[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21320-21322]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   RESPONSE TO ATTACKS ON THE SENATE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS STIMULUS PLAN

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to this Chamber to address an 
issue that was discussed yesterday. I do it because I am the ranking 
Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. I want to respond to some 
Senators on the other side of the aisle--meaning the majority side of 
the aisle--who have raised concerns about legislation that I have put 
forth as part of a stimulus package. I put forth this legislation for 
our Republican caucus in my capacity as former chairman and now ranking 
member of the Finance Committee. So I want to respond, first, to the 
majority leader's and Budget Committee chairman's comments about the 
Senate Republican caucus proposal.
  From my point of view, these comments were destructive of 
bipartisanship. The attacks came yesterday afternoon on the floor, 
following a news conference that was held on the Capitol grounds. In 
contrast, while these things were going on yesterday, I spent time 
working for an agreement that crossed party lines; in other words, for 
a bipartisan agreement.
  In fact, for a number of weeks, the chairman of the Finance 
Committee, Senator Baucus, and I have been meeting in an attempt to 
find an agreement on a stimulus package.
  Last week, Senator Daschle and Senator Baucus released a stimulus 
proposal that, as they indicated, clearly reflected the more liberal 
part of the Democratic caucus. Senator Baucus made it clear that it was 
basically a negotiating position and that he would be willing to move 
to the center.
  The proposal was released as a position for the Democratic caucus. It 
was made very clear in statements, well-intentioned on the part of 
Senator Baucus, that it was basically a negotiating position and that 
he would be willing to move to the center, or saw that as necessary as 
part of the process to get legislation through the Senate.
  In general, Republicans such as myself reacted constructively to the 
proposal. I was quoted in the press accordingly. I disagreed with the 
proposal Senator Baucus put forward, but I recognized it as an 
essential part of a process of getting a bill through the Senate. I saw 
it as a positive step. Quite frankly, I viewed it as a response to the 
bill that passed the House of Representatives.
  On Tuesday of this week, we Republicans responded to the Democratic 
caucus position with one from our own caucus. From our point of view, 
it mirrored the President's stimulus plan. What kind of a reception did 
we get after we released our plan? In this era of bipartisanship and 
collegiality, something bad happened. The attack dogs were unleashed 
and with a fury. The same day, Senator Daschle harshly attacked our 
proposal in an extremely partisan, stilted manner.
  The next afternoon, which was yesterday, Senator Conrad was on the 
floor with the usual props he has--he uses them well--ferociously 
denouncing the Senate Republican proposal. Rather than recognizing the 
proposal as part of the process, as we Republicans viewed the 
Democratic proposal, the Democrats instead have turned up the partisan 
heat and are trying to torch any real plan that will help our economy 
and our country.
  One has to wonder why we have such a double standard. Why is it that 
one

[[Page 21321]]

side obsessively attacks the other, that fault is not found on that 
side?
  Senator Daschle, along with Senator Lott, has exercised leadership 
since September 11. This had been a most important feature of doing 
business in Washington, DC, in these times of anxiety while we are 
trying to win the war on terrorism. The tone, as much as the substance, 
has been critical to the success of the process.
  Senator Daschle himself said we should not be ``strident'' in these 
times of trying to win a war. So you can imagine my surprise, even 
anger, and surely disappointment, when I read the tone of Senator 
Daschle's attack on the plan and, frankly, on me in press reports. 
Basically, Senator Daschle accused me of unilaterally stopping the 
stimulus process, particularly as it related to Republicans and 
Democrats working out a bipartisan agreement.
  I will read the quote into the Record:

       We've waited in an effort to try and find a way to work in 
     a bipartisan manner. Unfortunately, as a result of Grassley's 
     decision yesterday . . . that will not be possible, at least 
     in the short run . . .

  I focus on Senator Daschle's quote because it is a bit ironic. As he 
was criticizing me, I was preparing for a meeting with Senator Baucus 
on the stimulus package. I guess if you ignore the fact that Democrats 
put out a partisan package last week, then Senator Daschle's quote 
would make some sense. But, of course, that is not true. So Senator 
Daschle seems to be saying that it is fine for Democrats to put out a 
caucus position and Republicans to be constructive, but if Republicans 
respond with our own caucus position, then that is partisanship. The 
Republican response justifies ramping up the content and the tone of 
the partisan rhetoric.
  The American people expect better. They know a double standard when 
they see it. Let's get back to the tone Senator Daschle set earlier. 
That is what I am asking for; that is a very good tone.
  Let's not descend to name calling, destructive partisan comments, and 
double standards.
  Now I move to Senator Conrad's attacks which occurred yesterday 
afternoon. Let me say, this is a preliminary response to Senator 
Conrad's attack on the Senate Republican caucus plan. I will have a lot 
more to say on that later, particularly after I get some figures back 
from the Joint Committee on Taxation.
  Senator Conrad spent a lot of time yesterday developing charts that 
were critical of Senate Republican caucus positions which he 
personalized by calling it the Grassley plan. He personalized his 
attacks, and that should be avoided. He decided to appoint himself as 
the teacher and accordingly grade everyone's economic stimulus 
proposal. That is fine. He has that right. I don't have a problem with 
that. If he is going to be the grader, though, I think he needs to be 
objective. He needs to treat those plans that he opposes the same way 
he treats those plans he supports. He does not do that.
  The report card Senator Conrad used yesterday is not the whole set of 
principles upon which the budgeteers agreed.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a copy of the 
budgeteers' documents.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    Principles for Economic Stimulus

