[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 170 (Monday, December 10, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12758-S12761]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WHERE IS THE DEMOCRATIC STIMULUS PACKAGE?
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, fellow Senators, especially to my good
friend, Harry Reid, I will not take time this afternoon to attempt in
some feeble way to rebut the statement with reference to the
partisanship of the last month or so with reference to various items,
including the stimulus package. Suffice it to say, the granddaddy of
all partisanship occurred on the stimulus package that was reported out
of the Finance Committee of the Senate because on that particular one,
the conferees were instructed by the Democratic majority--and I remind
everyone that majority is by one vote--they told that committee to
report out a Democratic package every single Democrat Senator would
support. That meant there were no Republicans because they had
something
[[Page S12759]]
to offer, too. But rather they took a Democratic package, produced it,
and then the big partisan debate started with reference to an attempt
to get a stimulus package.
Where is that Democratic stimulus package? I do not have it. I wish I
did. I would love to read it to the American people so they could
conclude whether it is going to make jobs for people, whether that is
going to excite this economy. It is still pending at the desk. It is
still pending because those who produced it do not want to let the
Senate vote on it because they are afraid there will be two
negotiations: One when we argue in this Chamber and one when they go to
conference.
Whatever their reasons, the hangup is there is a bill at the desk
that was produced by a partisan majority that contains only things they
want and nothing the Republicans wanted. I submit we can throw those
kinds of characteristics away and ask some experts whether that bill
will create new jobs.
Among the various proposals, it is the least productive of new jobs
of all the proposals around. So with another effort on the part of the
Democratic leadership, we are led by my very good friend, Harry Reid,
to bring this back and in some way blame the Republicans, who do not
even control the Senate, for this big delay.
Then what happened to the House? The House produced their own
economic stimulus. Every time our friends on the other side talk about
the Republicans, everybody should know that was the House Republicans
who produced the bill they are speaking of, not those of us who are
trying to put a package together in the Senate. The House did their own
thing. They got a majority vote, and that is the way they did it.
That is not going to end up being the law. We have to get together
and resolve the issue in favor of the American people, instead of in
favor of who wins this bickering and this arguing.
So that is where we are.
Instead of there being a vote in the Senate on the stimulus package,
a deal was cooked up for which we would never vote in the Senate: just
go to conference with the House and have an argument with them and
decide between the Democratic proposal that was adopted without any
input from the Senate Republicans, whether that or a House-passed bill
is going to be the law of the land, or which part will come out of it
in terms of compromise.
Why did the House chairman call off the meetings? I never justify the
House's activities, but the House chairman's reason was very simple:
the majority leader had said publicly there would not be a stimulus
package unless two-thirds of the Democratic Senators supported the
provisions of that stimulus package. The chairman of the House read
that and said, since that is their desire--and I do not go to committee
meetings negotiating with an unknown two-thirds Members who are not
even present--why do we not go home, take a 5-day recess, and think it
over. That is where we are.
Let anybody who would like lay blame for that 5-day delay, but it is
not all singularly the problem of the chairman of the House committee
when, if it is true, the leader of the other side has indicated there
is no use going to conference and negotiating because there is an
ominous presence that has to be looked to to make sure two-thirds of
the Democratic Senators support it.
That is pretty different than most conferences. I do not blame him
too much for wondering what kind of conference they were going to have.
It has since been denied that it was said or that it meant that. What
we ought to do is actually forget about all of that.
Before I move to the stimulus package, I must take a couple of
minutes to speak with reference to the farm bill. Tomorrow, we will
have plenty of time, I hope, to talk about the farm bill in more depth.
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator from New Mexico yield on a point?
Mr. DOMENICI. On a point?
Mr. DORGAN. Yes. The Senator from New Mexico said something I am not
sure is accurate, and I wonder if I might ask a question about that.
Mr. DOMENICI. I would like to finish. I do not have much time.
Mr. DORGAN. I am glad to extend the time.
Mr. DOMENICI. I can handle anybody's question, but I want to finish
my thoughts and then I will yield to the Senator.
