[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 17 (Thursday, January 30, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1765-S1767]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               THE PRESIDENT'S STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I have a couple comments. First, on the 
heels of what has been said by our friends on the other side, a little 
more than 24 hours ago we listened as the President addressed our 
Nation and shared with us how he thinks we are doing and how he thinks 
we could do better.
  I thought it was, for the most part, a good speech, well delivered. 
There were a number of aspects of the address I especially welcomed. As 
a former Governor of Delaware, who has been a mentor for over 5 years, 
and who went out and recruited 10,000 mentors in our State, I 
especially appreciated his recognition for the importance of the roles 
of mentors in young people's lives and the call for other Americans to 
mentor children in their own communities.
  I very much appreciated his, I believe, sincere commitment toward 
rallying the United States to help fight the AIDS epidemic in Africa 
and to put our money where our mouths are.
  A year or so ago we sat just down the Hall in the House Chamber and 
the President talked about an axis of evil in which he included North 
Korea, Iraq, and Iran. I had some difference with what he said, 
particularly dealing with Iran. He simply seemed to lump all the 
Iranians together, whether they happen to be the ruling clerics, who 
are squashing human liberties, civil rights in that country, or whether 
they happen to be many of the younger people, those who have taken to 
the streets, who have demonstrated, risked their lives in a commitment 
to democracy.
  I was very pleased when President Bush, in his comments the night 
before last, spoke to the situation in Iran and acknowledged there are 
two camps. There is a camp whose direction we do not endorse, we do not 
support, but strongly differ with. But there are a lot of good people 
in that country who are trying to do the right thing for themselves in 
a way we would welcome as they seek to restore civil liberties, human 
liberties, human rights, and to infuse a true democracy in that 
country.
  There are a lot of people in that country who, frankly, like this 
country. On the heels on 9/11, and a time or two since, we have heard 
of spontaneous and organized demonstrations there where a number of 
people have expressed their sympathy with what we have suffered as a 
result of 9/11.
  Those are just a few aspects of the President's speech in which I 
found favor.
  There were a couple others that I thought were missing. Delaware is a 
State where we have had a remarkably strong economy. Our unemployment 
rate today is about 4 percent, which compares very favorably with other 
parts of America. I am not sure what the situation is in Montana, home 
of our Presiding Officer. Some States have unemployment rates of 6, 7, 
maybe 8 percent. We have a million or more people who don't have a job 
today than we did a year or so ago. I was disappointed in the 
President's decision not to acknowledge that these are tough times for 
a lot of States financially, that the cumulative deficits faced by the 
States this year are in the tens of billions of dollars, actually 
getting bigger, not smaller, as the year goes forward.
  Some in this body think we should write out a check and provide 
revenue sharing for the States. I was never a big advocate for revenue 
sharing when I was a Member of the House or as a Governor for 8 years. 
I am not a huge advocate of revenue sharing today. Unfortunately, we 
actually don't have a whole lot of revenues to share these days, given 
the kind of budget deficits we face. But there are a couple of ways we 
might want to consider helping the States. I will just mention three. I 
will certainly pursue those with the administration and my colleagues.
  No. 1, States are getting killed on Medicaid costs. As unemployment 
goes up, people are losing health care and more people are showing up 
asking for coverage under Medicaid, health care for low-income and 
unemployed people. There is a formula called the FMAP formula that 
specifies what percentage of Medicaid is paid by the Federal Government 
and what percentage is paid by the States. It varies from State to 
State. For my State, the Feds pay roughly half and the State pays half 
of Medicaid costs. In some cases, the

[[Page S1766]]

States pay less, in some cases maybe a bit more.
  We ought to change that formula for a year or two, as the States try 
to get on their feet and provide a little bit more help--not forever, 
not permanently, but to make a modification for a year or two in the 
share of the Medicaid cost we are willing to bear, not by 10, 20 
percent, but by a couple of percent.
  Another area where we can help States--and it has a lot to do with 
doing what is right and also what is in the best long-term economic 
interest--is making sure we fully fund No Child Left Behind, something 
we debated at some length just last week. States don't need unfunded 
mandates. As their revenues are dropping, most States have adopted 
basic standards for math, science, English, and social studies, and 
they are measuring student progress towards those standards. States are 
under pressure to cut back on the extra learning time they put in 
place. They are under pressure to cut back on the funding they are 
providing for Head Start and early childhood education.
  It is important for us to make sure we meet our commitment for 
funding No Child Left Behind, so as the States struggle to come up with 
the money to pay for a whole host of costs, at least we are meeting our 
side of the bargain for funding education.
  One other area the President spoke to, at least indirectly, was State 
and local frontline defenders--police, paramedics, fire, and others--
when we have our next terrorist attack. Unfortunately, we probably 
will. The people who will be confronted with that initiative aren't so 
much those of us here in Washington; it is going to be the cop on the 
beat, the paramedic on duty, the fire station that gets the call; they 
are going to be among the first.

