs. This package provides $1.2 billion to
hire law enforcement personnel to improve protection of secure areas at
airports.
We have read recently a great deal about postal security. The
distinguished Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, just a few days
ago--last week, as a matter of fact--as chairman of the Treasury Postal
appropriations

[[Page S11749]]

subcommittee, conducted hearings and had the Postal Service people up
before the subcommittee to testify. It was a great hearing. The Senator
from North Dakota rendered a tremendous service to the American people
in holding this hearing.
Today, the American public and Postal Service employees find
themselves the victims of terrorism by mail. The people are afraid to
open letters. I used to reach into the mailbox when I was hardly tall
enough to reach it; I would reach into the mailbox with glee and pull
out a letter. I remember the first letter that was written to me when I
was elected to the House. After I was sworn in as a Member of the House
of Representatives in 1953, the first letter that was written to me--
and I would have been 35 years old, so that was quite a long time
back--came from my two daughters, and it carried on it three 1-cent
stamps. We didn't have any fear of anthrax in those days. We used to
open the mail with our hearts beating in our chests, with thankfulness,
with expectation--but not expectation concerning a death-dealing
letter.

People today are afraid to open letters from distant kin. Suddenly
postal workers are confronting attacks from something much more
frightening than the vicious dogs that have long haunted the mail
routes. A letter from an unknown source today is reason to call 911.
America cannot function like this. America cannot go on functioning
like this. Remember that phrase in the preamble of the Constitution
about the ``general welfare''? America should not have to function like
this. This package contains $1.1 billion for this.
How much did the administration request? The Administration requested
$175 million. That is a drop in the bucket. This package contains $1.1
billion to begin to make the security changes necessary to keep the
mail moving and allow the Postal Service to respond to this and future
terrorist attacks.
Now, about the security of our borders, to which I alluded a little
while ago, for border security there is allotted $1.1 billion. Our
border security is dangerously underfunded. We want America to remain
always the land of the free, but we want it also to be protected. Our
borders must be secure. Our borders leak like a sieve. Try holding
water in a sieve. Our borders leak like a sieve, and the leaking should
cause us severe alarm.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service conducts some 500 million
inspections at our ports of entry each year--500 million inspections.
Hundreds of millions of visitors enter the country without visas
through the visa waiver program, or other legal exemptions. Yet how
many inspectors are there to process these hundreds of millions of
visitors? There are only 4,775 INS inspectors. Yes, you heard me. There
are only 4,775 INS inspectors to process these hundreds of millions of
visitors. That is 1 inspector--just 1--for every 104,712 foreign
nationals who cross our borders.
Just to make it easy, call it 100,000, rounding it. So you have one
inspector--just one--for every 100,000 foreign nationals who cross our
borders. And, some Senators would make a point of order against this
package to say that it is not an emergency? When our borders leak like
a sieve, they say that this is not an emergency?
The U.S. Customs Service currently has the resources to inspect only
2 percent of the cargo arriving by sea. It inspects only about one-
third of the truck cargo crossing the southern border. Almost nothing
is more urgent than to quickly move to close these hideous gaps in our
ability to monitor the goods and people who move across our borders.
This package provides $1.1 billion for additional Border Patrol
agents and screening facilities, primarily on the northern border, and
to fully implement database improvement projects.
It is not enough that we authorize these additional expenditures in
the antiterrorism bill. It is an empty promise if we fail to provide
the resources to back up that authorization. We must provide the funds,
and we must do so quickly.
The next item on my chart is designated as Federal computer
modernization, $1 billion. There are more than 40 Federal agencies and
tens of thousands of Federal workers who are working together to fight
terrorism, but many of these agencies cannot pass along to each other
information on suspected terrorists. They cannot pass that information
along. Their computer systems simply do not work together. Their
computer systems do not talk to one another.
This package provides $1 billion for Federal computer system
improvements so that Federal agencies that participate in our
counterterrorism program can communicate with each other and provide
more comprehensive information about threats and those who would carry
them out. And, there are those who would say a point of order will lie
against this because we do not have an emergency! Computer
compatibility is critical to our ability to rapidly assess threats and
to respond to them throughout the Nation.
How about those nuclear powerplants? How about those electric power
projects? How about those national landmarks such as the Washington
Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, the Statue of Liberty that beckons to
peoples from across the sea? We need only to look across the Potomac to
comprehend the threat to our Federal facilities and national landmarks
in this war on terror.
I will never forget that day standing in my Capitol office. I was one
of those slow movers. I will not be slow the next time. The next time
those police tell me to get out of this building, I am going, and I
will get out of there ahead of the police.
But that day I was slow moving. ``Why should I go, I said?'' ``I will
not be any safer out there than I am in here,'' so I was slow to move.
I looked out the window on the morning of September 11 and watched the
smoke rise from the direction of the Pentagon. Any Federal building or
national landmark in this country could be the next target. This
Capitol could be the next target.
In October, the CIA received a warning from an intelligence service
in Western Europe about the possibility of a terrorist attack on the
Three Mile Island nuclear facility in Pennsylvania. While the threat
later proved not to be credible, it underscored the breadth of the
danger to our homeland--to our homeland, America the beautiful.
The State police and the National Guard have stepped up patrols of
these plants, and the Coast Guard is enforcing new rules barring boats
from the waters near any nuclear plant. Likewise, utilities around the
country have stepped up security at their plants since the September 11
terrorist attacks, but utility officials admit that the Nation's power
grid is just too large to be fully protected from wanton attacks.
My proposal includes $900 million to increase security at Federal
facilities throughout the country, at nuclear plants, at our national
treasures, such as the Washington Monument. Some of that funding would
be directed toward enhancing security at State Department facilities.
These security precautions are essential. These are investments that
will have to be made in the future if we are to cope with the
continuing threat of terrorism.
Mr. President, over 6 weeks ago, on October 2, an agreement was
reached with the administration so that the Congress could act
expeditiously on the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill. That
agreement to limit spending in the 13 appropriations bills to $686
billion is being fully implemented.
The Senate has passed this fiscal year appropriations bills on a
bipartisan basis by an average vote of 91 to 7. That is bipartisan, is
it not, an average vote of 91 for and 7 against on all of the
appropriations bills that have thus been passed? We lack only one of
the 13 bills, one that has not been passed by the Senate.
We have lived up to our agreement. The Senate has lived up to its
agreement. Republicans and Democrats on both sides of the aisle have
lived up to this agreement. However, there was no agreement to limit
our response to the September 11 attacks in the $40 billion
appropriations supplemental passed on September 14. Who could have
foreseen those two planes plowing head on into the brick and mortar,
the cement, the steel of those Twin Towers? Is this an emergency? Who
could have foreseen that? Who could have foreseen how the world would
change? Who could have foreseen the emergency responses that would be
required?

[[Page S11750]]

In the weeks since, the reality of our post-September 11 world has
taken hold, has seized the American psyche. We are now faced with
security threats that were not foreseen last month, that were not
foreseen the month before last, that were not foreseen and still seem
unimaginable, the stuff of nightmares. Anthrax appeared like a vampire
in the night, sapping us of our customary optimism. The threat of
smallpox may face us for the first time in more than 20 years.
Since October 2, the Attorney General has issued another warning
about an eminent terrorist attack.
That is since October 2. That is since the letter referring to the
agreement concerning the top line of $686 billion. We have received
information about a possible terrorist attack on the Three Mile Island
nuclear facility in Pennsylvania since October 2, that letter of
agreement among the executive and legislative branches that the top
line would be $686 billion.
The National Guard troops have been dispatched to protect the Golden
Gate Bridge since October 2.
The President has given the American people a pep talk. God bless
him. He is a nice fellow. I like him. The President has given the
American people a pep talk telling them they are now living in a
different world and urging them to answer a call to war in our own
land.
And yet, there are those who would say this is not an emergency? Yet,
we have war, not just in Afghanistan but also in our own land. Tell
that to the farmer sitting by that cold stove on the plains. Tell that
to the coal miner as he emerges from the dark bowels of the earth after
a hard day's work. Tell that to the mother who has children she takes
to school in her own automobile. Tell all of these that there is no
emergency. Tell them that there is no war going on.
A few days ago, President Bush asked the House and Senate leadership
and the Appropriations Committee chairmen and ranking members to come
to the White House; let us reason together. He wanted us to come to the
White House to discuss the completion of the appropriations bills. I
went.
While the meeting was intended to be a discussion as a need to
provide additional funding in response to the attacks of September 11,
the President used the meeting as an opportunity to tell us that he
would veto the Defense appropriations bill if Congress included
additional spending beyond the $686 billion top line for the 13
appropriations bills and the $40 billion level approved by Congress on
September 14 in response to the September 11 attacks.
I assure the Senate that we are not breaking the $686 billion top
line agreement on spending in the fiscal year 2002 bill. We have worked
hard in the Senate to produce bipartisan bills that conform to that
October 2 agreement. We took a handshake, and it was an old-time
handshake. We are keeping our word. So far, the Senate has passed 12 of
the 13 bills by an average vote of 91 to 7. Each of those bills has
been consistent with the $686 billion top line.
After the House takes up the defense bill, the Senate will take up a
$317 billion defense bill that would also conform with the $686 billion
deal. However, $40 billion approved by Congress on September 14 is
clearly not enough to respond to the September 11 attacks.
Why is $40 billion not enough? The President has proposed that $21
billion of the $40 billion go to DOD, and that $1.5 billion go to
foreign aid programs. The President has proposed less than $9 billion
for New York.
Hear me, Governor Pataki, hear me! The President has proposed less
than $9 billion for New York City despite our promise of $20 billion to
New York City. That leaves less than $9 billion for homeland defense,
and that is simply not enough.
One cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. One cannot make a
violin out of a cigar box.
That leaves us with a choice of not meeting our commitment to New
York or not providing for a strong homeland defense. That is a choice I
do not want to make. That is a choice I will not make. That simply is
not acceptable. That is not living up to our word. That is not keeping
our commitment. That is breaking our word.
The world has changed. The world has changed since Congress approved
the $40 billion supplemental on September 14. The threat of terrorism
is no longer theoretical. It is real. When Congress approved the $40
billion package, we were only beginning to learn of the extent of the
damage and the anthrax attacks that had occurred. The President's
proposal does not provide sufficient resources for responding to the
threat of bioterrorism or threats to the American food supply. Nor does
it include sufficient resources to protect our Nation's transportation
system for our airports, mass transit, river ports, seaports, or
Amtrak. Nor does it provide sufficient resources to improve security at
our borders or to improve security at nuclear powerplants and labs, or
at our Nation's dams and reservoirs. That is why I have included $15
billion for homeland defense in this bill.
On November 7, several press reports indicated the White House is
weary that any additional spending approved now will be built upon in
coming years, and I shall quote an AP story.
What it had to say is this: Possibly forces President Bush to
confront an endless stream of budget deficits just as he prepares for
reelection in 2004.
Watch out now. In order to respond to the White House anxiety about
this spending, I intend to offer an amendment, if I have the
opportunity to do so. Let me offer this amendment. I intend to offer an
amendment to direct the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of
Management and Budget to not include the funds contained in the
homeland defense title of this bill in any calculations of so-called
baseline spending for fiscal year 2003 and future years. So I say to
the White House, go to sleep, sleep quietly. Sleep soundly, White
House. Let me offer this amendment. This amendment will wipe away those
fears.

Under this amendment, these homeland defense funds would not be used
to inflate the amount of spending necessary to maintain current
services in future years. I remind my colleagues, without this
amendment the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management
and Budget would be expected to add over $177 billion--it would start
with $15 billion--to add over $177 billion over the next 10 years. That
is not my intent. That is why I have an amendment ready.
Let me say to all Senators, this Senator has no hidden agenda in
offering this package, no hidden agenda. I assure Senators and assure
the Senate that the $15 billion in spending contained in this bill is
not intended to result in a permanent increase in spending. This
spending is intended to address the clear inadequacy of Federal, State,
and local capabilities to respond to a clear and present danger to our
homeland defense.
I am not interested in playing the game of baseline bingo. The
amendment I offer would make it clear that it is a one-time $15 billion
expenditure. I hope a point of order will not be made.
We must have a recrudescence of confidence in the determination of
our elected officials to recognize terrorist attacks before they happen
and take every possible step to minimize them if they do. The
administration has responded to this by advocating additional money for
bioterrorism prevention and additional National Guard troops at our
Nation's airports. That is necessary, but it is not enough. We cannot
expect the American people to take comfort in our efforts if we only
address the threat of the day, whether it be anthrax or airline
security. We cannot wait until there is an attack on a nuclear
facility. We cannot wait until there is an attack on our mass transit
system. We cannot wait until there is an attack on our food supply
before we react. We have to take preventive steps now before an attack
kills more of our innocent citizens. We must anticipate our
vulnerability, not wait for them to be shown to us on CNN.
The economy will continue to rise and fall, like the tides of the
sea, but a sense of security for the American people is something that
must not be allowed to wax and wane. The Congress has the opportunity
before it adjourns for the year to show the American people that their
elected officials have made every effort to prevent future terrorist
attacks. We can take preemptive steps to combat terrorism on the
homefront, with a health care system that can respond to bioterrorism,
a

[[Page S11751]]

safer food supplier, more secure airports and railroads, stringent
border security, and State and local law enforcement that is trained
and prepared to handle a terrorist attack.
It is not enough that we make improvements to airport security or
bioterrorism prevention. We cannot protect ourselves if we only focus
on our vulnerabilities after they have been exploited by homicidal
maniacs. We must be more prepared than that. A focus on every aspect of
our homeland defense is essential in order to reveal and repair every
weakness that we may find.
These are basic safety precautions. These basic safety precautions
must be implemented before the Congress adjourns for the year. We
cannot wait for another year and another Congress to convene before we
come to grips with the horrible reality of another disaster like the
Twin Towers or the deadly attack on the Pentagon. Every man, woman, and
child in America expects our utmost now. Let us act before it is too
late.
Mr. President, this is an emergency. On a monument to Benjamin Hill--
great Senator and great orator--to be seen in the city of Atlanta, GA,
are these words:

Who saves his country, saves all things, saves himself, and
all things saved do bless him. Who lets his country die, lets
all things die, dies himself ignobly and all things dying
curse him!

Mr. President, let us act to save our country.

[From the Washington Times, Nov. 14, 2001]

State Department Fears Another Anthrax-Tainted Letter

(By Guy Taylor)

The State Department said yesterday it is searching
worldwide for another anthrax-tainted letter.
At least one letter like the one sent to Senate Majority
Leader Tom Daschle is packed in with State Department mail
that was halted last month, said the department's top
spokesman, Richard Boucher.
Meanwhile, the last of the Washington-area survivors of
inhalation anthrax left the hospital yesterday after a 25-day
stay.
Leroy Richmond, 57, of Stafford County, Va., is believed to
have contracted the disease when the Daschle letter went
through the District's Brentwood Mail Processing Center.
Another Brentwood postal worker left the hospital Friday,
the same day an employee at a State Department mail-handling
facility in Sterling, Va., went home.
The State Department closed its mail system Oct. 24 when
the Sterling employee came down with inhalation anthrax. It
also notified posts worldwide to seal and shut down pouch
mail.
Mr. Boucher said eight out of 55 samples taken from the
Sterling facility tested positive for anthrax. Two of the
samples came from two separate mail sorters and six were
found on a third sorter.
The high concentration of spores on a single sorter
indicates ``that there is a letter like the one sent to Sen.
Daschle that has moved through our mail system,'' Mr. Boucher
said. ``We are now proceeding to go look at all the mail that
we have held up, frozen, sealed off, in mailrooms in this
building, annexes and around the world.''
Officials have to assume that there is a contaminated
letter of some kind in the system, and that it will
eventually be found in a mailroom or pouch bag, he said. ``If
there had been a letter that had gone beyond that into our
system, we assume by now we would have seen it.''
As officials were looking for the real anthrax letter
yesterday, the U.S. Capitol police were dealing with reports
of a phony one found on the desk of one of their own
officers.
The officer has been suspended and accused of leaving a
note and a powdery substance at his post in the Cannon House
office building.
The substance was not hazardous but the department was
taking the situation very seriously, according to U.S.
Capitol Police Lt. Dan Nichols.
Federal officials during recent weeks have tried to get
across the message to anthrax hoaxers that their pranks will
be penalized harshly.
In a radio address last week, President Bush said ``sending
false alarms is a serious criminal offense.''
Lt. Nichols said a criminal investigation into the incident
is under way and findings will be sent to the U.S. Attorney's
Office and the police department's internal affairs division.
The suspended officer was not identified. If convicted of a
hoax, he faces up to five years in prison and as much as $3
million in fines.
``He's been accused of this, and he's suspended without
pay, but he hasn't been charged with anything yet,'' said Jim
Forbes, a spokesman for U.S. Rep. Bob Ney, Ohio Republican,
who heads the committee that oversees U.S. Capitol Police.
Mr. Forbes said there is no reason this officer would be
exempt from charges similar to those faced by other anthrax
hoaxers.
``He's not exempt from anything,'' Mr. Forbes said.
____

[From the Washington Post, Nov. 7, 2001]

HHS Set To Order Smallpox Vaccine for All Americans

(By Ceci Connolly)

Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson said
yesterday that he expects to sign a contract his weekend to
purchase enough smallpox vaccine for every American but that
he has warned the White House the cost could be quadruple the
$509 million he originally estimated--or equivalent to the
department's entire $1.9 billion bioterrorism budget.
Thompson said that he was disappointed the bids from three
companies came in around $8 a dose but that he hopes to
settle on a lower price in final negotiations on Friday, as
he did in his recent talks on the antibiotic Cipro.
In addition to the 54 million doses already on order,
Thompson said he plans to stockpile 250 million doses of new
vaccine, or enough for ``every man, woman and child'' in the
country.
The previously announced administration effort to vaccinate
all Americans against smallpox, a deadly disease that was
eradicated in the 1970's, took on a renewed sense of urgency
as one of the leading smallpox authorities warned it was
conceivable that former Soviet scientists were helping to
``weaponize'' the smallpox virus for nations such as Iran,
Iraq, Libya and North Korea.
Many [Russian] scientists are really quite desperate for
money,'' said Donald A. Henderson, director of the new Office
of Public Health Preparedness. U.S. intelligence indicates
that several have been recruited by ``rogue states'' and were
in a position to smuggle out a vial of the virus, he said.
``That's a very great worry.''
In addition, Henderson said, there is evidence that the
former Soviet Union succeeded in weaponizing the virus and
manufactured up to 100 tons annually at a plant outside
Moscow. He described experiments in which the Soviets planned
to place smallpox warheads atop intercontinental ballistic
missiles. It is unclear whether any warheads were tested.
``We do not have the confidence that the Russians are not
at this moment proceeding with research on biological
weapons,'' Henderson said, noting that as recently as the
early 1990s Russian scientists tried to combine the smallpox
and Ebola viruses in search of an even deadlier agent.
As the man who led the effort to eradicate smallpox in the
1970s, Henderson is familiar with the potential consequences
of a reemergence of the disease. Because it is contagious and
cannot be treated with existing drugs, its virus is widely
considered to be the most potent biological weapon.
``The likelihood of a smallpox release is much smaller than
an anthrax release,'' he said. ``We're worried about it
because it could be far more serious.''
A person infected with smallpox often develops a fever and,
later, a rash. Smallpox vaccine administered within two or
three days of exposure has been effective in preventing the
illness from developing, he said. Historically, 30 percent of
people infected with the smallpox virus have died, he said,
estimating that the eradication of the disease two decades
ago has saved 60 million people and protected 240 million
others from illness.
Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the subsequent
anthrax attacks, Henderson has advocated an aggressive
smallpox strategy, including the stockpiling of vaccine. He
reiterated yesterday that he would not support widespread,
mandatory vaccination but that he wants to have the vaccine
on hand in the event of an attack.
``A smallpox outbreak anywhere in the world is potentially
an international disaster,'' Henderson said at a bioterrorism
conference at the Johns Hopkins Paul H. Nitze School of
Advanced International Studies. For that reason, he said,
federal health officials have begun informal talks with
Japan, Brazil and several countries in Europe on the
stockpiling of smallpox vaccine.
If even a single case emerged, Henderson said, he would
assume that it was the work of terrorists and would rapidly
order quarantines and vaccinations to ``build a barrier of
immunity.''
The United States has about 15.4 million doses of the old
smallpox vaccine available, and government researchers say it
may be possible to dilute those doses to vaccinate 50 million
to 77 million people. Thompson recently expanded and
accelerated a contract with OraVex Inc. (subsequently bought
by British drugmaker Acambis PLC) for the delivery of 54
million doses by the end of next year.
A task force appointed by Thompson is reviewing the three
bids and debating safety, efficacy and possible human
clinical trials. Already, hundreds of volunteers in the
United States are receiving the vaccine as part of a rushed
study on the efficacy of diluting the old vaccine.
Later this week, newly formed smallpox teams at the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention will take a crash course
on the virus with two former CDC experts. The class will
focus on identifying, isolating and treating the disease,
said spokesman Tom Skinner. More than 100 CDC epidemiologists
have also received the vaccine, he said.

[From the Washington Post, Nov. 7, 2001]

Social Security Checks Late, Recipients Say

(By Spencer S. Hsu)

The number of District residents who said the Social
Security pension or disability

[[Page S11752]]

payments are missing doubled this month, with many of the
complaints coming from neighborhoods served by the now-closed
Brentwood mail distribution center.
Deborah Fowler, 35, said she and several other people who
live in the 20019 Zip code have not received checks that
normally arrive the first of each month. Her Northeast
neighborhood is across the Anacostia River from Robert F.
Kennedy Memorial Stadium.
Fowler said that employees at nearby post offices told her
the checks may be lost and that the Social Security
Administration said it would take seven to 10 days to issue a
replacement check.
``We still have to pay rent. If the rent's not paid, there
are late fees on everything,'' Fowler said.
Since Brentwood closed Oct. 21 because of anthrax
contamination, the District's mail has been processed through
distribution centers in the suburbs. Deborah Yackley, a
spokeswoman for the Postal Service, acknowledged that some
mail, including some Social Security checks, may be delayed
because of the temporary arrangement.
Chris Williams, a Social Security Administration spokesman,
said people who have not received checks should sign up for
direct deposit of payments to a bank account, call the
agency's toll-free number (1-800-772-1213) to request a
replacement check and contact their local Social Security
office for immediate relief.
``We don't have a hard and fast rule, it's basically up to
the discretion of the case manager,'' Williams said of the
later request. ``We can certainly give them payment very
quickly on the amount of money they're due.''
Williams said 245 D.C. recipients have reported missing
checks, compared to fewer than 100 in a typical month. About
93,000 residents receive monthly payments, 30,000 of them
through the mail.

software technology industry

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment of the
distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, Mr. Byrd. The chairman has put together this
very well conceived $15 billion package of appropriations to address
the Homeland security needs as quickly as humanly possible.
I call to the attention of the distinguished Senator from West
Virginia the devastating impact that the tragic events of September 11,
2001 had upon the software/information technology industry in and
around New York City. Eighty-five percent of these software/information
technology companies employ less than 100 persons. The survival of this
industry is vital to the recovery efforts of New York City and to the
national interest. Accordingly, it would be my hope that, in their
administration of the programs for which funding is provided herein,
all agencies are strongly encouraged to develop proposals which, to the
maximum extent possible, take into account the dire circumstances faced
by these companies.
Would the chairman agree?
Mr. BYRD. I thank the junior Senator from New York for her support of
my amendment. Yes, I do agree with the Senator that the various
agencies which receive funding under my amendment should take notice of
this colloquy and take all appropriate action to encourage applicants
to work with the companies which the Senator from New York has
described.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I know the Senator from Texas has been here for several
hours and I will finish in one moment.
I say to the Senator from West Virginia, I was privileged to be able
to listen to the speech, and I am better for having done it. I have so
much respect and admiration for the Senator. One thing that always
amazes me is the great memory of Senator Byrd, reciting the signers of
the Constitution from memory, and of course ending the remarks with
this statement of Senator Hill. I appreciate very much having the
privilege of listening to the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished whip.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, first I thank Senator Byrd for his speech.
I want to clarify exactly where we are, exactly what the rules of the
Senate are, the issues I believe are involved, and then I will make a
point of order. I think I can do all that fairly briefly.
We have before the Senate a bill which is the House bill, H.R. 3090.
That bill has been brought to the floor of the Senate. Now there is an
amendment to that bill in the nature of a substitute, which is pending.
Part of that substitute is Senator Byrd's $15 billion amendment, but
$67 billion has to do with tax and spending provisions as diverse as
giving Federal funding for health insurance for the unemployed and an
innumerable list of large and small items to be given some form of
subsidy or tax treatment.
In the 2001 budget, we reached a conclusion about a provision we
added to the old Gramm-Rudman law in 1990, which gave emergency
designations, where you wrote a budget, the budget was binding, but if
the Congress and the President agreed, there was not a point of order
against a provision. It was decided in the 2001 budget that this
process had been greatly abused and so it was changed. It was changed
so there would still be an emergency provision for defense-related
matters, but there would not be an emergency provision to waive or get
by the budget constraints that we had imposed on ourselves for non-
defense matters.