With reference to the farm bill, I do not come to this Chamber too
often on a farm bill, but I will be on this one because, first of all,
it is an abomination for milk production in America and for our
children who drink a lot of milk and for those in America who are
encouraged to drink a lot of milk. This is a bill calculated to
increase the price of milk dramatically so as to spread around a new
tax so all of those producing milk can get a fair share of the new tax;
not so we will produce competition and there will be a big incentive to
produce good, solid, healthy milk at lower prices but, rather, to make
sure those areas of the country that are not producing milk in a
competitive manner will get made whole at the expense of the very
competitive States such as mine and Idaho and others, that are
producing substantially new ways to be competitive, safe, sound, and
produce rather cheap milk for the American children and American
people. We will have plenty to say about that.
The bill they are talking about in agriculture, obviously, will never
become law. It has some good arguing points for five or six States that
would like to convince others.
Having said that, I get back to stimulus. The news is not great with
reference to the economy. It is very hard to figure out what is going
on in the economy because the numbers, the statistics, the assessments
are mixed. Clearly, they are not so mixed that we should call off the
stimulus package. We have to do one. We ought to decide now that we
don't have a lot of time and we ought to do a very simple bill.
I say to Senator Reid, what I will do today is introduce a very
simple economic stimulus package. The Senator might recall, in the
Chamber a couple of weeks ago I shared a proposal with you with
reference to an economic stimulus, that we have a 1-month holiday from
the Social Security tax for both the employer and the employee. I think
we ought to have that as a cornerstone. Both sets of leaders in both
Houses ought to agree that is the best stimulus around of any we have
seen, and then just do two other things--and all the rest we will wait
and do next year--do two other things and call it a stimulus package.
Indeed, it would be.
First, the tax holiday will put $8 billion into the economy and 160
million working men and women in America get to keep the withholding.
Their employers will do the same. They will not have to remit theirs.
That ought to be the cornerstone. Do it for January, February. But do
it. It will stimulate the economy and give it a good kick upwards. A
lot of Democrats support that. It is when you put the rest of the
package together we get to arguing. I submit it is so important we get
rid of the other things that cause Members to argue and do those
another day, another time, another way. They are not stimulus anyway.
We ought to do two things. Beyond the holiday, we ought to expand the
safety net for working Americans; that is, expand it and extend
unemployment payments. Some Democratic Senators and some Republicans
have said we ought to do that. We ought to agree to that. An additional
13 weeks of unemployment benefits, if passed, and expand that to part-
time workers--they ought to be in this alternative--that costs $9
billion.
Last, we ought to go ahead and do the enhanced extending of cap
expenditures but reduce it to 20 percent instead of 30 percent, so we
would have 20 percent appreciation in 3 years.
An extension of expansion of the unemployment compensation and the
stimulus package, the stimulus core, and the payroll tax holiday. I
wish we could do that. I wish we could decide. There is not enough time
to argue. Let's do something truly stimulative to get America going
again and let that do two other things the Americans need: One for the
unemployment needs and one for business needs with reference to
appreciation.
I put my statement in explaining the situation of the economy,
explaining the three provisions, and sending a bill along with it, in
case anybody wants to see what it should look like. I send a bill with
it, and that includes only the three provisions: The holiday; the 20
percent depreciation instead of 30 percent for 3 years for the capital
account,
[[Page S12760]]
which is very much needed by small and large businesses; and last, a
drastic and much needed expansion of the unemployment code of this
country. The three provisions make up about a $79 billion package. If
we can pass that this week--everybody knows what they are--that will be
truly something very positive.
I am happy to answer questions. If I made an error, I am happy to
correct that.
Mr. DORGAN. On the point the Senator from New Mexico made about the
economic stimulus or recovery plan that came out of the Senate Finance
Committee, the Senator from New Mexico indicated that was at the desk--
or I guess first he asked where is it; and then, it is at the desk, why
isn't it pending?
