[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 29, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1689-S1692]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor this 
morning to talk a little bit more about the State of the Union Message 
we heard last night from the President of the United States. We all had 
occasion to respond to members of the media last night, but I do think 
it is important, as we contemplate his message and as we react to it, 
that, at least to a certain extent, we do so in an official capacity 
here on the Senate floor.
  The President came to Congress to deliver his annual State of the 
Union Message in fulfilling his constitutional obligation to report to 
Congress and the American people on where our Nation is and the 
direction in which we are headed.
  The reason our Founders included that obligation is they recognized 
that democracy requires discussion. So I want to take a moment today to 
add my thoughts to that discussion.

[[Page S1690]]

  In many instances, the President's words were powerful, and there are 
many areas where I see room for enthusiastic agreement.
  For example, his call, last night, for a renewed commitment to 
address the international pandemic on AIDS was welcome. I can say, 
without equivocation, that our caucus, and I believe Democrats in the 
Congress in its entirety, will be supportive of the efforts made by the 
President and this administration to address the international AIDS 
crisis more effectively.
  Let me also say I was pleased that the President made the 
announcement he did with regard to the Federal commitment to 
alternative fuels.
  I wish he had gone further, frankly, but a recognition of the 
importance of continuing the development through research of hydrogen 
fuels is a welcome bit of news. As we have progressed over the course 
of the last couple of years, the alternative fuels market, the need for 
the continued development of alternative fuels, is important to the 
Presiding Officer, to myself, and to many others who recognize that we 
will never rid ourselves of dependency upon foreign sources until we 
make a more complete commitment to the development of alternative 
fuels.
  So the President's willingness to do that, his prioritization of that 
question, is one that was received in a very enthusiastic way, I am 
sure, on both sides of the aisle.
  There are other areas, however, where the President's words seemed 
out of step with his actions and, frankly, out of touch with his 
proposals.
  Today, and in the days ahead, the real test of the President's words 
is not whether they sound good but whether they lead to action and 
whether that action leads to progress.
  Today, the triple threat of war, terrorism, and recession is 
combining to make Americans unsure about their future and unclear about 
the course our Nation is taking.
  On the economy, it is almost impossible to believe, but just 2 years 
after the longest economic expansion in history, today we have more 
than 2 million jobs lost in 2 years; the worst job creation record of 
any administration in 60 years; the first back-to-back years of job 
loss in 50 years; middle-class income is down for the first time in 10 
years; the highest unemployment rate in 8 years; the highest poverty 
rate in 8 years; and a Federal budget more than half a trillion dollars 
in debt.
  In fact, as the budget is about to be produced for the coming fiscal 
year, we are told we will see the biggest indebtedness that we have 
seen now in more than 10 years. We started out 2 years ago with the 
projection of $5.5 trillion in surplus. We are now told because of the 
President's tax cuts and, in part, because of the recession and the 
potential for war, our projected deficit over the course of the next 10 
years will be $1.7 trillion, $1.7 trillion deficit from a $5.5 trillion 
surplus just 2 years ago. That represents nearly a $7 trillion swing in 
a mere 24 months--$7 trillion from surplus to deficit in 24 months.
  The economic plan the administration passed in 2001 has, 
unfortunately, been an abject failure. Yet, last night, the President 
seemed to be asking for more of the same. Before this ditch gets dug 
any deeper, the President must explain why he thinks this time the 
results will be any different than the last time.
  Mr. President, I have expressed on the floor in past speeches my 
concern for his plan and how serious a concern we have for the 
ramifications of that plan. The President started by calling his plan 
``stimulus.'' I have noticed in recent months or weeks that he has 
chosen not to use that word, and I think for good reason. There is very 
little stimulus in the President's proposal. In fact, by their own 
recognition and acknowledgement, only 5 percent of the budget in the 
proposal made by the President in his $674 billion tax reduction plan 
is stimulative this year. Ninety-five percent of what the President is 
proposing takes place next year and the year after--5 percent. That 5 
percent is expected to raise 190,000 jobs. Ironically, 190,000 jobs is 
exactly the number of jobs lost in November and December of last year. 
So while we have lost 2.3 million jobs, the President is proposing that 
we enact an economic plan that produces 190,000 jobs this year. So we 
ought to be clear about that.
  There is very little stimulative value in what the President has 
proposed. Let me say I could understand that if there were some merit 
to the proposals themselves. But the problem we have with the proposals 
themselves is they are not broad based. Last night, the President noted 
there would be some who would benefit by up to $1,200 and, certainly, 
in some cases, because of his advocacy of the child tax credit, that 
would be the case. But there are thousands and thousands of people who 
are not able, because they don't have children, to benefit from the tax 
plan as the President proposed. In fact, in his plan, $20 billion in 
the first year goes to 226,000 people whose income exceeds $1 million; 
$15 billion goes to the 92 million Americans whose incomes are no 
greater than $50,000. So there is an extraordinary disparity between 
those who would benefit at the very top and those who benefit in a much 
more marginal way with incomes of $50,000 or less.
  What troubles me the most about the fairness question is not the 
income disparity, but the notion that we could be sending people to 
war, that we could actually be asking people to give their lives in 
pursuit of a war with Iraq at the very time we turn around and tell 
those with incomes of more than $1 million they are going to get an 
$89,000 tax break. It would be hard--in fact, impossible--for me to 
accept 10 or 15 or 20 years from now, as the question is asked: So what 
did you do? What was your sacrifice in the war on Iraq?--the only 
answer being, in the case of those making more than a million dollars: 
I got an $89,000 tax break. So the fairness question has economic, as 
well as very real and personal implications that are troubling to many 
of us.

