[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22453-22493]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND ASSISTANCE FOR AMERICAN WORKERS ACT OF 2001

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.R. 3090, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3090) to provide tax incentives for economic 
     recovery.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.


                     Committee Amendment, Withdrawn

  Mr. BAUCUS. On behalf of the Finance Committee, I withdraw the 
committee amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2125

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2125.


[[Page 22454]]

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia reserves the 
right to object.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized when the Senator 
from Montana yields the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I remove my reservation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the reading of the 
amendment is dispensed with.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I say to my good friend from West 
Virginia, I intend to speak for only 2 or 3 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator may take whatever time he wants.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered makes several 
changes to the bill reported by the Finance Committee. It deletes the 
rural development provisions in sections 811 and 815 of the bill. These 
provisions generated considerable controversy, with some Senators 
questioning whether they provided economic stimulus. I support the 
provisions, and I think they are very important to the rural economy, 
but a similar set of provisions is being developed as part of a farm 
bill, and I think it is appropriate to defer to that debate at that 
time.
  I note that I have not deleted provisions providing agriculture 
disaster assistance to farmers and ranchers because I think they are 
critical provisions of the bill.
  My amendment also incorporates three Medicaid provisions which were 
filed in the committee but we did not have time to consider. One 
proposed amendment by Senator Bingaman temporarily increases the caps 
for States with extremely low disproportionate share hospitals. That is 
the so-called DSH cap.
  The second proposed amendment by Senator Lincoln establishes a 6-
month moratorium on changes to the Medicare upper payment limit rules.
  The third proposed amendment by Senator Breaux revises and simplifies 
the transitional medical assistance program.
  I also have provisions relating to the taxation of life insurance 
companies. Senator Kerry proposed a committee amendment addressing 
section 809 of the code to maintain balance. The amendment I am 
offering also addresses section 815.
  There are also a few other corrections contained in the amendment. 
That is essentially a brief explanation of the amendment I am offering.
  At this point, we are on the bill. I might say neither side has 
enough votes to pass the bill. The Senator from Texas correctly said we 
might as well get to negotiations and get to the heart of the matter 
because the current bill probably does not have the sufficient 60 votes 
to get it passed and enacted.
  The same is true for the alternative bill proposed by the President 
and/or the minority party. There are not 60 votes for that either. So I 
agree very much with the main import of the point made by the Senator 
from Texas; namely, let us get on with it. Let us sit down. Let us 
start negotiating.
  We are doing the country a disservice by continuing a partisan, 
rhetorical harangue, one side against the other. It is something I do 
not like. It is something I know most Senators do not like. I hope the 
leadership of both bodies, both the House and the Senate, on both sides 
of the aisle, find a way for us to put together negotiations where the 
leadership of the Finance Committee and of the House Ways and Means 
Committee, in conjunction with the White House, can sit down and put 
together a good, solid economic stimulus package quickly so Americans 
are served in the way they deserve to be.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Many times my colleagues have seen me reach into my shirt pocket and 
pull out the Constitution of the United States. The distinguished whip, 
the majority whip, also carries a copy of that Constitution, as do 
several other Senators on both sides of the aisle. I have supplied them 
with this shirt pocket copy. I will refer to it as the ``shirt pocket 
copy.''
  Alexander the Great put foremost, among all books, among all 
histories and among all literature, ``The Iliad.'' Alexander the 
Great's copy of ``The Iliad'' was referred to as the ``casket copy.'' 
He slept with ``The Iliad'' under his pillow.
  I do not sleep with the Constitution under my pillow, but I carry it 
next to my heart, the Constitution of the United States.
  Now, let's read for a moment the preamble of the Constitution. Those 
who have shirt pocket copies, take out your Constitutions; and those of 
you who don't happen to have a shirt pocket copy, take the Constitution 
off the desk or the shelf, if it is nearby.
  The Preamble reads as follows:

       WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more 
     perfect Union--

  Now, the President of the United States has said he wants to set a 
new tone in Washington: Do away with partisanship; do away with all the 
quibbling, the argumentation, as it were, to form a more perfect union. 
That is the way I would interpret what he said.
  I continue to read from the Preamble of the Constitution:

       . . . establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, 
     provide for the common defence--

  Let me read that again: ``provide for the common defence.'' It 
doesn't say anything about defending ourselves in Afghanistan. It says 
``provide for the common defence.'' It means to provide for the defense 
of our homeland, as well. ``Provide for the common defence.'' 
``Common'' means common. It is everywhere. It is common to all. It 
doesn't single out any particular person, place, territory, or city. It 
provides for the common defence.
  I continue to read:

       . . . promote the general Welfare--

  That doesn't say promote the welfare of the rich; it doesn't say 
promote the welfare of Sophia, WV, my little hometown which you can 
hardly see on a map. ``Provide for the common defence, promote the 
general Welfare.'' The Preamble isn't talking about those people who 
are on welfare rolls. It says ``promote''--that means to push forward, 
to lift up, to advocate. To ``promote the general Welfare and secure 
the Blessings of Liberty.''
  Aha, that word liberty!--``and secure the Blessings of Liberty''--to 
whom? ``. . . to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish 
this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America.''
  Who said this? It says ``do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION. . 
. .''
  In speaking of liberty to ourselves, who is doing the talking? Who is 
doing the talking? Let me tell you who is doing the talking. I will 
start with New Hampshire, Nicholas Gilman and John Langdon were the 
signatories for New Hampshire.
  Next we will take Massachusetts. Who were the signatories? Rufus King 
and Nathaniel Gorham.
  Then what is the next State? Connecticut. William Samuel Johnson 
and--who is that fellow who signed all those great documents from 
Connecticut? Who was he? Roger Sherman, Connecticut.
  What is the next State? New York. New York, Alexander Hamilton. Only 
had one signator, the great State of New York.
  And on down. Those were the men who signed this document. Immortal? 
This Constitution will live as long as the Earth stands. Immortal 
document, this is, indeed. These are the 39 signers.
  I have just read the preamble to the Constitution. I have done so 
because it adequately and perfectly fits as the preamble to what I am 
going to say

[[Page 22455]]

and what I am going to advocate. I am going to talk about the homeland 
defense piece of this measure before the Senate. Defense; homeland 
defense. The preamble of the Constitution introduces the preamble, as 
it were, to that portion of the package which my staff and I, at the 
request of the distinguished majority leader, developed for this 
amendment. ``Homeland defense,'' that is the title of this amendment. 
``Homeland'' defense. Not homeland infrastructure. Not homeland pork. 
But ``homeland defense.''
  Mr. President, hear me now! Fear has gripped the American people. It 
threatens the U.S. economy. I don't call my portion of this package a 
stimulus package. I am not calling it a ``stimulus'' although it does 
help to stimulate the economy. Anything that puts confidence back into 
the hearts and minds and pocketbooks and bookkeeping ledgers of the 
American people is a stimulus to the economy. But to those who thought 
they would see Robert Byrd bring out a package with a lot of 
infrastructure in it are sorely dismayed and disappointed. It ``ain't'' 
here.
  Infrastructure is needed in this country to be sure. If you want 
something that is true stimulus, put $1 billion into highways and you 
will employ 43,000 people. Or put $1 billion into school construction 
and you will employ 24,000 people.
  But I am not doing that. I was asked at first by the majority leader 
to develop some options that would help to stimulate the economy. So my 
staff and I--I have excellent staff; they are not excelled by anybody 
anywhere in the world. That is what I think of them. My excellent staff 
and I were asked to prepare some options. We did that. We did a $10 
billion option, a $5 billion option, a $20 billion option, a $30 
billion option. So we have options all over the place. And in more than 
one of them I had infrastructure, something that would provide jobs.
  But then something happened. We know, because we have read chapter 
and verse of the recent history in which we saw the awesome, terrible, 
horrific picture of two airplanes sailing into the Twin Towers in New 
York City. We saw the showers of bricks and mortar falling upon people, 
upon firefighters, upon policemen, upon men and women and children. And 
then there came anthrax, a weapon that has been spread among us.
  I haven't been in my office in the Hart Building in weeks. The office 
is closed. My staff people are not in there. I haven't read the mail 
that has been sent to my office in the Hart Building in weeks. There 
are other Senators here who can say the same, on both sides of the 
aisle.
  Fear has gripped the American people, and it threatens the U.S. 
economy. You can see it. You can see it in the vacant streets of our 
major cities on the weekends. Walk the streets of Washington on the 
weekends. You can see it in the half-full airplanes taking off from our 
airports--half full. Some of them not half full. You can see it in the 
empty shopping malls less than 2 weeks before the start of the holiday 
shopping season--less than 2 weeks. Go to the shopping malls. Go to the 
national parks.
  Here is a headline: ``National Park Entrance Fees to be Waived.'' 
Aha, you can go for free.

       National Park entrance fees to be waived over Veterans Day 
     weekend to inspire national unity, hope, and healing.

  So we see a repetition of the free passes, for example, that Metro 
issued here in the city, and in Northern Virginia, free passes that 
were issued by Metro so that people would ride, hopefully, into 
Washington, DC, and shop, spend money to stimulate the economy. There 
were the restaurants in Washington, DC, that offered a free glass of 
wine to the people who would come to those restaurants.
  Now I have just read that the national park entrance fees were to be 
waived over Veterans Day weekend, which has just passed--for what 
reason? To inspire national unity, national hope, and national healing.
  You can see it on Wall Street. Just watch Lou Dobbs. Watch him on 
television every day. You can see this fear spreading like oil, slowly, 
slowly--fear. You can see it on Wall Street. At one point, on Monday, 
November 12, the day after Armistice Day, Veterans Day, the Dow Jones 
Industrial Average dropped 198 points following the news of a possible 
terrorist attack on American Airlines flight 587. We saw the drop in 
the Dow Jones after the plane crashed in the streets of Queens, New 
York. Wall Street was already trying to recover from the troubling 
economic news of recent weeks. The Commerce Department reported on 
October 31 that the economy contracted by .4 percent between July and 
September of this year, the first quarter of negative growth since 
1991--10 years.
  The Labor Department reported on November 2 that the economy shed 
415,000 jobs in October, increasing the unemployment rate to 5.4 
percent from 4.9 percent in September, the largest jump since 1980.
  Wall Street has been able to shrug off negative economic news in 
recent months, but traders seem less able to do so recently. The 
lingering anthrax scare has spread to victims beyond the news media and 
the Federal Government. The Attorney General has issued vague yet 
sobering warnings to the American people about anticipated terrorist 
attacks. National Guard troops can be seen patrolling the Golden Gate 
Bridge.
  The American people, facing the fears of a new era, are looking to 
their elected leaders--you, Mr. President, the Presiding Officer and 
you, Mr. President, at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue--and me and 
other Members of this body and members of other legislative bodies, 
looking to their Government for reassurance. Parents want to hear that 
their children will be safe in their own neighborhoods. Families want 
assurances that it is safe to take that vacation they had planned 
earlier this year. The American people want assurances that they can 
open letters free from worries about biological weapons. They are 
looking to their elected leaders for security.
  If a son asks his father for bread, will the father give the son a 
stone? If the son asks for a fish, will the father give him a serpent? 
If the son asks for an egg, will the father give the son a scorpion? Go 
back to the Gospel of Luke. The people are asking for ``bread,'' in the 
form of Security. What do we, as elected representatives, give to our 
people when they ask for bread? Do we give them a stone when they ask 
for safety? What do we give them? A tax cut?
  The people are looking to their elected leaders for security. What do 
we give them?
  Do we reject this package which I shall explain momentarily? Do we 
reject it when the people ask for security against anthrax, when they 
ask for security against possible smallpox epidemics? What do we give 
them? Do we give them a stone?
  When the people ask that the loopholes be closed along the northern 
border and the southern border, when they ask for security from 
terrorists who would come across those borders when they are not 
patrolled; when the people ask for security against terrorists who 
would slink across the borders, do we give them a stone? Do we give 
them a scorpion? Do we give them a serpent? Do we respond to their 
cries when they want safety? What do we give them?
  We can start to alleviate the concerns of the American people right 
here--today--by addressing those vulnerabilities the terrorists are 
seeking to exploit.
  My staff and I have crafted a $15 billion package which would be a 
first step in giving back to the American people a small part of the 
sense of security that was blasted away on September 11.
  A point of order will be made against the package that contains this 
``bread.'' Our people ask for bread. That is a good metaphor when one 
thinks of the security for which people are asking us.
  A point of order will be made claiming that there is no emergency. 
The point of order will be made based on the claim that this $15 
billion package is not an ``emergency.''
  Hear me now! Keep in mind that a point of order is being lodged 
against

[[Page 22456]]

this homeland defense measure. And, keep in mind the preamble of the 
Constitution of the United States--that phrase which says ``provide for 
the common defense''.
  The first bit of this graph that I point to is that section--that 
piece of the overall pie chart--which reads ``Bioterrorism Prevention 
and Response.'' See it? ``Bioterrorism Prevention and Response--Food 
Safety, $4 billion.''
  Ask the one physician in this body, the one surgeon. Ask Dr. Frist, 
Senator Frist from Tennessee, if he thinks that we need $4 billion for 
bioterrorism prevention and response and food safety. Ask him. He is a 
renowned physician. I know he is a politician, too. So was Jesus a 
great physician. He was a politician also. Ask Senator Frist if this is 
``pork.'' Ask him if it is ``pork'' to provide $4 billion for 
bioterrorism prevention and response and food safety.
  We must reassure the American people whether their elected leaders 
are doing all they can to prepare against a biological or chemical 
attack. Anthrax, smallpox, and the plague are no longer the stuff of 
fiction but are deadly realities.
  My proposal includes $4 billion for bioterrorism prevention and 
response and food safety. This is money that would primarily be used 
for upgrading State and local lab capacities--get this now--State and 
local health departments, for example, in Raleigh County in southern 
West Virginia, and Sophia, WVA, my little town of 1,180 souls.
  Ask the Governors of the States, Republicans and Democrats, whether 
they need that money to upgrade State and local Lab capacities. Ask the 
mayors throughout the country if they need this. These funds would help 
local health departments to train emergency health responders in 
recognizing the symptoms of an incidence of bioterrorism, and would 
enhance the ability to diagnose and to treat such illnesses as anthrax 
and smallpox.
  My proposal will also allow State and local governments to plan for a 
variety of emergencies and to upgrade State and local information 
sharing systems.
  Preparation and prevention are critical to waging the war against 
terrorism that is currently being fought. Where? On our home soil. That 
is getting pretty close to home, isn't it, on our own soil. We would do 
well to remember that it was a doctor in Florida who had just received 
training from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, who 
thought to test for anthrax when treating the first victims of that 
unusual disease. It is an unusual disease. But it is an old disease.
  Read about it. Read about the 10 plagues of Egypt. Read about the 
murrain on the cattle, and the boils on human beings. Go to a 
dictionary and look up the word ``murrain.'' It means, for example, 
anthrax among the cattle, the camels, and other livestock. Look at how 
old it is. It has been around a long time--thousands of years.
  Here is a headline in today's paper. I will read it.

       State Department Fears--

  There is that word ``fear'' again

       State Department Fears Another Anthrax-Tainted Letter.

  What does this say?
  Well, Cassius was nearsighted. I am not nearsighted, but I do need 
glasses to read. So here we go. I quote from this. The title of the 
article in today's paper of Wednesday, November 14, 2001, is: ``State 
Department fears another anthrax-tainted letter.'' I will just read a 
few excerpts from this news story in the Washington Times.

       The State Department said yesterday it is searching 
     worldwide for another anthrax-tainted letter.
  At least one letter like the one sent to Senate Majority Leader Tom 
Daschle is packed in with State Department mail that was halted last 
month, said the department's top spokesman, Richard Boucher.
  Meanwhile, the last of the Washington-area survivors of inhalation 
anthrax left the hospital yesterday after a 25-day stay.
       The high concentration of spores on a single sorter 
     indicates ``that there is a letter like the one sent to Sen. 
     Daschle that has moved through our mail system,'' Mr. Boucher 
     said. ``We are now proceeding to go look at all the mail that 
     we have held up, frozen, sealed off, in mailrooms in this 
     building, annexes and around the world.''

  There it is. So these funds--$4 billion--would also be used to expand 
the Federal pharmaceutical stockpile by contracting for the development 
of 300 million doses of smallpox vaccine to be delivered by the end of 
2002 to prepare for a potential outbreak of that dreaded disease.
  No American has been vaccinated for smallpox since 1972, and the 
medical community is debating whether those who were vaccinated may 
still possess any degree of immunity.
  Now, I was one of those children in the public schools of West 
Virginia many decades ago who were vaccinated for smallpox. That is 
where I received my vaccination. The scar is still there on my left 
arm.
  Let's see what this headline says in the Washington Post of 
Wednesday, November 7, 2001. Here it is: ``HHS''--that is Health and 
Human Services--``Set to Order Smallpox Vaccine for All Americans.'' 
And it ain't free. It is not free. Let me just read excerpts from this 
story:

       Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson said 
     yesterday that he expects to sign a contract this weekend to 
     purchase enough smallpox vaccine for every American but that 
     he has warned the White House--

  Hear him. Hear Tommy Thompson down there at the White House. Hear 
him.

       . . .he has warned the White House the cost could be 
     quadruple the $509 million he originally estimated--or 
     equivalent to the department's entire $1.9 billion 
     bioterrorism budget. . . .
       The previously announced administration effort to vaccinate 
     all Americans against smallpox, a deadly disease that was 
     eradicated in the 1970s, took on a renewed sense of urgency 
     as one of the leading smallpox authorities warned it was 
     conceivable that former Soviet scientists were helping to 
     ``weaponize'' the smallpox virus for nations such as Iran, 
     Iraq, Libya, and North Korea.

  These are referred to as ``rogue states.''

       ``Many [Russian] scientists are really quite desperate for 
     money''--

  Cicero said: ``There is no fortress that money cannot buy.''
  And here we read a warning by Donald A. Henderson, director of the 
new Office of Public Health Preparedness.

       U.S. intelligence indicates that several have been 
     recruited by ``rogue states'' and were in a position to 
     smuggle out a vial of the virus . . . .'' That's a very great 
     worry.''

  He said: ``Many [Russian] scientists are really quite desperate for 
money.''

       In addition, Henderson said, there is evidence that the 
     former Soviet Union succeeded in weaponizing the virus and 
     manufacturing up to 100 tons annually at a plant outside 
     Moscow.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have both of these 
newspaper articles printed in the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BYRD. If anthrax can make the public jittery--and we have seen 
that it can and has made the public jittery--the prospect of smallpox, 
a contagious and vicious disease, could incite panic--panic! Funds in 
this bill, in my amendment, will be used to upgrade lab security at the 
National Institutes of Health and at the CDC, and to improve security 
at the U.S. Department of Agriculture labs, by hiring additional 
inspectors for import inspections, food supply monitoring, and lab 
equipment. There you are.
  Now, the next section of the chart I wish to point out is the section 
denominated ``Federal, State, and Local Antiterrorism Law Enforcement, 
$3 billion.''
  Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials have been working 
around the clock since September 11. When it comes to law enforcement 
and homeland defense--remember what the preamble said, ``provide for 
the common defense''--this is where the rubber meets the road.
  My package includes $3 billion for Federal, State, and local 
antiterrorism law enforcement.
  Of that $3 billion, this package includes $1 billion for Federal law 
enforcement antiterrorism investments. This money would be used to 
improve communications among Federal agencies, for the Coast Guard to 
increase

[[Page 22457]]

surveillance and improve communications with the Defense Department and 
other civilian terrorist/disaster response agencies, for the FAA to 
increase the number of safety inspectors and research on new safety 
technologies, and for the Drug Enforcement Agency, the U.S. Attorneys, 
the Judiciary, and the U.S. Marshals Service to improve security in 
courtrooms, for example, camera, x-ray machines and mylar on windows, 
and provide better facilities for police.
  The remaining $2 billion would be allocated for State and local law 
enforcement--again, State and local. Senators talk with your local 
mayors. Talk with your mayors in your home States. Talk with the police 
departments. See what they have to say.
  The remaining $2 billion would be allocated for State and local 
antiterrorism investments to improve the capacity of State and local 
police departments across the Nation to prevent and respond to 
terrorist attacks.
  Municipal officials need billions of dollars--call them on the phone; 
hear what they say--municipal officials need billions of dollars for 
their cities' hazardous materials response teams to fully equip their 
search and rescue teams and to outfit the law enforcement officials who 
likely will be first at the scene of a chemical or biological attack.
  Remember the day before yesterday? Who were the first people to go 
out to the scene of the plane crash? That wasn't a chemical or 
biological attack, but it was a sudden and terrible emergency. Who were 
the first? The policemen, the firemen, the paramedics.
  Here is a letter addressed to me by the National Governors 
Association, addressed to me and my counterpart on the Appropriations 
Committee, Senator Ted Stevens. In writing to us about an economic 
stimulus package, this letter from the National Governors Association 
says:

       Our recommendations also reflect the further deterioration 
     of states' fiscal positions as detailed in the 
     ``economy.com'' report sent to you earlier this week. With 
     respect to our fiscal position,--

  This is the National Governors Association talking now--

     most states have made a series of spending cuts. Many are now 
     implementing a second round, and in some cases a third. A 
     number of states now have revenue shortfalls in excess of $1 
     billion and many are scheduling special legislative sessions 
     to address mounting fiscal problems.

  And a Senator will soon make a point of order against this to say it 
is not an emergency, that this situation that prevails over this 
country and about which the National Governors Association is writing 
is not an emergency. Tell that to the National Governors Association!
  I read further from the letter:

       The cumulative states' current revenue shortfall is $10 
     billion and growing. Moreover, new and unprecedented state 
     responsibilities for homeland security are exacerbating 
     serious fiscal conditions.

  Let me read that sentence again for those who would say that this is 
not an emergency. Here is what the Governors say: New and 
unprecedented--what is an emergency? Something that is new, 
unanticipated?

       Moreover, new and unprecedented state responsibilities for 
     homeland security are exacerbating serious fiscal conditions.

  Tell the Governors, tell the mayors, tell the chiefs of police of the 
departments throughout the land that this is not an emergency that we 
are dealing with and that a point of order should lie against this 
amendment because it is not an emergency?
  Mr. REID. May I ask the Senator a question?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. REID. I know the Senator from West Virginia is a parliamentary 
expert on what goes on in the Senate. Did I hear the Senator right; he 
has heard, as I have, that they are going to raise a point of order 
that the homeland defense part of the bill is not an emergency?
  Mr. BYRD. Not an emergency.
  Mr. REID. Am I hearing the Senator right, that there is going to be a 
point of order raised that that which he has laid out dealing with our 
security is not an emergency?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, that is exactly what they are going to say.
  I say to all Senators, a point of order is going to be made against 
this package because those who offer the point of order say it is not 
an emergency and, therefore, it should be stricken from the bill. Not 
an emergency? Let them tell that to the Governors of the country.
  I continue to read the letter from the National Governors 
Association:

       Similarly, absent any changes in the Health Insurance 
     Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) or new federal 
     funding for HIPAA implementation in state-administered 
     programs, states will have little choice but to divert scarce 
     funds to comply with this federal mandate. This means that 
     significantly less state funds will be available for 
     education, critical state services, capital investment, 
     infrastructure improvement, and additional efforts to respond 
     to bioterrorism and other threats to homeland security.

  Luke said, if the son asks his father for bread, will the father give 
him a stone? Here are the cities of this land asking their elected 
officials for ``bread'' as it were. Those who make the point of order 
will say: Give them a stone. Let them eat stones. Let them have a stone 
for security. Let them have a stone to protect them against a smallpox 
epidemic; give them a stone!
  I hope that Senators, when they vote on this point of order, will 
understand that the people back home are going to remember all of us, 
how we vote when the people, when the mayors, when the Governors, when 
the law enforcement officers of this country ask for ``bread,'' when 
they ask for security, when they ask for money to provide security to 
those little towns and hamlets and cities all across this land, I hope 
that those who vote for this iniquitous point of order, will be 
remembered by the people of this country come the next election.
  Let's talk now about the FEMA firefighters program. This package 
contains $600 million in grants to State and local communities to 
expand and improve firefighting programs through FEMA firefighting 
grants. Over 50 percent of that funding goes to volunteer fire 
departments in rural communities in the countryside, and the volunteer 
fire department is the first and only entity available to deal with the 
crisis.
  Last year Congress took action to begin to address this serious 
deficiency by creating a Federal program to provide direct assistance 
to fire departments. Administered by the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, FEMA, the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program received an 
initial appropriation of $100 million. This funding was quickly 
depleted by tremendous demand. The Agency received more than 31,000 
applications, totaling nearly $3 billion in requested funds, almost 30 
times the amount appropriated.
  To those who would say that this package is wasteful spending, to 
those who would say it is porkbarrel spending, I say that one-half, a 
full 50 percent, would be allocated for bioterrorism prevention and 
antiterrorism law enforcement; Federal, State, and local antiterrorism 
law enforcement, $3 billion.
  Now as to transportation vulnerabilities, much has been done in the 
weeks following the September 11 attacks to improve our transportation 
security. I am not talking about building highways at the moment--to 
anyone whose skin might quiver at my use of the word 
``transportation.'' This is transportation security. But each step we 
have taken to plug the holes in our transportation security has 
revealed another hole that must be filled. This package includes $2.2 
billion to address simultaneously these vulnerabilities. Municipal 
officials need funds to protect their mass transit system. Of that $2.2 
billion, this package provides $1.2 billion for enhanced surveillance 
of transit stations and improved emergency response systems.
  Amtrak requires funding to address the critical safety 
vulnerabilities of its facilities, including tunnels. Have you ever 
gone through a tunnel on a train? Go to West Virginia. You will travel 
through several tunnels on Amtrak. But this money that we are talking 
about includes tunnels in and around New York City. It must improve its 
station surveillance. Out of that $2.2

[[Page 22458]]

billion, this package provides $760 million for that purpose. The 
purpose is this: Amtrak requires funding to address the critical safety 
vulnerabilities of its facilities, including tunnels in and around New 
York.
  Another $150 million would be used to improve the security at our 
Nation's ports, ferries, and freight rail. This is a recommendation by 
Senator Fritz Hollings. I have been surprised to find that only 2 
percent of the cargo that comes by sea to our Nation's ports is 
inspected and only one-third of the cargo that crosses over the 
boundaries by truck is inspected. This package finds moneys for 
addressing these border and these port security needs.
  Airport security. Airports have to respond to the substantial costs 
of the FAA's new, rigorous security directives issued since September 
11. Airports need funds to increase the visibility of law enforcement 
personnel for deterring, identifying, and responding to potential 
security threats. Additional staff is needed to conduct security and 
employee identification checks throughout airports. Airports with 
tighter budgets, particularly smaller airports in rural areas, are 
unable to absorb these new costs. This package provides $1.2 billion to 
hire law enforcement personnel to improve protection of secure areas at 
airports.
  We have read recently a great deal about postal security. The 
distinguished Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, just a few days 
ago--last week, as a matter of fact--as chairman of the Treasury Postal 
appropriations subcommittee, conducted hearings and had the Postal 
Service people up before the subcommittee to testify. It was a great 
hearing. The Senator from North Dakota rendered a tremendous service to 
the American people in holding this hearing.
  Today, the American public and Postal Service employees find 
themselves the victims of terrorism by mail. The people are afraid to 
open letters. I used to reach into the mailbox when I was hardly tall 
enough to reach it; I would reach into the mailbox with glee and pull 
out a letter. I remember the first letter that was written to me when I 
was elected to the House. After I was sworn in as a Member of the House 
of Representatives in 1953, the first letter that was written to me--
and I would have been 35 years old, so that was quite a long time 
back--came from my two daughters, and it carried on it three 1-cent 
stamps. We didn't have any fear of anthrax in those days. We used to 
open the mail with our hearts beating in our chests, with thankfulness, 
with expectation--but not expectation concerning a death-dealing 
letter.
  People today are afraid to open letters from distant kin. Suddenly 
postal workers are confronting attacks from something much more 
frightening than the vicious dogs that have long haunted the mail 
routes. A letter from an unknown source today is reason to call 911. 
America cannot function like this. America cannot go on functioning 
like this. Remember that phrase in the preamble of the Constitution 
about the ``general welfare''? America should not have to function like 
this. This package contains $1.1 billion for this.
  How much did the administration request? The Administration requested 
$175 million. That is a drop in the bucket. This package contains $1.1 
billion to begin to make the security changes necessary to keep the 
mail moving and allow the Postal Service to respond to this and future 
terrorist attacks.
  Now, about the security of our borders, to which I alluded a little 
while ago, for border security there is allotted $1.1 billion. Our 
border security is dangerously underfunded. We want America to remain 
always the land of the free, but we want it also to be protected. Our 
borders must be secure. Our borders leak like a sieve. Try holding 
water in a sieve. Our borders leak like a sieve, and the leaking should 
cause us severe alarm.
  The Immigration and Naturalization Service conducts some 500 million 
inspections at our ports of entry each year--500 million inspections. 
Hundreds of millions of visitors enter the country without visas 
through the visa waiver program, or other legal exemptions. Yet how 
many inspectors are there to process these hundreds of millions of 
visitors? There are only 4,775 INS inspectors. Yes, you heard me. There 
are only 4,775 INS inspectors to process these hundreds of millions of 
visitors. That is 1 inspector--just 1--for every 104,712 foreign 
nationals who cross our borders.
  Just to make it easy, call it 100,000, rounding it. So you have one 
inspector--just one--for every 100,000 foreign nationals who cross our 
borders. And, some Senators would make a point of order against this 
package to say that it is not an emergency? When our borders leak like 
a sieve, they say that this is not an emergency?
  The U.S. Customs Service currently has the resources to inspect only 
2 percent of the cargo arriving by sea. It inspects only about one-
third of the truck cargo crossing the southern border. Almost nothing 
is more urgent than to quickly move to close these hideous gaps in our 
ability to monitor the goods and people who move across our borders.
  This package provides $1.1 billion for additional Border Patrol 
agents and screening facilities, primarily on the northern border, and 
to fully implement database improvement projects.
  It is not enough that we authorize these additional expenditures in 
the antiterrorism bill. It is an empty promise if we fail to provide 
the resources to back up that authorization. We must provide the funds, 
and we must do so quickly.
  The next item on my chart is designated as Federal computer 
modernization, $1 billion. There are more than 40 Federal agencies and 
tens of thousands of Federal workers who are working together to fight 
terrorism, but many of these agencies cannot pass along to each other 
information on suspected terrorists. They cannot pass that information 
along. Their computer systems simply do not work together. Their 
computer systems do not talk to one another.
  This package provides $1 billion for Federal computer system 
improvements so that Federal agencies that participate in our 
counterterrorism program can communicate with each other and provide 
more comprehensive information about threats and those who would carry 
them out. And, there are those who would say a point of order will lie 
against this because we do not have an emergency! Computer 
compatibility is critical to our ability to rapidly assess threats and 
to respond to them throughout the Nation.
  How about those nuclear powerplants? How about those electric power 
projects? How about those national landmarks such as the Washington 
Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, the Statue of Liberty that beckons to 
peoples from across the sea? We need only to look across the Potomac to 
comprehend the threat to our Federal facilities and national landmarks 
in this war on terror.
  I will never forget that day standing in my Capitol office. I was one 
of those slow movers. I will not be slow the next time. The next time 
those police tell me to get out of this building, I am going, and I 
will get out of there ahead of the police.
  But that day I was slow moving. ``Why should I go, I said?'' ``I will 
not be any safer out there than I am in here,'' so I was slow to move. 
I looked out the window on the morning of September 11 and watched the 
smoke rise from the direction of the Pentagon. Any Federal building or 
national landmark in this country could be the next target. This 
Capitol could be the next target.
  In October, the CIA received a warning from an intelligence service 
in Western Europe about the possibility of a terrorist attack on the 
Three Mile Island nuclear facility in Pennsylvania. While the threat 
later proved not to be credible, it underscored the breadth of the 
danger to our homeland--to our homeland, America the beautiful.
  The State police and the National Guard have stepped up patrols of 
these plants, and the Coast Guard is enforcing new rules barring boats 
from the waters near any nuclear plant. Likewise, utilities around the 
country have stepped up security at their plants

