[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22959-22964]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                                SCHEDULE

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will conduct a 
period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 
10 minutes each. The Senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. for the 
weekly party conferences.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate go back into morning business 
beginning at 2:15 p.m.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. At least one rollcall vote will occur during today's 
session between 4 and 5 p.m.
  It is my intention to take up the railroad retirement bill today. We 
will make a motion to proceed to the bill shortly. After we dispose of 
the railroad retirement bill, my hope is that we can take up the farm 
bill. We are going to be taking both of these bills up, waiting for the 
Defense appropriations bill to be sent here from the House. We are not 
sure yet when that will be. My hope is it will be sometime before the 
end of this week.
  Appropriations Committee chairman Senator Byrd has made it clear it 
is his intention to take up the bill in committee as quickly as 
possible, and then we will be prepared to take up the Defense 
appropriations bill as soon as or shortly after the Appropriations 
Committee has acted.
  In addition to that, our hope is to take up the economic stimulus 
package. That is very important legislation that we hope we can finish 
certainly before the end of this session. The conference reports on 
appropriations--there are four conference reports still outstanding. We 
will want to address those as quickly as possible.
  I also inform my colleagues that the Judiciary Committee is prepared 
to report out, as I understand, nine judicial nominees, including one 
circuit court nominee, this week. We will be taking up those nominees 
as soon as the committee has reported them out, in addition to other 
nominations.
  I have not mentioned the terrorist insurance bill, the port security 
bill, counterterrorism, or bioterrorism legislation. There is a lot of 
work left to be done. My hope is we can complete our work on all of 
those pieces of legislation prior to the time we depart for the 
Christmas holidays.
  Once again, the issue of energy has come up on a number of occasions. 
For good reason, it is a very important piece of legislation. The House 
has acted on an energy bill. We need to act as well. I have indicated 
it was my plan to take it up as soon as many of the issues relating to 
the response to the terrorist attack of September 11 could be resolved. 
Of course, we are still dealing with many of those issues right now.
  We also are continuing to deal with what I think most Senators would 
agree is must-pass legislation; that is, the array of appropriations 
bills that have yet to be completed.
  It is for that reason I don't know that we will have an opportunity 
to complete our work on an energy bill before the end of this session. 
I am prepared to commit to taking up the energy bill prior to the 
Founders Day recess; that is, during that first work period, between 
January 22 and the time we break for the Founders Day recess.
  We ought to recognize that this bill is important. It is 
comprehensive, but it is also controversial. We are going to have to 
leave some time for debate on the legislation. It is my intention--and 
I intend to be more clear as I know what remains of this session when 
we come back--regardless of whatever additional legislation may be 
required to be considered in that first block of time, my 
determination, my commitment will be that we raise this issue, debate 
it, and have a good opportunity to consider energy legislation prior to 
the Founders Day break.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask Senator Daschle, is he through?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am not through. I have a statement I will be making 
about further issues to be considered and raised. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I would like to 
ask some questions about the anticipated schedule he just outlined 
today.
  One thing he didn't mention was the Education conference report. I 
understood that some progress had been made in that area. It is one we 
have been working on all year. Certainly, trying to make a Federal 
commitment

[[Page 22960]]

to improving education throughout America with more accountability and 
better education in general is something we all want to work toward. 
Did the Senator intend to indicate, by not mentioning it, that it is 
not likely to happen, or does he have any information on what we might 
anticipate on the Education conference report?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I had a good conversation with the chairman of the 
Education Committee last night. He has given me a progress report. 
Clearly, if the conference completes its work, I want to bring up the 
education bill. Clearly, that is an issue of great import, as the 
Senator has noted. It is one that deserves the attention and priority 
of Congress and would be reflected in the schedule.
