[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 14 (Friday, February 6, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S677-S680]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
JOB CREATION
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for
his comments this morning. I share his view about the importance of
this highway bill, in particular.
I wish to say a few things about both the highway bill as well as the
budget this morning. We just received our report again this month about
the economy and the jobs created. I think the good news is that we did
see the creation of 112,000 new jobs in January. I think that is a
positive development. The bad news is that it falls short of what was
needed to keep us on a path to ensure that jobs are not lost during the
President's first term.
Mr. President, 150,000 new jobs in January was the stated goal of the
Administration. The figure released today indicates a substantial
shortfall; this is nearly 40,000 jobs short of their stated goal. Of
course, it is dramatically short--two-thirds short--of what the goal
would be to reverse this unemployment debacle we have witnessed for the
last 3 years. 300,000 new private sector jobs would have to be created
each month to erase the decline we have witnessed the past 36 months.
So while we made some progress this month with 112,000 new jobs, we are
falling far short of the Administration's stated goal of 150,000 and
even further short of the 300,000 jobs necessary to reverse the
unfortunate trend.
There is another disturbing problem that we have not been able to
address, and the administration has not been able to address. This is
the 42nd month in a row that we have actually seen a loss of
manufacturing jobs. For 42 straight months manufacturing jobs have
declined.
The jobs issue may be the single most critical issue as we look at
the economy. There is a long, long way to go before we can say with any
confidence that we have turned this economy around, that people who
have jobs will keep them, and people who don't have jobs will get them.
I think most of us would receive today's news about jobs this month
with that sense of disappointment, but also with the realization that
112,000 jobs is better than what we had in December when only a
thousand jobs were added.
The Transportation Bill
Let me take a moment to talk about the transportation bill again this
morning. I will not repeat my concerns about the delay and resulting
loss of those jobs. I want to focus on the positive and, once again,
compliment the managers of the bill who balanced divergent interests to
bring us a finely crafted bill that certainly deserves our support.
Chairman Inhofe and Senator Jeffords, Senator Bond and Senator Reid
deserve our praise for working in a bipartisan fashion, as do Banking
Committee Chairman Shelby and Senator Sarbanes, and Finance Committee
Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus. But I also especially thank the
majority leader for scheduling the time it will take to get this bill
done. When the leader and I met on Monday, I was impressed with his
resolve and desire to bear down and get this critical work done for
this country.
Our roads, our bridges, our transit system, our rail lines, and our
ports all need assistance to ensure that our Nation has the first-class
infrastructure needed to reinvigorate our economy and make our country
strong and competitive. After having lost 3 million jobs over the last
3 years, there is nothing more important than passing this bill, which
will provide hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Senator Frist and Senator Inhofe suggested the other day that it
might
[[Page S678]]
create nearly 2 million good jobs in engineering, construction, and
administration. So I know that many of us would like to have made more
progress on the bill this week than we have so far. But things really
do seem to be coming together.
The Banking Committee approved transit provisions for the bill the
other day. We had a discussion about those provisions yesterday on the
Senate floor. The Finance Committee reported a bipartisan bill earlier
in the week, and we have discussed many of these provisions on the
floor throughout this week.
We also have had several amendments debated and discussed. There is
no question about it, there is a lot of work to be done. But the work
we are doing to provide jobs and assure first-class infrastructure is
among the most important work the Senate could be doing. In fact, I
cannot think of anything more important for us to be working on at this
time than this bill.
To be frank, it is a good feeling to see us working on such an
important issue in such a cooperative and bipartisan fashion. I salute
Senator Frist and his team for recognizing the importance of this bill.
As Senator Frist said on Monday, we need to move swiftly to pass this
bill, which he so aptly said has broad support in the Senate, as well
as across the country.
I also want to be abundantly clear that the firm and steadfast desire
of every Democratic Senator I have spoken to is to stay with this bill,
to be cooperative, and resolve differences, to complete the bill and
move it forward so we can get it to the President's desk as soon as
possible.
The President's Budget
Mr. President, having talked about the highway bill, let me now move
to the last matter I want to address this morning. The budget I have
here was presented to us by the administration. It is the budget for
fiscal years 2005 through 2009, containing 2,365 pages, and literally
millions of numbers and figures.
This document cannot be taken seriously as a budget. As vast and
extensive as this budget seems, the administration has actually omitted
essential facts and data that will have enormous consequences for the
fiscal future and our economy.