Isn't it the case the bill at the desk is a House bill which was
passed by the House on a clearly partisan 216 to 214 vote. In fact the
bill out of the Senate Finance Committee is not at the desk, but a
point of order was made against it. I believe the Senator from New
Mexico supported the point of order that took the Senate Finance
Committee bill off the floor, and it is not pending. I want to correct
that because I think the implication of the Senator was, well, that
bill is at the desk, why isn't it here? Is it not the case it was
pending and a vote was held on a point of order? And I believe the
Senator from New Mexico supported the point of order and therefore it
is not pending.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, that may be the case. If it is the case,
I yield to the facts.
Still, the situation is that at an appointed time shortly after that
event, or surrounding that event, when it was declared to be violative
of the Budget Act, it is quite clear the majority leader does not want
to negotiate here with Republicans and in the House with Republicans
and Democrats, again. So he prefers to go right to conference. He
doesn't seem to be terribly concerned about what happened to the
Democratic bill because he doesn't want to work anything out in the
Senate because he says that means he will have to negotiate twice.
I believe we don't have to negotiate twice. We ought to look at these
three points. I can see in both bodies a very large majority for these
three points. That is ample for Members to go home at Christmas and
say, we have a good stimulus. It can be bipartisan because there are at
least 12 Senators, a mix of both sides, who support the holiday. The
only reason there are not more is that they are waiting for their own
provision that they supported to go away because they don't want to be
for two things. But if the leadership would say we should do a simple
package, one that is profoundly stimulative, we can forget about all
this arguing and forget about which week what happened.
But I will go back and say, if we said that the Democrat bill was
subject to a point of order, that is the way everything has been going
here, everything is subject to a point of order.
The truth is, it started off very nonpartisan because the Finance
Committee decided they would put together a bill to garner enough
Democratic votes to report it out of committee. I am not arguing that
we have the right to do that. I have done that on budget before. But
you cannot then say it is the Republicans who don't want a tax bill
when you started this process, when you started this process by saying,
we want one but only if it is our way.
It is time we all forget about that. My speech is not intended to
bring it all up again, just to clarify the record, and then to say
forget about it and let us do something. This week we could get a
stimulus done that would be about like the one I sent to the desk, we
could get the rest of our work done, and we could go home.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is very curious. My friend from New
Mexico, when I asked the question about whether the bill is pending or
at the desk, as was his implication, said that may or may not be the
case. It either is or is not the case.
The answer is, it is not the case. I don't want people to come to the
floor and say the stimulus program that came from the Senate Finance
Committee is somewhere around here and the majority leader doesn't wish
to bring it back to the floor. It was on the floor, we had a vote on
it, and in fact every Member on the other side of the aisle voted to
take it off the floor.
I think when the Senator says that may or may not be the case, this
is a matter of fact. I don't want people to leave the implication that
somehow there is a bill sitting at the desk, ready to come to the
floor, but Senator Daschle chooses not to bring it to the floor. In
fact, the bill at the desk is the House bill. That bill came from the
House Ways and Means Committee. It was a partisan bill, written by
Chairman Thomas and the Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee--
the very process the Senator from New Mexico criticizes. That was
passed by the House of Representatives 216 to 214. That is what is now
at the desk. It came to the floor of the Senate, and we had a debate.
It is also the case that every bill, including the House bill, the
Senate Republican bill, and the bill the Senate Finance Committee
passed, had a point of order that could be lodged against it.
The only point of order that was lodged was against the bill that
Senator Daschle tried to bring to the floor of the Senate. So it is, in
my judgment, a curious thing for those who voted to take the bill off
the floor of the Senate and have us cease its consideration with a
point of order, to now wonder aloud--repeatedly, in the last couple of
weeks--where is the bill?
I said before this is not exactly a ``Where's Waldo'' exercise, a
game that most fathers have played with their children. We know where
the bill is. It was here. It is now gone--not because of something we
did. We wanted that economic stimulus and recovery bill to be passed by
the Senate and to go to conference. It is gone because it was taken off
the floor on a point of order--a point of order which, incidentally, we
did not raise against anything else. The point of order would exist
against the House-passed bill and against the Senate Republican bill.
