[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 28, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1658-S1661]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              THE ECONOMY

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is a most interesting discussion we 
are having. I guess two and two equals five here in the Senate. We are 
told repeatedly that this Senate and Congress should increase defense 
spending, and it does; increase spending on homeland security, and it 
does. And then cut other domestic discretionary spending. But now we 
are told, we don't really cut other domestic discretionary spending.
  The President apparently wants to increase defense spending, increase 
homeland security spending, increase other spending, and then have tax 
cuts, as if somehow that all adds up. I don't know where you get that 
kind of schooling. Does two and two equal five? I don't think so.
  Either there are cuts in domestic discretionary spending or there are 
no cuts. We all know the truth. I will bring charts down here and talk 
about these areas of the Government where they will be spending less 
this year than they did last year. With respect to homeland security, I 
wonder if my colleagues really make the case that the President has not 
in any way ignored the needs of homeland security when in fact we 
appropriated $2.5 billion for homeland security that the President 
would not spend, in spite of the fact that, for example, with port 
security, that is the security of America's seaports, we have 5.7 
million containers coming in every year to the seaports, and 100,000 of 
them are inspected and 5.6 million are not.
  Everyone in this country understands, all law enforcement 
understands, that that is a very difficult problem. The homeland 
security issue with respect to seaports is a very serious issue. It is 
unaddressed.

[[Page S1659]]

  It is interesting to come here and listen to this, but there are 
either cuts in spending or there are not. We will have some discussion 
about that in the future. Let me talk about a couple of other things, 
if I might.
  We are going to hear the State of the Union speech tonight. The fact 
is, I want this President to succeed. I want this country to succeed. I 
wish no ill will towards anyone because of partisanship. We are of 
different parties, but we serve the same interest. We serve the common 
interest of this country. All of us want this President to succeed, 
want his administration to succeed, and we want this country to do 
well.
  But I want to tell you, there are some days when I wonder about what 
is going on around here. Today is one of those days. I don't know when 
in all the years I have served in the House and Senate that I have been 
more disturbed than I was in reading this article I will describe. It 
appeared in yesterday's Washington Times. A similar story ran in the 
Los Angeles Times the day before yesterday.
  Let me read the first paragraph:

       Top White House officials warned yesterday the Bush 
     administration has not ruled out using nuclear weapons 
     against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein if he deploys weapons 
     of mass destruction against the United States.

  Now, I don't understand this at all. We are told in the Los Angeles 
Times, and in this story, that they are talking about using designer 
bunker buster nuclear weapons, something that has been discussed 
previously in the administration. Do you know that India and Pakistan 
were shooting at each other yesterday over Kashmir? Both of them have 
nuclear weapons, and the leadership of this country must be exhorted to 
tell these countries you cannot use the nuclear option? We are the 
country that must exercise restraint.
  We have people in this administration who, in my judgment, make the 
most reckless, dangerous statements I have heard in some 2 decades in 
this town when they talk about the potential of using nuclear weapons. 
That is not what this country ought to be talking about. There are some 
30,000 nuclear weapons, give or take a couple thousand, that exist on 
this Earth. It ought to be our responsibility to try to make sure that 
never again is a nuclear weapon exploded in anger on the face of this 
Earth. If one, just one, is exploded, others will explode. This country 
ought not talk about the use of nuclear weapons. We ought not be 
reckless to talk about designing a new type of bunker buster nuclear 
weapon. This lowers the threshold of other countries who aspire to 
having nuclear weapons about when they might consider using them. It is 
reckless, dangerous, and irresponsible. I cannot believe I am reading 
this sort of thing. The nuclear option in Iraq--the L.A. Times says:

       The United States has lowered the bar for using the 
     ultimate weapon. The United States is thinking about the 
     unthinkable, preparing for the possible use of nuclear 
     weapons against Iraq.