There is nothing in this budget--not a dime--to cover the costs of
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. What does that tell you? Well, it
tells you one of two things: Either the President is going to announce
within the next month or so a complete withdrawal of all troops and all
American presence in Afghanistan and Iraq to coincide with his current
budget proposal or he is hiding those numbers until a later date. In
either case, this omission makes this budget totally meaningless when
it comes to helping us understand the costs of the commitments we are
making in two of the most important parts of the world today.
I don't understand how the Administration can leave out the funding
for these operations at the same time it acknowledges we have tens of
thousands of troops in these countries today and will have troops there
for years and years to come.
CBO estimated the cost associated with our efforts in Iraq could
reach $200 billion, yet there is not one dime in this budget--I am only
holding up a piece of the budget--not one dime in this budget, this
entire budget, to cover the costs of our ongoing operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan for the current fiscal year or the four years after that.
The charade, the sham, the misleading character of this budget makes me
want to send it right back.
Or consider the alternative minimum tax. By 2009, the last year of
the administration's 5-year budget plan, 30 million Americans will see
their taxes increased as a result of the alternative minimum tax. Most
of us agree that we will need to fix this tax to prevent it from
falling on middle-class Americans.
The CBO estimates that the President would need to request at least
$150 billion through 2009 and more than $600 billion through 2014 to
prevent this tax increase caused as more Americans fall subject to the
alternative minimum tax. Yet, other than a 1-year temporary patch for
2005, this budget does not address that this recognized problem either.
Let me make sure people understand. On the spending side, perhaps the
largest military operations we expect to carry out over the course of
the next several years, expenditures to directly pay for the activities
of tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, there is not
one dime in this budget.
On the tax side, a collective realization, a bipartisan realization
that we are going to have to change the alternative minimum tax before
it hits middle-class Americans hard, a problem that is estimated to
cost $150 billion over the course of the next 5 years alone, there is a
one-year patch, after which the budget acts as if this problem doesn't
exist.
Most egregiously, the budget stops after 5 years, just before the
full cost of the President's tax breaks begins to be felt and just as
the full cost of the baby boomer retirement begins to emerge. When you
include the 5 years after the budget projections stop, the President's
tax breaks will add trillions more to the national debt, an estimated
$2 trillion.
So the President omits specific and known expenditures, ones to which
we know we are going to have to commit resources--$200 billion,
perhaps, in the case of our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan; $150
billion for AMT; and $2 trillion over the next 10 years for his tax
cuts. Of course, if I had a $521 billion deficit already written into
this so-called budget, I wouldn't put these costs in either, but I also
wouldn't have called the document a budget. I would call it my wish
list. I would call it my priorities. But you can't call this a budget.
It would be like a man and woman sitting at their kitchen table
trying to make ends meet, and they say: You know that mortgage payment
we have to make for the coming year, let's just not count that. And,
oh, yes, the kids' college, that $500 check each month we have to pay,
let's not count that. Oh, and the car payment, we better not count that
either. Let's leave off the mortgage, college, and a car payment, and
you know what, bingo, the budget balances. But in this case, the budget
doesn't even balance with those omissions. In this case, we still have
a $521 billion deficit.
We cannot predict every challenge our Nation will face in the coming
years, but we do not need a crystal ball to know we have to commit
resources to support our troops. We do not need a crystal ball to know
that Congress will act to spare 30 million Americans from the
alternative minimum tax. And we do not need a crystal ball to know that
when you ask to make tax cuts permanent, the cost will be with us for a
lot more than 5 years.
There is a credibility chasm, whether it is weapons of mass
destruction, whether it is the budget, whether it is so many things
that emanate these days from this administration, its credibility has
eroded dramatically.
I can't imagine, for the life of me, a more irresponsible document
than what we have been sent this week. If anyone--anyone--would do this
in real life, they would be in bankruptcy court within a year. That is
why we will see our national debt skyrocket from $5.6 trillion when
President Bush took office, to $11 trillion by the end of the 5-year
budget--just the 5-year budget he has proposed.
In the end, budgets are not about numbers, they are about choices.
The first observation that is that these glaring omissions, these
extraordinary misrepresentations have enormous implications not only
for our fiscal future but also for this Administration's credibility.
That is just the first piece of this.
The second piece is what this budget tells us about the choices the
administration made as they were writing these numbers. When we look
closely at this so-called budget, we learn something valuable about the
administration's priorities and choices. We shouldn't be surprised.
They propose that the IRS cut back on enforcement of America's tax
laws. Can you imagine, not only are we not going to provide some
fairness in our tax system, but those who are given these tax breaks
are also being sent the message: Maybe you don't even have to comply as
much because we are going to drop enforcement, which means more
corporate loopholes will be exploited and more will resort to tax
cheating. What does that say?
