[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22108-22111]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           ECONOMIC STIMULUS

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I rise to talk a bit about the economic 
recovery plan.
  I begin by saying that yesterday, I chaired a hearing dealing with 
the U.S. Postal Service. My colleague, Senator Byrd from West Virginia, 
attended the hearing and asked the Postmaster General a series of 
questions. As with a lot of areas in our country since September 11, 
the U.S. Postal Service has been dramatically affected, perhaps more so 
than others. They have had postal workers die as a result of terrorists 
who used the system as a delivery mechanism for terror and death from 
the anthrax spores sent through the mail.
  I told the Postmaster General that this country expresses its sorrow 
for what has happened to the Postal Service workers. These are 
wonderful people.
  I mentioned one of the stories about the two Postal Service workers 
who died which described both of them in quite remarkable terms. One of 
them had worked 15 years on the night shift and had never, in 15 years, 
used 1 day of sick leave. One should not judge someone by whether or 
not they use sick leave. The point is, this person's neighbors talked 
about what a wonderful human being this person was.
  The U.S. Postal Service is populated with men and women who do their 
job, as we say, in rain, sleet, and snow; regrettably now with anthrax, 
which has taken the lives of a couple of them.
  I told the Postmaster General yesterday about a town meeting I had in 
Glenburn, ND, a small town with hundreds of people. At my town meeting, 
a fellow stood up and said: There is a lot of criticism about things 
and good government. I want to give you one piece of good news about 
the U.S. Post Office.
  I asked: What is that?
  He said: I got a letter out at my farm that was addressed ``Grandpa, 
Glenburn, ND.'' It was from my grandson.
  I asked: How on earth could that have been? How would you have gotten 
a letter addressed ``Grandpa, Glenburn, ND''?
  He said: You can ask the postmaster over there.
  So I asked the postmaster: How would that have happened?
  He said: We got the letter that said ``Grandpa, Glenburn, ND.'' We 
looked at the postmark and it was Silver Spring, MD. We knew the only 
person around here that had relatives in Silver Spring was Frank, so we 
sent it out to Frank's farm. Sure enough, it got to the right grandpa.
  I told the Postmaster General that story. So many others like it 
describe quite a remarkable system that has worked for a long while and 
one that we must preserve and keep and nurture and protect during these 
difficult times.
  I rise to talk about all of the challenges, not just to the U.S. 
Postal Service but to our country. We face several challenges now. One 
is the challenge dealing with national security. One is a challenge 
dealing with economic security. And another is the challenge dealing 
with energy security. Some of my colleagues spoke about that earlier.
  National security doesn't need much more description. Most of us 
understand that some sick, twisted minds hatched a plot that murdered 
thousands of Americans in cold blood. Terrorism has visited our land in 
a manner that we never thought before possible. Now this Nation is one 
in its determination to find and bring to justice those who committed 
these acts of terror.
  It is a different time. There is a pre-September 11 and a post-
September 11. We have a President who has spoken to the American people 
about putting the men and women in America's uniform in harm's way to 
try to find the terrorists and bring them to justice, to root out the 
terrorist cells formed around the world who would commit acts of these 
types. This country supports our President and the men and women in 
uniform who are risking their lives to do that.
  I toured Ground Zero in New York about a week after the tragedy. I 
saw on the highest twisted metal beam yet standing where an iron worker 
had climbed and attached an American flag to that highest metal beam. 
As we came upon that tragic site, that is what we saw, carnage, 
destruction, but also an American flag gently blowing in the breeze 
that morning.
  Two days later, I was in North Dakota driving between Bismarck and 
Dickinson, ND, on interstate 94, a patch where you couldn't see a 
structure of any kind anywhere, just rolling

