[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 118 (Wednesday, September 18, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8715-S8718]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     EXTENSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

  Mr. REID. I want to make sure the record is clear. I asked earlier, 
whatever time Senator Daschle used be given to the Republican side in 
morning business, so that their morning business time would be extended 
by whatever time we went over morning business, which had been a half 
hour, plus whatever extra time he used.
  How much time would that be, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would require 5 minutes.
  Mr. REID. OK. And then whatever time Senator Sarbanes used, that 
would also be given to them to speak in morning business. Is it clear 
the extra time used by Senator Daschle and the time used by Senator 
Sarbanes would be given to the Republicans so they could speak in 
morning business, and that would delay our going to the homeland 
security bill for whatever additional time that is? I ask unanimous 
consent that be the order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I listened intently as the majority leader 
spoke. I remind my colleagues, we are debating homeland security and 
that we are preparing for a debate and a vote on Iraq.
  I don't think it ever does any harm, however, to talk about the fact 
that the country has additional challenges. I guess I would express two 
sources of disappointment with the speech the majority leader gave. The 
first source of disappointment would have to do with the absence of a 
program to deal with a single one of these problems.
  Anybody who goes back and listens to that long litany of woe would 
say: What did the majority leader say we are supposed to do about it? 
One would

[[Page S8716]]