The point of order that I will make is not a point of order that
Senator Byrd's provisions are not emergencies. They are not a point of
order against provisions that would use poultry waste to create energy.
It is simply a point of order that says we do not have a procedure
whereby you can protect yourself in advance against a budget point of
order except in strictly defined areas related to national defense, so
that the waiver that is written into the bill is basically a waiver
which is banned under the budget process as it was amended by the 2001
budget. That is the point of order that I will make.
Senator Byrd has given a list of concerns that we all share. I do not
believe any Member of the Senate is less concerned about security of
our homeland and our people than any other Member of the Senate. The
President, whether he is right or whether he is wrong, said the $40
billion that we have given him, which he is in the process of
spending--$20 billion of which we will have an opportunity to set
partial priorities on--is sufficient through the end of the year. At
the beginning of next year, if more funds are needed, he would like the
opportunity as President to review the need, to involve the Cabinet
officers and members of the executive branch and potentially
independent agencies in doing a comprehensive review, and to send a
request to the Congress for those funds.
The question proposed by the Byrd amendment, which is only a small
part of the bill against which I make a point of order, is the basic
approach that we should act now and that we should set these priorities
as Congress. I believe it is a joint process involving the President
and the Congress. The President has said that he would veto a bill that
breaks the budget caps, even with the best of objectives. I make this
point of order, not because it solves our problem by killing the
underlying substitute, but because I see it as an important step in the
right direction.
The problem is we have our ideas as Republicans. Democrats have their
ideas as Democrats. In this case, for the first time since September
11, we in the Senate have not successfully been able to come together
on a bipartisan basis. So rather than spending the rest of this week
making partisan speeches where Democrats point out and vilify some part
of the Republican stimulus proposal and we pick out some small
provision and burrow in on it--rather than waste the week in doing
that, my objective in making the point of order is to make it clear
that the provision before us cannot pass and begin the process whereby
we go into negotiations, hopefully involving the House and the Senate,
Democrats and Republicans and the White House, to try to come up with a
stimulus package.
I think the American people want us to work together. Working
together means I am not going to get everything I want. Our Democrat
colleagues are not going to get everything they want. But in the end, I
believe we can produce something that will be worthy of being adopted.
Mr. President, I make a point of order that section 909 of amendment
No. 2125 to H.R. 3090 is in violation of section 205 of House
Concurrent Resolution 290, the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution.
Sustaining this point of order will not bring down the bill itself. The
House bill will still be there. It will then be subject to amendment if
we work out a bipartisan compromise. But it will pull down the
committee substitute.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

[[Page S11753]]

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to waive section 205 of H. Con.
Res. 290, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001,
for the purposes of the pending amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
underlying amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to this request?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
Mr. REID. Objection to what?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the
Senator from Texas.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and
nays be ordered on the underlying committee substitute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to it being in order to
request the yeas and nays?
Mr. REID. I want to be sure the record is clear it is the Baucus
substitute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BYRD. I object to the request. As I understand it, the Senator is
asking the yeas and nays be ordered by unanimous consent. I am opposed
to that.
Mr. GRAMM. Will the Senator please yield?
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. GRAMM. We had gotten the yeas and nays on the point of order
before I had an opportunity. We had talked to the leadership on your
side about ordering the yeas and nays on the amendment. And because we
had ordered the yeas and nays on the point of order, it was not in
order for me to simply request it. So, therefore, I asked unanimous
consent.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Texas yield?
Mr. GRAMM. Yes.
Mr. REID. I would say through you to my friend from West Virginia,
the Senator from Texas indicated to us he was going to ask for the yeas
and nays on the Baucus amendment. We acknowledge he was going to do
that. From a parliamentary standpoint, he should have done that before
he raised the point of order. Now that he raised the point of order, he
can't ask for the yeas and nays unless it is by unanimous consent. As
far as we are concerned over here, at least me representing the
arrangement we had earlier in the day, we knew that is what you were
going to do. I would say to my friend from West Virginia, if you have
some objection, that is the status of the parliamentary procedure. We
knew he was going to do it. He didn't do it when he should have.
Mr. BYRD. Is the Senator asking unanimous consent that the yeas and
nays be ordered?
Mr. GRAMM. I could ask it either way. I could ask unanimous consent
it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays. Why don't I do that.
I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to ask for the yeas and
nays on the underlying Baucus amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
underlying Baucus amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold his request for a
quorum call?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I withdraw my suggestion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I was present for most of the presentation
by my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Byrd. I will not repeat
much of what he described as an emergency with respect to the
provisions that he has offered dealing with homeland defense.
But there is a time, it seems to me, for leadership. I recall reading
in John Adams's book a letter he had written to his wife, Abigail, in
which he described the difficult times in trying to form this new
country and find leadership. He expressed great woe to his wife,
Abigail, saying: Where are the leaders? Where are the people who will
rise up and provide leadership at this urgent time in this country?
Then he lamented: There is only us: Washington, Jefferson, Franklin,
Madison.
Of course, over a couple of centuries we have discovered that the
``only us'' represented some of the greatest leadership in human
history.
But I think it is important to ask again, Where is the leadership
when we need leadership?
We have an economy that is in very difficult trouble. The economy was
very weak prior to September 11. But on September 11, terrorist attacks
cut a hole in the belly of this country's economy.
The question for us is, What do we do? Do we do nothing? Do we say
this is simply the normal movements of an economy, the expansion and
contraction of an economy, or do we recognize that something different
and unusual has happened that requires an urgent response by the U.S.
Congress? I believe the latter is the case.
We have an economy in which we have buyers and sellers, consumers and
producers, demand and supply, and we have an economy in which for two
centuries in a market system we have expansion and contraction. It is
called the business cycle. No one has been able to interrupt the
business cycle very much. We can establish some stabilizers here in
Congress to try to even out some of the movement of the economy, but
the business cycle is central. It is like the tide. But we are not here
to talk about the business cycle. We are here to talk about an economy
that was on a down cycle in the contraction phase when on September 11
it was dealt an enormous blow.
As a result, we have had hundreds of thousands of people having to go
home at night and say to their family: I have lost my job. Last month
alone, 415,000 people had to go home and tell their family: I have lost
my job. It wasn't my fault, I am sure they said, but I have lost my
job.
This economy is in very deep trouble. This Congress has a very
substantial responsibility at some point to come together with this
President and find ways to respond to it.
There are a couple of proposals we have offered today. One is a set
of proposals by Senator Baucus, and the other is a set of expenditures
dealing with homeland defense offered by Senator Byrd. Both of them
have the capacity to provide a lift to this economy. Both of them
represent a menu of items that will be helpful to an economy during
troubled times.
Some others say: Well, this economy works only when you pour
something in the top and it filters down to the bottom. That is
trickle-down economics. Even during tough times, we see those who
believe in the trickle-down theory at work to formulate a package to
try to deal with what is called ``economic recovery'' or ``stimulus''--
kind of representing the trickle-down approach. Just pour something in
the top and somehow it all comes down to the bottom.

We have seen during tough times on other occasions where some had the
responsibility and said: Let's do nothing. Let's just sit for a while
and see what happens. Let's just wait and see.
Herbert Hoover had that notion. He said: We will wait and see and let
everything take its course. He felt there was no need for intervention.
Of course, we sank deeper and deeper into a recession and then a
depression.
We know from those experiences that there are things we can do. We
also know from the experiences of the past century or so that this
economy rests on a mattress of hope and confidence. If people aren't
confident, they do things that express their concern about the future.
They defer decisions to make purchases of cars or homes or to take
vacations and so on. If they are confident, they make exactly the
opposite judgment. They feel secure about a job. They feel good about
the future.

[[Page S11754]]

They take that vacation, buy that car and invest in that home. This is
all about confidence.
I have said before that some view this system of ours like the engine
room in a ship of state. If you just go to the engine room and take a
look at all the gauges, dials, nozzles, and letters, then adjust all of
them--M-1B over here, and investment tax credits over there, and
accelerated depreciation--you just get all these knobs and letters and
dials going just right and somehow the ship of state comes along. In
fact, that is not the case at all.
There is a lot we don't know about the economy. What we do know,
however, is that engine room in the ship of state runs almost
exclusively on the American people's confidence about our country and
its future. How do we at this point in time respond when we had a
troubled economy, then that economy took this horrible blow on
September 11, and as a result of that we see a contraction, hundreds of
thousands of families losing their jobs? How do we then respond? What
do we do to offer confidence to the American people?
The September 11 tragedy was followed by the anthrax attacks in
several places in this country. It has been very unsettling to the
American people--being attacked in this country through the mail and
using the Postal Service as a delivery mechanism for terror. It has
caused great concern to virtually everyone.
In fact, a county sheriff in North Dakota called my office about a
week or so ago and said someone in his county had called him. They had
gotten a letter from me and wondered whether it was safe to open a
letter from Senator Dorgan because they heard about all of this
anthrax. All of a sudden, they get a letter from Washington, DC, in the
mailbox. I was responding to their letter, perhaps. They wondered
whether it was safe.
In every part of the country people worry about these issues.
You have the September 11 terrorist attack--this act of mass murder
by mad men. Then you have the anthrax attack. Then you have an economy
that is in very deep trouble. Last month's figures show 415,000 people
are now newly unemployed. What do we do about that?
The interesting thing about the newly unemployed is in almost all
cases they are the people at the bottom going up the economic ladder.
They are the people who know about secondhand, second shifts, second
mortgages, and second jobs. They are the folks who deal with all of
those issues in their daily lives. Now they deal with the issue of
being laid off. The question for Congress from them is, What can we do
here? What can we do to try to get them back on their feet?

That is a way of saying that part of this stimulus package must be to
address those issues. Addressing those issues, according to almost all
economists, is to provide stimulus to this economy.
Nearly one-half of the people who have been laid off don't have
unemployment benefits at all. Providing unemployment benefits and
extending it for those who do have it is a certain way to put some
money into this economy. It is important to do so. These are folks who
were working and who were laid off through no fault of their own. They,
too, are victims of terrorism.
When we debate these issues, we have some who do not think those
folks are very important. They say that is spending. Just spending on
those folks is not the right thing. During every economic downturn we
have had, our first responsibility was to help those who needed help--
to provide a helping hand, to reach out and say they are not alone.
Will Rogers talked about the inclination of some with whom we serve.
It has been ageless, of course. He said:

The unemployed here ain't eating regular, but we will get
round to them as soon as we get everybody else fixed up OK.

It seems to me, part of a package to provide hope and encouragement
to this country and to try to stimulate this economy is to take a look
at those who have been victims of these terrorist attacks and victims
of a downturn in this economy and say to them: We can give you some
help.
Nearly every economist in this country says when you extend
unemployment benefits to help to those people who have lost their jobs,
this is money that goes right into the economy.
Some have said--in fact, I have heard it in recent days--if you
provide unemployment benefits, it reduces the urge for those folks to
look for work. Look for work? They were working. They lost their jobs
because of the economy. Does anybody think any one of these people
would have chosen not to work? Half of them do not have unemployment
benefits. Does anybody here think they would have chosen that
unfortunate circumstance where they have to go home after work some
night and say, ``By the way, I want you to know, I have lost my job?''
I do not think that is something that someone would choose. We have a
responsibility to help.
So Will Rogers described the circumstances that still exist.
Fortunately, it exists only in a small pocket here in the Congress.
Most people understand the responsibility to do this.
We need to extend unemployment benefits. We need to provide some
short-term help with the health insurance needs of those unemployed
folks called COBRA. We can do all of that.
Now let me turn, just for a moment, to the remarks of Senator Byrd,
because what he said is very important. Part of economic recovery in
this country is, as I said, giving people confidence about this
country, where we are headed, and what kind of security exists. So the
package that Senator Byrd offers today is one that deals with homeland
defense, bioterrorism prevention and response, and food safety. I went
to a dock in Seattle, WA, one day just to see what happens at these
docks. I come from a State that does not have dock facilities. We are a
landlocked State right in the middle of our country, the State of North
Dakota. So I was at the Seattle docks, talking to people about what is
coming into our ports and how they deal with it. I saw these container
ships being unloaded with these large cranes. Then they took me over to
an inspection site. They opened the back of one of these containers,
which was now resting on an 18-wheel truck, because they just drive
these trucks underneath and drop the container, and then run the trucks
off someplace to the rest of the country.

What they had opened was a container of frozen broccoli from Poland.
It was bagged in, I believe, 100-pound bags. They took a knife and
opened a bag of this frozen broccoli from Poland.
I asked the people who were showing me all of this: Do you know where
this broccoli was produced in Poland? Do you have any idea?
They said: Oh, no, we wouldn't have any idea about that.
I asked: Do you have any idea what kind of chemicals were applied to
this frozen broccoli from Poland?
They said: No, we wouldn't have any notion of that.
I asked: How many of these containers with frozen broccoli or frozen
asparagus or peas, or whatever else is coming in in our food supply,
are actually opened? The one you open, you do not know much about. All
you can tell is it is green and frozen and it is a vegetable, but how
many of these containers actually get opened?
They said: Oh, probably just 2 or 3 percent. The rest of them just
move right on through.
It is a steel container with frozen vegetables, and it hits these
shores. It is put on top of 18-wheelers, and off it goes someplace to a
distribution center and then someplace to a restaurant and then
someplace to a dinner plate. And we do not have the foggiest idea how
it was produced, what chemicals were used or whether someone deciding
to introduce bioterrorism in America's food supply found a way into
that container. We do not have the foggiest notion about what the
circumstances are with that broccoli.
Senator Byrd, in his proposal, says that, too, is an issue of
homeland defense, protecting America's food supply. Should American
consumers, with the threat of bioterrorism, inspect more than 2 percent
of the food coming into this country, of those commodities coming into
this country? I believe they should inspect more than that. So that is
homeland defense.
Senator Byrd's homeland defense proposal also invests in State and
local antiterrorism law enforcement. Investing in that kind of law
enforcement is

[[Page S11755]]

not only necessary, it also improves confidence. It also will stimulate
confidence in this economy.
Remember, on September 11, while we all watched television, with
great horror, others in this country were doing something quite
different. Men and women, making $40,000 and $50,000 a year, wearing
the badges of law enforcement and firefighters, were running up the
stairs of the Trade Center. They were running up the stairs on the
20th, 30th, 40th, and 50th floors. And as people evacuated those
buildings, they saw the first responders--the firefighters and law
enforcement folks--going up. They did not do it because of their
salary. They do not make much money. They did it because they were the
first responders required to protect this country and their city.

State and local antiterrorism law enforcement, Senator Byrd says in
his proposal. Do we need that kind of investment? You bet we do in
virtually every reach of this country.
FEMA firefighters grant program: Absolutely necessary.
The Federal antiterrorism law enforcement, border security, airport
security: I've been very concerned about the northern border. I am
concerned about all of our borders around this country. You cannot
provide security in America unless you have security of your borders.
You must know who is coming in, and make sure those who are associated
with terrorists or known terrorists are not allowed in.
On the northern border we have a wonderful, long 4,000-mile border
with a great neighbor, the country of Canada. We are so fortunate to be
able to share that border with a good neighbor. But it is true, on
4,000 miles of border, we have 128 ports of entry, and over 100 of them
are part time. In most cases, at 10 o'clock at night, the security
between the United States and Canada is an orange rubber cone that
someone puts in the middle of the road as they shut the station down.
That orange rubber cone that cannot shoot, cannot think, cannot talk,
and cannot tell a terrorist from a tow truck. It is supposed to be
security. Do we need to do something about that? The answer is,
clearly, yes. And Senator Byrd, in his proposal of homeland defense,
does that.
Airport security, mass transit security, Amtrak security, nuclear
powerplants: I will not go through all of it, but I think Senator Byrd
did it in a very thorough way. I will only say this: Can anyone come to
this Senate and tell us this is not a set of emergency needs that are
required at this point in this country? Does anybody really believe
these are not emergency needs? I do not believe that someone can make
the case that, A, this is not an emergency; and, B, these are not
necessary.
Let me turn for a moment to the proposals on taxation. One way to
provide economic stimulus and recovery and confidence is to get the
economy moving again through tax incentives. We have done that before.
Some are more successful and some are less successful.
There are some common provisions in both the House and the Senate
bills that makes sense. Additional expensing makes sense. Some bonus
depreciation makes sense. I happen to think a targeted investment tax
credit would make some sense.
I want to make a couple of points about some provisions that have
been kicking around here that are in either the House or the Senate
Republican proposals that make no sense at all. What we have to do is
get to the core of what works, to provide some help to this country's
economy. One of things that happened--this is in the House of
Representatives stimulus bill--is they decided to give retroactive tax
cuts in the form of payments to some of the largest corporations in the
country, retroactively refunding the alternative minimum taxes that
were paid by the companies.
I was in the other body, and I was on the House Ways and Means
Committee when we wrote the 1986 Tax Reform Act. I was one of those who
helped write the alternative minimum tax. It has turned into something
that we did not intend back then, but, nonetheless, the reason we did
it is we had all these stories. I recall one of them was General
Electric making $1 billion and paying zero in taxes--zero. We decided
that was not fair and it was not something we wanted to see happen. So
we thought, if someone is able to zero out their tax liability with all
kinds of other devices, let's have an alternative minimum tax, so those
who have earned substantial profits will at least pay some taxes. That
is called the alternative minimum tax.
The stimulus package enacted by the House of Representatives says
that we are going to give back immediate tax refunds for all the
alternative minimum taxes paid back to 1986. So we will send IBM a
check for $1.4 billion, Ford Motor a check for $1 billion.
Can you imagine that? How is that going to stimulate the economy? Tom
Paxton once wrote a song, when Chrysler got a bailout, saying: ``I'm
changing my name to Chrysler.'' Now maybe he would write a song saying:
``I'm changing my name to Ford.''
Are we going to give refunds of billions of dollars to refund the
alternative minimum tax that corporations pay? How does that help this
country's economy?
In the Washington Post this past weekend, there was a fascinating op-
ed piece written by a Nobel Prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz.
He wrote:

What worries me now is that the new proposals, particularly
the one passed by the Republican-controlled House, are also
likely to be ineffective. The House plan would rely heavily
on tax cuts for corporations and upper income individuals.
The bill would put zero--yes, zero--into the hands of a
typical family of four with an annual income of $50,000.
Giving tax relief to the corporations for past investments
may pad their balance sheets but will not lead to more
investments now when we need it.

Then he wrote:

The Senate Republican bill, which the administration backs,
in some ways would make things even worse by granting bigger
benefits to very high earners. For instance, the $50,000
family would still get zero but this plan would give $500,000
over four years to families making $5 million a year and much
of that after (one hopes) the economy has recovered. It
directs very little money to those who would spend it and
offers few incentives for investment now.

The point is, we are required to not only do something but to do the
right thing. This economy is contracting. The economy declined by .4
percent in the third quarter. The new figures will likely show we are
in a recession. Almost everyone in the field of economics believes
that. It could very well be a very deep recession.
Factory orders dropped 5.8 percent in September, the lowest level
since March of 1997. Corporate profits dropped 72 percent in the third
quarter. Unemployment is 5.4 percent, up a percent and a half from last
year; 415,000 job cuts in the month of October alone.
Consumer confidence is way off. Consumer spending has plunged. We
have substantial excess capacity in our economy. That is why putting
substantial money into the top in the form of a billion dollars here
and a billion dollars there to one corporation is not going to do very
much if you have substantial excess capacity.
The problem is that the economy is in deep trouble. The question is,
What do we do? The answer is, What we do ought to be temporary, No. 1;
No. 2, it ought to be immediate. The legislation brought to us from the
House fails on both counts. The proposal that is offered by Senator
Baucus and Senator Byrd succeeds on both counts.
I mentioned a moment ago the alternative minimum tax retroactive
refund, $7.4 billion for 16 large companies. Senator Byrd talked about
the need for investment in this country, the need for helping people
who are out of work with extended unemployment benefits during tough
times. That amount, $7.4 billion, could help State and local
governments hire the first responders, fire and police protectors, and
training. It could help deal with the U.S. Postal Service needs.
I did not mention but Senator Byrd talked about the need that is
required now by the Postal Service to find the technology to irradiate
the mail, make sure the mails are safe. It is a whole series of things
dealing with the use of money. Bioterrorism, if we are going to pass a
bioterrorism bill, how do we pay for that? Law enforcement,
infrastructure, all of these are needs that we must address.
Some believe this is not an emergency. I very seriously disagree with
that. Clearly, this country is facing an emergency situation with an
economy that is in a very steep decline.

My hope is that we will decide in the coming week or so that there is
a way for the Republicans and Democrats, for

[[Page S11756]]

the House and Senate and the President, to engage in the kind of
negotiations that will lead to an economic recovery or stimulus package
that, A, is immediate and, B, is temporary, one that recognizes the
requirement that we have to do this now.
I regret very much that a point of order was just raised. I
understand why it was raised, but I regret it was raised because I
believe a point of order also exists against the underlying Republican
bill that is at the desk. The bill that came over from the House also
has a point of order against it. It substantially delays things here in
the Senate to begin battling points of order. Either we are going to do
a stimulus package or we are not. If we are going to do a stimulus
package or an economic recovery package, let's get serious about it.
What I see in some of these bills, especially the one at the desk
from the House, reminds me of what my mother used to call supper. When
asked, ``What is for supper?'' she often would say, ``Leftovers.'' We
all knew what leftovers meant. It meant whatever else was left in the
refrigerator.
That is what we got from the House in their so-called stimulus
package--all the leftovers they hadn't gotten done in previous bills,
having nothing to do with making something immediate or temporary, just
leftovers, just the old things they always wanted to do. Give a refund
of $1.4 billion to IBM because they paid an alternative minimum tax
since 1986. That doesn't make any sense. That is not going to stimulate
the country. It is just the same old nonsense.
I started talking about John Adams in his book lamenting to Abigail
about, where was the leadership? Where is the leadership? he said,
during the formative time of this country when they needed leadership.
He said: Regretfully, there is only us, Washington, Franklin,
Jefferson, Madison. Of course ``only us'' turned out to be quite
substantial leadership, the greatest leadership certainly in this
country's history, perhaps in the history of the world, the
organization of free government.
The question is, Where is the leadership now? The leadership offered
by Senator Baucus and Senator Byrd, assisted by Senator Daschle, in
trying to put together legislation that will give hope and confidence
to the American people--I hope as well the leadership of the President
and others who will join us in very serious negotiations in the coming
days--will allow us to pass legislation that will give us the
opportunity to say, as Churchill asked the English to say, ``this was
our finest hour.''
We need to do this in a serious way. This country faces a serious
challenge. My hope is we do it sooner rather than later. Again, I
regret very much a point of order was raised because there is not only
a point of order against the legislation that has been offered today,
there exists a point of order against the underlying House bill; there
is a point of order that lay against the Senate Republican bill; there
is a point of order against all of this. The question is, Do we have an
emergency in this country or don't we? Those who, like Herbert Hoover,
want to sit around and say, let's just wait and see what happens, will
do this country no service. Let's decide we will take action now. We
will do it on a bipartisan basis, with Republicans and Democrats in
cooperation with the President, and do it in a way that will make this
country proud of the service given by Congress and the President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is very important that we debate and
understand where we are going on the stimulus package. I agree with
what many people have said: We do need an economic stimulus. We have
been in a recession for 15, 16 months. September 11 has pushed us down
even further. The economists may say we have to wait until we have two
successive quarters of negative growth, but everybody knows the economy
has been going downhill.
I also agree that what we need to do needs to be immediate, needs to
be stimulative, and should not be permanent; it should be temporary.
I have a great deal of problems with what has been produced by the
House and what has been produced by the Finance Committee. A newspaper
that is common to the area the occupant of the chair and I serve--I
often don't agree with it--had an editorial today referring to one part
of the Senate Finance Committee bill and talked about chicken manure
and applied that appellation to both bills, the one that came out of
the House and one that came out of the Finance Committee. I wouldn't go
so far myself as to say that. I would say, as we say back home, I have
a minimum amount of high enthusiasm for either one of those bills.
Now, on either one of them, one can say these are needed things. Any
bill that provides for research in science and building infrastructure,
things normally in the course of appropriations, I would support. We
need to build highways. We need to do research. There are a lot of
problems with which we need to pick up. Similarly, when you are talking
about tax relief and tax cuts, the long-term good of the economy
requires that we lower marginal tax rates and get rid of the craziness
that the alternative minimum tax imposes, particularly on individuals
and small businesses. But I don't think this is the time to do it. I
think we need to take care of those people who are hurting. That is why
I think we ought to provide something that has unemployment
compensation and grants to the States to help with health care.
I also believe we need to help small business. I have filed a couple
of amendments that do several things for small business. Frankly, small
business was largely left out of the Senate Finance Committee and the
House bills. Small business is the driving engine of our economy, and
nobody seemed to care about small business. They are the ones taking it
in the teeth in many areas. So I filed amendments that do several
things. First, my amendment provides for much more generous loan terms
for small businesses that have been directly or indirectly affected by
the September 11 terrorist attacks, by deferring and/or forgiving
interest on these loans and lowering fees. In other words, it says to
small business that if you are willing to take the chance now to invest
and grow your business as this economy starts to turn around, we are
going to give you a break on the amount you have to pay up front. You
can defer paying interest until we come out of this. That makes a lot
of sense.
I think, also, we need to encourage and ensure that small business
gets a share of Government procurement as part of these stimulus
packages. We pass small business bills that give all kinds of benefits
to small business and then the bureaucrats find ways around them. We
need to tighten up and eliminate those loopholes so when the Federal
Government spends money, a part of that money goes to small businesses
for the purchase of goods or services.
On the tax front, if there is one thing we can do to help small
business it is to raise the amount of new equipment that they can
expense. Today, if a small business owner buys a piece of equipment, he
can expense up to $24,000 of the purchase price. My proposal is to
increase that limit to $50,000 that can be written off immediately so
they can get an immediate tax break and don't have to depreciate it. We
would also raise the limit on vehicles. Right now, you can only
depreciate about $14,000 on vehicles. A lot of vehicles--particularly
vans and trucks used by small business--cost well above that amount and
they can't depreciate the full cost of the vehicle. So it is a real
burden on small business to buy them.

For restaurants, which are dominated by small businesses, we ought to
restore the full 100-percent business meal deduction. These are things
we can do on an immediate basis that will have an immediate impact on
small businesses, their suppliers, equipment manufacturers, and our
economy as a whole.
I also happen to favor one of the simplest, most direct approaches to
get money into the pockets of working men and women who can spend it
right away. Senator Domenici has developed a concept of having a
December tax holiday on FICA, the Social Security payments all working
Americans make each year. Under this proposal, any payments that are
owed during December by employees or employers would not be sent in,
leaving more in each worker's pay check and more for the business to
protect jobs. The General Treasury would reimburse the Social

[[Page S11757]]

Security fund so there would be no loss to Social Security Trust Fund
while protecting retirees' benefits. This is one way we could get money
into the pockets of people who will spend it in December.
One of the things people are talking about is the expansion of the
tax rebates that started in July. The rebate the President suggested is
fine, but most people say it is unworkable because you can't get the
rebate out until January and there's a good chance it will slow down
the processing of returns and mailing of refunds in the upcoming tax
filing season. I think everybody realizes that to get a strong economy
we need the money in the pockets of the working men and women in
America now, not tomorrow. So I would like to see a serious
consideration to the December FICA tax holiday that Senator Domenici
has constructed.
I have several more amendments at the desk. If we are going to be
here and have a vote-a-rama on a long list of amendments, you can count
me in because I think these things ought to be considered. I believe
there is also discussion, on the other hand, by the leadership that if
the point of order is sustained, there will be serious negotiations so
that a final package will come to the floor. Obviously, that is not in
my hands. But I raise these points about small business and the need to
stimulate the small business sector of our economy, which would be
helped by easier loans, greater expensing, more Government contracts,
and which would be helped by the plan that Senator Domenici has
conceived. I hope when he introduces it, he will add me as a cosponsor.
These things will help. I think they will give the kind of economic
stimulus we need right away, and if there is to be a negotiated
agreement--House-Senate, Republican-Democrat, and the White House--I
hope they will take into account these vitally important provisions for
small business, and perhaps avoid the paths that will be best addressed
in other legislative action at other times.
I urge the managers of the bill to consider the impact this stimulus
package can and must have on small business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am glad to yield to my colleague from
New Mexico. He has a brief matter he wants to bring to the Senate's
attention.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator. I didn't hear the Senator. Did he
say a time certain?
Mr. KENNEDY. I understand that the Senator wanted 2, 3 minutes. I am
glad to accommodate.
Mr. DOMENICI. Since I was part of the history of this, I wanted to
recall it and let everybody know what we are debating here. Again, this
point of order was established in the 2000 budget resolution, and then
it was made permanent in the 2001 budget resolution. It was designed to
specifically address what was said over and over at that point to be a
misuse of the ``emergency'' designation that had become a popular
mechanism for getting around the spending limits established in both
law and in our budget resolution.
So in the 2001 budget resolution, we established a very clear set of
priorities designating domestic spending as an ``emergency.'' All those
criteria had to be met to allow the spending or tax cuts to be placed
outside the budget blueprint.
Again, let me read those criteria because that is what we are
debating. They were the following five criteria that had to be met:
one, the provision must be necessary, essential, and vital; two, the
provision must come about suddenly and quickly; three, the provision
must be urgent, pressing, and compelling; four, the provision must have
been unforeseen, unanticipated, unpredictable; and five, the provision
must not be permanent.
Senator Phil Gramm raised an appropriate point. The Senate has the
authority to waive the issue before us and decide whether the
underlying bill and the amendment to the bill meet all of these
criteria. I haven't studied both bills, and I essentially looked only
at the underlying tax bill that came out of the Finance Committee. I
remind everybody that we have declared a huge amount of money as an
emergency already. We are at $70 billion since the budget resolution
that we have declared to be emergency because of the disaster that
beset our people and the State of New York, Washington, DC, and
obviously the crash in Pennsylvania.
I just read the criteria. With reference to the tax bill, I ask
rhetorically: Does spending money to buy meat, blueberries,
watermelons, cucumbers, and other items, meet the emergency criteria of
being urgent and necessary at this time? Do citrus canker tax credits
rise to the level of a needed emergency tax cut today? Do payments to
rum producers in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands qualify as
emergency spending? I am just asking the question. Perhaps people think
they do. Senator Gramm was wondering about not only these but whatever
other ones he might have had in mind.
Do we think expanding the work opportunity tax credit to provide
$4,800 for every bond trader and stockbroker in Lower Manhattan meets
the criteria of essential and necessary? Do we think the $2 billion
pricetag for this provision is what we had in mind when we passed this
tax credit for low-income, single-parent mothers?
I submit, if this point of order is not waived, then obviously we
will be back thinking about a bill that is bipartisan. I recommend that
we not grant the waiver, and then I recommend strongly that we get busy
on a bipartisan bill, showing the American people we can create a
stimulus for our growth that includes tax measures and other items,
that it can be done in a bipartisan fashion, and we ought to get on
with it.
I thank Senator Kennedy for yielding, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I imagine our fellow Americans who have
been watching the Senate this afternoon are wondering whether this
institution can function effectively in dealing with the problems they
are facing every single day, particularly those who have lost their
jobs in recent times through no fault of their own.
They are proud men and women who work hard, play by the rules, go to
their jobs every day, and have found out in recent times, before and
after September 11, that their services are no longer needed. They are
137,000 workers in the transportation industry; 136,000 in the
hospitality, tourism, and entertainment industry; 57,000 in the
communications and utilities industry; 226,000 in manufacturing; 14,000
in the retail industry; 44,000 more in the service sector industry; and
in the finance, insurance, real estate industries, 24,000 more.
There it is in raw figures, but it does not reflect the challenges
those families are going through every single day when they are denied,
in too many instances, unemployment compensation, even though they have
contributed to it, because of the change in the rules, or they find it
virtually impossible to find new employment because of the changed
economic conditions.
These are our fellow Americans, workers, proud men and women, who
have provided for their families and, now, every day go home and have
to look into the eyes of their children, and look into the eyes of
their loved ones, and say: I was not able to get any employment today,
and our savings are going down further and further.
We know there is an emergency. It defies any possible understanding
of the use of the word in the English language that there is not an
emergency in the United States today. Tell that to the brave men and
women behind the lines in Afghanistan. Tell it to their relatives at
home.
Tell that to the National Guard troops who have been called up in my
State serving in the air wing. Tell it to the reservists who have been
called up from Westover, Barnes Air Force Base, the MPs who have been
called up, many from the private sector. Tell it to them, we do not
have an emergency.
Tell it to the families of the postal workers who died from anthrax
that we do not have an emergency.
Tell it to the Attorney General and the President of the United
States who said we have to be on a heightened state of alert. When did
we hear that in the last years? When did we last hear warnings from an
Attorney General and from a President about how we have to have a
heightened state of alert? All Americans have to be on a heightened
state of alert.

