[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.




                          ____________________