[[Page 22459]]

since the September 11 terrorist attacks, but utility officials admit 
that the Nation's power grid is just too large to be fully protected 
from wanton attacks.
  My proposal includes $900 million to increase security at Federal 
facilities throughout the country, at nuclear plants, at our national 
treasures, such as the Washington Monument. Some of that funding would 
be directed toward enhancing security at State Department facilities. 
These security precautions are essential. These are investments that 
will have to be made in the future if we are to cope with the 
continuing threat of terrorism.
  Mr. President, over 6 weeks ago, on October 2, an agreement was 
reached with the administration so that the Congress could act 
expeditiously on the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill. That 
agreement to limit spending in the 13 appropriations bills to $686 
billion is being fully implemented.
  The Senate has passed this fiscal year appropriations bills on a 
bipartisan basis by an average vote of 91 to 7. That is bipartisan, is 
it not, an average vote of 91 for and 7 against on all of the 
appropriations bills that have thus been passed? We lack only one of 
the 13 bills, one that has not been passed by the Senate.
  We have lived up to our agreement. The Senate has lived up to its 
agreement. Republicans and Democrats on both sides of the aisle have 
lived up to this agreement. However, there was no agreement to limit 
our response to the September 11 attacks in the $40 billion 
appropriations supplemental passed on September 14. Who could have 
foreseen those two planes plowing head on into the brick and mortar, 
the cement, the steel of those Twin Towers? Is this an emergency? Who 
could have foreseen that? Who could have foreseen how the world would 
change? Who could have foreseen the emergency responses that would be 
required?
  In the weeks since, the reality of our post-September 11 world has 
taken hold, has seized the American psyche. We are now faced with 
security threats that were not foreseen last month, that were not 
foreseen the month before last, that were not foreseen and still seem 
unimaginable, the stuff of nightmares. Anthrax appeared like a vampire 
in the night, sapping us of our customary optimism. The threat of 
smallpox may face us for the first time in more than 20 years.
  Since October 2, the Attorney General has issued another warning 
about an eminent terrorist attack.
  That is since October 2. That is since the letter referring to the 
agreement concerning the top line of $686 billion. We have received 
information about a possible terrorist attack on the Three Mile Island 
nuclear facility in Pennsylvania since October 2, that letter of 
agreement among the executive and legislative branches that the top 
line would be $686 billion.
  The National Guard troops have been dispatched to protect the Golden 
Gate Bridge since October 2.
  The President has given the American people a pep talk. God bless 
him. He is a nice fellow. I like him. The President has given the 
American people a pep talk telling them they are now living in a 
different world and urging them to answer a call to war in our own 
land.
  And yet, there are those who would say this is not an emergency? Yet, 
we have war, not just in Afghanistan but also in our own land. Tell 
that to the farmer sitting by that cold stove on the plains. Tell that 
to the coal miner as he emerges from the dark bowels of the earth after 
a hard day's work. Tell that to the mother who has children she takes 
to school in her own automobile. Tell all of these that there is no 
emergency. Tell them that there is no war going on.
  A few days ago, President Bush asked the House and Senate leadership 
and the Appropriations Committee chairmen and ranking members to come 
to the White House; let us reason together. He wanted us to come to the 
White House to discuss the completion of the appropriations bills. I 
went.
  While the meeting was intended to be a discussion as a need to 
provide additional funding in response to the attacks of September 11, 
the President used the meeting as an opportunity to tell us that he 
would veto the Defense appropriations bill if Congress included 
additional spending beyond the $686 billion top line for the 13 
appropriations bills and the $40 billion level approved by Congress on 
September 14 in response to the September 11 attacks.
  I assure the Senate that we are not breaking the $686 billion top 
line agreement on spending in the fiscal year 2002 bill. We have worked 
hard in the Senate to produce bipartisan bills that conform to that 
October 2 agreement. We took a handshake, and it was an old-time 
handshake. We are keeping our word. So far, the Senate has passed 12 of 
the 13 bills by an average vote of 91 to 7. Each of those bills has 
been consistent with the $686 billion top line.
  After the House takes up the defense bill, the Senate will take up a 
$317 billion defense bill that would also conform with the $686 billion 
deal. However, $40 billion approved by Congress on September 14 is 
clearly not enough to respond to the September 11 attacks.
  Why is $40 billion not enough? The President has proposed that $21 
billion of the $40 billion go to DOD, and that $1.5 billion go to 
foreign aid programs. The President has proposed less than $9 billion 
for New York.
  Hear me, Governor Pataki, hear me! The President has proposed less 
than $9 billion for New York City despite our promise of $20 billion to 
New York City. That leaves less than $9 billion for homeland defense, 
and that is simply not enough.
  One cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. One cannot make a 
violin out of a cigar box.
  That leaves us with a choice of not meeting our commitment to New 
York or not providing for a strong homeland defense. That is a choice I 
do not want to make. That is a choice I will not make. That simply is 
not acceptable. That is not living up to our word. That is not keeping 
our commitment. That is breaking our word.
  The world has changed. The world has changed since Congress approved 
the $40 billion supplemental on September 14. The threat of terrorism 
is no longer theoretical. It is real. When Congress approved the $40 
billion package, we were only beginning to learn of the extent of the 
damage and the anthrax attacks that had occurred. The President's 
proposal does not provide sufficient resources for responding to the 
threat of bioterrorism or threats to the American food supply. Nor does 
it include sufficient resources to protect our Nation's transportation 
system for our airports, mass transit, river ports, seaports, or 
Amtrak. Nor does it provide sufficient resources to improve security at 
our borders or to improve security at nuclear powerplants and labs, or 
at our Nation's dams and reservoirs. That is why I have included $15 
billion for homeland defense in this bill.
  On November 7, several press reports indicated the White House is 
weary that any additional spending approved now will be built upon in 
coming years, and I shall quote an AP story.
  What it had to say is this: Possibly forces President Bush to 
confront an endless stream of budget deficits just as he prepares for 
reelection in 2004.
  Watch out now. In order to respond to the White House anxiety about 
this spending, I intend to offer an amendment, if I have the 
opportunity to do so. Let me offer this amendment. I intend to offer an 
amendment to direct the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of 
Management and Budget to not include the funds contained in the 
homeland defense title of this bill in any calculations of so-called 
baseline spending for fiscal year 2003 and future years. So I say to 
the White House, go to sleep, sleep quietly. Sleep soundly, White 
House. Let me offer this amendment. This amendment will wipe away those 
fears.
  Under this amendment, these homeland defense funds would not be used 
to inflate the amount of spending necessary to maintain current 
services in future years. I remind my colleagues, without this 
amendment the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management 
and Budget would be expected to add over $177 billion--it

[[Page 22460]]

would start with $15 billion--to add over $177 billion over the next 10 
years. That is not my intent. That is why I have an amendment ready.
  Let me say to all Senators, this Senator has no hidden agenda in 
offering this package, no hidden agenda. I assure Senators and assure 
the Senate that the $15 billion in spending contained in this bill is 
not intended to result in a permanent increase in spending. This 
spending is intended to address the clear inadequacy of Federal, State, 
and local capabilities to respond to a clear and present danger to our 
homeland defense.
  I am not interested in playing the game of baseline bingo. The 
amendment I offer would make it clear that it is a one-time $15 billion 
expenditure. I hope a point of order will not be made.
  We must have a recrudescence of confidence in the determination of 
our elected officials to recognize terrorist attacks before they happen 
and take every possible step to minimize them if they do. The 
administration has responded to this by advocating additional money for 
bioterrorism prevention and additional National Guard troops at our 
Nation's airports. That is necessary, but it is not enough. We cannot 
expect the American people to take comfort in our efforts if we only 
address the threat of the day, whether it be anthrax or airline 
security. We cannot wait until there is an attack on a nuclear 
facility. We cannot wait until there is an attack on our mass transit 
system. We cannot wait until there is an attack on our food supply 
before we react. We have to take preventive steps now before an attack 
kills more of our innocent citizens. We must anticipate our 
vulnerability, not wait for them to be shown to us on CNN.
  The economy will continue to rise and fall, like the tides of the 
sea, but a sense of security for the American people is something that 
must not be allowed to wax and wane. The Congress has the opportunity 
before it adjourns for the year to show the American people that their 
elected officials have made every effort to prevent future terrorist 
attacks. We can take preemptive steps to combat terrorism on the 
homefront, with a health care system that can respond to bioterrorism, 
a safer food supplier, more secure airports and railroads, stringent 
border security, and State and local law enforcement that is trained 
and prepared to handle a terrorist attack.
  It is not enough that we make improvements to airport security or 
bioterrorism prevention. We cannot protect ourselves if we only focus 
on our vulnerabilities after they have been exploited by homicidal 
maniacs. We must be more prepared than that. A focus on every aspect of 
our homeland defense is essential in order to reveal and repair every 
weakness that we may find.
  These are basic safety precautions. These basic safety precautions 
must be implemented before the Congress adjourns for the year. We 
cannot wait for another year and another Congress to convene before we 
come to grips with the horrible reality of another disaster like the 
Twin Towers or the deadly attack on the Pentagon. Every man, woman, and 
child in America expects our utmost now. Let us act before it is too 
late.
  Mr. President, this is an emergency. On a monument to Benjamin Hill--
great Senator and great orator--to be seen in the city of Atlanta, GA, 
are these words:

       Who saves his country, saves all things, saves himself, and 
     all things saved do bless him. Who lets his country die, lets 
     all things die, dies himself ignobly and all things dying 
     curse him!

  Mr. President, let us act to save our country.

                            (Exhibit No. 1)

               [From the Washington Times, Nov. 14, 2001]

         State Department Fears Another Anthrax-Tainted Letter

                            (By Guy Taylor)

       The State Department said yesterday it is searching 
     worldwide for another anthrax-tainted letter.
       At least one letter like the one sent to Senate Majority 
     Leader Tom Daschle is packed in with State Department mail 
     that was halted last month, said the department's top 
     spokesman, Richard Boucher.
       Meanwhile, the last of the Washington-area survivors of 
     inhalation anthrax left the hospital yesterday after a 25-day 
     stay.
       Leroy Richmond, 57, of Stafford County, Va., is believed to 
     have contracted the disease when the Daschle letter went 
     through the District's Brentwood Mail Processing Center.
       Another Brentwood postal worker left the hospital Friday, 
     the same day an employee at a State Department mail-handling 
     facility in Sterling, Va., went home.
       The State Department closed its mail system Oct. 24 when 
     the Sterling employee came down with inhalation anthrax. It 
     also notified posts worldwide to seal and shut down pouch 
     mail.
       Mr. Boucher said eight out of 55 samples taken from the 
     Sterling facility tested positive for anthrax. Two of the 
     samples came from two separate mail sorters and six were 
     found on a third sorter.
       The high concentration of spores on a single sorter 
     indicates ``that there is a letter like the one sent to Sen. 
     Daschle that has moved through our mail system,'' Mr. Boucher 
     said. ``We are now proceeding to go look at all the mail that 
     we have held up, frozen, sealed off, in mailrooms in this 
     building, annexes and around the world.''
       Officials have to assume that there is a contaminated 
     letter of some kind in the system, and that it will 
     eventually be found in a mailroom or pouch bag, he said. ``If 
     there had been a letter that had gone beyond that into our 
     system, we assume by now we would have seen it.''
       As officials were looking for the real anthrax letter 
     yesterday, the U.S. Capitol police were dealing with reports 
     of a phony one found on the desk of one of their own 
     officers.
       The officer has been suspended and accused of leaving a 
     note and a powdery substance at his post in the Cannon House 
     office building.
       The substance was not hazardous but the department was 
     taking the situation very seriously, according to U.S. 
     Capitol Police Lt. Dan Nichols.
       Federal officials during recent weeks have tried to get 
     across the message to anthrax hoaxers that their pranks will 
     be penalized harshly.
       In a radio address last week, President Bush said ``sending 
     false alarms is a serious criminal offense.''
       Lt. Nichols said a criminal investigation into the incident 
     is under way and findings will be sent to the U.S. Attorney's 
     Office and the police department's internal affairs division.
       The suspended officer was not identified. If convicted of a 
     hoax, he faces up to five years in prison and as much as $3 
     million in fines.
       ``He's been accused of this, and he's suspended without 
     pay, but he hasn't been charged with anything yet,'' said Jim 
     Forbes, a spokesman for U.S. Rep. Bob Ney, Ohio Republican, 
     who heads the committee that oversees U.S. Capitol Police.
       Mr. Forbes said there is no reason this officer would be 
     exempt from charges similar to those faced by other anthrax 
     hoaxers.
       ``He's not exempt from anything,'' Mr. Forbes said.
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, Nov. 7, 2001]

          HHS Set To Order Smallpox Vaccine for All Americans

                           (By Ceci Connolly)

       Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson said 
     yesterday that he expects to sign a contract his weekend to 
     purchase enough smallpox vaccine for every American but that 
     he has warned the White House the cost could be quadruple the 
     $509 million he originally estimated--or equivalent to the 
     department's entire $1.9 billion bioterrorism budget.
       Thompson said that he was disappointed the bids from three 
     companies came in around $8 a dose but that he hopes to 
     settle on a lower price in final negotiations on Friday, as 
     he did in his recent talks on the antibiotic Cipro.
       In addition to the 54 million doses already on order, 
     Thompson said he plans to stockpile 250 million doses of new 
     vaccine, or enough for ``every man, woman and child'' in the 
     country.
       The previously announced administration effort to vaccinate 
     all Americans against smallpox, a deadly disease that was 
     eradicated in the 1970's, took on a renewed sense of urgency 
     as one of the leading smallpox authorities warned it was 
     conceivable that former Soviet scientists were helping to 
     ``weaponize'' the smallpox virus for nations such as Iran, 
     Iraq, Libya and North Korea.
       Many [Russian] scientists are really quite desperate for 
     money,'' said Donald A. Henderson, director of the new Office 
     of Public Health Preparedness. U.S. intelligence indicates 
     that several have been recruited by ``rogue states'' and were 
     in a position to smuggle out a vial of the virus, he said. 
     ``That's a very great worry.''
       In addition, Henderson said, there is evidence that the 
     former Soviet Union succeeded in weaponizing the virus and 
     manufactured up to 100 tons annually at a plant outside 
     Moscow. He described experiments in which the Soviets planned 
     to place smallpox warheads atop intercontinental ballistic 
     missiles. It is unclear whether any warheads were tested.
       ``We do not have the confidence that the Russians are not 
     at this moment proceeding with research on biological 
     weapons,'' Henderson said, noting that as recently as the

[[Page 22461]]

     early 1990s Russian scientists tried to combine the smallpox 
     and Ebola viruses in search of an even deadlier agent.
       As the man who led the effort to eradicate smallpox in the 
     1970s, Henderson is familiar with the potential consequences 
     of a reemergence of the disease. Because it is contagious and 
     cannot be treated with existing drugs, its virus is widely 
     considered to be the most potent biological weapon.
       ``The likelihood of a smallpox release is much smaller than 
     an anthrax release,'' he said. ``We're worried about it 
     because it could be far more serious.''
       A person infected with smallpox often develops a fever and, 
     later, a rash. Smallpox vaccine administered within two or 
     three days of exposure has been effective in preventing the 
     illness from developing, he said. Historically, 30 percent of 
     people infected with the smallpox virus have died, he said, 
     estimating that the eradication of the disease two decades 
     ago has saved 60 million people and protected 240 million 
     others from illness.
       Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the subsequent 
     anthrax attacks, Henderson has advocated an aggressive 
     smallpox strategy, including the stockpiling of vaccine. He 
     reiterated yesterday that he would not support widespread, 
     mandatory vaccination but that he wants to have the vaccine 
     on hand in the event of an attack.
       ``A smallpox outbreak anywhere in the world is potentially 
     an international disaster,'' Henderson said at a bioterrorism 
     conference at the Johns Hopkins Paul H. Nitze School of 
     Advanced International Studies. For that reason, he said, 
     federal health officials have begun informal talks with 
     Japan, Brazil and several countries in Europe on the 
     stockpiling of smallpox vaccine.
       If even a single case emerged, Henderson said, he would 
     assume that it was the work of terrorists and would rapidly 
     order quarantines and vaccinations to ``build a barrier of 
     immunity.''
       The United States has about 15.4 million doses of the old 
     smallpox vaccine available, and government researchers say it 
     may be possible to dilute those doses to vaccinate 50 million 
     to 77 million people. Thompson recently expanded and 
     accelerated a contract with OraVex Inc. (subsequently bought 
     by British drugmaker Acambis PLC) for the delivery of 54 
     million doses by the end of next year.
       A task force appointed by Thompson is reviewing the three 
     bids and debating safety, efficacy and possible human 
     clinical trials. Already, hundreds of volunteers in the 
     United States are receiving the vaccine as part of a rushed 
     study on the efficacy of diluting the old vaccine.
       Later this week, newly formed smallpox teams at the Centers 
     for Disease Control and Prevention will take a crash course 
     on the virus with two former CDC experts. The class will 
     focus on identifying, isolating and treating the disease, 
     said spokesman Tom Skinner. More than 100 CDC epidemiologists 
     have also received the vaccine, he said.


                      software technology industry

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment of the 
distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, Mr. Byrd. The chairman has put together this 
very well conceived $15 billion package of appropriations to address 
the Homeland security needs as quickly as humanly possible.
  I call to the attention of the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia the devastating impact that the tragic events of September 11, 
2001 had upon the software/information technology industry in and 
around New York City. Eighty-five percent of these software/information 
technology companies employ less than 100 persons. The survival of this 
industry is vital to the recovery efforts of New York City and to the 
national interest. Accordingly, it would be my hope that, in their 
administration of the programs for which funding is provided herein, 
all agencies are strongly encouraged to develop proposals which, to the 
maximum extent possible, take into account the dire circumstances faced 
by these companies.
  Would the chairman agree?
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the junior Senator from New York for her support of 
my amendment. Yes, I do agree with the Senator that the various 
agencies which receive funding under my amendment should take notice of 
this colloquy and take all appropriate action to encourage applicants 
to work with the companies which the Senator from New York has 
described.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I know the Senator from Texas has been here for several 
hours and I will finish in one moment.
  I say to the Senator from West Virginia, I was privileged to be able 
to listen to the speech, and I am better for having done it. I have so 
much respect and admiration for the Senator. One thing that always 
amazes me is the great memory of Senator Byrd, reciting the signers of 
the Constitution from memory, and of course ending the remarks with 
this statement of Senator Hill. I appreciate very much having the 
privilege of listening to the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished whip.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, first I thank Senator Byrd for his speech. 
I want to clarify exactly where we are, exactly what the rules of the 
Senate are, the issues I believe are involved, and then I will make a 
point of order. I think I can do all that fairly briefly.
  We have before the Senate a bill which is the House bill, H.R. 3090. 
That bill has been brought to the floor of the Senate. Now there is an 
amendment to that bill in the nature of a substitute, which is pending. 
Part of that substitute is Senator Byrd's $15 billion amendment, but 
$67 billion has to do with tax and spending provisions as diverse as 
giving Federal funding for health insurance for the unemployed and an 
innumerable list of large and small items to be given some form of 
subsidy or tax treatment.
  In the 2001 budget, we reached a conclusion about a provision we 
added to the old Gramm-Rudman law in 1990, which gave emergency 
designations, where you wrote a budget, the budget was binding, but if 
the Congress and the President agreed, there was not a point of order 
against a provision. It was decided in the 2001 budget that this 
process had been greatly abused and so it was changed. It was changed 
so there would still be an emergency provision for defense-related 
matters, but there would not be an emergency provision to waive or get 
by the budget constraints that we had imposed on ourselves for non-
defense matters.
  The point of order that I will make is not a point of order that 
Senator Byrd's provisions are not emergencies. They are not a point of 
order against provisions that would use poultry waste to create energy. 
It is simply a point of order that says we do not have a procedure 
whereby you can protect yourself in advance against a budget point of 
order except in strictly defined areas related to national defense, so 
that the waiver that is written into the bill is basically a waiver 
which is banned under the budget process as it was amended by the 2001 
budget. That is the point of order that I will make.
  Senator Byrd has given a list of concerns that we all share. I do not 
believe any Member of the Senate is less concerned about security of 
our homeland and our people than any other Member of the Senate. The 
President, whether he is right or whether he is wrong, said the $40 
billion that we have given him, which he is in the process of 
spending--$20 billion of which we will have an opportunity to set 
partial priorities on--is sufficient through the end of the year. At 
the beginning of next year, if more funds are needed, he would like the 
opportunity as President to review the need, to involve the Cabinet 
officers and members of the executive branch and potentially 
independent agencies in doing a comprehensive review, and to send a 
request to the Congress for those funds.
  The question proposed by the Byrd amendment, which is only a small 
part of the bill against which I make a point of order, is the basic 
approach that we should act now and that we should set these priorities 
as Congress. I believe it is a joint process involving the President 
and the Congress. The President has said that he would veto a bill that 
breaks the budget caps, even with the best of objectives. I make this 
point of order, not because it solves our problem by killing the 
underlying substitute, but because I see it as an important step in the 
right direction.
  The problem is we have our ideas as Republicans. Democrats have their 
ideas as Democrats. In this case, for the first time since September 
11, we in the Senate have not successfully been able to come together 
on a bipartisan basis. So rather than spending the rest of this week 
making partisan speeches

[[Page 22462]]

where Democrats point out and vilify some part of the Republican 
stimulus proposal and we pick out some small provision and burrow in on 
it--rather than waste the week in doing that, my objective in making 
the point of order is to make it clear that the provision before us 
cannot pass and begin the process whereby we go into negotiations, 
hopefully involving the House and the Senate, Democrats and Republicans 
and the White House, to try to come up with a stimulus package.
  I think the American people want us to work together. Working 
together means I am not going to get everything I want. Our Democrat 
colleagues are not going to get everything they want. But in the end, I 
believe we can produce something that will be worthy of being adopted.
  Mr. President, I make a point of order that section 909 of amendment 
No. 2125 to H.R. 3090 is in violation of section 205 of House 
Concurrent Resolution 290, the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution. 
Sustaining this point of order will not bring down the bill itself. The 
House bill will still be there. It will then be subject to amendment if 
we work out a bipartisan compromise. But it will pull down the 
committee substitute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to waive section 205 of H. Con. 
Res. 290, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001, 
for the purposes of the pending amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
underlying amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to this request?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  Mr. REID. Objection to what?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
Senator from Texas.
  Mr. BAUCUS. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and 
nays be ordered on the underlying committee substitute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to it being in order to 
request the yeas and nays?
  Mr. REID. I want to be sure the record is clear it is the Baucus 
substitute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. I object to the request. As I understand it, the Senator is 
asking the yeas and nays be ordered by unanimous consent. I am opposed 
to that.
  Mr. GRAMM. Will the Senator please yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. GRAMM. We had gotten the yeas and nays on the point of order 
before I had an opportunity. We had talked to the leadership on your 
side about ordering the yeas and nays on the amendment. And because we 
had ordered the yeas and nays on the point of order, it was not in 
order for me to simply request it. So, therefore, I asked unanimous 
consent.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Texas yield?
  Mr. GRAMM. Yes.
  Mr. REID. I would say through you to my friend from West Virginia, 
the Senator from Texas indicated to us he was going to ask for the yeas 
and nays on the Baucus amendment. We acknowledge he was going to do 
that. From a parliamentary standpoint, he should have done that before 
he raised the point of order. Now that he raised the point of order, he 
can't ask for the yeas and nays unless it is by unanimous consent. As 
far as we are concerned over here, at least me representing the 
arrangement we had earlier in the day, we knew that is what you were 
going to do. I would say to my friend from West Virginia, if you have 
some objection, that is the status of the parliamentary procedure. We 
knew he was going to do it. He didn't do it when he should have.
  Mr. BYRD. Is the Senator asking unanimous consent that the yeas and 
nays be ordered?
  Mr. GRAMM. I could ask it either way. I could ask unanimous consent 
it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays. Why don't I do that.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to ask for the yeas and 
nays on the underlying Baucus amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
underlying Baucus amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold his request for a 
quorum call?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I withdraw my suggestion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I was present for most of the presentation 
by my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Byrd. I will not repeat 
much of what he described as an emergency with respect to the 
provisions that he has offered dealing with homeland defense.
  But there is a time, it seems to me, for leadership. I recall reading 
in John Adams's book a letter he had written to his wife, Abigail, in 
which he described the difficult times in trying to form this new 
country and find leadership. He expressed great woe to his wife, 
Abigail, saying: Where are the leaders? Where are the people who will 
rise up and provide leadership at this urgent time in this country? 
Then he lamented: There is only us: Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, 
Madison.
  Of course, over a couple of centuries we have discovered that the 
``only us'' represented some of the greatest leadership in human 
history.
  But I think it is important to ask again, Where is the leadership 
when we need leadership?
  We have an economy that is in very difficult trouble. The economy was 
very weak prior to September 11. But on September 11, terrorist attacks 
cut a hole in the belly of this country's economy.
  The question for us is, What do we do? Do we do nothing? Do we say 
this is simply the normal movements of an economy, the expansion and 
contraction of an economy, or do we recognize that something different 
and unusual has happened that requires an urgent response by the U.S. 
Congress? I believe the latter is the case.
  We have an economy in which we have buyers and sellers, consumers and 
producers, demand and supply, and we have an economy in which for two 
centuries in a market system we have expansion and contraction. It is 
called the business cycle. No one has been able to interrupt the 
business cycle very much. We can establish some stabilizers here in 
Congress to try to even out some of the movement of the economy, but 
the business cycle is central. It is like the tide. But we are not here 
to talk about the business cycle. We are here to talk about an economy 
that was on a down cycle in the contraction phase when on September 11 
it was dealt an enormous blow.
  As a result, we have had hundreds of thousands of people having to go 
home at night and say to their family: I have lost my job. Last month 
alone, 415,000 people had to go home and tell their family: I have lost 
my job. It wasn't my fault, I am sure they said, but I have lost my 
job.
  This economy is in very deep trouble. This Congress has a very 
substantial responsibility at some point to come together with this 
President and find ways to respond to it.
  There are a couple of proposals we have offered today. One is a set 
of proposals by Senator Baucus, and the other is a set of expenditures 
dealing

[[Page 22463]]

with homeland defense offered by Senator Byrd. Both of them have the 
capacity to provide a lift to this economy. Both of them represent a 
menu of items that will be helpful to an economy during troubled times.
  Some others say: Well, this economy works only when you pour 
something in the top and it filters down to the bottom. That is 
trickle-down economics. Even during tough times, we see those who 
believe in the trickle-down theory at work to formulate a package to 
try to deal with what is called ``economic recovery'' or ``stimulus''--
kind of representing the trickle-down approach. Just pour something in 
the top and somehow it all comes down to the bottom.
  We have seen during tough times on other occasions where some had the 
responsibility and said: Let's do nothing. Let's just sit for a while 
and see what happens. Let's just wait and see.
  Herbert Hoover had that notion. He said: We will wait and see and let 
everything take its course. He felt there was no need for intervention. 
Of course, we sank deeper and deeper into a recession and then a 
depression.
  We know from those experiences that there are things we can do. We 
also know from the experiences of the past century or so that this 
economy rests on a mattress of hope and confidence. If people aren't 
confident, they do things that express their concern about the future. 
They defer decisions to make purchases of cars or homes or to take 
vacations and so on. If they are confident, they make exactly the 
opposite judgment. They feel secure about a job. They feel good about 
the future. They take that vacation, buy that car and invest in that 
home. This is all about confidence.
  I have said before that some view this system of ours like the engine 
room in a ship of state. If you just go to the engine room and take a 
look at all the gauges, dials, nozzles, and letters, then adjust all of 
them--M-1B over here, and investment tax credits over there, and 
accelerated depreciation--you just get all these knobs and letters and 
dials going just right and somehow the ship of state comes along. In 
fact, that is not the case at all.
  There is a lot we don't know about the economy. What we do know, 
however, is that engine room in the ship of state runs almost 
exclusively on the American people's confidence about our country and 
its future. How do we at this point in time respond when we had a 
troubled economy, then that economy took this horrible blow on 
September 11, and as a result of that we see a contraction, hundreds of 
thousands of families losing their jobs? How do we then respond? What 
do we do to offer confidence to the American people?
  The September 11 tragedy was followed by the anthrax attacks in 
several places in this country. It has been very unsettling to the 
American people--being attacked in this country through the mail and 
using the Postal Service as a delivery mechanism for terror. It has 
caused great concern to virtually everyone.
  In fact, a county sheriff in North Dakota called my office about a 
week or so ago and said someone in his county had called him. They had 
gotten a letter from me and wondered whether it was safe to open a 
letter from Senator Dorgan because they heard about all of this 
anthrax. All of a sudden, they get a letter from Washington, DC, in the 
mailbox. I was responding to their letter, perhaps. They wondered 
whether it was safe.
  In every part of the country people worry about these issues.
  You have the September 11 terrorist attack--this act of mass murder 
by mad men. Then you have the anthrax attack. Then you have an economy 
that is in very deep trouble. Last month's figures show 415,000 people 
are now newly unemployed. What do we do about that?
  The interesting thing about the newly unemployed is in almost all 
cases they are the people at the bottom going up the economic ladder. 
They are the people who know about secondhand, second shifts, second 
mortgages, and second jobs. They are the folks who deal with all of 
those issues in their daily lives. Now they deal with the issue of 
being laid off. The question for Congress from them is, What can we do 
here? What can we do to try to get them back on their feet?
  That is a way of saying that part of this stimulus package must be to 
address those issues. Addressing those issues, according to almost all 
economists, is to provide stimulus to this economy.
  Nearly one-half of the people who have been laid off don't have 
unemployment benefits at all. Providing unemployment benefits and 
extending it for those who do have it is a certain way to put some 
money into this economy. It is important to do so. These are folks who 
were working and who were laid off through no fault of their own. They, 
too, are victims of terrorism.
  When we debate these issues, we have some who do not think those 
folks are very important. They say that is spending. Just spending on 
those folks is not the right thing. During every economic downturn we 
have had, our first responsibility was to help those who needed help--
to provide a helping hand, to reach out and say they are not alone.
  Will Rogers talked about the inclination of some with whom we serve. 
It has been ageless, of course. He said:

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

  It seems to me, part of a package to provide hope and encouragement 
to this country and to try to stimulate this economy is to take a look 
at those who have been victims of these terrorist attacks and victims 
of a downturn in this economy and say to them: We can give you some 
help.
  Nearly every economist in this country says when you extend 
unemployment benefits to help to those people who have lost their jobs, 
this is money that goes right into the economy.
  Some have said--in fact, I have heard it in recent days--if you 
provide unemployment benefits, it reduces the urge for those folks to 
look for work. Look for work? They were working. They lost their jobs 
because of the economy. Does anybody think any one of these people 
would have chosen not to work? Half of them do not have unemployment 
benefits. Does anybody here think they would have chosen that 
unfortunate circumstance where they have to go home after work some 
night and say, ``By the way, I want you to know, I have lost my job?'' 
I do not think that is something that someone would choose. We have a 
responsibility to help.
  So Will Rogers described the circumstances that still exist. 
Fortunately, it exists only in a small pocket here in the Congress. 
Most people understand the responsibility to do this.
  We need to extend unemployment benefits. We need to provide some 
short-term help with the health insurance needs of those unemployed 
folks called COBRA. We can do all of that.
  Now let me turn, just for a moment, to the remarks of Senator Byrd, 
because what he said is very important. Part of economic recovery in 
this country is, as I said, giving people confidence about this 
country, where we are headed, and what kind of security exists. So the 
package that Senator Byrd offers today is one that deals with homeland 
defense, bioterrorism prevention and response, and food safety. I went 
to a dock in Seattle, WA, one day just to see what happens at these 
docks. I come from a State that does not have dock facilities. We are a 
landlocked State right in the middle of our country, the State of North 
Dakota. So I was at the Seattle docks, talking to people about what is 
coming into our ports and how they deal with it. I saw these container 
ships being unloaded with these large cranes. Then they took me over to 
an inspection site. They opened the back of one of these containers, 
which was now resting on an 18-wheel truck, because they just drive 
these trucks underneath and drop the container, and then run the trucks 
off someplace to the rest of the country.
  What they had opened was a container of frozen broccoli from Poland. 
It was bagged in, I believe, 100-pound bags. They took a knife and 
opened a bag of this frozen broccoli from Poland.