Because of that, the decision was made to try to find a way to create
a negotiation between the House and the Senate--and hopefully with the
cooperation of the President--to see if we could construct some kind of
stimulus package.
Is that an optimum way to do it or the best way to do it? I don't
think so. The best way to have done this, in my judgment, would have
been to consider the bill that came out of the Senate Finance Committee
and in regular order offer amendments to it, have votes on it, and then
go to a conference. That would have been my preference.
I must say to my friend from New Mexico that I have great admiration
for his legislative skills. He is a great speaker and good thinker, and
I think the suggestion he has with respect to the payroll tax is, in
fact, stimulative. The point is he has some suggestions that have some
stimulus capability to them. But to go out and then go through 5 or 6
minutes of the same sort of thing we heard on the talk shows all
weekend about Senator Daschle and say that is not what it is all about,
let's forget what I just said--you know, somehow that doesn't make much
sense to me.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DORGAN. In the end, the question before the American people about
how you fix and provide lift to the American economy is not about
Republicans or Democrats. It also is not about conservatives or
liberals, and it is not about the House or the Senate. It is about
right and wrong. There is a right way to do this and a wrong way to do
it. Most of us are not certain what is right or wrong. But consult with
the best economists in America, just consult with the best economists
you can find in this country, and ask them: Which set of policies do
you think give us the best chance for this economy to recover? You know
that the answer is not this.
The Senator will say that is what the House did: That is exactly what
we are negotiating at this point because Chairman Thomas brings this to
the negotiating table. What ``this''? Let me read--I will be happy to
yield in a moment. Let me read from the Wall Street Journal--no liberal
bastion, I might say.
When President Bush and Congress sat down to another round
of tax-cutting this fall in the hopes of stimulating the
economy, business groups were welcomed to the table.
[[Page S12761]]
Now, many of the country's biggest corporations are reaching
for an oversized portion.
The companies could end up grabbing refund checks worth hundreds of
millions of dollars each, thanks to one of the many business breaks in
the tax-cut package fashioned by House Republican leaders that could
come to a House vote this week. Democrats' objections are to be
expected, but even some Senate Republicans and Bush officials have
distanced themselves.
As you know, the Secretary of the Treasury called this ``show
business.'' Those are the words to describe what the House of
Representatives did.
I don't come here to decide that one side is all right or one side is
all wrong. But I am a little chagrined about what is happening here,
about people talking about what the majority leader has or hasn't done,
what the majority leader could or could not do. The majority leader did
the responsible thing. He brought a stimulus bill to the floor of the
Senate for debate. It wasn't his action that took it from pending
consideration. It was a point of order made by the other side,
Republicans, that actually took it off the Senate floor.
I will, without losing my right to the floor, be happy to yield to
the Senator from New Mexico for a question.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I do not have a question. If I may just
have a minute to make a statement, the Senator can then take as much
time as he would like to rebut me.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, of course I will allow the Senator from
New Mexico to make a minute statement. The purpose of discourse on the
floor is to ask questions and respond to questions. But if the Senator
would like to have a minute--without my yielding the floor--I would be
happy to do that.
Mr. DOMENICI. I just want to make one statement as to the issue of
whether or not the American people were going to ever get a stimulus.
They could look up here and say Congress passed a bill that people
outside of government, who know about our economy, say will help us,
the American consumers. That started down the partisan path when the
Finance Committee of the Senate was told it was to produce a Democratic
bill. They did. They got every Democrat to vote for it and no
Republicans.
All I am suggesting is, that started us down a path that was full of
partisan thorns. Instead of us going down a nice, easy street to get
Americans what they deserve, we started down a partisan path that got
us here today.
The House may be as partisan as can be. Their bill may be everything
the distinguished Senator is going to say about it. But it may not,
also. But it may be. That is his assessment of their bill.
