[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 25, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2621-S2643]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                     Dealing With Economic Problems

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I was home in South Dakota over the last 
week, and I had the opportunity to talk with farmers and ranchers, 
businesspeople, educators, and government leaders. What I bring back 
from those many discussions is the strong belief that if there is 
anything we do in the Senate over the course of the next several weeks, 
it ought to be addressing the economic problems that our country is 
facing.

[[Page S2638]]

  I wish I had an accurate count of the number of times in various ways 
business men and women and farmers and ranchers asked the question: So 
why are you spending all of this time on a judge when our country is in 
such economic disarray?
  This is an important issue, the Estrada nomination, but we have said 
from the beginning, and I think we will be able to continue to say with 
authority, that there will not be any resolution until the Solicitor 
General documents are released and until Mr. Estrada is more 
forthcoming with regard to his positions.
  We can take up time on the Senate floor week after week, or we can 
put it aside, make some decision with regard to whether or not there 
will be some reconciliation on that issue and answer the question posed 
by so many South Dakotans to me last week: When will we address the 
economy? When will we recognize that there is a lot more productive use 
of the Senate's time than an unending debate about Miguel Estrada?
  They do not understand why we are stymied and why we are unresponsive 
to the growing concern they have about the direction the economy is 
taking.
  There is a growing credibility gap between what the President and the 
administration says and what they do, between their rhetoric and their 
reality. The President has taken occasion to go around the country to 
talk about his concern for the economy. On several occasions over the 
last couple of weeks, he has made his speeches about his concern for 
the economy and his approach through his tax cuts. I have to say, if he 
cared, if he was concerned, he would ask the Senate to take up this 
matter immediately. It will not be a day too soon.
  A report was released this morning that said consumer confidence is 
now at a 10-year low. Consumer confidence, as registered and reported 
through its index, has plummeted to 64 from a revised 78 just last 
month. That is the lowest rating since 1993, 10 years. Unemployment is 
rising. We have seen an increase in the number of unemployed by 40 
percent. We now have 8.3 million Americans out of work and 2.5 million 
private sector jobs have been lost just in the last 2 years. The 
unemployment spells are lengthening, wage growth is now stagnant, and 
the shortage of jobs has slowed wage growth so that only those at the 
very top are still experiencing wage increases that outpace inflation. 
We now have the worst job creation record in 58 years, while State 
budgets continue to be plagued with deficits of close to $70 billion. 
Some have reported even more than that.
  We have an economic crisis that is not being addressed, and while 
that economic crisis grows, there is another concern expressed to me 
last week by scores of South Dakotans who are our first responders. Our 
fire departments, our police departments, those involved in crisis 
management all tell me they haven't a clue as to what they would be 
required to do should some emergency come about. There is no 
coordination. There is absolutely no training.
  When I asked them last week, What would you suggest I go back and 
tell the President and my colleagues, they said: Understand that unless 
we have training, unless we have communications equipment, unless we 
have more of a coordinated effort to bring us into the infrastructure 
required for response, we will not be able to live up to the 
expectations of the people right here. Help us.

  We have attempted to help those first responders over and over: last 
December, with $2.5 billion that the President said we could not 
afford; last month with $5 billion that the President, once again, said 
we could not afford. You tell those first responders that we cannot 
afford providing them the resources to do their job when we look at 
what has happened in just the last 48 hours in our basing arrangements 
with Turkey. According to press reports, we can afford up to $6 billion 
in grants and $20 billion in loan guarantees for Turkey, but for some 
reason we cannot afford providing homeland and hometown assistance--
direct, coordinated help--to provide the training and communication and 
coordination required. That is a credibility gap that I think this 
President needs to address.
  I hope we can set aside this issue of Mr. Estrada and deal with the 
issue about which our people, regardless of geography, are concerned. 
The President has a plan, Democrats have proposed a plan, and there is 
a significant difference between the two. There, too, we find a 
credibility gap.
  An article was written in the New York Times that appeared this 
morning by David Rosenbaum entitled ``The President's Tax Cut and Its 
Unspoken Numbers.'' I ask unanimous consent that this article be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Feb. 25, 2003]

            The President's Tax Cut and Its Unspoken Numbers

                        (By David E. Rosenbaum)