[[Page S11758]]

This is defined as an emergency any way you look at it. We are facing
an emergency, and we are facing an emergency in a most profound way in
the state of our economy. We have seen it in our States, and if we have
not seen it, we have not been paying attention to our constituents.
Maybe it has not reached some areas of this country, but I would like
those Members to rise up and tell us about how their States have not
been affected or impacted, because every indication is we are in an
emergency.
We have had the first decline in the GDP in more than 8 years. We
have the largest increase in the unemployment rate in 21 years. I will
not take the time this afternoon to read into the Record when a number
of our colleagues, many on the other side of the aisle, said: Use the
emergency provisions for incidental factors. There are lists of them. I
have lists of them. We are not talking about that. We are talking about
the greatest increase in unemployment in 21 years. We are talking about
the three-quarters of a million newly unemployed and the plunge in
consumer confidence in our economy.

We have heard the words of some economists. We all saw the reports
this last weekend. The Nobel laureate, Joseph Stiglitz, talked about
this as well, and his statements have been mentioned in this Chamber:

The United States is in the midst of a recession that may
well turn out to be the worst in 20 years, and the
Republican-backed stimulus will do little to improve the
economy; indeed, it may make matters worse.

There it is, Mr. Republican. It is not just Democrats saying it.
Families in America understand it is an emergency. Those who are
serving in the Armed Forces and are being called up know it is an
emergency. Economists understand it is an emergency. And people are
asking: Are we in the Congress of the United States going to do
something about it?
Evidently, we are going to be denied that opportunity by the use of
procedural actions of which the American people are sick and tired.
The American people understand. Why are you not doing what you did in
the 1970s or in the 1990s in the unemployment insurance program? We
have examples of the unemployment insurance program helping workers.
Why are you not doing what you did then? Why aren't Republicans and
Democrats working hand in hand to provide assistance to those who are
unemployed?
We did it in 1991 by a 91-to-2 vote in the Senate. We provided a more
generous package than is being proposed by the Democrats now. Then in
1992, by a 94-to-2 vote, Republicans and Democrats provided extended
unemployment compensation. Again in 1992, July of 1992, by a 93-to-3
vote, we provided an extension of unemployment compensation--each time
trying to provide additional protection for workers who were being
excluded and, we extended unemployment insurance again later on in 1993
by a vote of 79 to 20. That is the history of trying to provide help to
these families in a much more extensive way, with a generous kind of
commitment. People say, why can they not agree to that this afternoon?
Why are roadblocks being put in their way to deal with that this
afternoon? Why can we not get about that which will help my friend or
my neighbor, somebody who has lost his job? But, no. Instead, we are
going to have a procedural vote. We are going to have procedural votes
in order to deny us the opportunity to do so.
We have a similar situation in health care. This is one of the most
valuable qualities of life for all of our fellow citizens. The central
challenge we face is trying to ensure we are going to have adequate
health care. I enjoyed being in this Senate when we debated a patients'
bill of rights. How often I listened during the course of the day to
those voices that said we cannot pass a patients' bill of rights
because it is going to increase premiums by 1 percent and we are going
to create all of these uninsured.
We have thousands of uninsured who have been losing their coverage,
and I am waiting to hear those same voices say, ``let us do something
about them.'' I have not heard it yet. Back when we were on the floor
debating whether a patient was going to have the best health care based
on a decision of the doctor instead of the bottom line of the insurance
company, my Republican colleagues gave long speeches saying that we
should be focused instead on covering the uninsured. That is what we
were battling for--to protect American families.
We are told we cannot go to that radical concept because we are going
to see thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands more people
who will lose their health insurance.
We have it now. We are seeing it every single day in increasing
numbers. Where are those voices that say, ``Let us do something about
it?'' I do not hear them. They refuse to make the recommendations or
suggestions to do it, and the one that they have made is completely
indefensible.
I ask, where is their program for health insurance? We provide, under
the program that is before us now, assistance for those that have
COBRA. We provide assistance for those that are not eligible for COBRA.
The reasons for that are the size of the companies and other technical
reasons such as whether the workers receive COBRA or they do not. We
look out for both.
If one looks at the Republican plan, the total Republican plan they
say is a pot of money that can be used for unemployment or it can be
used for health insurance or they can use it for some other social
services such as child care. They mentioned all of this, but if you
just applied it to the premiums of COBRA eligible workers, you get only
2 weeks of coverage.
I hope our colleagues are not going to be saying we are for covering
those who have health insurance. I have heard some of those speeches,
but I have not heard them say or defend their particular program. Here
it is.
We believe in the importance of making sure working families who have
been separated from their jobs, through no fault of their own, have
health care coverage because we know what happens to them. The average
payment on unemployment insurance is $925, and to maintain their
premiums now would take 65 percent of that $925. That is why about 15
percent of the total workers, without any kind of help, actually
utilize COBRA.
I commend Senator Baucus and the Finance Committee for their
proposals, both on unemployment and on this particular proposal, and
Senator Byrd for the strong support he has given to our homeland
security proposal. Under the proposal that has been advanced by the
Finance Committee, it is down to 16 percent. We have heard as recently
as today from a very lovely lady who lost her job in Philadelphia. She
had worked in the service industry in Philadelphia for a number of
years, and she now finds herself unemployed. She says it is going to be
difficult to find the resources to do it, but, by God, she thought she
could get herself together because it is so necessary for her family.
We are not as interested in talking about what the other side is
against, although we know they are against our proposal. We want the
American people to understand what we are for. This is what the
Democratic proposal will do. It will guarantee help in paying the COBRA
premiums. That would help 7.2 million Americans. We do this. We provide
help for displaced workers that are not eligible for the COBRA; 2.5
million fellow Americans, they will be eligible.
We provide State fiscal relief for improving the maximum Federal
Medicaid payments, similar to what has been successful in the CHIP
program which virtually every State accepted with the increasing match.
We do that. That helps maintain coverage for 4 million Medicaid
beneficiaries. All across the board we have had these evaluated by CBO
and the others who maintain and support the conclusions I have stated.
In the Republican plan, there is no guarantee.
If one is interested in providing some assistance to workers, the
program that Senator Baucus and others have proposed makes the most
sense. It makes the most sense in terms of ensuring that workers and
workers' needs are going to be attended to, and it also provides
support for health care. So I hope our colleagues will change their
mind on this particular issue.

On September 11, America sustained an unprecedented terrorist attack.
The risk and the danger of future attacks is very real. The President
and leading figures in the administration repeatedly warn the American
people of the

[[Page S11759]]

need for unprecedented vigilance. So we are facing a true national
emergency by any reasonable definition.
What the objectors seek to block is the appropriation, as well, of
$15 billion for homeland defense. They object to the expenditure of $4
billion that would enhance our ability to prevent bioterrorist attacks
and protect our citizens should such an attack occur. They object to
the expenditure of $4 billion to strengthen the ability of Federal,
State and local law enforcement to combat terrorism. They object to
expenses to improve border security, airport security, mass transit
security. They even object to funds needed to enhance security at the
Nation's nuclear powerplants. If providing the necessary funds so these
homeland defense initiatives can begin immediately is not an emergency,
then what is?
The point I want to conclude with is, it is ironic the same Members
who object so strenuously to spending $15 billion to strengthen the
Nation's capacity to defend ourselves from terrorist attacks are
supporting a bill which would retroactively repeal the corporate
minimum tax and give the largest corporations $25 billion in direct
payments from the U.S. Treasury.
We do not have the money to look out after the premiums for hard
workers. We do not have the money to provide help for unemployment
insurance. We do not have the resources to deal with helping the States
meet these crises, but we do evidently in that budget that clears OMB,
clears Mr. Daniels, have the ability to get $25 billion in direct
payments from the U.S. Treasury, payments to repeal the corporate
minimum tax and to return taxes they have paid in past years.
Is giving major corporations hundreds of millions of dollars each
based on taxes they paid 10 or 15 years ago a higher priority for
America than strengthening homeland defense? Is retroactive repeal of
the corporate AMT an emergency? Could we not devote $15 billion to
defending America? It would still need $10 billion for corporate
refunds. Those same Members support accelerating upper income brackets,
and if they believe we can afford such an expensive tax cut in the
midst of an unprecedented national crisis, how can they claim we cannot
afford $15 billion to better protect America from terrorism?

Those who deny we are facing a national emergency today and would
justify--in fact, demand--congressional action to strengthen homeland
defense are suffering from the worst case of political myopia I have
ever seen. In all my years in the Senate I have never seen a clearer
choice for Senators.
Mr. REID. I ask my friend--Senator Byrd spoke earlier today, prior to
the point of order having been filed, and I asked: Did I hear, Senator
Byrd, they are going to file a point of order that this is not an
emergency?
And he answered: Yes, they are. They have filed a point of order that
the plan now before the Senate, the Baucus plan, together with the Byrd
plan, is not an emergency.
Can the Senator from Massachusetts give me any ideas, any reason, how
this could not be an emergency? Does the Senator have any idea how this
could not be an emergency? How could anyone in good conscience say this
is not an emergency?
Mr. KENNEDY. I have great difficulty in understanding that. I think
anyone watching this debate in Nevada or Massachusetts would come to
that same conclusion when they see the loss of jobs taking place in
your State and mine and all of the 50 States; when they see members of
their family being called up for the National Guard, or when they have
members of their family who have been activated and sent over the
Indian Ocean on aircraft carriers and dropped behind the lines in
Afghanistan; when they have listened to a President of the United
States call upon all members to be on a heightened sense of alert, and
we listened to the Attorney General of the United States say, once
again, it is time for us to be on heightened alert; when we have seen
the significant economic indicators over the period of these past
several months, all going in an adverse direction after a long period
of economic growth and price stability; and where we have heard the
leading economists say, look, we are facing a challenging time.
It can get a lot worse if we do the Republican plan or no plan. I
wonder why we ought to be gambling with the well-being of the people of
Nevada or Massachusetts. I wonder if the people of Massachusetts truly
understand what is happening in the Senate. They are wondering why we
aren't acting. You will say because we are having a point of order.
They will ask what a point of order is. They will wonder in
Massachusetts, perhaps, whether it is a restaurant in Chicopee. They
will be asking: There is a point of order and we are not taking action?
Why is one of the great institutions failing to deal with this
economic challenge when we have at our best days been willing to do it
in a bipartisan way?
Mr. REID. I appreciate the statement of the Senator. The people of
Nevada are wondering how possibly we are not doing anything, No. 1, on
airline security. On airline security we are doing nothing.
People on the other side are not willing to talk about this is too
much money or maybe they don't like the way we are spending the money.
They are saying: We don't want this because we don't believe there is
an emergency in this country, and we are going to raise a point of
order that this is not emergency spending because there is no
emergency.
I have trouble following that reasoning. I wondered if the Senator
from Massachusetts had any line of reasoning to amplify the reasoning
on the other side. It appears he does not.

Mr. KENNEDY. I think the Senator has made this very clear.
As to airport security, people back in Massachusetts are saying: You
Members of Congress have the Federal protection, don't you?
There will be families coming down here to visit who have to show
their briefcases. That security isn't auctioned off to the lowest
bidder. We have looked out after ourselves in this respect and at the
cost of lives. We have had courageous policemen who lost their lives in
the line of duty, protecting Members of Congress.
On the other hand, we are told we cannot have that kind of protection
for the American people. I don't know whether the Senator saw a letter
to the editor--perhaps this is too serious to joke about--that said
maybe we ought to have two kinds of security: those which are deemed
private, and let the Republicans go through those; and the others who
are Federal workers, let the Democrats go through those.
It is really too serious to be joking about and certainly in the wake
of the extraordinary tragedy earlier this week where, to all
indications, it appears to be a mechanical problem, but at least in
people's minds and in families' thoughts they wonder about the security
and the fact we have not been able to work this out, to guarantee the
best in security.
As pointed out by other Members of the Senate, we don't auction off
the Secret Service. We don't auction off who will be out there in the
Food and Drug Administration to make sure our drugs are going to be
safe and efficacious. We don't auction off the FBI. We don't auction
off the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms employees. We don't auction those
off to the private sector. We want to make sure Americans are
protected.
I find it extraordinary that the strong initiative which passed
successfully in the Senate that ensures that kind of protection still
is unable to be completed through the two bodies.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his
comments. I think historians will record that he is probably one of the
most forceful advocates for working families in the history of the
Senate.
I have a statement by Joseph Welcome, a mold maker who lost his job.
His wife, who was in the travel industry, lost her job.
He said yesterday: My wife and I have worked hard our entire lives.
We earned everything we got. Unfortunately, like many thousands of
Americans, we have run into hard times. We want to use the system as it
was intended to be used to get us back to work as fast as possible with
a marketable skill set. Unfortunately, that cannot be done in 6 months
in today's economy. That is why we need your help now, not 6 months or
a year from now. We need it now or we may very well become a statistic
on the welfare

[[Page S11760]]

roles, putting even more of a tax burden on the American public.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will argue this is not
an emergency. Last month saw the biggest 1-month increase in
unemployment in 21 years. Nearly 7.5 million Americans are now out of
work. But, of course, those who are discouraged workers and are not
counted as unemployed are not included in the statistics. Those who can
only find part-time jobs and cannot really support their families on
those jobs are not included in the statistics.
And all of the working poor people who work almost 52 weeks a year,
40 hours a week, and still do not make poverty wages, they are not
included either. Analysts warn that another 1 or 2 million workers
could lose their jobs over the next 12 months. I think it could be
worse than that. The unemployment rate is 5.4 percent, up .5 percent
from the previous month, and it is going to continue to go up. Consumer
confidence is at the lowest level it has been in 7 years.
All of this combined with lagging consumer confidence can perpetuate
a downward spiral. Consumers, fearful about the future, will spend
less, which will cause us to sink even deeper into recession.
These are difficult economic times. For many families in Minnesota
and in the country, this is also a situation where time is not neutral;
time is not on their side. If they do not get an extension of
unemployment benefits, if they do not have any health care coverage for
themselves and their loved ones, it will be broken dreams and broken
lives and broken families. And my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle want to cast a vote saying this is not an emergency.
If you were out of work and you didn't know where your next dollar
was going to come from and you were going to run out of unemployment
benefits and you were terrified that you would not be able to support
health care coverage for your wife or your husband or your loved ones,
you sure as heck would consider this to be an emergency. Sometimes we
are all too generous with the suffering of others.
Most economists agree on certain things if we are going to have a
successful economic stimulus package. This is not just about justice
and helping those people who are flat on their back. This is also about
how do we get this economy going again? What kind of investments do we
need to make? All economists I know say that for an economic stimulus
package to be successful, it must be immediate, have an immediate
effect; it must be temporary; it must put resources in the hands of
those who will spend it to stimulate the economy; and that it will not
be harmful to our long-term economic interests.
The Republican proposals by the House and the Senate and supported by
this administration fail to meet all of these tests, and the Democratic
plan meets all these criteria.
Taxes? The Republican plan provides tax relief for millionaires and
profitable corporations, even if those corporations cut jobs. The
Democratic plan provides tax cuts for working families and businesses
that invest and create jobs.
The Republican plan spends $121 billion to speed up the tax cut rates
in the $2 trillion tax cut enacted earlier this year. Under the
Republican plan, every millionaire in America will receive over $50,000
in tax cuts over the next 4 years and, by contrast, the Republican plan
would put zero into a typical family of four with an annual income of
$50,000 a year, precisely the kind of family, if given help, that is
more likely to consume and put resources back into our economy.
The Republican plan has numerous tax breaks for multinational
corporations. The most egregious is the repeal of the alternative
minimum tax. Refunds go all the way back to 1986, 15 years ago; $22
billion cost over 10 years. As Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz said:

The GOP plan would put zero, yes zero into the hands of a
typical family of 4 with an annual income of $50,000 a year.
Giving tax relief to corporations for past investments
and AMT repeal may pad their balance sheets but will not
lead to more investment now when we need it. Bailouts for
airlines did not stop them from laying off workers and
adding to the country's unemployment problem.

The Democratic plan, by contrast, provides immediate tax rebates to
45 million Americans who did not receive rebates last summer, which
will spur consumer spending and immediate tax relief to businesses,
which will spur investment.
Mr. President, 44 percent of the individual tax cuts in the
Republican plan go to the wealthiest 1 percent--it is Robin Hood in
reverse--the people who are least likely to spend the savings, while
only 18 percent goes to low- and moderate-income families.
Colleagues, get the tax breaks or tax rebates or whatever you want to
call it--if you are going to do that--into the hands of people who will
go out and buy a washing machine because they need it, and they will
spend, and that is what we need for the economy. Don't go forward with
Robin-Hood-in-reverse tax cuts and corporation tax breaks for
multinational corporations which are already doing fine and are not
going to necessarily even spend in the economy.
Even worse, most of the Republican tax cuts take effect after the
current economic crisis may very well have ended. By definition, they
are not economic stimulus effects.
The last point I make on the tax cut is telling. The Republican plan
is not an economic stimulus plan; it is a shamefaced effort to use our
current crisis; that is to say, the misery of hard-working men and
women who have lost their jobs and health insurance in this economic
downturn, as an excuse for lining the pockets of wealthy individuals
and multinational corporations. It is the antithesis of sound fiscal
policy. It is unfair, and it is ineffective.
Unemployment--my gosh, people are out of work. Our plan says let's
add 13 weeks to unemployment insurance. Our plan, under the work of
Senator Baucus and many other Senators on our side, says let's reform
unemployment insurance and let's cover part-time workers. Economists
tell you every dollar of unemployment insurance paid to unemployed
workers expands the economy by $2.15. This is a win-win. Can't we help
people flat on their backs who, in turn, will consume with that
additional assistance?
What happened to people in New York, what happened to people at the
Pentagon, what happened to people in Pennsylvania, what has happened in
our country has taught all of us that we need each other as never
before. There is a great sense of community. People are trying to help
one another. I think we understand in a certain profound sense that we
all do better when we all do better. Can't some of that community
spirit apply to what we are doing in the Senate?
Don't tell all of the men and women who are out of work in Minnesota
and all across the country, and their children, it is not an emergency.
It is an emergency for them. It is an emergency for their families. And
it is an emergency for our country.
The Republican plan says that if you go beyond New York and you go
beyond Virginia and you go beyond Pennsylvania, you have to have had a
30-percent increase in unemployment before any of what meager benefits
they have even kick in. Minnesota, as I look over past history, in some
of the worst recessions did not have a 30-percent increase in
unemployment. I am a Senator from Minnesota. I have to fight for the
people in Minnesota. I have to make sure that for people who are in
such difficult times through no fault of their own, we are going to
have a safety net. The Republican plan will not help these people at
all.

Health care coverage in the Republican plan is literally an asterisk.
Their plan does not guarantee one dime to laid-off workers to maintain
coverage. In fact, Treasury Secretary O'Neill says he would strongly
encourage President Bush to veto any economic recovery plan that
includes health care coverage for laid-off workers. The administration
said last week that if we had too much by way of unemployment insurance
and health care coverage, then people would not have an incentive to go
back to work. Do you know how insulting that is to hard-working people?
Our plan says we will cover 75 percent of COBRA coverage. Mr. Welcome
said yesterday: My God, I can't afford 4, 5, or 6--I can't even
remember--hundred dollars of a month. I can't afford that kind of
coverage. We help families like the Welcome family.

[[Page S11761]]

Then, for those families who work for small businesses, so they are
not eligible for COBRA, we expand medical assistance coverage in the
States. In addition, we respond to the Governors of our States. And
what were the Governors of our States saying? They were saying: Please
add on more to the Federal contribution to medical assistance because
we are in a recession; we have more people out of work; we no longer
have the surpluses. These are hard economic times, and we need some
additional help.
The Republican plan does not respond one bit to the economic pain
that we hear about from people in the country.
We are being told by this procedural move by my colleague from Texas
that this is not an emergency.
I met with some families in Minnesota 2 weeks ago. We were in one of
the workers' homes. There were some television cameras. I said: Are you
sure you want to do this? They said they did. It was a seminar-type
discussion. I hardly talked at all. Tell me what your concerns are.
These are people who have long work experience. They had been working
most of their adult lives. They are out of work through no fault of
their own. I think more than anything else, they talked about health
care coverage. They certainly are hoping for unemployment benefits to
tide them over. A number of them, interestingly enough, talked about
job training.
If I had my way, we would add some provisions, including some money
for workforce development. But, most importantly, they talked about
their fears that there would be no health care coverage at all for
their families.
Senators, again I hate to put it this way, but if it were your
family, if you were out of work, if you were worried that you wouldn't
be able to afford COBRA, and there wouldn't be enough to help you if
you were eligible for COBRA, and if there were not a specific benefit
that would enable you to still be able to provide health care coverage
for your families, I guarantee you would consider it an emergency.
It is an emergency for many families in our country. We must respond
to this economic pain. In the words of Rabbi Hillel, if not now, when?
Then there is homeland defense, Senator Byrd's proposal on which many
of us worked. I have said a lot of times, as I am sure every Senator
has--I guess we reached different conclusions--with fire chiefs, first
responders, they told me. I sure learned it back then. People are
anxious and people are worried. Please get an infrastructure of public
safety and, yes, public health.

Dr. Michael Home is from Minnesota. Dr. Home has made their case in a
compelling way. Get the money to our communities because people will be
safe where they live, where they work, and where their children go to
school. We need the resources.
In the homeland defense part of this bill that we brought to the
floor, it is an obvious marriage. On the one hand, we get the money to
first responders. I have been pushing for public safety, for
firefighters, and for public health money so that we have the
antibiotics and the vaccines, so people are trained, so that emergency
doctors are trained, so that our public health nurses are trained; food
safety; border security; airport security. At the same time, Senators,
you create jobs.
I don't really know what is going on here. I think there are probably
two things.
No. 1, I think too many of my colleagues on the other side, by
definition, with their objection, don't quite get this as an emergency.
No. 2, given what they want to do with all of these tax cuts, and
repeal corporate taxes going back to 1986, let me assume they are doing
this in good faith, because they always do it in good faith, in which
case I have to believe they believe in the same trickle-down economics
we have been through before, which put us in such desperate shape. We
have been through this trickle-down economic strategy, or philosophy,
or policy. It left us with double-digit inflation, double-digit
interest rates, and an economy in shatters.
Paul Krugman in today's New York Times has an op-ed piece that makes
this point. I ask unanimous consent that his full op-ed piece be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the New York Times, Nov. 14, 2001]

Other People's Money

(By Paul Krugman)

You may have seen the story about the businessman who
allegedly used the attack on the World Trade Center to make
off with other people's money. According to his accusers,
Andrei Koudachev stole $105 million that had been invested
with his firm, falsely asserting that the sum had been lost
in the collapse of the towers. It's not entirely clear
whether he is accused of stealing the money before Sept. 11,
then using the disaster to cover his tracks, or of taking the
money after the fact; maybe both.
It's too bad that so many of our leaders are trying to pull
the same trick.
Just before Sept. 11, political debate was dominated by the
growing evidence that last spring's tax cut was not, in fact,
consistent with George W. Bush's pledge not to raid the
projected $2.7 trillion Social Security surplus. After the
attack, everyone dropped the subject. At this point, it seems
that nobody will complain as long as the budget as a whole
doesn't go into persistent deficit.
But two months into the war on terrorism, we're starting to
get a sense of how little this war will actually cost. And
it's time to start asking some hard questions.
At the beginning of the week we learned that the war is
currently costing around $1 billion per month. Oddly, this
was reported as if it were a lot of money. But it's only
about half of 1 percent of the federal budget. In monetary
terms, not only doesn't this look like World War II, it looks
trivial compared with the gulf war. No mystery there; how
hard is it for a superpower to tip the balance in the civil
war of a small, poor nation? At this rate, even five years of
war on terrorism would cost only $60 billion.
True, the terrorist attack has also forced increased
spending at home. But Mr. Bush has threatened to veto any
spending on domestic security beyond the $40 billion already
agreed. And even that sum is in doubt. Half of the $40
billion was money promised to New York; last week New York's
Congressional delegation, Republicans and Democrats alike,
demanded that Mr. Bush disburse the full sum, openly voicing
doubt about whether he would honor his promise.
So the budgetary cost of the war on terrorism, abroad and
at home, looks like fairly small change. Even counting the
measures that are likely to pass despite Mr. Bush's threat, I
have a hard time coming up with a total cost that exceeds
$200 billion. Compare that with the $2.7 trillion Social
Security surplus. What will happen to the remaining $2.5
trillion?
Again, no mystery: much of the money was actually gone
before Sept. 11, swallowed by last spring's tax cut, which
will in the end reduce revenue by around $1 trillion more
than the numbers you usually hear. And the administration's
allies in Congress are striving energetically to give away
the rest in tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy
individuals.
The new round of tax cuts is supposedly intended as post-
terror economic stimulus. But recent remarks by Dick Armey
give the game away. Defending the bill he and Tom DeLay
rammed through the House--the one that gives hug retroactive
tax cuts to big corporations--he asserted that it would
create 170,000 jobs next year. That would add a whopping 0.13
percent to employment in this country. So thanks to Mr.
Armey's efforts next year's unemployment rate night be 6.4
percent instead of 6.5. Aren't you thrilled?
Let's do the math here. This bill has a $100 billion price
tag in its first year, more than $200 billion over three
years. So even on Mr. Armey's self-justifying estimate, we're
talking about giving at least $600,000 inn corporate tax
breaks for every job created. That's trickle-down economics
without the trickle-down.
Ten weeks ago this bill, or the equally bad bill proposed
by Senate Republicans, wouldn't have stood a chance. But now
people who want to give the Social Security surplus to
campaign donors think they can get away with it, because they
can blame Osama bin Laden for future budget shortfalls.
They say every cloud has a silver lining. The dust cloud
that rose when the towers fell has certainly helped
politicians who don't want you to see what they're up to.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, as he said:

The new round of tax cuts is supposedly intended as post-
terror economic stimulus. But recent remarks by Dick Armey
give the game away. Defending the bill he and Tom DeLay
rammed through the House--the one that gives huge retroactive
tax cuts to big corporations--he asserted that it would
create 170,000 jobs next year. That would add a whopping 0.13
percent to employment in this country. So thanks to Mr.
Armey's efforts next year's unemployment rate might be 6.4
percent instead of 6.5. Aren't you thrilled?
Let's do the math here. This bill has a $100 billion price
tag in its first year, more than $200 billion over three
years. So even on Mr. Armey's self-justifying estimate, we're
talking about giving at least $600,000 in corporate tax
breaks for every job created. That's trickle-down economics
without the trickle-down.