  I did not list it simply because the conference has not completed its 
work, but if it completes its work, I will certainly be interested in 
pursuing an opportunity to take it up on the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, if that work is 
not completed, the majority leader does not anticipate that would 
interfere with the ability of the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations 
conference committee to complete its work?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct. We have to complete the work of 
the appropriations process. Certainly that is an issue that has to be 
resolved.
  Mr. LOTT. With regard to the Defense appropriations bill, that is the 
only appropriations bill that has not been considered on the floor of 
the House or the Senate while the other four conferences are continuing 
to work. I want to clarify when it is the Senator's intention to bring 
up the Defense appropriations bill.
  I assume the House is going to begin work on it today and maybe 
complete action on it by tomorrow. We would then be able to go to it, I 
presume, Thursday or Friday. What is the majority leader's thinking on 
the Defense appropriations bill? Obviously, that is a very important 
bill because it provides the funds that are needed for the defense of 
our country at a time when, obviously, that is very important. It is 
being used in that very important engagement in Afghanistan, and it 
also contains the final $20 billion for aid as a result of the 
September 11 events.
  I am just concerned if we do not go to it as soon as is possible, 
that is the one of two things that will delay our ability to complete 
our work at least for this session of Congress.
  Can the majority leader clarify more for the Senators what we might 
expect on the Defense appropriations bill?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The distinguished Senator is absolutely correct. This is 
a critical piece of legislation. We have been waiting for the House to 
produce a bill on which we can begin working. They have had some 
difficulty in arriving at a consensus.
  As I understand it, as the Senator has noted, the House now does plan 
to make another effort at reaching a consensus this week. Just as soon 
as the bill is sent here, I am quite sure the Appropriations Committee 
will take it up in their committee, and then at some point shortly 
after that, whenever that time may be, it would be my intention to 
bring it to the Senate floor for debate and passage.
  Since we do not know exactly when the House will be able to send us a 
bill, it is not as clear to me when we can move on the Senate side, but 
just as soon as we have a bill, we will move.
  Mr. LOTT. I had hoped Senator Murkowski would be able to be here--I 
understand he is actually on the way in to the Capitol at this time--
and other members of the Energy Committee who have been very concerned 
that we have not taken up national energy policy legislation before 
even now.
  From what the majority leader is saying, it is his intent not to have 
an energy bill considered this year--at least he is not going to call 
one up--but he indicated he would call a bill up after we come into 
session, presumably January 22, in that 3-week period before the 
Founders Day recess period. Mr. President, is that what the Senator is 
saying at this point? He is not making any kind of commitment as to 
getting a product--I did not hear him indicate what product that might 
be because the Energy Committee, I do not believe, has actually 
completed work on the bill.
  I guess the majority leader's intent would be to rule XIV some bill 
and call it to the floor under that procedure. Is that what his 
thinking is? I just want to clarify that as much as possible.
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is absolutely correct. We intend to bring up 
for purposes of debate and amendments and consideration a bill we will 
introduce next week. It will be rule XIV'd. It will be brought to the 
floor.
  As the Senator knows, not just the Energy Committee, but the Finance 
Committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, the Governmental 
Affairs Committee, and I think even the Armed Services Committee have 
all played a role in the creation of this comprehensive, multifaceted 
energy policy. Because it is so multifaceted and multijurisdictional, 
we chose to put a proposal together that will allow the Senate to work 
its will on energy policy during that period of time.
  That bill will be, as I say, introduced next week, available to all 
Senators for the period we are not in session. It would be my 
expectation we would take the bill up--not only my expectation, but my 
commitment that we will take the bill up during that first work period.
  Mr. LOTT. It is of great concern to me and a number of Senators that 
we are not going to be able to consider an energy policy for our 
country before the end of the year, especially in view of the fact we 
see now continuing uncertainty about what is going to be done by the 
OPEC countries.
  I have a great deal of concern that we are dependent on Iraqi oil and 
even Russian oil, although Russia clearly has been helpful in this 
instance in not cutting the supply which would drive up the prices at a 
critical time.
