[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 5 (Monday, January 13, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S210-S212]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
A CHANGE OF HEART OR ONLY A CHANGE OF FACE?
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I concur with the distinguished Senator
from Nevada, the assistant Democratic leader. We have made a great deal
of progress, as is evidenced by the number of women who now serve in
the Senate as well as the House. In addition, of course, as we look to
the election of the first woman as a leader of either caucus, I think
that, too, speaks volumes for the transition that this country and the
Congress itself have experienced over the course of the last couple of
decades. We have made progress on women's rights, and many of us would
like to think we have made progress as well on civil rights.
Over the course of the last several weeks, this country has been
focused on the issue of civil rights. I think virtually every Member of
the body spoke strongly about the need for healing and reconciliation
as we consider the issue of civil rights and the rights of minorities
in this country. We recognize we have a long way to go.
We have a new leader in the Republican caucus who has pledged to
pursue these goals, and I applaud him for his willingness to do so.
Unfortunately, yesterday the Republican leader may have caused
confusion about his intent in that regard. His comments indicated to me
that among the Republican leadership there may have been a change of
face, but there has not been a change of heart.
When the administration chose to renominate Charles Pickering to the
second highest court in the land, it now appears that in many respects,
they did not even have a change of face. The question is whether or not
all of us, Republicans and Democrats, can express in our actions what
so many have expressed in words. If indeed it is a change of heart, we
need to see actions that bear out such a change.
On the question of affirmative action, Senator Frist said he supports
it if affirmative action is defined as it was in the 1960 Civil Rights
Act. Well, that was not affirmative action; that was civil rights. That
was equal rights.
The real question of affirmative educational opportunity is now being
asked in the United States Supreme Court. The administration has chosen
to remain silent. Yesterday the Republican leader in the Senate did not
ask them to break that silence or indicate a desire to break his.
When it comes to protecting equal rights, we still have a lot of work
to do in changing hearts, in changing minds, and in changing laws.
Unfortunately, that lesson still seems to be lost on a number of our
Republican colleagues, in spite of their expressions of intent over the
course of the last several weeks.
There will be much more to say and do on the issue of racial
reconciliation in the coming weeks. I hope to see more than just words
from our Republican colleagues, because yesterday it appeared that what
we had hoped was a change of heart was little more than a change of
face.
Last week the administration announced we would be able to see the
details of the economic stimulus package they intend to offer.
Last week we also learned that during the month of December we lost
100,000 jobs; 100,000 jobs in December. That brings the total job loss
since George Bush took office to 2.3 million jobs. When the President
puts forth his stimulus plan, my concern is it will be a stimulus plan
for the rich and a sedative for the rest. The reason I say that, in
part, is because there is very little job creation in the first year
under what we know of the President's plan. The President has
acknowledged that in his first year he will be creating approximately
190,000 jobs. When that 190,000 jobs is compared to the 100,000 jobs
lost in December alone, or the 2.3 million jobs lost in the first 2
years, 190,000 jobs is hardly a drop in the bucket. It is hardly worth
writing home about. It is not the stimulus that all economists and the
rest of the country expect the Congress to consider. That is the
concern many have: 90 percent of the so-called stimulus plan the
President is proposing takes place in the outyears--not when we are
losing the jobs by the hundreds of thousands each month. It takes place
in years beyond 2003.
If anything, the economists have said over and over if you are going
to create a stimulus package, make sure it is immediate. Make sure it
takes effect now, not at some point in the outyears. We made that
mistake before. We are feeling the consequences of it. So, the fact it
does not stimulate the economy is the first concern we have.
My second concern is the question of fairness. Mr. President, 200,000
millionaires get tax relief that exceeds the salary of 92 million
Americans who make $50,000 or less. Again, 200,000 millionaires will
get $89,000 annually as a tax cut while those who are making $50,000 a
year or less will get somewhere in the vicinity of $70 or $80 a year in
tax reduction. This proposal flunks the test of fairness.
I am troubled on two other accounts. In the last few weeks young men
and women at Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota have been sent
off to the Persian Gulf to prepare for war. We hope that war will not
come. But if war does come, they will be asked to put their lives on
the line. They will be asked to put their lives on the line at the very
time these millionaires are going to get an $89,000 tax break. For the
life of me, I don't see where the fairness is in that.