search in vain, except for the hint of a program which I would have to 
say is sort of modeled after the Peronist economic program in Argentina 
today, which is to increase taxes and to spend more money.
  In fact, I remind my colleagues, if we are as concerned as we say 
about the economy and about the security of our people, the logical 
place to start doing something about it is in the Senate. The plain 
truth is, if there has been one place where there has been inaction on 
issues relevant to the economy and relevant to the American people, it 
is the Senate.
  In fact, the President proposed a budget in January. The House 
adopted a budget. The Senate not only has not adopted a budget, but we 
have made it eminently clear that we have no intention of adopting a 
budget.
  I would have to say that if the majority is concerned about all these 
problems and the majority leader has the ability to bring a budget to 
the floor of the Senate tomorrow, a logical place to show that concern 
would be to do something about it by adopting a budget.
  The plain truth is, we have adopted no budget, and we have continued 
to spend as if we still had the surplus that existed prior to the 
downturn and prior to the war.
  In terms of prescription drugs for seniors under Medicare, the 
President has proposed a program. The House has adopted a program. But 
in the Senate, there is no program. The Finance Committee was never 
allowed to meet on the subject to put forward a bill. A hodgepodge of 
ideas came to the floor of the Senate. No consensus was built. It 
became a partisan issue. There was no action.
  One thing that we could clearly do to bring stability to the economy 
and to promote job creation and economic growth would be to make the 
tax cuts permanent. What is more destabilizing to investment and 
economic growth than the fact that 9 years from today we will have the 
largest tax increase in American history? And it will occur 
automatically if we don't act.
  In terms of homeland security, the President proposed a bill. The 
House acted. In the Senate, we have had inaction. We have had endless 
debate. We have talked about working together. We have talked about 
bipartisanship, but there is no bipartisanship on this issue. In fact, 
the Democrats have come forward with a bill that takes power away from 
the Presidency and the national security powers that President Carter 
had, President Reagan had, President Bush had, President Clinton had. 
But now, in the wake of thousands of our people being killed in a 
terrorist attack, suddenly our Democrat brethren say the President has 
too much national security power and they want to take some of it away 
from him. The American people are going to go absolutely crazy when 
they realize that this is the case.
  In terms of welfare reform, the 1996 reforms were the greatest 
success in public policy in the postwar period. Now, the President has 
proposed a welfare reform bill. The House has adopted a welfare reform 
bill. But there is no action on welfare reform in the Senate.
  Finally, the President proposed appropriations. Not one 
appropriations bill in its final form has passed the Congress, and only 
three have passed the Senate.
  I would have to say there is a missing ingredient in the Majority 
Leader's speech when he talks about all the problems we face 
economically. When you look at the record of the Senate, let's begin at 
home. Let's begin to solve the problem where we live. That problem is 
in the Senate.
  I will address two other issues because I know our Republican Leader 
wishes to speak. I would have to take exception, as I said last Tuesday 
that I would, on the issue about deficits. I do not understand how our 
Democrat colleagues can continue to stand up and moan and grown and cry 
about deficits as if they come from heaven, as if somehow God just 
said: We are going to have deficits. Deficits don't come from heaven; 
they are created right here on the floor of the Senate.
  I would have to say that when we are talking about a commitment not 
to raid Social Security, when we are talking about concern about the 
deficit, I remind my colleagues, last Tuesday I stood right at that 
desk and raised a point of order that we were taking $6 billion right 
out of the Social Security Trust Fund. The Majority Leader led the 
fight to take it out.
  Today, he is alarmed about the deficit. Today, he is upset about the 
deficit. Today, he is bemoaning the deficit. But Tuesday he helped 
create the deficit.
  You can't have it both ways. You can't keep spending as if there is 
no tomorrow and then complain about the deficit.
  Let me remind my colleagues, lest they think that suddenly the 
Government has become so tightfisted we are hurting our people: Over 
the last 5 years, inflation has been 1.8 percent on a year on average. 
Average family income has risen by 4.5 percent. And yet the 
discretionary spending of the Federal Government, driven largely by 
actions in the Senate--I am not talking about Medicare and Social 
Security and mandatory programs; I am talking about discretionary 
spending, something every family understands--at the time when family 
income was growing by 4.5 percent, discretionary spending, not counting 
the September 11 emergency funding, was growing by almost 7 percent.
  When you look at what that means by program, this is the inflation 
rate, this red line, and this, by parts of the Government, is how fast 
the Government has grown as compared to inflation: six times as fast 
for Labor-HHS; five times as fast for Interior, five times as fast for 
Treasury. It goes on and on.
  Yet the Majority Leader comes to the floor of the Senate today and 
says: We have a crisis. We need, in essence, to raise taxes--taxes are 
too low--so we can fund more spending.
  Anybody who looks at the facts is going to conclude that not only 
have higher taxes and higher spending never helped any economy 
anywhere, but that we already have the higher spending and that we are 
creating these deficits as we go every day in the Senate.
  Finally, I have to respond to this constant effort to try to pit 
people against each other based on their income. Envy destroyed ancient 
Athens; it destroyed ancient Rome. It is a dangerous thing for 
Americans to use, and it is outrageous, unfair, and unjustified.
  Look at the people who make up the Senate and look at the families 
they come from and give me an argument that somehow there is some kind 
of elitism in America. It won't hold water. And we hear all this talk 
that these rich people are getting all these tax cuts--the top 1 
percent. Senator Daschle reminds us they get the $50,000 tax cut. He 
didn't bother to point out that they are paying $400,000 in taxes. And 
as far as the low-income people who are not getting tax cuts are 
concerned, he didn't point out that they are not paying any taxes. 
Income tax cuts are for taxpayers. We have already been funding 
programs for nontaxpayers.

  We had not had a real tax cut of any significance since 1981. And the 
reality is that our tax cut made the Tax Code more progressive and not 
less progressive. Under our tax cut, the top 1 percent of income 
earners will pay more taxes as a percentage than they pay now.
  So I think what we are seeing here is that some of our colleagues are 
obviously embarrassed about the fact that we are not getting the job 
done in the Senate, and that the American people want a homeland 
security bill passed. I don't think changing the subject helps our 
effort.
  In the end, if we are really concerned about those things--and we 
should be--we ought to go back and adopt a budget. We need to address 
these concerns the American public has. But it is never going to be 
enough to say that there is unhappiness in the country. Ultimately, you 
have to say what your program is to deal with it. The only program I 
heard today is we need more spending.
  When Alan Greenspan was asked before the House Banking Committee what 
one thing we could do that would help the economy the most, he said: 
``Stop spending.'' Yet, last Thursday, we added $6 billion to the 
deficit, led by the very people who, today--last Thursday, they were 
for deficits; today, they are against deficits. But you cannot be for 
something on Tuesday and against it last Thursday and have any 
credibility in that debate.