  Perhaps the third and final of all of the many concerns we have with 
regard to this particular plan is the recklessness. As I said, we are 
going from a $5.5 trillion surplus to a $2 trillion deficit in 2 years. 
But that doesn't tell the whole story. States are now experiencing 
deficits that, in total, exceed $100 billion. Economists have now 
proposed analyses that would suggest, in addition to the $100 billion, 
the tax plan proposed by the President would exacerbate that debt by at 
least $4 billion to $6 billion more. So, ironically, at the very time 
we are cutting taxes at the Federal level, the President is turning 
around and requiring Governors to increase taxes at the local and State 
levels. It just doesn't make sense.
  It is reckless as well in the recognition that we are going to be 
borrowing every dollar in resources that we turn around and give out in 
the form of tax cuts. Every dollar in those tax cuts comes directly 
from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. We have no other 
resources to send out.
  Finally, I simply say, as we consider this recklessness, as we 
consider our priorities, there is no possible way that we can fight a 
war in Iraq, that we can dedicate ourselves to the priorities the 
President articulated in his address last night--which I will turn to 
in a moment--there is no way we can help the States with the tremendous 
fiscal crisis they are now facing--a crisis, we are told, that is the 
worst in 50 years--and turn around and provide a $1.7 trillion 
additional tax cut this year.
  There is growing concern, as we consider the ramifications of what 
the President is proposing, that we can cause even more serious damage 
to the economy were we to take the proposals of the President and enact 
them as they have been sent to us. It is essential that we go back to 
the drawing board, essential that we live up to the economic principles 
that mainstream economists tell us are essential if we are going to do 
this right. They tell us whatever stimulus we pass ought to be 
immediate, ought to be time limited, and, indeed, that is what 
Democrats have proposed--a limited, immediate stimulus that will take 
effect this year, not in the outyears; that it be fiscally responsible; 
that we not exacerbate overall indebtedness by $1.7 trillion; that if 
anything we limit what exposure there is budgetarily to no more than 
$100 billion to $150 billion--1.5 percent GDP. Our Democratic plan will 
do that.

  A third point they tell us is we ought to be broad based in our 
approach, provide assistance to where it can do the most good, spur 
consumption. We do

[[Page S1691]]

that with the $300 rebate, $1,200 for families with children; the 
business tax cuts we advocate for accelerated appreciation, for 
expensing of equipment, and for reducing the cost of health care for 
employees, in addition to providing the unemployment compensation to 
the millions of Americans who have not been provided those benefits in 
recent weeks.
  We have done some analysis of families who were in the gallery last 
night with the First Lady, people who were invited to come because, 
according to the President, they benefited from the plans the President 
articulated.
  As we calculate those specific benefits, we find, ironically, that 
they actually do better under the Democratic plan than under the 
President's plan. The Becks, for example, the senior citizens he cited, 
get a 43 percent larger benefit under the Democratic plan than they do 
under the President's plan.
  I start with that. I wish the President would have devoted more time 
to the economy, more time to the concerns that many of us have raised 
about his proposal, more time to how we are going to address the 
deficit and how we are going to deal with spurring the economy to bring 
down that deficit than he did last night. But I stand ready to work 
with him.
  I think it is critical we work together. I am hopeful we can find 
meaningful bipartisan consensus, and I hope we do it sooner rather than 
later.
  There are reports that some of our colleagues would prefer to wait 
until April or May before we take up economic stimulus. I think that 
would be a lost opportunity and a real mistake if, indeed, we want to 
get this economy back on track at the earliest possible date.
  Last night, the President also indicated in his comments that 
education remained important, but what surprised me about his assertion 
that it is important is that last night, in a 1-hour speech, education 
got just one line. The President said we had passed ``historic 
education reform, which now must be carried out in every school and 
every classroom so that every child in America can read and learn and 
succeed in life.''
  Speaking of education reform and other measures passed over the last 
2 years, he said:

       Some might call this a good record. I call it a good start.

