[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 129 (Tuesday, September 4, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11019-S11038]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Iraq
Now, I rise today to discuss the situation in Iraq and the continuing
efforts of this administration to paint a rosy picture, to cling to
straws when the situation on the ground suggests just the opposite.
I first thank my colleague, Jack Reed, who has done great work on
MILCON, veterans affairs, which we
[[Page S11035]]
have just considered, and for his work on Iraq.
Some have argued that the surge in Iraq is working, but all you have
to do is look at the facts to know that is not the case. The President
went to Anbar Province, which at the moment he is touting as a measure
of success, but we all know what has happened in Iraq. You push on one
end of the balloon, and it pops out on another. Anbar may be a little
better; other places are worse. And the fallacy of Anbar is just
amazing. Are we placing our faith in the future in Iraq on a handful of
warlords who at the moment dislike al-Qaida more than they dislike us?
And they certainly dislike us. What kind of policy is that? What are
the odds that 6 months from now, the fragile and perilous situation in
Anbar will reverse itself and collapse? We heard about success in
Baghdad, we heard about success in Fallujah, and we heard about success
in this province and that province, and it vanishes. Success vanishes
like the wind. Why? Because the fundamentals in Iraq stay the same.
That is, that there is no central government, that the Shiites and the
Sunnis and the Kurds dislike one another far more than they like any
central government, and that dooms our policy in Iraq to fail. When the
President began the surge he said it was to give the Government
breathing room, to strengthen the present Government. We have more
troops there, more military action, more deaths this summer, more than
any other, and the Government is weaker. So why isn't it apparent to
the President and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the
stated goal of the surge is failing? Because the goal is not a military
goal but, by the President's own words, it is to give the Government of
Iraq greater strength, breathing room, as he put it. That Government,
by just about every standard, is worse off than it was before.
Again, Anbar Province? Because a few warlords, tribal leaders are now
on our side for the moment, even though they are not loyal to us, they
don't like us and they dislike the central government, that is why we
should continue the present course in Iraq? It makes no sense.
What happened to the great call for democracy in Iraq? Are the tribal
leaders in Anbar Province our apostles of democracy? Of course not. I
admit that is realpolitik. That is fine. But it is not going to solve
the problem.
If you look at the benchmarks, today the independent GAO report due
to be delivered to Congress showed little progress being made in
meeting the 18 military and security benchmarks set out by the
Congress. A draft report showed that only three of the benchmarks had
been met. However, over the weekend, the Pentagon revised the draft GAO
report and now, miraculously, an additional four benchmarks were
``partially met.'' Despite the apparent efforts by the Pentagon to edit
this independent report, it will take much more than a red pen to
correct the failures of the President's Iraq policy. So the surge by
the President's own stated goal is failing. The Government is weaker.
The fundamentals on the ground are the same. There is no loyalty to a
central government.
The temporary stasis in Anbar Province is not because of the surge
but because the surge was unable to protect these tribal leaders from
al-Qaida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The time of the Senator has
expired.
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. The bottom line is very simple. We are worse off today
in Iraq than we were 6 months ago. The position of America, democracy,
stability continues to deteriorate. If there were ever a need for a
change in course in Iraq, it is now.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, we have heard over the last few moments
from some of our Republican friends, again, the assertion of how strong
this economy is doing and how we have to continue going along this same
path with an OMB Director who is supportive of these policies. Let me
reiterate, I do not believe the economy is stronger when, over the last
6 years, 5 million more Americans have become poor, slipped into
poverty, including a million children. I do not believe this economy is
strong when median income for working age families has declined by
about $2,400 since the year 2000. I do not believe this economy is
strong when the personal savings rate has been below zero for eight
consecutive quarters. I do not believe this economy is strong when 8.6
million Americans have lost their health insurance since President Bush
has been in office. I do not believe this economy is strong when 35
million Americans struggled to put food on the table last year and
hunger in America is growing. I do not believe this economy is strong
when home foreclosures are now the highest on record, turning the
American dream of home ownership into a nightmare.
We need a new direction in economic policy, policies which protect
the interests of ordinary Americans and not just the wealthy and the
powerful. We need an OMB Director to tell this President the reality of
economic life for tens of millions of our families rather than continue
a mythology which essentially represents the interests of the people on
top who, in fact, are doing very well. Maybe government should
represent all rather than just the wealthy and the powerful.