       Washington, Feb. 24.--The statistics that President Bush 
     and his allies use to promote his tax-cut plan are accurate, 
     but many of them present only part of the picture.
       For instance, in a speech in Georgia last week, the 
     president asserted that under his proposal, 92 million 
     Americans would receive an average tax reduction of $1,083 
     and that the economy would improve so much that 1.4 million 
     new jobs would be created by the end of 2004.
       No one disputes the size of the average tax reduction, and 
     the jobs figure is based on the estimate of a prominent 
     private economic forecasting firm.
       But this is what the president did not say: Half of all 
     income-tax payers would have their taxes cut by less than 
     $100; 78 percent would get reductions of less than $1,000. 
     And the firm that the White House relied on to predict the 
     initial job growth also forecast that the plan could hurt the 
     economy over the long run.
       The average tax cut (the total amount of revenue lost 
     divided by the total number of tax returns) is over $1,000 
     because a few rich taxpayers would get such large reductions. 
     For households with incomes over $200,000, the average cut 
     would be $12,496, and the average for those with incomes over 
     $1 million would be $90,222.
       But the cut for those with incomes of $40,000 to $50,000, 
     according to calculations by the Brookings Institution and 
     the Urban Institute, would typically be $380. For those with 
     incomes of $50,000 to $75,000, it would be $553.
       The president's jobs figure was based on a preliminary 
     analysis by Macroeconomic Advisers, of St. Louis. The firm, 
     to whose services the White House subscribes, issued 
     projections in January concluding that by raising 
     disposable income, bolstering stock values and reducing 
     the cost of capital, the president's program would lead to 
     1.365 million new jobs by the end of next year.
       But the White House has never mentioned the caution in the 
     second paragraph of the firm's report. The forecasters 
     predicted that if the tax cuts were not offset within a few 
     years by reductions in government spending, interest rates 
     would rise, private investment would be crowed out, and the 
     economy would actually be worse than if there had been no tax 
     changes.
       The president has not proposed spending reductions that 
     would offset the tax cuts. To the contrary, the 
     administration has argued that the budget deficits resulting 
     from the cuts would be too small to harm the economy.
       Another argument that administration officials make 
     regularly is that under the president's plan, the wealthy 
     would bear a larger share of the nation's tax burden than 
     they do now. A table released last month by the Treasury's 
     office of tax analysis showed that people with incomes over 
     $100,000 would see their share of all income taxes rise to 
     73.3 percent from the current 72.4 percent.
       At the same time, the table showed, taxpayers with incomes 
     of $30,000 to $40,000 would get a 20.1 percent reduction in 
     income taxes, and those earning $40,000 to $50,000 would get 
     a 14.1 percent cut.
       The problem with figures like those is that a large 
     percentage of a small amount of money may be less important 
     to a low- middle-income family's lifestyle than a small 
     percentage of a large amount of money would be to a rich 
     family. For example, a $50 tax cut would be a 50 percent 
     reduction for a household that owed only $100 in taxes to 
     start with, but that small amount of money would not 
     significantly improve the family's well-being.
       A better measure may be the increase in after-tax income, 
     or take-home pay, that would result from tax cuts. According 
     to data from the Joint Congressional Committee on Taxation, 
     the tax reduction of $380 for a family with an income of 
     $45,000 would amount to less than 1 percent of the 
     household's after-tax income. But the $12,496 tax cut 
     received by a family with an income of $525,000 would mean a 
     3 percent increase in money left after taxes.
       The president and his advisers also offer a variety of 
     incomplete statistics to bolster their proposal to eliminate 
     the taxes on most stock dividends.
       Among the points they make are that more than half of all 
     taxable dividends are paid to people 65 and older, that their 
     average saving from eliminating the tax on dividends would be 
     $936, that 60 percent of people receiving dividends have 
     incomes of $75,000 or less and that up to 60 percent of 
     corporate profits are lost to income taxes paid by either 
     the companies or the stockholders.

[[Page S2639]]

