[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 25, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9179-S9182]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              THE ECONOMIC SECURITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, I have spent many hours in the last few weeks looking at 
matters of national security.
  As the Presiding Officer knows--he is also a member of that 
committee--the hearings we have held, thanks to our outstanding 
chairman, Senator Levin of Michigan, have been invaluable. I also thank 
the administration for providing us with briefings and meetings to give 
us the best possible understanding of the situation we face.
  I also serve as a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee. I 
have

[[Page S9180]]

spent the last couple months on the legislation creating the Department 
of Homeland Security. I pay tribute to the chairman of that committee, 
Senator Lieberman, who is also the author of that legislation. I think 
it is tragic that legislation has been hung up here in the Senate for 
matters of political grandstanding rather than substantive 
disagreement.
  But there has been very little attention paid on the Senate floor or 
in Washington recently to the economic security of the American people. 
Frankly, if this administration has its way, I think there will be no 
attention paid to economic security at all over the next 6 weeks. If 
you look at the condition of the economic security of this Nation, for 
most Americans, you can understand why the White House wants to do 
anything possible to change the subject.
  Yesterday's papers, alone, had one day of economic news that would 
say we ought to put the economic security of this country on the 
highest level of alert, a code red, for disaster, disaster, disaster.
  As the papers reported yesterday, the Nasdaq exchange fell to its 
lowest level in 6 years, 77 percent below its high in the year 2000; a 
39-percent drop in this year alone.
  The S&P 500 dropped near its 5-year low, 45 percent below its high 
just a couple years ago, and a 27-percent drop in this year alone.
  The newspapers yesterday said the stocks were surging in July and 
August of this summer. There was hope, optimism for an economic 
recovery being underway. But what happened? War scare happened. The Dow 
Jones has dropped almost 1,400 points since August 22 of this year, a 
14-percent drop in its entire value in just 1 month.
  Why? Well, yesterday's Washington Times said: ``On concerns about the 
economy and a war.''
  The Washington Post said: Uncertainty in the economy and a possible 
war in Iraq. The Times and the Post agree.
  According to the chief strategist for Lehman Brothers, the stock 
market is now heading toward its third consecutive down year, which 
would be the first time since World War II--the first time in over half 
a century--that the stock market has dropped for 3 consecutive years.
  That means the 401(k) account or the IRA or the private savings 
accounts of many Americans are worth half, or even less than half, of 
their value when President Bush took office.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President and Members, it is more likely to get 
worse than better.
  A Wall Street Journal headline yesterday said: ``Is Your Portfolio 
Ready for War?--Iraq Attack Could Slash S&P 500 by 10%.'' That is 
another 10 percent in addition to what has happened already.
  Crude oil prices were reported yesterday as topping $30 a barrel, the 
highest level in 19 months. The number of Americans out of work in this 
country since February of 2001 has increased by 2,300,000 of our fellow 
citizens. Let me say that again. The number of Americans out of work in 
this Nation has gone up since February of 2001 by 2,300,000; and we 
can't get an extension of unemployment benefits passed in the Senate to 
protect those who have lost their jobs and are suffering the drastic 
financial consequences.
  Unfortunately, it is not likely to get any better, because the 
leading economic indicators fell in August for the third straight 
month.
  The Wall Street Journal said their consensus economic forecast for 
the last quarter of this calendar year--2002--has dropped 16 percent, 
and it also has been revised downward for the beginning of next year.
  The chief economist for Wells Fargo Bank--a good Minnesotan, Mr. 
Suysoh said a war with Iraq could bring oil prices to over $40 a barrel 
and cause a major recession.
  Some have said the administration decided to make the possibility of 
a war with Iraq the main topic this fall, because the economic 
condition of this country was so bad. Well, they have succeeded in 
making the war with Iraq the main topic, and they have succeeded in 
making the state of our Nation's economy even worse.
  Those comments about orchestrating the timing are not mine. They are 
the words of the White House Chief of Staff, Mr. Andrew Card, reported 
on September 7 that the White House waited on its PR offensive about 
the possibility of war until after Labor Day. He said:

       From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce a new 
     product in August.