[[Page 22109]]

prairies. Someone had taken a flag pole with a flag on it and attached 
to it a fence post there in the middle of the prairie where you could 
see nothing that was made by human hand except from this fence post--a 
single American flag also blowing in the gentle morning breeze in North 
Dakota.
  The connection between the flag and the Trade Center and the flag in 
North Dakota was a connection of unity of spirit and one Nation doing 
what it needs to do to protect itself and to bring to justice those who 
committed these terrorists acts.
  Our Nation was having some difficulty even prior to September 11 with 
an economy that was very week. Our economy had softened a great deal 
and people were beginning to lose jobs. Our economy was losing steam 
and strength. September 11 cut a hole right through the belly of this 
country's economy.
  The news since that time has been more layoffs. Hundreds and hundreds 
of thousands of Americans have lost their jobs. They, too, in many ways 
are victims of terrorist attacks.
  What do we do about the soft economy in the aftermath of these 
terrorist attacks? We are unified as a Nation in going after the 
terrorists and trying to prevent terrorist action from occurring again. 
Are we unified with respect to how we come together as a nation to try 
to provide a boost to the American economy?
  The answer to that is, no, not so unified these days. We have a lot 
of different ideas about how you promote economic growth and how you 
help the American people during an economic downturn.
  This is the political system. I don't regret the fact that there is 
debate about these things. With respect to national security issues, 
this country has unity. On some of the other issues, we have debate. I 
don't regret that. It strengthens us. There is an old saying when 
everyone in the room is thinking the same thing, no one is thinking 
about much. I don't shrink from debate. We should not shrink from 
debate. When in debate we get the best of what everyone has to offer, 
democracy is served.
  Groucho Marx once said: Politics is the art of looking for trouble; 
finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and then applying the 
wrong remedies.
  Groucho Marx was a humorist. Politics takes a lot of humor and should 
over many years. But politics is the process by which we make judgments 
and decisions about the country. That is politics; that is the best of 
the American people. It is what served this country well for a long 
time. So as we talk now together in this country about how we apply 
some remedies and develop policies that strengthen America's economy, 
we have ideas coming from all sides. Let me describe some of them. Some 
of them are wonderful, challenging, interesting; some of them are 
nutty--but that is the way the process works.
  We have, for example, one piece of legislation that was developed by 
the other body, and it was described as something that is a stimulus 
package and is going to help the country. I will give you a couple of 
examples: They put in a $21 billion tax piece that benefits many of the 
largest corporations in the country for the purpose of incentivizing 
them to move and keep needed investment capital overseas. How would I 
classify that? Nutty.
  Does anybody think that is going to strengthen our country, 
strengthen our economy, by saying to big companies: What we would like 
you to do, by the way, is keep investing overseas. We would like you to 
move capital overseas because we think that is just great.
  Well, that is not the way to strengthen our economy, the way to 
provide a lift and boost and helium to the American economy. But that 
is exactly what came out of this package from the U.S. House of 
Representatives. There are so many other items in that bill that it's 
almost hard to start when you describe things you think are kind of off 
base.
  Another provision would retroactively repeal the corporate 
alternative minimum tax. That means that IBM, for example, would get a 
$1.4 billion tax cut. General Motors would get a $833 million tax cut.
  It seems to me that is kind of larding up a piece of legislation that 
is supposed to be designed to help our country recover. Instead, it 
becomes a carrier for the favored old tax cuts for the biggest and most 
powerful economic interests among us.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. Yes.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator spoke of ``larding up.'' Would he say that is a 
cholesterol-laden piece of pork?
  Mr. DORGAN. I hadn't thought about that.
  Mr. BYRD. When I was a young man, which was quite a while ago, I 
worked in a meat shop in a coal mining camp. All of the ladies who came 
to the store, including my mother and my wife's mother, bought lard. 
Those coal miners, before they went into the bowels of the earth and 
did that back-breaking work, ate sausage and bacon fried in a deep 
skillet with lard. We never heard of the word ``cholesterol'' in those 
days. That is a new word in my lexicon, coming along probably about in 
the middle of my life. So I was interested when the Senator used the 
words ``larding up.'' Was he talking about a spending measure or was he 
talking about pork? What did the Senator have reference to? I missed 
that. Would he say that again?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I was actually using that term to describe 
something done on a tax bill in the other body. I described it as 
``larding up.'' It is plugging the arteries of this system by putting 
in place certain provisions. I will give you an example.
  Mr. BYRD. Would that be cholesterol?
  Mr. DORGAN. Yes. When I talk about larding up, the Senator from West 
Virginia is talking about how people always refer to spending bills as 
pork, but never refer to tax bills as pork. In fact, there is more lard 
and larding up of tax bills than almost anything else.
  The retroactive repeal of the corporate alternative minimum tax in 
the House tax bill does as I said it would--it provides the biggest tax 
benefits to the biggest, most powerful corporations in the country.
  Here is what the chief economist from Merrill Lynch said about it 
because, remember now, the only reason we are going through this 
exercise is to try to determine how we help the American economy. Bruce 
Steinberg, chief economist, said:

       The silliest idea is the retroactive AMT payments. If you 
     want to stimulate spending in the future, you don't give out 
     tax breaks for things that already happened.