When I talked before about the budget priorities of President Bush,
we should continue that discussion and talk about how he treats our
veterans. The war in Iraq, something which I strongly opposed, has
given us now over 27,000 soldiers who have been wounded, many of them
seriously. Studies tell us that many of the soldiers returning home
from Iraq are coming home with post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD.
How did the President's budget, a budget which we turned around, how
did his initial budget treat the veterans? His budget proposed cutting
the VA by $3.4 billion over 5 years after adjusting for inflation. That
does not say thank you to our veterans and their families and all they
have gone through.
We have a President who in his budget has said we don't have enough
money to address the needs of the middle class, working families,
senior citizens, children, and veterans. We don't have enough money to
do that, to pay attention to the people who are hurting. But amazingly
enough, President Bush has told us we do have enough money to provide
$739 billion in tax breaks over the next decade to households with
incomes exceeding $1 million per year. Under President Bush's proposal,
the average tax break for this group of millionaires would total
$162,000 by the year 2012. So if you are a millionaire or a
billionaire, the good news is, we have enough money for you. But if you
are a veteran coming home from Iraq with PTSD, if you are a mother
trying to find quality childcare for your kids, if you are a worker
trying to find health insurance, sorry. This country does not have
enough money for you.
Let me be very blunt. In my view, it is wrong to be giving huge tax
breaks to the very wealthiest people, the people who need them the
least, while cutting back on the needs of the middle class and working
families. I should say that Mr. Nussle's record as chairman of the
Budget Committee tells us clearly he supports these tax breaks for the
very rich while, at the same time, he has been prepared over the years
to cut programs for those who need them the most. That is wrong. That
is why I will be voting against Mr. Nussle's confirmation.
Included in President Bush's budget is the complete repeal of the
estate tax which would take effect at the end of 2010. The complete
repeal of the estate tax, we should be clear, because sometimes people
have not been quite so clear about it, would benefit the wealthiest
three-tenths of 1 percent of our population, the top three-tenths of 1
percent, and 99.7 percent of the American people would not benefit,
their families would not benefit by one nickel from the repeal of the
estate tax. Obviously, if you are in the top three-tenths of 1 percent,
you are already a millionaire or a billionaire, and you are already in
a family which is doing very well and has been doing well in recent
years. In other words, 99.7 percent of Americans would not receive one
nickel. The wealthiest people, who are
[[Page S11036]]
doing very well, would get all the benefits.
According to the President's budget, this repeal of the estate tax
will reduce receipts for the Treasury by more than $91 billion over the
next 5 years and more than $442 billion over the next decade. But the
long-term damage to our fiscal solvency is even worse. According to the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, repealing the estate tax would
cost over $1 trillion from 2012 to 2021, all of which benefit goes to
the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent. In other words, if the
President's plan to permanently repeal the estate tax succeeds, the
children and family members of the most privileged families in America
will reap a massive tax break. Paris Hilton, you are in luck, if the
President gets his way. You are going to do very well. But for other
Americans, the deficit will go up, and the argument will be raised that
we don't have enough money to take care of our kids, our seniors, and
our veterans.
What has Mr. Nussle's position been as chairman of the Budget
Committee on repeal of the estate tax? He is there alongside the
President. So we have every reason to believe he will be recommending
to the President that we continue this extremely unfair and disastrous
policy.
When we talk about repealing the estate tax, which the President
wants to do, which Mr. Nussle wants to do, which many of our Republican
friends want to do, I think we should see who benefits in a more
specific sense. Yes, it is the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent who
will get all of the benefits, the people who need it the least. Let's
look at one particular family who does have the best. Let's put this
thing into perspective. The reality is the big winner, the people who
need this money the most--not the kids, not our seniors, not low-income
people, not our veterans, no, they get at the end of the line--the
people who receive a significant amount of the benefits from repeal of
the estate tax is the Walton family that owns Wal-Mart. In fact,
today--and these things change; they go up and down--the estimated net
worth of the Sam Walton family is about $83.2 billion. From where I
come, that is pretty good, $83.2 billion. You are a family that is
doing fine. You will probably be able to pay the rent next month. If
the estate tax is repealed for this one family, they will receive a
benefit of $32.7 billion, one family, $32.7 billion.