  That is one heck of a product. This Senator's judgment, as a member 
of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is that Mr. Card is being 
honest.
  I have seen no new information and I am aware of no imminent threat 
to this country. The war scare that is going on now. The hurry-up-and-
vote pressure on the Senate right now. The pressure to OK the first 
preemptive attack in this Nation's 213-year history. They are the first 
installment of a doctrine which the President announced in June, the 
right to a preemptive strike by the United States of America.
  What would happen in this world if every other nation followed suit 
with a preemptive strike against a possible future threat? What about 
India and Pakistan, who both possess nuclear weapons? What about Israel 
and the Palestinians, China and Taiwan, or North Korea and South Korea?
  Does anyone stop to think whether this doctrine of preemptive strike 
would make the world more or less secure?
  Mr. Card, the White House Chief of Staff, is right. This new product 
has caused quite a PR sensation. It is taking over the headlines--it 
has replaced the stock market with Saddam Hussein. Talk about going 
from bad to worse. The trouble is that the stock market is also going 
from bad to worse.
  The number of unemployed in America has gone from bad to worse. The 
economic outlook of this Nation has gone from bad to worse. The Federal 
budget forecast has gone from bad to worse. The economic security for 
most Americans has gone from bad to worse.
  I can understand why the White House might not be aware of all this, 
because the contributions to the Republican political committees are at 
record highs.
  Yesterday's headline again: ``GOP Committees See a 40-Percent 
Increase in Soft Money.'' Their bank accounts outweigh the Democrats by 
more than 2 to 1. Their contributors have good reasons to be grateful.
  The Brookings Institute reports that the top 1 percent of American 
taxpayers--the wealthiest 1 percent of the people in this country--got 
37 percent of last year's tax cut. They pay 26 percent of the taxes, 
and they got 37 percent of the tax cut. The average tax cut for the 
wealthiest 1 percent of the people in this Nation under last year's 
bill was over $45,000. The average pretax earnings of the top 1 percent 
is over $1.1 million, and they got an average tax cut of over $45,000.

  I have to say that this administration does have an economic recovery 
plan. The trouble is it is limited to the wealthiest 1 percent of 
Americans. For the rest of America, we are in a real-life survival 
show. They lose their jobs. The losers lose their health insurance. 
They lose their retirement investments. And the winner of the show is 
someone like Jack Walsh, former chairman of General Electric. He has an 
annual pension of $9 million. I hope that was indexed to inflation.
  General Electric shareholders, which include retirees whose 
portfolios, as I said earlier, dropped by 50 percent in the last 2 
years, also pay for Mr. Walsh's car and driver and for his floor seats 
at the New York Knicks basketball games. They pay for his boxes at both 
the Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees baseball games. They pay his 
fees to four country clubs, and more.
  I tell you, some corporate executives are no longer satisfied with 
golden parachutes. They take the whole airplane.
  American taxpayers ought to be asking themselves: Why does this guy 
need a tax cut? Why did this administration insist on squandering over 
$2.2 trillion over the next 10 years on tax cuts where over one-third 
of the benefits go to the wealthiest 1 percent of the people in this 
country? It will cost the Federal Government $500 billion more over the 
next 10 years just on the higher interest payments on the Federal debt. 
That is $500 billion more in taxes to pay for fiscal irresponsibility. 
That provides nothing for homeland security. That provides nothing for 
special education; nothing for anything that benefits the people of 
America.

[[Page S9181]]

