[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.

                          ____________________