[[Page S8717]]

  So, in the end, we have work to do here. In my opinion, we need to 
pass a homeland security bill. That is lives today. We have to deal 
with the Iraq situation. And nothing would make me happier than to do 
something to help the economy. But that something is not spending and 
it is not tax increases. In fact, it would be exactly the opposite.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, how much time do we have in the designated 
time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 30 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
will not take that much time, I am certain.
  I feel a need to respond to Senator Daschle's comments a few minutes 
ago.
  Before he leaves the Chamber, I want to say how much I appreciate, 
and the Senate appreciates, the Senator from Texas. He is going to be 
leaving this year. Maybe that is one of the reasons he is even more 
articulate than usual. He is saying what he really feels and thinks and 
is holding nothing back.
  As I have said before--and I mean it sincerely--I don't know what we 
will do without him. We are going to have to create another one, 
although I am not sure it is possible. On behalf of the taxpayers of 
this country, and even those who might disagree with him sometimes, I 
say to the Senator that I appreciate him very much. He has certainly 
become a legend in this institution. We thank him for all he has done 
and all we know he is going to do. We hope he is very successful and 
pays his fair share of the taxes, which we hope to cut as the years go 
by.
  Let me come back to what was said earlier. I think it was summed up 
in a headline this morning about the fact that Senator Daschle was 
going to make this speech. It says: ``Daschle to Attack Bush Fiscal 
Policies.'' Unfortunately, that is all it was. It was a litany of 
complaints, citing certain statistics or certain areas where there 
might be a concern.
  My first reaction is, even if you accept all of that as being a 
problem--and a lot of it is--what is your plan? What do you plan to do 
about it? What is the legislative agenda? What do you recommend we pass 
in the 3 weeks or so we have left here?
  The President has had an agenda. The President sent a budget here, 
but it was all foreordained that we would come to this point this year 
when we got no budget resolution on the floor and voted on. I asked, 
why did we not have a budget resolution? We had one for 27, 28 years in 
a row. Now, all of a sudden, we will not have one. I was told, it is 
too hard when the Senate is this closely divided. In 2001, when the 
Senate was divided 50/50, we wound up passing a budget resolution by a 
wide margin, including, I think, a dozen Democrats who voted with most, 
if not all, Republicans.
  So while every Senator has a right to point out concerns about the 
economy and the country, I think they ought to be in a position of 
saying, OK, what are you going to do about it? What is your plan or 
budget? At the time we had no budget agreement, I made note of the fact 
that we were going to have some sort of meltdown at the end of the 
fiscal year; we were not going to have endorsement mechanisms; it was 
going to be hard to get appropriations bills done because there was no 
common number agreed to on the total amount. That is what happened.
  The other thing that really bothers me is, not only is there no real 
plan from the Senate, in instance after instance the House passed good 
legislation and the Senate has not taken it up--over 50 bills. I am not 
talking about bills to create a ``watermelon recognition day''; I am 
talking about serious legislation, such as welfare reform. Surely we 
should have taken the next step to help people get off welfare, 
get training and education, and get what they need to get into a real 
job and pay taxes. That is the way you help the people and the economy. 
But welfare reform, the Senate is not going to act on that. We are 
still now working on homeland security.