  I ask unanimous consent that the entire article be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Times, Jan. 27, 2003]

            Administration Won't Bar Use of Nuclear Weapons

                           (By Ellen Sorokin)

       Two top White House officials warned yesterday the Bush 
     administration has not ruled out using nuclear weapons 
     against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein if he deploys weapons 
     of mass destruction against the United States or its allies.
       White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. said on 
     Sunday morning talk shows that the United States will use 
     ``whatever means necessary'' to protect its citizens and the 
     world from a ``holocaust.''
       ``I'm not going to put anything on the table or off the 
     table,'' Mr. Card said on NBC's ``Meet the Press.'' ``But we 
     have a responsibility to make sure Saddam Hussein and his 
     generals do not use weapons of mass destruction.''
       Dan Bartlett, White House communications director, echoed 
     Mr. Card's sentiments.
       ``What is clear--and the message that President Bush has 
     sent unequivocally--is that if the Iraqi regime, if Saddam 
     Hussein and his generals decide for one second to use weapons 
     of mass destruction against allied forces of the United 
     States of America and our allies, we will make sure it 
     doesn't happen,'' Mr. Bartlett said on CNN's ``Late 
     Edition.''
       Their comments came two days after an article published in 
     the Los Angeles Times claimed the United States was 
     considering using nuclear weapons in a possible war against 
     Iraq to destroy underground command posts and stop Iraqi 
     forces from using weapons of mass destruction.
       The story cited top U.S. private military expert William M. 
     Arkin. According to the story, he said plans for using 
     nuclear weapons against Iraq were being fleshed out at the 
     U.S. Strategic Command in Omaha, Neb., at the Pentagon and at 
     an ``undisclosed location'' in Pennsylvania where Vice 
     President Richard B. Cheney spent time during terrorism 
     alerts.
       Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld signed in December 
     2001 a classified nuclear posture review that opened the 
     possibility for nuclear weapons to be used against targets 
     able to withstand most non-nuclear attacks. Countries such as 
     Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Syria were added to the 
     list of possible targets.
       Defense Department spokesman Maj. Ted Wadsworth refused to 
     confirm or deny the report, saying: ``That's something that 
     policy-makers have to talk about.''
       Yesterday, several lawmakers and policy analysts said they 
     hoped the administration would not resort to using nuclear 
     weapons to deal with the situation in Iraq.
       Sen. Richard G. Lugar, Indiana Republican and chairman of 
     the Foreign Relations Committee, said he hasn't heard any 
     discussion on using nuclear weapons on Iraq.
       ``Our policy is negotiation,'' Mr. Lugar told ``Late 
     Edition.'' ``[Secretary of State Colin L.] Powell at the 
     United Nations, bringing together the U.N., trying to get 
     Saddam to declare, hoping the inspectors against hope will 
     find something. All we're saying . . . Saddam has to realize 
     he will be disarmed. He doesn't understand that. I don't 
     think he believes it. And that's the critical point.''
       Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat and a member of the 
     Foreign Relations Committee, said the real test of the 
     country's leadership is bringing the world together and 
     resolving the issues in a way that results with the least 
     loss of life.
       ``It's very chilling to talk about first use of nuclear 
     weapons,'' Mrs. Boxer said on ``Late Edition.''
       ``And I wish we didn't go down the path. The whole world 
     knows that we are the superpower, we are for sure the only 
     superpower, we have an arsenal that could destroy every man, 
     woman and child in the world 10 times over. We don't have to 
     go around beating the drums of war,'' she said.
       Pentagon adviser Richard Perle said on ``Fox News Sunday'' 
     he couldn't think of a ``target of interest'' in a conflict 
     with Iraq that couldn't be addressed with non-nuclear 
     weapons.
       ``We have extraordinary military technology, weapons of 
     great precision that have the enormous benefit of destroying 
     the target almost all of the time without doing unintended 
     damage to civilians,'' said Mr. Perle, a resident fellow at 
     the conservative American Enterprise Institute for Public 
     Policy Research in Washington.
       ``I can't see why we would wish to use a nuclear weapon,'' 
     he said.
       Several lawmakers said they would first want Mr. Bush to 
     present evidence as to why military force against Iraq is 
     needed.
       Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, 
     said Mr. Bush has yet to make a ``compelling case'' that 
     military force against Iraq is necessary right now.
       ``He hasn't done that,'' Mr. Daschle said on CBS' ``Face 
     the Nation.''
       ``The President needs to make a compelling case that Iraq 
     poses a very imminent threat to the United States and, 
     secondly, that he has worked through the international 
     community and exhausted all other options. Only if those two 
     criteria are met does he have the authority, the license to 
     take military action.''