That is what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are
proposing, trickle-down economics without the trickle down. At the same
time, they

[[Page S11762]]

are now trying to make the case that we don't have an emergency, so we
can't get an extension of unemployment benefits to people who are flat
on their backs, we can't make sure they have health care coverage for
their families or for their children and their loved ones. They are
profoundly mistaken.
If these are the differences between Democrats and Republicans, then
these are differences that make a difference. I could not be prouder
than to stand out here on the floor and get a chance to be 1 of 100
Members who get to speak for what we have proposed as an economic
recovery plan. It is not all that I would want--my colleagues know me;
I always push for more and more and more--but I think it would make a
difference.
I am so profoundly disappointed that we have out here a procedural
objection.
My gosh, go to town and talk in the Cafe Wilmer or any number of
other coffee shops in Minnesota. People say: Say what? There was a
procedural objection that this wasn't an emergency? Say what? But you
know that I don't have to explain that. Senators on the other side of
the aisle and those who support the Senator from Texas will have to
explain that.
I would like to finish with one other point. This is a small point. I
see my colleague from Iowa out here on the floor, and a Senator whom I
like so much that I will have to get into this with him as well.
I note that today there is a meeting of the ``bankruptcy reform''
conference committee. Colleagues and Senator Grassley, a good friend,
being out of work is the No. 1 reason that people file for bankruptcy.
Medical bills are the No. 2 reason. This is no time to be pushing
through this bankruptcy bill, which is too punitive and too harsh and
which will make it hard for people to rebuild their lives.
I always thought the credit card companies got way more than they
deserved. I never thought it was balanced. But this is no time,
colleagues, to push through a harsh bankruptcy bill in these economic
times.
There are too many colleagues out here who want to speak. If I
continue to go on, it could be for another 3 hours. So I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for
giving me an opportunity to talk about bankruptcy. I haven't had a
chance.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I want the floor back.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I haven't had that opportunity for a long time. By the
way, I am supposed to be in the conference in 2 minutes. I am not going
to be there because I want to respond to the Senator about not only
bankruptcy but also about these tax provisions. That is to remind the
Senate--particularly the 17 Members of the Senate, or maybe it was only
15 Members of the Senate, including the Senator from Minnesota, who
voted against the bankruptcy bill. I hope a vote of 84 to 15, or
something like that, tells you what a good piece of legislation we had.
But in regard to bankruptcy, to allay anybody's fears about what
bankruptcy legislation does, even at a time when we are in the midst of
a war on terrorism, and we have had an economic downturn because of
that terrorist activity, anybody who cannot pay their debt will still
be able to go into bankruptcy.
What we are trying to do through this bankruptcy reform legislation
that is now in conference between the House and the Senate is for those
who have the ability to repay--who under present law can go into
chapter 7 and get off scot-free--will have to pay.
We are talking about people with the ability to repay their debts and
who are gaming the system to get away with financial murder. They are
not going to be able to do that anymore.

In regard to the comments of the Senator from Minnesota and other
Senators who have talked about the nonconcern people on this side of
the aisle might have about people who are unemployed because of the
terrorist attacks of September 11, the whole purpose of this
legislation is to address economic problems that exist because of the
terrorist attacks of September 11.
Where we have separation from people in the other political party is
the fact that a lot of people on the other side of the aisle are taking
advantage of the September 11 terrorist attacks, and also the economic
problems resulting therefrom, to put a lot of legislation on the agenda
that would not otherwise be on the agenda.
What we are trying to do is what Chairman Greenspan advises us to
do--to do those things that are stimulative and related to the downturn
in the economy, directly related to the proposition of September 11.
First of all, I do not think the Senator from Minnesota gives the
President any credit for being concerned about low-income people who
are hurt as a result of this because in a way of addressing, in a
bipartisan way, the stimulus needs of our Nation, the President has
already provided for tax payments, rebates, whatever you want to call
them, to low-income people to help the demand and consumer side of the
ledger. And, obviously, that proposal by our President that is in the
Republican proposal as well has somehow not come to the attention of
the Senator from Minnesota. So I bring that to his attention, that the
President of the United States has already addressed that.
Second, we have followed the advice of Chairman Greenspan, who said
there ought to be incentives for investment in manufacturing. As the
chart I showed you yesterday--that is not in this Chamber today--
indicates, there has been a very steady increase in consumer spending
over the last 10 years. Until recently, there was a very steady
increase in manufacturing investment. But in the last three or four
quarters, there has been a tremendous downturn in investment in
manufacturing. Chairman Greenspan believes that by accelerating
depreciation, we will be able to create jobs, stimulate the
manufacturing economy, and get that segment of the economy back on the
road to recovery and create a lot of jobs in the process.
So, again, I do not think Republicans can be accused of not being
sympathetic when we are following the advice of Chairman Greenspan on
fiscal and tax policies. His point of view ought to be respected in
that area the same way a large share of the country respects his view
on monetary policy, as now 10 times he has reduced the rate of
inflation to help the economy.
The Senator from Minnesota must also not be aware of the fact that
our proposal has in it help for those who are going to lose health
insurance because of being unemployed. In fact, if you look at the
Democrat proposal, again, as I said yesterday, by the time they get
their program implemented, we will be out of a recession. And, we have
a plan that will get help to the people who do not have health
insurance within 30 days after the bill is signed by the President of
the United States.
Their plan creates Federal bureaucracy, a new Federal program,
Federal rules and regulations. Just think of the months it is going to
take to get all that in place. Plus, there is an unfunded mandate on
the States to put a parallel bureaucracy and program in place for the
purpose of dispensing help to people who are unemployed but probably 9
to 12 months down the road.

We already have a program in place where we can get help to those
people within 1 month after the President signs the bill.
To say that we have no concern about the unemployed, then let me ask
the Senator from Minnesota, how come we have provisions in our bill to
extend unemployment compensation by 13 weeks, which is not exactly, but
is along the same lines of what their party suggests?
So all along there is a division that is being drawn between
Republicans and Democrats that is not the tradition of this Senate,
surely not the tradition of the Senate Finance Committee that writes
tax legislation and unemployment and health-insurance-type legislation.
There is no point in having it because this Senate will get nothing
done unless it is done in a bipartisan way.
I hope we have set the stage for some votes this afternoon that will
show that this Senate is only going to address the stimulative needs of
this economy in a bipartisan way. The sooner we get that bipartisan
process underway, the better. I think that will happen.

[[Page S11763]]

(Mr. JOHNSON assumed the chair.)
Mr. GRASSLEY. But I also want to address some remarks that were made
yesterday by Senator Boxer regarding the Republican caucus stimulative
proposal. Under normal circumstances, I would just let these types of
remarks go unanswered as typical political rhetoric, tinged with
inflammatory untruths. But these days are hardly normal circumstances
because the Senate is not working in its usual bipartisan way. So I
want to respond to those remarks.
The American people have called upon us to act, both in the defense
of our country and to restore our economy. Everyone in this Chamber
recognizes the impact of the horrific events of September 11 and their
impact on the economy.
Republicans and Democrats have different ideas on the best way to
stimulate the economy. There is nothing new about this. They merely
represent different approaches to the same problem.
For the past month and a half, I have been pleading with Democrats to
find the common ground in our differing approaches. The American people
expect us to work together to find common ground for our Nation's
common good. Stimulating the economy and winning the war on terrorism
is the most immediate. This can and must be done, and it will be done
before we adjourn for this year.
But just when we hope that constructive bipartisanship can begin, it
is slapped down by the type of accusations that were made yesterday by
the Senator from California. I would like to state what has been stated
by Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer said the Republican approach for stimulating the
economy was using the events of September 11 to--and I quote--``pay
back'' its ``biggest contributors.''
She called the Republican approach ``nothing less than unpatriotic.''
As I said, normally I would dismiss such reckless remarks as typical
politics, designed to pit American against American to gain a political
edge. But these are not normal times. These are times when Americans
expect us to work together.
What is truly shocking, and offensive for that matter, in the
Senator's comments is that many items in the Republican Senate caucus
proposal are items that were recommended by Chairman Greenspan, former
Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, or are included in Senator Baucus's
Democratic proposal.
Bonus depreciation, small business expensing, net operating loss
carrybacks, cash payments to taxpayers--tax rebates, if you want to
call them that--enhanced unemployment benefits, additional health
insurance coverage, are all areas that are contained in both a
Republican proposal and a Democrat proposal. These are areas of common
ground. So to call the Republican approach ``unpatriotic'' is
destructive. It is a distortion.
Most disturbing is the Senator's own admission that her accusations
are baseless. When stating that the House economic stimulus bill was a
``reward to their biggest contributors,'' Senator Boxer said--and I
quote--``It is how I feel. It is my opinion. It's not a fact.''
This type of inflammatory rhetoric is useless. It does nothing to
further America's economic recovery, and it does nothing to further a
bipartisan solution, a solution that is absolutely necessary for the
Senate to get to a final product.
I hope, for the sake of the American people, this sort of nonsense
will stop. It is time to put dignity back into the debates of the
Senate Chamber.
Senator Boxer did have two specific objections to the House bill. It
was the House bill she objected to, not the Senate bill. The House bill
is not the Republican Senate caucus proposal. They differ
significantly, including with regard to two issues to which Senator
Boxer objects. Nonetheless, when a Senator expresses concern about a
legislative proposal, the Senator's concerns should be addressed in a
responsible and dignified manner. That is what I would like to do.
Senator Boxer objected to accelerating the income tax cuts scheduled
to occur in 2004 and 2006. She also objected to alternative minimum tax
relief for American businesses. I will explain why the Republican
caucus believes those issues are important to economic recovery.
One of the greatest weaknesses of Senator Baucus' stimulus package
now before the Senate is that not one dime, not one red cent, goes to
provide relief for people who go to work every day, pay their bills,
and may be clinging to their jobs with their fingertips during this
economic downturn. We believe that reducing the Government's take from
these people's paychecks will give them more resources to ride out the
current economic downturn and will spur increased consumer demand over
the next year.
Besides, money spent by individuals in the private sector turns over
many times more in the economy and does more economic good than if
spent here through the Federal budget. It is really just a matter of
common sense, then. People need more of their money during tight
economic times. If they have more money available, they feel more
financially secure and are more likely to spend.
We only are talking about speeding up a decision that Congress made
earlier this year, a bill signed by the President June 7, a product of
the bipartisanship of the Senate Finance Committee. Last summer this
Senate debated and decided the issue of individual income tax cuts. The
Republican caucus proposal would simply accelerate into next year the
individual income tax cuts that are currently scheduled to go into
effect in the years 2004 and 2006.
If we make them effective next year, they will immediately stimulate
the economy. If we wait until 2004 and 2006, the economy does not
benefit from those reductions at a time when it must. That time is
right now because of the terrorist attacks of September 11 and the
downturn in the economy.
We will talk more about individual income tax cuts later. I turn to
Senator Boxer's primary objection--alternative minimum tax relief for
American businesses.
I would like to propose a terrible idea. Why don't we enact a
provision that increases taxes when companies are struggling to stay
afloat and then reduces their taxes when the companies are profitable?
I think my colleagues would agree that sounds like a dumb idea. I would
offer an amendment on this, but the problem is, we have already enacted
it. It is what we call the alternative minimum tax.
Republicans have been vilified by Democrats for including AMT repeal
in an economic stimulus package. Let's ask the question: Why do we
include corporate AMT in an economic stimulus package? Because
corporate AMT worsens an economic downturn when it increases taxes as
corporate profits decline.

Explain that again. If that doesn't sound reasonable, it isn't
reasonable. But that is what the law is, because AMT, the alternative
minimum tax, is imposed only when the AMT tax exceeds the amount of
regular corporate income tax. AMT is calculated by starting with
regular taxable income and then adding back certain deductions that
were taken in computing the regular taxable income. One of the most
significant deduction add-backs is depreciation.
Consider this very simple example. If regular taxable income falls to
zero, then a depreciation add-back will create alternative minimum tax
taxable income which will be taxed at the AMT rate of 20 percent, even
though the company owes no regular income tax.
Regular income tax does not have to fall to zero for this to occur.
When investment costs and other expenses increase in proportion to a
company's taxable income, which occurs during an economic downturn, the
company may still owe alternative minimum tax.
Companies that have these higher fixed costs include manufacturing,
construction, mining, energy, utilities, wholesale/retail,
transportation, agriculture, and other capital intensive industries.
In 1997, a study for the Brookings Institution concluded that
manufacturing firms could be subjected to alternative minimum tax when
their sales decline by just a mere 5 percent. This was largely because
of higher fixed costs. So one can see the profound effect that a small
economic downturn has on increasing corporate AMT.
The Joint Committee on Taxation has recommended that the corporate
alternative minimum tax be repealed because it is ineffective and
inefficient.
With the Joint Committee on Taxation are professional people who work

[[Page S11764]]

for both Republicans and Democrats. They don't work for the majority.
They don't work for the minority. They work for the Congress as a
whole. This is their recommendation.
So now you may ask: How would repealing the AMT have a stimulative
effect? The answer is simple: The alternative minimum tax is a job
killer. The alternative minimum tax creates a strong disincentive for
companies to undertake new investments or to keep employees on the
payroll. Any activity that reduces a company's regular taxable income,
such as keeping employees during an economic downturn, increases the
likelihood of it becoming subject to the alternative minimum tax.
This is because as regular income decreases, the AMT add-backs become
larger as a percentage of regular income. As I said, when investment
costs and other expenses are large relative to a company's taxable
income, the company may end up owing alternative minimum tax. This is
particularly true for capital investments, which may throw off
depreciation deductions. In fact, increased investment expenditures by
a company during periods of low profitability can cause a company to
switch from the regular tax to the alternative minimum tax. Therefore,
companies that try to maintain a constant level of investment and
continued employment during an economic downturn are more likely to pay
larger amounts of AMT. That is why the alternative minimum tax is a job
killer.
We want to create jobs. Particularly we want to create jobs and we
have a Government incentive for increasing jobs at a time of economic
downturn.
More importantly, the alternative minimum tax increases the tax
burden during an economic downturn which may result in deeper and more
prolonged economic weakness by reducing business activity.
So here we have a tax policy already in place that is making the
economic downturn worse. According to a recent Treasury study, during
the economic slowdowns between 1989 and 1991, nearly 50 percent of
America's largest corporations were subjected to the alternative
minimum tax. We can't afford to repeat that pattern again.
As Chairman Greenspan said: Enhance investment in manufacturing.
That is what accelerated depreciation is about. So that is why we
have to do something with a tax policy that is already on the books and
already is there exacerbating an already bad situation. So please keep
in mind that some alternative minimum tax add-back items, such as
depreciation, relate to fixed investment decisions that were made years
ago during profitable periods. They didn't anticipate what they might
be in right now. But they are going to be penalized for it and
penalized in a way that hurts the economy.
It is inconsistent, then, to consider including bonus depreciation
provisions in our stimulus packages, which we do, at the same time we
punish prior investments through the AMT. I notice that the Democrats'
bill exempts bonus depreciation from the alternative minimum tax. So I
don't know why a Democrat Senator would blast away at the alternative
minimum tax, when even their proposal makes it quite obvious that there
is something that doesn't add up here, doesn't meet the test of common
sense.
So Democrats recognize the counterproductive effect that the
alternative minimum tax has on investment. I also said that the
alternative minimum tax increases taxes when companies are struggling
to stay afloat, and then it reduces taxes when companies are
profitable. This is because any alternative minimum tax paid to the
Government today may offset regular taxes owed in a later year. In
effect, the AMT is a prepayment of a taxpayer's future income tax
liability--and it operates as a no-interest loan from companies to the
Federal Government.
As of today, companies in America have made about $25 billion in
loans to the Federal Government by prepaying their real tax liability
through the alternative minimum tax. This is where the controversy
kicked up concerning the House bill, and it is the thing to which
Senator Boxer most objected.
The House bill--not the Senate Republican bill--paid back in the year
2002 all of the alternative minimum tax prepayments that I just talked
about, these interest-free loans that have been extracted from American
companies over the years.
The reason for this is to provide instant cash liquidity for
companies that are facing the present economic crunch. We would propose
something different. Senate Republicans would allow the alternative
minimum tax to offset only a percentage of the regular tax as it is
incurred. That way a corporation can never completely zero out their
tax liability with AMT credits. So I hope she will consider this and
that this will address Senator Boxer's concerns.
In addition, we would not accelerate the AMT tax credits or refund
them next year. This should address another one of Senator Boxer's
concerns. Yes, we would also repeal the alternative minimum tax, and I
know that doesn't satisfy some Senators. I hope these other two
provisions of our bill would do.
If Senators will stop the shouting and stop talking past each other
and stop making false accusations, we can find common ground to address
at least part of each other's concerns. It is possible to reach
consensus on a bipartisan bill that will stimulate the economy. We must
do it soon.
I urge the Senate to do its job and come up with a bipartisan
stimulus package--one that can be passed by this Chamber, sent to
conference, and signed by the President. The American people are
waiting and they are watching.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I agree with our esteemed colleague who
just spoke that, in fact, the American people are watching us very
closely today to determine whether or not we understand the emergency
that so many workers and small businesses and others in our economy are
experiencing at this moment. All we have to do is ask the people who
have lost their jobs in the airlines alone. We had an emergency in
which we had to act immediately to help the airline industry a few days
after September 11. We rallied to do that, with the understanding--at
least it was my understanding--that we would come back quickly and make
sure that not only the companies were helped to the tune of $15
billion, but that the workers with the airlines and the airports would
be helped.
So all you have to do is ask the people who have been unemployed as a
result of September 11, or other economic circumstances, who work for
the airlines, the travel agents, the airport venders, the restaurants,
and the travel destination cities that have been hurt. All we have to
do in Michigan is ask our auto workers, who have found that because of
the slowdown they are facing layoffs, or have been laid off--and also
the small businessowners in Michigan, as well as Michigan farmers.
I congratulate the chairman of the Finance Committee for his
leadership and work in putting together, with Senator Baucus and
Senator Byrd, a package that makes sense for Americans, for American
business, for American workers, for our communities. But we know that,
frankly, there are two different views of the world at work. We have,
first of all, one world that brings us all together behind the
President to face the current challenges and threats to our country. We
are together on that. I support the President and want him to succeed,
as we all need to succeed together. But on the economic front, on the
homefront, we have two different views of the world that have been
expressed, both in this Chamber and between those of us who support the
legislation in front of us and the House Republicans on the other side.
Frankly, they are very different kinds of economics. One is supply
side economics; give the dollars to those at the top, the largest
businesses, the wealthy individuals in the country, and it will trickle
down. We say we don't have time for trickle down. We don't even know if
it is going to trickle down. I have folks in Michigan still waiting for
the 1980s money to trickle down to them. We say put money directly into
people's pockets, small businesses, the farmers, the unemployed
workers, and the moderate and low-income taxpayers' pockets.
We are backed up by those who say this is the right thing to do
economically. I think we have the best of all

[[Page S11765]]

worlds in this proposal. It is the best thing to do economically and it
is the right thing to do for people. Joseph Stiglitz, the cowinner of
the 2001 Nobel Prize in economics, stated:

We should extend the duration and magnitude of the benefits
we provide to our unemployed. This is not only the fairest
proposal, but it is also the most effective. People who
become unemployed cut back on their expenditures. Giving them
more money will directly increase their expenditures.

Common sense. What is more likely to happen? To give the billions of
dollars to the major corporations, which the House does through the
alternative minimum tax--and I have a different view of what the
alternative minimum tax is about. My understanding is that it was put
in place to guarantee that everybody, regardless of how wealthy they
are or how many tax credits or deductions they can take, pays some form
of contribution--contributions to national defense, to public health
and safety, to education, to public services. The alternative minimum
tax says that everybody in America ought to make a contribution.
The House Republicans say that not only should some folks not have to
make a contribution to our current national defense cost, or
bioterrorism cost, or efforts to clean up from terrorist attacks, or
education, or roads, or health care, and all of the other public
services that we have; we should retroactively pay them for 15 years.
There is over $45 billion involved in the proposal on the House side,
and it goes to two major tax cuts, one of which, the AMT, says not only
are we going to take away your tax liability in the future, but we do
not think you should have paid anything in the past either, and we are
going to retroactively, to the tune of billions of dollars, give you
back your contributions.

I have a lot of small businesses, a lot of farmers, a lot of auto
workers, retailers, service industry folks, waiters, waitresses, all
kinds of hard-working folks in Michigan who would love to have someone
tell them: We are going to give you back the taxes you paid for the
last 15 years.
Nationwide, nearly 7 million people are now unemployed. Unemployment
in my State of Michigan now totals over 268,000 people, and those are
not even the most current numbers as of November. That is a jump of
74,000 people in the last year and a jump of nearly 30,000 people just
since July.
This is an emergency for them. This is an emergency for 268,000
people, many of whom have children for whom they are caring. They want
to make sure their children have what they need and that their families
can put food on the table, have the health care they need and that
their children have the resources to go to school, possibly pay for mom
and dad who need some help in their older years. These are people who
have worked hard and believe in the American dream and are now counting
on us to believe in them and act in a way that shows they are a
priority.
Our plan is the best economically, and it is the right thing to do.
We help these families by extending unemployment benefits so they can
buy groceries and pay their bills. It will provide health insurance,
which has been talked about today, by helping pay for COBRA to continue
health insurance, and we expand assistance to States through the
Medicaid Program.
Consumer spending represents two-thirds of our gross domestic
product. Any stimulus package that ignores this crucial section of our
economy is doomed to fail. Every economist about whom I have been
reading and talking to has said the same thing: It is consumer
spending, stupid. That means we have to put money in people's pockets
so they can turn around and spend that on behalf of their daily needs.
It is consumers who are going to buy airline tickets, computers,
cars, clothes, and, I might say, coming from the great State of
Michigan, we hope they buy a lot of cars. It is consumers who are going
to go out to dinner, see a movie, and help get things back to normal,
as the President has asked us to do.
Unfortunately, the bill passed by the House and endorsed by the
President does little to stimulate the economy or to help the
unemployed. It does little to energize the consumer sector of our
economy. It does little to help our small businesses that are too often
overlooked as tax policy is made and as other policies are determined.
The House-passed bill overwhelmingly and unfairly gives tax cuts to
those, frankly, who are not hurting under this economy: the wealthiest
Americans who do not have an economic emergency, and tax cuts to the
largest multinational companies that we want to be successful but not
at the expense of our small businesses or our working men and women.
I congratulate Senator Byrd and my colleagues who have been working
to increase our public investments in our homeland security efforts. We
all know we have to focus investments on bioterrorism. We have to
strengthen our public health system. We need to focus on those areas
that will keep us safe at home, as well as supporting our national
defense abroad.