We do not have a bill we are going to discuss because they produced a
purely Democratic bill that did not have any Republican support. If in
fact we did what he said, it was subject to a point of order and we
voted it down so it would not be the pending business. Those are still
the facts. I regret that it doesn't set too well with the other side
when somebody comes down here for 8 or 9 minutes--and that is all the
time we have been here--and interrupts their conversation, which has
been going on day after day, that kind of blames all this on the
Republicans. I do not choose to blame it on the Democrats. I choose to
say let's get a stimulus package and let's have some leadership, to say
it is too late to get everything we want and it is too late to argue.
Let's just get a stimulus package by going to conference with some
leadership saying let's do a simple but good thing.
I offer a suggestion today as to what that could be. I am just as
vulnerable to being prejudiced in favor of the holiday portion of it as
others are for business or labor provisions that they want in this. But
I think we should get off the partisan path, get onto another one. And,
frankly, the Agriculture bill can be debated, the remaining
appropriations bill, and a nice, simple stimulus package could be put
together if indeed we just chose to move to another path.
I yield the floor and thank the Senator for yielding to me.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I may continue, I find this really
interesting. I believe this past spring the Budget Committee sent out a
wholly partisan document supported only by the Republicans after they
refused to meet with the Democrat members of the committee.
I don't think we are interested in a lot of finger pointing. I think
the American people are interested in a question of who is going to
offer proposals that constructively help this American economy.
I am going to say some things about the House bill because the House
bill is what comes to the conference. It is not a question of may or
may not be good. The House bill is atrocious. Does anybody in this
country think that, with an economy that is very weak, with an economy
with a substantial overcapacity, the way to resolve the problems of
this economy and provide lift and opportunity in this economy is to
give Ford a $1 billion tax rebate check, or IBM, a $1.4 billion tax
rebate check for corporate alternative minimum taxes paid going back to
1988? They won't do that for individuals who paid an alternative
minimum tax but just for corporations at a time when there is
overcapacity.
Is there anyone who can find an economist who thinks this is going to
help the American economy? It is not.
How about the hundreds of thousands of people who have lost their
jobs?
Every economist will concede that one way to stimulate this economy
is to help those people who have lost their jobs with extended
unemployment benefits. A fair number have no benefits at all and we
should provide something to help them during these tough times. Every
economist says that will help this economy because every one of those
dollars will be spent almost immediately. That is the way you help this
economy.
There are other ways as well: A combination of tax breaks, yes--for
business and others--rebates to be helpful to some people who didn't
get tax breaks earlier this year; and, extend unemployment benefits.
There are other things we can do.
But what was done in the House of Representatives--you talk about the
sounds of the hogs in the corn crib just grunting and shoving around
doing what they can to cobble together a bill with left-over policies
they didn't get done in any other tax bills is exactly what happened
here. This has nothing to do with stimulus.
That is not why I came to the floor. I am just curious. My colleague
came to the floor to spend about 5 to 6 minutes talking about what the
Democrats have done to make all of this partisan and political, and
then said: But it is not my intention to cast blame or to talk about
the Democrats--after the first 5 minutes talking about the Democrats
and Senator Daschle.
Let me make this point about this issue. We brought this stimulus
bill to the floor of the Senate. It is not here now because a point of
order was lodged against it, and every Member of the minority party in
the Senate voted to sustain that point of order. That is why it is not
here. The next time somebody asks the question, write it down. Take a
2-by-5 card and write it down for those who voted to sustain a point of
order. Write a little note that says: I voted to take the stimulus bill
off the floor of the Senate so it couldn't any longer be considered so
you will know that. You don't have to repeatedly ask these questions.
We have this negotiation going on. It is supposed to go on. The
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee went to California this
weekend instead of meeting over the weekend as previously decided. I do
not know about all of that.
But at the end of the day, the American people deserve to have a
package of proposals from this Congress that really gives a lift to
this economy. This economy is in trouble. We have a responsibility to
help. It is not going to help by people coming here and pointing this
way or that way. As I said, there is not a Republican or Democratic way
to stimulate the economy, but there is the right way and the wrong way.
We have received some pretty good advice on which is which.
My judgment is that in the coming days we can put together a proposal
that will be helpful to this country. That is our obligation.
____________________