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I hope those who are in closed rooms 
thinking in this kind of a dangerous way are not part of the Government 
for long, or part of this administration for long. That is not what we 
ought to be doing in this country.
  Let me describe one other piece of information about this issue of 
foreign policy. One year ago in the State of the Union Address, the 
President said--correctly, in my judgment--that the greatest threat to 
this country is the network of terrorists around the globe that wish 
this country harm. They are the ones who murdered thousands of innocent 
Americans. One year ago now, I was in Afghanistan. Flying into that 
country over the mountains, you looked down and you understood that 
deep inside caves in the mountains were Osama bin Laden and his key 
planners, planning the murder of innocent Americans. That network of 
terrorists and others around the world represent a serious threat to 
this country.
  But we have not heard about Osama bin Laden for a long while. I read 
yesterday that the President himself mentioned Osama bin Laden six 
times in the last year. It appears that these days it is ``Osama been 
forgotten,'' rather than Osama bin Laden.

[[Page S1660]]

  Osama bin Laden is a very serious threat to this country. He is 
apparently alive, according to our intelligence services. His chief 
deputy has not been found. Key leadership of the al-Qaida has not been 
discovered. The head of the CIA says we are at as great a risk today 
for terrorism as we were the day before September 11. It is now Iraq, 
all Iraq, all the time.
  But the President was right last year. This country, in my judgment, 
suffers grave danger from the acts of terrorists who are still there, 
still active, and still wish to harm this country and kill innocent 
Americans.
  My hope is that we could have some balance in the concerns we express 
about what is going on around the world between North Korea, Iraq, al-
Qaida, and more.
  Mr. President, I assume President Bush will talk a great deal about 
foreign policy tonight, but I think he will also talk about economic 
policy.
  Saddam Hussein is a bad, evil guy, no question about that. North 
Korea is a threat. Terrorists, especially, are a very serious 
continuing threat. All of that, to be sure, exists. It is also the case 
that here at home we have an economy that is not doing very well. A 
great many people are out of work. Some people say, well, let's brush 
all that aside, things are just fine. They are not fine. The 
administration, for some while, has said this is just fine. The economy 
has hit a little speed bump, I think they called it, but things will be 
fine.
  In the last 2 months, the administration fired their economic team, 
brought in some new people, and now they are saying we need a stimulus 
program, despite what they have provided us is not a stimulus at all. 
It will provide no jump start to the economy. If that is what we want, 
this is like hooking a flashlight battery to a car and hoping to start 
it. It will not work.
  The question for all of us is: What will really work to give this 
economy some boost? First and foremost, part of what is weighing down 
on the neck of this economy is every morning every American wakes up 
and tunes in the news and the top story every day, every month, is the 
potential of war. That means unpredictability, uncertainty, and great 
concern. When that exists, the American people don't have the 
confidence in the future that we need. Confidence is what this economy 
is about. Our economic foundation is confidence by the American 
people. When they are confident, they do things that manifest that 
confidence. They take a trip, buy a car, buy a home, make a purchase, 
and the country expands. That is the expansionary side of the business 
cycle. When they are not confident about the future, they do the exact 
opposite. They defer the trip, don't buy the car, don't make the 
purchase, and the economy then contracts.