We do not have enough money, says the President, to increase health
insurance for our children. Oh, he is going to repeal that $32 billion
to take care of 3 million more kids? We cannot afford that, but we can
afford to give $32 billion in tax breaks to a family worth $83 billion.
Those priorities are wrong. In my view, they are immoral. We need an
OMB Director who begins to explain to the American people this is not
what America is about, who begins to explain to the American people we
need a budget that reflects the needs and deals with the needs of
millions of families, where people are working longer hours for lower
wages, that deals with the problems of our senior citizens, deals with
the problems of our crumbling infrastructure, deals with the problems
of kids who cannot afford to go to college, deals with all of the
problems our people face every single day. That is the kind of budget
we need. That is the kind of OMB Director we need. What we do not need
are policies which give obscene benefits to the very wealthiest people
in this country.
Let me simply say at this point that in fact what this debate is
about is whether we are going to have an OMB Director who can advise
the President about the reality facing our working families or will we
continue the same failed policies?
Having said that, Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a little bit what has
been talked about at length in this debate. I think it has been a very
helpful and good debate. It has not been about Congressman Nussle and
his qualifications. That seems to be universally agreed upon. It has
been about the issue of policy and how we approach fiscal policy in
this country.
The other side of the aisle, for whatever reason, seems to think 24
quarters of economic growth, with the addition of 8.4 million new jobs
over the last few years, a tax law which was put into place which has
caused us to generate more receipts as a Federal Government than we
ever received before over a 3-year period relative to growth and as a
percent of gross national product, is something we should not have,
that this is bad policy for some reason, that giving people jobs,
creating economic activity, having a tax policy that is fair, is not
good. Therefore, they are attacking Congressman Nussle for him being
proposed to become OMB Director and for the fact he happens to ascribe
to those approaches.
Now, I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I
am not sure what they expect. Maybe they are sort of like Claude Rains
in ``Casablanca,'' where he comes out of the room and says: I'm
shocked--shocked--to find out that there's gambling going on in Rick's.
What? Are they shocked to find out the President nominated a Director
of OMB who agrees with him? I mean, really. Obviously, he is going to
nominate a Director of OMB who agrees with him. For as much as I admire
the Senator from Vermont, his philosophies, which he of his own accord
has described as socialist--although he affiliates with the Democratic
Party--are not necessarily the philosophies of the President. So I do
not expect he is going to nominate somebody with the philosophy of the
Senator from Vermont. Even France, quite honestly, has rejected the
philosophy of the Senator from Vermont. So I do not think the President
is going to subscribe to it.
What is hard to accept, however, is this argument that for some
reason the tax cut the President has put in place has been regressive,
that it has been unfairly distributed.
Let's go back to the record. The simple fact is today the top 20
percent of earned income or taxable income under the income tax laws--
the top 20 percent of earners in those categories is paying 85.3
percent of the burden of Federal taxes. That is more than was paid
under the Clinton administration when those same people, the top 20
percent, were paying 81 percent of the burden of Federal taxes.
People of lower income or moderate income who do not pay income taxes
basically--individuals do, but as a group they do not pay a net income
tax--the bottom 40 percent of income earners in this country is
actually getting more back from the Federal Government in the form of
earned income tax credit and other benefits than they received under
the Clinton years--almost twice as much back.
So you have the highest income people in this country paying more
than under the Clinton years, who are bearing a larger share of the
burden, and you have the lower income people or the moderate income
people getting more back from the Federal Government. That, ladies and
gentlemen, is called progressivity. That is a tax law that is working.
Why is it working? Why are the people with higher incomes paying more
taxes? That is called human nature. It is called human nature. If you
say to someone: ``I am going to take the next 90 cents of the $1 you
earn, and take it to the Federal Government and the State Government
and the local government''--I do not know that Vermont reaches 90
percent. They are probably pretty close. That is why people come to New
Hampshire to buy liquor and other goods; they are not subject to a
sales tax. That is just a bit of PR for our State. But if you say that
to a person, they are not going to go out and make the effort to earn
that extra dollar, whether it is 90 percent, 70 percent, or 50 percent.
Why? Because they do not want to pay the taxes. They do not want to
work for the Government half the year. Actually, everybody is working
for the Government half the year, but they
[[Page S11037]]
don't want to work for it for two-thirds of the year.