  I think we should have already done an energy bill, and we should do 
one before we go out. I believe once we actually get on to an energy 
bill, many portions of it can be handled rather expeditiously. Clearly, 
there is a disagreement about oil production in ANWR, and we will have 
to work through that with a vote or votes just to see what happens.
  While we are being told we are not going to do an energy bill, I 
understand the majority leader's intent now is to call up the railroad 
retirement bill which has not been reported from the Finance Committee 
and clearly is not an emergency, even though it does have support on 
both sides of the aisle. It is your intention to try to call up the 
railroad retirement bill today; is that correct?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct. The railroad retirement bill has 
74 cosponsors. It is overwhelmingly supported on both sides of the 
aisle. I do not recall the exact vote in the House, but it passed 
overwhelmingly in the House. I know well over 300 House Members voted 
for it.
  This is a matter of great concern to a lot of railroad retirees. We 
were hoping that while we wait for the Defense appropriations bill, we 
could take up a couple of pieces of legislation that deserve 
consideration, and that certainly is one of them.
  Mr. LOTT. And the other one is Agriculture, even though the 
agricultural law for the country does not expire until next year. This 
bill came out of committee. Even though it was reported on a voice 
vote, I think the critical vote was pretty much a party-line vote.
  There are a lot of problems with this legislation. I do not see that 
it could be handled quickly with all the different problems that are in 
this bill. So the majority leader's intent would be to try to go to 
railroad retirement today and then Agriculture after that, and then go 
to the Department of Defense appropriations bill after those two?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LOTT. All of that is building up to one critical question: Where 
is the stimulus bill? If we really want to help the unemployed in this 
country with their unemployment benefits and health benefits and to 
stimulate the economy with some provision that would give a quick jump-
start to the

[[Page 22961]]

economy, including possibly this idea that Senator Domenici has been 
proposing, which would be a payroll holiday during December which would 
have a tremendous immediate impact for employees and employers and come 
at a critical time of the season--it sounds to me as if the Senator's 
intent is just to shuttle the stimulus bill off to the side with no 
indication as to when it may come back and, as a matter of fact, if you 
try to go to railroad retirement and do not get consent, I presume the 
majority leader would file a motion to proceed. That would be fully 
debatable. You would file cloture, and there would be a vote on it on 
Thursday, I presume. Then we would be off the stimulus bill. So the 
stimulus bill would be not only moved off to the side, it would be 
completely brushed aside.
  It looks as if, to me, for the defense of our country and to help the 
economy of this country, the two bills we ought to be focusing on are, 
obviously, Defense appropriations, which the Senator has indicated we 
want to try to do, and the stimulus bill ahead of anything else.
  I wish to express my concern we should not be doing anything else 
until we get an agreement worked out on the stimulus bill. I still am 
an optimist that we can come to an agreement on the stimulus bill that 
would help the unemployed and help those who need health benefits in 
this country and provide a boost to the economy in a quick fashion that 
would provide positive, immediate benefits without long-term negative 
effects and would actually encourage growth in the economy.
  So I wanted to express my concern about that, and I hope as the day 
progresses and we go over into tomorrow we will continue to work to 
find a way to get that done.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. DASCHLE. If I could respond to the Senator from Mississippi 
before he leaves, I will ask him a question. He asks: Where is the 
stimulus bill? I remind him, prior to the Thanksgiving recess, the 
Republicans defeated cloture on the stimulus bill. They are 
filibustering the stimulus bill as we speak.
  There is one way to break that filibuster and to get on with ensuring 
we can get a stimulus package even this week. I ask the Senator from 
Mississippi if he would sit down with me and with our Republican and 
Democratic colleagues in the House and negotiate a package that 
addresses homeland security and revenue tax reduction, and do it this 
afternoon. If he is willing to agree to a meeting of that kind--which 
they have not been willing to agree to so far--we can get to work and 
get an agreement certainly before the end of the week.