  First and foremost, people are concerned about this talk every day, 
every week, every month regarding the specter of war. We have to find a 
way to move through this period and give people confidence about the 
future. But the economy also needs a boost, a fiscal policy that gives 
it a boost, a jump start.
  The principles are very simple. They have nothing at all to do with 
what the President suggested. The principles are that a jump start of 
the economy ought to be immediate, temporary, and effective. I regret 
to say that the President proposes none of that. I wish he would have 
proposed something that was consistent with those principles. I would 
say sign me up, I am for it. But that is not the case.
  We have lost a great many jobs--2.4 million private sector jobs--
since President Bush took over. Now, it is not the role of Government 
to create jobs. That is not what Government does. The private sector 
and businesses create jobs. But the Government creates conditions under 
which jobs are created, economic conditions in which the economy 
expands or contracts. When it contracts, people lay their employees 
off, entrepreneurs and businesses lay off employees because they don't 
see a better future. When the economy expands, people are hired and 
more people are put to work as employees.
  The fact is that, at the moment, we have exploding deficits, high 
unemployment, a lack of confidence in the future, and we need, it seems 
to me--all of us--to be serious about what we do in putting the economy 
back on track. We are finally talking about ``how'' rather than 
``whether.'' Three months ago, the question was ``whether.'' The 
President's economic team was saying that things are fine. We are all 
saying they are not fine, we have to fix what is wrong with the 
economy, and the sooner the better.
  My hope is that this evening the President will recognize all of us 
want to work with him on national economic policy and on foreign 
policy. It is very important that we do the right thing. The 
President's plan, regrettably, is not near the right thing for what 
ails this economy.
  Providing exemptions for dividend payments, the bulk of which are 
owned by upper income people, the wealthiest Americans, and borrowing 
money to do it so we can have tax cuts for 10 years into the future of 
$670 billion makes no sense at all.
  If someone were to say let's have a debate on reforming the tax 
system, we could debate all of these things, but if we are talking 
about how to stimulate this economy, how to jump-start the American 
economy, the President has provided exactly the wrong set of 
recommendations. They are not immediate, temporary or effective. He 
will be stuck, we will be stuck, and the American people will be stuck 
with an economy that is sluggish and is not doing what it needs to do 
to expand and help businesses create jobs. That is not what I want. It 
is not what any of my colleagues want. We had an economy that works, 
one that gave hope and opportunity to the American people, and we want 
that back.
  I am going to come to the Chamber in the next couple of days and show 
some charts. I was going to show them today. The Office of Management 
and Budget, which tells us how the economy is doing, is so wildly off 
the mark they might as well be throwing darts at some chart to find out 
what the surplus, deficit, and fiscal policy ought to be. They predict, 
and promise from time to time, that the fiscal condition of this 
country is going to be incredibly good with big surpluses. Then a few 
months later, they say it is going to be an economy in big trouble and 
big deficits. It seems to me one could probably get as close as they 
are getting by throwing darts at a board. We really need a plan that 
works, one that is predictable, one we can count on, one that restores 
economic health to this country and puts the economy back on track.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator explain what this chart means?
  Mr. DORGAN. This chart shows the predictions of the Office of 
Management and Budget. In the year 2002, they predicted we would have a 
$283 billion surplus.
  Mr. REID. How did that turn out?
  Mr. DORGAN. It turned out we had a $159 billion deficit.
  Mr. REID. How far were they off? It is $283 billion, plus $159 
billion, that's how far they were off?
  Mr. DORGAN. That is very good. They were off over $400 billion. For 
2003 they said we were going to have a $41 billion surplus. Now we are 
going to have over a $300 billion surplus.
  Mr. REID. That is easy: $341 billion.
  Mr. DORGAN. That is right. The Senator took advanced math in 
Searchlight, NV, I can see.
  Mr. REID. I also ask my friend, wouldn't this $300 billion surplus 
that is the revised estimate be one of the largest deficits in more 
than 2 decades?
  Mr. DORGAN. Yes, absolutely.
  Now we have some people saying deficits really are not so bad. Where 
did that start? It seems to me if children are saddled with the debt 
from our spending, or our tax cuts, the kids are being told, by the 
way, here is our policy and you pay for it.
  Is that good or bad? Where I come from, that is not the kind of value 
system that one wants to express in fiscal policy.

  I am going to have more to say on this, but this is not the time. I 
know we want to be out soon and the President is going to be giving his 
State of the Union Address this evening.
  I want to make the point that both in foreign policy and fiscal 
policy, this country is significantly challenged. These are very tricky 
times. It requires a very steady hand and good policies.

[[Page S1661]]