       All that is true, but here is a more complete picture:
       Only slightly more than one-quarter of Americans 65 and 
     older receive dividends. Two-thirds of the dividends the 
     elderly receive are paid to the 9 percent of all elderly who 
     have incomes over $100,000.
       Tht Tax Policy Center at the Brookings Institution and the 
     Urban Institute calculated that the average tax cut from the 
     dividend exclusion would be $29 for those with incomes of 
     $30,000 to $40,000 and $51 for taxpayers with incomes of 
     $40,000 to $50,000.
       On the other hand, the two-tenths of 1 percent of tax 
     filers with incomes over $1 million (who have 13 percent of 
     all income) receive 21 percent of all dividends, and the Tax 
     Policy Center figured that their average tax reduction from 
     the dividend exclusion would be $27,701. For taxpayers with 
     incomes of $200,000 to $500,000, the typical tax cut from the 
     exclusion was calculated at $1,766.
       In instances where both the corporation and the shareholder 
     are paying taxes at the maximum rate, it is possible, as the 
     administration maintains, for 60 percent of the profits to be 
     taxed away. But calculations based on I.R.S. data and 
     performed by Robert S. McIntyre of the nonpartisan Citizens 
     for Tax Justice show that on average, only 19 percent of 
     corporate profits are paid in taxes by companies and 
     shareholders combined.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the President talks about his plan 
providing 92 million Americans with an average tax reduction of $1,083, 
and yet with closer scrutiny and attention, with a more careful review 
of the facts, we find that is not the case at all. That is like Bill 
Gates and Tom Daschle averaging their income. If he and I averaged our 
income, mine would be somewhere around $39 billion. I only wish I had 
$39 billion to average with Bill Gates, but I do not. But that is the 
method this President is using to provide these average numbers with 
regard to the beneficiaries of his tax cut.
  Here are the facts: 78 percent of Americans are going to get less 
than $1,000, and over half of all taxpayers will get less than $100 
under the President's plan. That is right, less than $100. That is all 
more than half of all taxpayers will receive under the President's 
plan. That is fact. That is a credibility gap. That is saying one thing 
and doing another. That is saying the average American gets $1,000 but 
actually, in fact, the average American is going to get under $100.
  There is a credibility gap across the board. He said his plan will 
create 1.4 million jobs by the end of 2004.
  According to the same report President Bush cites by macroeconomic 
advisers of St. Louis, his tax cuts actually have the potential to harm 
the economy in the long run, but the President did not mention any 
references to those parts of the report stated later on.
  The President has said eliminating the double taxation of dividends 
is good for enhancing the lifestyle of millions of Americans all across 
the country. The reality is that only 22 percent of those with incomes 
under $100,000 reported any dividend income in the year 2000. The 
average tax cut from the dividend exclusion would be $29 for those with 
incomes below $40,000.
  There is a lot to discuss. There is a great need in this country to 
do what the American people are hoping we will do, and that is take up 
issues they are concerned about, to address the issues they will rise 
and fall on over the course of the next several months.
  I cannot tell my colleagues the emotion I feel in the room oftentimes 
as I talk to businessmen whose lips would quiver, whose eyes would 
moisten, who would tell me: Tom, I do not know if I can be in business 
a year or two from now if things do not change. I have not sold a piece 
of farm equipment in 2 years. I have seen my sales plummet more than 20 
percent in the last 3 months. I have no confidence about how we are 
going to turn this around, they tell me, unless you in Washington 
understand that things have to be done to make this economy better.
  What do we do? We come back to Washington and we are back in the same 
old trap, talking about the same old thing. That will not change until 
Mr. Estrada is more forthcoming. So we can spend time on the economy or 
we can spend time talking about issues that have no relevance to the 
daily lives of the people of South Dakota and the people all across 
this country.
  Mr. CORZINE. Will the minority leader yield for a question?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. I truly appreciate the focus on issues that matter 
directly to the people who live in our States and who live across the 
country.
  The Senator spoke about the individual business person who had not 
sold any farm equipment. We are closing the last two autoplants in New 
Jersey over the next 2 or 3 years. They have already cut down to one 
shift. Bell Labs, one of the great research institutions of America, 
has literally been a part of the reduction of 130,000 jobs at Lucent, a 
lot of them in New Jersey. A lot of the Bell Labs people are doing 
basic core research, and the people are very upset.
  That is what that consumer confidence number is. It is incredible in 
the history of real measurements of what is going on in the minds of 
American consumers. By the way, it is going on in business, too.
  I ask the minority leader whether he saw yesterday's survey from 
Manpower, Inc. They said only 20 percent of businesses in America think 
they will add any jobs in the next 6 months, an indication of the kind 
of depth of concern that actually exists in the business community in 
conjunction with consumer confidence.
  I applaud the minority leader for making sure we are being focused to 
have a debate about something that matters to people's lives, and I 
hope we can bring forth a real debate about a stimulus program to get 
our economy going, put people back to work because that is where real 
concerns seem to be. I presume that is the kind of question the Senator 
is receiving in South Dakota.

  Mr. DASCHLE. I appreciate very much the comments of the distinguished 
Senator from New Jersey because I think among us all no one knows these 
economic issues better than he does.
  Again, I would say to the distinguished Senator, this is part of that 
credibility gap I was referring to. The President professes to be 
concerned, the President talks about his proposals to address the 
economy, and yet we are not planning to take up any economic stimulus 
for months, I am told. It may be May before it comes to the Senate. How 
can anybody with any truthfulness express concern about the economy and 
say, no, but we will just do it later? We will not do it this week, we 
will not even do it this month, we will do it sometime down the road 
but, yes, I am concerned.
  When they look at consumer confidence, when they look at the numbers 
of jobs lost, when they see those plants close, when they see the 
consumer confidence drop as precipitously as it has, how in the world 
can anybody in the world confess to be supportive of economic recovery 
and economic stimulus with numbers like that and the inaction we see 
from the White House?
  Mr. CORZINE. If the minority leader will yield for one other 
observation and question, has the Senator noticed the fact that we have 
lost almost another trillion dollars in market value? And by the way, 
that translates into 401(k)s and IRAs for individuals. Those are some 
very serious numbers, actually since this program with regard to 
dividend disclosure has been announced. There is a credibility gap 
between the reality of what is being suggested as an economic growth 
program and what is actually occurring out in the real world. Certainly 
my constituents and the people I hear from around the country and in 
the business community are saying much of the same thing. I presume 
that is what the Senator is hearing as well from the folks in South 
Dakota.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I say to the Senator from New Jersey, that is exactly 
what I am hearing from the people of our State. As I have traveled 
around the country, I hear it in other parts of the country as well. 
This is a very serious issue that will not go away, and I think the 
more we face the uncertainty of war, the more we face the uncertainty 
of international circumstances, the more this domestic economic 
question is going to be exacerbated.
  People want more certainty. They want more confidence. They want to 
at least believe we understand how serious it is out there and we are 
going to do something to address it. And what do we do? We come back 
after a week's break and not one word about the economy from the other 
side, not one word about the recognition of how serious this problem 
is. We are still talking about the Estrada nomination.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 414