  The President is right, it is a good start but only a start. Right 
now, unfortunately, it appears to be a false start because the 
President has refused to adequately fund his own education reforms. The 
Bush administration has proposed the smallest education budget in 7 
years despite continued record enrollments in America's public schools, 
despite new testing requirements and other mandates in new law, despite 
the worst State budget crises in 50 years--crises that are forcing many 
States to cut education budgets--despite a looming teacher shortage 
crisis, despite growing problems with overcrowded and obsolete school 
buildings, despite the fact that higher education is slipping farther 
and farther out of reach for more families, despite the critical 
importance of education to the social and economic health of America's 
future--despite all the rhetoric, the Bush administration is proposing 
an education budget that underfunds his own education reforms by more 
than $7 billion.
  This, again, begs the question: How in the world, if the President 
can propose $1.7 trillion, can he explain underfunding his own 
education reforms by $7 billion?
  Last night, the President spoke eloquently about the environment. He 
asked us to pass an initiative he calls ``Healthy Forests.'' Healthy 
forests is a euphemism for logging without limits to many. It opens 
more than 20 million acres of national forests to logging and thinning. 
It allows those projects to avoid environmental laws, public comment, 
or judicial review. Democrats want a balanced approach to forest 
management.
  The President also talked about a proposal he calls ``Clear Skies,'' 
another euphemism. Clear Skies is actually weaker than the current 
Clean Air Act. It delays reductions in air pollution and makes it 
harder for States to limit pollution.
  Again, the President is using all the right rhetoric but clinging to 
all the wrong policies. When he calls something ``Healthy Forests'' and 
it is not, when he calls something ``Clear Skies'' and it will not, the 
credibility gap widens.
  The President last night also promised a prescription drug benefit 
under Medicare. What he proposed last night is a prescription drug plan 
that comes at the expense of Medicare. It is not, as the President said 
last night, the same as the health care choices that Members of 
Congress get. Members of Congress get a prescription drug program and 
benefit regardless of the plan they choose.
  Under the President's Medicare privatization plan, seniors can only 
get drug coverage if they drop out of traditional Medicare and join an 
HMO. The President omitted this crucial detail last night.
  Of all the decisions facing this President, none has more profound 
consequences than the launching of a war against any country. We all 
know, in the case of Iraq, that Saddam Hussein is not a man to be 
trusted. We all know that North Korea has nuclear weapons and is the 
world's biggest proliferator, and we face three very serious threats. 
We face the threat that Iraq could acquire and deploy weapons of mass 
destruction. We face the threat of North Korea, a country that already 
has nuclear weapons and is threatening to develop more. And we face the 
threat of additional terrorist attacks, including the horrific prospect 
of an attack with weapons of mass destruction. We have to prioritize 
how we confront these threats, and the President needs to explain why 
he is approaching each one in the way he is.
  My concern is the President has not adequately laid out to the 
American people or to the international community why our top priority, 
in light of the other ones, ought to be war with Iraq, and how we can 
ensure that if we go to a war with Iraq, we will not jeopardize our 
other priorities, including defending ourselves against terrorist 
attacks at home.
  The President needs to lay out as clearly and as compellingly as he 
is able what imminent threat Iraq poses for the United States and what 
we will do as a nation to ensure international cooperation and 
international support if war becomes an inevitability.
  I look forward to hearing more from Secretary Powell next Wednesday, 
February 5, but if the President has information about what he will 
share with the United Nations and others on February 5, I ask that he 
share it with us now. If there is information that has been withheld 
from Congress, if he has not provided the same information to us that 
he intends to share with them, I ask that he do so 
immediately. Certainly, we have every right to know. For us to know now 
would help us clarify the confusion and the lack of certainty about the 
threat posed by Iraq which the President addressed last night.

  There were also a number of things the President did not mention, 
which I think needed to be mentioned: Racial reconciliation, hate 
crimes, diversity in education, equal opportunity. Amazing. There was 
not one word about these issues, in spite of the fact that a hate crime 
occurs every 3\1/2\ minutes in this country; in spite of the fact that 
the Supreme Court may be dealing with the issue of diversity in 
education and equal opportunity in the very near future and the 
administration has chosen to oppose it; in spite of the fact that we 
are troubled by our inability to deal with these issues in a meaningful 
way legislatively in the weeks and months ahead without the direct 
involvement and leadership on the part of the administration.
  The President did not address veterans and health care, and veterans' 
health in particular. There are 164,000 veterans who may be forced off 
the rolls because of new criteria involving their eligibility. That, 
too, could have been addressed and should have been addressed if indeed 
it was the priority the President maintains.
  One million workers were left out of unemployment insurance and the 
President did not mention that as well. The President did not mention 
agriculture, did not mention the rural crisis we face, and the 
tremendous attrition we find in small communities across this country. 
He did not talk about the issues involving agriculture and the 
extraordinary challenges farmers and ranchers are facing as we 
recognize the extraordinary effect that

[[Page S1692]]

the drought and other natural disasters have had in recent years.
  The President was right when he said this country has many 
challenges. He was right to say we cannot ignore them and that we 
should not pass them on to future generations. To prevent that from 
happening, we need to work together. We need to make sure what is 
promised is done. Only then will we be able to reduce America's anxiety 
and truly strengthen our Union.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant minority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I certainly publicly acknowledge the 
statement made by our leader. I approve of the statement, as does our 
Democratic Caucus, and would simply say we look forward to working on a 
bipartisan basis with the President. There are a lot of things we need 
to do, but this is a democracy and we have to act accordingly. So I 
look forward to working with the President on all of these issues about 
which the Democratic leader spoke.

                          ____________________