I encourage and urge all Senators to come together to look at the
facts, to look at what works, look at what the economists are saying as
to how best to provide an economic stimulus and recovery, to put the
people of our country first as we move forward, and to do so quickly.
This is an emergency. This is an emergency for American families.
This is an emergency for Americans, and we need to act quickly to
demonstrate that we understand and that we support them.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, we are
working to have a vote around 5:15 p.m. or 5:30 p.m. If Senators want
to speak, they should come to the Chamber. That is the general
intention at this time. If anyone objects, they should let us know.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it is interesting to listen to our friends
on the other side of the aisle. It is amazing the message we get. The
message is: Let's get a bill; we need to do it right away. Everyone
agrees with that. We know what needs to be done to get a bill. I happen
to be on the committee that is involved, and we know how the bill got
to this point. It passed entirely with a partisan vote, all Democrats,
no Republicans. Republicans did not have participation in the bill. So
this is a bill that is totally partisan. That bill is not going to
pass.
We need to work on a bill together. There is willingness to do that.
Talking about passing a bill without recognizing what needs to be done
is amazing to me. It is clear what has to be done.
Senators from both sides of the aisle need to join with the
administration and, indeed, with the Members of the House to put
together a bill which we can pass. This business of continuing to talk
about the need and then denying the opportunity to get together is hard
to understand.
Everybody here wants to pass a bill. There is no question about that.
The question is, How do we do it? And that becomes increasingly clear.
There are not going to be enough votes to do it without working
together. This constant conversation about we need to do this right
away is silly. We all want to do something to help the unemployed. We
all want to do something for those who need help with health care.
We all want to provide more incentives to develop jobs.
Talk about an emergency. How much have we spent in the last 2 months?
About $55 billion. The President has said: You do not need to spend
more money now. When we need more money for terrorism overseas or
terrorism in this country, I will ask for it. And we responded when he
asked for the money. Colleagues are now beginning to use that technique
for passing all kinds of projects they always wanted. They are very
questionable as far as being an emergency.
We need to come together and bring before the Senate a bill that
represents the interests of all participating parties and pass it. We
can do that. Until that time comes, the chances are we are not going to
be successful in moving a bill along.
The substitute, of course, spends about $67 billion in the year 2002:
About $21 billion on temporary business tax relief and $46 billion on
spending proposals, including Federal payments of individual tax
insurance premiums

[[Page S11766]]

under COBRA, extended unemployment insurance for displaced workers,
expanded Federal support for Amtrak, numerous agricultural products,
and other unrelated provisions.
Secretary O'Neill recently said the proposal is heavy on spending but
will have little stimulative effect on the economy.
Moreover, some of its provisions would have an adverse effect on
employment. An editorial yesterday in the Washington Post made the
following observation: The stimulus package that passed through the
committee last week includes money for citrus growers and buffalo
farmers producing electricity from chicken waste. It includes a tax
break in aviation fuel for crop dusters; a wage credit designed to
encourage firms to hire welfare recipients was extended to businesses
in Lower Manhattan.
So we all want to get this bill passed, and I think we have a
technique before us where we can do that. We can come together and we
can configure a package that does what all of us want, and that is to
assist those people who now need assistance and provide stimulus for
the economy so we can get jobs and growth back before us and to do it
quickly. Those options are available to us as soon as we are willing to
recognize what needs to be done to cause that to happen.
The President has called upon the Congress, specifically the Senate,
to adopt an economic package, including these kinds of things in the
outline.
Timing: We need to pass it and get it to his desk, the President
said, before the end of November. We can do that.
Tax cuts: We make sure our tax relief encourages investment,
encourages the flow of capital.
We need to reform the alternative minimum tax in corporate America so
corporate America does not have to get penalized during times of
declining earnings.
Create jobs: So often I do not think we really look down the road as
to what we want to be the outcome. If we can help people, we should,
but the real purpose is to create jobs and to create a stronger
economy.
Worker assistance: The President said we need to spend money on
helping workers who lost their jobs as a result of the attacks on
September 11. We need to extend and expand unemployment benefits to
those workers, said the President. I know we need to expand what they
call national emergency grants which will give the Governors the
latitude to take Federal monies and apply the money to special worker
needs.
We need an energy plan that encourages conservation, exploration, and
production. That probably brings about a kick to the economy more
quickly than most anything else we can do.
So these are the issues that have already been talked about, and they
are common. We have a bill that is passed by one party without
consultation with the other. And we expect to get that passed? It is
not going to happen.
We can do something, and we can do something with the House if we can
come together and put together a plan where there is some involvement,
bring it to the Senate to pass it and pass it quickly so we can move
forward to accomplish that which all of us want to accomplish.
I see the minority leader in the Chamber, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, who has control of the time on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are not under a time control situation.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I do want to comment on a couple of issues. First of all, I want to
talk about the job security stimulus package. Before I do that, I want
to talk about the aviation security package that is being considered
now in conference.
My point has been all along there is plenty of room for disagreement,
but there is also plenty of room for agreement. We need to get this
done. We knew we had to get this done before this past Monday when we
had the crash, very unfortunately, in New York again. We cannot help
but have such sympathy and concern and feeling for the people of New
York who have been hit hard again. There are no indications as to
exactly what caused that accident, but it did once again cause people
to be sensitive and nervous about the safety of flying.
We in the Congress need to put aside our ideological or even regional
disagreements because some of it is a little bit regional. In some
parts of the country our airports are all small, regional airports, not
the super big ones. We have a little different view of the world than
they might have in Chicago or New York or Los Angeles. We ought to put
that aside and get this job done. I believe I see movement now, that
both sides are beginning to say there is a way we can get this package
agreed to.
First of all, there is a misperception. We are going to federalize
aviation security, period. There is a matter of degrees perhaps, but we
are going to require perimeter protection. We are going to require
there be a safe and a good screening provision at all of our airports.
We are going to require there be an additional check at the gate. We
are going to require cockpit safety. We are going to have sky marshals,
and the Federal Government is going to require it and provide the money
through a fee system that will be paid for by tickets. We are going to
say this is what our requirements are, these are the guidelines, this
is the management. We are going to make this happen.
The House added several provisions that were good, and we had some
good ones in the Senate, by the way, that are not in the House
provisions. We ought to take the good ones from both of those bills.
The House added some provisions we did not have only because they acted
3 weeks after we did and they found some additional problems and some
additional things that could be done which they included in their
package. Let's take those. I believe Senator Hollings, as well as
Senator McCain and Senator Hutchison, are prepared to do that.
Then it boils down to this question of how do you deal with the
screeners themselves. I believe from discussions I have had today with
those who are involved, they are beginning to come up with a way that
would allow us to move immediately to some changes but give some
options, some flexibility, to the administration and to the individual
airports. What they want in Billings may be different from what we want
in Biloxi and Gulfport, MS. What they want at LaGuardia may surely be
different than what they want in Rapid City, SD. Give some options.
In some places, they may want and have the ability to do local law
enforcement. The next place maybe a private company has been doing a
good job or they have the capability to do a good job. In other areas
they may need to go to a federalized system.

I do not know all the parameters of what is being discussed, but in
my conversations today with Senator Hollings and Congressman Young, the
chairman in the House, Senator McCain and Senator Hutchison, I believe
they have narrowed it down to where we can get this done. So I would
urge our conferees and the leadership of those conferees, in a
bipartisan way, in a nonpartisan way, to get an agreement. It is doable
today and the Senate could vote tomorrow.
That would be such a tremendous indication to the American people we
are serious, that we are continuing our efforts as we have over the
past 2 months to get the job done for America. Forget the philosophy,
the party, the region, any of that other stuff we quite often get
tangled up with. It would be so important to send this bill to the
President's desk the weekend before the Thanksgiving holidays.
Will it guarantee there will be immediate safety within the limits of
human endeavor? No. But it would be a positive sign that would be well
received, and it is the right thing to do.
I think that kind of attitude also applies to this job security or
stimulus bill, as it is quite often referred to. On this bill we have
kind of fallen back to our old ways. We have the House position. We
have the Senate position. We have the Republican position. We have the
Democrat position. We have the spending position. We have lots of
wonderful ideas. We have the tax cut provisions.
What we have is such a hodgepodge and such a weighted bill now that
it is not going to happen. What we need to do is go back to the
beginning. We all agreed there should be a package to stimulate
economic growth and job security. The President, Republicans,

[[Page S11767]]

Democrats, the House, the Senate, we all said, yes, we need to get this
done.
Will it be a magic wave of the wand to make sure we have that growth?
No. But it could be helpful.
We agreed we wanted it to be a targeted bill, one that would have
some immediate positive effect on growth, not 6 months from now, not a
year from now, but right now. When we started off, I thought everybody
agreed on that provision.
We also said we do not want to do something that is going to be
negative in the long term. We do not want to do something that gobbles
up a big swath of money, taking us deeper into deficit spending after 3
years of having balanced budgets and surpluses, and cause interest
rates in the long term to go back up. We all agreed we did not want to
do that, and we all agreed we wanted to do it in a way that would have
an immediate stimulative effect. We kind of lost sight of that.
I do not want to be too critical of the House bill, but a lot of what
they would do would take effect over a period of years. I like that,
personally, but that is not quite exactly what we had talked about when
we started.

In the Finance Committee we got carried away with a lot of spending.
There are not many people going to be able to convince anybody that it
is going to have an immediate stimulative effect. It may be
justifiable. It may be something I would be for in the normal course of
events. But it does not meet the criteria we started out talking about.
I have never heard so many good ideas in my life. Oh, my goodness,
yes, let's do this, let's do that. Every House Member has a different
idea of what we could do to help this sector or that sector of the
economy. It wouldn't cost too much, it would only be a billion here and
a billion there and, as Everett Dirksen would say, soon it adds up to
real money. That is what we have come to.
We need to go back to the beginning and do specifically what we said
we would do. We have to do the human need things. We have to provide
more unemployment compensation. We are going to do that. The Democrats
need to understand we understand that. We are going to do that. We can
argue over exactly how you do it, but it is going to be 13 weeks
additional unemployment compensation. The conferees, I am sure, will
argue about how that would apply to the States and what criteria have
to be met before that happens, and they will work it out. It is a 15-
minute discussion, truthfully.
We are going to make sure people who lost their jobs are going to
have health insurance coverage. There are about three different good
plans out there to be considered. We do not like creating a new
mandatory health program in COBRA. We don't like that because we think,
while it might start off well intentioned and small, it will explode to
a massive program. But there are some other options suggested by the
centrist group, suggested by the President, suggested by Chuck
Grassley, the ranking member of the committee. We can work through
that. But the important point is we are going to get that done. We have
to get that done.
We are going to have rebates for the low-income workers who did not
get the rebate in the earlier round this year. I personally think that
is not a good idea. I didn't like it earlier, to tell you the truth,
because I doubt the positive impact that it really has in terms of a
stimulus in the economy. I think a lot of people will save it, pay down
their credit cards. The argument is, maybe the lower income people will
need it and spend it at Christmastime and all that. Maybe it will work.
But there is no use debating that because that is agreed to. We are
going to do that. The President has agreed to that. Democrats want it,
Republicans agree to it, so why are we fussing around about it? It is a
done deal.
Those are the three things the Democrats say they care about the
most. Republicans say we understand and we are going to have to do
those three things. We are going to have to allow the tax committee
workers to work out the details. But I trust them. Senator Daschle and
I have talked about this. I have talked to the chairman of the Finance
Committee, Senator Baucus from Montana, and Chuck Grassley. I have
faith they are going to work this out.
On our side of the aisle, we would argue that while that is the right
thing to do, it is the human thing to do, it is not really that
stimulative in terms of getting more than a dollar back for a dollar
invested. So we need to do that which will have an immediate and
dramatic impact on the economy. Yes, we do talk about tax relief. We
talk about individual tax rate cuts. We talk about the importance of
the accelerated depreciation for companies to write off the cost of
their equipment faster.

By the way, I think Democrats agree to that, too. The difference is
the Democrats say we want to do it at 10 percent over 2 years.
Republicans say we want a 30-percent bonus over 3 years. Is there a
middle ground in there anywhere? Does anybody see it? Of course. So if
we agree on the basic principle, then we have to work through the
percentages and number of years. We can do that.
I do think--I have always thought--the alternative minimum tax is
counterproductive, counterstimulative, and does undermine the capital
formation we need to have invested in the economy.
It may not be the perfect answer. Maybe there is another good idea
out there. I think Senator Domenici has an interesting idea with regard
to the December holiday on the payroll tax. I am not saying that should
be in there. It is not one that was considered, I don't think, by the
committee, but maybe there is another brilliant idea out there
somewhere. I think we ought to go for those basics, though, and get
this job done and try not to do any damage, try to have some positive
effect, and get it done.
Others have suggested we need additional spending, homeland security.
A lot of what is in that bill we may eventually do. We may need to do
it at some point. It hasn't been requested by the administration and
hasn't even been analyzed by the committees of jurisdiction,
authorization or appropriations. To come in here and attach that to the
stimulus and say this is going to stimulate growth in the economy
because it would spend money somewhere down the line doesn't meet the
basic principles with which we started. Some of the features to which I
was most attracted I understand have even been taken out.
So I think we need to do it.
There has been discussion that Senator Daschle legitimately does not
want to have to negotiate a package on the floor of the Senate and then
go do another one in conference and then maybe do a third one with the
administration. Let's skip all that. We are not going to get a result
here in the Senate as we are now set up. This is partisan, political.
It is not bipartisan. It is not in the spirit in which we have been
working in the last 2 months. We need to take a timeout and say, all
right, let's skip all these hurdles and let's go right to the end game.
Let's get the right people in the room and say: Get this job done.
I trust the people who would be involved. I trust Charlie Rangel. I
trust Bill Thompson and Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley. They are the
experts. They have done it before. Last year I negotiated on a bill
involving the CBI enhancement and the African free trade bill with
Charlie Rangel and Bill Archer, and we got it done. A lot of people
said it would never happen: You will never make that happen; it is
impossible. Max Baucus was involved in that effort, and others. We got
it done.
So I think the idea we would go ahead and go to this, the conference
effort after these two votes this afternoon, is the right thing to do.
The American people, would they be hearing the Senate is deadlocked?
No, that is not what they would hear. What they would see and what they
would hear is the Congress once again is going to the bottom line to
come together on the right thing for America. Yes, they stated their
partisan political positions and they were beginning to drift back to
their old ways, but then they said no, we pulled back from the brink
and brinkmanship and said we are going to go to negotiations that will
get us a package.

As we are headed right now, none of this is going to pass. We are
stalled out here. We could have 20 or 25 votes by Friday and have
nothing but blood all over the place and partisanship to the

[[Page S11768]]

maximum degree. Is that what the American people want? No.
Do they want us to find a way to come together and get a result? Yes.
Is it going to immediately provide this great boost to the economy? I
don't know. It may not. But psychologically it would help and
substantively I believe it could help.
So when we have these two votes, I hope, and I call on my colleagues,
let's not make this an emergency designation. This is a stimulus
package. Let's not waive the points of order. Let's go to negotiation.
Let's get it started. Let's get it started tonight.
I want to say--and I don't want to get him in trouble--Senator
Daschle has been very reasonable and I think willing to pursue this
type of approach. So have all the other players. That is what we have
to have. It is a bold move. It does take leadership.
But why are we here? To stake out positions? To prevail in partisan
battle? There will be another day for that. I hope it is a long time
off. Let's continue to do business the way we have done in the past,
the way we have dealt with each other, the way we have met with each
other, the way we have tried to bridge the partisan and the political
gap because of the tragedies with which we have had to deal. We have
that opportunity here once again. Let's keep it going. I think we can
be successful if we use that approach.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:15
p.m. today the Senate proceed to vote on the Baucus motion to waive the
relevant sections of the Budget Act with respect to the emergency
designation, without intervening action or debate; provided further
that at 4:55 p.m., the following each receive 5 minutes of closing
debate, and in the order listed: Senator Grassley, Senator Baucus,
Senator Lott, and Senator Daschle, or their designees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I would like to address this legislation
of great importance to my State, to my city, and of great importance to
America. Before the substance of my remarks, I would particularly like
to thank Senator Baucus, chairman of the committee, Senator Byrd,
Senator Daschle, Senator Reid--all of the leadership and all our
colleagues who have stood up for New York and for America in our hour
of need.
I would like to speak to the part of the legislation that affects New
York. Then I would like to talk generally about the bill as well.
Before I do, I would like to address the specific vote that we face
immediately; that is, the point of order as to whether we are in an
emergency or not.
Am I dreaming? Are we debating whether America is in an emergency
situation? Are we wondering whether our troops are overseas fighting
for what could be if we did nothing the survival of this Nation?
No emergency? Tell that to the people of my city who are recovering
from the most devastating attack America has ever faced.
No emergency? Tell that to anyone who goes to an airport and sees the
airport mostly empty and to the millions of others who will not fly.
No emergency? Tell that to the people who live near our nuclear
powerplants and are worried about what might happen there.
No emergency? It is almost as if we came together after Pearl Harbor
and said there is no emergency.
America has been attacked. We are in a brand new situation where
every one of us is on the front lines because terrorists can use
technology to attack every one of us.
I remember Secretary Rumsfeld saying that in this war more civilians
will die than military personnel because of terrorism.
No emergency? Good morning. Am I dreaming? Am I dreaming that we are
debating whether there is an emergency and that many will vote for the
fact that we are not in an emergency in America? If this is not an
emergency, what is?
We have been attacked. Our whole nation is changing. People are
afraid. The economy is tied in a knot because people do not want to go
out and do the things they took for granted before September 11. I hope
we are not going to fiddle while Rome burns.
That seems to be what the other side is saying. They can make a whole
lot of arguments about the proposal with which Senator Baucus has led
the Finance Committee. I will disagree with many of them. I might agree
with some of them. But I don't know who on God's Earth thinks we are
not in the middle of an emergency. It is just utterly amazing.
I would like each person who votes at 5 o'clock that we are not in an
emergency situation to go home and explain it. I would like them to
explain it to my constituents in New York City and Rockaway. I would
like them to explain it to the millions of Americans who are afraid to
walk into tall buildings or go over a bridge or take an airplane ride.
No emergency? Who are we kidding?
If there were ever a time when people in the rest of the country were
going to scratch their heads and say there must be something in the
water in Washington because if we ask for this vote, it might seem as
if the only 100 people, or 51 people in the country who do not think
this is an emergency are in this great Senate of the United States.
We are certainly in an emergency. It is a far greater emergency than
all the rest of the emergency spending bills that I have voted for in
my 21 years in this Congress. When we have a flood, there is emergency
spending. When we have a hurricane, there is emergency spending. When
we have earthquakes, there is emergency spending. And when terrorists
and cowardly people take two airplanes and plunge them into the World
Trade Center, and another and plunge it into the Pentagon, and a fourth
that we didn't know where it was, and then for weeks there is anthrax
and we can't go back to our office buildings and in every corner of
America people are afraid to open up the mail, we do not have an
emergency?

Good morning. Go talk to your constituents. Go look at the numbers.
There is certainly an emergency.
I think it is an ultimate act of political trickery almost--certainly
convolution--to say there is not an emergency. Is there a Member of
this body who has not voted for emergency spending when there was an
emergency?
Sometimes you just stop and think and say: What is happening? Why is
there a disconnect between Washington and the rest of America? It is
because sometimes perhaps too many get carried away with their own
words and their own ideological beliefs, and they end up with the
conclusion that is patently ridiculous. It is patently ridiculous to
vote on a bill that has been designed to help our country in one of its
most troubled times and say there is not an emergency.
Let me talk about two other parts of the bill.
Again, I thank Senator Baucus and all the members of the Finance
Committee. I thank Senator Daschle and Senator Reid. I thank all of my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle who understand that New York is
certainly in an emergency.
Despite our confidence that this nightmare will soon be over, New
Yorkers are uncertain about the future. Very few Americans believe our
city is off the terrorist list, and this belief is beginning to take a
severe toll on our economy. Yesterday, tragedy--whether it was accident
or not--rekindled that anxiety.
With Chairman Byrd and Senator Daschle at the helm, and with the
broad support from our Senate colleagues and the great job being done
by our colleagues in the House, Republicans and Democrats, I am
confident that we will ultimately get the disaster aid needed to begin
to rebuild our damaged and destroyed infrastructure. I thank all of
them for that support. But that is for a later discussion.
What I am here to talk about today is the need for the tax provisions
for New York that Chairman Baucus has included in his economic stimulus
package. These provisions are designed to counter the uncertainty and
fear that we believe may lead companies to walk away from us.
Mayor Giuliani, the architect of New York's renaissance in the 1990s,
and now the hero in the eyes of so many in this Nation, will tell
anyone who will

[[Page S11769]]

ask that the key to the city's economic revival begins and ends with
the safety and the people's confidence that the city is a safe place to
live and work.
His great city is now threatened not by petty criminals but by mad
men half a world away hiding in caves while murdering innocent men,
women, and children. This uncertainty and the fear coupled with the
sheer magnitude of logistical problems created by the attack threaten
the entire economy of this city, the State of New York, and, I believe,
the Nation as well.
Working or living in New York City, or Manhattan right now is not a
pretty picture.
Our streets are littered with 37 miles of high-voltage electricity
lines that are but one prankster away from shutting off power to our
Nation's financial center.
Over 40 percent of Lower Manhattan's subway infrastructure has been
destroyed, adding hours to the daily commute of over 375,000 people who
work in the city.
All major river crossings--the Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburg, and
Queensboro Bridges, and the Midtown, Lincoln, and Holland Tunnels--into
and out of Manhattan are subject to nightmarish traffic jams because of
security requirements. Yesterday, for instance, they were all shut down
because of the flight 587 crash.
Nearly 25 million square feet of commercial office space is destroyed
or heavily damaged. The amount destroyed--nearly 20 million square
feet--surpasses the entire office space inventory of cities such as
Miami and Atlanta.
Over 125,000 jobs have at least temporarily vanished from the area,
and the city estimates that at least 30,000 are gone for good.
Noxious fumes continue to emanate from the hole at the World Trade
Center site creating great concern among workers and residents for
their personal health.
There is a possibility that the Hudson River will bust through a
retaining wall and flood the area as the debris is removed.
Insurance companies are demanding 100 percent increases from
companies doing business in New York--simply because they are located
in a confirmed terrorist target zone. Some insurance companies refuse
to provide insurance at any cost.
Mayor Giuliani had to cut $1 billion from the city budget just to
prevent an immediate fiscal meltdown at a time when the need for city
services is at an all-time high.
The city of New York is staring at a $3 billion deficit next year as
a direct result of this crisis. The State's revenue loss is projected
to be $9 to $12 billion.
The Comptroller of New York City places the economic loss to the city
of New York and its businesses at $105 billion in the next 2 years.
The incident has caused the first decline in city gross product in
over 9 years.
In short, we have taken a hit for the Nation. When the terrorists
attacked New York, they were attacking our financial center, they were
attacking America, and they were attacking the free world. None of the
problems I described above was of our making. None of these problems
was the result of a single thing we had or had not done. And none of
the assistance that we have requested on either the appropriations or
tax side exceeds what we need to simply stay afloat as we begin this
daunting rebuilding effort.
The assistance that Senator Baucus included for New York in the
stimulus package is designed to send a message that the Federal
Government will not walk away and allow terrorists to destroy New York
City's economy. I believe people from all over America believe that. It
boils down to specifically three complementary provisions, where
Senator Clinton and I, working with the business community, the labor
community, the small business community, nonprofits, and Mayor Giuliani
and Governor Pataki could come to the conclusion they are our highest
priorities. Frankly, we submitted a larger list. The Finance Committee
pared it down. But this is about our bare needs:
A $4,800 per employee tax credit to companies that retain jobs--and
do not abandon New York--in the area immediately around ground zero;
the creation of a special kind of private activity bond to lower the
cost of rebuilding New York; and finally, a provision that would permit
companies that replace equipment destroyed in the World Trade Center
bombing to take a special deduction if they replace that property in
New York.
Not a single aspect of these proposals is designed to take businesses
from another part of the country or to accomplish job creation goals we
could not obtain before September 11, 2001. We have been fully
supported by our colleague on the Senate Finance Committee, Senator
Torricelli of New Jersey, as well as Senator Corzine of New Jersey and
Senators Dodd and Lieberman of Connecticut, all of whom have stood by
and understand that New York's problem is a metropolitan area problem.
These provisions are simply designed to help us overcome some of the
enormous obstacles that Osama bin Laden placed in New York City's way.
So I, once again, thank Chairman Baucus and the members of the
Finance Committee. I see my colleague from New Jersey has come into the
Chamber. I thank him for his steadfast dedication and his treating our
area as one.
You have all done the right thing, not only by the people of New
York, who are suffering right now, but by the people of America. I
believe the Nation, with this stimulus bill, will be much the better.
I thank all of you on the Finance Committee who have supported us for
your hard work. And I pledge my complete and total support for this
package.
On another point--and that is about this package--we have put
together a package that is designed to put money in the hands of
people, A, who need it most, and, B, who will spend it the quickest.
When I looked at the House bill, I was amazed; such a high percentage
of the benefits do not even come into effect in 2003, 2004, 2005.
Without debating the merits of those provisions, it was obvious someone
put their ideological wishes ahead of a need to stimulate the economy.
When I even look at the alternative Senate bill, we all know that
many of the larger companies that will get these benefits, especially
the ones in the bill of my good friend from Iowa, will not spend them
immediately. Many of these companies have enough capital to spend on
their own. When they see a business investment, they will spend it.
They will when they see an opportunity. Right now they do not see an
opportunity because average people do not have the money to buy the
products that they might create.
I have talked to large numbers of businesspeople in finance and
manufacturing and services. Most of them are afraid to state this
publicly, but when they talk to you privately, they say they don't
understand the House bill, they don't really even understand the Senate
bill that came from the other side, even though it might benefit their
companies. Their greatest worry is that the economy is hurdling south,
and that recession becomes deep recession, and deep recession becomes
deeper recession, and God knows what after that.
To sit here and say that we do not have an emergency, and to sit here
and say we are going to give money to people who are not going to spend
it immediately, when this is supposed to be a stimulus bill, makes no
sense.
So I fully support the Finance Committee package put forward by
Senator Baucus, not only because it helps New York, which is extremely
important to me and is sine qua non, but because if you want to
stimulate the economy and you can ask 100 objective people, non-
Democrat, non-Republican, not coming from a business or labor
perspective, eliminate the ideologues from the left or the right,
almost every one of them would choose the package of the Democratic
Finance Committee.
In conclusion, Madam President, No. 1, we have an emergency, if we
ever had one, and we ought to move this bill forward.
No. 2, New York needs help, not just to benefit New York but to help
America get an important part of our economy on its feet, and this bill
does it.
And No. 3, if there was ever a question about the need to stimulate
the economy now, by giving average folks the money they need to buy the
things that will get the economy going again, this is the time and this
bill does it.

[[Page S11770]]

Madam President, I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, before the tragic events of September
11, one of most pressing issues facing this Nation was what to do about
the economy. From the spring of 2000 until September 10 of this year,
all the indicators pointed to an economic slowdown, if not a mild
recession, for fiscal year 2002.
Since September 11, the economy has far worsened. Hundreds of
thousands of people have been laid off. Businesses and industry are in
dire financial shape, and consumer confidence has plummeted. Several
friends of mine in the retail industry have predicted a nuclear winter
for the retail industry this holiday season, and many Ohio
manufacturers I have talked to have told me they have never seen things
as bad.
Given the challenges these turbulent times present, I say to my
colleagues in the Senate--and to the American people as well--we need
to focus on those measures that will stabilize and grow the U.S.
economy. The need for fiscal discipline is more important today than
ever before.
I am worried that Congress, in its haste to enact measures to
eliminate the scourge of terrorism at home and abroad and counter our
recession, is overlooking the Nation's long-term fiscal integrity.
Earlier in this calendar year, the Congressional Budget Office
indicated that the United States would have a fiscal year 2002 on-
budget surplus of $125 billion and a Social Security surplus of $156
billion. However, given the worsening economic condition of our Nation
over the past year, the most recent calculations of the Senate Budget
Committee show that the Federal Government is on track to have a
unified or combined surplus of $52 billion in the current fiscal year.
In essence, the Budget Committee is saying that the on-budget surplus
CBO estimated for fiscal year 2002 has been totally wiped out, gone.
Two-thirds of the $156 billion in Social Security surplus no longer
exists.
What is more, the stimulus package the Senate is considering will
cost approximately $75 to $100 billion. To pay for that package, the
$52 billion in Social Security surplus will be gobbled up, and the
Federal Government is going to have to issue somewhere between $23 and
$50 billion of new debt this fiscal year.
In addition, the Federal Government likely will end up a lot further
in the financial hole because Congress will pass additional
supplemental spending measures as the fiscal year progresses and
disasters and other emergency issues inevitably arise. The President
said he may be coming back to Congress later this fiscal year for more
money as he finds the need to respond to some of the issues that some
of my colleagues have been talking about.
My point in going through these numbers is to highlight the fact that
each and every additional dollar this Congress appropriates in fiscal
year 2002 is going to require the U.S. Treasury to issue new debt. We
are right back to where we were in 1997, the last year the Federal
Government had to issue new debt. As we debate the economic stimulus
package, efforts to fight terrorism or anything else to do for that
matter, we must constantly ask ourselves a vital question: Do these new
spending initiatives or tax cuts warrant issuing new debt to pay for
them? The question I am asking the various constituencies who visit me
asking for more money from the Government is whether or not their
request is worthy enough to borrow money from our fellow Americans to
pay for it? That is the question. Again, the circumstances warrant
borrowing money to fight terrorism and to boost the economy. I
supported the $40 billion emergency supplemental that we passed
following the September 11th attacks, and much of that supplemental is
going to respond to the needs we have heard about this afternoon.