  Part of what we need to do for our economy in America is to reassure 
people that we are going to be safe and we are going to have the 
protections they need at home. They need to know that life, liberty, 
and the pursuit of happiness and the opportunity to make a decent 
living are going to be protected.
  We are into the third week. Senator Daschle filed cloture to cut off 
a filibuster. Who is filibustering? It is not this side. There have 
been not more than three substantive amendments that have been given an 
opportunity to even be considered. Yet homeland security is languishing 
here in the Senate. Hopefully, we will get it done this week, or next 
week, or sometime, so we can get it before we go out.
  We have not made the tax cut permanent. We should do that. The 
ridiculousness of the uncertainty of not knowing whether the tax cuts 
are going to be applicable in the years to come--when I go around the 
country, people say: Explain this to me. How can you do such a thing, 
have a tax cut and not know for sure whether it is going to be in place 
down the road? We have not done that.
  Prescription drugs: We could have had an agreement if we had gotten a 
prescription drug measure together and debated it and voted on it in 
the Finance Committee. We could have reported out a bipartisan bill 
that would have come to the floor and would have passed. We could have 
a bill probably out of conference now that would help low-income 
elderly people who do need this help in the future.
  So in instance after instance, as Senator Gramm pointed out, the 
Senate has not produced any results. There has been no plan. We have 
done three appropriations bills. We are on the fourth one. Not one bill 
will go to the President by the end of the fiscal year. I know it is 
tough because, as majority leader, year after year I had to wrestle 
with the appropriations bills. We got them done; usually, one by one we 
got them through the process. In 1996, we actually got them all done, 
and I think we got them done very close to the end of the fiscal year. 
It was harder and harder after that.
  But how can you complain about what is happening in the economy when 
you have such uncertainty in the Government--what is going to be 
available for transportation, education, health and housing? That is 
all out there with no result.
  The only proposal I have heard from some Democrats as to what we 
should do to be helpful within the economy is to spend more--always add 
more money, no matter what the issue is. Whenever a proposal is made by 
the President or by Republicans, Democrats say: We will double you or 
triple you. They think that is the way you create jobs--more Government 
spending. The Government is what kills jobs in many instances because 
of the pressure of the tax burden, regulatory burdens, and all the 
other problems that come out of having these deficits.
  So their only proposal is: Let's spend more. And they tip-toe around 
it, but they cannot quite bring themselves to say what they want to do 
is stop the tax cuts; they want tax increases.
  We need to be giving more incentives for the economy to grow. Let me 
talk a bit about what has been done. I will show my colleagues the 
difference.

  It has been very difficult, but we have gotten some of the 
President's very important agenda through both the Senate and the House 
or into conference.
  One of the things we could do to help the economy and create more 
jobs is to have increasing trade. We need to open trade. We need to 
make sure our companies, our farmers, and ranchers have access to 
markets all over the world in a truly open and free trade arrangement. 
We did get that through, although I think it took us 7 weeks to get the 
trade bill done. It was a long stretch of time, once again, because of 
the way it was brought up.
  We also did get an energy bill through the Senate. It is still 
pending in conference. I think that took us about 4 weeks.
  We did pass effective tax relief to help Americans keep more of their 
money to buy what is needed for their children at the beginning of the 
school year. In fact, while I had my doubts about it at the time, the 
rebate that was included in the tax cuts in 2001 started hitting in 
August, September, and October when we were feeling the effects of not 
only a recession that started in 2000, but also the aftereffects of 
what happened on September 11. As

[[Page S8718]]

that money got into consumers' hands, they continued to buy what was 
needed for their families, and they have been the strongest part of the 
economy during a critical time.
  We also had passed--and this is a case where it was bipartisan--tough 
corporate accountability legislation.
  There are some other issues we still could do in the waning hours of 
this session, but I think to just make speeches and be critical of 
fiscal policies without offering any alternatives is the height of what 
we should not be doing in the Senate.
  The emperor has no clothes, Mr. President. The leadership has not 
passed a budget. It has not passed appropriations bills. The Senate has 
not passed the prescription drug bill. We have not been able to get any 
traction on homeland security, and we have not even done pension 
reform. I would like people to know more about what they can count on 
with regard to putting money in IRAs or maybe taking money out of IRAs 
for education and what we are going to do in the future in terms of 
protecting 401(k)s and how stock options are going to be done. But that 
has not been brought up, and I am not sure it ever will be.
  We have the opportunity in the next 3 weeks to do what must be done 
for our country: We can pass the Defense and military construction 
appropriations bills to make sure our men and women have what they need 
to do the job to protect America at home and abroad. We can pass this 
homeland security bill, create this Department that will bring some 
focus to our homeland security, and we can help with economic security 
by controlling spending and by passing such bills out of conference as 
the energy bill. If we do not deal with the energy needs of this 
country for the future, if we do not have an energy policy and someday 
we have a real shortfall, that could have a quick negative effect on 
our economy.
  Those are the issues on which we can work in the next 3 weeks. Of 
course, we are going to need to stand up to our responsibilities and 
address the Iraq situation also. I think we will do that. We should 
focus on those issues we can do, where we can find agreement, and quit 
being critical without offering any alternatives.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business.

                          ____________________