  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative 
session

[[Page S2640]]

and begin the consideration of Calendar No. 21, S. 414, a bill to 
provide an economic stimulus package.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I believe I still have the floor 
privilege.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democrat leader still has the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from South Dakota yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the minority leader for coming to the floor, and 
I hope those who are following the debate understand what just 
happened. The minority leader of the Senate has asked this Senate to 
move to the issue of the state of America's economy, that we take up 
immediately the question of what we can do to save businesses, create 
jobs, and I think foster some hope in America.
  There was an objection immediately from the Republican side of the 
aisle. They do not want to discuss this issue.
  I ask the minority leader the following: Since he has been home--and 
I have been in communication with the people of my State of Illinois--
is it not a fact now that we have reached a point where our economy is 
dissembling, our foreign policy is in disarray, and this Congress is 
totally disingenuous, it ignores the reality of the challenges facing 
America today? I also ask the minority leader if he would tell me what 
he believes we should be debating at this point in time to do something 
about turning this economy around and bringing hope back to America.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from Illinois for his observation 
and his question. If we go home--and I know the Senator from Illinois 
was just home as well--there are two issues on the minds of virtually 
every American right now. I was asked questions everywhere I went 
pertaining to the Senator's first question, and that, of course, is 
what is going to happen in Iraq? We generally have an idea of what may 
evolve over the course of the next few weeks, and there is not much 
that South Dakotans can do about that.
  The second question is, What is going to happen to my economic 
circumstance?
  I talked to one businessman who had to lay off a couple of his 
employees, and it hurt him dearly. They had worked for him for a long 
period of time. He said: Tom, I have no choice.
  I talked to people who had their health insurance dropped, in part 
because business was so bad their employer could no longer sustain the 
cost incurred of paying their health insurance. They said: We 
understand, but at least we got to keep our job.

  But what are you going to do about it? That is the question. What are 
we going to do about it? What will the majority do about it? What 
message are we going to send to those people to whom we must show some 
empathy if, indeed, these conversations with our constituents mean 
anything at all? That is why it is imperative we are cognizant of the 
message we send today, tomorrow, the next day, and the next day.
  As this economy worsens, we spend our Senate time totally consumed 
with one nomination having to do with a circuit court nominee for the 
District of Columbia. This is the third week we have been on it. We can 
resolve this matter if Mr. Estrada will come forth with the 
information. But if he will not, let's move to something else until he 
does.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. DURBIN. I have followed this debate on a daily basis. If I am not 
mistaken, the Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett, came to the floor with a 
positive and constructive suggestion. He said that this nominee, Miguel 
Estrada, should produce the written documents from his experience 
working for the Department of Justice, working for the Supreme Court. 
In fact, he even suggested at one point they be produced so they can be 
reviewed carefully by both the Republican and Democratic leaders of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee and then a determination be made as to 
whether there should be followup hearings or questions and ultimately a 
vote so there would be disclosure. This suggestion did not come from a 
Democratic Senator; it came from a Republican Senator, Mr. Bennett of 
Utah.
  I thought it was a fair suggestion to break the logjam, to resolve 
this nomination up or down, and to move on to the people's business.
  Can the Senator from South Dakota, our minority leader, tell me 
whether that suggestion of producing those documents really is 
consistent with what we are trying to achieve so we can once and for 
all give Mr. Estrada his fair hearing and final determination? Is that 
what this is about?
  Mr. DASCHLE. That is exactly what this is about. I thank the Senator 
for asking the question. It is no more complicated than that.
  On a bipartisan basis, Republican and Democrat Senators have said we 
need the best information that can be provided by any nominee before we 
are called upon to fulfill our constitutional obligation. That is what 
we are suggesting. We need that information to make the best judgment. 
That information is being withheld.
  If I had an applicant for a job in my office and I said, I want you 
to fill out this application and I will be happy to consider your 
qualifications for employment in my office, and he or she said, I don't 
think I will fill out the second and third page, I will give you the 
front page, I will give you the name, address, and maybe my employment 
history, but that is it, you have to make a guess as to the rest of my 
qualifications because I am not telling you, I would say to that 
prospective employee, come back when you can fill out the full 
application. That is what I would say. That is what every employer in 
this country would say.
  Remarkably, when I went home last week and explained the issue to my 
constituents, they said: That sounds fair. That sounds reasonable. If 
an applicant for a lifetime position on the second highest court of the 
land is not willing to fill out his job application, how in the world 
should we consider that nominee as a bona fide applicant for the 
position in the first place? That, again, is a diversion from what I 
think most people are concerned about. They are concerned about this, 
and they want fairness, but they are a whole lot more concerned about 
whether they will be giving job applications to anyone in their State 
in their circumstances because they are doing the opposite.