Over the last 333 days, we have also suggested there has to be some
form of drought relief, some form of assistance given to farmers and
ranchers and people in rural areas who are suffering as a consequence
of the drought. So far we have been unsuccessful. We have been
unsuccessful because the administration has said we cannot afford $6
billion in drought assistance. What I don't understand is how in the
name of fiscal fairness we can support $764 billion in tax cuts largely
directed to those at the very top while we tell our farmers and
ranchers they are not eligible for any assistance and while we send our
young men and women off to war. On the issue of fairness, this plan
also fails.
Perhaps my biggest concern, however, goes to how reckless this plan
is. People have to be reminded we are borrowing every single dollar of
these funds to pay for the tax cut. We are borrowing that out of Social
Security. We have no other recourse. Whatever money is going to go to
the tax cut this year will be borrowed from the Social Security trust
fund. So the fact we are borrowing at a time when we may go to war,
where we may actually have to draw down more resources to be able to
fight that war, seems senseless to me. To borrow at the magnitude the
President is proposing, $764 billion in face value and perhaps $1
trillion when interest costs are factored in, $1 trillion when we have
to fight a war, seems like the most reckless course for fiscal
responsibility I can think of.
The Governors are not sounding a false alarm when they tell us this
plan will cost them $4 billion. That is over and above the $50 billion
shortfall they are currently experiencing all over this
[[Page S211]]
country. In my own State of South Dakota, we are experiencing about a
$50 million shortfall, one of the largest on record. But it is $50
billion nationwide. This tax plan will exacerbate that $50 billion by
another $4 billion.
Mr. President, from the point of view of its stimulative value, from
the point of view of fairness, from the point of view of our
responsibilities and the potential for recklessness, this plan leaves a
great deal to be desired. In fact, it causes very great concern to
many.
I am also troubled that as we contemplate the need for action on this
stimulus package, as we contemplate the need to address the omnibus
appropriations bill, as we recognize we still have to work out our
organizing resolution, that the Congress may take vacation next week. I
hope we would refrain from taking a vacation next week. I hope we come
to the floor, resolve these matters, work on them intently, bring this
economic stimulus plan, have a good debate, make sure we are acting in
good faith to try to deal with these tragic unemployment numbers that
roll out month after month. That is my hope, that we stay here next
week, that we address these concerns in a realistic, in a bipartisan,
and in an immediate way, sending a clear message we are a lot more
interested in getting this work done than we are in taking a few days
off so soon into the new session. I stand ready to work with our
Republican leadership and certainly with those in the committees as we
begin to do our work.
Senator Frist and I have had some conversations with regard to the
organizing resolution. We are not yet able to say with any confidence
when we may finish those discussions. It is fair to say, as everyone
knows, we had exactly the mirror circumstances in the 107th Congress
that we have today. In the 107th Congress, there were 51 Members in the
majority and 49 Members in the minority. In the 108th Congress, there
are 51 Members in the majority and 49 Members in the minority. It would
seem to me given the fact that we have simply seen a reverse, the
mirror image of the makeup of the 107th Congress, we ought to have
exactly the same organizing resolution; the same funding, the same
membership, the same space, the same circumstances. That really is as
simply as I can describe what the Democratic position is. If it was
good enough for Republicans and Democrats in the 107th Congress, you
would think it would be good enough for Democrats and Republicans in
the 108th Congress.
We are willing to settle for 49 percent of the resources, 49 percent
of the space, and a one-vote Republican majority on committees in the
108th Congress. That is our position. It is the same position we held
last time. Unfortunately, there are some who have argued that ratio is
not satisfactory any longer. Since they are in the majority, they want
more--more resources, more space. I hope, in the interests filling the
committee positions and moving through the legislative agenda we have
before us, that we can move as quickly as possible to a resolution of
this matter.
Let's do in this Congress what we did in the last one. We all signed
off on it. We all said it was the right thing to do. We all agreed, and
the time has come for us to agree again.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator allow me to ask a question?
Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to.
Mr. REID. The leader has made it very clear, but I want to make sure
again that everyone hears the fact the Democrats simply want to have
the same exact program for committees that was here last year. The only
thing is the Democrats are now in the minority and Republicans are now
in the majority, but the funding and the staffing and the space would
be exactly the same, is that right?
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, that is exactly what I am proposing and
what I assume would be the circumstance in the 108th Congress.
As I say, I did not have one chairman last year express a concern
about the inadequacy of resources while we were in the majority. I
can't imagine, with the cost-of-living adjustment, that anyone would
have difficulty accepting those resources--as I say, with a cost-of-
living adjustment--in this Congress.