[[Page 22464]]

  I asked the people who were showing me all of this: Do you know where 
this broccoli was produced in Poland? Do you have any idea?
  They said: Oh, no, we wouldn't have any idea about that.
  I asked: Do you have any idea what kind of chemicals were applied to 
this frozen broccoli from Poland?
  They said: No, we wouldn't have any notion of that.
  I asked: How many of these containers with frozen broccoli or frozen 
asparagus or peas, or whatever else is coming in in our food supply, 
are actually opened? The one you open, you do not know much about. All 
you can tell is it is green and frozen and it is a vegetable, but how 
many of these containers actually get opened?
  They said: Oh, probably just 2 or 3 percent. The rest of them just 
move right on through.
  It is a steel container with frozen vegetables, and it hits these 
shores. It is put on top of 18-wheelers, and off it goes someplace to a 
distribution center and then someplace to a restaurant and then 
someplace to a dinner plate. And we do not have the foggiest idea how 
it was produced, what chemicals were used or whether someone deciding 
to introduce bioterrorism in America's food supply found a way into 
that container. We do not have the foggiest notion about what the 
circumstances are with that broccoli.
  Senator Byrd, in his proposal, says that, too, is an issue of 
homeland defense, protecting America's food supply. Should American 
consumers, with the threat of bioterrorism, inspect more than 2 percent 
of the food coming into this country, of those commodities coming into 
this country? I believe they should inspect more than that. So that is 
homeland defense.
  Senator Byrd's homeland defense proposal also invests in State and 
local antiterrorism law enforcement. Investing in that kind of law 
enforcement is not only necessary, it also improves confidence. It also 
will stimulate confidence in this economy.
  Remember, on September 11, while we all watched television, with 
great horror, others in this country were doing something quite 
different. Men and women, making $40,000 and $50,000 a year, wearing 
the badges of law enforcement and firefighters, were running up the 
stairs of the Trade Center. They were running up the stairs on the 
20th, 30th, 40th, and 50th floors. And as people evacuated those 
buildings, they saw the first responders--the firefighters and law 
enforcement folks--going up. They did not do it because of their 
salary. They do not make much money. They did it because they were the 
first responders required to protect this country and their city.
  State and local antiterrorism law enforcement, Senator Byrd says in 
his proposal. Do we need that kind of investment? You bet we do in 
virtually every reach of this country.
  FEMA firefighters grant program: Absolutely necessary.
  The Federal antiterrorism law enforcement, border security, airport 
security: I've been very concerned about the northern border. I am 
concerned about all of our borders around this country. You cannot 
provide security in America unless you have security of your borders. 
You must know who is coming in, and make sure those who are associated 
with terrorists or known terrorists are not allowed in.
  On the northern border we have a wonderful, long 4,000-mile border 
with a great neighbor, the country of Canada. We are so fortunate to be 
able to share that border with a good neighbor. But it is true, on 
4,000 miles of border, we have 128 ports of entry, and over 100 of them 
are part time. In most cases, at 10 o'clock at night, the security 
between the United States and Canada is an orange rubber cone that 
someone puts in the middle of the road as they shut the station down. 
That orange rubber cone that cannot shoot, cannot think, cannot talk, 
and cannot tell a terrorist from a tow truck. It is supposed to be 
security. Do we need to do something about that? The answer is, 
clearly, yes. And Senator Byrd, in his proposal of homeland defense, 
does that.
  Airport security, mass transit security, Amtrak security, nuclear 
powerplants: I will not go through all of it, but I think Senator Byrd 
did it in a very thorough way. I will only say this: Can anyone come to 
this Senate and tell us this is not a set of emergency needs that are 
required at this point in this country? Does anybody really believe 
these are not emergency needs? I do not believe that someone can make 
the case that, A, this is not an emergency; and, B, these are not 
necessary.
  Let me turn for a moment to the proposals on taxation. One way to 
provide economic stimulus and recovery and confidence is to get the 
economy moving again through tax incentives. We have done that before. 
Some are more successful and some are less successful.
  There are some common provisions in both the House and the Senate 
bills that makes sense. Additional expensing makes sense. Some bonus 
depreciation makes sense. I happen to think a targeted investment tax 
credit would make some sense.
  I want to make a couple of points about some provisions that have 
been kicking around here that are in either the House or the Senate 
Republican proposals that make no sense at all. What we have to do is 
get to the core of what works, to provide some help to this country's 
economy. One of things that happened--this is in the House of 
Representatives stimulus bill--is they decided to give retroactive tax 
cuts in the form of payments to some of the largest corporations in the 
country, retroactively refunding the alternative minimum taxes that 
were paid by the companies.
  I was in the other body, and I was on the House Ways and Means 
Committee when we wrote the 1986 Tax Reform Act. I was one of those who 
helped write the alternative minimum tax. It has turned into something 
that we did not intend back then, but, nonetheless, the reason we did 
it is we had all these stories. I recall one of them was General 
Electric making $1 billion and paying zero in taxes--zero. We decided 
that was not fair and it was not something we wanted to see happen. So 
we thought, if someone is able to zero out their tax liability with all 
kinds of other devices, let's have an alternative minimum tax, so those 
who have earned substantial profits will at least pay some taxes. That 
is called the alternative minimum tax.
  The stimulus package enacted by the House of Representatives says 
that we are going to give back immediate tax refunds for all the 
alternative minimum taxes paid back to 1986. So we will send IBM a 
check for $1.4 billion, Ford Motor a check for $1 billion.
  Can you imagine that? How is that going to stimulate the economy? Tom 
Paxton once wrote a song, when Chrysler got a bailout, saying: ``I'm 
changing my name to Chrysler.'' Now maybe he would write a song saying: 
``I'm changing my name to Ford.''
  Are we going to give refunds of billions of dollars to refund the 
alternative minimum tax that corporations pay? How does that help this 
country's economy?
  In the Washington Post this past weekend, there was a fascinating op-
ed piece written by a Nobel Prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz. 
He wrote:

       What worries me now is that the new proposals, particularly 
     the one passed by the Republican-controlled House, are also 
     likely to be ineffective. The House plan would rely heavily 
     on tax cuts for corporations and upper income individuals. 
     The bill would put zero--yes, zero--into the hands of a 
     typical family of four with an annual income of $50,000. 
     Giving tax relief to the corporations for past investments 
     may pad their balance sheets but will not lead to more 
     investments now when we need it.

  Then he wrote:

       The Senate Republican bill, which the administration backs, 
     in some ways would make things even worse by granting bigger 
     benefits to very high earners. For instance, the $50,000 
     family would still get zero but this plan would give $500,000 
     over four years to families making $5 million a year and much 
     of that after (one hopes) the economy has recovered. It 
     directs very little money to those who would spend it and 
     offers few incentives for investment now.

  The point is, we are required to not only do something but to do the 
right thing. This economy is contracting. The economy declined by .4 
percent in the third quarter. The new figures will

[[Page 22465]]

likely show we are in a recession. Almost everyone in the field of 
economics believes that. It could very well be a very deep recession.
  Factory orders dropped 5.8 percent in September, the lowest level 
since March of 1997. Corporate profits dropped 72 percent in the third 
quarter. Unemployment is 5.4 percent, up a percent and a half from last 
year; 415,000 job cuts in the month of October alone.
  Consumer confidence is way off. Consumer spending has plunged. We 
have substantial excess capacity in our economy. That is why putting 
substantial money into the top in the form of a billion dollars here 
and a billion dollars there to one corporation is not going to do very 
much if you have substantial excess capacity.
  The problem is that the economy is in deep trouble. The question is, 
What do we do? The answer is, What we do ought to be temporary, No. 1; 
No. 2, it ought to be immediate. The legislation brought to us from the 
House fails on both counts. The proposal that is offered by Senator 
Baucus and Senator Byrd succeeds on both counts.
  I mentioned a moment ago the alternative minimum tax retroactive 
refund, $7.4 billion for 16 large companies. Senator Byrd talked about 
the need for investment in this country, the need for helping people 
who are out of work with extended unemployment benefits during tough 
times. That amount, $7.4 billion, could help State and local 
governments hire the first responders, fire and police protectors, and 
training. It could help deal with the U.S. Postal Service needs.
  I did not mention but Senator Byrd talked about the need that is 
required now by the Postal Service to find the technology to irradiate 
the mail, make sure the mails are safe. It is a whole series of things 
dealing with the use of money. Bioterrorism, if we are going to pass a 
bioterrorism bill, how do we pay for that? Law enforcement, 
infrastructure, all of these are needs that we must address.
  Some believe this is not an emergency. I very seriously disagree with 
that. Clearly, this country is facing an emergency situation with an 
economy that is in a very steep decline.
  My hope is that we will decide in the coming week or so that there is 
a way for the Republicans and Democrats, for the House and Senate and 
the President, to engage in the kind of negotiations that will lead to 
an economic recovery or stimulus package that, A, is immediate and, B, 
is temporary, one that recognizes the requirement that we have to do 
this now.
  I regret very much that a point of order was just raised. I 
understand why it was raised, but I regret it was raised because I 
believe a point of order also exists against the underlying Republican 
bill that is at the desk. The bill that came over from the House also 
has a point of order against it. It substantially delays things here in 
the Senate to begin battling points of order. Either we are going to do 
a stimulus package or we are not. If we are going to do a stimulus 
package or an economic recovery package, let's get serious about it.
  What I see in some of these bills, especially the one at the desk 
from the House, reminds me of what my mother used to call supper. When 
asked, ``What is for supper?'' she often would say, ``Leftovers.'' We 
all knew what leftovers meant. It meant whatever else was left in the 
refrigerator.
  That is what we got from the House in their so-called stimulus 
package--all the leftovers they hadn't gotten done in previous bills, 
having nothing to do with making something immediate or temporary, just 
leftovers, just the old things they always wanted to do. Give a refund 
of $1.4 billion to IBM because they paid an alternative minimum tax 
since 1986. That doesn't make any sense. That is not going to stimulate 
the country. It is just the same old nonsense.
  I started talking about John Adams in his book lamenting to Abigail 
about, where was the leadership? Where is the leadership? he said, 
during the formative time of this country when they needed leadership. 
He said: Regretfully, there is only us, Washington, Franklin, 
Jefferson, Madison. Of course ``only us'' turned out to be quite 
substantial leadership, the greatest leadership certainly in this 
country's history, perhaps in the history of the world, the 
organization of free government.
  The question is, Where is the leadership now? The leadership offered 
by Senator Baucus and Senator Byrd, assisted by Senator Daschle, in 
trying to put together legislation that will give hope and confidence 
to the American people--I hope as well the leadership of the President 
and others who will join us in very serious negotiations in the coming 
days--will allow us to pass legislation that will give us the 
opportunity to say, as Churchill asked the English to say, ``this was 
our finest hour.''
  We need to do this in a serious way. This country faces a serious 
challenge. My hope is we do it sooner rather than later. Again, I 
regret very much a point of order was raised because there is not only 
a point of order against the legislation that has been offered today, 
there exists a point of order against the underlying House bill; there 
is a point of order that lay against the Senate Republican bill; there 
is a point of order against all of this. The question is, Do we have an 
emergency in this country or don't we? Those who, like Herbert Hoover, 
want to sit around and say, let's just wait and see what happens, will 
do this country no service. Let's decide we will take action now. We 
will do it on a bipartisan basis, with Republicans and Democrats in 
cooperation with the President, and do it in a way that will make this 
country proud of the service given by Congress and the President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is very important that we debate and 
understand where we are going on the stimulus package. I agree with 
what many people have said: We do need an economic stimulus. We have 
been in a recession for 15, 16 months. September 11 has pushed us down 
even further. The economists may say we have to wait until we have two 
successive quarters of negative growth, but everybody knows the economy 
has been going downhill.
  I also agree that what we need to do needs to be immediate, needs to 
be stimulative, and should not be permanent; it should be temporary.
  I have a great deal of problems with what has been produced by the 
House and what has been produced by the Finance Committee. A newspaper 
that is common to the area the occupant of the chair and I serve--I 
often don't agree with it--had an editorial today referring to one part 
of the Senate Finance Committee bill and talked about chicken manure 
and applied that appellation to both bills, the one that came out of 
the House and one that came out of the Finance Committee. I wouldn't go 
so far myself as to say that. I would say, as we say back home, I have 
a minimum amount of high enthusiasm for either one of those bills.
  Now, on either one of them, one can say these are needed things. Any 
bill that provides for research in science and building infrastructure, 
things normally in the course of appropriations, I would support. We 
need to build highways. We need to do research. There are a lot of 
problems with which we need to pick up. Similarly, when you are talking 
about tax relief and tax cuts, the long-term good of the economy 
requires that we lower marginal tax rates and get rid of the craziness 
that the alternative minimum tax imposes, particularly on individuals 
and small businesses. But I don't think this is the time to do it. I 
think we need to take care of those people who are hurting. That is why 
I think we ought to provide something that has unemployment 
compensation and grants to the States to help with health care.
  I also believe we need to help small business. I have filed a couple 
of amendments that do several things for small business. Frankly, small 
business was largely left out of the Senate Finance Committee and the 
House bills. Small business is the driving engine of our economy, and 
nobody seemed to care about small business. They are the ones taking it 
in the teeth in many areas. So I filed amendments that do

[[Page 22466]]

several things. First, my amendment provides for much more generous 
loan terms for small businesses that have been directly or indirectly 
affected by the September 11 terrorist attacks, by deferring and/or 
forgiving interest on these loans and lowering fees. In other words, it 
says to small business that if you are willing to take the chance now 
to invest and grow your business as this economy starts to turn around, 
we are going to give you a break on the amount you have to pay up 
front. You can defer paying interest until we come out of this. That 
makes a lot of sense.
  I think, also, we need to encourage and ensure that small business 
gets a share of Government procurement as part of these stimulus 
packages. We pass small business bills that give all kinds of benefits 
to small business and then the bureaucrats find ways around them. We 
need to tighten up and eliminate those loopholes so when the Federal 
Government spends money, a part of that money goes to small businesses 
for the purchase of goods or services.
  On the tax front, if there is one thing we can do to help small 
business it is to raise the amount of new equipment that they can 
expense. Today, if a small business owner buys a piece of equipment, he 
can expense up to $24,000 of the purchase price. My proposal is to 
increase that limit to $50,000 that can be written off immediately so 
they can get an immediate tax break and don't have to depreciate it. We 
would also raise the limit on vehicles. Right now, you can only 
depreciate about $14,000 on vehicles. A lot of vehicles--particularly 
vans and trucks used by small business--cost well above that amount and 
they can't depreciate the full cost of the vehicle. So it is a real 
burden on small business to buy them.
  For restaurants, which are dominated by small businesses, we ought to 
restore the full 100-percent business meal deduction. These are things 
we can do on an immediate basis that will have an immediate impact on 
small businesses, their suppliers, equipment manufacturers, and our 
economy as a whole.
  I also happen to favor one of the simplest, most direct approaches to 
get money into the pockets of working men and women who can spend it 
right away. Senator Domenici has developed a concept of having a 
December tax holiday on FICA, the Social Security payments all working 
Americans make each year. Under this proposal, any payments that are 
owed during December by employees or employers would not be sent in, 
leaving more in each worker's pay check and more for the business to 
protect jobs. The General Treasury would reimburse the Social Security 
fund so there would be no loss to Social Security Trust Fund while 
protecting retirees' benefits. This is one way we could get money into 
the pockets of people who will spend it in December.
  One of the things people are talking about is the expansion of the 
tax rebates that started in July. The rebate the President suggested is 
fine, but most people say it is unworkable because you can't get the 
rebate out until January and there's a good chance it will slow down 
the processing of returns and mailing of refunds in the upcoming tax 
filing season. I think everybody realizes that to get a strong economy 
we need the money in the pockets of the working men and women in 
America now, not tomorrow. So I would like to see a serious 
consideration to the December FICA tax holiday that Senator Domenici 
has constructed.
  I have several more amendments at the desk. If we are going to be 
here and have a vote-a-rama on a long list of amendments, you can count 
me in because I think these things ought to be considered. I believe 
there is also discussion, on the other hand, by the leadership that if 
the point of order is sustained, there will be serious negotiations so 
that a final package will come to the floor. Obviously, that is not in 
my hands. But I raise these points about small business and the need to 
stimulate the small business sector of our economy, which would be 
helped by easier loans, greater expensing, more Government contracts, 
and which would be helped by the plan that Senator Domenici has 
conceived. I hope when he introduces it, he will add me as a cosponsor.
  These things will help. I think they will give the kind of economic 
stimulus we need right away, and if there is to be a negotiated 
agreement--House-Senate, Republican-Democrat, and the White House--I 
hope they will take into account these vitally important provisions for 
small business, and perhaps avoid the paths that will be best addressed 
in other legislative action at other times.
  I urge the managers of the bill to consider the impact this stimulus 
package can and must have on small business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am glad to yield to my colleague from 
New Mexico. He has a brief matter he wants to bring to the Senate's 
attention.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator. I didn't hear the Senator. Did he 
say a time certain?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I understand that the Senator wanted 2, 3 minutes. I am 
glad to accommodate.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Since I was part of the history of this, I wanted to 
recall it and let everybody know what we are debating here. Again, this 
point of order was established in the 2000 budget resolution, and then 
it was made permanent in the 2001 budget resolution. It was designed to 
specifically address what was said over and over at that point to be a 
misuse of the ``emergency'' designation that had become a popular 
mechanism for getting around the spending limits established in both 
law and in our budget resolution.
  So in the 2001 budget resolution, we established a very clear set of 
priorities designating domestic spending as an ``emergency.'' All those 
criteria had to be met to allow the spending or tax cuts to be placed 
outside the budget blueprint.
  Again, let me read those criteria because that is what we are 
debating. They were the following five criteria that had to be met: 
one, the provision must be necessary, essential, and vital; two, the 
provision must come about suddenly and quickly; three, the provision 
must be urgent, pressing, and compelling; four, the provision must have 
been unforeseen, unanticipated, unpredictable; and five, the provision 
must not be permanent.
  Senator Phil Gramm raised an appropriate point. The Senate has the 
authority to waive the issue before us and decide whether the 
underlying bill and the amendment to the bill meet all of these 
criteria. I haven't studied both bills, and I essentially looked only 
at the underlying tax bill that came out of the Finance Committee. I 
remind everybody that we have declared a huge amount of money as an 
emergency already. We are at $70 billion since the budget resolution 
that we have declared to be emergency because of the disaster that 
beset our people and the State of New York, Washington, DC, and 
obviously the crash in Pennsylvania.
  I just read the criteria. With reference to the tax bill, I ask 
rhetorically: Does spending money to buy meat, blueberries, 
watermelons, cucumbers, and other items, meet the emergency criteria of 
being urgent and necessary at this time? Do citrus canker tax credits 
rise to the level of a needed emergency tax cut today? Do payments to 
rum producers in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands qualify as 
emergency spending? I am just asking the question. Perhaps people think 
they do. Senator Gramm was wondering about not only these but whatever 
other ones he might have had in mind.
  Do we think expanding the work opportunity tax credit to provide 
$4,800 for every bond trader and stockbroker in Lower Manhattan meets 
the criteria of essential and necessary? Do we think the $2 billion 
pricetag for this provision is what we had in mind when we passed this 
tax credit for low-income, single-parent mothers?
  I submit, if this point of order is not waived, then obviously we 
will be back thinking about a bill that is bipartisan. I recommend that 
we not grant the waiver, and then I recommend strongly that we get busy 
on a bipartisan bill, showing the American people we can create a 
stimulus for our growth that

[[Page 22467]]

includes tax measures and other items, that it can be done in a 
bipartisan fashion, and we ought to get on with it.
  I thank Senator Kennedy for yielding, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I imagine our fellow Americans who have 
been watching the Senate this afternoon are wondering whether this 
institution can function effectively in dealing with the problems they 
are facing every single day, particularly those who have lost their 
jobs in recent times through no fault of their own.
  They are proud men and women who work hard, play by the rules, go to 
their jobs every day, and have found out in recent times, before and 
after September 11, that their services are no longer needed. They are 
137,000 workers in the transportation industry; 136,000 in the 
hospitality, tourism, and entertainment industry; 57,000 in the 
communications and utilities industry; 226,000 in manufacturing; 14,000 
in the retail industry; 44,000 more in the service sector industry; and 
in the finance, insurance, real estate industries, 24,000 more.
  There it is in raw figures, but it does not reflect the challenges 
those families are going through every single day when they are denied, 
in too many instances, unemployment compensation, even though they have 
contributed to it, because of the change in the rules, or they find it 
virtually impossible to find new employment because of the changed 
economic conditions.
  These are our fellow Americans, workers, proud men and women, who 
have provided for their families and, now, every day go home and have 
to look into the eyes of their children, and look into the eyes of 
their loved ones, and say: I was not able to get any employment today, 
and our savings are going down further and further.
  We know there is an emergency. It defies any possible understanding 
of the use of the word in the English language that there is not an 
emergency in the United States today. Tell that to the brave men and 
women behind the lines in Afghanistan. Tell it to their relatives at 
home.
  Tell that to the National Guard troops who have been called up in my 
State serving in the air wing. Tell it to the reservists who have been 
called up from Westover, Barnes Air Force Base, the MPs who have been 
called up, many from the private sector. Tell it to them, we do not 
have an emergency.
  Tell it to the families of the postal workers who died from anthrax 
that we do not have an emergency.
  Tell it to the Attorney General and the President of the United 
States who said we have to be on a heightened state of alert. When did 
we hear that in the last years? When did we last hear warnings from an 
Attorney General and from a President about how we have to have a 
heightened state of alert? All Americans have to be on a heightened 
state of alert.
  This is defined as an emergency any way you look at it. We are facing 
an emergency, and we are facing an emergency in a most profound way in 
the state of our economy. We have seen it in our States, and if we have 
not seen it, we have not been paying attention to our constituents. 
Maybe it has not reached some areas of this country, but I would like 
those Members to rise up and tell us about how their States have not 
been affected or impacted, because every indication is we are in an 
emergency.
  We have had the first decline in the GDP in more than 8 years. We 
have the largest increase in the unemployment rate in 21 years. I will 
not take the time this afternoon to read into the Record when a number 
of our colleagues, many on the other side of the aisle, said: Use the 
emergency provisions for incidental factors. There are lists of them. I 
have lists of them. We are not talking about that. We are talking about 
the greatest increase in unemployment in 21 years. We are talking about 
the three-quarters of a million newly unemployed and the plunge in 
consumer confidence in our economy.
  We have heard the words of some economists. We all saw the reports 
this last weekend. The Nobel laureate, Joseph Stiglitz, talked about 
this as well, and his statements have been mentioned in this Chamber:

       The United States is in the midst of a recession that may 
     well turn out to be the worst in 20 years, and the 
     Republican-backed stimulus will do little to improve the 
     economy; indeed, it may make matters worse.

  There it is, Mr. Republican. It is not just Democrats saying it. 
Families in America understand it is an emergency. Those who are 
serving in the Armed Forces and are being called up know it is an 
emergency. Economists understand it is an emergency. And people are 
asking: Are we in the Congress of the United States going to do 
something about it?
  Evidently, we are going to be denied that opportunity by the use of 
procedural actions of which the American people are sick and tired.
  The American people understand. Why are you not doing what you did in 
the 1970s or in the 1990s in the unemployment insurance program? We 
have examples of the unemployment insurance program helping workers. 
Why are you not doing what you did then? Why aren't Republicans and 
Democrats working hand in hand to provide assistance to those who are 
unemployed?
  We did it in 1991 by a 91-to-2 vote in the Senate. We provided a more 
generous package than is being proposed by the Democrats now. Then in 
1992, by a 94-to-2 vote, Republicans and Democrats provided extended 
unemployment compensation. Again in 1992, July of 1992, by a 93-to-3 
vote, we provided an extension of unemployment compensation--each time 
trying to provide additional protection for workers who were being 
excluded and, we extended unemployment insurance again later on in 1993 
by a vote of 79 to 20. That is the history of trying to provide help to 
these families in a much more extensive way, with a generous kind of 
commitment. People say, why can they not agree to that this afternoon? 
Why are roadblocks being put in their way to deal with that this 
afternoon? Why can we not get about that which will help my friend or 
my neighbor, somebody who has lost his job? But, no. Instead, we are 
going to have a procedural vote. We are going to have procedural votes 
in order to deny us the opportunity to do so.
  We have a similar situation in health care. This is one of the most 
valuable qualities of life for all of our fellow citizens. The central 
challenge we face is trying to ensure we are going to have adequate 
health care. I enjoyed being in this Senate when we debated a patients' 
bill of rights. How often I listened during the course of the day to 
those voices that said we cannot pass a patients' bill of rights 
because it is going to increase premiums by 1 percent and we are going 
to create all of these uninsured.
  We have thousands of uninsured who have been losing their coverage, 
and I am waiting to hear those same voices say, ``let us do something 
about them.'' I have not heard it yet. Back when we were on the floor 
debating whether a patient was going to have the best health care based 
on a decision of the doctor instead of the bottom line of the insurance 
company, my Republican colleagues gave long speeches saying that we 
should be focused instead on covering the uninsured. That is what we 
were battling for--to protect American families.
  We are told we cannot go to that radical concept because we are going 
to see thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands more people 
who will lose their health insurance.
  We have it now. We are seeing it every single day in increasing 
numbers. Where are those voices that say, ``Let us do something about 
it?'' I do not hear them. They refuse to make the recommendations or 
suggestions to do it, and the one that they have made is completely 
indefensible.
  I ask, where is their program for health insurance? We provide, under 
the program that is before us now, assistance for those that have 
COBRA. We provide assistance for those that are not eligible for COBRA. 
The reasons for that are the size of the companies and other technical 
reasons such as whether the workers receive COBRA or they do not. We 
look out for both.

[[Page 22468]]

  If one looks at the Republican plan, the total Republican plan they 
say is a pot of money that can be used for unemployment or it can be 
used for health insurance or they can use it for some other social 
services such as child care. They mentioned all of this, but if you 
just applied it to the premiums of COBRA eligible workers, you get only 
2 weeks of coverage.
  I hope our colleagues are not going to be saying we are for covering 
those who have health insurance. I have heard some of those speeches, 
but I have not heard them say or defend their particular program. Here 
it is.
  We believe in the importance of making sure working families who have 
been separated from their jobs, through no fault of their own, have 
health care coverage because we know what happens to them. The average 
payment on unemployment insurance is $925, and to maintain their 
premiums now would take 65 percent of that $925. That is why about 15 
percent of the total workers, without any kind of help, actually 
utilize COBRA.
  I commend Senator Baucus and the Finance Committee for their 
proposals, both on unemployment and on this particular proposal, and 
Senator Byrd for the strong support he has given to our homeland 
security proposal. Under the proposal that has been advanced by the 
Finance Committee, it is down to 16 percent. We have heard as recently 
as today from a very lovely lady who lost her job in Philadelphia. She 
had worked in the service industry in Philadelphia for a number of 
years, and she now finds herself unemployed. She says it is going to be 
difficult to find the resources to do it, but, by God, she thought she 
could get herself together because it is so necessary for her family.
  We are not as interested in talking about what the other side is 
against, although we know they are against our proposal. We want the 
American people to understand what we are for. This is what the 
Democratic proposal will do. It will guarantee help in paying the COBRA 
premiums. That would help 7.2 million Americans. We do this. We provide 
help for displaced workers that are not eligible for the COBRA; 2.5 
million fellow Americans, they will be eligible.
  We provide State fiscal relief for improving the maximum Federal 
Medicaid payments, similar to what has been successful in the CHIP 
program which virtually every State accepted with the increasing match. 
We do that. That helps maintain coverage for 4 million Medicaid 
beneficiaries. All across the board we have had these evaluated by CBO 
and the others who maintain and support the conclusions I have stated. 
In the Republican plan, there is no guarantee.
  If one is interested in providing some assistance to workers, the 
program that Senator Baucus and others have proposed makes the most 
sense. It makes the most sense in terms of ensuring that workers and 
workers' needs are going to be attended to, and it also provides 
support for health care. So I hope our colleagues will change their 
mind on this particular issue.
  On September 11, America sustained an unprecedented terrorist attack. 
The risk and the danger of future attacks is very real. The President 
and leading figures in the administration repeatedly warn the American 
people of the need for unprecedented vigilance. So we are facing a true 
national emergency by any reasonable definition.
  What the objectors seek to block is the appropriation, as well, of 
$15 billion for homeland defense. They object to the expenditure of $4 
billion that would enhance our ability to prevent bioterrorist attacks 
and protect our citizens should such an attack occur. They object to 
the expenditure of $4 billion to strengthen the ability of Federal, 
State and local law enforcement to combat terrorism. They object to 
expenses to improve border security, airport security, mass transit 
security. They even object to funds needed to enhance security at the 
Nation's nuclear powerplants. If providing the necessary funds so these 
homeland defense initiatives can begin immediately is not an emergency, 
then what is?
  The point I want to conclude with is, it is ironic the same Members 
who object so strenuously to spending $15 billion to strengthen the 
Nation's capacity to defend ourselves from terrorist attacks are 
supporting a bill which would retroactively repeal the corporate 
minimum tax and give the largest corporations $25 billion in direct 
payments from the U.S. Treasury.
  We do not have the money to look out after the premiums for hard 
workers. We do not have the money to provide help for unemployment 
insurance. We do not have the resources to deal with helping the States 
meet these crises, but we do evidently in that budget that clears OMB, 
clears Mr. Daniels, have the ability to get $25 billion in direct 
payments from the U.S. Treasury, payments to repeal the corporate 
minimum tax and to return taxes they have paid in past years.
  Is giving major corporations hundreds of millions of dollars each 
based on taxes they paid 10 or 15 years ago a higher priority for 
America than strengthening homeland defense? Is retroactive repeal of 
the corporate AMT an emergency? Could we not devote $15 billion to 
defending America? It would still need $10 billion for corporate 
refunds. Those same Members support accelerating upper income brackets, 
and if they believe we can afford such an expensive tax cut in the 
midst of an unprecedented national crisis, how can they claim we cannot 
afford $15 billion to better protect America from terrorism?
  Those who deny we are facing a national emergency today and would 
justify--in fact, demand--congressional action to strengthen homeland 
defense are suffering from the worst case of political myopia I have 
ever seen. In all my years in the Senate I have never seen a clearer 
choice for Senators.
  Mr. REID. I ask my friend--Senator Byrd spoke earlier today, prior to 
the point of order having been filed, and I asked: Did I hear, Senator 
Byrd, they are going to file a point of order that this is not an 
emergency?
  And he answered: Yes, they are. They have filed a point of order that 
the plan now before the Senate, the Baucus plan, together with the Byrd 
plan, is not an emergency.
  Can the Senator from Massachusetts give me any ideas, any reason, how 
this could not be an emergency? Does the Senator have any idea how this 
could not be an emergency? How could anyone in good conscience say this 
is not an emergency?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I have great difficulty in understanding that. I think 
anyone watching this debate in Nevada or Massachusetts would come to 
that same conclusion when they see the loss of jobs taking place in 
your State and mine and all of the 50 States; when they see members of 
their family being called up for the National Guard, or when they have 
members of their family who have been activated and sent over the 
Indian Ocean on aircraft carriers and dropped behind the lines in 
Afghanistan; when they have listened to a President of the United 
States call upon all members to be on a heightened sense of alert, and 
we listened to the Attorney General of the United States say, once 
again, it is time for us to be on heightened alert; when we have seen 
the significant economic indicators over the period of these past 
several months, all going in an adverse direction after a long period 
of economic growth and price stability; and where we have heard the 
leading economists say, look, we are facing a challenging time.
  It can get a lot worse if we do the Republican plan or no plan. I 
wonder why we ought to be gambling with the well-being of the people of 
Nevada or Massachusetts. I wonder if the people of Massachusetts truly 
understand what is happening in the Senate. They are wondering why we 
aren't acting. You will say because we are having a point of order. 
They will ask what a point of order is. They will wonder in 
Massachusetts, perhaps, whether it is a restaurant in Chicopee. They 
will be asking: There is a point of order and we are not taking action?
  Why is one of the great institutions failing to deal with this 
economic challenge when we have at our best days been willing to do it 
in a bipartisan way?
  Mr. REID. I appreciate the statement of the Senator. The people of 
Nevada