So if you put in place a tax law that is fair, where you say to a
person: ``You go out and invest, you take a risk, you become an
entrepreneur, and as a result you create jobs, and we are going to tax
you fairly,'' then you get more economic activity that is taxable. As a
result, you get more money to the Federal Government. That is what has
happened over the last 3 years. We are now receiving more revenue than
we have historically. In fact, we have had the largest increase in the
history of our Government in the last 3 years as a percentage, and we
are getting more in than what has been the historical norm. Usually, we
have been getting, since World War II, about an 18.2-percent raise in
revenues from the gross national product. Now we have gone up to 18.6
percent and 18.7 percent, and those are big increases.
Why are we getting those increases? Because people are willing to
participate in the taxable economy. Because there is a fair tax rate
that is in place today. What is the other side of the aisle suggesting?
Let's raise those taxes. Let's raise those taxes way up so we can spend
the money--not to put it to debt reduction, as the Senator from North
Dakota talks about--so we can raise taxes on the American people to
spend the money.
Their budget suggests we increase taxes by somewhere between $400
billion and $900 billion over 5 years. Their budget suggests we
increase spending on the discretionary side by around $200 billion over
the next 5 years. Their budget suggests we increase spending on the
entitlement side by a number that is so astronomical I cannot even
calculate it, but I think it is around $1 trillion. It is a classic
tax-and-spend approach. Its purpose is not to make the economy
stronger. Its purpose is not to reduce the debt. Its purpose is to
raise taxes, to spend the money on interest, which the other side of
the aisle finds attractive.
Well, that is reasonable if you do it in a way that is fair. But what
they are suggesting is you raise taxes on working Americans, and
specifically on seniors. Do you know who most benefits from the capital
gains rate? Senior citizens. Do you know who most benefits from the
dividends rate? Senior citizens. Logic tells you that; also statistics
do. The fact is, when you are a senor citizen, you do not have earned
income. You are probably not subject to the income tax rate for the
most part, but you might have dividend income from one of the pension
funds you invested in or that the company you worked for invested in.
And you probably have capital gains income because you probably sold
some asset such as your house to move into another lifestyle.
So not only are they suggesting we raise taxes in a manner which will
undermine what has been a clear economic benefit to this country, in
that we have seen 24 months of economic expansion and we have added 8.4
million jobs, we have seen revenues jump dramatically. In fact, the
capital gains revenues are now $100 billion over what they were
estimated to be--$100 billion. Why is that? Because people are willing
to take risks. They are willing to take their capital out that was
locked up and put it into more productive activity, the result of which
is to create jobs.
People are investing in starting new restaurants and starting new
software companies, starting new small businesses all across this
country because there is a reasonable tax rate on doing that. As a
result, we are creating jobs. What is the result of that? We generate
revenues to the Federal Government. The other side of the aisle does
not like that, I guess. The only way they want to generate revenue to
the Federal Government is to raise taxes on people. Well, it doesn't
work very well, quite honestly. President Kennedy showed the best way
to do it is the way we have done it. President Reagan showed us the
best way to do it is the way we have done it. And now President Bush
has shown it one more time.
It is hard to accept this philosophy which continues to be paraded
out by the other side of the aisle, which we, regrettably, in New
Hampshire are hearing a great deal of--actually, we do not regret it.
We love it. We love to have the folks come to New Hampshire who are
running for President and listen to their positions. But as you listen
to people, your head has to spin as to the number of new programs that
are being proposed by the front runners of the Democratic Party. It is
program after program after program. If you listen to one of their
speeches--and I have listened to all the major candidates on their side
of the aisle give speeches in New Hampshire over the last few weeks--it
is a litany, more or less like a merry-go-round, of ideas of how to
spend money, followed by ideas as to how to tax people.
The list goes on and on, but right at the top of the list is raise
the capital gains rate, raise the dividend rate, raise the taxes on
earning Americans, raise the taxes on productive Americans, which will
result in a reduction of job activity, a reduction of revenues to the
Federal Government, and it will be an unfortunate decision to reverse
some very good economic news we have had over the last few years.