Mr. REID. If there is a problem here and the organizational efforts
are not going forward, it would not be anything the Democratic leader
has done? You want exactly the same situation as last year, is that
right?
Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is absolutely correct. What we are simply
saying is what we had agreed to with a 51-49 breakdown in the 107th
Congress is what we ought to agree to with a 51-49 breakdown in the
108th Congress.
Mr. REID. If I could ask the Democratic leader one other series of
questions based upon what I think was his very clear speech, the Wall
Street Journal, which I understand has a circulation of about 2.5
million people, came out today with something you usually don't see in
the Wall Street Journal, something supporting what we think is going
wrong in the country. The headline in the Wall Street Journal:
U.S. Job-Market Slump Is Longest in Decades--Near-Term
Prospects for Workers Remain Grim . . .
The leader is aware that even the Wall Street Journal is painting a
very bleak picture about this economy, is that true?
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is certainly true. I read that article
this morning. I commend the distinguished Senator from Nevada for
raising its content.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the article be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 13, 2003]
U.S. Job-Market Slump Is Longest in Decades--Near Term Prospects for
Workers Remain Grim Despite Hopeful Forecasts
(By Jon E. Hilsenrath)
The later market in the U.S. appears to be in the most
protracted slump in decades, and the near-term prospect for
workers isn't encouraging.
The Labor Department said payroll employment contracted by
101,000 in December, led by more hemorrhaging in the
manufacturing sector, which eliminated jobs for the 29th
straight month, and by struggling retailers that hired less
than normally during the Christmas selling season. The
unemployment rate was steady in December at 6%, mainly
because workers are leaving the labor force, which contracted
by 191,000 last month.
For more than a year, economists have said that the current
economic recovery was too limp to spur hiring because
corporate profits have been so weak. In recent weeks,
however, economists have speculated that the jobs market
would start to pick up later this year, in part because they
expect business confidence to improve. Some recent reports
support that argument. The Institute for Supply Management,
for instance, said earlier this month that orders to
manufacturers picked up in December.
But Friday's report suggested that, despite signs that the
corporate sector is healing, cost cutting remains the order
of the day for many companies. That could mean more setbacks
for labor.
The surprising labor market weakness heightened attention
on Wall Street and in Washington on the need for fiscal
stimulus. President George W. Bush last week proposed $674
billion in tax cuts and spending increases to lift economic
growth. Analysts said the weak job market probably softens
opposition to some kind of action out of Congress in the
months ahead, although the shape of that action remains to be
hashed out by Washington partisans.
Bush administration officials seized on the report to make
their case. ``The president views the latest report on
unemployment as another reason why it's so important for
Congress to pass the president's job-creating economic
plan,'' said presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer. Democrats
argue that the Bush plan doesn't provide enough short-term
stimulus and costs too much in the long-term.
Even before Friday's report, economists were likening the
U.S. economy's performance to the jobless recovery of the
early 1990s. The latest data suggest it might be that and
more. Few job-market downturns have been this protracted. The
29 straight declines in manufacturing employment is the
longest stretch of manufacturing retrenchment in post World
War II history. Overall in the 22 months since the recession
began in March 2001, employers have eliminated 1.75 million
jobs. By contrast, 22 months after the 1990 recession began,
employment had already started to pick up, and fewer jobs--
1.57 million--had been eliminated.
Executive caution about hiring has made it increasingly
hard for unemployed workers to get back in the work force
once they have lost jobs. The Labor Department said 22% of
all unemployed workers have been out of work for more than
half a year, the highest ratio of long-term unemployed
workers since 1992. Also in December, 30% of workers said
jobs were hard to get, the highest level since 1994, an
earlier report by the Conference Board indicated.
Some economists said the weak job market puts the economy
on more insecure footing
[[Page S212]]
at the beginning of 2003. Business spending has been held
back for months by uncertainties surrounding the possibility
of war with Iraq. Economists are becoming concerned that the
weak job market could pinch consumer spending.
But the job market news wasn't all bad last week. Several
economists said they expect the employment statistics to look
a bit better in January because of seasonal adjustment
factors. And the U.S. government's measure of retail
employment fell for December after seasonal adjustments,
because retailers hired fewer workers than they normally do
in the month. In January, they are conversely likely to lay
off fewer seasonal workers, which should boost the retail
employment statistics.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, simply to summarize the article, it says
not only are we suffering month-to-month joblessness at levels we have
not seen in 8 years, but if you look at the joblessness in the context
of the economy over the last several decades, this is one of the most
severe slumps we have seen in decades.