[[Page 22469]]

are wondering how possibly we are not doing anything, No. 1, on airline 
security. On airline security we are doing nothing.
  People on the other side are not willing to talk about this is too 
much money or maybe they don't like the way we are spending the money. 
They are saying: We don't want this because we don't believe there is 
an emergency in this country, and we are going to raise a point of 
order that this is not emergency spending because there is no 
emergency.
  I have trouble following that reasoning. I wondered if the Senator 
from Massachusetts had any line of reasoning to amplify the reasoning 
on the other side. It appears he does not.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I think the Senator has made this very clear.
  As to airport security, people back in Massachusetts are saying: You 
Members of Congress have the Federal protection, don't you?
  There will be families coming down here to visit who have to show 
their briefcases. That security isn't auctioned off to the lowest 
bidder. We have looked out after ourselves in this respect and at the 
cost of lives. We have had courageous policemen who lost their lives in 
the line of duty, protecting Members of Congress.
  On the other hand, we are told we cannot have that kind of protection 
for the American people. I don't know whether the Senator saw a letter 
to the editor--perhaps this is too serious to joke about--that said 
maybe we ought to have two kinds of security: those which are deemed 
private, and let the Republicans go through those; and the others who 
are Federal workers, let the Democrats go through those.
  It is really too serious to be joking about and certainly in the wake 
of the extraordinary tragedy earlier this week where, to all 
indications, it appears to be a mechanical problem, but at least in 
people's minds and in families' thoughts they wonder about the security 
and the fact we have not been able to work this out, to guarantee the 
best in security.
  As pointed out by other Members of the Senate, we don't auction off 
the Secret Service. We don't auction off who will be out there in the 
Food and Drug Administration to make sure our drugs are going to be 
safe and efficacious. We don't auction off the FBI. We don't auction 
off the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms employees. We don't auction those 
off to the private sector. We want to make sure Americans are 
protected.
  I find it extraordinary that the strong initiative which passed 
successfully in the Senate that ensures that kind of protection still 
is unable to be completed through the two bodies.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his 
comments. I think historians will record that he is probably one of the 
most forceful advocates for working families in the history of the 
Senate.
  I have a statement by Joseph Welcome, a mold maker who lost his job. 
His wife, who was in the travel industry, lost her job.
  He said yesterday: My wife and I have worked hard our entire lives. 
We earned everything we got. Unfortunately, like many thousands of 
Americans, we have run into hard times. We want to use the system as it 
was intended to be used to get us back to work as fast as possible with 
a marketable skill set. Unfortunately, that cannot be done in 6 months 
in today's economy. That is why we need your help now, not 6 months or 
a year from now. We need it now or we may very well become a statistic 
on the welfare roles, putting even more of a tax burden on the American 
public.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will argue this is not 
an emergency. Last month saw the biggest 1-month increase in 
unemployment in 21 years. Nearly 7.5 million Americans are now out of 
work. But, of course, those who are discouraged workers and are not 
counted as unemployed are not included in the statistics. Those who can 
only find part-time jobs and cannot really support their families on 
those jobs are not included in the statistics.
  And all of the working poor people who work almost 52 weeks a year, 
40 hours a week, and still do not make poverty wages, they are not 
included either. Analysts warn that another 1 or 2 million workers 
could lose their jobs over the next 12 months. I think it could be 
worse than that. The unemployment rate is 5.4 percent, up .5 percent 
from the previous month, and it is going to continue to go up. Consumer 
confidence is at the lowest level it has been in 7 years.
  All of this combined with lagging consumer confidence can perpetuate 
a downward spiral. Consumers, fearful about the future, will spend 
less, which will cause us to sink even deeper into recession.
  These are difficult economic times. For many families in Minnesota 
and in the country, this is also a situation where time is not neutral; 
time is not on their side. If they do not get an extension of 
unemployment benefits, if they do not have any health care coverage for 
themselves and their loved ones, it will be broken dreams and broken 
lives and broken families. And my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle want to cast a vote saying this is not an emergency.
  If you were out of work and you didn't know where your next dollar 
was going to come from and you were going to run out of unemployment 
benefits and you were terrified that you would not be able to support 
health care coverage for your wife or your husband or your loved ones, 
you sure as heck would consider this to be an emergency. Sometimes we 
are all too generous with the suffering of others.
  Most economists agree on certain things if we are going to have a 
successful economic stimulus package. This is not just about justice 
and helping those people who are flat on their back. This is also about 
how do we get this economy going again? What kind of investments do we 
need to make? All economists I know say that for an economic stimulus 
package to be successful, it must be immediate, have an immediate 
effect; it must be temporary; it must put resources in the hands of 
those who will spend it to stimulate the economy; and that it will not 
be harmful to our long-term economic interests.
  The Republican proposals by the House and the Senate and supported by 
this administration fail to meet all of these tests, and the Democratic 
plan meets all these criteria.
  Taxes? The Republican plan provides tax relief for millionaires and 
profitable corporations, even if those corporations cut jobs. The 
Democratic plan provides tax cuts for working families and businesses 
that invest and create jobs.
  The Republican plan spends $121 billion to speed up the tax cut rates 
in the $2 trillion tax cut enacted earlier this year. Under the 
Republican plan, every millionaire in America will receive over $50,000 
in tax cuts over the next 4 years and, by contrast, the Republican plan 
would put zero into a typical family of four with an annual income of 
$50,000 a year, precisely the kind of family, if given help, that is 
more likely to consume and put resources back into our economy.
  The Republican plan has numerous tax breaks for multinational 
corporations. The most egregious is the repeal of the alternative 
minimum tax. Refunds go all the way back to 1986, 15 years ago; $22 
billion cost over 10 years. As Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz said:

       The GOP plan would put zero, yes zero into the hands of a 
     typical family of 4 with an annual income of $50,000 a year. 
     Giving tax relief to corporations for past investments and 
     AMT repeal may pad their balance sheets but will not lead to 
     more investment now when we need it. Bailouts for airlines 
     did not stop them from laying off workers and adding to the 
     country's unemployment problem.

  The Democratic plan, by contrast, provides immediate tax rebates to 
45 million Americans who did not receive rebates last summer, which 
will spur consumer spending and immediate tax relief to businesses, 
which will spur investment.
  Mr. President, 44 percent of the individual tax cuts in the 
Republican plan go to the wealthiest 1 percent--it is Robin Hood in 
reverse--the people who are least likely to spend the savings, while 
only 18 percent goes to low- and moderate-income families.

[[Page 22470]]

  Colleagues, get the tax breaks or tax rebates or whatever you want to 
call it--if you are going to do that--into the hands of people who will 
go out and buy a washing machine because they need it, and they will 
spend, and that is what we need for the economy. Don't go forward with 
Robin-Hood-in-reverse tax cuts and corporation tax breaks for 
multinational corporations which are already doing fine and are not 
going to necessarily even spend in the economy.
  Even worse, most of the Republican tax cuts take effect after the 
current economic crisis may very well have ended. By definition, they 
are not economic stimulus effects.
  The last point I make on the tax cut is telling. The Republican plan 
is not an economic stimulus plan; it is a shamefaced effort to use our 
current crisis; that is to say, the misery of hard-working men and 
women who have lost their jobs and health insurance in this economic 
downturn, as an excuse for lining the pockets of wealthy individuals 
and multinational corporations. It is the antithesis of sound fiscal 
policy. It is unfair, and it is ineffective.
  Unemployment--my gosh, people are out of work. Our plan says let's 
add 13 weeks to unemployment insurance. Our plan, under the work of 
Senator Baucus and many other Senators on our side, says let's reform 
unemployment insurance and let's cover part-time workers. Economists 
tell you every dollar of unemployment insurance paid to unemployed 
workers expands the economy by $2.15. This is a win-win. Can't we help 
people flat on their backs who, in turn, will consume with that 
additional assistance?
  What happened to people in New York, what happened to people at the 
Pentagon, what happened to people in Pennsylvania, what has happened in 
our country has taught all of us that we need each other as never 
before. There is a great sense of community. People are trying to help 
one another. I think we understand in a certain profound sense that we 
all do better when we all do better. Can't some of that community 
spirit apply to what we are doing in the Senate?
  Don't tell all of the men and women who are out of work in Minnesota 
and all across the country, and their children, it is not an emergency. 
It is an emergency for them. It is an emergency for their families. And 
it is an emergency for our country.
  The Republican plan says that if you go beyond New York and you go 
beyond Virginia and you go beyond Pennsylvania, you have to have had a 
30-percent increase in unemployment before any of what meager benefits 
they have even kick in. Minnesota, as I look over past history, in some 
of the worst recessions did not have a 30-percent increase in 
unemployment. I am a Senator from Minnesota. I have to fight for the 
people in Minnesota. I have to make sure that for people who are in 
such difficult times through no fault of their own, we are going to 
have a safety net. The Republican plan will not help these people at 
all.
  Health care coverage in the Republican plan is literally an asterisk. 
Their plan does not guarantee one dime to laid-off workers to maintain 
coverage. In fact, Treasury Secretary O'Neill says he would strongly 
encourage President Bush to veto any economic recovery plan that 
includes health care coverage for laid-off workers. The administration 
said last week that if we had too much by way of unemployment insurance 
and health care coverage, then people would not have an incentive to go 
back to work. Do you know how insulting that is to hard-working people?
  Our plan says we will cover 75 percent of COBRA coverage. Mr. Welcome 
said yesterday: My God, I can't afford 4, 5, or 6--I can't even 
remember--hundred dollars of a month. I can't afford that kind of 
coverage. We help families like the Welcome family.
  Then, for those families who work for small businesses, so they are 
not eligible for COBRA, we expand medical assistance coverage in the 
States. In addition, we respond to the Governors of our States. And 
what were the Governors of our States saying? They were saying: Please 
add on more to the Federal contribution to medical assistance because 
we are in a recession; we have more people out of work; we no longer 
have the surpluses. These are hard economic times, and we need some 
additional help.
  The Republican plan does not respond one bit to the economic pain 
that we hear about from people in the country.
  We are being told by this procedural move by my colleague from Texas 
that this is not an emergency.
  I met with some families in Minnesota 2 weeks ago. We were in one of 
the workers' homes. There were some television cameras. I said: Are you 
sure you want to do this? They said they did. It was a seminar-type 
discussion. I hardly talked at all. Tell me what your concerns are. 
These are people who have long work experience. They had been working 
most of their adult lives. They are out of work through no fault of 
their own. I think more than anything else, they talked about health 
care coverage. They certainly are hoping for unemployment benefits to 
tide them over. A number of them, interestingly enough, talked about 
job training.
  If I had my way, we would add some provisions, including some money 
for workforce development. But, most importantly, they talked about 
their fears that there would be no health care coverage at all for 
their families.
  Senators, again I hate to put it this way, but if it were your 
family, if you were out of work, if you were worried that you wouldn't 
be able to afford COBRA, and there wouldn't be enough to help you if 
you were eligible for COBRA, and if there were not a specific benefit 
that would enable you to still be able to provide health care coverage 
for your families, I guarantee you would consider it an emergency.
  It is an emergency for many families in our country. We must respond 
to this economic pain. In the words of Rabbi Hillel, if not now, when?
  Then there is homeland defense, Senator Byrd's proposal on which many 
of us worked. I have said a lot of times, as I am sure every Senator 
has--I guess we reached different conclusions--with fire chiefs, first 
responders, they told me. I sure learned it back then. People are 
anxious and people are worried. Please get an infrastructure of public 
safety and, yes, public health.
  Dr. Michael Home is from Minnesota. Dr. Home has made their case in a 
compelling way. Get the money to our communities because people will be 
safe where they live, where they work, and where their children go to 
school. We need the resources.
  In the homeland defense part of this bill that we brought to the 
floor, it is an obvious marriage. On the one hand, we get the money to 
first responders. I have been pushing for public safety, for 
firefighters, and for public health money so that we have the 
antibiotics and the vaccines, so people are trained, so that emergency 
doctors are trained, so that our public health nurses are trained; food 
safety; border security; airport security. At the same time, Senators, 
you create jobs.
  I don't really know what is going on here. I think there are probably 
two things.
  No. 1, I think too many of my colleagues on the other side, by 
definition, with their objection, don't quite get this as an emergency.
  No. 2, given what they want to do with all of these tax cuts, and 
repeal corporate taxes going back to 1986, let me assume they are doing 
this in good faith, because they always do it in good faith, in which 
case I have to believe they believe in the same trickle-down economics 
we have been through before, which put us in such desperate shape. We 
have been through this trickle-down economic strategy, or philosophy, 
or policy. It left us with double-digit inflation, double-digit 
interest rates, and an economy in shatters.
  Paul Krugman in today's New York Times has an op-ed piece that makes 
this point. I ask unanimous consent that his full op-ed piece be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 22471]]



                [From the New York Times, Nov. 14, 2001]

                          Other People's Money

                           (By Paul Krugman)

       You may have seen the story about the businessman who 
     allegedly used the attack on the World Trade Center to make 
     off with other people's money. According to his accusers, 
     Andrei Koudachev stole $105 million that had been invested 
     with his firm, falsely asserting that the sum had been lost 
     in the collapse of the towers. It's not entirely clear 
     whether he is accused of stealing the money before Sept. 11, 
     then using the disaster to cover his tracks, or of taking the 
     money after the fact; maybe both.
       It's too bad that so many of our leaders are trying to pull 
     the same trick.
       Just before Sept. 11, political debate was dominated by the 
     growing evidence that last spring's tax cut was not, in fact, 
     consistent with George W. Bush's pledge not to raid the 
     projected $2.7 trillion Social Security surplus. After the 
     attack, everyone dropped the subject. At this point, it seems 
     that nobody will complain as long as the budget as a whole 
     doesn't go into persistent deficit.
       But two months into the war on terrorism, we're starting to 
     get a sense of how little this war will actually cost. And 
     it's time to start asking some hard questions.
       At the beginning of the week we learned that the war is 
     currently costing around $1 billion per month. Oddly, this 
     was reported as if it were a lot of money. But it's only 
     about half of 1 percent of the federal budget. In monetary 
     terms, not only doesn't this look like World War II, it looks 
     trivial compared with the gulf war. No mystery there; how 
     hard is it for a superpower to tip the balance in the civil 
     war of a small, poor nation? At this rate, even five years of 
     war on terrorism would cost only $60 billion.
       True, the terrorist attack has also forced increased 
     spending at home. But Mr. Bush has threatened to veto any 
     spending on domestic security beyond the $40 billion already 
     agreed. And even that sum is in doubt. Half of the $40 
     billion was money promised to New York; last week New York's 
     Congressional delegation, Republicans and Democrats alike, 
     demanded that Mr. Bush disburse the full sum, openly voicing 
     doubt about whether he would honor his promise.
       So the budgetary cost of the war on terrorism, abroad and 
     at home, looks like fairly small change. Even counting the 
     measures that are likely to pass despite Mr. Bush's threat, I 
     have a hard time coming up with a total cost that exceeds 
     $200 billion. Compare that with the $2.7 trillion Social 
     Security surplus. What will happen to the remaining $2.5 
     trillion?
       Again, no mystery: much of the money was actually gone 
     before Sept. 11, swallowed by last spring's tax cut, which 
     will in the end reduce revenue by around $1 trillion more 
     than the numbers you usually hear. And the administration's 
     allies in Congress are striving energetically to give away 
     the rest in tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy 
     individuals.
       The new round of tax cuts is supposedly intended as post-
     terror economic stimulus. But recent remarks by Dick Armey 
     give the game away. Defending the bill he and Tom DeLay 
     rammed through the House--the one that gives hug retroactive 
     tax cuts to big corporations--he asserted that it would 
     create 170,000 jobs next year. That would add a whopping 0.13 
     percent to employment in this country. So thanks to Mr. 
     Armey's efforts next year's unemployment rate night be 6.4 
     percent instead of 6.5. Aren't you thrilled?
       Let's do the math here. This bill has a $100 billion price 
     tag in its first year, more than $200 billion over three 
     years. So even on Mr. Armey's self-justifying estimate, we're 
     talking about giving at least $600,000 inn corporate tax 
     breaks for every job created. That's trickle-down economics 
     without the trickle-down.
       Ten weeks ago this bill, or the equally bad bill proposed 
     by Senate Republicans, wouldn't have stood a chance. But now 
     people who want to give the Social Security surplus to 
     campaign donors think they can get away with it, because they 
     can blame Osama bin Laden for future budget shortfalls.
       They say every cloud has a silver lining. The dust cloud 
     that rose when the towers fell has certainly helped 
     politicians who don't want you to see what they're up to.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, as he said:

       The new round of tax cuts is supposedly intended as post-
     terror economic stimulus. But recent remarks by Dick Armey 
     give the game away. Defending the bill he and Tom DeLay 
     rammed through the House--the one that gives huge retroactive 
     tax cuts to big corporations--he asserted that it would 
     create 170,000 jobs next year. That would add a whopping 0.13 
     percent to employment in this country. So thanks to Mr. 
     Armey's efforts next year's unemployment rate might be 6.4 
     percent instead of 6.5. Aren't you thrilled?
       Let's do the math here. This bill has a $100 billion price 
     tag in its first year, more than $200 billion over three 
     years. So even on Mr. Armey's self-justifying estimate, we're 
     talking about giving at least $600,000 in corporate tax 
     breaks for every job created. That's trickle-down economics 
     without the trickle-down.

  That is what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
proposing, trickle-down economics without the trickle down. At the same 
time, they are now trying to make the case that we don't have an 
emergency, so we can't get an extension of unemployment benefits to 
people who are flat on their backs, we can't make sure they have health 
care coverage for their families or for their children and their loved 
ones. They are profoundly mistaken.
  If these are the differences between Democrats and Republicans, then 
these are differences that make a difference. I could not be prouder 
than to stand out here on the floor and get a chance to be 1 of 100 
Members who get to speak for what we have proposed as an economic 
recovery plan. It is not all that I would want--my colleagues know me; 
I always push for more and more and more--but I think it would make a 
difference.
  I am so profoundly disappointed that we have out here a procedural 
objection.
  My gosh, go to town and talk in the Cafe Wilmer or any number of 
other coffee shops in Minnesota. People say: Say what? There was a 
procedural objection that this wasn't an emergency? Say what? But you 
know that I don't have to explain that. Senators on the other side of 
the aisle and those who support the Senator from Texas will have to 
explain that.
  I would like to finish with one other point. This is a small point. I 
see my colleague from Iowa out here on the floor, and a Senator whom I 
like so much that I will have to get into this with him as well.
  I note that today there is a meeting of the ``bankruptcy reform'' 
conference committee. Colleagues and Senator Grassley, a good friend, 
being out of work is the No. 1 reason that people file for bankruptcy. 
Medical bills are the No. 2 reason. This is no time to be pushing 
through this bankruptcy bill, which is too punitive and too harsh and 
which will make it hard for people to rebuild their lives.
  I always thought the credit card companies got way more than they 
deserved. I never thought it was balanced. But this is no time, 
colleagues, to push through a harsh bankruptcy bill in these economic 
times.
  There are too many colleagues out here who want to speak. If I 
continue to go on, it could be for another 3 hours. So I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for 
giving me an opportunity to talk about bankruptcy. I haven't had a 
chance.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I want the floor back.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I haven't had that opportunity for a long time. By the 
way, I am supposed to be in the conference in 2 minutes. I am not going 
to be there because I want to respond to the Senator about not only 
bankruptcy but also about these tax provisions. That is to remind the 
Senate--particularly the 17 Members of the Senate, or maybe it was only 
15 Members of the Senate, including the Senator from Minnesota, who 
voted against the bankruptcy bill. I hope a vote of 84 to 15, or 
something like that, tells you what a good piece of legislation we had.
  But in regard to bankruptcy, to allay anybody's fears about what 
bankruptcy legislation does, even at a time when we are in the midst of 
a war on terrorism, and we have had an economic downturn because of 
that terrorist activity, anybody who cannot pay their debt will still 
be able to go into bankruptcy.
  What we are trying to do through this bankruptcy reform legislation 
that is now in conference between the House and the Senate is for those 
who have the ability to repay--who under present law can go into 
chapter 7 and get off scot-free--will have to pay.
  We are talking about people with the ability to repay their debts and 
who are gaming the system to get away with financial murder. They are 
not going to be able to do that anymore.
  In regard to the comments of the Senator from Minnesota and other 
Senators who have talked about the nonconcern people on this side of 
the aisle might have about people who are unemployed because of the 
terrorist attacks of September 11, the whole purpose of this 
legislation is to address

[[Page 22472]]

economic problems that exist because of the terrorist attacks of 
September 11.
  Where we have separation from people in the other political party is 
the fact that a lot of people on the other side of the aisle are taking 
advantage of the September 11 terrorist attacks, and also the economic 
problems resulting therefrom, to put a lot of legislation on the agenda 
that would not otherwise be on the agenda.
  What we are trying to do is what Chairman Greenspan advises us to 
do--to do those things that are stimulative and related to the downturn 
in the economy, directly related to the proposition of September 11.
  First of all, I do not think the Senator from Minnesota gives the 
President any credit for being concerned about low-income people who 
are hurt as a result of this because in a way of addressing, in a 
bipartisan way, the stimulus needs of our Nation, the President has 
already provided for tax payments, rebates, whatever you want to call 
them, to low-income people to help the demand and consumer side of the 
ledger. And, obviously, that proposal by our President that is in the 
Republican proposal as well has somehow not come to the attention of 
the Senator from Minnesota. So I bring that to his attention, that the 
President of the United States has already addressed that.
  Second, we have followed the advice of Chairman Greenspan, who said 
there ought to be incentives for investment in manufacturing. As the 
chart I showed you yesterday--that is not in this Chamber today--
indicates, there has been a very steady increase in consumer spending 
over the last 10 years. Until recently, there was a very steady 
increase in manufacturing investment. But in the last three or four 
quarters, there has been a tremendous downturn in investment in 
manufacturing. Chairman Greenspan believes that by accelerating 
depreciation, we will be able to create jobs, stimulate the 
manufacturing economy, and get that segment of the economy back on the 
road to recovery and create a lot of jobs in the process.
  So, again, I do not think Republicans can be accused of not being 
sympathetic when we are following the advice of Chairman Greenspan on 
fiscal and tax policies. His point of view ought to be respected in 
that area the same way a large share of the country respects his view 
on monetary policy, as now 10 times he has reduced the rate of 
inflation to help the economy.
  The Senator from Minnesota must also not be aware of the fact that 
our proposal has in it help for those who are going to lose health 
insurance because of being unemployed. In fact, if you look at the 
Democrat proposal, again, as I said yesterday, by the time they get 
their program implemented, we will be out of a recession. And, we have 
a plan that will get help to the people who do not have health 
insurance within 30 days after the bill is signed by the President of 
the United States.
  Their plan creates Federal bureaucracy, a new Federal program, 
Federal rules and regulations. Just think of the months it is going to 
take to get all that in place. Plus, there is an unfunded mandate on 
the States to put a parallel bureaucracy and program in place for the 
purpose of dispensing help to people who are unemployed but probably 9 
to 12 months down the road.
  We already have a program in place where we can get help to those 
people within 1 month after the President signs the bill.
  To say that we have no concern about the unemployed, then let me ask 
the Senator from Minnesota, how come we have provisions in our bill to 
extend unemployment compensation by 13 weeks, which is not exactly, but 
is along the same lines of what their party suggests?
  So all along there is a division that is being drawn between 
Republicans and Democrats that is not the tradition of this Senate, 
surely not the tradition of the Senate Finance Committee that writes 
tax legislation and unemployment and health-insurance-type legislation. 
There is no point in having it because this Senate will get nothing 
done unless it is done in a bipartisan way.
  I hope we have set the stage for some votes this afternoon that will 
show that this Senate is only going to address the stimulative needs of 
this economy in a bipartisan way. The sooner we get that bipartisan 
process underway, the better. I think that will happen.
  (Mr. JOHNSON assumed the chair.)
  Mr. GRASSLEY. But I also want to address some remarks that were made 
yesterday by Senator Boxer regarding the Republican caucus stimulative 
proposal. Under normal circumstances, I would just let these types of 
remarks go unanswered as typical political rhetoric, tinged with 
inflammatory untruths. But these days are hardly normal circumstances 
because the Senate is not working in its usual bipartisan way. So I 
want to respond to those remarks.
  The American people have called upon us to act, both in the defense 
of our country and to restore our economy. Everyone in this Chamber 
recognizes the impact of the horrific events of September 11 and their 
impact on the economy.
  Republicans and Democrats have different ideas on the best way to 
stimulate the economy. There is nothing new about this. They merely 
represent different approaches to the same problem.
  For the past month and a half, I have been pleading with Democrats to 
find the common ground in our differing approaches. The American people 
expect us to work together to find common ground for our Nation's 
common good. Stimulating the economy and winning the war on terrorism 
is the most immediate. This can and must be done, and it will be done 
before we adjourn for this year.
  But just when we hope that constructive bipartisanship can begin, it 
is slapped down by the type of accusations that were made yesterday by 
the Senator from California. I would like to state what has been stated 
by Senator Boxer.
  Senator Boxer said the Republican approach for stimulating the 
economy was using the events of September 11 to--and I quote--``pay 
back'' its ``biggest contributors.''
  She called the Republican approach ``nothing less than unpatriotic.''
  As I said, normally I would dismiss such reckless remarks as typical 
politics, designed to pit American against American to gain a political 
edge. But these are not normal times. These are times when Americans 
expect us to work together.
  What is truly shocking, and offensive for that matter, in the 
Senator's comments is that many items in the Republican Senate caucus 
proposal are items that were recommended by Chairman Greenspan, former 
Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, or are included in Senator Baucus's 
Democratic proposal.
  Bonus depreciation, small business expensing, net operating loss 
carrybacks, cash payments to taxpayers--tax rebates, if you want to 
call them that--enhanced unemployment benefits, additional health 
insurance coverage, are all areas that are contained in both a 
Republican proposal and a Democrat proposal. These are areas of common 
ground. So to call the Republican approach ``unpatriotic'' is 
destructive. It is a distortion.
  Most disturbing is the Senator's own admission that her accusations 
are baseless. When stating that the House economic stimulus bill was a 
``reward to their biggest contributors,'' Senator Boxer said--and I 
quote--``It is how I feel. It is my opinion. It's not a fact.''
  This type of inflammatory rhetoric is useless. It does nothing to 
further America's economic recovery, and it does nothing to further a 
bipartisan solution, a solution that is absolutely necessary for the 
Senate to get to a final product.
  I hope, for the sake of the American people, this sort of nonsense 
will stop. It is time to put dignity back into the debates of the 
Senate Chamber.
  Senator Boxer did have two specific objections to the House bill. It 
was the House bill she objected to, not the Senate bill. The House bill 
is not the Republican Senate caucus proposal. They differ 
significantly, including with regard to two issues to which Senator

[[Page 22473]]

Boxer objects. Nonetheless, when a Senator expresses concern about a 
legislative proposal, the Senator's concerns should be addressed in a 
responsible and dignified manner. That is what I would like to do.
  Senator Boxer objected to accelerating the income tax cuts scheduled 
to occur in 2004 and 2006. She also objected to alternative minimum tax 
relief for American businesses. I will explain why the Republican 
caucus believes those issues are important to economic recovery.
  One of the greatest weaknesses of Senator Baucus' stimulus package 
now before the Senate is that not one dime, not one red cent, goes to 
provide relief for people who go to work every day, pay their bills, 
and may be clinging to their jobs with their fingertips during this 
economic downturn. We believe that reducing the Government's take from 
these people's paychecks will give them more resources to ride out the 
current economic downturn and will spur increased consumer demand over 
the next year.
  Besides, money spent by individuals in the private sector turns over 
many times more in the economy and does more economic good than if 
spent here through the Federal budget. It is really just a matter of 
common sense, then. People need more of their money during tight 
economic times. If they have more money available, they feel more 
financially secure and are more likely to spend.
  We only are talking about speeding up a decision that Congress made 
earlier this year, a bill signed by the President June 7, a product of 
the bipartisanship of the Senate Finance Committee. Last summer this 
Senate debated and decided the issue of individual income tax cuts. The 
Republican caucus proposal would simply accelerate into next year the 
individual income tax cuts that are currently scheduled to go into 
effect in the years 2004 and 2006.
  If we make them effective next year, they will immediately stimulate 
the economy. If we wait until 2004 and 2006, the economy does not 
benefit from those reductions at a time when it must. That time is 
right now because of the terrorist attacks of September 11 and the 
downturn in the economy.
  We will talk more about individual income tax cuts later. I turn to 
Senator Boxer's primary objection--alternative minimum tax relief for 
American businesses.
  I would like to propose a terrible idea. Why don't we enact a 
provision that increases taxes when companies are struggling to stay 
afloat and then reduces their taxes when the companies are profitable? 
I think my colleagues would agree that sounds like a dumb idea. I would 
offer an amendment on this, but the problem is, we have already enacted 
it. It is what we call the alternative minimum tax.
  Republicans have been vilified by Democrats for including AMT repeal 
in an economic stimulus package. Let's ask the question: Why do we 
include corporate AMT in an economic stimulus package? Because 
corporate AMT worsens an economic downturn when it increases taxes as 
corporate profits decline.
  Explain that again. If that doesn't sound reasonable, it isn't 
reasonable. But that is what the law is, because AMT, the alternative 
minimum tax, is imposed only when the AMT tax exceeds the amount of 
regular corporate income tax. AMT is calculated by starting with 
regular taxable income and then adding back certain deductions that 
were taken in computing the regular taxable income. One of the most 
significant deduction add-backs is depreciation.
  Consider this very simple example. If regular taxable income falls to 
zero, then a depreciation add-back will create alternative minimum tax 
taxable income which will be taxed at the AMT rate of 20 percent, even 
though the company owes no regular income tax.
  Regular income tax does not have to fall to zero for this to occur. 
When investment costs and other expenses increase in proportion to a 
company's taxable income, which occurs during an economic downturn, the 
company may still owe alternative minimum tax.
  Companies that have these higher fixed costs include manufacturing, 
construction, mining, energy, utilities, wholesale/retail, 
transportation, agriculture, and other capital intensive industries.
  In 1997, a study for the Brookings Institution concluded that 
manufacturing firms could be subjected to alternative minimum tax when 
their sales decline by just a mere 5 percent. This was largely because 
of higher fixed costs. So one can see the profound effect that a small 
economic downturn has on increasing corporate AMT.
  The Joint Committee on Taxation has recommended that the corporate 
alternative minimum tax be repealed because it is ineffective and 
inefficient.
  With the Joint Committee on Taxation are professional people who work 
for both Republicans and Democrats. They don't work for the majority. 
They don't work for the minority. They work for the Congress as a 
whole. This is their recommendation.
  So now you may ask: How would repealing the AMT have a stimulative 
effect? The answer is simple: The alternative minimum tax is a job 
killer. The alternative minimum tax creates a strong disincentive for 
companies to undertake new investments or to keep employees on the 
payroll. Any activity that reduces a company's regular taxable income, 
such as keeping employees during an economic downturn, increases the 
likelihood of it becoming subject to the alternative minimum tax.
  This is because as regular income decreases, the AMT add-backs become 
larger as a percentage of regular income. As I said, when investment 
costs and other expenses are large relative to a company's taxable 
income, the company may end up owing alternative minimum tax. This is 
particularly true for capital investments, which may throw off 
depreciation deductions. In fact, increased investment expenditures by 
a company during periods of low profitability can cause a company to 
switch from the regular tax to the alternative minimum tax. Therefore, 
companies that try to maintain a constant level of investment and 
continued employment during an economic downturn are more likely to pay 
larger amounts of AMT. That is why the alternative minimum tax is a job 
killer.
  We want to create jobs. Particularly we want to create jobs and we 
have a Government incentive for increasing jobs at a time of economic 
downturn.
  More importantly, the alternative minimum tax increases the tax 
burden during an economic downturn which may result in deeper and more 
prolonged economic weakness by reducing business activity.
  So here we have a tax policy already in place that is making the 
economic downturn worse. According to a recent Treasury study, during 
the economic slowdowns between 1989 and 1991, nearly 50 percent of 
America's largest corporations were subjected to the alternative 
minimum tax. We can't afford to repeat that pattern again.
  As Chairman Greenspan said: Enhance investment in manufacturing.
  That is what accelerated depreciation is about. So that is why we 
have to do something with a tax policy that is already on the books and 
already is there exacerbating an already bad situation. So please keep 
in mind that some alternative minimum tax add-back items, such as 
depreciation, relate to fixed investment decisions that were made years 
ago during profitable periods. They didn't anticipate what they might 
be in right now. But they are going to be penalized for it and 
penalized in a way that hurts the economy.
  It is inconsistent, then, to consider including bonus depreciation 
provisions in our stimulus packages, which we do, at the same time we 
punish prior investments through the AMT. I notice that the Democrats' 
bill exempts bonus depreciation from the alternative minimum tax. So I 
don't know why a Democrat Senator would blast away at the alternative 
minimum tax, when even their proposal makes it quite obvious that there 
is something that doesn't add up here, doesn't meet the test of common 
sense.
  So Democrats recognize the counterproductive effect that the 
alternative minimum tax has on investment. I also said that the 
alternative minimum tax

[[Page 22474]]

increases taxes when companies are struggling to stay afloat, and then 
it reduces taxes when companies are profitable. This is because any 
alternative minimum tax paid to the Government today may offset regular 
taxes owed in a later year. In effect, the AMT is a prepayment of a 
taxpayer's future income tax liability--and it operates as a no-
interest loan from companies to the Federal Government.
  As of today, companies in America have made about $25 billion in 
loans to the Federal Government by prepaying their real tax liability 
through the alternative minimum tax. This is where the controversy 
kicked up concerning the House bill, and it is the thing to which 
Senator Boxer most objected.
  The House bill--not the Senate Republican bill--paid back in the year 
2002 all of the alternative minimum tax prepayments that I just talked 
about, these interest-free loans that have been extracted from American 
companies over the years.
  The reason for this is to provide instant cash liquidity for 
companies that are facing the present economic crunch. We would propose 
something different. Senate Republicans would allow the alternative 
minimum tax to offset only a percentage of the regular tax as it is 
incurred. That way a corporation can never completely zero out their 
tax liability with AMT credits. So I hope she will consider this and 
that this will address Senator Boxer's concerns.
  In addition, we would not accelerate the AMT tax credits or refund 
them next year. This should address another one of Senator Boxer's 
concerns. Yes, we would also repeal the alternative minimum tax, and I 
know that doesn't satisfy some Senators. I hope these other two 
provisions of our bill would do.
  If Senators will stop the shouting and stop talking past each other 
and stop making false accusations, we can find common ground to address 
at least part of each other's concerns. It is possible to reach 
consensus on a bipartisan bill that will stimulate the economy. We must 
do it soon.