[[Page S679]]
When we also cut back the COPS Program as this budget does, at the
same time we cut back funding to enforce our tax laws, what does that
say about the desire, the determination on the part of this
administration to go after those who break the law, whether it is by
failing to pay their fair share of taxes or doing something illegal in
our neighborhood?
The cutback in enforcement funding also means higher taxes for honest
American taxpayers and larger debts passed on to our children and
grandchildren. That is the choice the White House has made. The
administration proposes that hundreds of billions of dollars be given
to the biggest corporations and wealthiest among us. This means a more
uncertain future for Social Security because $2 trillion will need to
be taken out of the Social Security trust fund.
This also was a choice the administration has made. They insist that
even in the face of massive deficits, a job crisis, and our ongoing
activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must continue their failed
policies of tax cuts first, last, and always.
Another sad illustration of its poor choices, in addition to record
deficits and debt, 2.4 million children are going to be left behind
because of underfunded education priorities; 210,000 more veterans will
not receive the health care they need; 1,200 fewer cops will be on our
streets. What an amazing turnaround.
Less than 3 years ago, we were praising the cops of New York and
Washington for their incredible response to 9/11, and now we tell many
of them they are out of a job because we are not going to fund the
programs that put them there in the first place. Thousands of
firefighters and emergency personnel also praised less than 3 years ago
will be fired as a result of the cuts in this so-called budget. These
are the choices the White House has made. The President has chosen to
provide huge windfalls for millionaires and giant corporations, and
huge cutbacks for the programs that matter most to American families.
Families who make and follow budgets should look at the
administration's budget and be aghast, not just for the sleight-of-hand
tricks that hide its true cost, but for the fact that the President has
abandoned their priorities and their concerns. If this budget passes,
Americans face a future with poorer schools, higher crime, and less
secure retirements.
We have to do better than this. We must provide Americans with a
budget that honors their choices, their priorities, and prepares our
Nation to meet challenges of our future. And we must be as forthcoming
and responsible with taxpayers' dollars as they are with their own
family budgets sitting at that kitchen table.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Through the Chair, I say to the distinguished Democratic
leader, as someone who has worked on this highway bill to get it to the
point where it is now, I very much appreciate the team work that has
been shown with the majority and Democratic leaders. They have both
spoken out strongly in favor of this legislation. That means a lot to
Senator Inhofe, Senator Bond, Senator Jeffords, and to me, the two
chairmen of the committee and subcommittee, and the two ranking
members, who have worked to get this bill to the point where it is.
So I want to say again how much we appreciate the Democratic leader
and the majority leader coming to the floor often and talking about the
importance of this bill and especially acknowledging the fact that 90
percent of this bill is paid for through the trust fund, and a small
percentage of it is through other taxes, no new taxes. So I thank the
minority leader very much for his help.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the compliments of
the distinguished assistant Democratic leader. He has worked diligently
with the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee,
coordinated the efforts, and while this week could have been more
productive, I do think at the committee level it was all that we could
have hoped for on a bipartisan basis. The Finance Committee did its
work. On a bipartisan basis, the Banking Committee has done its work.
After the divisive and partisan battles we have had on energy,
Medicare, and on so many things as we closed the first session of this
Congress, it is somewhat refreshing to see the bipartisan nature of our
work on this bill.
Senator Frist has made it abundantly clear it is his desire, and I
would say I share it just as strongly, that we finish next week. I
would love to see this bill completed by this time next week. I think
if we work hard, accommodate each other's desire to entertain
amendments, debate these amendments, have votes on the amendments,
there is no reason we cannot finish this bill a week from today, prior
to the Presidents' Day recess. That would certainly be my hope.
Again, I appreciate the leadership provided, especially by the
Senator from Nevada, in reaching that goal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. If I could just ask one more question. I know how busy the
leader is, but as I was reading my news clips today, and as I was
listening to the distinguished majority leader talk about what a great
bill this Medicare bill is and how that now people, if they are 65
years old, can have a high blood pressure cup placed on their arm and
in a few seconds find out what their blood pressure is, I do not think
that is very expensive. I, frankly, say that most people who go to
doctors have that done automatically anyway. I apologize for this, but
it will take only about 3 minutes. I want to read an article that was
in Nevada's second largest newspaper, the Reno Gazette-Journal. This is
what appeared in my news clips today: ``Seniors Blast Medicare
Prescription Plan.'' I am not making any of this up.