  It is as simple as that.
  Mr. BYRD. That is the epitome of pork, isn't it? It drips with lard.
  Mr. DORGAN. The Senator describes it in a way that makes it visual. 
But it is a slow turn on a medium-hot spit--or ``pit,'' I guess it 
would be in West Virginia. Let me continue.
  Will Rogers said something I want to put up on a chart.
  Will Rogers said this a long time ago:

       The unemployed here ain't eating regular, but we will get 
     round to them soon as we get everybody else fixed up OK.

  Now, while IBM, General Electric, and others are prepared, according 
to the House bill, to get hundreds of millions of dollars in tax cuts 
retroactively, last Friday it was announced that 415,000 people lost 
their jobs in October. What about those folks? When you talk about 
stimulating the economy, what about giving the people who lost their 
jobs some assistance? How about a helping hand to somebody who got a 
pink slip or a notice that said: By the way, you do a good job and I am 
glad you are here. It is just that our company is shrinking. We don't 
have as much business. So guess what, we don't have room for you. Tell 
your family tonight when you go home and sit at the supper table that 
you have lost your job. Tell them it is not your fault, that you worked 
hard, we appreciated you, but you can't go to work on Monday because 
you no longer have a job.
  What about those people? For example, in New York, when that act of 
terrorism struck the World Trade Center, it is true that the people who 
were climbing those stairs, even as the buildings were collapsing, were 
people making $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 a year,

[[Page 22110]]