  Will the Senator from Mississippi agree to do that?
  Mr. LOTT. I certainly would be more than delighted to sit down with 
the members of the Finance Committee in the Senate and the Finance 
Committee in the House to work on a stimulus package that would provide 
immediate growth in the economy.
  As the Senator knows, unfortunately the bill that came out of the 
Finance Committee came out on a straight party-line vote, and when the 
bill came to the Senate, an additional $15 billion in spending--I 
believe that is the right number--had been added for homeland security, 
which I think is certainly a debatable issue as far as its stimulative 
effect is concerned.
  It might be argued some of those funds might be needed at some point, 
although those funds have not been requested by the administration. 
There have been no committee hearings, that I know of, that have 
justified that expenditure. Therefore, to have a negotiation on 
appropriations is not the way to proceed. We should proceed on the bill 
that came out of the Finance Committee.
  There was not a cloture vote. The vote was on a point of order, as I 
understand it, which does require 60 votes, because this bill in its 
present form clearly exceeds the budget.
  I made several efforts, and so has the Senator from South Dakota, I 
believe, before the recess to see if we could get the negotiations 
started immediately between the House and the Senate. For a variety of 
reasons, I guess, that did not happen, partially because it was a 
continuing demand to have negotiations on this additional $15 billion, 
which can be added to other bills. I understand it may be offered as an 
amendment, either in committee or on the floor, to the Defense 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. DASCHLE. If I could clarify, because I think the Senator has put 
his finger on exactly the issue. The Democratic position on economic 
stimulus is--and the economists have all verified this--there are two 
ways to stimulate the economy. One is through spending, and our 
homeland security package would provide spending for bioterrorism, for 
law enforcement, for an array of very specific needs. In fact, the 
Director of Homeland Security said there is a specific array of needs 
he should have, and he would like to have them sometime next year. What 
we are saying is if they are important next year, they ought to be 
important this year. We are saying that is part of it.
  The other is tax reduction. Is the distinguished Republican leader 
saying that as long as homeland security is part of our package, they 
will refuse to have the meeting to find some resolution to this issue?
  Mr. LOTT. The principles I thought we were proceeding on were: We 
wanted to have a stimulus package that would have an immediate effect, 
not one that would have an effect 6 months or 1 year from now; also, it 
would not have negative long-term effects, such as driving up the 
deficit significantly and therefore eventually affecting interest 
rates; and it would have an immediate stimulative effect.
  We believe adding $15 billion on top of the additional expenditures 
that were added in the Finance Committee--and I am not sure what the 
total amount of money was that was added in spending in the Finance 
Committee, but it probably would put it in the range of $20 billion to 
$25 billion in additional expenditures, which is not the way to 
stimulate the economy. Again, it may be argued that at some point it 
should be considered separately.
  The President has indicated that when they need additional funds, 
they will ask for additional funds. The President has specifically said 
they do not need these additional funds at this time. As I noted a 
while ago, there have been no hearings on this, but as long as there is 
an effort to turn this into another major spending bill, that is a 
problem. We should sit down and negotiate on the bill that came out of 
the Finance Committee and work out an agreement. That is the way to go, 
and that is what we are going to insist on. We are ready to do that at 
any time.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I know there are a lot of Senators who wish to speak, 
but the Republican position is that so long as Democrats hold a view 
that in addition to tax cuts and whatever can be generated 
legislatively from the Finance Committee, that there is a very 
legitimate need for immediate additional commitment to homeland 
security, fighting bioterrorism, fighting the array of challenges we 
face in defending our infrastructure, making sure people have adequate 
law enforcement to deal with the array of challenges we face even at 
the local law enforcement level--so long as that is part of our 
economic stimulus package, the Republican caucus is refusing to meet. 
That is the issue.