  I urge the Senate to do its job and come up with a bipartisan 
stimulus package--one that can be passed by this Chamber, sent to 
conference, and signed by the President. The American people are 
waiting and they are watching.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I agree with our esteemed colleague who 
just spoke that, in fact, the American people are watching us very 
closely today to determine whether or not we understand the emergency 
that so many workers and small businesses and others in our economy are 
experiencing at this moment. All we have to do is ask the people who 
have lost their jobs in the airlines alone. We had an emergency in 
which we had to act immediately to help the airline industry a few days 
after September 11. We rallied to do that, with the understanding--at 
least it was my understanding--that we would come back quickly and make 
sure that not only the companies were helped to the tune of $15 
billion, but that the workers with the airlines and the airports would 
be helped.
  So all you have to do is ask the people who have been unemployed as a 
result of September 11, or other economic circumstances, who work for 
the airlines, the travel agents, the airport venders, the restaurants, 
and the travel destination cities that have been hurt. All we have to 
do in Michigan is ask our auto workers, who have found that because of 
the slowdown they are facing layoffs, or have been laid off--and also 
the small businessowners in Michigan, as well as Michigan farmers.
  I congratulate the chairman of the Finance Committee for his 
leadership and work in putting together, with Senator Baucus and 
Senator Byrd, a package that makes sense for Americans, for American 
business, for American workers, for our communities. But we know that, 
frankly, there are two different views of the world at work. We have, 
first of all, one world that brings us all together behind the 
President to face the current challenges and threats to our country. We 
are together on that. I support the President and want him to succeed, 
as we all need to succeed together. But on the economic front, on the 
homefront, we have two different views of the world that have been 
expressed, both in this Chamber and between those of us who support the 
legislation in front of us and the House Republicans on the other side.
  Frankly, they are very different kinds of economics. One is supply 
side economics; give the dollars to those at the top, the largest 
businesses, the wealthy individuals in the country, and it will trickle 
down. We say we don't have time for trickle down. We don't even know if 
it is going to trickle down. I have folks in Michigan still waiting for 
the 1980s money to trickle down to them. We say put money directly into 
people's pockets, small businesses, the farmers, the unemployed 
workers, and the moderate and low-income taxpayers' pockets.
  We are backed up by those who say this is the right thing to do 
economically. I think we have the best of all worlds in this proposal. 
It is the best thing to do economically and it is the right thing to do 
for people. Joseph Stiglitz, the cowinner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in 
economics, stated:

       We should extend the duration and magnitude of the benefits 
     we provide to our unemployed. This is not only the fairest 
     proposal, but it is also the most effective. People who 
     become unemployed cut back on their expenditures. Giving them 
     more money will directly increase their expenditures.

  Common sense. What is more likely to happen? To give the billions of 
dollars to the major corporations, which the House does through the 
alternative minimum tax--and I have a different view of what the 
alternative minimum tax is about. My understanding is that it was put 
in place to guarantee that everybody, regardless of how wealthy they 
are or how many tax credits or deductions they can take, pays some form 
of contribution--contributions to national defense, to public health 
and safety, to education, to public services. The alternative minimum 
tax says that everybody in America ought to make a contribution.
  The House Republicans say that not only should some folks not have to 
make a contribution to our current national defense cost, or 
bioterrorism cost, or efforts to clean up from terrorist attacks, or 
education, or roads, or health care, and all of the other public 
services that we have; we should retroactively pay them for 15 years. 
There is over $45 billion involved in the proposal on the House side, 
and it goes to two major tax cuts, one of which, the AMT, says not only 
are we going to take away your tax liability in the future, but we do 
not think you should have paid anything in the past either, and we are 
going to retroactively, to the tune of billions of dollars, give you 
back your contributions.
  I have a lot of small businesses, a lot of farmers, a lot of auto 
workers, retailers, service industry folks, waiters, waitresses, all 
kinds of hard-working folks in Michigan who would love to have someone 
tell them: We are going to give you back the taxes you paid for the 
last 15 years.
  Nationwide, nearly 7 million people are now unemployed. Unemployment 
in my State of Michigan now totals over 268,000 people, and those are 
not even the most current numbers as of November. That is a jump of 
74,000 people in the last year and a jump of nearly 30,000 people just 
since July.
  This is an emergency for them. This is an emergency for 268,000 
people, many of whom have children for whom they are caring. They want 
to make sure their children have what they need and that their families 
can put food on the table, have the health care they need and that 
their children have the resources to go to school, possibly pay for mom 
and dad who need some help in their older years. These are people who 
have worked hard and believe in the American dream and are now counting 
on us to believe in them and act in a way that shows they are a 
priority.
  Our plan is the best economically, and it is the right thing to do. 
We help

[[Page 22475]]

these families by extending unemployment benefits so they can buy 
groceries and pay their bills. It will provide health insurance, which 
has been talked about today, by helping pay for COBRA to continue 
health insurance, and we expand assistance to States through the 
Medicaid Program.
  Consumer spending represents two-thirds of our gross domestic 
product. Any stimulus package that ignores this crucial section of our 
economy is doomed to fail. Every economist about whom I have been 
reading and talking to has said the same thing: It is consumer 
spending, stupid. That means we have to put money in people's pockets 
so they can turn around and spend that on behalf of their daily needs.
  It is consumers who are going to buy airline tickets, computers, 
cars, clothes, and, I might say, coming from the great State of 
Michigan, we hope they buy a lot of cars. It is consumers who are going 
to go out to dinner, see a movie, and help get things back to normal, 
as the President has asked us to do.
  Unfortunately, the bill passed by the House and endorsed by the 
President does little to stimulate the economy or to help the 
unemployed. It does little to energize the consumer sector of our 
economy. It does little to help our small businesses that are too often 
overlooked as tax policy is made and as other policies are determined.
  The House-passed bill overwhelmingly and unfairly gives tax cuts to 
those, frankly, who are not hurting under this economy: the wealthiest 
Americans who do not have an economic emergency, and tax cuts to the 
largest multinational companies that we want to be successful but not 
at the expense of our small businesses or our working men and women.
  I congratulate Senator Byrd and my colleagues who have been working 
to increase our public investments in our homeland security efforts. We 
all know we have to focus investments on bioterrorism. We have to 
strengthen our public health system. We need to focus on those areas 
that will keep us safe at home, as well as supporting our national 
defense abroad.
  I encourage and urge all Senators to come together to look at the 
facts, to look at what works, look at what the economists are saying as 
to how best to provide an economic stimulus and recovery, to put the 
people of our country first as we move forward, and to do so quickly.
  This is an emergency. This is an emergency for American families. 
This is an emergency for Americans, and we need to act quickly to 
demonstrate that we understand and that we support them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, we are 
working to have a vote around 5:15 p.m. or 5:30 p.m. If Senators want 
to speak, they should come to the Chamber. That is the general 
intention at this time. If anyone objects, they should let us know.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it is interesting to listen to our friends 
on the other side of the aisle. It is amazing the message we get. The 
message is: Let's get a bill; we need to do it right away. Everyone 
agrees with that. We know what needs to be done to get a bill. I happen 
to be on the committee that is involved, and we know how the bill got 
to this point. It passed entirely with a partisan vote, all Democrats, 
no Republicans. Republicans did not have participation in the bill. So 
this is a bill that is totally partisan. That bill is not going to 
pass.
  We need to work on a bill together. There is willingness to do that. 
Talking about passing a bill without recognizing what needs to be done 
is amazing to me. It is clear what has to be done.
  Senators from both sides of the aisle need to join with the 
administration and, indeed, with the Members of the House to put 
together a bill which we can pass. This business of continuing to talk 
about the need and then denying the opportunity to get together is hard 
to understand.
  Everybody here wants to pass a bill. There is no question about that. 
The question is, How do we do it? And that becomes increasingly clear. 
There are not going to be enough votes to do it without working 
together. This constant conversation about we need to do this right 
away is silly. We all want to do something to help the unemployed. We 
all want to do something for those who need help with health care.
  We all want to provide more incentives to develop jobs.
  Talk about an emergency. How much have we spent in the last 2 months? 
About $55 billion. The President has said: You do not need to spend 
more money now. When we need more money for terrorism overseas or 
terrorism in this country, I will ask for it. And we responded when he 
asked for the money. Colleagues are now beginning to use that technique 
for passing all kinds of projects they always wanted. They are very 
questionable as far as being an emergency.
  We need to come together and bring before the Senate a bill that 
represents the interests of all participating parties and pass it. We 
can do that. Until that time comes, the chances are we are not going to 
be successful in moving a bill along.
  The substitute, of course, spends about $67 billion in the year 2002: 
About $21 billion on temporary business tax relief and $46 billion on 
spending proposals, including Federal payments of individual tax 
insurance premiums under COBRA, extended unemployment insurance for 
displaced workers, expanded Federal support for Amtrak, numerous 
agricultural products, and other unrelated provisions.
  Secretary O'Neill recently said the proposal is heavy on spending but 
will have little stimulative effect on the economy.
  Moreover, some of its provisions would have an adverse effect on 
employment. An editorial yesterday in the Washington Post made the 
following observation: The stimulus package that passed through the 
committee last week includes money for citrus growers and buffalo 
farmers producing electricity from chicken waste. It includes a tax 
break in aviation fuel for crop dusters; a wage credit designed to 
encourage firms to hire welfare recipients was extended to businesses 
in Lower Manhattan.
  So we all want to get this bill passed, and I think we have a 
technique before us where we can do that. We can come together and we 
can configure a package that does what all of us want, and that is to 
assist those people who now need assistance and provide stimulus for 
the economy so we can get jobs and growth back before us and to do it 
quickly. Those options are available to us as soon as we are willing to 
recognize what needs to be done to cause that to happen.
  The President has called upon the Congress, specifically the Senate, 
to adopt an economic package, including these kinds of things in the 
outline.
  Timing: We need to pass it and get it to his desk, the President 
said, before the end of November. We can do that.
  Tax cuts: We make sure our tax relief encourages investment, 
encourages the flow of capital.
  We need to reform the alternative minimum tax in corporate America so 
corporate America does not have to get penalized during times of 
declining earnings.
  Create jobs: So often I do not think we really look down the road as 
to what we want to be the outcome. If we can help people, we should, 
but the real purpose is to create jobs and to create a stronger 
economy.
  Worker assistance: The President said we need to spend money on 
helping workers who lost their jobs as a result of the attacks on 
September 11. We need to extend and expand unemployment benefits to 
those workers, said the President. I know we need to expand what they 
call national emergency grants which will give the Governors the 
latitude to take Federal monies and apply the money to special worker 
needs.
  We need an energy plan that encourages conservation, exploration, and 
production. That probably brings about a kick to the economy more 
quickly than most anything else we can do.

[[Page 22476]]

  So these are the issues that have already been talked about, and they 
are common. We have a bill that is passed by one party without 
consultation with the other. And we expect to get that passed? It is 
not going to happen.
  We can do something, and we can do something with the House if we can 
come together and put together a plan where there is some involvement, 
bring it to the Senate to pass it and pass it quickly so we can move 
forward to accomplish that which all of us want to accomplish.
  I see the minority leader in the Chamber, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, who has control of the time on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are not under a time control situation.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I do want to comment on a couple of issues. First of all, I want to 
talk about the job security stimulus package. Before I do that, I want 
to talk about the aviation security package that is being considered 
now in conference.
  My point has been all along there is plenty of room for disagreement, 
but there is also plenty of room for agreement. We need to get this 
done. We knew we had to get this done before this past Monday when we 
had the crash, very unfortunately, in New York again. We cannot help 
but have such sympathy and concern and feeling for the people of New 
York who have been hit hard again. There are no indications as to 
exactly what caused that accident, but it did once again cause people 
to be sensitive and nervous about the safety of flying.
  We in the Congress need to put aside our ideological or even regional 
disagreements because some of it is a little bit regional. In some 
parts of the country our airports are all small, regional airports, not 
the super big ones. We have a little different view of the world than 
they might have in Chicago or New York or Los Angeles. We ought to put 
that aside and get this job done. I believe I see movement now, that 
both sides are beginning to say there is a way we can get this package 
agreed to.
  First of all, there is a misperception. We are going to federalize 
aviation security, period. There is a matter of degrees perhaps, but we 
are going to require perimeter protection. We are going to require 
there be a safe and a good screening provision at all of our airports. 
We are going to require there be an additional check at the gate. We 
are going to require cockpit safety. We are going to have sky marshals, 
and the Federal Government is going to require it and provide the money 
through a fee system that will be paid for by tickets. We are going to 
say this is what our requirements are, these are the guidelines, this 
is the management. We are going to make this happen.
  The House added several provisions that were good, and we had some 
good ones in the Senate, by the way, that are not in the House 
provisions. We ought to take the good ones from both of those bills. 
The House added some provisions we did not have only because they acted 
3 weeks after we did and they found some additional problems and some 
additional things that could be done which they included in their 
package. Let's take those. I believe Senator Hollings, as well as 
Senator McCain and Senator Hutchison, are prepared to do that.
  Then it boils down to this question of how do you deal with the 
screeners themselves. I believe from discussions I have had today with 
those who are involved, they are beginning to come up with a way that 
would allow us to move immediately to some changes but give some 
options, some flexibility, to the administration and to the individual 
airports. What they want in Billings may be different from what we want 
in Biloxi and Gulfport, MS. What they want at LaGuardia may surely be 
different than what they want in Rapid City, SD. Give some options.
  In some places, they may want and have the ability to do local law 
enforcement. The next place maybe a private company has been doing a 
good job or they have the capability to do a good job. In other areas 
they may need to go to a federalized system.
  I do not know all the parameters of what is being discussed, but in 
my conversations today with Senator Hollings and Congressman Young, the 
chairman in the House, Senator McCain and Senator Hutchison, I believe 
they have narrowed it down to where we can get this done. So I would 
urge our conferees and the leadership of those conferees, in a 
bipartisan way, in a nonpartisan way, to get an agreement. It is doable 
today and the Senate could vote tomorrow.
  That would be such a tremendous indication to the American people we 
are serious, that we are continuing our efforts as we have over the 
past 2 months to get the job done for America. Forget the philosophy, 
the party, the region, any of that other stuff we quite often get 
tangled up with. It would be so important to send this bill to the 
President's desk the weekend before the Thanksgiving holidays.
  Will it guarantee there will be immediate safety within the limits of 
human endeavor? No. But it would be a positive sign that would be well 
received, and it is the right thing to do.
  I think that kind of attitude also applies to this job security or 
stimulus bill, as it is quite often referred to. On this bill we have 
kind of fallen back to our old ways. We have the House position. We 
have the Senate position. We have the Republican position. We have the 
Democrat position. We have the spending position. We have lots of 
wonderful ideas. We have the tax cut provisions.
  What we have is such a hodgepodge and such a weighted bill now that 
it is not going to happen. What we need to do is go back to the 
beginning. We all agreed there should be a package to stimulate 
economic growth and job security. The President, Republicans, 
Democrats, the House, the Senate, we all said, yes, we need to get this 
done.
  Will it be a magic wave of the wand to make sure we have that growth? 
No. But it could be helpful.
  We agreed we wanted it to be a targeted bill, one that would have 
some immediate positive effect on growth, not 6 months from now, not a 
year from now, but right now. When we started off, I thought everybody 
agreed on that provision.
  We also said we do not want to do something that is going to be 
negative in the long term. We do not want to do something that gobbles 
up a big swath of money, taking us deeper into deficit spending after 3 
years of having balanced budgets and surpluses, and cause interest 
rates in the long term to go back up. We all agreed we did not want to 
do that, and we all agreed we wanted to do it in a way that would have 
an immediate stimulative effect. We kind of lost sight of that.
  I do not want to be too critical of the House bill, but a lot of what 
they would do would take effect over a period of years. I like that, 
personally, but that is not quite exactly what we had talked about when 
we started.
  In the Finance Committee we got carried away with a lot of spending. 
There are not many people going to be able to convince anybody that it 
is going to have an immediate stimulative effect. It may be 
justifiable. It may be something I would be for in the normal course of 
events. But it does not meet the criteria we started out talking about.
  I have never heard so many good ideas in my life. Oh, my goodness, 
yes, let's do this, let's do that. Every House Member has a different 
idea of what we could do to help this sector or that sector of the 
economy. It wouldn't cost too much, it would only be a billion here and 
a billion there and, as Everett Dirksen would say, soon it adds up to 
real money. That is what we have come to.
  We need to go back to the beginning and do specifically what we said 
we would do. We have to do the human need things. We have to provide 
more unemployment compensation. We are going to do that. The Democrats 
need to understand we understand that. We are going to do that. We can 
argue over exactly how you do it, but it is going to be 13 weeks 
additional unemployment compensation. The conferees, I am sure, will 
argue about how that would

[[Page 22477]]

apply to the States and what criteria have to be met before that 
happens, and they will work it out. It is a 15-minute discussion, 
truthfully.
  We are going to make sure people who lost their jobs are going to 
have health insurance coverage. There are about three different good 
plans out there to be considered. We do not like creating a new 
mandatory health program in COBRA. We don't like that because we think, 
while it might start off well intentioned and small, it will explode to 
a massive program. But there are some other options suggested by the 
centrist group, suggested by the President, suggested by Chuck 
Grassley, the ranking member of the committee. We can work through 
that. But the important point is we are going to get that done. We have 
to get that done.
  We are going to have rebates for the low-income workers who did not 
get the rebate in the earlier round this year. I personally think that 
is not a good idea. I didn't like it earlier, to tell you the truth, 
because I doubt the positive impact that it really has in terms of a 
stimulus in the economy. I think a lot of people will save it, pay down 
their credit cards. The argument is, maybe the lower income people will 
need it and spend it at Christmastime and all that. Maybe it will work. 
But there is no use debating that because that is agreed to. We are 
going to do that. The President has agreed to that. Democrats want it, 
Republicans agree to it, so why are we fussing around about it? It is a 
done deal.
  Those are the three things the Democrats say they care about the 
most. Republicans say we understand and we are going to have to do 
those three things. We are going to have to allow the tax committee 
workers to work out the details. But I trust them. Senator Daschle and 
I have talked about this. I have talked to the chairman of the Finance 
Committee, Senator Baucus from Montana, and Chuck Grassley. I have 
faith they are going to work this out.
  On our side of the aisle, we would argue that while that is the right 
thing to do, it is the human thing to do, it is not really that 
stimulative in terms of getting more than a dollar back for a dollar 
invested. So we need to do that which will have an immediate and 
dramatic impact on the economy. Yes, we do talk about tax relief. We 
talk about individual tax rate cuts. We talk about the importance of 
the accelerated depreciation for companies to write off the cost of 
their equipment faster.
  By the way, I think Democrats agree to that, too. The difference is 
the Democrats say we want to do it at 10 percent over 2 years. 
Republicans say we want a 30-percent bonus over 3 years. Is there a 
middle ground in there anywhere? Does anybody see it? Of course. So if 
we agree on the basic principle, then we have to work through the 
percentages and number of years. We can do that.
  I do think--I have always thought--the alternative minimum tax is 
counterproductive, counterstimulative, and does undermine the capital 
formation we need to have invested in the economy.
  It may not be the perfect answer. Maybe there is another good idea 
out there. I think Senator Domenici has an interesting idea with regard 
to the December holiday on the payroll tax. I am not saying that should 
be in there. It is not one that was considered, I don't think, by the 
committee, but maybe there is another brilliant idea out there 
somewhere. I think we ought to go for those basics, though, and get 
this job done and try not to do any damage, try to have some positive 
effect, and get it done.
  Others have suggested we need additional spending, homeland security. 
A lot of what is in that bill we may eventually do. We may need to do 
it at some point. It hasn't been requested by the administration and 
hasn't even been analyzed by the committees of jurisdiction, 
authorization or appropriations. To come in here and attach that to the 
stimulus and say this is going to stimulate growth in the economy 
because it would spend money somewhere down the line doesn't meet the 
basic principles with which we started. Some of the features to which I 
was most attracted I understand have even been taken out.
  So I think we need to do it.
  There has been discussion that Senator Daschle legitimately does not 
want to have to negotiate a package on the floor of the Senate and then 
go do another one in conference and then maybe do a third one with the 
administration. Let's skip all that. We are not going to get a result 
here in the Senate as we are now set up. This is partisan, political. 
It is not bipartisan. It is not in the spirit in which we have been 
working in the last 2 months. We need to take a timeout and say, all 
right, let's skip all these hurdles and let's go right to the end game. 
Let's get the right people in the room and say: Get this job done.
  I trust the people who would be involved. I trust Charlie Rangel. I 
trust Bill Thompson and Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley. They are the 
experts. They have done it before. Last year I negotiated on a bill 
involving the CBI enhancement and the African free trade bill with 
Charlie Rangel and Bill Archer, and we got it done. A lot of people 
said it would never happen: You will never make that happen; it is 
impossible. Max Baucus was involved in that effort, and others. We got 
it done.
  So I think the idea we would go ahead and go to this, the conference 
effort after these two votes this afternoon, is the right thing to do. 
The American people, would they be hearing the Senate is deadlocked? 
No, that is not what they would hear. What they would see and what they 
would hear is the Congress once again is going to the bottom line to 
come together on the right thing for America. Yes, they stated their 
partisan political positions and they were beginning to drift back to 
their old ways, but then they said no, we pulled back from the brink 
and brinkmanship and said we are going to go to negotiations that will 
get us a package.
  As we are headed right now, none of this is going to pass. We are 
stalled out here. We could have 20 or 25 votes by Friday and have 
nothing but blood all over the place and partisanship to the maximum 
degree. Is that what the American people want? No.
  Do they want us to find a way to come together and get a result? Yes. 
Is it going to immediately provide this great boost to the economy? I 
don't know. It may not. But psychologically it would help and 
substantively I believe it could help.
  So when we have these two votes, I hope, and I call on my colleagues, 
let's not make this an emergency designation. This is a stimulus 
package. Let's not waive the points of order. Let's go to negotiation. 
Let's get it started. Let's get it started tonight.
  I want to say--and I don't want to get him in trouble--Senator 
Daschle has been very reasonable and I think willing to pursue this 
type of approach. So have all the other players. That is what we have 
to have. It is a bold move. It does take leadership.
  But why are we here? To stake out positions? To prevail in partisan 
battle? There will be another day for that. I hope it is a long time 
off. Let's continue to do business the way we have done in the past, 
the way we have dealt with each other, the way we have met with each 
other, the way we have tried to bridge the partisan and the political 
gap because of the tragedies with which we have had to deal. We have 
that opportunity here once again. Let's keep it going. I think we can 
be successful if we use that approach.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:15 
p.m. today the Senate proceed to vote on the Baucus motion to waive the 
relevant sections of the Budget Act with respect to the emergency 
designation, without intervening action or debate; provided further 
that at 4:55 p.m., the following each receive 5 minutes of closing 
debate, and in the order listed: Senator Grassley, Senator Baucus, 
Senator Lott, and Senator Daschle, or their designees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.

[[Page 22478]]


  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I would like to address this legislation 
of great importance to my State, to my city, and of great importance to 
America. Before the substance of my remarks, I would particularly like 
to thank Senator Baucus, chairman of the committee, Senator Byrd, 
Senator Daschle, Senator Reid--all of the leadership and all our 
colleagues who have stood up for New York and for America in our hour 
of need.
  I would like to speak to the part of the legislation that affects New 
York. Then I would like to talk generally about the bill as well.
  Before I do, I would like to address the specific vote that we face 
immediately; that is, the point of order as to whether we are in an 
emergency or not.
  Am I dreaming? Are we debating whether America is in an emergency 
situation? Are we wondering whether our troops are overseas fighting 
for what could be if we did nothing the survival of this Nation?
  No emergency? Tell that to the people of my city who are recovering 
from the most devastating attack America has ever faced.
  No emergency? Tell that to anyone who goes to an airport and sees the 
airport mostly empty and to the millions of others who will not fly.
  No emergency? Tell that to the people who live near our nuclear 
powerplants and are worried about what might happen there.
  No emergency? It is almost as if we came together after Pearl Harbor 
and said there is no emergency.
  America has been attacked. We are in a brand new situation where 
every one of us is on the front lines because terrorists can use 
technology to attack every one of us.
  I remember Secretary Rumsfeld saying that in this war more civilians 
will die than military personnel because of terrorism.
  No emergency? Good morning. Am I dreaming? Am I dreaming that we are 
debating whether there is an emergency and that many will vote for the 
fact that we are not in an emergency in America? If this is not an 
emergency, what is?
  We have been attacked. Our whole nation is changing. People are 
afraid. The economy is tied in a knot because people do not want to go 
out and do the things they took for granted before September 11. I hope 
we are not going to fiddle while Rome burns.
  That seems to be what the other side is saying. They can make a whole 
lot of arguments about the proposal with which Senator Baucus has led 
the Finance Committee. I will disagree with many of them. I might agree 
with some of them. But I don't know who on God's Earth thinks we are 
not in the middle of an emergency. It is just utterly amazing.
  I would like each person who votes at 5 o'clock that we are not in an 
emergency situation to go home and explain it. I would like them to 
explain it to my constituents in New York City and Rockaway. I would 
like them to explain it to the millions of Americans who are afraid to 
walk into tall buildings or go over a bridge or take an airplane ride.
  No emergency? Who are we kidding?
  If there were ever a time when people in the rest of the country were 
going to scratch their heads and say there must be something in the 
water in Washington because if we ask for this vote, it might seem as 
if the only 100 people, or 51 people in the country who do not think 
this is an emergency are in this great Senate of the United States.
  We are certainly in an emergency. It is a far greater emergency than 
all the rest of the emergency spending bills that I have voted for in 
my 21 years in this Congress. When we have a flood, there is emergency 
spending. When we have a hurricane, there is emergency spending. When 
we have earthquakes, there is emergency spending. And when terrorists 
and cowardly people take two airplanes and plunge them into the World 
Trade Center, and another and plunge it into the Pentagon, and a fourth 
that we didn't know where it was, and then for weeks there is anthrax 
and we can't go back to our office buildings and in every corner of 
America people are afraid to open up the mail, we do not have an 
emergency?
  Good morning. Go talk to your constituents. Go look at the numbers. 
There is certainly an emergency.
  I think it is an ultimate act of political trickery almost--certainly 
convolution--to say there is not an emergency. Is there a Member of 
this body who has not voted for emergency spending when there was an 
emergency?
  Sometimes you just stop and think and say: What is happening? Why is 
there a disconnect between Washington and the rest of America? It is 
because sometimes perhaps too many get carried away with their own 
words and their own ideological beliefs, and they end up with the 
conclusion that is patently ridiculous. It is patently ridiculous to 
vote on a bill that has been designed to help our country in one of its 
most troubled times and say there is not an emergency.
  Let me talk about two other parts of the bill.
  Again, I thank Senator Baucus and all the members of the Finance 
Committee. I thank Senator Daschle and Senator Reid. I thank all of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle who understand that New York is 
certainly in an emergency.
  Despite our confidence that this nightmare will soon be over, New 
Yorkers are uncertain about the future. Very few Americans believe our 
city is off the terrorist list, and this belief is beginning to take a 
severe toll on our economy. Yesterday, tragedy--whether it was accident 
or not--rekindled that anxiety.
  With Chairman Byrd and Senator Daschle at the helm, and with the 
broad support from our Senate colleagues and the great job being done 
by our colleagues in the House, Republicans and Democrats, I am 
confident that we will ultimately get the disaster aid needed to begin 
to rebuild our damaged and destroyed infrastructure. I thank all of 
them for that support. But that is for a later discussion.
  What I am here to talk about today is the need for the tax provisions 
for New York that Chairman Baucus has included in his economic stimulus 
package. These provisions are designed to counter the uncertainty and 
fear that we believe may lead companies to walk away from us.
  Mayor Giuliani, the architect of New York's renaissance in the 1990s, 
and now the hero in the eyes of so many in this Nation, will tell 
anyone who will ask that the key to the city's economic revival begins 
and ends with the safety and the people's confidence that the city is a 
safe place to live and work.
  His great city is now threatened not by petty criminals but by mad 
men half a world away hiding in caves while murdering innocent men, 
women, and children. This uncertainty and the fear coupled with the 
sheer magnitude of logistical problems created by the attack threaten 
the entire economy of this city, the State of New York, and, I believe, 
the Nation as well.
  Working or living in New York City, or Manhattan right now is not a 
pretty picture.
  Our streets are littered with 37 miles of high-voltage electricity 
lines that are but one prankster away from shutting off power to our 
Nation's financial center.
  Over 40 percent of Lower Manhattan's subway infrastructure has been 
destroyed, adding hours to the daily commute of over 375,000 people who 
work in the city.
  All major river crossings--the Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburg, and 
Queensboro Bridges, and the Midtown, Lincoln, and Holland Tunnels--into 
and out of Manhattan are subject to nightmarish traffic jams because of 
security requirements. Yesterday, for instance, they were all shut down 
because of the flight 587 crash.
  Nearly 25 million square feet of commercial office space is destroyed 
or heavily damaged. The amount destroyed--nearly 20 million square 
feet--surpasses the entire office space inventory of cities such as 
Miami and Atlanta.
  Over 125,000 jobs have at least temporarily vanished from the area, 
and the city estimates that at least 30,000 are gone for good.
  Noxious fumes continue to emanate from the hole at the World Trade 
Center site creating great concern among