       The Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate 
     Budget Committees recognize the extraordinary circumstances 
     resulting from the September 11, 2001 attacks on our country. 
     These terrorist attacks have created a national emergency, 
     instigated a war on terrorism, and exacerbated a slowdown in 
     the economy. Clearly, the Congress and the President will 
     provide the resources necessary to respond to these events. 
     The principles articulated below are simply intended to 
     ensure that those resources provided by the Congress and the 
     President be an effective economic stimulus package that does 
     not erode fiscal discipline in the future.
       Overall principle. An economic stimulus package should be 
     based on the recognition that long-term fiscal discipline is 
     essential to sustained economic growth. Measures to stimulate 
     the economy should be limited in time so that as the economy 
     recovers, the budget regains a surplus that is at least equal 
     to the surplus in Social Security. Any short-term economic 
     stimulus should not result in higher long-term interest 
     rates.
       Objectives. An economic stimulus package should restore 
     consumer and business confidence, increase employment and 
     investment, and help those most vulnerable in an economic 
     downturn, and do all of the above without converting a 
     cyclical deficit into a structural deficit.
       Timing. Congress should assemble an economic stimulus 
     package deliberatively but with dispatch, aiming for passage 
     within 3-4 weeks, based on the best economic data available.
       Rapid impact. A substantial portion of the fiscal impact on 
     the economy should be felt within 6 months.
       Sunset. All economic stimulus proposals should sunset 
     within 1 year, to the extent practicable.
       Targets. Economic stimulus should be broad-based rather 
     than industry-specific. Policies should achieve the greatest 
     possible stimulus effect per dollar spent and should be 
     directed to individuals who are most likely to spend the 
     additional after-tax income and businesses most likely to 
     increase investment spending and employment.
       Size. The economic stimulus package should equal 
     approximately 1 percent of GDP (about $100 billion) but 
     should count the budgetary effects of policies implemented 
     since August, which, at present, total roughly $40 billion.
       Offsets. To uphold the policy of repaying the greatest 
     amount of national debt feasible between 2002-2011, outyear 
     offsets should make up over time for the cost of near-term 
     economic stimulus.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. If you compared the budgeteers' principles with the 
report card Senator Conrad generated, you will see, when you get a 
chance to read these, interestingly, that Senator Conrad omits four of 
the nine principles. In other words, Senator Conrad has selected five 
of the nine principles agreed on by budgeteers. Most importantly, 
Senator Conrad didn't use the ``overall principle,'' which reads:

       An economic stimulus package should be based on the 
     recognition that long-term fiscal discipline is essential to 
     economic growth. Measures to stimulate the economy should be 
     limited in time so that as the economy recovers, the budget 
     regains a surplus that is at least equal to the surplus in 
     Social Security. Any short-term economic stimulus should not 
     result in higher long-term interest rates.

  There is nothing in that comment with which I disagree. The point is, 
this principle is very important, and it ought to be followed. Senator 
Conrad spent a lot of time dwelling on the rough 10-year revenue loss 
numbers of the Senate Republican and Senate Democratic plan. Senator 
Conrad, however, left out an important assumption. I will explore the 
assumption Senator Conrad left out.
  As has been the case with all proposals from the Republican side, 
Chairman Conrad has attacked the stimulus plan as, among other things, 
``fiscally irresponsible.'' Of course, I contest those unfounded and 
unfair criticisms. The plan is a straightforward proposal that will 
provide immediate economic stimulus. It will also give aid to 
dislocated workers, and it will help with their health insurance 
problems while being laid off, and it is fiscally reasonable. In fact, 
we have been in discussions with Senator Baucus's staff on these latter 
issues, such as dislocated workers and health insurance issues. So our 
plan follows on the President's four principles that were really the 
starting point of this debate first of all. That is what we ought to 
give President Bush credit for. He was presenting to the Congress the 
need for a stimulus package before many other people in Congress were 
even talking about the need for it.
  Since his tenure as ranking member, and now chairman, of the Budget 
Committee, Senator Conrad has placed all Republican tax cut proposals 
under very strict scrutiny. Senator Conrad has assumed that any 
temporary tax cut, no matter the terms of the proposal, would be made 
permanent. The assumption was then incorporated into his budgetary 
analysis. Without fail, the conclusion is then used as a basis to argue 
that long-term budget implications of any temporary tax cut make it 
``fiscally irresponsible.''
  We have before us a Democratic caucus stimulus proposal that contains 
two elements. One element is a combination of tax cuts and new 
temporary entitlement spending. Another element of the proposal is 
Senator Byrd's $20 billion ``infrastructure package.'' The