  In 1 year, the non-Social Security budget of this country has gone 
from a 10-year forecast a $3.1 trillion surplus to a $700 billion 
deficit. That is an almost a $4 trillion drop in 1 year. Not even 
Arthur Andersen can hide that number.
  Yesterday's paper reported that the Vice President is indignant about 
suggestions that this war scare, this ``warphoria'' has been timed for 
political benefits this fall.
  I wouldn't be indignant. I would be outraged, if the White House 
Chief of Staff is correct in what he said--that the White House waited 
to introduce its ``new product'' until the fall of a midterm election. 
Only the people who were responsible for those decisions know why they 
made them.
  But the American people will ultimately hold them responsible for 
those decisions. The war scare has wiped the economy off the headlines. 
It has also wiped any economic recovery for this country off the map. 
It has wiped many Americans' jobs out of existence, and wiped many 
Americans' prosperity from comfort to despair. If all of this is 
absolutely necessary, it is unfortunate. If it is not, it is 
unforgivable.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President. I will be very brief. I was 
going to ask the Senator from Minnesota a question.
  I will be brief because I know my colleague from Wyoming is waiting.
  I wanted to first compliment him for his remarks and pose a thought 
and a question. I would be interested in what he has to say.
  The President thinks strongly that Saddam Hussein must go, and go 
quickly. All of us are thinking about that and wrestling with that. I 
am not going to comment yes or no on that. The President should be 
spending time and effort focusing on it. It is a very important issue. 
I don't begrudge him for doing that. He is spending maybe half of his 
time on it. It seems to me the other half of his time is spent on going 
around the country campaigning--half his time on the war effort, and 
half his time going around the country campaigning for candidates, and 
the economy is not getting any of the President's attention.
  As my friend from Minnesota has correctly laid out, it is going down, 
down, down. Every day there is a new headline. We have one in New York. 
The securities industry is going to lay off many more people at a time 
when we can't afford it. In every part of the country, you see this 
down, that down, and this down.
  I make a plea to the President. Spend your time focusing on Saddam 
Hussein, but what about spending the rest of the time--instead of 
traveling around the country going to political events--focusing on the 
economy. We are a great Nation. We can do both. We can examine what we 
ought to do in Iraq. At the same time, we can start focusing on the 
economy and things such as getting people back to work, extending 
unemployment insurance, and lowering the cost of prescription drugs.
  The President has been absent on every one of those issues. One 
doesn't exclude the other.
  I ask my colleague: Does he agree with those sentiments? Am I not 
correct when we read that the President is spending one-half of the 
week going to different parts of the country simply campaigning, and 
that I haven't heard him pronounce a thing about the economy and what 
we are going to do about it in all too long a period of time? Then, 
when he says with sort of verbiage and nothing substantive, I do not 
know if they have a single plan.
  I don't know if they have a single plan, even though they withdrew 
the tax cuts they proposed for the very wealthy. I ask my colleague, in 
light of his excellent remarks, would he agree with me that all 
Americans, Democrats and Republicans, Independents, want the President 
to come back home and spend some time focusing on the economy; that he 
can do both, we can do both, deal with the war issue and focus on the 
economy?
  Mr. DAYTON. I absolutely agree with the Senior Senator from New York. 
What I find particularly disturbing is, as I know from experience in 
Minnesota, where the President has been to my State three times in the 
last year in the midst of my colleague's very difficult election 
campaign, the President has come in, raised a couple million dollars, 
and has charged part of the cost of this trip to the American 
taxpayers. He gives one 20-minute policy speech somewhere and then goes 
on to raise millions of dollars for campaigns, and the American 
taxpayer is paying the bill.
  I agree with the Senator, the President ought to stay at home. He 
should focus on the economy, in addition to Iraq. And if he does travel 
for political reasons, the American taxpayer should not be paying the 
bill.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I am happy to yield to my friend from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I was astounded to see some of the recent news coming out 
on the economic front, the gap between the middle class and the 
wealthy, the gap between the rich and the poor, the fact we see in many 
categories the worst economy in 50 long years in terms of jobs lost in 
the private sector, in terms of the sluggish growth of the GDP, the 
number of foreclosures. It is stunning. One has to be concerned that 
this administration is giving this no attention whatsoever, which was 
my friend's point.
  We look at a President who is spending half his time on foreign 
policy; that is fine. This Congress is going to help in that area 
because we have a lot of ideas on how to meet the threat Iraq poses. On 
our side of the aisle, there will be different opinions on how to meet 
that threat, which will show the strength of our democracy, and that 
this party is, in fact, a broad umbrella, which is healthy in the long 
run for the country.
  The other half of the time seems to be spent on the road campaigning. 
I agree with my friend. Given the economic statistics--the stock 
market, we are looking at maybe a $4, $5 trillion loss, the worst in 50 
years, and the fact pensions are down--does my friend believe we ought 
to perhaps come up with something specific to ask the President?
  For example, he keeps calling us to talk about foreign policy. Why 
doesn't he call us to the White House to talk about this economy, to 
get the best ideas of Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents? 
This isn't partisan. People are suffering out there, Republicans and 
Democrats, Independents, young and old, for different reasons. So would 
my friend think that might be a good way for this President to show he 
cares as much about the everyday issues our people are facing as he 
does about electing Republicans, and perhaps this would be a way to 
break through on this economy?
  Consumer confidence is down. Perhaps that would give a spur to our 
people and bring us together just as we get together on foreign policy.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague for her question and comments. She 
is right on the money. It is a great idea. We are called, our 
Democratic leadership, along with Republican leadership, to the White 
House on numerous occasions to discuss the war effort. That is good. 
That is how America should work, particularly when it comes to wartime. 
But in a sense we have an economic war here at home, as my good friend 
from California has enumerated: people losing income; people losing 
jobs; people worried about the future; pensions way down.

  Why are we not being called to the White House for an economic summit 
on what to do there? I speak for all of us: We would be happy to meet 
the President halfway or a good part of the way in terms of doing 
things because the people are languishing. To ignore the economy and 
spend all this time running around the country campaigning is a 
dereliction of duty. He is not even up for election.
  I thank my colleague for the question.
  Ms. STABENOW. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I am happy to yield for the last time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Could the Chair tell me what the system is this morning? 
Are we going to have one side have all the time?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York has the 
floor. There are 10 minutes allotted to each Senator. The Senator from 
New York has the floor.
  Mr. THOMAS. How much time remains?

[[Page S9182]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. He has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield the 1 minute to the Senator from Michigan.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York.
  Every economic indicator we want to go up is going down, and every 
one we want to go down is going up. The Senator and I have worked 
together on one of the most critical issues that affect Americans, 
their pocketbook and quality of life, which is access to prescription 
drugs. I share the concern that we do not see the focus on the economy 
and what needs to happen in the economy. The Schumer-McCain bill, now 
in the House of Representatives, which would lower prices for 
prescription drugs, is one very important piece of that economic 
puzzle. When we see that more people are lower income, their health 
care costs are rising, I appreciate his leadership on that issue.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator for her leadership as well.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming.

                          ____________________