[[Page 22479]]

workers and residents for their personal health.
  There is a possibility that the Hudson River will bust through a 
retaining wall and flood the area as the debris is removed.
  Insurance companies are demanding 100 percent increases from 
companies doing business in New York--simply because they are located 
in a confirmed terrorist target zone. Some insurance companies refuse 
to provide insurance at any cost.
  Mayor Giuliani had to cut $1 billion from the city budget just to 
prevent an immediate fiscal meltdown at a time when the need for city 
services is at an all-time high.
  The city of New York is staring at a $3 billion deficit next year as 
a direct result of this crisis. The State's revenue loss is projected 
to be $9 to $12 billion.
  The Comptroller of New York City places the economic loss to the city 
of New York and its businesses at $105 billion in the next 2 years.
  The incident has caused the first decline in city gross product in 
over 9 years.
  In short, we have taken a hit for the Nation. When the terrorists 
attacked New York, they were attacking our financial center, they were 
attacking America, and they were attacking the free world. None of the 
problems I described above was of our making. None of these problems 
was the result of a single thing we had or had not done. And none of 
the assistance that we have requested on either the appropriations or 
tax side exceeds what we need to simply stay afloat as we begin this 
daunting rebuilding effort.
  The assistance that Senator Baucus included for New York in the 
stimulus package is designed to send a message that the Federal 
Government will not walk away and allow terrorists to destroy New York 
City's economy. I believe people from all over America believe that. It 
boils down to specifically three complementary provisions, where 
Senator Clinton and I, working with the business community, the labor 
community, the small business community, nonprofits, and Mayor Giuliani 
and Governor Pataki could come to the conclusion they are our highest 
priorities. Frankly, we submitted a larger list. The Finance Committee 
pared it down. But this is about our bare needs:
  A $4,800 per employee tax credit to companies that retain jobs--and 
do not abandon New York--in the area immediately around ground zero; 
the creation of a special kind of private activity bond to lower the 
cost of rebuilding New York; and finally, a provision that would permit 
companies that replace equipment destroyed in the World Trade Center 
bombing to take a special deduction if they replace that property in 
New York.
  Not a single aspect of these proposals is designed to take businesses 
from another part of the country or to accomplish job creation goals we 
could not obtain before September 11, 2001. We have been fully 
supported by our colleague on the Senate Finance Committee, Senator 
Torricelli of New Jersey, as well as Senator Corzine of New Jersey and 
Senators Dodd and Lieberman of Connecticut, all of whom have stood by 
and understand that New York's problem is a metropolitan area problem.
  These provisions are simply designed to help us overcome some of the 
enormous obstacles that Osama bin Laden placed in New York City's way.
  So I, once again, thank Chairman Baucus and the members of the 
Finance Committee. I see my colleague from New Jersey has come into the 
Chamber. I thank him for his steadfast dedication and his treating our 
area as one.
  You have all done the right thing, not only by the people of New 
York, who are suffering right now, but by the people of America. I 
believe the Nation, with this stimulus bill, will be much the better.
  I thank all of you on the Finance Committee who have supported us for 
your hard work. And I pledge my complete and total support for this 
package.
  On another point--and that is about this package--we have put 
together a package that is designed to put money in the hands of 
people, A, who need it most, and, B, who will spend it the quickest.
  When I looked at the House bill, I was amazed; such a high percentage 
of the benefits do not even come into effect in 2003, 2004, 2005. 
Without debating the merits of those provisions, it was obvious someone 
put their ideological wishes ahead of a need to stimulate the economy.
  When I even look at the alternative Senate bill, we all know that 
many of the larger companies that will get these benefits, especially 
the ones in the bill of my good friend from Iowa, will not spend them 
immediately. Many of these companies have enough capital to spend on 
their own. When they see a business investment, they will spend it. 
They will when they see an opportunity. Right now they do not see an 
opportunity because average people do not have the money to buy the 
products that they might create.
  I have talked to large numbers of businesspeople in finance and 
manufacturing and services. Most of them are afraid to state this 
publicly, but when they talk to you privately, they say they don't 
understand the House bill, they don't really even understand the Senate 
bill that came from the other side, even though it might benefit their 
companies. Their greatest worry is that the economy is hurdling south, 
and that recession becomes deep recession, and deep recession becomes 
deeper recession, and God knows what after that.
  To sit here and say that we do not have an emergency, and to sit here 
and say we are going to give money to people who are not going to spend 
it immediately, when this is supposed to be a stimulus bill, makes no 
sense.
  So I fully support the Finance Committee package put forward by 
Senator Baucus, not only because it helps New York, which is extremely 
important to me and is sine qua non, but because if you want to 
stimulate the economy and you can ask 100 objective people, non-
Democrat, non-Republican, not coming from a business or labor 
perspective, eliminate the ideologues from the left or the right, 
almost every one of them would choose the package of the Democratic 
Finance Committee.
  In conclusion, Madam President, No. 1, we have an emergency, if we 
ever had one, and we ought to move this bill forward.
  No. 2, New York needs help, not just to benefit New York but to help 
America get an important part of our economy on its feet, and this bill 
does it.
  And No. 3, if there was ever a question about the need to stimulate 
the economy now, by giving average folks the money they need to buy the 
things that will get the economy going again, this is the time and this 
bill does it.
  Madam President, I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, before the tragic events of September 
11, one of most pressing issues facing this Nation was what to do about 
the economy. From the spring of 2000 until September 10 of this year, 
all the indicators pointed to an economic slowdown, if not a mild 
recession, for fiscal year 2002.
  Since September 11, the economy has far worsened. Hundreds of 
thousands of people have been laid off. Businesses and industry are in 
dire financial shape, and consumer confidence has plummeted. Several 
friends of mine in the retail industry have predicted a nuclear winter 
for the retail industry this holiday season, and many Ohio 
manufacturers I have talked to have told me they have never seen things 
as bad.
  Given the challenges these turbulent times present, I say to my 
colleagues in the Senate--and to the American people as well--we need 
to focus on those measures that will stabilize and grow the U.S. 
economy. The need for fiscal discipline is more important today than 
ever before.
  I am worried that Congress, in its haste to enact measures to 
eliminate the scourge of terrorism at home and abroad and counter our 
recession, is overlooking the Nation's long-term fiscal integrity. 
Earlier in this calendar

[[Page 22480]]

year, the Congressional Budget Office indicated that the United States 
would have a fiscal year 2002 on-budget surplus of $125 billion and a 
Social Security surplus of $156 billion. However, given the worsening 
economic condition of our Nation over the past year, the most recent 
calculations of the Senate Budget Committee show that the Federal 
Government is on track to have a unified or combined surplus of $52 
billion in the current fiscal year.
  In essence, the Budget Committee is saying that the on-budget surplus 
CBO estimated for fiscal year 2002 has been totally wiped out, gone. 
Two-thirds of the $156 billion in Social Security surplus no longer 
exists.
  What is more, the stimulus package the Senate is considering will 
cost approximately $75 to $100 billion. To pay for that package, the 
$52 billion in Social Security surplus will be gobbled up, and the 
Federal Government is going to have to issue somewhere between $23 and 
$50 billion of new debt this fiscal year.
  In addition, the Federal Government likely will end up a lot further 
in the financial hole because Congress will pass additional 
supplemental spending measures as the fiscal year progresses and 
disasters and other emergency issues inevitably arise. The President 
said he may be coming back to Congress later this fiscal year for more 
money as he finds the need to respond to some of the issues that some 
of my colleagues have been talking about.
  My point in going through these numbers is to highlight the fact that 
each and every additional dollar this Congress appropriates in fiscal 
year 2002 is going to require the U.S. Treasury to issue new debt. We 
are right back to where we were in 1997, the last year the Federal 
Government had to issue new debt. As we debate the economic stimulus 
package, efforts to fight terrorism or anything else to do for that 
matter, we must constantly ask ourselves a vital question: Do these new 
spending initiatives or tax cuts warrant issuing new debt to pay for 
them? The question I am asking the various constituencies who visit me 
asking for more money from the Government is whether or not their 
request is worthy enough to borrow money from our fellow Americans to 
pay for it? That is the question. Again, the circumstances warrant 
borrowing money to fight terrorism and to boost the economy. I 
supported the $40 billion emergency supplemental that we passed 
following the September 11th attacks, and much of that supplemental is 
going to respond to the needs we have heard about this afternoon.
  Extraordinary times require Congress to take extraordinary actions. 
We will spend what it takes to defend this Nation from our enemies and 
to respond to the needs of our country. The fact that the Federal 
Government will, once again, have to issue new debt to fund any new 
spending highlights how critical it is that we appropriate these funds 
wisely.
  Earlier this year I supported the budget resolution and the tax cut. 
I saw a plan whereby increased spending increases would be limited and 
we would use the Social Security surplus to pay down debt. It wasn't 
too many weeks ago we were talking about this in the Senate. 
Unfortunately, this is not what has happened. Even before the events of 
September 11, Congress was on track to increase overall discretionary 
spending by 8 percent. That follows a 14.5-percent increase in non-
defense discretionary spending the year before and another 8.6-percent 
increase in spending the year before that.
  This pace of spending increases is just unsustainable. I support the 
need for a stimulus package. I have been working with members of the 
Centrist Coalition to craft a balanced bill that will help spark our 
economy by getting businesses to boost investment and which helps raise 
consumer confidence and gets the American people spending again and 
responds to the financial and health care needs of the unemployed.
  Sadly, though, the bill reported out of the Finance Committee last 
week appears as if Christmas has come a month early. In fact, some of 
the provisions of the majority stimulus measure as well as the measure 
that was passed by the House, are nothing more than handouts for any 
number of special interest groups.
  For example, under the majority stimulus bill, Amtrak would receive 
$4.4 billion in tax breaks and $3.5 billion to subsidize farm products, 
including up to $10 million for bison farmers for the Midwest.
  For each employee they have, Wall Street investment bankers would 
receive a $4,800 tax credit, a credit originally designed for use in 
training individuals moving from welfare to work.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Ohio yield?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I will yield for a question.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. The Senator cited $4.4 billion worth of tax breaks 
for Amtrak. What provision would that be? I am the author of the Amtrak 
provisions. I am unaware of any tax breaks for Amtrak. Amtrak, being a 
public corporation, doesn't pay taxes. So it would be hard to give them 
a break. Nevertheless, the Senator made a statement about a provision 
of which I don't know. For purposes of the institution, my colleagues 
would like to know what tax breaks Amtrak has as a special interest?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. According to the information I have, under the 
majority stimulus package, they would end up getting a $4.4 billion 
benefit. And if I stand corrected, I am more than happy to check that.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. The Senator is very kind to yield. For that, I am 
very grateful. I would like the record to be correct. Amtrak doesn't 
pay taxes so it can't get a tax break. The provision is that the States 
can issue bonds to build high-speed rail lines, and the Federal 
Government will pay the interest on it. So the Federal Government, in 
fact, is helping the States. The tax breaks go to the States that we 
represent, not Amtrak, not any projects, not any special interests, the 
States of the Union. I include in that the State of Ohio. I thank the 
Senator for yielding to me.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Senator for refreshing my memory.
  The fact is, tax breaks would be given to individuals who purchase 
State issued bonds. However, in effect, the U.S. Treasury ends up 
paying $4.4 billion in interest for Amtrak on those bonds by giving up 
tax revenue from individuals who purchase such bonds. That is the point 
I was making.
  The movie industry would receive expedited depreciation for their 
capital assets. Chicken farmers would get a tax credit extension for 
converting chicken waste to energy. The list goes on and on.
  Over in the House, one of the biggest items in their stimulus package 
would repeal the corporate minimum tax and repay more than $20 billion 
retroactive to 1986 and give some of the major corporations in this 
country a big tax bonus.
  As reported in the November 11 edition of the Washington Post, 16 
companies in particular, many in the energy field, would receive more 
than $7 billion in immediate tax refunds. While a number of the 
specific proposals in either package might give a boost to certain 
areas of the economy, we need a bill that will give us what truly are 
the best stimulus proposals, the ones that will give us the biggest 
bang for the buck for both the economy and our unemployed workers.
  Another important factor we should consider is whether these 
provisions stimulate the economy in the short run without causing a 
fiscal hangover that lasts many years. In brief, they need to be 
temporary.
  One such provision I support as part of the stimulus package is a 
temporary extension of unemployment benefits for up to 13 additional 
weeks for those who have been hit hardest by the recession. In 
addition, I believe families who through no fault of their own find 
themselves relying on unemployment benefits should not have these 
benefits reduced further through taxation. Therefore, I propose, as 
part of the package, an interim suspension of the taxation of 
unemployment benefits. We should do that.
  Several weeks ago I met with Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan 
to

[[Page 22481]]

discuss the state of the economy and the need for a stimulus package. 
Perhaps the most important point he made to me was that the Congress 
should consider the net effect of any stimulus package, not just the 
gross amount of the dollars involved. In other words, don't just focus 
on the size of the tax cuts or the dollars spent but look at the net 
effect on the economy when all is said and done.
  If the stimulus package that Congress adopts leads to chronic budget 
deficits, either through increased spending or revenue reductions, it 
is going to drive up interest rates. Make no mistake about it, the 
financial markets are watching us.
  The Senate lays claim to the title ``world's most deliberative 
body.'' As George Washington said, ``We pour legislation into the 
senatorial saucer to cool it.''
  At this time in our history, it is critical that the Senate takes on 
its role and thinks carefully about the long-term fiscal consequences 
of its actions. Intellectually, this means Congress must hold the line 
on spending and that any increased spending should be limited to 
measures that truly raise domestic and international security and 
efforts that truly stimulate our economy.
  I also remind my colleagues that the events of the past couple of 
months, momentous as they have been, do not change the fact that the 
baby boomers are aging and approaching retirement. When 2011 rolls 
around, the baby boomers will start to retire by the tens of millions.
  Unavoidably, the cost of a host of Federal social programs also will 
increase significantly. Chiefly, I am talking about Medicare. A few 
years latter, the Social Security Program will begin to pay out more 
money in benefits than it will collect in payroll taxes. The difference 
between those inflows and outflows is going to have to come out of 
general revenues, or more borrowing. What we are doing today will have 
a large impact down the road.
  In order for this Nation to deal with these looming responsibilities, 
it is critical that we have our fiscal house in order and have a robust 
economy. The first obvious step to ensuring that we can meet these 
obligations is to get spending under control and return to reducing the 
national debt, as we did the last 3 years.
  I am heartened that our President said he will veto an emergency 
supplemental spending measure being developed by some of my colleagues. 
I stand squarely behind the President, and so do 36 signatories of a 
letter Senator Bunning and I circulated several months ago. This letter 
reinforced the fact that we would uphold a Presidential veto of 
excessive spending.
  The fact that the Treasury will once again be issuing new debt to 
finance the operations of the Federal Government makes it that much 
more important that Congress work together--work together--on a 
bipartisan basis to make the hard choices and prioritize our spending.
  As I have traveled across my State over the past 2 months, I have 
seen the anxiety on the faces of my constituents. The thing that is 
giving them a great deal of comfort is the fact that they believe the 
President is doing a good job, that he is 100 percent focused on 
protecting the Nation's interests and he has put those interests ahead 
of partisan politics.
  The American people also believe Congress is doing the same thing, 
and we must not let them down. One of the things we need to do is 
understand that we are facing a much different ball game than we have 
ever faced before. This is not 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago; 
this is a new ball game for all of us. The people have anxiety; they 
are fearful and angry. They are looking at us, and they are wondering: 
Are you going to work together for our interests, or are you going to 
go back to partisan politics again and put your particular party's 
interests above those of the people?
  Madam President, we can work together, and we must if we expect to 
get a bill to the President by the end of the month. The eyes of 
America are upon us to see if we have learned that this Nation's 
interests are bigger than our own partisan interests.
  I pray that the Holy Spirit enlightens this body to understand the 
enormous impact our decision will have on the future of our Nation and 
on the quality of life of its citizens.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Senators Baucus and 
Byrd for crafting a reasonable and appropriate economic stimulus bill. 
The package they have brought forward balances tax relief, assistance 
for unemployed workers, and spending for homeland security and economic 
recovery. With the United States economy in recession for the first 
time in over a decade, now is the time for Congress to act to help hard 
working Americans. The Baucus-Byrd legislation will strengthen consumer 
confidence as well as public safety.
  An already struggling economy was dealt a crippling blow by the 
September 11th terrorist attacks. In order to best jumpstart the 
economy, each part in the stimulus package has a substantial effect in 
the short-term, the greatest impact for the money spent, and no great 
cost in later years. I believe that the Baucus-Byrd stimulus package is 
directed toward boosting business and consumer confidence in the 
future.
  America's workers need assistance now. Today, with more than 7 
million Americans out of work, the Nation is suffering through its 
highest level of unemployment in 20 years. More than half of unemployed 
people do not qualify for unemployment, and the vast majority cannot 
afford health coverage under our current system. As of mid-September, 
there were 10,888 unemployed people in Vermont, a seasonally-adjusted 
unemployment rate of 3.2 percent. Approximately 27,200 Vermonters will 
claim unemployment insurance in the next year, according to estimates 
from the Department of Labor's National Employment Law Project. Of 
those, 3,536 will exhaust their unemployment benefits during that time.
  The Senate's economic recovery plan addresses these problems by 
providing unemployment insurance and health coverage for laid-off 
workers, tax rebates for middle and low-income people who need 
immediate relief, and tax incentives for small businesses to encourage 
immediate investment in new plants and equipment.
  One of my primary goals in the wake of the September 11th attacks has 
been to increase the security of our border with Canada. Over the past 
decade or more, the northern border has continually been shortchanged. 
While the number of Border Patrol agents along the southern border has 
increased over the last few years to over 8,000, the number at the 
northern border has remained the same as a decade ago at 300. Even as 
the northern border was increasingly discussed as an attractive route 
of entry into the United States for terrorists, Congress failed to 
rectify this imbalance.
  We began to make up for this pattern of neglect with passage of the 
USA PATRIOT Act last month. That law authorized a tripling of the 
number of Border Patrol officers, INS Inspectors, and Customs agents in 
the States that share a border with Canada. It also authorized $50 
million each to the INS and Customs to improve the technology used in 
monitoring the border and to purchase additional equipment. This law 
provides the basis for improving our security, but we must now ensure 
that these proposals are funded. This stimulus bill provides the first 
step.
  Senator Byrd proposes an additional $327 million for U.S. Customs--
$31 million to be used for new staffing which could result in as many 
as 350 new agents. Coupled with the 285 new agents for the northern 
border funded in the Treasury Postal Appropriations bill earlier this 
year, we are on the way to addressing the shortfalls felt by the 
Customs Service in the north.
  This bill also appropriates over $700 million for INS to improve INS 
facilities and border infrastructure to help better secure our country. 
While I had hoped more money and attention would have been dedicated to 
the staffing

[[Page 22482]]

shortfalls, I am confident we can expand these initiatives in the 
supplemental appropriations bill scheduled to move after the 
Thanksgiving holiday. We will need to show continued vigilance on this 
issue. For too long, we have ignored the needs of the northern border 
and been complacent about our security. We no longer can afford such 
complacency.
  The proposal would also include $600 million for additional FEMA 
firefighting grants. This money would allow state and local communities 
to expand and improve their firefighting programs. Over 50 percent of 
the funding would go to volunteer fire departments in rural 
communities.
  Again, I thank the Chairman of the Finance Committee and the Chairman 
of the Appropriations Committee, for bringing forward this important 
legislation. America's national security must not be left behind as 
Congress considers an economic stimulus package.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, in the legislation before the Senate 
on economic recovery, we are, of course, focused on those who have lost 
their jobs, those businesses and unions that are in distress, and our 
various communities.
  But there are some American families for whom September 11 is not a 
memory; it is a crisis in their lives that they wake up with every 
morning. I am speaking about the families of those who perished--the 
5,000 husbands and wives and thousands of children for whom September 
11 will be a day they will live with for the rest of their lives.
  Nearly 600 of the dead were from my State of New Jersey. Senator 
Corzine and I have begun meeting with the husbands and wives of those 
deceased. It is an experience I wish every Senator could share. It 
becomes so common to speculate on whether September 11 has changed 
America forever. I don't know. But I know that when I meet with these 
widows and widowers, America has forever changed for them.
  We debate the economic consequences for our country. I want you to 
consider the economic consequences for them, what the morning was like, 
not of September 11 but of September 12, when a husband or a wife was 
gone. It could have been a young family in a new home, with a new baby. 
Families wanted to mourn, but there wasn't a lot of time because in 2 
weeks a mortgage payment was due, in 3 months a tuition payment was 
due, that weekend there were groceries to buy, and there were no more 
paychecks. For them, it is a crisis that never goes away.
  In the legislation before the Senate, there may be things Senators 
like and there may be things they do not like. There may be points of 
controversy. I trust there is one thing upon which we can all agree. I 
am very grateful that, on a unanimous and bipartisan basis, Members of 
the Senate accepted, under Senator Baucus's leadership, an amendment I 
offered that will change the tax status of families who lost a family 
member on September 11 at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, or 
through the anthrax attacks in recent weeks.
  The amendment I offered is based on an aspect of current American 
law. If, under the statutes of our country, a member of the military is 
lost in an engagement abroad, or a civilian employee is killed by a 
terrorist act abroad, they will incur no tax liability to the U.S. 
Government for that year. When that provision was written, I have no 
doubt it did not occur to Members of the Congress that victims would 
not be people in the service abroad but would be civilians at home; 
that the front lines would not be in Latin America, Africa, or Asia but 
in New York, New Jersey, or Virginia. But that is the world in which we 
live. The laws must be changed accordingly.
  The Finance Committee, therefore, has put before the Senate a 
provision that changes the tax laws to relieve the liability of these 
tragic families.
  First, income tax liability for this year and last year is waived. No 
further payments will be paid and refunds will be received when 
appropriate.
  Second, we recognize that many of those who worked at the World Trade 
Center or even in the Pentagon were not salaried employees of 
considerable means but may have been performing janitorial services or 
were service employees or worked in the restaurant at the World Trade 
Center. With modest means, their families face great obligations to 
plan their futures. They may not have paid Federal income tax. 
Therefore, the second provision waives FICA taxes or payroll taxes that 
were paid and may be owing for these families.
  Third, many of the families of the deceased are now in the process of 
examining the wills of the dead that say what is available for 
children, wives, or husbands. Under the Finance Committee legislation, 
there is estate tax relief for the first $3 million in assets from 
Federal and State estate taxes. There is $8.5 million of Federal estate 
tax relief.
  It is generous, but it is appropriate. Whatever money is to be left 
for many of these families is all the income they will know for the 
rest of their lives. It is theirs. That is what the deceased husbands 
or wives would have wanted. It is for their children and for their 
futures, not the Government.
  Fourth, the bill provides help for those who were fortunate enough to 
survive the attacks, but for those thousands who had injuries current 
law excludes disability benefits from income if a U.S. employee is 
injured in a terrorist attack outside the United States. This 
legislation will extend the same benefit to those citizens of the 
United States injured in a terrorist attack and receiving disability 
benefits.
  Fifth, there is no better statement about America than the hundreds 
of millions of dollars donated to private charities since September 11, 
but there is the question of the tax liability of families who receive 
some of this assistance from employers, friends, family, or charities. 
Under the provision of the bill, we have made it far easier for 
charitable organizations to make payments to victims and their families 
and for companies to establish private foundations to help the 
survivors with short- and long-term needs.
  Indeed, any payment from an employer to a victim or family for 
personal, living, family, or funeral expenses will be tax exempt.
  It clarifies that payments made by airlines, as well as Federal, 
State, and local governments as a result of the attacks are also not to 
be taxed.
  The Senate may debate much of this legislation. As one Senator who 
represents hundreds of these victims and their families, much may be 
negotiable. Some things may be excluded, but one thing must stand. When 
this year is concluded, no American who found a member of their family 
on the front line of the war against terrorism should be held liable 
for taxation of the U.S. Government for charitable, governmental, 
family, or other assistance. What last dollars these family members may 
have earned for their wives or husbands or children surely by justice 
must be their own. On this provision, we should all insist.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I inquire of the time remaining. I 
understand there are several of us who want to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 12 minutes remaining before 
controlled time begins.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if I may speak for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I inquire, under the agreement, how 
much time was I allocated?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no allocation of time for the Senator 
from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Alaska 
have 3 minutes, that I have 7 minutes of the remaining time, and I see 
the Senator from Delaware. How about 5, 5, and 5?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That will exceed available time.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I correct the Senator from Louisiana; I asked for 3\1/
2\ minutes.

[[Page 22483]]


  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent for 3\1/2\ minutes for the 
Senator from Alaska, 4\1/2\ minutes for myself, and the remaining time 
for the Senator from Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I thank my colleague for her 
cooperation. I will be brief. We are talking about a stimulus package, 
and I want to address a specific stimulus package that I think is most 
appropriate relative to the business at hand before this body.
  As we all know, the question of stimulus means different things to 
different people. Senator Craig of Idaho offered an amendment, H.R. 4, 
on the stimulus bill today. I intend to pursue that and bring that 
matter up.
  It is important to understand just what H.R. 4 does. It is the 
legislative portion of the President's comprehensive energy program 
that aims to secure America's energy future with new national energy 
strategies that reduce energy demand, increase energy supply, and 
enhance our energy infrastructure and our energy security. It is truly 
a stimulus bill.
  It is supported by an extraordinary group of Americans: the veterans 
groups, the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vietnam 
Veterans. I could go on and on. It is supported by the Hispanic groups. 
It is supported by those over 60, America's labor community, senior 
citizens, small business, on and on.
  Why is it so significant inasmuch as it is and should be a part of 
this bill? I challenge each Member of this body to identify a greater 
stimulus associated with the House bill, H.R. 4, which is now part of 
the stimulus package, in stimulating the economy with at least 250,000 
direct jobs associated with the building and opening of ANWR. 
Furthermore, the revenue of about $3.6 billion going into the Federal 
Treasury from lease sales would go directly to offset some of the cost 
of our war on terrorism.
  What would it cost the taxpayers? Not one red cent. As we look at the 
stimulus package objectively, let us recognize what it is. It is a 
spending package, but this portion is not. This would be funded by the 
private sector. The oil industry would bid on these leases in my State 
of Alaska, the revenue would flow to the Federal Government, and the 
employment would stimulate the economy and jobs.
  There would be at least six new tankers built in U.S. shipyards that 
would be operated by U.S. crews, and it would fly under the American 
flag. This is hundreds of millions of dollars of expenditures that 
would be stimulated by opening up this area. Can we do it safely? 
Certainly.
  The arguments against opening ANWR are the same that prevailed 27 
years ago against opening Prudhoe Bay. We have the technology to do it. 
The American labor community supports it. It is the right thing to do 
to stimulate the economy, and we should not wait any longer. It is 
truly a stimulus. It belongs as part of this bill.
  I hope my colleagues will reflect on a better stimulus they can 
identify that meets that criteria: It does not cost the taxpayer one 
red cent; 250,000 direct jobs; generation of about $3.6 billion 
directly into the revenue stream of this Nation.
  My time is up. I thank my colleagues. I ask for their consideration. 
We will have a vote on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I am proud to support the Baucus-Byrd 
stimulus and economic recovery package and believe that it is exactly 
the right package at this time to defend, protect, and make our Nation 
stronger.
  The preamble to our Constitution states that the purpose of our 
Federal Government is ``in Order. . .to provide for the common defence, 
promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to 
ourselves and our Posterity.''
  The Framers of our Constitution, Madam President, as you know, were 
very deliberate; they were very exact; they were very careful in the 
wording of these documents that helped to create and sustain our 
Nation. For that reason, it strikes me as very important that the first 
priority of our Government is to provide for the common defense. I 
believe the Baucus-Byrd stimulus economic recovery package does exactly 
that. Let me explain.
  We fund a military operation whose sole purpose is to protect 
American lives, our property, and our well-being. Our lives, our 
property, and our well-being are at risk because of the attack we are 
under.
  This is a two-pronged war in which we are engaged: We are engaged in 
Afghanistan on the ground trying to find the people and groups 
responsible for the attack on the United States and our allies, and we 
on the homefront are trying to keep our Nation standing up under this 
attack.
  I ask my colleagues: What would it matter or what difference would it 
make to a businessperson if his or her business were destroyed by a 
terrorist in a direct attack or if his or her business were destroyed 
due to the impact of a terrorist attack?
  The business is lost just the same. We can come to this Chamber in a 
bipartisan spirit and support our military, and I do. The military is 
to protect our interest, our lives and our livelihood. There are 
thousands of families who have been directly hit by a terrorist on our 
shores. There have been thousands of businesses and millions of people 
in jeopardy because of that attack.
  This Government, under the Constitution, and all that we know about 
our Government, has a responsibility to those individuals to help 
provide economic recovery. That simply is what this package does. This 
is not an entitlement. This is not a special interest. Our country 
exists to help us protect and defend ourselves, and that is what 
workers and businesses are trying to do. They have been attacked, and 
Government has a right to respond and respond in this way.
  The package before us provides some very important help to keep these 
businesses open, to help people continue to receive a paycheck so they 
can pay down their mortgages. Think about this: Our Army, our Navy, our 
Air Force and Marines are assembled all over the world to keep 
Americans or keep foreign armies from taking homes away. Whether they 
come on to our shore and take our homes away by confiscating the 
building or whether homes are taken away because the homeowners inside 
cannot pay their mortgage, what difference does it make? The home is 
gone.
  Senator Baucus has been working morning, noon, and night to come up 
with a package to help Americans pay their mortgage. We can ask 
Americans who live in Louisiana or Montana, what difference does it 
make if they do not have their house? So let us craft a stimulus 
package that helps businesses stay open, workers pay their mortgage, 
people be able to use their benefits.
  This package that has been put together by Senator Baucus, Senator 
Daschle, Senator Reid, and the Democrats recognizes the responsibility 
for common defense. It also recognizes it does not really make a 
difference how a person loses their home. The loss is the same, and let 
us fashion a package that helps them.
  Give 75 percent of COBRA premiums for displaced workers. In 
Louisiana, these premiums cost $7,000. That represents 75 percent of 
the unemployment check. So if we do not provide health care, it is as 
if a foreign army came and took over a hospital and stood at the door 
with a machine gun and said, no, we know that you are dying and need 
surgery, but you are not going to have access to this hospital. If we 
do not give COBRA payments, it is the exact same. People cannot use the 
hospital. It is the same thing for unemployment.
  So I want to strongly urge this package for Louisiana, for our 
Nation, and to say that for the nonproliferation issues it is a direct 
risk to our Nation if we do not invest in ridding this world of weapons 
of mass destruction.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.