  We do not have lifetime applications for jobs in South Dakota because 
the economy is very soft. If anything, we are losing jobs in South 
Dakota. So while we talk about 1 job for the circuit court, we have 
lost 2.5 million jobs in the last 2 years in this economy. That does 
not make sense. That is what the American people want us to address.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield for a last question, many 
people on the other side suggested we are picking on Miguel Estrada, we 
have focused on this man, a Hispanic nominee, and this is somewhat 
personal in terms of what we are trying to achieve.
  I ask the Senator minority leader, is it not our constitutional 
responsibility to establish a standard and process to apply to all 
judicial nominees so that there is full disclosure from them as to who 
they are, what they believe, their values, so if they are given a 
lifetime appointment on the court, we at least know, going in, who 
these people might be. Is it not also the fact, as the Senator from 
South Dakota has told us, that Miguel Estrada has consistently refused 
to do just that, consistently refused to answer the questions, 
consistently refused to disclose the documents, consistently refused to 
tell us who he is as he seeks one of the highest Federal judicial 
appointments in the land?
  I ask the Senator from South Dakota, is this an issue which goes 
beyond Miguel Estrada and calls into question the constitutional 
responsibility of the Senate when it comes to judicial nominees? We 
have approved 103 Federal judges for this Republican President, and I 
have voted for the overwhelming majority of them. Are we not in this 
discussion trying to raise the fundamental issue of equity and process 
as to the responsibility of the Senate under the Constitution?

[[Page S2641]]

  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Illinois has said it very well. That is 
exactly what this is about. At one level, this is about fulfilling 
constitutional obligations. This is about following precedent. This is 
about making sure there is fairness as we consider these nominees for 
all courts, but especially for courts at that level.
  This is also about something also, about the management of the 
Senate. While the Senate has been concerned about one job for the last 
3 weeks, a lot of us are saying we ought to be concerned about the 8.3 
million jobs we do not have in this country today as a result of 
disastrous economic policies on the part of this administration, 2.5 
million of which have been lost in the last 2 years. We spend our time 
talking about one job; there is no talk on the other side about all of 
those millions of jobs lost in this country because there is no 
economic policy.
  What we are suggesting this morning is that there ought to be some 
consideration for those jobs, too; that to be consumed by one job and 
not consumed, or at least willing to address those millions of other 
jobs, is something I cannot explain to the people of my State or to the 
people of our country. I hope our Republicans will do something along 
those lines in the not too distant future.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Two questions. I want to follow up again on what the 
Senator from South Dakota said in the dialog with my colleague from 
Illinois. First, I know the Estrada judge issue has gotten a lot of 
attention in the newspapers. When I go back to my State of New York, 
virtually no one asks me about it--very few people. I get lots of 
people asking about the war and also about the economy and jobs. Is 
that particular to New York because we had September 11 or is the same 
thing happening in South Dakota?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I say to the Senator from New York, before he came to 
the floor, I began my comments by reporting conversations I had with 
people back home last week. I was moved by the comments, by the 
reports, by the emotion I felt as I talked to people whose businesses, 
whose jobs, are perhaps more precarious than they have been for years. 
All the statistics bear that out. Consumer confidence is the lowest in 
10 years, the number of those unemployed going up by millions in the 
last 2 years; every economic indicator is pointing to the growing 
crisis we face in the economy.
  Yet what do we do? We find ourselves once again most likely scheduled 
for the entire week, debating 1 job rather than the 2.5 million jobs 
lost just in the last 2 years alone.
  Mr. SCHUMER. If my colleague will yield for another question, we have 
seen in the newspapers the talk that the Democrats are filibustering, 
that Democrats are preventing the Senate from going forward to other 
issues, whereas the Republicans are eager to go to other issues.
  The real truth on this floor is, first of all, that we have asked 
just now to go to economic issues, that last week when the Republican 
leadership--they run the show--decided to bring up this omnibus budget, 
the Estrada nomination did not stand in the way. We did it. We voted in 
one fell swoop for the entire Federal budget, and, in fact, last week 
this floor, because the Republican leadership chose to do so, actually 
voted on three other judges who I believe passed unanimously, if not 