  It is important that we do what we can and need to, working through 
our new Department of Homeland Security and funding the problems we 
have authorized, listening to the States where they believe their need 
is the greatest, and be responsive to that.
  Yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office, on the heels of the 
President's State of the Union Message, brought up a subject that he 
did not; that is, the size of our budget deficit. The President did not 
bring up the size of our trade deficit either. The size of the Nation's 
trade deficit last month was about $40 billion. It wasn't that long 
ago, if we had had a trade deficit of $40 billion for 1 year, not 1 
month, people would have been alarmed. A lot of alarms would have gone 
off in this city and around the country. Our trade deficit last month 
was $40 billion. Our trade deficit last year reached close to $400 
billion. It has been a long time since we had a surplus on the trade 
side--far too long. But the numbers are going in the wrong direction. 
We need to be mindful of that and concerned.
  The budget deficit numbers are going the wrong way, too. It wasn't 
that long ago that they were actually going in the right direction. 
Starting in 1998 and 1999, 2000 and 2001, we actually had budget 
surpluses for the first time since 1969. I don't recall, hearing the 
President's State of the Union Message, his mentioning the issue of 
budget deficits or trade deficits. If he did, I missed it. But to be 
honest with the American people and ourselves, they are important. They 
are problems. They are concerns. They need to be addressed.
  The President, in an effort to try to get the economy moving again, 
has said what we ought to do is cut taxes. He has laid out a proposal 
for doing that, with getting rid of the double taxation of dividend 
income. In theory, it is not a bad idea, although his approach is one I 
am not sure is the best. It may make more sense to let businesses 
expense their dividend payments as they do interest payments, if they 
are interested in getting rid of this imbalance that is favored toward 
debt by companies. But I don't want to quarrel with that.
  We have cut taxes two times now: 2001, a large tax cut; 2002, a 
smaller tax cut bill. It is like the quarterback or the coach who is 
calling a play. The President called the play in 2001: We have an 
economy that is not doing well; let's cut taxes. The economy is not 
doing well; let's cut taxes in 2002. The economy is still not doing 
well; let's cut taxes again in 2003.
  As a former Governor, I used to cut taxes fairly regularly in my 
State. We cut them for 7 out of the 8 years I was privileged to be 
Governor. But we also cut taxes in a way that was consistent with a 
balanced budget, in a way that was balanced, fair, and equitable. We 
cut taxes in a way that we believed would stimulate the economy, the 
economic development and creation of jobs. We had a litmus test. A 
similar litmus test needs to be applied to this proposal. Will it 
stimulate the economy in the near term? Is it consistent with a 
balanced budget over the long haul? Is it broad based, equitable? And 
is there anything in there to help the States as a result of passing 
those tax cuts in 2001 and 2002? because so many State budgets or State 
tax laws piggyback on Federal tax laws. They are interconnected. When 
we cut Federal taxes, we also cut States taxes. As they are struggling 
to make ends meet, we are prepared to cut taxes again, another $4 or $5 
billion added to an already heavy burden for States.