[[Page 22484]]


  Mr. CARPER. My colleagues have heard me say a number of times, 
reflecting back on the last 8 years when I served as Governor of 
Delaware, that we always had in place a litmus test that we applied 
when we considered proposed tax cuts. The litmus test was that those 
proposed tax cuts should be fair. They should stimulate the economy and 
create jobs. They should simplify the Tax Code. And they should be 
consistent with a balanced budget. We need a similar set of guiding 
principles as we debate the stimulus package that is before us, and as 
it turns out there is such a set of guiding principles.
  The process of working out a bipartisan economic stimulus package 
began shortly after the attacks of September 11. The White House and 
congressional leaders from both parties met jointly and, in 
consultation with Chairman Greesnspan and former Treasury Secretary 
Robert Rubin, they agreed upon a bipartisan set of principles for an 
affective and responsible package. Those principles were agreed to 
jointly by the bipartisan leadership of the House and Senate budget 
committees, as well as by the Centrist Coalition here in the Senate.
  I stated at the outset of this process that I would use these 
bipartisan principles as my guide as we considered economic stimulus 
legislation here in the Senate. I have conveyed that message to all of 
my constituents who have written me on this subject or who have talked 
to me about the issue at town hall meetings. I also conveyed the same 
message very early on to Chairman Baucus and both leaders.
  Since this debate has, unfortunately, become much more partisan of 
late than it was in the beginning, it's helpful to look back at those 
bipartisan principles that we started with. Chairman Baucus deserves 
great credit for sticking to the spirit as well as the letter of those 
principles from beginning to end, even as he has come under great 
pressure from all sides.
  First, the bipartisan principles stated that a stimulus package 
should accomplish three objectives: restore consumer demand; increase 
business investment; and help those most vulnerable in an economic 
downturn.
  On the consumer side, the Baucus package provides, as the President 
has requested, rebate checks to the 45 million taxpayers who either did 
not get checks this fall or only got partial checks this fall.
  On the business side, the Baucus package provides specific tax 
incentives to encourage businesses to invest again in America and to do 
so immediately. In particular, the Baucus package includes a provision 
the President requested to allow businesses, large and small, to 
recover immediately a greater portion of their investment costs.
  In terms of assistance to those most affected by the current 
downturn, the Baucus plan provides help to those workers who have been 
laid off since September 11, in the way of an extension of unemployment 
insurance and an added hand in maintaining health coverage for 
themselves and their families. Additionally, the Baucus package 
provides assistance to the City of New York to help with that city's 
heroic efforts to recover and rebuild from the devastating events of 
September 11.
  Second, the bipartisan budget committee principles stated that a 
stimulus package should equal approximately one percent of GDP, 
including the fiscal impact of all of the various actions taken by 
Congress since September 11. The size of the Baucus package, at $70 
billion over the next 12 months, is slightly less than the $75 billion 
requested by the President. On the other hand, when combined with the 
other measures passed since September 11, it is slightly more than the 
one percent of GDP proposed by Chairman Greenspan and Secretary Rubin 
and agreed to by the bipartisan leadership of the budget committees.
  Third, the bipartisan budget committee principles stated that 
measures included in a stimulus package should be limited in time, so 
as not to push up long-term interest rates and so as not to make 
permanent our recent reliance on the Social Security trust fund to make 
up for renewed on-budget deficits. The recommendation of the bipartisan 
leadership of the two budget committees was that all measures should 
sunset within one year. The sunsets in the Baucus package conform with 
that recommendation.
  Fourth and finally, the bipartisan budget committee principles stated 
that to keep the nation on track to pay off the national debt over the 
next decade, outyear offsets should make up over time for the cost of 
near-term economic stimulus. And this is really where Chairman Baucus 
deserves great credit. The cost of his plan over the next decade--the 
effect it will have on long-term interest rates and on our ability to 
finance the retirement of the baby boom generation--is one-third less 
than the stimulative impact of his plan over the next 12 months.
  This combination of significant short-term stimulus with relatively 
little long-term cost is precisely what the bipartisan leadership of 
the budget committees called for at the outset of this process, but it 
is easier said than done. Just consider that the package passed by our 
counterparts in the House is 60 percent more costly over the next 
decade than it is stimulative over the next 12 months, or that the 
alternative our friends on the other side of the aisle are offering 
here in the Senate is nearly 50 percent more costly over the next 
decade than it is stimulative over the next 12 months.
  I regret that this process has become as partisan as it has. I have 
been very heartened since September 11 to see the President and Members 
of Congress from both parties working together in a bipartisan, 
bicameral fashion to craft commonsense solutions to the uncommon 
challenges facing our country. I believe deeply that the very best 
thing we could do right now to restore the confidence of consumers, 
investors, and business leaders alike would be to work together to pass 
a bipartisan economic stimulus package.
  I believe there is still an opportunity to come together across party 
lines and between the two chambers to achieve a reasonable compromise 
that will serve the best interests of the country and extend the spirit 
of bipartisan cooperation here in the Congress. The only way we can 
hope to reach agreement on the fine details at the end of the day, 
however, is if we remain true throughout the process to the broad 
principles that we agreed to at the outset.
  I believe that Chairman Baucus has kept faith with the bipartisan 
principles that were proposed by Chairman Greenspan and Secretary Rubin 
and were agreed to by the bipartisan leadership of the budget 
committees and by the Centrist Coalition. I believe that he has 
negotiated in good faith. For that reason, Chairman Baucus has my 
support. I hope he will have the support of all centrists here in the 
Senate, whether Democrat, Republican, or Independent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I believe I am recognized for 5 
minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Our leader also would have 5 minutes. I have talked to 
Senator Lott, and he said since he spoke this afternoon perhaps Senator 
Nickles would like to speak. So I hope Senator Nickles or somebody else 
from our leadership can come and speak. If they do not, I will be glad 
to do it for them, but right now I will take 5 minutes.
  Madam President, over the last several days, we have heard about how 
this process of getting to a stimulus package started with a set of 
principles that presumably both Republicans and Democrats on the budget 
process, as well as the finance process, have agreed to.
  Democratic Senators have particularly been reminding us of this 
process of having a stimulus package agreed to with a whole set of 
principles. They have been reminding us of this, and they have 
particularly been reminding us as they criticize the House bill on the 
stimulus. They also used it to criticize a proposal I released a few 
weeks ago that represented the thinking of the Republican caucus.

[[Page 22485]]

  As is often the case, not every principle fits everything they want 
to talk about, and so what one of the principal proponents of the bill 
that is before the Senate--and that is the Democratic caucus bill--has 
failed to mention is that none of the stimulus provisions should be 
industry specific.
  It seems that adhering to principle is in the eye of the beholder 
because the bill that came out of the Finance Committee and is before 
us now as modified is laden with industry-specific provisions, contrary 
to one of the principles that has been talked about in the stimulus 
package that is agreed to.
  We have specific measures in this bill before us targeted to Amtrak, 
to broad band, as well as specific agricultural crops and even bison, 
if one can believe it. We have an incredible expansion of the work 
opportunity tax credit. I have supported this tax credit which was 
meant to help welfare recipients find work, but in the Finance 
Committee bill before us this credit has been grotesquely distorted to 
give this tax credit to companies in New York investment firms and 
banks who hire millionaire stockbrokers and lawyers.
  Can you believe that? Tax credits for millionaires; that is what the 
Democrat bill stands for.
  Another principle Democrats have emphasized is these measures should 
be temporary, and they insist any tax measures cannot be more than 1 
year long, but we have all kinds of spending measures in this mix that 
will have long-term impact. We also have a bond provision in the 
Democrat plan that the taxpayers will be paying for not 1 year but over 
30 years. If that does not establish a double standard, I do not know 
what does.
  We have a Washington Post editorial that is on a chart behind me. I 
am not going to go into detail about reading the whole article, but the 
headline is ``Meet Patriotic Pork.'' The editorial argues that Members 
are cloaking their underlying agenda under the name of patriotism and 
in the fight against terrorism. The editorial criticizes the House 
bill, which I also agree goes too far, but the editorial goes on to say 
that ``the Senators who larded this bill in committee ought to be 
ashamed of themselves.''
  Madam President, that kind of says it in a nutshell. My objective is 
to work to make this bill a product of which we will not be ashamed; we 
will have a product of which neither Democrats nor Republicans will be 
ashamed. I know we will have a product of which the chairman of the 
committee, Senator Baucus, will not be ashamed. And I will be for it.
  We need to get that process going. We need to do whatever it takes to 
make sure this bill will accomplish our goals, then, of helping the 
economy and the American people. Right now, it is obvious it does 
neither and our country deserves better. So this partisan, pork-ridden, 
lobbyist-written bill needs to be stopped, and we will stop it. Once 
this happens, then as things go in the Senate, reasonable heads will 
prevail, and we can sit down and work out a bipartisan compromise that 
meets the greatest needs of the Senators and we can vote for it.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement of 
position of administration policy.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Executive Office of the President,


                              Office of Management and Budget,

                                Washington, DC, November 14, 2001.
     Statement of Administration Policy
     H.R. 3090--Economic Recovery and Assistance for American 
         Workers Act of 2001
       The Administration opposes passage of H.R. 3090 as reported 
     by the Senate Finance Committee. The Administration believes 
     that it is crucial for Congress to quickly pass a stimulus 
     bill that will help get the economy going again following the 
     terrorist attacks of September 11th. This bill in its present 
     form will not accomplish this goal.
       Instead of providing broad-based tax relief to restore 
     economic growth, this bill is an assembly of provisions that 
     do not provide immediate economic stimulus and are not 
     appropriate to this bill. For instance, $5 billion is set 
     aside for agricultural programs, including payments for bison 
     meat, and more than $4 billion is directed to tax credit 
     bonds for Amtrak.
       Furthermore, some of the proposals in H.R. 3090 as reported 
     by the Senate Finance Committee would require at least six 
     months to one year to take effect due to their unprecedented 
     nature, the need for new Federal regulations, and the 
     requirement for new health insurance authorizations from 
     State legislatures. Proposals that effectively start next 
     summer and purportedly end next winter will neither provide 
     immediate assistance for displaced workers nor rapid stimulus 
     for the economy. Indeed, economic growth could suffer 
     substantially as a result of these provisions. In contrast to 
     the President's proposal to give prompt aid to displaced 
     workers and provide broad-based tax relief that will speed 
     their reemployment, this bill's unprecedented expansion of 
     unemployment insurance and the new health care entitlements 
     would likely increase unemployment by hundreds of thousands 
     of workers next year.
       These provisions have one feature in common however: each 
     is likely to permanently expand the size and scope of the 
     Federal government and its control over programs, such as 
     unemployment insurance, that have always been under State 
     purview.
       The Administration also notes that the proposed expansion 
     of the work opportunity tax credit is duplicative since the 
     Administration has decided it will direct $700 million in 
     Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to New York to 
     aid businesses affected by the terrorist attacks. The 
     Administration's decision was the result of consultations 
     with both New York State and city officials.
       The Administration is opposed to efforts to attach 
     additional discretionary spending to the bill. The 
     Administration and Congress agreed to limit discretionary 
     spending to $686 billion and to provide $40 billion for the 
     emergency response to the terrorist attacks. These funds are 
     more than adequate to meet foreseeable needs. This agreement 
     should be upheld.
       The Administration urges the Senate to work together across 
     party lines to pass a responsible economic stimulus package 
     that will provide an immediate boost to the economy. The 
     President believes that the best way to retain and create 
     jobs is through tax relief that improves incentives to work 
     and invest while restoring consumer and business confidence. 
     The President has set out the following four principles for 
     achieving these goals:
       Accelerating marginal income tax rate reductions to provide 
     more money for consumers to spend and for entrepreneurs and 
     small businesses to retain and create more jobs;
       Giving relief to low and moderate income workers to put 
     more money back in their pickets;
       Providing partial expensing to encourage businesses to 
     invest and make new purchases; and
       Eliminating the corporate alternative minimum tax, which, 
     if unchecked, imposes job-killing higher taxes during an 
     economic downturn.
       The President has also called for swift action to help 
     dislocated workers, through extensions of unemployment 
     benefits and health care assistance programs that can be 
     implemented without delay.
       Unlike the version of H.R. 3090 reported by the Senate 
     Finance Committee, the President's framework would boost the 
     economy, help displaced workers get back to work quickly, and 
     create several hundred thousand more jobs. Accordingly, the 
     Administration urges the Senate to reject the Finance 
     Committee approach and instead to work in a bipartisan manner 
     to craft an economic stimulus package that reflects the 
     President's principles and encompasses provisions that will 
     provide an immediate and effective stimulus to the Nation's 
     economy.


                         pay-as-you-go scoring

       Any law that would reduce receipts or increase direct 
     spending is subject to the pay-as-you-go requirements of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act. 
     Accordingly, H.R. 3090, or any substitute amendment in lieu 
     thereof that would reduce revenues or increase direct 
     spending, will be subject to the pay-as-you-go requirements. 
     OMB's scoring estimates are under development. The 
     Administration will work with Congress to ensure that any 
     unintended sequester of spending does not occur under current 
     law or the enactment of any other proposals that meet the 
     President's objectives.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, this so called stimulus package 
includes a lot of money for agriculture. Since I am the only working 
family farmer in the Senate, I think it's important that I point out 
the biggest problems with the agriculture spending we are considering.
  The first problem that I see involves the section on commodity 
purchases. This section has been described by the chairman as a list of 
agriculture commodities which have experienced low prices in the 2000 
or 2001 crop year. Due to what has been described as an ``economic 
shortfall'' experienced by these commodities the chairman would like to 
institute a short-term purchase program.

[[Page 22486]]

  In the past, when I sat on the Agriculture Committee, we did provide 
short-term relief for specific commodities. But before we provided that 
relief and spent tax dollars we justified that spending by reviewing 
economic data which defined the problems specific commodities were 
experiencing.
  I know that the Agriculture Subcommittee on Appropriations has also 
worked on similar assistance packages, and I would bet my farm on the 
fact that they also justify the cost by reviewing the loss.
  My point is that if we are going to spend hundreds of millions of 
dollars on these commodities, doesn't the other side need to at least 
show us the data that led them to include these commodities? I am the 
ranking member on the committee, and I have not heard from one farmer 
in America that this is needed. Let us start this discussion as any 
committee with jurisdiction over this issue would. Show us the average 
price of these commodities and what percentage of loss they have 
experienced. At least show us when and where the loss occurred.
  While we are talking about where, where are these commodities 
located? Specifically, which regions of the country benefit from this 
section. We would have asked this question in the Agriculture 
Committee, why is no one asking it now? Where are these commodities 
being produced?
  For instance, where is the majority of bison slaughtered? I did a 
little research and found that one cooperative in North Dakota 
processes over 60 percent of America's bison meat. In fact, this 
facility, is the world's first processing plant devoted exclusively to 
bison meat.
  I am not trying to tell everyone that there might not be a need for 
us to purchase bison meat. Who knows, maybe the Senators from North 
Dakota can show us that there is a real need for bison to receive some 
sort of assistance. But, under this bill, even billionaires who dabble 
in bison ranching will get taxpayer assistance.
  What I am trying to demonstrate is that this isn't the committee of 
jurisdiction for USDA programs and if the Democrats want to give the 
Finance Committee jurisdiction over USDA because the Agriculture 
Committee cannot handle its own workload, we should review this as the 
Agriculture Committee should, or as any committee should review an 
issue before spending American tax dollars.
  The second problem I see is the re-establishment of the Natural 
Disaster Program. Under this program, producers are compensated if 
their crop losses are more than 35 percent of historic yields. We 
enacted this program last year to help farmers deal while we were 
getting the Agriculture Risk Protection Act up to speed. For those of 
you who do not remember, the Agriculture Risk Protection Act was the 
crop insurance bill we spent $8 billion taxpayer dollars on to avoid 
this specific scenario.
  Congress allocated $8 billion dedicated to getting the government out 
of the disaster business by making crop insurance more affordable. The 
chairman would lilke to reinstitute a program that compensates 
producers if their yields fall off. Sounds a lot like crop insurance to 
me.
  Why are we tyring to provide payments to producers who have chosen 
not to buy insurance? I can see why we did this in the past, but now 
that the law is in place the U.S. government is subsiding the cost of 
insurance on wheat at about 55 percent for the family farmer.
  The message we will be sending is, ``there is no need to take care of 
your own risk, Uncle Sam will help you cover your losses. And in turn 
you punish the family farmers who bought insurance to manage their own 
risk.
  I know that under this program there is a small premium for producers 
who carry insurance, but this program does not allow more than the 
worth of the crop. So, if the farmer has insurance that covers his 
loss, he does not get much out of this program.
  It looks like to me we are questioning the policy established in the 
crop insurance law that the majority of us supported. Isn't this really 
a question that should be debated at length? Shouldn't the long-term 
ramifications of this decision at least be considered?
  How do we tell farmers to follow the direction established in the 
crop insurance law and manage their own risk by purchasing affordable 
insurance tools while we are rewarding those that have chosen to save 
their money and take on more risk by not purchasing crop insurance?
  If the Finance Committee is now the committee of jurisdiction for 
crop insurance, I think these questions should be addressed.
  The third point I want to bring up is the $3 billion to clear the 
``backlog'' of Rural Development loan and grant applications at USDA. I 
realize that this is now being deleted from the chairman's bill, but 
the Senate was subjected to this awful policy during the markup and up 
until today, so I think it is worth mentioning.
  When I read that provision for the first time my first though was, 
``How important is it to clear the backlog at Rural Development 
quickly?''
  The reason I ask this question is due to the fact that the 
legislation required funds be made available only after the next fiscal 
year 2002 Ag. Appropriation funds had been exhausted.
  Don't we usually provide enough funds based on the need and ability 
of USDA to process the applications during the next fiscal year?
  Under the chairman's proposal, we would have had to first spend the 
fiscal year 2002 allocation before we used this new money. How many new 
jobs would this money have created in six months? Not many if we didn't 
run out of fiscal year 2002 funds until August or September.
  It is sad that the press had to inform the other side how poor this 
idea was instead of the Republicans and Democrats working together 
because I guarantee you, if anyone on the Democratic side of the aisle 
had asked me I would have pointed this out immediately. This was 
terrible policy.
  Just to let everyone know, I contacted USDA about the provision the 
Democrats pulled and they told me that if those funds had been made 
available USDA would have needed an extra $100 million in salaries and 
expenses to get all of the possible loans and grants out the door 
within a year.
  My final point is that if this amendment had been successful we would 
have been asking a mission area of USDA to engage in the single largest 
expansion of any mission in years, and to do so without an 
undersecretary.
  In summary, the Senate Agriculture Committee seems to be unable to 
manage its own business so I guess it is trying to ``pass the buck'' to 
the Finance Committee. These are not light-hearted issues and the 
impact of these provisions will affect both short and long term policy 
considerations and precedents.
  Madam President, I'd like to take a few minutes to respond to remarks 
made earlier today by our distinguished majority leader. The majority 
leader criticized three of the four proposals in the Senate Republican 
Caucus' stimulus proposal.
  The three proposals the majority leader criticized are: one, the 
acceleration of the marginal tax rate cuts from the bipartisan tax 
relief package enacted earlier this year; two, the repeal of the 
corporate alternative minimum tax; and three, the 30 percent bonus 
depreciation.
  I would like to address his general criticisms of the proposals. 
Senator Daschle made the following points: one, the proposals were the 
same old ``leftover'' tax cut proposals; two, that Senate Republicans 
were using the September 11 events to push ``ideological'' measures; 
and three, that these proposals had been ``unanimously'' rejected by 
economists, editors, governors, and others.
  I will respond to these general criticisms one by one.
  On the first one, the ``leftover'' argument, I would like to point 
out that, with the exception of the marginal rate acceleration, none of 
these proposals were included in any tax cut bill considered by the 
House or Senate for this year or last year for that matter. As a matter 
of fact, bonus depreciation has not been on the table for nearly a 
decade. These proposals arose subsequent

[[Page 22487]]

to September 11 as a response to the major economic problem of 
declining business investment. So let us not characterize these 
proposals as leftovers.
  Let us go to the ``ideological'' point. Again, with the exception of 
the marginal rate acceleration, these proposals were not Republican 
agenda items. I ask: Does anyone recall signs at the Republican 
Convention with ``bonus depreciation'' or corporate AMT relief?
  This charge was coupled with an allegation that Republican Senators 
were using the events of September 11 to advance these so-called 
ideological proposals. Of course, these proposals were specifically 
designed to respond to the economic downturn. Indeed, in a gesture of 
bipartisanship that has not been reciprocated, Republicans, led by the 
President, put on the table a proposal that certainly cannot be called 
a Republican priority, a supplemental rebate. In another gesture of 
bipartisanship, again with no reciprocation by the Democratic 
Leadership, Republicans, led by President Bush, took off the table, an 
arguably stimulative proposal, capital gains tax cuts.
  Actions speak louder than words.
  I agree with one part of the majority leader's statement. That is, 
neither side should use the events of September 11 to advance 
ideological objectives.
  I have pointed out two significant examples of Republicans acting in 
anti-ideological manner. Where in the Democratic caucus proposal, or 
Democratic leadership's actions, have we seen similar anti-ideological 
behavior?
  Indeed, it appears that the events of September 11 are being used as 
another ``salami slice'' tactic to get to a Democratic ideological 
objective. That objective is a Government-run universal health care 
system. Just take a look at the new COBRA entitlement, labeled as 
temporary here.
  Now, I would like to address the majority leader's third general 
criticism. That criticism is that economists and editors have 
unanimously rejected the Senate Republican caucus stimulus proposal.
  I guess if you only include some economists that have served in 
Democratic administrations or some editors that identify themselves 
with the Democratic agenda, then I would agree with the majority 
leader. For instance, much is made of Joseph Stiglitz's criticisms. 
There is a lot of talk about his Nobel Prize, but you do not hear that 
he chaired the Council of Economic Advisors in the Clinton 
Administration. I guarantee there are Nobel Prize winners who worked in 
Republican administrations who would not agree with Joseph Stiglitz. In 
fact, they would have problems with the Democratic package.
  As an example of the diversity of opinion, you only have to review 
the statements of Glen Hubbard, the current chair of the President's 
Council of Economic Advisors.
  The charge that economists have ``unanimously'' rejected the Senate 
Republican caucus stimulus package is not borne out by the facts.
  With respect to the charge that editors and opinion writers have 
`'unanimously'' rejected, I would like to print in the Record a couple 
of articles. One is an article by Kevin Hassett, who was a witness 
before the Senate Budget Committee. Another is an article from National 
Review. These are only two of many articles that show that there is 
support for elements of the Republican causus position. In addition, 
even the Governors' letter cited by the majority leader does not reject 
the Senate Republican caucus stimulus package. I also ask unanimous 
consent to print in the Record an editorial from the Washington Post, 
that is highly critical of the Finance Committee's stimulus bill, by 
pointing out that high-priced lobbyists help put the Democratic bill 
together.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           [From the Asian Wall Street Journal, Nov. 7, 2001]

                            A Silver Lining

                         (By Kevin A. Hassett)

       The U.S. Federal Reserve's 50-basis-point rate cut Tuesday 
     came in response to a flurry of extremely negative economic 
     reports and increasingly widespread pessimism about the 
     American economy. As the federal funds rate nears zero, many 
     observers believe that there is little room for further 
     significant interest rate reductions. With the economy still 
     declining and the Fed out of ammunition, additional 
     government stimulus must now be of the fiscal variety.
       Corporate tax cuts are a natural fiscal stimulus candidate. 
     The corporate sector has dropped the sharpest this year, and 
     business investment has historically responded impressively 
     to tax cuts. Yet U.S. Senate Democrats have staunchly opposed 
     Republican efforts to provide corporate tax relief. ``I'm not 
     even enamored any longer with the word stimulus,'' said 
     Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle last week, preferring 
     instead to launch a giant government spending spree. Such 
     measures reflect the emerging Democratic view that the ``Bush 
     economy'' is nearing depression, and only a New Deal can save 
     it.
       But if you look closely, things aren't that bad. Marginal 
     tax-rate cuts might well have difficulty stimulating business 
     activity if there is significant excess capacity. But the 
     data don't support such a negative view. Indeed, despite 
     rumors to the contrary, the American economy was most likely 
     not in a recession on Sept. 10. The monetary and fiscal 
     stimulus adopted earlier in the year appears to have done its 
     job quite well.
       That positive news emerged last week when the U.S. Commerce 
     Department reported that the gross domestic product declined 
     0.4 percent in the third quarter. Negative GDP growth is a 
     strong sign of a recession, but analysis of the background 
     data suggests that the number would have been comfortably 
     positive absent the attack. First, before the attack, chain-
     store sales indicated that consumer spending in September was 
     at about the same healthy level posted in August. Second, 
     border closings created turmoil in the auto sector, where 
     just-in-time inventory techniques led to significant 
     production interruptions.
       It is a simple adding-up exercise to correct for these two 
     factors, and doing so leads to a surprising conclusion. If 
     September consumption had continued at the pace registered at 
     the start of the month and auto production had not jammed up, 
     the economy would have dodged recession in the third quarter. 
     GDP would have been more than a percentage point higher--
     safely nestled in positive territory.
       Although that did not happen, it does put to rest the view 
     that the terrorist attacks pushed an already devastated Bush 
     economy into a steep downward spiral. The economy was doing 
     better than expected, and this was likely because of well-
     timed economic policy. Consumer spending has been 
     particularly strong in interest-sensitive sectors.
       Another bit of positive news lurking in the third-quarter 
     data confirms the view that business tax cuts in particular 
     could be effective now. The government data available do not 
     explicitly report third-quarter productivity, but it is 
     possible to figure this out by using techniques that are also 
     relied upon by Fed economists (and undoubtedly reported to 
     board members Tuesday).
       These calculations are striking. Even with the sharp 
     declines in output that occurred at the end of the third 
     quarter, productivity increased by more than two percentage 
     points. As economic data watching goes, that remarkable 
     observation is as good as it gets.
       Historically, productivity has almost always declined 
     sharply just before a recession and softened further during a 
     recession. This ``procyclical productivity'' pattern is so 
     reliable that an entire literature exists exploring its 
     cause. The current consensus appears to be that productivity 
     drops near recessions because firms are reluctant to lay off 
     idle workers when demand shrinks, and the proportion of 
     workers that are not productive increases sharply. Perhaps 
     that describes the past, but it has not happened this time. 
     High-tech investments have allowed firms to adjust on the fly 
     and continue to squeeze more output out of fewer inputs.
       In February, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan marveled at the 
     strong productivity numbers posted in late 2000 when the 
     economy was softening. The increase was, he remarked in a 
     Senate Banking Committee hearing, ``at a pace sufficiently 
     impressive to provide strong support for the view that the 
     rate of growth of structural productivity remains well above 
     its pace of a decade ago.'' It's important to note that this 
     high rate of productivity has continued over the past few 
     quarters, even as the economy has softened.
       Why is this so important? If productivity were declining, 
     then firms would be faced with many more painful decisions in 
     coming months. Capital investments that were intended to 
     improve the bottom line would have failed. Should plants then 
     be closed? As it is, it looks like the inventory and 
     investment corrections that occurred in the 12 months before 
     Sept. 11 had achieved their desired effects. The 
     ``overhangs'' that presage sharp economic disruptions were 
     not apparent in the data, and a healthy response to marginal 
     tax-rate reductions is quite plausible.
       But, of course, other factors are present. And they help to 
     explain why, despite the good news, economic activity has 
     dropped so sharply.

[[Page 22488]]

       After years of highly mathematical research in dusty 
     journals, many economists now believe that the root cause 
     lies in the distinction between risk and ambiguity that was 
     first described by University of Chicago economist Frank 
     Knight in the 1920s. Knight argued that there is a difference 
     between a circumstance with known probabilities--like a coin 
     flip--and a situation with high ambiguity, where the 
     probabilities of different outcomes are not known. 
     Subsequently, researchers have confirmed Knight's observation 
     both in theory and with observation.
       There are profound differences in behavior when people face 
     the two different types of uncertainty. Most important, when 
     ambiguity is high, consumers and firms often act as if the 
     worst possible outcome will occur for sure. Thus, after the 
     terrorists attacked, the U.S. entered an ambiguous world with 
     many horrible possibilities and no probabilities. 
     Predictably, businesses and consumers assumed that a deep 
     recession would occur with certainty. Their extremely 
     cautious response to the assumption helped make the recession 
     more likely.
       So the core fundamentals of the economy remain surprisingly 
     strong. If there is a recession, it will have been caused by 
     the terrorist attacks. Therein lies both the hope and the 
     challenge to policy makers. Absent a rapid and clearly 
     visible victory in the war on terrorism, consumers and firms 
     will only gradually return to normal, and a long and deep 
     recession is possible. Yet the underlying strengths suggest 
     that there is ample opportunity, and that corporate tax cuts 
     could ignite further productivity enhancing investments. The 
     stimulus bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives 
     took a step in that direction. It's time that the Senate stop 
     bickering and do the House one better.
                                  ____


                 [From the NRO Financial, Nov. 8, 2001]

                     The New Dance of the Crackpots

                             (By John Hood)

       In this indispensable guide to the New Deal, The Roosevelt 
     Myth, journalist John T. Flynn wrote about the pivotal couple 
     of years leading up to the 1936 presidential election. 
     Roosevelt's early efforts had failed to bring the country out 
     of depression, and so a bewildering array of left-wing 
     politicians and journalists offered their own strategies for 
     getting the economy moving again. It was, in Flynn's 
     picturesque words, ``The Dance of the Crackpots.''
       Its main result was to shove FDR further to the left. His 
     administration created new credit and spending programs to 
     steal the thunder of Huey Long and other radicals, and to 
     induce an artificial inflationary spurt in activity just 
     before the election--a winning political strategy that 
     nonetheless resulted in another painful recession in 1937-
     '38.
       As American battles international terrorism and a slowing 
     economy, we are now witnessing a new Dance of the Crackpots. 
     Denigrating President Bush's $1.3 trillion tax cut enacted by 
     Congress earlier this year, critics are coming out of the 
     woodwork to offer increasingly silly and outdated proposals 
     to ``stimulate demand'' and ``escape the liquidity trap.'' 
     While draped in New Economy language, these ideas are 
     basically the same old Keynesian claptrap that the crackpots 
     of the 1930s indulged in--although, unlike present-day 
     advocates, the 1930s crackpots had the excuse that most of 
     their pet ideas had yet to be proven false through 
     experience.
       On prominent exponent of the new (old) philosophy is Robert 
     Rubin, Clinton's former Treasury Secretary. Advising the 
     Congress on how to fashion a ``bipartisan'' stimulus package, 
     Rubin recommended a focus on spending programs and tax 
     credits directed to poor Americans. ``People at the bottom of 
     the income scale spend all the money they earn,'' he 
     reportedly told congressional leaders. ``If you give it to 
     them, they're going to spend it. If you give it to me, it's 
     not going to affect my spending patterns.''
       Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter made a similar point in a 
     column criticizing supply-side tax cuts suggested by House 
     Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas. Armey ``claims to be an 
     economist,'' Alter sneered. ``But he obviously never learned 
     about a little concept familiar to every college freshmen 
     called `supply and demand.' Our supply--or capacity--is just 
     fine right now; in fact, we've got too much of it. The 
     problem is consumer demand. It's dangerously flat.''
       According to Rubin and his journalistic echo chamber, 
     government stimulus is needed because Americans aren't 
     spending enough. This statement is absurd. To say that 
     Americans aren't spending ``enough'' is to presuppose that 
     there is some level of spending that is correct, and that 
     government officials can know such a level. Furthermore, such 
     a singular focus on broad abstractions like ``supply'' and 
     ``demand'' leaves these hapless pump-primers without a 
     connection to the real economy of individual goods and 
     services exchanged by individual human beings.
       It is simply nonsensical to talk about the economy in only 
     aggregate terms. For example, there was a great deal of 
     excess capacity in America's buggy-whip manufacturing sector 
     in the early 20th century. Was that a sign of inadequate 
     consumer spending? Of course not. It was a sign that 
     Americans were changing their consumer patterns in response 
     to changes in technology. When households reduce their 
     spending on consumer goods, opting instead to pay down debt 
     or accumulate savings, they aren't failing to buy ``enough'' 
     stuff to keep the economy afloat. They are simply changing 
     their preferences in favor of future consumption (perhaps of 
     more expensive, more capital-intensive durable goods) and 
     away from some goods currently being produced.
       Contrary to the crackpot theories of Rubin, Alter, New York 
     Times columnist Paul Krugman, and other neo-Keynesians, 
     recessions don't signify ``too much supply and not enough 
     demand.'' Recessions aren't creatures of human irrationality. 
     They signify a mismatch between what companies are making and 
     what their customer actually want at the time. Moreover, they 
     often signify a mismatch of time preferences, as consumers 
     signal (through more savings) that they are willing to 
     finance new investment today in order to buy something they 
     value more in the future. As long as capital markets are free 
     to coordinate the interests of producers and consumers, the 
     latter's increased savings will increase the pool of loanable 
     funds and thus encourage entrepreneurs (with lower interest 
     rates) to pursue new investments to satisfy consumer demands.
       In other words, it is perfectly rational in a time of 
     recession for the government to focus its fiscal policy on 
     removing barriers to investment. These barriers include large 
     inflationary or deflationary changes in money (because these 
     destroy the ability of interest rates to communicate time 
     preferences accurately to entrepreneurs) and excessive taxes 
     on investment activities. The U.S. tax code retains a strong 
     and counterproductive bias against savings and investment, so 
     proposals to accelerate depreciation, reduce marginal tax 
     rates on capital gains, and reduce double-taxation of 
     corporate dividends are exactly the right medicine if the 
     goal is to speed the recovery of the American economy.
       The answer to ``excess capacity'' in buggy-whip 
     manufacturing was not for the government to stimulate demand 
     for buggy whips. It was to allow industry to make needed 
     investments in automobile production. Similarly, American 
     consumers are signaling that the current mix of investment is 
     not generating what they want. So financial, physical, and 
     human capital must be redirected to new uses. This necessary 
     adjustment will happen more rapidly, and more successfully, 
     if Washington will ignore the new Dance of the Crackpots and 
     gets its fiscal act together.
                                  ____