willing to risk their lives in public service--firefighters, law 
enforcement folks, and others. There are a lot of folks around this 
country of ours who don't have a lot, don't make a lot, and don't ask 
for a lot. They don't have a million dollars. They are not going to get 
$1.4 billion in tax refunds. They are not on this list with K-Mart, 
American Airlines, and Enron. They are the folks who, last month, had 
to tell their families they were no longer employed. And if the 
families asked why, is it a part of a soft economy or part of terrorist 
acts? The answer is: Yes, it is.
  What do we do about that? Do we in the U.S. Congress have a concern 
about those folks, or is it just about the upper income and the big 
economic behemoths who really have clout? Is there anybody within 100 
yards of this building today, Friday, who is here because they are 
lobbying on behalf of somebody who lost their job last month? No one. 
It is just the folks who have a lot of money, a lot of assets and a lot 
at stake. They are here and they are trying to get more than their 
share.
  I will tell you, they succeeded in the U.S. House. So we are trying 
to write a stimulus package, something that provides economic recovery.
  We have a couple of thoughts in mind. One is there is no quicker or 
more effective way, and there is no way, in my judgment, that provides 
more justice to this system as well than to help people who are out of 
work. They are going to spend that money instantly. When we extend 
unemployment benefits, that money goes right back into the economy. All 
economists tell you: Step one, help those who lost jobs because that is 
stimulative, helps the economy. It is not only just and the right thing 
to do, it is the most effective thing to provide some lift to this 
economy.
  So we are going to have a debate about that because some don't want 
to do much for these folks. That is wrongheaded, in my judgment. We 
have a responsibility to the country to reach out and tell them they 
are not alone; we want to help them and we want to help this economy.
  Obviously, what we want in the end is for the economy to get back on 
its feet and for those folks who have lost jobs to become employed once 
again.
  That is what we want. There is no social program much better than a 
good job. There is nothing like a good job that pays well and has 
security. What we are trying to do is put together a recovery package 
that recognizes what is just, what is right, and what will be effective 
in providing lift to this country's economy.
  Extending unemployment benefits, paying for 75 percent of the COBRA 
benefits--all of that provides lift to this economy and is the right 
thing to do.
  In addition, coming from the Finance Committee, we have put in place 
some tax provisions we think will provide a lift to this economy. We 
had a tax cut for people in this country earlier this year. Not 
everybody got a tax cut. More than 70,000 North Dakotans did not get a 
tax cut. They did not get a tax cut because it was based on percentage 
of income taxes paid.
  Everybody who works pays payroll taxes. In fact, that is a 
proportional tax. Everybody pays the same rate; it does not matter how 
much you make. Yet those folks did not get a tax cut. So we propose a 
tax rebate for those people. That also will be spent immediately and 
provide lift to the economy.
  We have a whole series of items we have proposed that we think 
represent the first step in the right direction to provide lift to this 
country's economy.
  Let me make the most important point about all of this. The only way 
our economy is going to experience a recovery is if the American people 
are confident about the future. We do not have a ship of state in which 
there is an engine room with dials, knobs, gauges, and levers and we 
have some people in there fiddling with the dials, knobs, gauges, and 
levers and get it just right with tax cuts and move the ship along.
  That is not how the system works. What propels this economy is 
people's confidence in the future. If people are confident about 
tomorrow, next month, next year, they will do things that represent 
that confidence. They will take a trip. They will buy a car. They will 
buy a house. They will make life decisions that express their view 
about the future.
  Confidence means expansion. If they are not confident, they will not 
take the trip, they will defer the purchase of the car, they will defer 
the purchase of the house, and our economy will contract.
  There is nothing more important than instilling confidence. Our job 
is to, one, prosecute the war abroad. We have to do that and support 
our President doing that--and increase security at home. Part of our 
economic recovery package is investment in security at home. Senator 
Byrd has a homeland security proposal that is stimulative. It is not 
only stimulative and gives lift to the economy because it invests in 
this country and our security, but it is also the right thing and the 
necessary thing to do.
  When we can marry the right and necessary things to do with actions 
that will give lift to our country's economy, that is exactly the 
course people expect us to take.
  We need to prosecute the war, increase security at home, and give 
businesses and individuals the extra incentives they need to make those 
key purchases and key investments, not 6 months from now, not over a 
year from now, but now. Now. This needs to be temporary. It needs to 
have a significant, compelling urge to it to give the American people 
confidence about the future that we are doing the right thing.
  If we err as a Congress, I want us to err on the side of doing 
something, even doing too much. I do not want to err on the side of 
doing nothing because there are too many families out of work. Our 
economy is perilously close to a very deep recession, and it could be a 
lengthy recession. We have a responsibility to blend good fiscal policy 
in the Congress with monetary policy at the Federal Reserve Board to 
say to the American people: We are going to put in place the right 
plans to give you hope for the future.
  Winston Churchill gave many stirring speeches in the Second World War 
to fire up the interest and urgency of his countrymen to the cause of 
the war. At one point, he challenged his countrymen to imagine a 
thousand years in the future and what they would say about that current 
generation's efforts. He asked that they do things now that would allow 
people in the future to look back and say that this was their finest 
hour, even in the face of substantial challenge.
  That is what we, it seems to me, need to do now in confronting 
terrorism, in the challenge to provide economic security. We must fight 
as hard as we can possibly fight for the right policies now that give 
this country and economy a chance to do well so all American families 
can, again, do well and will not have to worry about next week or next 
month having to tell their family they lost their job.
  This is about hope. It is about opportunity. It is about expanding 
this country's economy. The New York Times last week had the headline: 
``Attacks Hit Low Paid Jobs the Hardest.'' I had a hearing 2 weeks ago, 
and the head of the hotel and restaurant union testified. He had a 
dozen of his members behind him. Each one stood up and told me their 
name, told me where they worked, when they got fired, how long they had 
worked there, and what it meant to them to lose their job. It was just 
gripping. It just breaks one's heart to see someone who struggled all 
their life, found a good job and worked for 8 years or 10 years or 15 
years and had a good record and was making it on their own, only to 
learn a pink slip has come that says this economy has shrunk and you 
are out of a job.
  It requires us to understand this is not about numbers, this is about 
people. It is about our future. That is why we must get this right.
  I am pleased with the work the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, 
Senator Daschle, all of us have done together to try to get the right 
solution in place for this country's future.

[[Page 22111]]

We are going to have a debate about this next week. Let us not shrink 
from it. Let us not think that debate injures this country or hurts 
this country. It strengthens this country.
  At the end of the debate, I hope we can convince everyone there is a 
right way and a wrong way. The wrong way leads to economic trouble, and 
the right way leads to hope, confidence, and economic expansion. That 
rides on our making the right decision on behalf of the American 
people.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be 
recognized at the completion of the remarks by the distinguished junior 
Senator from New York and that I may be recognized for as much time as 
I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York.

                          ____________________