close to unanimously. And the filibuster, in a sense--in a very real 
sense--is not being conducted by the Democrats but rather, led by my 
capable and good friend from Utah, by the Republicans, and we would be 
happy to move on to other issues that are pressing, that are on 
people's minds, and maybe come back to this issue at some point when we 
get the requested material.
  Just to rephrase my question, who is really preventing us from moving 
forward? Who is filibustering? Why are we staying on this issue? Is 
that the Senator's choice as the leader of the Democrats or is that the 
choice of our good friend from Tennessee as leader of the Republicans?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I think the Senator from New York put his finger on 
exactly the question. We just attempted to move on to something else. 
We were prevented from doing so. It is not just something else but 
perhaps the single most important domestic issue facing our country 
today. Yesterday, the request was made and agreed to that we take up 
the Hatch-Leahy PROTECT Act, as we should have agreed. I am glad that 
we were able to take it up and pass it.
  The Senate has demonstrated the ability to move off this legislation 
when it sees fit. We did it just yesterday. As the Senator from New 
York suggests, we did it again a few weeks ago with passage of the 
omnibus legislation. We are capable of moving off the bill and dealing 
with the other issues. I can't explain why we have chosen--why our 
Republican colleagues have chosen--to stay on this legislation even 
though we know there are so many more pressing issues that ought to be 
taken up. I can't explain their intransigence. I can't explain why they 
want to prolong this debate. I can't explain why they are unwilling to 
consider the 2.5 million jobs rather than the one job that we continue 
to debate on the Senate floor. That is inexplicable to me.
  I just hope the American people understand. We have come back after 
listening to our people. They made it clear to us what they want us to 
take up. They want us to deal with the economy. They want us to deal 
with the real problems we have with homeland security and the lack of 
training, the lack of communication and the lack of good technology and 
equipment which they need so badly. They do not have that either. That, 
too, would be economic in many respects, if we can provide that 
assistance. But it is not being provided because it is not being given 
the attention. Therein lies the credibility gap. Something is said and 
nothing is done. There is a big difference between rhetoric and reality 
when it comes to this administration and many of our colleagues on the 
other side.
  Mr. SCHUMER. If my colleague will yield for just one final question, 
might it not be fair to say that it is not the Democrats filibustering 
to prevent Estrada from coming forward for a vote but, rather, the 
Republicans are filibustering until they get the vote on Estrada, which 
they have so far refused to call for? Is that an unfair 
characterization?
  Mr. DASCHLE. That is exactly what happened this morning. If we were 
filibustering we would not have suggested that we get off the issue. A 
filibuster is to prolong the debate. We want to end the debate. We want 
to move on to something far more pressing to the people of this country 
than the one job. We want to talk about those 2.5 million jobs that we 
have lost. Therein lies the issue.
  I hope the Republicans will bring this debate to a close so long as 
it doesn't appear that Mr. Estrada is willing to cooperate. At such 
time as he is prepared to do so, we can take this matter up again. But 
in the meantime, we ought to be concerned about those millions of jobs 
that continue to be lost because of congressional inaction and because 
of a failed economic policy on the part of the administration.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the leader.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, will the distinguished minority leader 
yield for one more question?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I asked questions earlier about the 
private sector. I think we have all 50 Governors from across this 
Nation now in the Nation's Capital. I know many of them come to visit 
their Senate representatives and their congressional representatives. I 
wonder if the minority leader has had one single Governor approach him 
with respect to the Estrada nomination or whether he has had one single 
or multiple Governors come and talk about the state of their fiscal 
affairs in their State governments and their unbelievable difficulty in 
trying to maintain employment and support in Medicaid and all the other 
issues. I was just wondering if the minority leader has had any 
discussions with them about Judge Estrada versus the sake of the 
economy--or homeland security for that matter.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I think the Senator from New Jersey asked the question 
that makes the point. The answer is absolutely no. Our Governors, of 
course, are hearing from the same people we are hearing from. They are 
concerned about the status quo. Someone once told me the status quo was 
Latin