[[Page 21322]]

two elements have been frequently mentioned by Democrat leadership, 
including Senators Daschle and Reid, as the Senate Democratic position. 
When analyzed, these proposals are described as having a fiscal impact 
of $90 billion in fiscal year 2002 and $60 billion over 10 years.
  Here is where you get into this double standard of scoring 
Republicans one way and Democrats another way. The scoring presented by 
the Democratic caucus, however, fails to employ Senator Conrad's 
convention regarding permanency. They don't take that into 
consideration. If we apply Chairman Conrad's convention to the new 
spending and assume permanency, the 10-year cost of the new spending 
package totals $526 billion.
  Think about it, Mr. President. In these times, Senator Conrad has 
determined that it is fiscally responsible to spend an additional $526 
billion over 10 years. As a point of reference, this figure compares 
with the tax cuts of roughly $175 billion in the Senate Republican 
caucus position.
  I ask unanimous consent that an analysis of the 10-year cost of the 
new spending in the Democratic caucus stimulus plan be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    ANALYSIS OF SURPLUS IMPACT OF PERMANENT SENATE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS
                           STIMULUS PROPOSALS
                        [In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                FY 2002-
                                                       FY 2002     11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Unemployment insurance: Additional 13 weeks and         -16       -71
 supplemental amount................................
2. 50% COBRA subsidy: Inflation at 8% per year......       -10      -145
3. Medicaid expansion: Inflated using CBO August            -7      -101
 baseline...........................................
                                                     -------------------
      Total new entitlement spending................        33      -317
New infrastructure appropriations: CBO estimate.....        20      -209
                                                     -------------------
      Total new spending............................        53      -526
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Republican Staff, Senate Budget Committee.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Under Chairman Conrad's methodology, one of two 
conclusions is apparent from this exercise. One, if tax cuts and new 
spending are treated similarly, then under Chairman Conrad's 
methodology, the Democratic caucus package is $350 billion bigger than 
the Republican caucus package. That is a 2-to-1 ratio in favor of new 
spending. Alternatively, maybe Senator Conrad is arguing that in 
scoring there should be a bias against tax cuts and in favor of new 
spending by assuming that new spending is temporary.
  Since a key element of the budgeteers' principles was long-term 
budget effect, you would think Senator Conrad would have more carefully 
considered the 10-year cost of new appropriations and new entitlements. 
It seems to me he graded these plans long before he analyzed them. How 
else can Senator Conrad explain the laxity of the long-term spending 
effect?
  Adding new appropriations and new entitlement spending to the budget, 
even if labeled temporary, brings a long-term budget cost. Otherwise, 
we are trying to kid people. When was the last time we cut the 
appropriations baseline or a new entitlement? It doesn't happen around 
here.
  Now keep in mind that I have also asked the Joint Committee on 
Taxation to score the permanent effect of temporary tax cuts in each 
plan, but I do not have that analysis yet. I have had my staff work on 
it. They tell me it might narrow the gap some but would simply add to 
the total 10-year cost of each plan. Keep in mind that in making this 
comparison, I did not include the revenue loss of the Democratic caucus 
plan.
  When former Senator Bradley left this body, he cited many reasons for 
leaving. One of the colorful references was to the deterioration of the 
level of floor debate. He referred to Senate debate as deteriorating to 
competing partisan cartoon-type characters endlessly talking past one 
another. Unfortunately, yesterday's attack charts seem to me to 
illustrate the deterioration of the respect to which Senator Bradley 
was referring.
  A few months ago, the Washington Post reported approvingly of the 
Democratic leadership's message strategy. The article referred to a 
blackboard with a basic daily or weekly message. Apparently, 
yesterday's message was to attack a good-faith Republican caucus 
position and to attack me. I guess I say good job, or congratulations 
are in order, because the people who did it pulled off a well-
coordinated attack.
  What did such a harsh attack accomplish? When I go back to my farm 
this weekend, I imagine some of the folks back home might ask what the 
point of all that was. That is where I am, Mr. President. What is the 
point of this excessive partisan gamesmanship? What is the point of 
dumbing down the level of civility around here?
  I say all these things in a constructive manner--from a person who 
just yesterday met with Senator Baucus to talk about a process of 
getting a stimulus package--hopefully, a bipartisan stimulus package--
to the floor of the Senate. Although the transgressors in this case 
were Democrats, at times even my own Republicans have done the same 
thing. In this case, though, there really seems to be a Democratic rule 
book that includes a double standard.
  So as one who practices bipartisanship, I say to those who talk about 
it: Practice what you preach.
  As I said, I will have more to say in a comprehensive way about some 
of Senator Conrad's attacks on the specific pieces of the Senate 
Republican stimulus package.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________