  So far, they have also refused to even deliberate on a bill that 
allows consideration of that, given their points of order or whatever 
other choices of parliamentary devices are available to them. So that 
is the issue.
  I have offered three alternatives. Let us have a good debate. Let us 
decide what we are going to do in the Senate. Let us have a meeting to 
see if we can resolve both the spending and the revenue side. That was 
unacceptable.
  I suggested then let us have separate meetings, one for 
appropriations. If their position is it ought to be zero and our 
position is it ought to be $15 billion, perhaps if there is a real 
desire to compromise and work this out to resolve our differences, we 
ought to be

[[Page 22962]]

able to find some middle ground between zero and fifteen. The 
Republicans are saying, no, we do not even want to meet so long as that 
is an issue. So they are not willing to agree to separate meetings to 
talk about revenue and appropriations.
  Finally, I suggested, if we take it up as an amendment to the Defense 
appropriations bill once it comes to the Senate and have a good debate 
about that, can we be guaranteed the Republicans will not use whatever 
parliamentary device may be chosen to deny the majority the opportunity 
to pass that? Again, they could not provide us with that assurance.
  I know the distinguished Republican leader's suggestions are sincere 
and heartfelt. We have had many private conversations about the belief 
that he and I could probably work something out. He has a caucus to 
work with, and so do I. We do our best to try to represent our 
caucuses, but the Republican caucus has made it quite clear they are in 
no hurry to pass economic stimulus so long as economic stimulus is 
defined as, at least in part, an investment in homeland security. Never 
mind that it was reported in the Washington Post last week that the 
administration has $127 billion of homeland security needs that are 
unattended right now. Never mind that the Director of Homeland Security 
said we have to have a lot more money, a lot more resources in homeland 
security than what we have right now.
  He said, I am going to propose a supplemental next year. We are 
saying that if it is needed next year, and if the serious recognition 
of the need for homeland security is evident to him now, why do we wait 
until next year to deal with something we ought to do now? Especially 
when it involves improving the confidence level of the American people 
so they will lead their lives normally and restore this economic 
vitality that was so much a part of the last 8 years.
  I will work with the Republican leader to try to find a way to 
resolve this impasse. As I said, we are willing to sit down anytime, 
under any circumstances, and meet, so long as both pieces are on the 
table. That is the Democratic caucus position. To my knowledge, it is 
shared by virtually every member of our caucus. So we will continue to 
try to work through that.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the majority leader yield for a comment?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. NICKLES. I remember when the majority leader was minority leader 
and also trying to protect President Clinton. He did an outstanding job 
in so many ways. Well, President Bush has already said he did not want 
additional spending this year; he would consider the spending next 
year. Some of us will work to protect that. We think we have the votes 
to do that.
  I also urge the majority leader to stay on the stimulus package. That 
is the regular order. That is the bill pending. I think the majority 
leader's request, to move off of that and pass railroad retirement, 
will not happen easily. There is strenuous opposition. There may be a 
lot of cosponsors but maybe not everyone read the bill. Maybe the bill 
never had a hearing in the Senate. In fact, it has never had a hearing 
in the Senate. It is a $15 billion giveaway. It cuts taxes for a few 
firms for a few billion dollars and raises benefits and in 10 years has 
a heck of a problem. We will spend a lot of time on that bill.
  I urge that the Senate stay on the stimulus package. There are 
challenges facing the Agriculture bill, which will not pass in a day or 
two. That bill has significant problems. Let's stay on the stimulus 
bill; let's work together to see if we cannot resolve some of the 
problems and actually help the economy. That is my request and my 
urging of the majority leader.
  I want him to know at least a couple of the bills he was talking 
about taking up, which imply these can pass in a couple of days, will 
not happen. I give friendly advice to my friend and colleague, that 
will not happen.
  I would like to have a fruitful, productive 2 or 3 weeks, whatever we 
will have to finish out this year to have some success in the 
appropriations and on the stimulus package. I was hoping we would do an 
energy package. The President has requested we do the energy package. 