Extraordinary times require Congress to take extraordinary actions.
We will spend what it takes to defend this Nation from our enemies and
to respond to the needs of our country. The fact that the Federal
Government will, once again, have to issue new debt to fund any new
spending highlights how critical it is that we appropriate these funds
wisely.
Earlier this year I supported the budget resolution and the tax cut.
I saw a plan whereby increased spending increases would be limited and
we would use the Social Security surplus to pay down debt. It wasn't
too many weeks ago we were talking about this in the Senate.
Unfortunately, this is not what has happened. Even before the events of
September 11, Congress was on track to increase overall discretionary
spending by 8 percent. That follows a 14.5-percent increase in non-
defense discretionary spending the year before and another 8.6-percent
increase in spending the year before that.
This pace of spending increases is just unsustainable. I support the
need for a stimulus package. I have been working with members of the
Centrist Coalition to craft a balanced bill that will help spark our
economy by getting businesses to boost investment and which helps raise
consumer confidence and gets the American people spending again and
responds to the financial and health care needs of the unemployed.
Sadly, though, the bill reported out of the Finance Committee last
week appears as if Christmas has come a month early. In fact, some of
the provisions of the majority stimulus measure as well as the measure
that was passed by the House, are nothing more than handouts for any
number of special interest groups.
For example, under the majority stimulus bill, Amtrak would receive
$4.4 billion in tax breaks and $3.5 billion to subsidize farm products,
including up to $10 million for bison farmers for the Midwest.
For each employee they have, Wall Street investment bankers would
receive a $4,800 tax credit, a credit originally designed for use in
training individuals moving from welfare to work.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Ohio yield?
Mr. VOINOVICH. I will yield for a question.
Mr. TORRICELLI. The Senator cited $4.4 billion worth of tax breaks
for Amtrak. What provision would that be? I am the author of the Amtrak
provisions. I am unaware of any tax breaks for Amtrak. Amtrak, being a
public corporation, doesn't pay taxes. So it would be hard to give them
a break. Nevertheless, the Senator made a statement about a provision
of which I don't know. For purposes of the institution, my colleagues
would like to know what tax breaks Amtrak has as a special interest?
Mr. VOINOVICH. According to the information I have, under the
majority stimulus package, they would end up getting a $4.4 billion
benefit. And if I stand corrected, I am more than happy to check that.
Mr. TORRICELLI. The Senator is very kind to yield. For that, I am
very grateful. I would like the record to be correct. Amtrak doesn't
pay taxes so it can't get a tax break. The provision is that the States
can issue bonds to build high-speed rail lines, and the Federal
Government will pay the interest on it. So the Federal Government, in
fact, is helping the States. The tax breaks go to the States that we
represent, not Amtrak, not any projects, not any special interests, the
States of the Union. I include in that the State of Ohio. I thank the
Senator for yielding to me.

Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Senator for refreshing my memory.
The fact is, tax breaks would be given to individuals who purchase
State issued bonds. However, in effect, the U.S. Treasury ends up
paying $4.4 billion in interest for Amtrak on those bonds by giving up
tax revenue from individuals who purchase such bonds. That is the point
I was making.
The movie industry would receive expedited depreciation for their
capital assets. Chicken farmers would get a tax credit extension for
converting chicken waste to energy. The list goes on and on.
Over in the House, one of the biggest items in their stimulus package
would repeal the corporate minimum tax and repay more than $20 billion
retroactive to 1986 and give some of the major corporations in this
country a big tax bonus.
As reported in the November 11 edition of the Washington Post, 16
companies in particular, many in the energy field, would receive more
than $7 billion in immediate tax refunds. While a number of the
specific proposals in either package might give a boost to certain
areas of the economy, we need a

[[Page S11771]]

bill that will give us what truly are the best stimulus proposals, the
ones that will give us the biggest bang for the buck for both the
economy and our unemployed workers.
Another important factor we should consider is whether these
provisions stimulate the economy in the short run without causing a
fiscal hangover that lasts many years. In brief, they need to be
temporary.
One such provision I support as part of the stimulus package is a
temporary extension of unemployment benefits for up to 13 additional
weeks for those who have been hit hardest by the recession. In
addition, I believe families who through no fault of their own find
themselves relying on unemployment benefits should not have these
benefits reduced further through taxation. Therefore, I propose, as
part of the package, an interim suspension of the taxation of
unemployment benefits. We should do that.
Several weeks ago I met with Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan
to discuss the state of the economy and the need for a stimulus
package. Perhaps the most important point he made to me was that the
Congress should consider the net effect of any stimulus package, not
just the gross amount of the dollars involved. In other words, don't
just focus on the size of the tax cuts or the dollars spent but look at
the net effect on the economy when all is said and done.
If the stimulus package that Congress adopts leads to chronic budget
deficits, either through increased spending or revenue reductions, it
is going to drive up interest rates. Make no mistake about it, the
financial markets are watching us.
The Senate lays claim to the title ``world's most deliberative
body.'' As George Washington said, ``We pour legislation into the
senatorial saucer to cool it.''
At this time in our history, it is critical that the Senate takes on
its role and thinks carefully about the long-term fiscal consequences
of its actions. Intellectually, this means Congress must hold the line
on spending and that any increased spending should be limited to
measures that truly raise domestic and international security and
efforts that truly stimulate our economy.
I also remind my colleagues that the events of the past couple of
months, momentous as they have been, do not change the fact that the
baby boomers are aging and approaching retirement. When 2011 rolls
around, the baby boomers will start to retire by the tens of millions.
Unavoidably, the cost of a host of Federal social programs also will
increase significantly. Chiefly, I am talking about Medicare. A few
years latter, the Social Security Program will begin to pay out more
money in benefits than it will collect in payroll taxes. The difference
between those inflows and outflows is going to have to come out of
general revenues, or more borrowing. What we are doing today will have
a large impact down the road.
In order for this Nation to deal with these looming responsibilities,
it is critical that we have our fiscal house in order and have a robust
economy. The first obvious step to ensuring that we can meet these
obligations is to get spending under control and return to reducing the
national debt, as we did the last 3 years.
I am heartened that our President said he will veto an emergency
supplemental spending measure being developed by some of my colleagues.
I stand squarely behind the President, and so do 36 signatories of a
letter Senator Bunning and I circulated several months ago. This letter
reinforced the fact that we would uphold a Presidential veto of
excessive spending.
The fact that the Treasury will once again be issuing new debt to
finance the operations of the Federal Government makes it that much
more important that Congress work together--work together--on a
bipartisan basis to make the hard choices and prioritize our spending.
As I have traveled across my State over the past 2 months, I have
seen the anxiety on the faces of my constituents. The thing that is
giving them a great deal of comfort is the fact that they believe the
President is doing a good job, that he is 100 percent focused on
protecting the Nation's interests and he has put those interests ahead
of partisan politics.
The American people also believe Congress is doing the same thing,
and we must not let them down. One of the things we need to do is
understand that we are facing a much different ball game than we have
ever faced before. This is not 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago;
this is a new ball game for all of us. The people have anxiety; they
are fearful and angry. They are looking at us, and they are wondering:
Are you going to work together for our interests, or are you going to
go back to partisan politics again and put your particular party's
interests above those of the people?
Madam President, we can work together, and we must if we expect to
get a bill to the President by the end of the month. The eyes of
America are upon us to see if we have learned that this Nation's
interests are bigger than our own partisan interests.
I pray that the Holy Spirit enlightens this body to understand the
enormous impact our decision will have on the future of our Nation and
on the quality of life of its citizens.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Senators Baucus and
Byrd for crafting a reasonable and appropriate economic stimulus bill.
The package they have brought forward balances tax relief, assistance
for unemployed workers, and spending for homeland security and economic
recovery. With the United States economy in recession for the first
time in over a decade, now is the time for Congress to act to help hard
working Americans. The Baucus-Byrd legislation will strengthen consumer
confidence as well as public safety.
An already struggling economy was dealt a crippling blow by the
September 11th terrorist attacks. In order to best jumpstart the
economy, each part in the stimulus package has a substantial effect in
the short-term, the greatest impact for the money spent, and no great
cost in later years. I believe that the Baucus-Byrd stimulus package is
directed toward boosting business and consumer confidence in the
future.
America's workers need assistance now. Today, with more than 7
million Americans out of work, the Nation is suffering through its
highest level of unemployment in 20 years. More than half of unemployed
people do not qualify for unemployment, and the vast majority cannot
afford health coverage under our current system. As of mid-September,
there were 10,888 unemployed people in Vermont, a seasonally-adjusted
unemployment rate of 3.2 percent. Approximately 27,200 Vermonters will
claim unemployment insurance in the next year, according to estimates
from the Department of Labor's National Employment Law Project. Of
those, 3,536 will exhaust their unemployment benefits during that time.
The Senate's economic recovery plan addresses these problems by
providing unemployment insurance and health coverage for laid-off
workers, tax rebates for middle and low-income people who need
immediate relief, and tax incentives for small businesses to encourage
immediate investment in new plants and equipment.
One of my primary goals in the wake of the September 11th attacks has
been to increase the security of our border with Canada. Over the past
decade or more, the northern border has continually been shortchanged.
While the number of Border Patrol agents along the southern border has
increased over the last few years to over 8,000, the number at the
northern border has remained the same as a decade ago at 300. Even as
the northern border was increasingly discussed as an attractive route
of entry into the United States for terrorists, Congress failed to
rectify this imbalance.
We began to make up for this pattern of neglect with passage of the
USA PATRIOT Act last month. That law authorized a tripling of the
number of Border Patrol officers, INS Inspectors, and Customs agents in
the States that share a border with Canada. It also authorized $50
million each to the INS and Customs to improve the technology used in
monitoring the border and to purchase additional equipment. This law
provides the basis for improving our security, but we must now ensure
that these proposals are funded. This stimulus bill provides the first
step.

[[Page S11772]]

Senator Byrd proposes an additional $327 million for U.S. Customs--
$31 million to be used for new staffing which could result in as many
as 350 new agents. Coupled with the 285 new agents for the northern
border funded in the Treasury Postal Appropriations bill earlier this
year, we are on the way to addressing the shortfalls felt by the
Customs Service in the north.
This bill also appropriates over $700 million for INS to improve INS
facilities and border infrastructure to help better secure our country.
While I had hoped more money and attention would have been dedicated to
the staffing shortfalls, I am confident we can expand these initiatives
in the supplemental appropriations bill scheduled to move after the
Thanksgiving holiday. We will need to show continued vigilance on this
issue. For too long, we have ignored the needs of the northern border
and been complacent about our security. We no longer can afford such
complacency.
The proposal would also include $600 million for additional FEMA
firefighting grants. This money would allow state and local communities
to expand and improve their firefighting programs. Over 50 percent of
the funding would go to volunteer fire departments in rural
communities.
Again, I thank the Chairman of the Finance Committee and the Chairman
of the Appropriations Committee, for bringing forward this important
legislation. America's national security must not be left behind as
Congress considers an economic stimulus package.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, in the legislation before the Senate
on economic recovery, we are, of course, focused on those who have lost
their jobs, those businesses and unions that are in distress, and our
various communities.
But there are some American families for whom September 11 is not a
memory; it is a crisis in their lives that they wake up with every
morning. I am speaking about the families of those who perished--the
5,000 husbands and wives and thousands of children for whom September
11 will be a day they will live with for the rest of their lives.
Nearly 600 of the dead were from my State of New Jersey. Senator
Corzine and I have begun meeting with the husbands and wives of those
deceased. It is an experience I wish every Senator could share. It
becomes so common to speculate on whether September 11 has changed
America forever. I don't know. But I know that when I meet with these
widows and widowers, America has forever changed for them.
We debate the economic consequences for our country. I want you to
consider the economic consequences for them, what the morning was like,
not of September 11 but of September 12, when a husband or a wife was
gone. It could have been a young family in a new home, with a new baby.
Families wanted to mourn, but there wasn't a lot of time because in 2
weeks a mortgage payment was due, in 3 months a tuition payment was
due, that weekend there were groceries to buy, and there were no more
paychecks. For them, it is a crisis that never goes away.
In the legislation before the Senate, there may be things Senators
like and there may be things they do not like. There may be points of
controversy. I trust there is one thing upon which we can all agree. I
am very grateful that, on a unanimous and bipartisan basis, Members of
the Senate accepted, under Senator Baucus's leadership, an amendment I
offered that will change the tax status of families who lost a family
member on September 11 at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, or
through the anthrax attacks in recent weeks.
The amendment I offered is based on an aspect of current American
law. If, under the statutes of our country, a member of the military is
lost in an engagement abroad, or a civilian employee is killed by a
terrorist act abroad, they will incur no tax liability to the U.S.
Government for that year. When that provision was written, I have no
doubt it did not occur to Members of the Congress that victims would
not be people in the service abroad but would be civilians at home;
that the front lines would not be in Latin America, Africa, or Asia but
in New York, New Jersey, or Virginia. But that is the world in which we
live. The laws must be changed accordingly.
The Finance Committee, therefore, has put before the Senate a
provision that changes the tax laws to relieve the liability of these
tragic families.
First, income tax liability for this year and last year is waived. No
further payments will be paid and refunds will be received when
appropriate.
Second, we recognize that many of those who worked at the World Trade
Center or even in the Pentagon were not salaried employees of
considerable means but may have been performing janitorial services or
were service employees or worked in the restaurant at the World Trade
Center. With modest means, their families face great obligations to
plan their futures. They may not have paid Federal income tax.
Therefore, the second provision waives FICA taxes or payroll taxes that
were paid and may be owing for these families.
Third, many of the families of the deceased are now in the process of
examining the wills of the dead that say what is available for
children, wives, or husbands. Under the Finance Committee legislation,
there is estate tax relief for the first $3 million in assets from
Federal and State estate taxes. There is $8.5 million of Federal estate
tax relief.
It is generous, but it is appropriate. Whatever money is to be left
for many of these families is all the income they will know for the
rest of their lives. It is theirs. That is what the deceased husbands
or wives would have wanted. It is for their children and for their
futures, not the Government.
Fourth, the bill provides help for those who were fortunate enough to
survive the attacks, but for those thousands who had injuries current
law excludes disability benefits from income if a U.S. employee is
injured in a terrorist attack outside the United States. This
legislation will extend the same benefit to those citizens of the
United States injured in a terrorist attack and receiving disability
benefits.
Fifth, there is no better statement about America than the hundreds
of millions of dollars donated to private charities since September 11,
but there is the question of the tax liability of families who receive
some of this assistance from employers, friends, family, or charities.
Under the provision of the bill, we have made it far easier for
charitable organizations to make payments to victims and their families
and for companies to establish private foundations to help the
survivors with short- and long-term needs.
Indeed, any payment from an employer to a victim or family for
personal, living, family, or funeral expenses will be tax exempt.
It clarifies that payments made by airlines, as well as Federal,
State, and local governments as a result of the attacks are also not to
be taxed.
The Senate may debate much of this legislation. As one Senator who
represents hundreds of these victims and their families, much may be
negotiable. Some things may be excluded, but one thing must stand. When
this year is concluded, no American who found a member of their family
on the front line of the war against terrorism should be held liable
for taxation of the U.S. Government for charitable, governmental,
family, or other assistance. What last dollars these family members may
have earned for their wives or husbands or children surely by justice
must be their own. On this provision, we should all insist.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I inquire of the time remaining. I
understand there are several of us who want to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 12 minutes remaining before
controlled time begins.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if I may speak for 3\1/2\ minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I inquire, under the agreement, how
much time was I allocated?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no allocation of time for the Senator
from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Alaska
have 3 minutes, that I have 7 minutes of the remaining time, and I see
the

[[Page S11773]]

Senator from Delaware. How about 5, 5, and 5?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That will exceed available time.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I correct the Senator from Louisiana; I asked for 3\1/
2\ minutes.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent for 3\1/2\ minutes for the
Senator from Alaska, 4\1/2\ minutes for myself, and the remaining time
for the Senator from Delaware.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I thank my colleague for her
cooperation. I will be brief. We are talking about a stimulus package,
and I want to address a specific stimulus package that I think is most
appropriate relative to the business at hand before this body.
As we all know, the question of stimulus means different things to
different people. Senator Craig of Idaho offered an amendment, H.R. 4,
on the stimulus bill today. I intend to pursue that and bring that
matter up.
It is important to understand just what H.R. 4 does. It is the
legislative portion of the President's comprehensive energy program
that aims to secure America's energy future with new national energy
strategies that reduce energy demand, increase energy supply, and
enhance our energy infrastructure and our energy security. It is truly
a stimulus bill.
It is supported by an extraordinary group of Americans: the veterans
groups, the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vietnam
Veterans. I could go on and on. It is supported by the Hispanic groups.
It is supported by those over 60, America's labor community, senior
citizens, small business, on and on.
Why is it so significant inasmuch as it is and should be a part of
this bill? I challenge each Member of this body to identify a greater
stimulus associated with the House bill, H.R. 4, which is now part of
the stimulus package, in stimulating the economy with at least 250,000
direct jobs associated with the building and opening of ANWR.
Furthermore, the revenue of about $3.6 billion going into the Federal
Treasury from lease sales would go directly to offset some of the cost
of our war on terrorism.
What would it cost the taxpayers? Not one red cent. As we look at the
stimulus package objectively, let us recognize what it is. It is a
spending package, but this portion is not. This would be funded by the
private sector. The oil industry would bid on these leases in my State
of Alaska, the revenue would flow to the Federal Government, and the
employment would stimulate the economy and jobs.
There would be at least six new tankers built in U.S. shipyards that
would be operated by U.S. crews, and it would fly under the American
flag. This is hundreds of millions of dollars of expenditures that
would be stimulated by opening up this area. Can we do it safely?
Certainly.
The arguments against opening ANWR are the same that prevailed 27
years ago against opening Prudhoe Bay. We have the technology to do it.
The American labor community supports it. It is the right thing to do
to stimulate the economy, and we should not wait any longer. It is
truly a stimulus. It belongs as part of this bill.
I hope my colleagues will reflect on a better stimulus they can
identify that meets that criteria: It does not cost the taxpayer one
red cent; 250,000 direct jobs; generation of about $3.6 billion
directly into the revenue stream of this Nation.
My time is up. I thank my colleagues. I ask for their consideration.
We will have a vote on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I am proud to support the Baucus-Byrd
stimulus and economic recovery package and believe that it is exactly
the right package at this time to defend, protect, and make our Nation
stronger.
The preamble to our Constitution states that the purpose of our
Federal Government is ``in Order. . .to provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity.''
The Framers of our Constitution, Madam President, as you know, were
very deliberate; they were very exact; they were very careful in the
wording of these documents that helped to create and sustain our
Nation. For that reason, it strikes me as very important that the first
priority of our Government is to provide for the common defense. I
believe the Baucus-Byrd stimulus economic recovery package does exactly
that. Let me explain.
We fund a military operation whose sole purpose is to protect
American lives, our property, and our well-being. Our lives, our
property, and our well-being are at risk because of the attack we are
under.
This is a two-pronged war in which we are engaged: We are engaged in
Afghanistan on the ground trying to find the people and groups
responsible for the attack on the United States and our allies, and we
on the homefront are trying to keep our Nation standing up under this
attack.
I ask my colleagues: What would it matter or what difference would it
make to a businessperson if his or her business were destroyed by a
terrorist in a direct attack or if his or her business were destroyed
due to the impact of a terrorist attack?
The business is lost just the same. We can come to this Chamber in a
bipartisan spirit and support our military, and I do. The military is
to protect our interest, our lives and our livelihood. There are
thousands of families who have been directly hit by a terrorist on our
shores. There have been thousands of businesses and millions of people
in jeopardy because of that attack.
This Government, under the Constitution, and all that we know about
our Government, has a responsibility to those individuals to help
provide economic recovery. That simply is what this package does. This
is not an entitlement. This is not a special interest. Our country
exists to help us protect and defend ourselves, and that is what
workers and businesses are trying to do. They have been attacked, and
Government has a right to respond and respond in this way.
The package before us provides some very important help to keep these
businesses open, to help people continue to receive a paycheck so they
can pay down their mortgages. Think about this: Our Army, our Navy, our
Air Force and Marines are assembled all over the world to keep
Americans or keep foreign armies from taking homes away. Whether they
come on to our shore and take our homes away by confiscating the
building or whether homes are taken away because the homeowners inside
cannot pay their mortgage, what difference does it make? The home is
gone.
Senator Baucus has been working morning, noon, and night to come up
with a package to help Americans pay their mortgage. We can ask
Americans who live in Louisiana or Montana, what difference does it
make if they do not have their house? So let us craft a stimulus
package that helps businesses stay open, workers pay their mortgage,
people be able to use their benefits.
This package that has been put together by Senator Baucus, Senator
Daschle, Senator Reid, and the Democrats recognizes the responsibility
for common defense. It also recognizes it does not really make a
difference how a person loses their home. The loss is the same, and let
us fashion a package that helps them.
Give 75 percent of COBRA premiums for displaced workers. In
Louisiana, these premiums cost $7,000. That represents 75 percent of
the unemployment check. So if we do not provide health care, it is as
if a foreign army came and took over a hospital and stood at the door
with a machine gun and said, no, we know that you are dying and need
surgery, but you are not going to have access to this hospital. If we
do not give COBRA payments, it is the exact same. People cannot use the
hospital. It is the same thing for unemployment.
So I want to strongly urge this package for Louisiana, for our
Nation, and to say that for the nonproliferation issues it is a direct
risk to our Nation if we do not invest in ridding this world of weapons
of mass destruction.
I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.

[[Page S11774]]

Mr. CARPER. My colleagues have heard me say a number of times,
reflecting back on the last 8 years when I served as Governor of
Delaware, that we always had in place a litmus test that we applied
when we considered proposed tax cuts. The litmus test was that those
proposed tax cuts should be fair. They should stimulate the economy and
create jobs. They should simplify the Tax Code. And they should be
consistent with a balanced budget. We need a similar set of guiding
principles as we debate the stimulus package that is before us, and as
it turns out there is such a set of guiding principles.
The process of working out a bipartisan economic stimulus package
began shortly after the attacks of September 11. The White House and
congressional leaders from both parties met jointly and, in
consultation with Chairman Greesnspan and former Treasury Secretary
Robert Rubin, they agreed upon a bipartisan set of principles for an
affective and responsible package. Those principles were agreed to
jointly by the bipartisan leadership of the House and Senate budget
committees, as well as by the Centrist Coalition here in the Senate.
I stated at the outset of this process that I would use these
bipartisan principles as my guide as we considered economic stimulus
legislation here in the Senate. I have conveyed that message to all of
my constituents who have written me on this subject or who have talked
to me about the issue at town hall meetings. I also conveyed the same
message very early on to Chairman Baucus and both leaders.
Since this debate has, unfortunately, become much more partisan of
late than it was in the beginning, it's helpful to look back at those
bipartisan principles that we started with. Chairman Baucus deserves
great credit for sticking to the spirit as well as the letter of those
principles from beginning to end, even as he has come under great
pressure from all sides.
First, the bipartisan principles stated that a stimulus package
should accomplish three objectives: restore consumer demand; increase
business investment; and help those most vulnerable in an economic
downturn.
On the consumer side, the Baucus package provides, as the President
has requested, rebate checks to the 45 million taxpayers who either did
not get checks this fall or only got partial checks this fall.
On the business side, the Baucus package provides specific tax
incentives to encourage businesses to invest again in America and to do
so immediately. In particular, the Baucus package includes a provision
the President requested to allow businesses, large and small, to
recover immediately a greater portion of their investment costs.
In terms of assistance to those most affected by the current
downturn, the Baucus plan provides help to those workers who have been
laid off since September 11, in the way of an extension of unemployment
insurance and an added hand in maintaining health coverage for
themselves and their families. Additionally, the Baucus package
provides assistance to the City of New York to help with that city's
heroic efforts to recover and rebuild from the devastating events of
September 11.
Second, the bipartisan budget committee principles stated that a
stimulus package should equal approximately one percent of GDP,
including the fiscal impact of all of the various actions taken by
Congress since September 11. The size of the Baucus package, at $70
billion over the next 12 months, is slightly less than the $75 billion
requested by the President. On the other hand, when combined with the
other measures passed since September 11, it is slightly more than the
one percent of GDP proposed by Chairman Greenspan and Secretary Rubin
and agreed to by the bipartisan leadership of the budget committees.
Third, the bipartisan budget committee principles stated that
measures included in a stimulus package should be limited in time, so
as not to push up long-term interest rates and so as not to make
permanent our recent reliance on the Social Security trust fund to make
up for renewed on-budget deficits. The recommendation of the bipartisan
leadership of the two budget committees was that all measures should
sunset within one year. The sunsets in the Baucus package conform with
that recommendation.
Fourth and finally, the bipartisan budget committee principles stated
that to keep the nation on track to pay off the national debt over the
next decade, outyear offsets should make up over time for the cost of
near-term economic stimulus. And this is really where Chairman Baucus
deserves great credit. The cost of his plan over the next decade--the
effect it will have on long-term interest rates and on our ability to
finance the retirement of the baby boom generation--is one-third less
than the stimulative impact of his plan over the next 12 months.
This combination of significant short-term stimulus with relatively
little long-term cost is precisely what the bipartisan leadership of
the budget committees called for at the outset of this process, but it
is easier said than done. Just consider that the package passed by our
counterparts in the House is 60 percent more costly over the next
decade than it is stimulative over the next 12 months, or that the
alternative our friends on the other side of the aisle are offering
here in the Senate is nearly 50 percent more costly over the next
decade than it is stimulative over the next 12 months.
I regret that this process has become as partisan as it has. I have
been very heartened since September 11 to see the President and Members
of Congress from both parties working together in a bipartisan,
bicameral fashion to craft commonsense solutions to the uncommon
challenges facing our country. I believe deeply that the very best
thing we could do right now to restore the confidence of consumers,
investors, and business leaders alike would be to work together to pass
a bipartisan economic stimulus package.
I believe there is still an opportunity to come together across party
lines and between the two chambers to achieve a reasonable compromise
that will serve the best interests of the country and extend the spirit
of bipartisan cooperation here in the Congress. The only way we can
hope to reach agreement on the fine details at the end of the day,
however, is if we remain true throughout the process to the broad
principles that we agreed to at the outset.
I believe that Chairman Baucus has kept faith with the bipartisan
principles that were proposed by Chairman Greenspan and Secretary Rubin
and were agreed to by the bipartisan leadership of the budget
committees and by the Centrist Coalition. I believe that he has
negotiated in good faith. For that reason, Chairman Baucus has my
support. I hope he will have the support of all centrists here in the
Senate, whether Democrat, Republican, or Independent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Under the previous order, the Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I believe I am recognized for 5
minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Our leader also would have 5 minutes. I have talked to
Senator Lott, and he said since he spoke this afternoon perhaps Senator
Nickles would like to speak. So I hope Senator Nickles or somebody else
from our leadership can come and speak. If they do not, I will be glad
to do it for them, but right now I will take 5 minutes.
Madam President, over the last several days, we have heard about how
this process of getting to a stimulus package started with a set of
principles that presumably both Republicans and Democrats on the budget
process, as well as the finance process, have agreed to.
Democratic Senators have particularly been reminding us of this
process of having a stimulus package agreed to with a whole set of
principles. They have been reminding us of this, and they have
particularly been reminding us as they criticize the House bill on the
stimulus. They also used it to criticize a proposal I released a few
weeks ago that represented the thinking of the Republican caucus.
As is often the case, not every principle fits everything they want
to talk about, and so what one of the principal proponents of the bill
that is before the Senate--and that is the Democratic caucus bill--has
failed to mention is that none of the stimulus provisions should be
industry specific.