[[Page S2642]]

for the ``mess word.'' Their concern for the ``mess word'' and this 
mess continues to be compounded by a budget deficit that grows by the 
month. We are told now that we could exceed $70 billion. Some have 
suggested that the figure could be as high as $100 billion in debt. 
They are struggling with their own budgets in part because of the mess 
we created for them in Medicaid, in education, in homeland defense, 
unfunded mandates, and the sagging economy, and no real economic plan 
in place. Their message in coming to Washington is: Fix it; help us 
address this issue and be a full partner recognizing that you, too, 
have a full responsibility to engage with us in solving this issue.
  I think if you took a poll of all 50 Governors, should we stay on the 
Estrada nomination or should we address the economy and these budgetary 
questions, it would be unanimous--Republican and Democrat--they would 
say no; fix the economy and help us solve our own financial and fiscal 
problems. Do not be as consumed as you are about one job until you 
solve the problem for those 2.5 million jobs that haven't been 
addressed.
  Mr. CORZINE. I join with my colleagues on this side of the aisle in 
complimenting the leader and for rating this issue one job versus 2.5 
million jobs. We have a major issue in this country with regard to our 
economy, and that is at the top of our agenda.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have heard these crocodile tears on the 
other side. It is amazing to me because they know what a phony issue 
is--the request for confidential and privileged memorandum from the 
Solicitor General's Office--and they are building their whole case on 
that. All they have to do to go on to anything else in the Senate is to 
exercise the advice and consent that the Constitution talks about; that 
is, to vote up and down. If they feel as deeply as they do about these, 
I think, spurious arguments that have been made just in the last few 
minutes--by the way, made by people who had all of last year to come up 
with a budget, and for the first time in this country couldn't even do 
that. The reason they didn't is because they knew it was pretty tough. 
They criticized us all these years for coming up with these tough 
budgets because we had to make the decisions. Senator Domenici from New 
Mexico has had to make tough decisions as Budget Committee chairman. We 
always came up with a budget, as tough as it was. We are criticized all 
the time for not having enough money for the poor and this and that and 
everything else, every phony argument in the books. Yet when they had 
the opportunity and saw how tough it is to come up with a budget, my 
gosh, they did not do it, nor did they do all those appropriations 
bills that we had to do once we took over.
  All they have to do to go on to these wonderful economic issues--and 
we all want to do it--is allow a vote up or down. They don't like 
Miguel Estrada for one reason or another. Some of them are perhaps 
sincere reasons. I think other reasons are that they think he is just 
an independent Hispanic. Frankly, they do not like him. Vote him down, 
if you want. They have that right. If they feel sincerely that they are 
right in voting him down, vote him down. But let us have a vote. I have 
heard the distinguished Senator from Illinois ask, Why doesn't Mr. 
Estrada produce those papers? He is not in the Solicitor General's 
Office. He is not the Attorney General of the United States. He is not 
the Chief Counsel of the White House. He hasn't controlled those 
papers. As far as he is concerned, he is proud of his work and they 
could be disclosed. The problem is seven former Solicitors General--
four of them are Democrats--said you can't give those kinds of papers 
up because it would ruin the work of the Solicitor General's Office.
  Look, if they are sincere and they really want to get on to the 
budget work they never did last year, the appropriations work they 
never did last year--we had to do it--then just vote. It is tough work. 
By gosh, it is tough to come up with a budget. I know the distinguished 
Senator from New Mexico has had to go through a lot of torment and 
criticism year after year to come up with a budget. But he always did, 
and we always did. We were maligned by the other side because we were 
never good enough, because we had to live within the budget 
constraints. When they found that they had to live within the budget 
constraints, they skipped a beat and missed doing the budget.
  Here they are coming in here with crocodile tears saying a circuit 
court of appeals judge is not important enough. Well, if he is not, 
vote him down, let's have a vote, and let's vote him down. Now----

  Mr. SCHUMER. Will my good friend yield for a question?
  Mr. HATCH. If I could finish. I am wound up right now. I would like 
to unwind a little bit before I yield to my dear friend.
  And to say that we are filibustering because we are trying to get a 
vote on this? Why don't we just do that? Why don't I just--I ask 
unanimous consent that we proceed to a vote on the Miguel Estrada 
nomination, so we can get to all these important budget matters. It 
would be a quick way of doing it. And those who do not like Miguel 
Estrada: vote him down. Those who do: vote him up. I ask unanimous 
consent that we proceed to a vote on Miguel Estrada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SESSIONS). Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I ask to amend the unanimous consent request, that after 
the Justice Department provides the requested documents relevant to Mr. 
Estrada's Government service, which were first requested in May 2001, 
the nominee then appear before the Judiciary Committee to answer the 
questions which he failed to answer in his confirmation hearing and any 
additional questions that may arise from reviewing such documents.
  Mr. HATCH. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Can you amend a unanimous consent request? It is my 
understanding that you can't.
  Mr. REID. Of course you can. Absolutely. We do it all the time.
  Mr. HATCH. Not if we object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada can ask the Senator 
from Utah to modify his request.
  Mr. HATCH. Well, I refuse to modify it. I think we ought to vote up 
or down.
  Look, if you folks are sincere on this other side--and, my goodness, 
I have to believe you must be, although I think if you are not, it is 
the most brazen thing I have seen in a long time to come here and act 
like the whole world is being held up because we want to fill one of 
the most important judge seats in this country. And we want to do it 
with a person who has had this much of a transcript of record, who has 
this much of a paper trail that they have been able to examine, who has 
had 2 years sitting here waiting for a stinking solitary vote.
  Mr. REID. Parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. HATCH. Why not give him a vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
Senator from Utah?
  Mr. REID. I object.
  Mr. HATCH. Oh, my goodness.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has the floor.
  Objection is heard.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the distinguished minority leader said that 
half of the American people are only getting $100 out of this tax cut. 
I happen to know, the people who are at the $40,000 level are getting 
about a $1,000 tax cut. Just understand, the top 50 percent in our 
society pay 96-plus percent of the total income taxes in this country. 
So that is another phony argument.
  I have to say, there are 52 million people in the stock market who 
have wanted dividends in spite of the representations that were made 
here. And in this downturn in the economy, perhaps they have not been 
able to get dividends because the companies have not done well. But 
this downturn started in the year 1999 or 2000. This President was not 
the President at the time. He has inherited these problems.

  I just have to say that for people who never passed a budget last 
year, and did not pass hardly any of the appropriations bills, to come 
in here and use these crocodile tears, that this is somehow holding up 
our economic wherewithal in this country, when they refuse to allow a 
vote, as we just saw--I think there is something wrong here.