The House passed it months ago. We have yet to consider it. I 
understand your priorities are different. I make those thoughts known 
to the majority leader that there will be strenuous objection to the 
railroad retirement bill, using procedural devices that are available 
to all Members so people can become familiar with this bill. So it will 
not pass quickly.
  I urge staying on the stimulus bill and have unlimited meetings to 
get the stimulus bill completed this week or next.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). The Majority Leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. If I could respond briefly to the Senator from Oklahoma, 
I appreciate, as always, his honesty and forthrightness in telling his 
colleagues of his intentions on the railroad retirement bill.
  He mentioned one of the reasons we ought to stay on the economic 
stimulus bill is the House has passed it and we ought to pass it. The 
House, many, many months ago, passed the railroad retirement bill. The 
House several months ago passed the farm bill. If that is the criteria 
by which we decide what ought to be taken up, I would think there is a 
strong argument both railroad retirement, as well as the Agriculture 
bill, ought to be addressed.
  The distinguished Republican leader was asking a similar question, 
What is the hurry in bringing up the farm bill? He noted the farm bill 
expires next year. That is the answer: The farm bill expires next year. 
More than a dozen national farm organizations wrote a letter yesterday 
pleading with the Congress, pleading especially with the Senate, to 
take up the bill, unencumbered, to pass it cleanly, to get on to 
conference and resolve our outstanding differences with the House and 
get this legislation passed this year. Farmers need to know what the 
circumstances are going to be next year when the current farm 
legislation expires. They need to have time to plan.
  The Department of Agriculture needs time to adjust to the array of 
changes that will occur in public policy once this takes effect. That 
cannot be done overnight. If we don't do it now, it will encumber and 
perhaps impede in very serious ways the Department's ability to provide 
continuity in farm policy next year. This is very clearly a must-pass 
piece of legislation.
  The Republican leader also made mention of the fact we had agreed in 
earlier bipartisan meetings about making sure the stimulus package is 
immediate and cost contained. He is not here, and I will not belabor 
this point because he is not here, but I certainly urge the Republican 
leader to go back and look at his own bill. If he is concerned about 
that, my guess is he will vote against the Republican bill in the 
Senate Finance Committee. It is twice the size of the Democratic plan. 
It is $175 billion. We agreed it would only be a $75 billion package 
overall. The House Republicans are proposing a $175 billion package, 
and most--I emphasis ``most''--of the provisions do not take effect 
this year. Most of them take effect in the outyears. There is almost no 
stimulus effect and it is twice the cost of the agreed-upon amount of 
stimulus we were going to provide this year.
  I urge our Republican leader to look closely at his bill. I am sure 
he will come to the same conclusions I have with regard to his 
legislation if, indeed, those criteria are important to him as well.
  I am happy to yield to the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. If I might ask a question of the majority leader, this 
has been a very curious exchange because those who cast votes to knock 
the stimulus bill off the floor of the Senate are now inquiring of its 
whereabouts. This is not exactly a ``where is Waldo'' exercise. We know 
where the stimulus package has been and we know where it is.
  It came to the floor of the Senate and a point of order was raised 
against that stimulus package. That same point of order would exist 
against the Republican substitute. The same point of order would exist 
against the House stimulus bill, but the point of order was raised 
against the bill that the majority leader brought to the floor of the

[[Page 22963]]

Senate. That knocked the stimulus bill off the floor of the Senate.
  Now the inquiry this morning, by those who voted that way, is, Where 
is the stimulus bill?
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I retain the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask the majority leader, is it not the case that the 
stimulus bill was brought to the floor of the Senate by action of the 
majority leader and that it was subsequently taken off the floor by a 
vote of those who now inquire of its whereabouts?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is absolutely right. Technically, it is not 
taken off the floor, but it is still pending. A point of order was 
raised and Republicans supported the point of order, as you know, and 
this is an important point. The identical point of order could have 
been made against the House Republican bill. We chose not to do that. 