Mr. President, at this time I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe we sort of agreed casually on an
order that the Senator from Vermont will speak, then I will speak, and
then the Senator from North Dakota will wrap up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire talks
about program after program. Yes, we want to take care of our veterans,
we want to provide health insurance to our children, and we do not want
to give tax breaks to billionaires.
Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to my friend from California.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I also yield 1 minute to the Senator from
California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues.
I have never seen the Senator from New Hampshire so emotional and so
excited. You would think the record we have seen in terms of this
economy has been stellar. It reminds me of the expressions: ``He doth
protest too much'' and ``the best defense is a strong offense. Get
excited and wave your hands.'' Let's talk about what has happened here.
This President and the Republicans in this Senate are trying to claim
the mantle of fiscal responsibility. In fact, they turned a $236
billion surplus inherited from the Clinton administration into a $248
billion deficit. They oversaw the three largest budget deficits in U.S.
history, and they are responsible for a $3 trillion increase in the
national debt. Now, let me say this: Who owns that debt? Foreign
countries--China, Japan. I don't hear the Senator from New Hampshire
bemoaning the fact that they can hold us hostage.
We need a change here. We need fiscal responsibility. We need
investments in things that help our children, education, for one, and
help our families, health care, for two, and a way to make sure our
veterans truly get what they need. Instead, the President gives us as
head of the OMB Mr. Nussle, who is closely associated with all of these
policies and failed as chairman of the Budget Committee three out of
six times to get a budget and work with Democrats. This is an absolute
outrage.
Now, I voted for so many of the President's appointees. I didn't vote
for Alberto Gonzales, but I did vote for most.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. BOXER. I will not vote for a man who put a bag over his head in
the House of Representatives. That, to me, shows complete hostility to
this great democracy. I urge a ``no'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Vermont has
1 minute.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me conclude by applauding Majority
Leader Harry Reid, Chairman Kent Conrad, and Senators Schumer, Dorgan,
and Boxer for publicly expressing their opposition to the Nussle
nomination.
The bottom line is today the economy is doing very well if you are in
the top 1 percent, if you are a millionaire or a billionaire. But if
you are in the
[[Page S11038]]
middle class, if you are a working person, the likelihood is you work
longer hours for lower wages.
We need a change in economic policy. We need an OMB Director who can
advise the President about the reality of the vast majority of the
people, and not just the very wealthiest people in our country.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CONRAD. Does the Senator from New Hampshire ask to speak for an
additional 30 seconds?
Mr. GREGG. I thought I had some time reserved. I don't. I ask
unanimous consent for 30 seconds.
Mr. CONRAD. Without objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from New
Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I simply wish to note we are about to vote
on the nomination for the Director of OMB, who is a man of high
integrity and high quality, and who has the expertise to do this job
well. I think we should presume that the President should have the
right to appoint the person of his choosing to this office which is so
uniquely part of the White House to begin with.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me end where I began. This is not
about a personality; this is about policy. The fiscal policy of this
administration has exploded the debt of our country at the worst
possible time--right before the baby boom generation retires. Here is
the record. It is undisputed. It is uncontradicted. It is a simple
fact. The debt of this country under this policy--and Mr. Nussle is one
of the architects of this policy--has skyrocketed from $5.8 trillion at
the end of the President's first year to $8.9 trillion at the end of
this year. So much of that debt is now held abroad. When this President
came into office, there was $1 trillion of U.S. debt held by foreign
interests. That has now reached over $2.1 trillion, a more than
doubling of U.S. debt held abroad. That puts this country at risk.
We saw during the last few weeks the Chinese Minister indicate they
might start to diversify out of dollar-denominated securities.
Economists said if they chose to do that, they would push the United
States into recession. In many ways, our economic future is now less in
our hands and more in the hands of the people who hold our debt.
I ask my colleagues on the basis of policy to reject this nomination.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination
of Jim Nussle, of Iowa, to be Director of the Office of Management and
Budget?
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd),
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from
Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig), the
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Alaska (Ms.
Murkowski).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 24, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 311 Ex.]
YEAS--69
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Bunning
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Roberts
Salazar
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Wyden
NAYS--24
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Clinton
Conrad
Dorgan
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Lautenberg
Leahy
Menendez
Mikulski
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Stabenow
Whitehouse
NOT VOTING--7
Brownback
Craig
Dodd
Johnson
McCain
Murkowski
Obama
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the President will
be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
____________________