[[Page S11775]]

It seems that adhering to principle is in the eye of the beholder
because the bill that came out of the Finance Committee and is before
us now as modified is laden with industry-specific provisions, contrary
to one of the principles that has been talked about in the stimulus
package that is agreed to.
We have specific measures in this bill before us targeted to Amtrak,
to broad band, as well as specific agricultural crops and even bison,
if one can believe it. We have an incredible expansion of the work
opportunity tax credit. I have supported this tax credit which was
meant to help welfare recipients find work, but in the Finance
Committee bill before us this credit has been grotesquely distorted to
give this tax credit to companies in New York investment firms and
banks who hire millionaire stockbrokers and lawyers.
Can you believe that? Tax credits for millionaires; that is what the
Democrat bill stands for.
Another principle Democrats have emphasized is these measures should
be temporary, and they insist any tax measures cannot be more than 1
year long, but we have all kinds of spending measures in this mix that
will have long-term impact. We also have a bond provision in the
Democrat plan that the taxpayers will be paying for not 1 year but over
30 years. If that does not establish a double standard, I do not know
what does.
We have a Washington Post editorial that is on a chart behind me. I
am not going to go into detail about reading the whole article, but the
headline is ``Meet Patriotic Pork.'' The editorial argues that Members
are cloaking their underlying agenda under the name of patriotism and
in the fight against terrorism. The editorial criticizes the House
bill, which I also agree goes too far, but the editorial goes on to say
that ``the Senators who larded this bill in committee ought to be
ashamed of themselves.''
Madam President, that kind of says it in a nutshell. My objective is
to work to make this bill a product of which we will not be ashamed; we
will have a product of which neither Democrats nor Republicans will be
ashamed. I know we will have a product of which the chairman of the
committee, Senator Baucus, will not be ashamed. And I will be for it.
We need to get that process going. We need to do whatever it takes to
make sure this bill will accomplish our goals, then, of helping the
economy and the American people. Right now, it is obvious it does
neither and our country deserves better. So this partisan, pork-ridden,
lobbyist-written bill needs to be stopped, and we will stop it. Once
this happens, then as things go in the Senate, reasonable heads will
prevail, and we can sit down and work out a bipartisan compromise that
meets the greatest needs of the Senators and we can vote for it.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement of
position of administration policy.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Executive Office of the President,

Office of Management and Budget,

Washington, DC, November 14, 2001.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 3090--Economic Recovery and Assistance for American
Workers Act of 2001
The Administration opposes passage of H.R. 3090 as reported
by the Senate Finance Committee. The Administration believes
that it is crucial for Congress to quickly pass a stimulus
bill that will help get the economy going again following the
terrorist attacks of September 11th. This bill in its present
form will not accomplish this goal.
Instead of providing broad-based tax relief to restore
economic growth, this bill is an assembly of provisions that
do not provide immediate economic stimulus and are not
appropriate to this bill. For instance, $5 billion is set
aside for agricultural programs, including payments for bison
meat, and more than $4 billion is directed to tax credit
bonds for Amtrak.
Furthermore, some of the proposals in H.R. 3090 as reported
by the Senate Finance Committee would require at least six
months to one year to take effect due to their unprecedented
nature, the need for new Federal regulations, and the
requirement for new health insurance authorizations from
State legislatures. Proposals that effectively start next
summer and purportedly end next winter will neither provide
immediate assistance for displaced workers nor rapid stimulus
for the economy. Indeed, economic growth could suffer
substantially as a result of these provisions. In contrast to
the President's proposal to give prompt aid to displaced
workers and provide broad-based tax relief that will speed
their reemployment, this bill's unprecedented expansion of
unemployment insurance and the new health care entitlements
would likely increase unemployment by hundreds of thousands
of workers next year.
These provisions have one feature in common however: each
is likely to permanently expand the size and scope of the
Federal government and its control over programs, such as
unemployment insurance, that have always been under State
purview.
The Administration also notes that the proposed expansion
of the work opportunity tax credit is duplicative since the
Administration has decided it will direct $700 million in
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to New York to
aid businesses affected by the terrorist attacks. The
Administration's decision was the result of consultations
with both New York State and city officials.
The Administration is opposed to efforts to attach
additional discretionary spending to the bill. The
Administration and Congress agreed to limit discretionary
spending to $686 billion and to provide $40 billion for the
emergency response to the terrorist attacks. These funds are
more than adequate to meet foreseeable needs. This agreement
should be upheld.
The Administration urges the Senate to work together across
party lines to pass a responsible economic stimulus package
that will provide an immediate boost to the economy. The
President believes that the best way to retain and create
jobs is through tax relief that improves incentives to work
and invest while restoring consumer and business confidence.
The President has set out the following four principles for
achieving these goals:
Accelerating marginal income tax rate reductions to provide
more money for consumers to spend and for entrepreneurs and
small businesses to retain and create more jobs;
Giving relief to low and moderate income workers to put
more money back in their pickets;
Providing partial expensing to encourage businesses to
invest and make new purchases; and
Eliminating the corporate alternative minimum tax, which,
if unchecked, imposes job-killing higher taxes during an
economic downturn.
The President has also called for swift action to help
dislocated workers, through extensions of unemployment
benefits and health care assistance programs that can be
implemented without delay.
Unlike the version of H.R. 3090 reported by the Senate
Finance Committee, the President's framework would boost the
economy, help displaced workers get back to work quickly, and
create several hundred thousand more jobs. Accordingly, the
Administration urges the Senate to reject the Finance
Committee approach and instead to work in a bipartisan manner
to craft an economic stimulus package that reflects the
President's principles and encompasses provisions that will
provide an immediate and effective stimulus to the Nation's
economy.

pay-as-you-go scoring

Any law that would reduce receipts or increase direct
spending is subject to the pay-as-you-go requirements of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act.
Accordingly, H.R. 3090, or any substitute amendment in lieu
thereof that would reduce revenues or increase direct
spending, will be subject to the pay-as-you-go requirements.
OMB's scoring estimates are under development. The
Administration will work with Congress to ensure that any
unintended sequester of spending does not occur under current
law or the enactment of any other proposals that meet the
President's objectives.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, this so called stimulus package
includes a lot of money for agriculture. Since I am the only working
family farmer in the Senate, I think it's important that I point out
the biggest problems with the agriculture spending we are considering.
The first problem that I see involves the section on commodity
purchases. This section has been described by the chairman as a list of
agriculture commodities which have experienced low prices in the 2000
or 2001 crop year. Due to what has been described as an ``economic
shortfall'' experienced by these commodities the chairman would like to
institute a short-term purchase program.
In the past, when I sat on the Agriculture Committee, we did provide
short-term relief for specific commodities. But before we provided that
relief and spent tax dollars we justified that spending by reviewing
economic data which defined the problems specific commodities were
experiencing.
I know that the Agriculture Subcommittee on Appropriations has also
worked on similar assistance packages, and I would bet my farm on the
fact that they also justify the cost by reviewing the loss.
My point is that if we are going to spend hundreds of millions of
dollars on these commodities, doesn't the

[[Page S11776]]

other side need to at least show us the data that led them to include
these commodities? I am the ranking member on the committee, and I have
not heard from one farmer in America that this is needed. Let us start
this discussion as any committee with jurisdiction over this issue
would. Show us the average price of these commodities and what
percentage of loss they have experienced. At least show us when and
where the loss occurred.
While we are talking about where, where are these commodities
located? Specifically, which regions of the country benefit from this
section. We would have asked this question in the Agriculture
Committee, why is no one asking it now? Where are these commodities
being produced?
For instance, where is the majority of bison slaughtered? I did a
little research and found that one cooperative in North Dakota
processes over 60 percent of America's bison meat. In fact, this
facility, is the world's first processing plant devoted exclusively to
bison meat.
I am not trying to tell everyone that there might not be a need for
us to purchase bison meat. Who knows, maybe the Senators from North
Dakota can show us that there is a real need for bison to receive some
sort of assistance. But, under this bill, even billionaires who dabble
in bison ranching will get taxpayer assistance.
What I am trying to demonstrate is that this isn't the committee of
jurisdiction for USDA programs and if the Democrats want to give the
Finance Committee jurisdiction over USDA because the Agriculture
Committee cannot handle its own workload, we should review this as the
Agriculture Committee should, or as any committee should review an
issue before spending American tax dollars.
The second problem I see is the re-establishment of the Natural
Disaster Program. Under this program, producers are compensated if
their crop losses are more than 35 percent of historic yields. We
enacted this program last year to help farmers deal while we were
getting the Agriculture Risk Protection Act up to speed. For those of
you who do not remember, the Agriculture Risk Protection Act was the
crop insurance bill we spent $8 billion taxpayer dollars on to avoid
this specific scenario.
Congress allocated $8 billion dedicated to getting the government out
of the disaster business by making crop insurance more affordable. The
chairman would lilke to reinstitute a program that compensates
producers if their yields fall off. Sounds a lot like crop insurance to
me.
Why are we tyring to provide payments to producers who have chosen
not to buy insurance? I can see why we did this in the past, but now
that the law is in place the U.S. government is subsiding the cost of
insurance on wheat at about 55 percent for the family farmer.
The message we will be sending is, ``there is no need to take care of
your own risk, Uncle Sam will help you cover your losses. And in turn
you punish the family farmers who bought insurance to manage their own
risk.
I know that under this program there is a small premium for producers
who carry insurance, but this program does not allow more than the
worth of the crop. So, if the farmer has insurance that covers his
loss, he does not get much out of this program.
It looks like to me we are questioning the policy established in the
crop insurance law that the majority of us supported. Isn't this really
a question that should be debated at length? Shouldn't the long-term
ramifications of this decision at least be considered?
How do we tell farmers to follow the direction established in the
crop insurance law and manage their own risk by purchasing affordable
insurance tools while we are rewarding those that have chosen to save
their money and take on more risk by not purchasing crop insurance?
If the Finance Committee is now the committee of jurisdiction for
crop insurance, I think these questions should be addressed.
The third point I want to bring up is the $3 billion to clear the
``backlog'' of Rural Development loan and grant applications at USDA. I
realize that this is now being deleted from the chairman's bill, but
the Senate was subjected to this awful policy during the markup and up
until today, so I think it is worth mentioning.
When I read that provision for the first time my first though was,
``How important is it to clear the backlog at Rural Development
quickly?''
The reason I ask this question is due to the fact that the
legislation required funds be made available only after the next fiscal
year 2002 Ag. Appropriation funds had been exhausted.
Don't we usually provide enough funds based on the need and ability
of USDA to process the applications during the next fiscal year?
Under the chairman's proposal, we would have had to first spend the
fiscal year 2002 allocation before we used this new money. How many new
jobs would this money have created in six months? Not many if we didn't
run out of fiscal year 2002 funds until August or September.
It is sad that the press had to inform the other side how poor this
idea was instead of the Republicans and Democrats working together
because I guarantee you, if anyone on the Democratic side of the aisle
had asked me I would have pointed this out immediately. This was
terrible policy.
Just to let everyone know, I contacted USDA about the provision the
Democrats pulled and they told me that if those funds had been made
available USDA would have needed an extra $100 million in salaries and
expenses to get all of the possible loans and grants out the door
within a year.
My final point is that if this amendment had been successful we would
have been asking a mission area of USDA to engage in the single largest
expansion of any mission in years, and to do so without an
undersecretary.
In summary, the Senate Agriculture Committee seems to be unable to
manage its own business so I guess it is trying to ``pass the buck'' to
the Finance Committee. These are not light-hearted issues and the
impact of these provisions will affect both short and long term policy
considerations and precedents.
Madam President, I'd like to take a few minutes to respond to remarks
made earlier today by our distinguished majority leader. The majority
leader criticized three of the four proposals in the Senate Republican
Caucus' stimulus proposal.
The three proposals the majority leader criticized are: one, the
acceleration of the marginal tax rate cuts from the bipartisan tax
relief package enacted earlier this year; two, the repeal of the
corporate alternative minimum tax; and three, the 30 percent bonus
depreciation.
I would like to address his general criticisms of the proposals.
Senator Daschle made the following points: one, the proposals were the
same old ``leftover'' tax cut proposals; two, that Senate Republicans
were using the September 11 events to push ``ideological'' measures;
and three, that these proposals had been ``unanimously'' rejected by
economists, editors, governors, and others.
I will respond to these general criticisms one by one.
On the first one, the ``leftover'' argument, I would like to point
out that, with the exception of the marginal rate acceleration, none of
these proposals were included in any tax cut bill considered by the
House or Senate for this year or last year for that matter. As a matter
of fact, bonus depreciation has not been on the table for nearly a
decade. These proposals arose subsequent to September 11 as a response
to the major economic problem of declining business investment. So let
us not characterize these proposals as leftovers.
Let us go to the ``ideological'' point. Again, with the exception of
the marginal rate acceleration, these proposals were not Republican
agenda items. I ask: Does anyone recall signs at the Republican
Convention with ``bonus depreciation'' or corporate AMT relief?
This charge was coupled with an allegation that Republican Senators
were using the events of September 11 to advance these so-called
ideological proposals. Of course, these proposals were specifically
designed to respond to the economic downturn. Indeed, in a gesture of
bipartisanship that has not been reciprocated, Republicans, led by the
President, put on the table a proposal that certainly cannot be called
a Republican priority, a supplemental rebate. In another gesture of
bipartisanship, again with no reciprocation by

[[Page S11777]]

the Democratic Leadership, Republicans, led by President Bush, took off
the table, an arguably stimulative proposal, capital gains tax cuts.
Actions speak louder than words.
I agree with one part of the majority leader's statement. That is,
neither side should use the events of September 11 to advance
ideological objectives.
I have pointed out two significant examples of Republicans acting in
anti-ideological manner. Where in the Democratic caucus proposal, or
Democratic leadership's actions, have we seen similar anti-ideological
behavior?
Indeed, it appears that the events of September 11 are being used as
another ``salami slice'' tactic to get to a Democratic ideological
objective. That objective is a Government-run universal health care
system. Just take a look at the new COBRA entitlement, labeled as
temporary here.
Now, I would like to address the majority leader's third general
criticism. That criticism is that economists and editors have
unanimously rejected the Senate Republican caucus stimulus proposal.
I guess if you only include some economists that have served in
Democratic administrations or some editors that identify themselves
with the Democratic agenda, then I would agree with the majority
leader. For instance, much is made of Joseph Stiglitz's criticisms.
There is a lot of talk about his Nobel Prize, but you do not hear that
he chaired the Council of Economic Advisors in the Clinton
Administration. I guarantee there are Nobel Prize winners who worked in
Republican administrations who would not agree with Joseph Stiglitz. In
fact, they would have problems with the Democratic package.
As an example of the diversity of opinion, you only have to review
the statements of Glen Hubbard, the current chair of the President's
Council of Economic Advisors.
The charge that economists have ``unanimously'' rejected the Senate
Republican caucus stimulus package is not borne out by the facts.
With respect to the charge that editors and opinion writers have
`'unanimously'' rejected, I would like to print in the Record a couple
of articles. One is an article by Kevin Hassett, who was a witness
before the Senate Budget Committee. Another is an article from National
Review. These are only two of many articles that show that there is
support for elements of the Republican causus position. In addition,
even the Governors' letter cited by the majority leader does not reject
the Senate Republican caucus stimulus package. I also ask unanimous
consent to print in the Record an editorial from the Washington Post,
that is highly critical of the Finance Committee's stimulus bill, by
pointing out that high-priced lobbyists help put the Democratic bill
together.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Asian Wall Street Journal, Nov. 7, 2001]

A Silver Lining

(By Kevin A. Hassett)

The U.S. Federal Reserve's 50-basis-point rate cut Tuesday
came in response to a flurry of extremely negative economic
reports and increasingly widespread pessimism about the
American economy. As the federal funds rate nears zero, many
observers believe that there is little room for further
significant interest rate reductions. With the economy still
declining and the Fed out of ammunition, additional
government stimulus must now be of the fiscal variety.
Corporate tax cuts are a natural fiscal stimulus candidate.
The corporate sector has dropped the sharpest this year, and
business investment has historically responded impressively
to tax cuts. Yet U.S. Senate Democrats have staunchly opposed
Republican efforts to provide corporate tax relief. ``I'm not
even enamored any longer with the word stimulus,'' said
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle last week, preferring
instead to launch a giant government spending spree. Such
measures reflect the emerging Democratic view that the ``Bush
economy'' is nearing depression, and only a New Deal can save
it.
But if you look closely, things aren't that bad. Marginal
tax-rate cuts might well have difficulty stimulating business
activity if there is significant excess capacity. But the
data don't support such a negative view. Indeed, despite
rumors to the contrary, the American economy was most likely
not in a recession on Sept. 10. The monetary and fiscal
stimulus adopted earlier in the year appears to have done its
job quite well.
That positive news emerged last week when the U.S. Commerce
Department reported that the gross domestic product declined
0.4 percent in the third quarter. Negative GDP growth is a
strong sign of a recession, but analysis of the background
data suggests that the number would have been comfortably
positive absent the attack. First, before the attack, chain-
store sales indicated that consumer spending in September was
at about the same healthy level posted in August. Second,
border closings created turmoil in the auto sector, where
just-in-time inventory techniques led to significant
production interruptions.
It is a simple adding-up exercise to correct for these two
factors, and doing so leads to a surprising conclusion. If
September consumption had continued at the pace registered at
the start of the month and auto production had not jammed up,
the economy would have dodged recession in the third quarter.
GDP would have been more than a percentage point higher--
safely nestled in positive territory.
Although that did not happen, it does put to rest the view
that the terrorist attacks pushed an already devastated Bush
economy into a steep downward spiral. The economy was doing
better than expected, and this was likely because of well-
timed economic policy. Consumer spending has been
particularly strong in interest-sensitive sectors.
Another bit of positive news lurking in the third-quarter
data confirms the view that business tax cuts in particular
could be effective now. The government data available do not
explicitly report third-quarter productivity, but it is
possible to figure this out by using techniques that are also
relied upon by Fed economists (and undoubtedly reported to
board members Tuesday).
These calculations are striking. Even with the sharp
declines in output that occurred at the end of the third
quarter, productivity increased by more than two percentage
points. As economic data watching goes, that remarkable
observation is as good as it gets.
Historically, productivity has almost always declined
sharply just before a recession and softened further during a
recession. This ``procyclical productivity'' pattern is so
reliable that an entire literature exists exploring its
cause. The current consensus appears to be that productivity
drops near recessions because firms are reluctant to lay off
idle workers when demand shrinks, and the proportion of
workers that are not productive increases sharply. Perhaps
that describes the past, but it has not happened this time.
High-tech investments have allowed firms to adjust on the fly
and continue to squeeze more output out of fewer inputs.
In February, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan marveled at the
strong productivity numbers posted in late 2000 when the
economy was softening. The increase was, he remarked in a
Senate Banking Committee hearing, ``at a pace sufficiently
impressive to provide strong support for the view that the
rate of growth of structural productivity remains well above
its pace of a decade ago.'' It's important to note that this
high rate of productivity has continued over the past few
quarters, even as the economy has softened.
Why is this so important? If productivity were declining,
then firms would be faced with many more painful decisions in
coming months. Capital investments that were intended to
improve the bottom line would have failed. Should plants then
be closed? As it is, it looks like the inventory and
investment corrections that occurred in the 12 months before
Sept. 11 had achieved their desired effects. The
``overhangs'' that presage sharp economic disruptions were
not apparent in the data, and a healthy response to marginal
tax-rate reductions is quite plausible.
But, of course, other factors are present. And they help to
explain why, despite the good news, economic activity has
dropped so sharply.
After years of highly mathematical research in dusty
journals, many economists now believe that the root cause
lies in the distinction between risk and ambiguity that was
first described by University of Chicago economist Frank
Knight in the 1920s. Knight argued that there is a difference
between a circumstance with known probabilities--like a coin
flip--and a situation with high ambiguity, where the
probabilities of different outcomes are not known.
Subsequently, researchers have confirmed Knight's observation
both in theory and with observation.
There are profound differences in behavior when people face
the two different types of uncertainty. Most important, when
ambiguity is high, consumers and firms often act as if the
worst possible outcome will occur for sure. Thus, after the
terrorists attacked, the U.S. entered an ambiguous world with
many horrible possibilities and no probabilities.
Predictably, businesses and consumers assumed that a deep
recession would occur with certainty. Their extremely
cautious response to the assumption helped make the recession
more likely.
So the core fundamentals of the economy remain surprisingly
strong. If there is a recession, it will have been caused by
the terrorist attacks. Therein lies both the hope and the
challenge to policy makers. Absent a rapid and clearly
visible victory in the war on terrorism, consumers and firms
will only gradually return to normal, and a long and deep
recession is possible. Yet the underlying strengths suggest
that there is ample opportunity, and that corporate tax cuts
could ignite further productivity enhancing investments. The
stimulus bill that passed the U.S.

[[Page S11778]]

House of Representatives took a step in that direction. It's
time that the Senate stop bickering and do the House one
better.
____

[From the NRO Financial, Nov. 8, 2001]

The New Dance of the Crackpots

(By John Hood)

In this indispensable guide to the New Deal, The Roosevelt
Myth, journalist John T. Flynn wrote about the pivotal couple
of years leading up to the 1936 presidential election.
Roosevelt's early efforts had failed to bring the country out
of depression, and so a bewildering array of left-wing
politicians and journalists offered their own strategies for
getting the economy moving again. It was, in Flynn's
picturesque words, ``The Dance of the Crackpots.''
Its main result was to shove FDR further to the left. His
administration created new credit and spending programs to
steal the thunder of Huey Long and other radicals, and to
induce an artificial inflationary spurt in activity just
before the election--a winning political strategy that
nonetheless resulted in another painful recession in 1937-
'38.
As American battles international terrorism and a slowing
economy, we are now witnessing a new Dance of the Crackpots.
Denigrating President Bush's $1.3 trillion tax cut enacted by
Congress earlier this year, critics are coming out of the
woodwork to offer increasingly silly and outdated proposals
to ``stimulate demand'' and ``escape the liquidity trap.''
While draped in New Economy language, these ideas are
basically the same old Keynesian claptrap that the crackpots
of the 1930s indulged in--although, unlike present-day
advocates, the 1930s crackpots had the excuse that most of
their pet ideas had yet to be proven false through
experience.
On prominent exponent of the new (old) philosophy is Robert
Rubin, Clinton's former Treasury Secretary. Advising the
Congress on how to fashion a ``bipartisan'' stimulus package,
Rubin recommended a focus on spending programs and tax
credits directed to poor Americans. ``People at the bottom of
the income scale spend all the money they earn,'' he
reportedly told congressional leaders. ``If you give it to
them, they're going to spend it. If you give it to me, it's
not going to affect my spending patterns.''
Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter made a similar point in a
column criticizing supply-side tax cuts suggested by House
Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas. Armey ``claims to be an
economist,'' Alter sneered. ``But he obviously never learned
about a little concept familiar to every college freshmen
called `supply and demand.' Our supply--or capacity--is just
fine right now; in fact, we've got too much of it. The
problem is consumer demand. It's dangerously flat.''
According to Rubin and his journalistic echo chamber,
government stimulus is needed because Americans aren't
spending enough. This statement is absurd. To say that
Americans aren't spending ``enough'' is to presuppose that
there is some level of spending that is correct, and that
government officials can know such a level. Furthermore, such
a singular focus on broad abstractions like ``supply'' and
``demand'' leaves these hapless pump-primers without a
connection to the real economy of individual goods and
services exchanged by individual human beings.
It is simply nonsensical to talk about the economy in only
aggregate terms. For example, there was a great deal of
excess capacity in America's buggy-whip manufacturing sector
in the early 20th century. Was that a sign of inadequate
consumer spending? Of course not. It was a sign that
Americans were changing their consumer patterns in response
to changes in technology. When households reduce their
spending on consumer goods, opting instead to pay down debt
or accumulate savings, they aren't failing to buy ``enough''
stuff to keep the economy afloat. They are simply changing
their preferences in favor of future consumption (perhaps of
more expensive, more capital-intensive durable goods) and
away from some goods currently being produced.
Contrary to the crackpot theories of Rubin, Alter, New York
Times columnist Paul Krugman, and other neo-Keynesians,
recessions don't signify ``too much supply and not enough
demand.'' Recessions aren't creatures of human irrationality.
They signify a mismatch between what companies are making and
what their customer actually want at the time. Moreover, they
often signify a mismatch of time preferences, as consumers
signal (through more savings) that they are willing to
finance new investment today in order to buy something they
value more in the future. As long as capital markets are free
to coordinate the interests of producers and consumers, the
latter's increased savings will increase the pool of loanable
funds and thus encourage entrepreneurs (with lower interest
rates) to pursue new investments to satisfy consumer demands.
In other words, it is perfectly rational in a time of
recession for the government to focus its fiscal policy on
removing barriers to investment. These barriers include large
inflationary or deflationary changes in money (because these
destroy the ability of interest rates to communicate time
preferences accurately to entrepreneurs) and excessive taxes
on investment activities. The U.S. tax code retains a strong
and counterproductive bias against savings and investment, so
proposals to accelerate depreciation, reduce marginal tax
rates on capital gains, and reduce double-taxation of
corporate dividends are exactly the right medicine if the
goal is to speed the recovery of the American economy.
The answer to ``excess capacity'' in buggy-whip
manufacturing was not for the government to stimulate demand
for buggy whips. It was to allow industry to make needed
investments in automobile production. Similarly, American
consumers are signaling that the current mix of investment is
not generating what they want. So financial, physical, and
human capital must be redirected to new uses. This necessary
adjustment will happen more rapidly, and more successfully,
if Washington will ignore the new Dance of the Crackpots and
gets its fiscal act together.
____

[From The Washington Post, Nov. 13, 2001]