  Let me finish where I started. I am very concerned about people, on 
the eve of a State of the Union Address by a President of the United 
States, talking about the potential use of nuclear weapons by our 
country. I cannot believe that is what is happening. Just after India 
and Pakistan, who possess nuclear weapons and do not like each other 
much, have been shooting at each other, this country is saying, by the 
way, there might be circumstances in which we could use nuclear 
weapons. Whoever these two top White House officials are who said this, 
shame on them.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. The majority leader is not in the Chamber to close the 
Senate, and I have a couple of questions I would like to ask. Mitch 
Daniels, the head of the Office of Management and Budget, said on 
January 16 this year we ought not to hyperventilate about this new 
deficit estimate. Are you aware that the Senate majority leader said on 
January 5, 1996: ``We have a moral obligation to balance the budget; I 
am very hopeful that we are going to see to that''? Are you aware he 
said that?
  Mr. DORGAN. It is not surprising. I think the value system for most 
of us has been we ought to try to have fiscal responsibility and 
balance the budget.
  I say to the head of the Office of Management and Budget, he ought to 
start hyperventilating. If he does not hyperventilate over this, I 
guess there is nothing that gets his heart rate or breathing up.
  When we talk about the issue of projected surpluses and then huge, 
suffocating budget deficits as far out as the eye can see, one better 
hyperventilate a little bit about that.
  Mr. REID. Is the Senator aware that on February 1, 1998, the senior 
Senator from New Hampshire said: ``As long as we have a Republican 
Congress we are going to have a balanced budget, and if we can get a 
Republican President we can start paying down the debt on the Federal 
Government''?
  That really has not proven to be true, has it?
  Mr. DORGAN. It is not true that we have at this point a balanced 
budget. What is true is the budget is seriously out of balance and 
headed south. It is going to get worse and we need to fix it. Ignoring 
it is not going to solve the problem. We need to jump-start this 
economy with something that is effective and that is a stimulus plan of 
some type that gives something to the American people to work with, and 
gives them some confidence.
  I happen to believe that Senator Daschle, myself, and others who have 
talked about rebates make a lot of sense. Incentivizing consumption in 
the short term and incentivizing business investment in the short term, 
in an immediate and temporary way, is what I think will give some boost 
to this American economy.
  Mr. REID. Is the Senator aware that on November 15, 1995, the junior 
Senator from Pennsylvania, now a part of the Senate leadership in the 
majority, said: ``The American people are sick and tired of excuses for 
inaction to balance the budget. The public wants us to stay the course 
toward a balanced budget, and we take that obligation quite 
seriously''?

  That really is not the way it is. Is it not true that during the last 
4 years of the Clinton administration we spent less money than we took 
in?
  Mr. DORGAN. Oh, yes.
  Mr. REID. Is it not true we had a surplus?
  Mr. DORGAN. We had very significant and increasing surpluses in the 
Federal budget. As a result of those surpluses, we began to actually 
eliminate Federal indebtedness, which relieved some of that burden off 
the shoulders of our children and their children.
  Mr. REID. Is it not true we were even warned the last year of the 
Clinton administration to be careful, the debt is being paid down too 
quickly, slow it down or it may have some short-term impact on the 
economy?
  Mr. DORGAN. What is true is when we got to a new fiscal policy 
proposal by the administration, they said let's cut $1.7 trillion in 
taxes because we have surpluses as far as the eye can see. Some of us 
said--I certainly did--maybe we ought to be a little bit conservative. 
What if we do not have surpluses forever? What if we run into some 
tough times? What if the economy runs into trouble? Then guess what 
happened. Without my vote, Congress passed a very large, permanent tax 
cut. We quickly discovered we were in a recession. Then we had a 
terrorist attack on September 11. Then we had a war on terrorism. Then 
we had the largest corporate scandals in history. All of this happened, 
it seems to me, suggesting that perhaps some of us who urged caution 
were right, because what happened is those big budget surpluses are now 
very big budget deficits.
  What does the President say we ought to do about that? Let's provide 
more 10-year tax cuts to the tune of $670 billion. When interest is 
added to it, it is going to be over $1 trillion. None of that adds up.
  Mr. REID. Is the Senator aware that on February 6, 1997, the senior 
Senator from Nebraska said: ``The real threat to Social Security is the 
national debt. If we do not act to balance the budget and stop adding 
to the debt, then we are truly placing the future of Social Security in 
jeopardy''? These huge deficits that have been accumulated during the 
last 2 years of this administration--the first 2 years, I should say, 
of this administration, the last 2 years--certainly that is not good 
for Social Security. Senator Hagel is right, is that not true?
  Mr. DORGAN. What these deficits do is they injure the Social Security 
system, and the long-term solvency of the Social Security system. There 
is no question about that. We have a lot riding on putting this economy 
back on track. The sooner the better. I think what the President and 
the Congress need to do is find a way to work together to do something 
that is effective right now.
  Let me thank the Senator from Nevada for his questions.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. 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. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________