  I have talked of late with a lot of business leaders in my State, and 
they acknowledge that the idea of eliminating the double taxation of 
dividends is probably the right thing to do. Intellectually, a number 
of them have said--and I agree in the context of overall tax reform--it 
may make sense. Doing it just on its own to stimulate the economy maybe 
doesn't. At least it won't have the kind of near-term effect for which 
many would hope.
  What a number of people a whole lot smarter than I, who study the 
economy and economics, study our banking system, and who run companies, 
have said is, more than a tax cut right now to get our economy moving, 
more than a spending package to get our economy moving, we need to get 
rid of the uncertainty we face, not so much here at home, although the 
threat of terrorism is part of it, but around the world.
  The President spent a lot of time talking about uncertainty--with 
respect to North Korea, an effort to pursue a diplomatic solution, 
which I believe is the right approach, and then with respect to Iraq, 
the approach he spoke to and which has been discussed here today. For 
myself, the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq and Saddam Hussein 
had just a few years ago, in the late 1990s, acknowledged they had a 
few years ago, I believe they still have. They have them hidden. They 
have not reported them. They have not destroyed them. I believe they 
have them.
  The question is: What do we do to get rid of them? Take them away 
from Saddam Hussein, and his ability to deliver them in the region or 
outside that region?
  On this one, we may have a difference of opinion, although I am not 
sure just how broad those differences are. I heard the President talk 
about his request of Colin Powell to go to the United Nations on 
February 5 and give an address with respect to what we believe we ought 
to do, given the early results from the inspections, what we should do 
next at the United Nations, the Security Council, for our country.
  Sitting in the House Chamber, I heard the President say he is going 
to send the Secretary of State over to the United Nations on February 5 
to give an address. I wonder if this is going to be like something that 
happened about 40 years ago when John Kennedy was our President and he 
sent Adlai Stevenson, Ambassador to the United Nations, as we were 
working on another potential military altercation, this one a very 
serious one between the United States and the Soviet Union, as we 
believed the Soviets were introducing intermediate-range ballistic 
missiles into Cuba which could target the United States. We asserted 
this was what the Soviets were trying to do. They denied it. We 
attempted to gain intelligence information, which was difficult to come 
by. Finally, we hit pay dirt. Intelligence flights over Cuba captured 
not only missiles but the site preparation that was on going. Our U.N. 
Ambassador, Adlai Stevenson, presented that information to his 
colleagues at the U.N. in one of the most famous exchanges I have ever 
heard at the U.N. When the Soviet Ambassador was confronted with these 
photographs of all this material, larger and larger photographs, he 
said he needed more time to understand the translation of the 
accusations coming from our Ambassador. He said he needed more time to 
understand what he was hearing through the earphones. Adlai Stevenson 
said, ``You

[[Page S1767]]

know what I am saying, and you know what these pictures say, and I will 
wait until hell freezes over.''

  That is a long time, until hell freezes over. I am not going to 
suggest we should wait that long for the Iraqis to fess up and turn 
over and enable to be destroyed that which I think they clearly harbor. 
But I hope, just as the President of 40 years ago chose to continue to 
work through the U.N., this President will do so as well.
  Going back to the economy, the best thing we can do to get the 
economy moving is to eliminate all this uncertainty that flows out of 
Iraq--hopefully, peacefully, but in the end, if need be, through war. 
Hopefully, we can do it without going to war. If it is necessary, we 
should be prepared to do that. I have said all along, one of the 
reasons we were so effective in the Persian Gulf war--which I supported 
as a House Member and voted for as a House Member--I think one of the 
reasons we were successful there, and in Afghanistan, is we didn't do 
it by ourselves. It was not just unilaterally, us by ourselves. We led 
an armada of nations. If there is to be a military altercation, our 
chances for success are better enhanced if we do not do it alone and if 
we have the blessing of the U.N. and if we have broad-based military 
support from around the globe. I worry about the human cost to our 
soldiers, sailors, and airmen in a war. We are going to win and, I 
think, without a great deal of difficulty. Taking the cities might be a 
lot more dangerous, and we face a threat from the biological and 
chemical weapons he has. Hopefully, we will win without a huge cost in 
lives.
  The financial cost will be lowered if we have others by our side. 
What I am concerned about maybe more than anything is the cost of the 
postwar, the morning after, when we help try to put Humpty-Dumpty back 
together in a country that has no democratic memory or institutions, a 
lot of dissenting voices and ethnic groups--pulling them together and 
trying to help them become a democracy. It is going to take time, 
money, and a lot of patience. I don't want the U.S. to be doing that by 
itself.
  How does all this fit into the economy? We can offer businesses all 
kinds of tax incentives to make investments and other decisions. When 
they are faced with uncertainty, they are not going to make the kind of 
investments we want them to make and they ought to be making. The 
sooner we can resolve--hopefully peacefully and, if not, through the 
use of force--the situation in the Middle East, I think that probably 
augurs better for the economy.
  Having said that, let's be careful in our rush to judgment and keep 
in mind that our chances for early success, and for reducing the loss 
of life to Americans, and our chances for reducing out-of-pocket costs 
for the war and the postwar occupation are diminished if we have a lot 
of others with us. Especially in the next few weeks, we need to 
continue to be patient and share our intelligence with the inspectors 
and give them the best information for them to do their job on the 
ground.
  I thank the Chair for the time. I look forward to yielding back 
whatever time I have and hearing from my friend and colleague from New 
Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________