Meet Patriotic Pork

In normal times, pork-barrel spending is offensive. When
the nation is at war, it's considerably worse. But the
patriotism felt by most citizens since the terrorist attacks
has done nothing to restrain lobbyists' habit of putting
special interests ahead of national interests. Indeed, some
apparently can't tell the difference. Kenneth Kies of
PricewaterhouseCoopers, who has been pushing tax breaks that
would profit clients such as GE and IBM Corp., told The Post
it would have been ``irresponsible'' and even unpatriotic for
him to behave otherwise.
The provision that Mr. Kies advances would reduce taxes on
corporations' overseas investment income. It's hard to see
how this measure, which would encourage firms to keep money
outside the country, would do anything to stimulate the
American economy. Yet, Mr. Kies has sought to include it in
the stimulus package being prepared in the Senate. Meanwhile,
other lobbyists have pressed for equally egregious giveaways.
The stimulus bill that passed through committee last week
includes money for citrus growers and buffalo farmers and
producing electricity from chicken waste. It includes a tax
break on aviation fuel for crop-dusters. A wage credit
designed to encourage firms to hire welfare recipients has
been extended to businesses in lower Manhattan that hire
anyone.
As it fights a war on terrorism, the United States also
faces the threat of a global recession that could be the
worst in years. Thousands of ordinary workers have already
lost their jobs, and many thousands more may do so. The
economic stimulus will succeed only if it pumps money into
the bits of the economy where it will stimulate demand
effectively. That means targeting it at business investment
and at less well-off consumers, not tossing cash at random
supplicants.
The senators who larded the bill in committee ought to feel
ashamed of themselves, but they're not the only ones. It
seems to us that lobbyists such as Mr. Kies and clients such
as General Electric and IBM also bear some responsibility.
Normally in Washington we assume that such corporations will
grasp for whatever they can get; it's up to those in Congress
to resist their more egregious graspings. But do the chairmen
of GE and IBM really want to pursue their narrow self-
interest at a time when everyone else is being asked to think
of the common good--at a time of war? Imagine the stir it
would cause, and the impact it could have, if just one of
them said, ``Better spend the money on the troops. We'll be
back when the war is over.'' It's not too late for them to
show what patriotism might really mean.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, let us be accurate when we describe
each side's proposals. Upon careful consideration, it is clear:
First, the Senate Republican Caucus stimulus proposal is not made up
of ``leftover'' tax cuts;
Second, the Senate Republicans are not using September 11 as a device
to advance ``ideological'' proposals; and
Third, the proposals in the Senate Republican Caucus stimulus package
have not been ``unanimously'' rejected by economists, editors, and
opinion makers.
Madam President, I wish to discuss what I consider to be a crucial
component of this economic stimulus package: health insurance
assistance for dislocated workers.
We all know about the high cost of health insurance. For dislocated
workers, its even higher. That's because worker continuation or
``COBRA'' coverage is extremely expensive: coverage for a family can
cost as much as $500 or $600 per month.
And workers who do not qualify for COBRA coverage--because they
worked for State or local governments or in small businesses that are
exempt--also face high health care costs.
So when it comes to providing health insurance assistance to
dislocated workers, both sides in this debate are in agreement: People
need help, and they need it now.
Where we disagree is on how we get there. I have endorsed a program
that is already up and running, that has been tried and tested and
tailored for

[[Page S11779]]

the very purpose of providing ready help--not red tape--in emergencies
like this.
The Democrats, on the other hand, have endorsed the creation of a new
Federal bureaucracy, consumed by red tape, that would take many months
to get up and running.
First, let's talk about structure. For any program to work
efficiently, it needs a backbone. The National Emergency Grant program
has been in place since 1998. The Labor Department has been getting
funds to States quickly and seamlessly for several years.
In fact, since September 11th, 3 States have already received funds
totaling $37 million, 3 more States are on the verge of approval, and
13 additional State applications are expected. Clearly these numbers
indicate the success the National Emergency Grant program has already
achieved.
By comparison, the new COBRA subsidy program that the Democrats favor
has no backbone at all. There is no structure currently in place at the
Labor Department or any other Federal agency to administer this new
benefit.
Next, let's take a look at process.
At the Federal level, the National Emergency Grant program requires
nothing more than a new set of grant criteria allowing States to use
funds for health insurance. The criteria is being drafted under the
Labor Department's existing authority, and can be made effective
immediately.
In contrast, the new COBRA subsidy program proposed by the Democrats
requires the deployment of an entirely new Federal program, requiring
Congressional authorization and a formal regulatory process under the
Administrative Procedures Act before any benefits could be delivered.
Moreover, communications and oversight mechanisms would have to be
established, and agencies would have to redirect resources to meet
program goals.
At the State level, the National Emergency Grant program is familiar
to governors and other State officials. The program relies on an
existing, streamlined process that has been in place since 1998. All
States have mechanisms in place to apply for grants and deliver
benefits.
By comparison, the Democrat-endorsed new Federal subsidy program
would impose new and costly mandates on States, which would have to
authorize and set-up new systems and departments to comply with the
program's rules before workers could start receiving benefits. In many
instances, action at the State level would be frozen until State
legislatures acted to authorize and fund the new mandates.
Finally, let's address the most important question, the one that this
whole debate should turn on.
How long will this all take? How do the two approaches compare when
it comes to getting workers health care assistance quickly?
The National Emergency Grant program can guarantee payments to States
within 15 days of an application's approval. That speed is simply
unsurpassed, and it's the chief reason I support using the grant
program today.
The new Federal subsidy program, by contrast, would tie up funds in
red tape until next summer. Under almost any scenario, financial
assistance would not be available until federal regulations are issued,
finalized and made effective, a process that could take 6 months, at a
minimum.
The bottom line is the Democrats' proposal would not be able to get
benefits to workers until it's too late. In addition to a lengthy
process at the Federal level, States are faced with undue burdens of
setting up new systems to coordinate with the Federal Government and
finding new resources to do so.
The Democratic approach, while well-intentioned, reinvents the wheel.
The National Emergency Grant program, by comparison, needs no re-
invention. It is ready to go.
And so I urge my colleagues to opt for a system that's ready to go
and to support the speedy delivery of funds to our dislocated workers
through the National Emergency Grant program.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I also wish to discuss a Medicaid
provision in the Democrats' economic stimulus package that would
provide for an expansion of the Medicaid program to a new group of
individuals.
In order to fully evaluate the potential effectiveness of this
proposal, it is important to take a look at State fiscal health.
The economic slow-down coupled with increased demands on health care
safety net programs is creating major strains on State budgets.
Just this year, 44 States have revenues below original forecasts; 28
States have implemented or considered Medicaid cuts; 7 States have
convened special legislative sessions to address budget shortfalls; and
11 States have determined a need for supplemental appropriations for
Medicaid.
Today, Medicaid expenditures are 7.5 percent higher than they were in
1999, and on average account for 19.5 percent of State spending.
Therefore, Medicaid is a primary target for State budget cutbacks
during economic downturns.
States have reported a current cumulative revenue shortfall of $10
billion, and predict this number to continue to grow. Moreover, new and
unprecedented State responsibilities for homeland security are
exacerbating serious fiscal conditions.
Therefore, any new State Medicaid option, no matter how generous the
Federal match, is not an attractive proposal to States.
States simply do not have the resources to take up a new option under
the Medicaid program because States cannot absorb the State share of
new Medicaid enrollees.
In fact, a spokesperson for the National Governor's Association
recently stated that any proposal, including a Medicaid expansion, that
requires State funding would have ``zero take-up.''
Aside from the budget constraints that prevent a Medicaid expansion
from being a viable health care proposal for dislocated workers,
Medicaid expansions are not a timely response to addressing
emergencies.
In order to develop a new Medicaid eligibility category, States would
have to develop a State plan amendment. This entails a planning period
that includes: setting income levels and time frames; creating outreach
materials and caseworker training; and obtaining approval from the
legislature--assuming the legislature is still in session and many
aren't--and finally, getting approval from CMS.
By the time this process runs its course, the 12 month window would
likely be over. Even if the 12 month period isn't over, it wouldn't be
an immediate benefit either to health coverage or as a fiscal stimulus.
A more immediate and expeditious approach to making health care
coverage available to displaced workers would be through the National
Emergency Grant program.
This program should be expanded to allow States the opportunity to
cover health care premiums, including COBRA premiums, for displaced
workers and their dependents.
The National Conference of State Legislatures agrees that flexible
Federal funds would be the best approach to empowering States to
effectively address State-specific needs of dislocated workers.
There are a number of ways that States could use National Emergency
Grant funds to provide immediate health care access to dislocated
workers and their families including using State employee health
systems to unemployed individuals, utilizing community health centers,
or contracting with insurers.
The National Emergency Grant program requires nothing more than a new
set of grant criteria allowing States to use funds for health
insurance. The NEG proposal is an expedient means of making health
coverage available to dislocated workers and their families.
Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I rise in support of the economic
stimulus package reported by the Committee on Finance.
Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, the slowdown in our
Nation's economy has been a matter of increasing concern. The ripple
effect of the tragic events on September 11 has affected millions of
Americans who are dealing with the economic repercussions. Hundreds of
thousands of workers have lost their jobs, and consumer and business
confidence has eroded during this time of uncertainty. The decrease in
economic activity is affecting companies ranging from small businesses
to corporations, not to mention entire industries such as the airline
and tourism industries.

[[Page S11780]]

There is no doubt that an economic stimulus package would help to
boost our Nation's weak economy. While the prospects for long-term
growth remain strong, the terrorist attacks exacerbated weaknesses in
many business sectors and diminished hopes for a quick revival of an
already faltering economy and it now appears that the country will
experience a period of economic weakness and rising unemployment before
returning to a period of strong growth. A stimulus package that is
well-defined and specifically targeted for maximum effectiveness can
play an important role in promoting a rapid economic recovery.
As we all know, there are contrasting views among the members of
Congress as to what components should be included in a stimulus package
to maximize the stimulative effect on the economy. I believe that the
economic stimulus package should encourage increased spending as soon
as possible to rejuvenate the economy, assist people who are most
vulnerable during the economic slowdown, and restore business and
consumer confidence. However, it is important that fiscal discipline
over the long-term be maintained in order to ensure economic growth in
the future. As such, legislation to stimulate the economy should only
be on a short-term basis so that the budget can return to surplus as
the economy recovers.
Given the importance of taking prompt action to stimulate the economy
which is on the brink of a recession, I commend the Senator from
Montana for his efforts in reporting an economic stimulus package out
of the Finance Committee that can be considered on the Senate floor. I
support components of the legislation, including provisions aimed at
addressing the needs of America's newly-unemployed workers. In addition
to losing their health benefits, the unemployed have no income to pay
out-of-pocket for their health care needs. Under the Consolidated
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, COBRA, employers with 20 or
more employees must offer continued health insurance coverage to
qualified employees and their families who lose health coverage when
they lose their jobs. Unemployed workers are required to pay up to 102
percent of the full premium, which averages about $220 per month for an
individual and $558 per month for a family. Only about 20 percent of
eligible workers use their COBRA option because premiums are so
expensive. The bill drafted by the distinguished Chairman of the
Finance Committee will assist workers who are COBRA-eligible by
providing a 75 percent COBRA subsidy for up to twelve months. This
subsidy will help to ensure that many of the workers and their families
who could not previously afford COBRA coverage will be able to retain
their health insurance. States would be allowed to cover the remaining
25 percent of the COBRA premium for low-income COBRA-eligible
individuals and their families.
While the subsidy for COBRA will help a number of Americans, many of
the workers who will lose their jobs in the coming year will not be
eligible for COBRA coverage. These workers face an even greater barrier
to health care access and include individuals who worked for small
businesses, were in the individual health insurance market, worked in
companies that have gone bankrupt, and those who could not afford
health insurance before they were laid off. The bill by the Senator
from Montana would help these workers who are not COBRA-eligible by
giving states the option to add a new eligibility category to Medicaid.
This new category would allow states to cover laid-off workers who are
not COBRA-eligible for up to 12 months.
Another critical component of the stimulus legislation is the
temporary increase in the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, FMAP,
rate for States. The Federal Government currently pays between 50
percent and 83 percent of the cost of Medicaid in each state, depending
on the state's per capita income in the three calendar years that are
most recently available. On average, the Federal Government pays 57
percent. Medicaid matching rates for fiscal year 2002 are based on
state per capita income data from 1997, 1998, and 1999--years in which
the national economy was strong. Consequently, matching rates are
slated to be reduced for 29 states in 2002. The reduction in FMAP rates
has worsened an already bleak fiscal outlook for many states. In
August, the Congressional Budget Office projected that Medicaid
expenditures in 2002 would be nine percent higher in 2002 than in 2001,
while states projected that their revenues would rise just 2.4 percent.
Rising Medicaid expenditures have long been a serious concern to
states. The repercussions of the terrorist attacks on September 11 are
leading most analysts to expect even higher state Medicaid costs
because the economic downturn will make more people eligible for
Medicaid and lower state revenues. It is during difficult financial
times that the Medicaid program becomes a primary target of State
budget cuts. Yet, people need Medicaid during these times more than
ever.

The FMAP increase proposed by the Finance Committee has three main
components. First, States that would have received a lower FMAP rate
would be ``held harmless'' and retain their fiscal year 2001 matching
rate. Second, all States would receive a rate increase of 1.5 percent.
Finally, States with higher than average unemployment rates over the
previous three months would receive an additional 1.5 percent rate
increase. To receive these FMAP increases, States would be required to
maintain current eligibility levels. The temporary increase in the FMAP
is an important component of our Nation's economic stimulus policy.
Medicaid is the largest Federal grant-in-aid to states. Temporarily
increasing the Federal matching rate could have broad positive
ramifications for State budgets, the impact of which would be rapid and
would not require additional Federal or State bureaucracy. These
changes would provide much needed health care to people in need by
providing states the resources to do so.
While Congress has taken certain actions to address the aftershocks
of the terrorist attacks, we must also restore consumer confidence
which has steadily declined since the attacks. In Hawaii, where we were
just beginning to recover from our economic recession of 9 years, we
find ourselves once again facing an economic downturn. The State
Department of Labor is currently working on the unemployment rates for
October 2001 and has indicated that the number of people filing
unemployment claims will be substantially higher than those filing in
September. This is disconcerting to me because in September 2001,
tourism was down by 40 percent and more than 11,000 people who work in
the industry were unemployed. More specifically, 8,803 people in Hawaii
filed claims for partial or full unemployment benefits in the 15-day
period from September 17, the Monday following the attacks, to Monday,
October 1. On that Monday, the State Department of Labor estimated that
1,012 workers filed claims statewide for unemployment. Before the
attacks, the state of Hawaii received on the average 1,400 claims a
week. These statistics do not show what the cost has been to families
in Hawaii where both parents are, or in many cases were, working in the
travel or tourism-related industries. These families are finding that
they do not have the money to pay for their mortgage, health insurance
for themselves and their children, and basic necessities.
The economic stimulus legislation reported by the Finance Committee
will help the people of Hawaii and the nation pay their mortgages,
provide healthcare to their children, and put food on the table. It
will provide 13 additional weeks of benefits to workers whose regular
unemployment compensation has expired, require states to use the most
recent earnings data to determine eligibility and benefits, provide
coverage to part-time workers, and supplement the amount of benefits.
Some of my colleagues have argued that extending unemployment
benefits and providing a health care subsidy will not stimulate the
economy, I must strongly disagree. I believe, as many of my colleagues
have stated during this debate, that this is exactly what our economy
and the American people need to revitalize consumer confidence. As
recent research has shown, the Unemployment Insurance system is eight
times as effective as the entire tax system in mitigating the impact of
a recession. In addition, the Unemployment Insurance system is able to
target the very sector of society that needs the most economic
stimulus. I

[[Page S11781]]

remind everyone that in every recession during the past 30 years,
including the 1990-1991 recession under President George Bush,
unemployment insurance benefits were extended.
It is clear that an economic stimulus package is needed to support
our economy during these uncertain times and to promote a rapid
recovery. We have seen the Federal Reserve Board cut interest rates ten
times this year with limited economic effect. Congress has also taken
actions to provide some of that stimulus through emergency spending for
recovery efforts and to assist the airline industry. It is critical
that Congress promptly pass an economic stimulus package that will
rejuvenate our faltering economy while assisting households who have
been especially hard hit by the downturn in the economy. An economic
stimulus package that promotes economic activity and includes
components to extend unemployment insurance benefits and health care
subsidies will greatly assist in getting our country's economy moving
again.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). Under the previous order, the
Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I thank my good friend from Iowa,
Senator Grassley, for his help on this bill.
The choice in the vote before us, about to occur in 15 minutes, is
very simple. Do we want to proceed to help provide the stimulus to the
American economy? Do we want to help provide health insurance benefits
to people who have lost their health insurance because of their lost
jobs? Do we want to provide an extension of unemployment benefits? Do
we want to help New York City, which has been wrecked and devastated by
the tragedy of September 11? Do we want to give disaster assistance to
farmers and ranchers whose incomes are lower year by year.
Do we want to do these things or not? That is the sole question
before us. That is all it comes down to.
I am astounded that we hear these arguments that this is not an
emergency. I have been in this body for 20-some years, and we have
voted for many items designated as emergencies that were far less of an
emergency than what has happened to our country since September 11.
What were they? Let me tell you. First of all, the stand-alone bills
we have passed in this body: Unemployment insurance, in 1993, $5.7
billion. That was designated an emergency, so we passed it.
IRS reform, if you can believe, $130 million--emergency. I don't know
what the emergency was, but that is what Congress decided.
The airline bill this year, $17 billion over 10 years.
What were some other emergencies? We have had Hurricane Andrew. We
had floods in various States, and we have designated those all as
emergencies, this Senate did, and they were emergencies.
And there have been more emergency designations. The Los Angeles
riots in 1992 was designated an emergency. We provided additional
dollars to help Los Angeles recover from the riots in 1992. The
terrorist bombing in Oklahoma City--we designated that as an emergency
to help Oklahoma City, as we should have.
Peacekeeping in Bosnia--we designated additional dollars for our
military, our Defense Department, because that was an emergency,
fighting in Bosnia. That was designated an emergency, as well it should
have been.
Other natural disasters, hurricanes and floods.
I, for the life of me, cannot understand this argument that we hear
from the other side that what has happened to this country since
September 11 is not an emergency, particularly in comparison to past
events that were designated emergencies. There is a provision in the
Budget Act which says if we go over the technical spending limits, it
has to be an emergency to avoid a budget point of order. That is
entirely up to the discretion of the Senate. In fact, the Congressional
Budget Office, in this document, says:

Emergency spending is generally whatever the Congress and
the President deem it to be.

It is up to us to decide whether this is an emergency or not. We all
know what has happened to New York City, what has happened to our
economy--900,000 people out of work since this spring. That is the
entire population of my State of Montana--900,000 people out of work.
Most people who lose their health insurance do so because they have
lost their jobs.
This is a super-emergency compared with the other events that this
body has designated emergencies. Why is this not an emergency, too?
Where are we? What are we thinking of? Hello? Wake up, Senate. Wake up
and see what is happening to the country. Wake up and see what is
happening in New York City.

If all of us in the Senate were to go to Ground Zero, we would know
that is an emergency. Some have and some have not. All should.
The same occurs all across the country. Homes lost, people tossed out
of work, farms and ranches going down the tubes because either they
don't have crops, it is a disaster, a drought or a flood, or they are
not getting their income. What is going on here? Of course it is an
emergency.
Meanwhile, we have heard, and I am disappointed to have to say this,
characterizations and mischaracterizations, representations and
misrepresentations, of what is in the Senate bill. Senators, some of
them, have taken easy shots, not getting to the heart of the matter.
That is regrettable.
I will sum up in 10 seconds. This is clearly an emergency, and I urge
Senators to vote to waive the point of order, stop the roadblock. Let's
roll. Let's help America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The assistant Republican leader.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, it is with regret I urge my colleagues to
not support our friends and colleagues on the other side. I will just
take issue with a few things that have been stated.
First, I compliment Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus because they
worked together earlier this year in a bipartisan way and we passed tax
relief. It was done by a bipartisan vote in the Finance Committee, done
by a bipartisan vote in the Senate, and by and large that bill became
law. Senator Baucus and others alluded to the fact that we have already
passed emergency legislation providing $40 billion to assist in the
aftermath of the September 11 events. That was done in a bipartisan
fashion.
When we provided airline relief, that was done in a bipartisan
fashion. Unfortunately, the bill we have before us, the so-called
stimulus bill, has not been done in a bipartisan fashion. The makeup of
the Senate is so balanced that it cannot happen. Democrats cannot pass
a Democrat-only bill. The Republicans cannot pass a Republican-only
bill. So we are going to have to work together.
Regrettably, that has not yet happened. The result is in the bill
that passed out of the Finance Committee, now modified by Senator
Byrd's amendment, and modified by additional amendments made by the
chairman or the Democratic leader, we have a bill that not only will
not stimulate I think but may depress the economy. We have a bill that
is not supported by both sides. We have a bill that obviously will not
become law.
We have a statement by the administration that says:

The administration opposes passage of H.R. 3990 as reported
by the Senate Finance Committee.

The President said he doesn't like it. It is strongly opposed for
lots of reasons. That is in direct contrast to the bipartisan work that
many of us as leaders did, meeting with the President several times
after the September 11 events to say let's work together. President
Bush agreed to the $40 billion. We haven't even spent the $40 billion.
I am looking at the list that has $15 billion of new spending. That is
in direct contradiction of the agreement we made with the President,
that we have in writing from the President, the agreement that said
$686 billion and, oh, yes, we will do $40 billion of the emergency
spending. We have not spent that $40 billion. Then they say we want
another $15 billion.
I do not doubt many of those provisions requested in the $15 billion
will be in the second $20 billion that is yet to be appropriated, yet
to be allocated, in some cases yet to be requested.
The administration hasn't requested those. They are receiving input
and requests from a lot of different agencies.

[[Page S11782]]

But they haven't requested it yet. Yet we are trying to say that is
the deal from last month. Now we are coming up with a new deal. Last
year's spending grew by over 14 percent. This year, we are going to
spend about 8 percent. Now we have added $40 billion. Some people say,
let us add $15 billion on top of it. We may well support those
attempts.
But I wouldn't be a bit surprised if we could not put those in the
$20 billion additional upon which we have already agreed.
Looking at the substance of this legislation, there is nothing in
this legislation to really stimulate the economy. I was a businessman
prior to coming to the Senate. I guess spending $35,000, which might be
1 percent of this bill, or maybe a smaller amount, might be useful; or
10 percent to appreciate for 1 year might move spending up a little
bit. That is almost nothing.
Looking at all the other provisions in here, I was kind of shocked.
Some of this is similar.
What is it about having a new sugar beet program? Sugar beet disaster
program? What does that have to do with anything? What is stimulative
about having the Federal Government buying apples, apricots, asparagus,
bell peppers, bison meat, cranberries, dried plums, lemons, peaches,
and onions? What is stimulative about that? Are we going to spend up to
$3 billion doing that?
Then I look and I see other items. I see the Amtrak program that the
Congressional Budget Office says is a crummy way to do it. We are going
to do it through allowing a tax credit, and so on.
The Congressional Budget Office did an analysis in September of this
year and said, in other words, that the tax credit funding mechanism
would essentially be a new and more expensive way for the Federal
Government to assist Amtrak. They say it would be a lot more expensive.
We could just write them a check or allow them to use tax-exempt bonds.
No. We came in with a whole new game that is a lot more expensive.
This bill is not stimulative. It won't help the economy. It is not
bipartisan. We need to defeat this package and go back to work--
Democrats and Republicans together--and pass a package that can be
supported by Members on both sides of the aisle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the majority leader
is recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me just pick up where my colleagues
from Oklahoma left off.
We have been ready for weeks to work in a bipartisan fashion. No one
has worked harder at reaching out to our Republican colleagues than the
man sitting at my right, Senator Baucus, the manager of this bill. He
has tried on several occasions not only with the Republican colleagues
in the Senate but with those in the House, and every time he was told,
no, we can't do that because we have to offer our own package.
Don't talk to us about bipartisan until you are ready to do it.
I must say this is a facade--this notion that somehow the only way to
deal with whatever concerns the Senator from Oklahoma may have with
regard to this bill is to raise a point of order on this bill. If they
do like a particular provision, let them do what we do in the Senate.
Let them offer an amendment. If you do not like a particular provision,
offer an amendment.
Let there be no doubt that the vote we are about to take on this
point of order which refuses to allow an emergency designation is a
vote to kill homeland security for the remainder of this year. It is a
vote to say no to our effort to protect our country from bioterrorism.
It is a vote to say no to important security for airports, ports,
highways, and tunnels. It is a vote to say no to additional help for
law enforcement as we consider the vast array of issues we have to
confront. It is a vote to say no adequate unemployment compensation for
7\1/2\ million unemployed workers. It is a vote to say no to helping
these families keep their health insurance. It is a vote to say no to
those 34 million workers out there who didn't get a nickel in a rebate
last summer.
There is a lot riding on this bill. This isn't just a point of order
and some parliamentary vote you can hide behind, this is a real vote.
This is all we have to protect, for the remainder of this year, our
opportunities to ensure that a meaningful economic recovery and
homeland security package can be passed. That is it--this vote. I hope
everybody understands that there isn't a second or a third chance here.
I don't know what will happen if we fail a pass this particular test.
But I know this: it delays for a long period of time the help we can
provide for all of those who are saying we don't have time any longer.
We have to get on with protecting this country and the vast array of
new challenges we face as a country. We have to provide this
unemployment insurance for people whose benefits are running out and
for those part-time workers are receiving no benefits at all.
I hope our Republican colleagues will understand that. I hope they
will join all 51 members of this caucus who are prepared to say, yes,
this is an emergency; yes, we need to move on; yes. We need to work
together in a bipartisan way; yes, let's do it tonight.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
agreeing to the motion to waive section 205 of House Concurrent
Resolution 290. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will
call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm) and
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 337 Leg.]

YEAS--51

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--47

Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--2

Gramm
McCain

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 51, the nays are 47.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained and section 909 of the amendment containing the emergency
designation is stricken.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the pending amendment No. 2125 would
cause the aggregate level of revenues to fall below the level set out
in the most recent agreed-to concurrent resolution of the budget. I
raise a point of order under section 311(a)(2) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable
sections of that act for the purposes of the pending amendment and ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is this a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, very briefly, for the information of my
colleagues, this second point of order challenges the amendment for
going below the revenue floor and for going above the spending ceilings
of the budget resolution.
The amendment does, in fact, violate the revenue floor and spending
ceiling.

[[Page S11783]]

That is true. It is also true that the House bill, which will then
come up, also violates the Budget Act for the same reasons, as does the
bill offered by my good friend from Iowa, as does the White House
proposal. They all do.
The reason is because we have an emergency here. There are problems
with which we have to deal. That is why. I wish this waiver would pass,
but I know it won't.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Let's vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The
yeas and nays are ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm) and
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 338 Leg.]

YEAS--51

NAYS--47

NOT VOTING--2

Gramm
McCain

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are
47.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained and the amendment falls.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I supported a motion to waive the Budget
Act with respect to a point of order raised against the substitute
amendment to H.R. 3090, even though there are a number of provisions in
that amendment that are troubling.
Just a few weeks ago, this body voted to provide emergency funding to
the nation's airlines. We recognize the special situation caused by the
terrorist attacks of September 11, and understood that if we failed to
act, the consequences for those firms, and for the economy as a whole,
could well have been devastating.
At the time of that vote, I noted that we also needed to address the
problems facing the workers in those firms. This legislation will do
that, in part, and it will also provide assistance to other families
who have been thrown out of work by the economic slowdown, and should
provide the weakened economy with a boost.
Unfortunately, a number of special interests have taken advantage of
this human and economic adversity to advance their own agenda. The
measure that passed the other body is teeming with special interest tax
breaks that do little or nothing for the economy as a whole in the
short term, and seriously jeopardize our long term budget position. The
substitute amendment before us is vastly superior in this respect. It
provides far more benefit for our economy in the short term, while
minimizing the long term impact.
Nevertheless, there are a number of special interest spending and tax
provisions in the amendment that raise serious questions, such as
provisions that provide money for citrus growers and buffalo farmers
and tax breaks for electricity produced from chicken waste and aviation
fuel for crop-dusters. A provision common to both the substitute
amendment and the House-passed bill would reduce taxes on corporations'
overseas investment income. As the Washington Post noted in a recent
editorial: ``It's hard to see how this measure, which would encourage
firms to keep money outside the country, would do anything to stimulate
the American economy.''
The substitute amendment before us, even with its flaws, is far more
fiscally responsible than the House bill, but as this legislation
proceeds there is a real risk that it will continue to pick up still
more special interest provisions. Indeed, the House version is largely
a lobbyist's wish list. Unless this body is able to restrain itself,
and resist efforts to advance special interest spending and tax breaks,
the costs of a fiscal stimulus measure will outweigh any benefit it
provides to our economy.

____________________