So we have both an immediate context and a long-term context. In both
of those contexts, as the Wall Street Journal article points out, this
matter is of great consequence. Mr. President, 2.3 million jobs, now,
in the last 24 months have been lost. What the article simply states is
that, while it is a serious immediate concern, we have to be very
concerned about the long-term repercussions of this joblessness. I
thought it was one of the better articles I had seen in recent times
with regard to the economic dilemma we face as we deal with the
stimulus package later this month.
Mr. REID. If I could ask one more question? The leader mentioned we
were borrowing money. It is true, is it not, that when this
administration took over there was a 10-year surplus, in the trillions
of dollars? Whether it was $5 trillion or $6 trillion, it was trillions
of dollars. In the last 2 years every penny of that is gone, and the
leader is certainly aware of that, is that true?
Mr. DASCHLE. I would say to the Senator from Nevada, that is one of
my greatest concerns. Obviously, the debt we were able to eliminate
over the final years of the 1990s, thinking that somehow--I can recall
having conversations that we may be spending down the debt too fast.
People expressed the concern we might be eliminating the debt too fast.
I just now shake my head in disbelief we even had conversations like
that. But, nonetheless, that was one of the concerns expressed by some
during that period of time.
I can recall so vividly this question about what it is we were going
to do with a $5.5 trillion projected surplus. We no longer have that
surplus projection. We no longer have those year-to-year balanced
budgets we were proud to report to the American people. We now have a
deficit of $200 billion to $300 billion, depending on whether or not
you consider the Social Security trust fund. We are expected now to see
a deficit of $350 billion in the next fiscal year. So we will see debts
of a magnitude we have not seen, deficits of a magnitude we have not
experienced as a result of what has happened over the course of the
last 24 months.
In spite of it, we are going to be actually borrowing to exacerbate
that debt even more, borrowing to provide a tax cut to those at the
very top of the income scale.
I have always been concerned about the relationship between the
circumstances we face now in the war on terror and the circumstances we
faced in World War II. President Roosevelt stood up and said: I want
all Americans to sacrifice. In fact, he raised revenue, he did
everything possible to ensure there was an adequate degree of sacrifice
across the board. Now we are asking young men and women to sacrifice
perhaps their lives at the very time we turn around and give a
millionaire an $89,000 tax break. It turns logic on its head, but that
is the concern I have.
I appreciate very much the Senator from Nevada raising the question.
Mr. REID. I know how busy the Democratic leader is, but I would ask
one more question. The Democratic leader is going into his 9th year
being leader of this caucus. Prior to that time Senator Mitchell of
Maine was leader. I can remember the Democratic leader today and myself
going into a meeting with Senator Mitchell. The problem there is the
Republicans were having a mad rush to have a constitutional amendment
to balance the budget, but they were going to use Social Security
surpluses to offset that deficit. The Senator remembers that, does he
not?
Mr. DASCHLE. I sure do.
Mr. REID. You remember at that time I agreed to sponsor an amendment
to have a constitutional amendment to balance the budget but not using
Social Security surpluses? That worked out well enough that we were
able to stop that very mischievous amendment from passing. It would
have wiped out Social Security. Social Security would be gone by now.
But I say to my friend, the Democratic leader, the money that is
being borrowed now is coming from Social Security. Not only that, the
deficit would even be more if they didn't use Social Security surpluses
to hide it, isn't that also true?
Mr. DASCHLE. That's the concern we have about a $200 billion Social
Security cushion that is all being drawn down; not only this year, but
for every year in the foreseeable future, every year in the coming
decade. Every dollar of Social Security revenue coming in will be used
to offset the costs involved in running the Government and providing
the resources for the tax cuts the President has either advocated or
actually enacted.
There is no doubt that the fiscal irresponsibility and the
recklessness that comes with the extraordinary reliance on Social
Security trust funds at the very time the baby boomers are coming into
retirement age is very troubling. I think it ought to be the subject of
a lot more debate and scrutiny in the days and weeks ahead.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, as the leader is leaving the floor, I wish
to recognize my friend from North Dakota who after I offered that
amendment was on the forefront of the next Congress making sure that we
continued our efforts to beat down that mischievous constitutional
amendment to balance the budget which would have used the Social
Security surplus to balance the budget. I applaud my friend from North
Dakota for taking that tough stand which allowed us to move forward and
help us defeat one of the most dangerous efforts in the guise of
balancing the budget and destroying Social Security.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 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. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from South Dakota.
____________________