[[Page S2643]]

  Just remember, even the Washington Post said, ``Just Vote.'' Just 
vote, fellows and ladies. All you have to do is vote. If you don't like 
Miguel Estrada, vote him down.
  The reason they don't want a vote, and the reason this is a 
filibuster, is that they know Miguel Estrada has the votes here on the 
floor to be confirmed.
  And for those who think that the economy is everything, let me just 
make a point. The judiciary is one-third of these separated powers. If 
we don't have a strong judiciary in this country, we will never have a 
strong economy because the Constitution would not be maintained. I 
would have to say this body has not maintained it through the years, as 
I have seen unconstitutional legislation after unconstitutional 
legislation move through here. It isn't this body that has preserved 
the Constitution, nor has it been the executive branch. We have seen a 
lot of unconstitutional things over there over the years, although I 
believe people have tried to sincerely do what is right. But it has 
been the courts that have saved this country and the Constitution.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will my colleague yield for a question?
  Mr. HATCH. I will. Let me make one more statement.
  It has been the courts. This is an important position, and if we are 
going to have to go through this on every circuit court of appeals 
nominee because the other side just doesn't like them--they don't have 
a good, valid reason for voting against Miguel Estrada, other than this 
phony red herring issue about the Solicitor General's Office, which I 
don't think anybody in their right mind would buy.
  ``Just Vote,'' the Washington Post said.
  I will be happy to yield to my colleague.

       Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague. And I know he feels 
     passionately about this. Many of us feel passionately about 
     this.

  Mr. HATCH. More than passionately.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I would like to ask the Senator two questions.
  The first question is this. My colleague said, in a very well done 
speech--I read it--before the University of Utah Federalist Society, in 
1997:

       Determining which of President Clinton's nominees will 
     become activists is complicated and it will require the 
     Senate to be more diligent and extensive in its questioning 
     of nominees' ``jurisprudential views.''

  Now, in fairness to my friend----
  Mr. HATCH. Does the Senator have a question?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I have a question. I am coming to it. In fairness, the 
Senator just said how important the judiciary is.
  Mr. HATCH. That is right.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Now, in those papers, the books that my colleague has 
held up--I have read them. I read the whole transcript. I was there for 
much of it. I chaired that hearing.

  Mr. HATCH. There is a lot more than a transcript here.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I know. I ask my colleague, does Miguel Estrada talk 
about how he feels about the 1st amendment, or the 2nd amendment, or 
the 11th amendment, or the commerce clause, or the right to privacy, or 
all the major issues that he will rule on for the rest of his life if 
he becomes a judge? And if he does not, other than to say, ``I will 
follow the law''--and we all know judges follow the law in different 
ways--then why isn't what is good for the goose good for the gander?
  In other words, when it was a Democratic nominee--and this is not tit 
for tat. My colleague, who cares about the judiciary, said he needed 
extensive questions. We didn't get that opportunity because, as my 
colleague well knows, Mr. Estrada just said, on every issue asked, ``I 
will follow the law.''
  Mr. HATCH. Ask a question.
  Mr. SCHUMER. My question to my colleague is----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York will place a 
question.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Why shouldn't we be accorded the same right, as he 
espoused in his speech in 1997, to get all the details to this 
appointment to the second highest court of the land, which is going to 
have a lifetime--Mr. Estrada has a job now; but this is a different 
job--a lifetime appointment that will affect everybody? Why is the one 
different than the other?
  Mr. HATCH. Regular order, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Look, I don't withdraw that statement. That statement is 
an important statement. The distinguished Senator from New York and his 
colleagues had almost 2 years. The distinguished Senator from New York 
conducted this hearing. The distinguished Senator from New York said it 
was a fairly conducted hearing. The distinguished Senator from New York 
had a right to ask any questions he wanted. He did. The distinguished 
Senator from New York had a right to ask written questions. He did not.
  He could have asked: What do you think about the 11th amendment? 
Listen, that is a question that is almost improper because you are 
saying----
  Mr. SCHUMER. Could I ask my colleague to yield?
  Mr. HATCH. Let me finish answering your question. He could have 
asked: What do you feel about the first amendment? Are you kidding? 
That is not a question that should be asked a judicial nominee. And any 
judicial nominee would answer: What I feel is irrelevant--which is the 
way he answered it. It is what the law says. Frankly, he answered that 
time after time after time on question after question after question.
  Where were the written questions of the distinguished Senator from 
New York? They were not there. You had a chance to do it. You didn't do 
it. Now, after the fact, 2 years later, this man has been sitting 
there, waiting for fairness, being treated totally unfair, and he can't 
get--my gosh, he can't get a vote up or down, which is what the 
Washington Post says we should do.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will my colleague yield for a question?
  Mr. HATCH. I know Senator Domenici has been waiting a long time.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Sir, I was waiting longer than Senator Domenici. If my 
colleague will yield?
  Mr. HATCH. No. Senator Domenici has been waiting for well over an 
hour. And, well, I am not yielding the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I ask the distinguished Senator 
from Utah how much longer he intends to speak on this round?
  Mr. HATCH. Well, I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.