Riley Waller is among many Washoe County citizens still
angry over the Medicare prescription plan signed into law in
December, saying it will gouge seniors and the taxpayers
who'll pay for it.
More than 100 senior citizens listened Thursday morning as
Nevada Division of Aging officials explained how the new
prescription drug program will work. Several seniors said
they're unhappy with the new prescription program adopted by
Congress and signed into law by President Bush, with the
backing of the largest group representing older Americans.
``It took away the opportunity for people to get drugs from
Canada at half the price,'' said Waller, 77, of Reno. ``It
will not allow Medicare to negotiate lower prices. That's
ridiculous.''
Robert Chamberlain, 67, a retired Reno lawyer, said he soon
will be among 45,000 seniors to drop their membership in the
American Association of Retired Persons.
``When the AARP came out in favor of the Bush plan, they
did a disservice to the elderly people who are in need of
Medicare,'' Chamberlain said. ``The AARP will profit from
them in selling them insurance.''
Norma Herring, another Reno senior, said she doesn't take
prescription drugs and will not pay a monthly premium to get
them.
``No way am I going to pay a monthly fee.''
The Medicare prescription program begins in January 2006,
while a temporary discount card program starts this June.
``How these programs provided by insurance companies will
intertwine with the state's Senior Rx program has not been
determined,'' said Betty Squires, Nevada Division of Aging
Medicare adviser for seniors.
People must sign up for both programs. Seniors will be
given a six-month window to register for the Medicare drug
program starting November 15, 2005. If they register later,
they'll pay a penalty.
Under the program, each year seniors must pay $420 in
monthly premiums; buy the first $250 of medications; pay 25
percent of medication costs between $250 and $2,250; and all
of the costs from $2,250 to $5,100--the so-called doughnut
hole. After that, Medicare will pay 95 percent of
prescription drug costs.
In providing an example, Squires said a married man whose
prescriptions total $4,850 a year would spend $3,370 to buy
them while Medicare would pick up $1,080 of the cost.
Individuals with annual incomes less than $9,600 and
couples with incomes less than $13,000 would generally pay
between $1 and $5 per prescription with no additional costs.
Other low-income groups with few assets also would get
discounts.
Squires said some employers might drop prescription drug
benefits for their retirees in anticipation of the new
program.
``Teachers in Las Vegas lost the benefit. It's already
happening,'' she said.
But her hope is companies will instead cover the premiums
or provide coverage for the doughnut hole.
In the last few weeks, a national liberal group called
Moveon.org has spent $1 million on television commercials in
Nevada, putting words in President Bush's mouth about the
prescriptive drug program.
The commercials say the Medicare bill has real drug
benefits for the big drug companies, Bush contributors, in
forbidding Medicare from negotiating lower drug prices and
barring people from importing drugs from Canada.
[[Page S680]]
Squires said the drug companies won't be limited in how
much profit they'll make from the new program.
I will not finish the article, and I am sorry to take the leader's
time, but this is happening all over America. It is not just in Reno.
The prescription drug benefit, no matter how it is painted with
chocolate, is a program that is not good for the American people. The
American people know this, as indicated by the group that met in Reno
yesterday. This is a disaster waiting to happen.
Does the leader acknowledge the same thing is happening in South
Dakota?
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the most recent report from
Nevada with regard to how his constituents are viewing this new
Medicare Program. I must say it is perfectly in concert with the
sentiments expressed in similar articles in South Dakota. During the
last break, when I was home holding meetings regarding this program, we
had standing room only crowds in every single meeting, and those crowds
were almost universally angered, frustrated, and concerned about their
circumstances as a result of this legislation passing.
Much of their anger, as the Senator noted in the article, is directed
towards the organization AARP, for their failure to stand up for
citizens, and I think that is understandable. Their frustration and
their anxiety goes deeper than just an organization. They are concerned
about their own livelihoods and what it may mean for them and how
troubling it is to them that the Government is actually forbidden from
negotiating lower drug prices, which is what the goal was in the first
place.
So it is their inability to get lower drug prices, their concern
about having to pay exorbitant premiums and fees for a limited benefit,
their concern about being pushed into an HMO, their concern about
whether they can access drugs from other countries like Canada where
prices are cheaper: all of those and many more concerns were reflected
in these discussions. It is again reflected in the article the Senator
has just read into the record.
So I share his consternation and his resolve to address these issues.
We have to find a way to fix it, and the senior citizens of this
country are demanding we do it now.
I yield the floor.
____________________