               [From The Washington Post, Nov. 13, 2001]

                          Meet Patriotic Pork

       In normal times, pork-barrel spending is offensive. When 
     the nation is at war, it's considerably worse. But the 
     patriotism felt by most citizens since the terrorist attacks 
     has done nothing to restrain lobbyists' habit of putting 
     special interests ahead of national interests. Indeed, some 
     apparently can't tell the difference. Kenneth Kies of 
     PricewaterhouseCoopers, who has been pushing tax breaks that 
     would profit clients such as GE and IBM Corp., told The Post 
     it would have been ``irresponsible'' and even unpatriotic for 
     him to behave otherwise.
       The provision that Mr. Kies advances would reduce taxes on 
     corporations' overseas investment income. It's hard to see 
     how this measure, which would encourage firms to keep money 
     outside the country, would do anything to stimulate the 
     American economy. Yet, Mr. Kies has sought to include it in 
     the stimulus package being prepared in the Senate. Meanwhile, 
     other lobbyists have pressed for equally egregious giveaways. 
     The stimulus bill that passed through committee last week 
     includes money for citrus growers and buffalo farmers and 
     producing electricity from chicken waste. It includes a tax 
     break on aviation fuel for crop-dusters. A wage credit 
     designed to encourage firms to hire welfare recipients has 
     been extended to businesses in lower Manhattan that hire 
     anyone.
       As it fights a war on terrorism, the United States also 
     faces the threat of a global recession that could be the 
     worst in years. Thousands of ordinary workers have already 
     lost their jobs, and many thousands more may do so. The 
     economic stimulus will succeed only if it pumps money into 
     the bits of the economy where it will stimulate demand 
     effectively. That means targeting it at business investment 
     and at less well-off consumers, not tossing cash at random 
     supplicants.
       The senators who larded the bill in committee ought to feel 
     ashamed of themselves, but they're not the only ones. It 
     seems to us that lobbyists such as Mr. Kies and clients such 
     as General Electric and IBM also bear some responsibility. 
     Normally in Washington we assume that such corporations will 
     grasp for whatever they can get; it's up to those in Congress 
     to resist their more egregious graspings. But do the chairmen 
     of GE and IBM really want to pursue their narrow self-
     interest at a time when everyone else is being asked to think 
     of the common good--at a time of war? Imagine the stir it 
     would cause, and the impact it could have, if just one of 
     them said, ``Better spend the money on the troops. We'll be 
     back when the

[[Page 22489]]

     war is over.'' It's not too late for them to show what 
     patriotism might really mean.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, let us be accurate when we describe 
each side's proposals. Upon careful consideration, it is clear:
  First, the Senate Republican Caucus stimulus proposal is not made up 
of ``leftover'' tax cuts;
  Second, the Senate Republicans are not using September 11 as a device 
to advance ``ideological'' proposals; and
  Third, the proposals in the Senate Republican Caucus stimulus package 
have not been ``unanimously'' rejected by economists, editors, and 
opinion makers.
  Madam President, I wish to discuss what I consider to be a crucial 
component of this economic stimulus package: health insurance 
assistance for dislocated workers.
  We all know about the high cost of health insurance. For dislocated 
workers, its even higher. That's because worker continuation or 
``COBRA'' coverage is extremely expensive: coverage for a family can 
cost as much as $500 or $600 per month.
  And workers who do not qualify for COBRA coverage--because they 
worked for State or local governments or in small businesses that are 
exempt--also face high health care costs.
  So when it comes to providing health insurance assistance to 
dislocated workers, both sides in this debate are in agreement: People 
need help, and they need it now.
  Where we disagree is on how we get there. I have endorsed a program 
that is already up and running, that has been tried and tested and 
tailored for the very purpose of providing ready help--not red tape--in 
emergencies like this.
  The Democrats, on the other hand, have endorsed the creation of a new 
Federal bureaucracy, consumed by red tape, that would take many months 
to get up and running.
  First, let's talk about structure. For any program to work 
efficiently, it needs a backbone. The National Emergency Grant program 
has been in place since 1998. The Labor Department has been getting 
funds to States quickly and seamlessly for several years.
  In fact, since September 11th, 3 States have already received funds 
totaling $37 million, 3 more States are on the verge of approval, and 
13 additional State applications are expected. Clearly these numbers 
indicate the success the National Emergency Grant program has already 
achieved.
  By comparison, the new COBRA subsidy program that the Democrats favor 
has no backbone at all. There is no structure currently in place at the 
Labor Department or any other Federal agency to administer this new 
benefit.
  Next, let's take a look at process.
  At the Federal level, the National Emergency Grant program requires 
nothing more than a new set of grant criteria allowing States to use 
funds for health insurance. The criteria is being drafted under the 
Labor Department's existing authority, and can be made effective 
immediately.
  In contrast, the new COBRA subsidy program proposed by the Democrats 
requires the deployment of an entirely new Federal program, requiring 
Congressional authorization and a formal regulatory process under the 
Administrative Procedures Act before any benefits could be delivered.
  Moreover, communications and oversight mechanisms would have to be 
established, and agencies would have to redirect resources to meet 
program goals.
  At the State level, the National Emergency Grant program is familiar 
to governors and other State officials. The program relies on an 
existing, streamlined process that has been in place since 1998. All 
States have mechanisms in place to apply for grants and deliver 
benefits.
  By comparison, the Democrat-endorsed new Federal subsidy program 
would impose new and costly mandates on States, which would have to 
authorize and set-up new systems and departments to comply with the 
program's rules before workers could start receiving benefits. In many 
instances, action at the State level would be frozen until State 
legislatures acted to authorize and fund the new mandates.
  Finally, let's address the most important question, the one that this 
whole debate should turn on.
  How long will this all take? How do the two approaches compare when 
it comes to getting workers health care assistance quickly?
  The National Emergency Grant program can guarantee payments to States 
within 15 days of an application's approval. That speed is simply 
unsurpassed, and it's the chief reason I support using the grant 
program today.
  The new Federal subsidy program, by contrast, would tie up funds in 
red tape until next summer. Under almost any scenario, financial 
assistance would not be available until federal regulations are issued, 
finalized and made effective, a process that could take 6 months, at a 
minimum.
  The bottom line is the Democrats' proposal would not be able to get 
benefits to workers until it's too late. In addition to a lengthy 
process at the Federal level, States are faced with undue burdens of 
setting up new systems to coordinate with the Federal Government and 
finding new resources to do so.
  The Democratic approach, while well-intentioned, reinvents the wheel. 
The National Emergency Grant program, by comparison, needs no re-
invention. It is ready to go.
  And so I urge my colleagues to opt for a system that's ready to go 
and to support the speedy delivery of funds to our dislocated workers 
through the National Emergency Grant program.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I also wish to discuss a Medicaid 
provision in the Democrats' economic stimulus package that would 
provide for an expansion of the Medicaid program to a new group of 
individuals.
  In order to fully evaluate the potential effectiveness of this 
proposal, it is important to take a look at State fiscal health.
  The economic slow-down coupled with increased demands on health care 
safety net programs is creating major strains on State budgets.
  Just this year, 44 States have revenues below original forecasts; 28 
States have implemented or considered Medicaid cuts; 7 States have 
convened special legislative sessions to address budget shortfalls; and 
11 States have determined a need for supplemental appropriations for 
Medicaid.
  Today, Medicaid expenditures are 7.5 percent higher than they were in 
1999, and on average account for 19.5 percent of State spending. 
Therefore, Medicaid is a primary target for State budget cutbacks 
during economic downturns.
  States have reported a current cumulative revenue shortfall of $10 
billion, and predict this number to continue to grow. Moreover, new and 
unprecedented State responsibilities for homeland security are 
exacerbating serious fiscal conditions.
  Therefore, any new State Medicaid option, no matter how generous the 
Federal match, is not an attractive proposal to States.
  States simply do not have the resources to take up a new option under 
the Medicaid program because States cannot absorb the State share of 
new Medicaid enrollees.
  In fact, a spokesperson for the National Governor's Association 
recently stated that any proposal, including a Medicaid expansion, that 
requires State funding would have ``zero take-up.''
  Aside from the budget constraints that prevent a Medicaid expansion 
from being a viable health care proposal for dislocated workers, 
Medicaid expansions are not a timely response to addressing 
emergencies.
  In order to develop a new Medicaid eligibility category, States would 
have to develop a State plan amendment. This entails a planning period 
that includes: setting income levels and time frames; creating outreach 
materials and caseworker training; and obtaining approval from the 
legislature--assuming the legislature is still in session and many 
aren't--and finally, getting approval from CMS.
  By the time this process runs its course, the 12 month window would 
likely be over. Even if the 12 month period isn't over, it wouldn't be 
an immediate benefit either to health coverage or as a fiscal stimulus.

[[Page 22490]]

  A more immediate and expeditious approach to making health care 
coverage available to displaced workers would be through the National 
Emergency Grant program.
  This program should be expanded to allow States the opportunity to 
cover health care premiums, including COBRA premiums, for displaced 
workers and their dependents.
  The National Conference of State Legislatures agrees that flexible 
Federal funds would be the best approach to empowering States to 
effectively address State-specific needs of dislocated workers.
  There are a number of ways that States could use National Emergency 
Grant funds to provide immediate health care access to dislocated 
workers and their families including using State employee health 
systems to unemployed individuals, utilizing community health centers, 
or contracting with insurers.
  The National Emergency Grant program requires nothing more than a new 
set of grant criteria allowing States to use funds for health 
insurance. The NEG proposal is an expedient means of making health 
coverage available to dislocated workers and their families.
  Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I rise in support of the economic 
stimulus package reported by the Committee on Finance.
  Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, the slowdown in our 
Nation's economy has been a matter of increasing concern. The ripple 
effect of the tragic events on September 11 has affected millions of 
Americans who are dealing with the economic repercussions. Hundreds of 
thousands of workers have lost their jobs, and consumer and business 
confidence has eroded during this time of uncertainty. The decrease in 
economic activity is affecting companies ranging from small businesses 
to corporations, not to mention entire industries such as the airline 
and tourism industries.
  There is no doubt that an economic stimulus package would help to 
boost our Nation's weak economy. While the prospects for long-term 
growth remain strong, the terrorist attacks exacerbated weaknesses in 
many business sectors and diminished hopes for a quick revival of an 
already faltering economy and it now appears that the country will 
experience a period of economic weakness and rising unemployment before 
returning to a period of strong growth. A stimulus package that is 
well-defined and specifically targeted for maximum effectiveness can 
play an important role in promoting a rapid economic recovery.
  As we all know, there are contrasting views among the members of 
Congress as to what components should be included in a stimulus package 
to maximize the stimulative effect on the economy. I believe that the 
economic stimulus package should encourage increased spending as soon 
as possible to rejuvenate the economy, assist people who are most 
vulnerable during the economic slowdown, and restore business and 
consumer confidence. However, it is important that fiscal discipline 
over the long-term be maintained in order to ensure economic growth in 
the future. As such, legislation to stimulate the economy should only 
be on a short-term basis so that the budget can return to surplus as 
the economy recovers.
  Given the importance of taking prompt action to stimulate the economy 
which is on the brink of a recession, I commend the Senator from 
Montana for his efforts in reporting an economic stimulus package out 
of the Finance Committee that can be considered on the Senate floor. I 
support components of the legislation, including provisions aimed at 
addressing the needs of America's newly-unemployed workers. In addition 
to losing their health benefits, the unemployed have no income to pay 
out-of-pocket for their health care needs. Under the Consolidated 
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, COBRA, employers with 20 or 
more employees must offer continued health insurance coverage to 
qualified employees and their families who lose health coverage when 
they lose their jobs. Unemployed workers are required to pay up to 102 
percent of the full premium, which averages about $220 per month for an 
individual and $558 per month for a family. Only about 20 percent of 
eligible workers use their COBRA option because premiums are so 
expensive. The bill drafted by the distinguished Chairman of the 
Finance Committee will assist workers who are COBRA-eligible by 
providing a 75 percent COBRA subsidy for up to twelve months. This 
subsidy will help to ensure that many of the workers and their families 
who could not previously afford COBRA coverage will be able to retain 
their health insurance. States would be allowed to cover the remaining 
25 percent of the COBRA premium for low-income COBRA-eligible 
individuals and their families.
  While the subsidy for COBRA will help a number of Americans, many of 
the workers who will lose their jobs in the coming year will not be 
eligible for COBRA coverage. These workers face an even greater barrier 
to health care access and include individuals who worked for small 
businesses, were in the individual health insurance market, worked in 
companies that have gone bankrupt, and those who could not afford 
health insurance before they were laid off. The bill by the Senator 
from Montana would help these workers who are not COBRA-eligible by 
giving states the option to add a new eligibility category to Medicaid. 
This new category would allow states to cover laid-off workers who are 
not COBRA-eligible for up to 12 months.
  Another critical component of the stimulus legislation is the 
temporary increase in the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, FMAP, 
rate for States. The Federal Government currently pays between 50 
percent and 83 percent of the cost of Medicaid in each state, depending 
on the state's per capita income in the three calendar years that are 
most recently available. On average, the Federal Government pays 57 
percent. Medicaid matching rates for fiscal year 2002 are based on 
state per capita income data from 1997, 1998, and 1999--years in which 
the national economy was strong. Consequently, matching rates are 
slated to be reduced for 29 states in 2002. The reduction in FMAP rates 
has worsened an already bleak fiscal outlook for many states. In 
August, the Congressional Budget Office projected that Medicaid 
expenditures in 2002 would be nine percent higher in 2002 than in 2001, 
while states projected that their revenues would rise just 2.4 percent. 
Rising Medicaid expenditures have long been a serious concern to 
states. The repercussions of the terrorist attacks on September 11 are 
leading most analysts to expect even higher state Medicaid costs 
because the economic downturn will make more people eligible for 
Medicaid and lower state revenues. It is during difficult financial 
times that the Medicaid program becomes a primary target of State 
budget cuts. Yet, people need Medicaid during these times more than 
ever.
  The FMAP increase proposed by the Finance Committee has three main 
components. First, States that would have received a lower FMAP rate 
would be ``held harmless'' and retain their fiscal year 2001 matching 
rate. Second, all States would receive a rate increase of 1.5 percent. 
Finally, States with higher than average unemployment rates over the 
previous three months would receive an additional 1.5 percent rate 
increase. To receive these FMAP increases, States would be required to 
maintain current eligibility levels. The temporary increase in the FMAP 
is an important component of our Nation's economic stimulus policy. 
Medicaid is the largest Federal grant-in-aid to states. Temporarily 
increasing the Federal matching rate could have broad positive 
ramifications for State budgets, the impact of which would be rapid and 
would not require additional Federal or State bureaucracy. These 
changes would provide much needed health care to people in need by 
providing states the resources to do so.
  While Congress has taken certain actions to address the aftershocks 
of the terrorist attacks, we must also restore consumer confidence 
which has steadily declined since the attacks. In Hawaii, where we were 
just beginning to recover from our economic recession of 9 years, we 
find ourselves once again

[[Page 22491]]

facing an economic downturn. The State Department of Labor is currently 
working on the unemployment rates for October 2001 and has indicated 
that the number of people filing unemployment claims will be 
substantially higher than those filing in September. This is 
disconcerting to me because in September 2001, tourism was down by 40 
percent and more than 11,000 people who work in the industry were 
unemployed. More specifically, 8,803 people in Hawaii filed claims for 
partial or full unemployment benefits in the 15-day period from 
September 17, the Monday following the attacks, to Monday, October 1. 
On that Monday, the State Department of Labor estimated that 1,012 
workers filed claims statewide for unemployment. Before the attacks, 
the state of Hawaii received on the average 1,400 claims a week. These 
statistics do not show what the cost has been to families in Hawaii 
where both parents are, or in many cases were, working in the travel or 
tourism-related industries. These families are finding that they do not 
have the money to pay for their mortgage, health insurance for 
themselves and their children, and basic necessities.
  The economic stimulus legislation reported by the Finance Committee 
will help the people of Hawaii and the nation pay their mortgages, 
provide healthcare to their children, and put food on the table. It 
will provide 13 additional weeks of benefits to workers whose regular 
unemployment compensation has expired, require states to use the most 
recent earnings data to determine eligibility and benefits, provide 
coverage to part-time workers, and supplement the amount of benefits.
  Some of my colleagues have argued that extending unemployment 
benefits and providing a health care subsidy will not stimulate the 
economy, I must strongly disagree. I believe, as many of my colleagues 
have stated during this debate, that this is exactly what our economy 
and the American people need to revitalize consumer confidence. As 
recent research has shown, the Unemployment Insurance system is eight 
times as effective as the entire tax system in mitigating the impact of 
a recession. In addition, the Unemployment Insurance system is able to 
target the very sector of society that needs the most economic 
stimulus. I remind everyone that in every recession during the past 30 
years, including the 1990-1991 recession under President George Bush, 
unemployment insurance benefits were extended.
  It is clear that an economic stimulus package is needed to support 
our economy during these uncertain times and to promote a rapid 
recovery. We have seen the Federal Reserve Board cut interest rates ten 
times this year with limited economic effect. Congress has also taken 
actions to provide some of that stimulus through emergency spending for 
recovery efforts and to assist the airline industry. It is critical 
that Congress promptly pass an economic stimulus package that will 
rejuvenate our faltering economy while assisting households who have 
been especially hard hit by the downturn in the economy. An economic 
stimulus package that promotes economic activity and includes 
components to extend unemployment insurance benefits and health care 
subsidies will greatly assist in getting our country's economy moving 
again.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I thank my good friend from Iowa, 
Senator Grassley, for his help on this bill.
  The choice in the vote before us, about to occur in 15 minutes, is 
very simple. Do we want to proceed to help provide the stimulus to the 
American economy? Do we want to help provide health insurance benefits 
to people who have lost their health insurance because of their lost 
jobs? Do we want to provide an extension of unemployment benefits? Do 
we want to help New York City, which has been wrecked and devastated by 
the tragedy of September 11? Do we want to give disaster assistance to 
farmers and ranchers whose incomes are lower year by year.
  Do we want to do these things or not? That is the sole question 
before us. That is all it comes down to.
  I am astounded that we hear these arguments that this is not an 
emergency. I have been in this body for 20-some years, and we have 
voted for many items designated as emergencies that were far less of an 
emergency than what has happened to our country since September 11.
  What were they? Let me tell you. First of all, the stand-alone bills 
we have passed in this body: Unemployment insurance, in 1993, $5.7 
billion. That was designated an emergency, so we passed it.
  IRS reform, if you can believe, $130 million--emergency. I don't know 
what the emergency was, but that is what Congress decided.
  The airline bill this year, $17 billion over 10 years.
  What were some other emergencies? We have had Hurricane Andrew. We 
had floods in various States, and we have designated those all as 
emergencies, this Senate did, and they were emergencies.
  And there have been more emergency designations. The Los Angeles 
riots in 1992 was designated an emergency. We provided additional 
dollars to help Los Angeles recover from the riots in 1992. The 
terrorist bombing in Oklahoma City--we designated that as an emergency 
to help Oklahoma City, as we should have.
  Peacekeeping in Bosnia--we designated additional dollars for our 
military, our Defense Department, because that was an emergency, 
fighting in Bosnia. That was designated an emergency, as well it should 
have been.
  Other natural disasters, hurricanes and floods.
  I, for the life of me, cannot understand this argument that we hear 
from the other side that what has happened to this country since 
September 11 is not an emergency, particularly in comparison to past 
events that were designated emergencies. There is a provision in the 
Budget Act which says if we go over the technical spending limits, it 
has to be an emergency to avoid a budget point of order. That is 
entirely up to the discretion of the Senate. In fact, the Congressional 
Budget Office, in this document, says:

       Emergency spending is generally whatever the Congress and 
     the President deem it to be.

  It is up to us to decide whether this is an emergency or not. We all 
know what has happened to New York City, what has happened to our 
economy--900,000 people out of work since this spring. That is the 
entire population of my State of Montana--900,000 people out of work. 
Most people who lose their health insurance do so because they have 
lost their jobs.
  This is a super-emergency compared with the other events that this 
body has designated emergencies. Why is this not an emergency, too? 
Where are we? What are we thinking of? Hello? Wake up, Senate. Wake up 
and see what is happening to the country. Wake up and see what is 
happening in New York City.
  If all of us in the Senate were to go to Ground Zero, we would know 
that is an emergency. Some have and some have not. All should.
  The same occurs all across the country. Homes lost, people tossed out 
of work, farms and ranches going down the tubes because either they 
don't have crops, it is a disaster, a drought or a flood, or they are 
not getting their income. What is going on here? Of course it is an 
emergency.
  Meanwhile, we have heard, and I am disappointed to have to say this, 
characterizations and mischaracterizations, representations and 
misrepresentations, of what is in the Senate bill. Senators, some of 
them, have taken easy shots, not getting to the heart of the matter. 
That is regrettable.
  I will sum up in 10 seconds. This is clearly an emergency, and I urge 
Senators to vote to waive the point of order, stop the roadblock. Let's 
roll. Let's help America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The assistant Republican leader.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, it is with regret I urge my colleagues to 
not support our friends and colleagues on the other side. I will just 
take issue with a few things that have been stated.

[[Page 22492]]

  First, I compliment Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus because they 
worked together earlier this year in a bipartisan way and we passed tax 
relief. It was done by a bipartisan vote in the Finance Committee, done 
by a bipartisan vote in the Senate, and by and large that bill became 
law. Senator Baucus and others alluded to the fact that we have already 
passed emergency legislation providing $40 billion to assist in the 
aftermath of the September 11 events. That was done in a bipartisan 
fashion.
  When we provided airline relief, that was done in a bipartisan 
fashion. Unfortunately, the bill we have before us, the so-called 
stimulus bill, has not been done in a bipartisan fashion. The makeup of 
the Senate is so balanced that it cannot happen. Democrats cannot pass 
a Democrat-only bill. The Republicans cannot pass a Republican-only 
bill. So we are going to have to work together.
  Regrettably, that has not yet happened. The result is in the bill 
that passed out of the Finance Committee, now modified by Senator 
Byrd's amendment, and modified by additional amendments made by the 
chairman or the Democratic leader, we have a bill that not only will 
not stimulate I think but may depress the economy. We have a bill that 
is not supported by both sides. We have a bill that obviously will not 
become law.
  We have a statement by the administration that says:

       The administration opposes passage of H.R. 3990 as reported 
     by the Senate Finance Committee.

  The President said he doesn't like it. It is strongly opposed for 
lots of reasons. That is in direct contrast to the bipartisan work that 
many of us as leaders did, meeting with the President several times 
after the September 11 events to say let's work together. President 
Bush agreed to the $40 billion. We haven't even spent the $40 billion. 
I am looking at the list that has $15 billion of new spending. That is 
in direct contradiction of the agreement we made with the President, 
that we have in writing from the President, the agreement that said 
$686 billion and, oh, yes, we will do $40 billion of the emergency 
spending. We have not spent that $40 billion. Then they say we want 
another $15 billion.
  I do not doubt many of those provisions requested in the $15 billion 
will be in the second $20 billion that is yet to be appropriated, yet 
to be allocated, in some cases yet to be requested.
  The administration hasn't requested those. They are receiving input 
and requests from a lot of different agencies. But they haven't 
requested it yet. Yet we are trying to say that is the deal from last 
month. Now we are coming up with a new deal. Last year's spending grew 
by over 14 percent. This year, we are going to spend about 8 percent. 
Now we have added $40 billion. Some people say, let us add $15 billion 
on top of it. We may well support those attempts.
  But I wouldn't be a bit surprised if we could not put those in the 
$20 billion additional upon which we have already agreed.
  Looking at the substance of this legislation, there is nothing in 
this legislation to really stimulate the economy. I was a businessman 
prior to coming to the Senate. I guess spending $35,000, which might be 
1 percent of this bill, or maybe a smaller amount, might be useful; or 
10 percent to appreciate for 1 year might move spending up a little 
bit. That is almost nothing.
  Looking at all the other provisions in here, I was kind of shocked. 
Some of this is similar.
  What is it about having a new sugar beet program? Sugar beet disaster 
program? What does that have to do with anything? What is stimulative 
about having the Federal Government buying apples, apricots, asparagus, 
bell peppers, bison meat, cranberries, dried plums, lemons, peaches, 
and onions? What is stimulative about that? Are we going to spend up to 
$3 billion doing that?
  Then I look and I see other items. I see the Amtrak program that the 
Congressional Budget Office says is a crummy way to do it. We are going 
to do it through allowing a tax credit, and so on.
  The Congressional Budget Office did an analysis in September of this 
year and said, in other words, that the tax credit funding mechanism 
would essentially be a new and more expensive way for the Federal 
Government to assist Amtrak. They say it would be a lot more expensive. 
We could just write them a check or allow them to use tax-exempt bonds. 
No. We came in with a whole new game that is a lot more expensive.
  This bill is not stimulative. It won't help the economy. It is not 
bipartisan. We need to defeat this package and go back to work--
Democrats and Republicans together--and pass a package that can be 
supported by Members on both sides of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the majority leader 
is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me just pick up where my colleagues 
from Oklahoma left off.
  We have been ready for weeks to work in a bipartisan fashion. No one 
has worked harder at reaching out to our Republican colleagues than the 
man sitting at my right, Senator Baucus, the manager of this bill. He 
has tried on several occasions not only with the Republican colleagues 
in the Senate but with those in the House, and every time he was told, 
no, we can't do that because we have to offer our own package.
  Don't talk to us about bipartisan until you are ready to do it.
  I must say this is a facade--this notion that somehow the only way to 
deal with whatever concerns the Senator from Oklahoma may have with 
regard to this bill is to raise a point of order on this bill. If they 
do like a particular provision, let them do what we do in the Senate. 
Let them offer an amendment. If you do not like a particular provision, 
offer an amendment.
  Let there be no doubt that the vote we are about to take on this 
point of order which refuses to allow an emergency designation is a 
vote to kill homeland security for the remainder of this year. It is a 
vote to say no to our effort to protect our country from bioterrorism. 
It is a vote to say no to important security for airports, ports, 
highways, and tunnels. It is a vote to say no to additional help for 
law enforcement as we consider the vast array of issues we have to 
confront. It is a vote to say no adequate unemployment compensation for 
7\1/2\ million unemployed workers. It is a vote to say no to helping 
these families keep their health insurance. It is a vote to say no to 
those 34 million workers out there who didn't get a nickel in a rebate 
last summer.
  There is a lot riding on this bill. This isn't just a point of order 
and some parliamentary vote you can hide behind, this is a real vote. 
This is all we have to protect, for the remainder of this year, our 
opportunities to ensure that a meaningful economic recovery and 
homeland security package can be passed. That is it--this vote. I hope 
everybody understands that there isn't a second or a third chance here.
  I don't know what will happen if we fail a pass this particular test. 
But I know this: it delays for a long period of time the help we can 
provide for all of those who are saying we don't have time any longer. 
We have to get on with protecting this country and the vast array of 
new challenges we face as a country. We have to provide this 
unemployment insurance for people whose benefits are running out and 
for those part-time workers are receiving no benefits at all.
  I hope our Republican colleagues will understand that. I hope they 
will join all 51 members of this caucus who are prepared to say, yes, 
this is an emergency; yes, we need to move on; yes. We need to work 
together in a bipartisan way; yes, let's do it tonight.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the motion to waive section 205 of House Concurrent 
Resolution 290. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm) and 
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) are necessarily absent.

[[Page 22493]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 337 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--47

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Gramm
     McCain
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 51, the nays are 47.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and section 909 of the amendment containing the emergency 
designation is stricken.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the pending amendment No. 2125 would 
cause the aggregate level of revenues to fall below the level set out 
in the most recent agreed-to concurrent resolution of the budget. I 
raise a point of order under section 311(a)(2) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable 
sections of that act for the purposes of the pending amendment and ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is this a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, very briefly, for the information of my 
colleagues, this second point of order challenges the amendment for 
going below the revenue floor and for going above the spending ceilings 
of the budget resolution.
  The amendment does, in fact, violate the revenue floor and spending 
ceiling. That is true. It is also true that the House bill, which will 
then come up, also violates the Budget Act for the same reasons, as 
does the bill offered by my good friend from Iowa, as does the White 
House proposal. They all do.
  The reason is because we have an emergency here. There are problems 
with which we have to deal. That is why. I wish this waiver would pass, 
but I know it won't.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Let's vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays are ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm) and 
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 338 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--47

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Gramm
     McCain  
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are 
47.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I supported a motion to waive the Budget 
Act with respect to a point of order raised against the substitute 
amendment to H.R. 3090, even though there are a number of provisions in 
that amendment that are troubling.
  Just a few weeks ago, this body voted to provide emergency funding to 
the nation's airlines. We recognize the special situation caused by the 
terrorist attacks of September 11, and understood that if we failed to 
act, the consequences for those firms, and for the economy as a whole, 
could well have been devastating.
  At the time of that vote, I noted that we also needed to address the 
problems facing the workers in those firms. This legislation will do 
that, in part, and it will also provide assistance to other families 
who have been thrown out of work by the economic slowdown, and should 
provide the weakened economy with a boost.
  Unfortunately, a number of special interests have taken advantage of 
this human and economic adversity to advance their own agenda. The 
measure that passed the other body is teeming with special interest tax 
breaks that do little or nothing for the economy as a whole in the 
short term, and seriously jeopardize our long term budget position. The 
substitute amendment before us is vastly superior in this respect. It 
provides far more benefit for our economy in the short term, while 
minimizing the long term impact.
  Nevertheless, there are a number of special interest spending and tax 
provisions in the amendment that raise serious questions, such as 
provisions that provide money for citrus growers and buffalo farmers 
and tax breaks for electricity produced from chicken waste and aviation 
fuel for crop-dusters. A provision common to both the substitute 
amendment and the House-passed bill would reduce taxes on corporations' 
overseas investment income. As the Washington Post noted in a recent 
editorial: ``It's hard to see how this measure, which would encourage 
firms to keep money outside the country, would do anything to stimulate 
the American economy.''
  The substitute amendment before us, even with its flaws, is far more 
fiscally responsible than the House bill, but as this legislation 
proceeds there is a real risk that it will continue to pick up still 
more special interest provisions. Indeed, the House version is largely 
a lobbyist's wish list. Unless this body is able to restrain itself, 
and resist efforts to advance special interest spending and tax breaks, 
the costs of a fiscal stimulus measure will outweigh any benefit it 
provides to our economy.




                          ____________________