Our view is if we are going to try to create a bipartisan resolution 
here, we don't need a partisan conflict about the way we ought to 
proceed to getting to that resolution. That is exactly what has now 
been done by the actions taken by our Senate Republican colleagues. The 
very same point of order could have been raised against the House bill. 
Again, we chose not to do that.
  I appreciate the Senator's comments.
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will allow me to inquire a further time, 
is it not the case that the only way we are going to get this stimulus 
package completed is to have all of the parties negotiate this? After 
all, we are only a couple of weeks prior to the end of the legislative 
session. It is urgent we pass some kind of package to provide economic 
recovery and provide lift to this economy.
  All of the parties involved--the House, the Senate, and the 
President--proclaim we want to have some kind of stimulus package. Is 
it not the case that the best, most effective and perhaps quickest way 
to resolve this issue would be to have the affected parties begin to 
negotiate and begin to develop a compromise so the American people can 
get the feeling we are going to get this done; wouldn't that be the 
most effective way to proceed?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is absolutely right. I have not participated 
in a negotiation where the price of admission was lopping off at least 
a third of the entire package before you even sit down to negotiate the 
first sentence. That is the price of admission on the part of our 
Republican colleagues today. I have never participated in something 
such as that.
  What makes it all the more ironic, reading from the New York Times, 
November 22:

       Tom Ridge, the Director of Homeland Security, said today he 
     would seek substantial new spending in President Bush's next 
     budget, placing a priority on more agents and equipment for 
     strapped federal law enforcement agencies and urgent 
     improvements in public health facilities.

  I repeat: Strapped Federal law enforcement agencies and urgent 
improvements in public health facilities. This is not something that 
says they are going to be strapped. These are not urgent needs next 
year. These are urgent needs right now. He has identified them.
  The question is, If we are going to deal truly with economic security 
and vitality, if we are going to try economic stimulus, what is wrong 
with an immediate stimulation into those areas where we need it the 
most--law enforcement and the health agencies that need help right now, 
as identified by this administration?
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Again, I think the Senator is absolutely right. But, 
again, we are willing to negotiate all this. We are willing to sit down 
with our Republican colleagues. We were willing to debate it until they 
made the point of order. They said: No, we are not going to debate it 
because we don't like it. No, we are not going to meet with you because 
we don't like it. But then they come to the floor and say: Where is it?
  I think the Senator is absolutely right, this is an exercise in 
curious judgment about the need for economic stimulus if that is the 
approach taken by Republican colleagues.
  Mr. NICKELS. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield in a moment.
  I yield to the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to make sure I understand the 
context. The bill we on the Democratic side support would not only have 
tax breaks for working Americans and for those who have been 
unemployed, to give them some assistance, it would also provide 
business incentives for depreciation, for example, and for capital 
investment. But the stimulus plan, the recovery plan we are supporting, 
also makes an expenditure for homeland security.
  I would like to ask the majority leader if he has run into the same 
thing I have run into. My Republican Governor in my State has come to 
me and said that our State of Illinois needs $20 million for a 
statewide communications network for police and firefighters to deal 
with crises and emergencies. My State, as most States, is running short 
of revenue in this recession. He has asked for help from Washington.
  Is it my understanding that the spending stimulus package the 
Democrats support would provide assistance for that kind of law 
enforcement, firefighting, and first response capability. Is that what 
we are asking for, which was denied us in this point of order that was 
raised on the floor?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Illinois is absolutely right. I recall 
having several bipartisan meetings with economists. They said there 
were three things you really ought to do if you are going to stimulate 
the economy: First, it has to be immediate; second, it has to be 
temporary; and third, to the extent possible, you have to raise the 
level of confidence among the American people. That is exactly what 
this homeland security package does.
  It is immediate. It is temporary--it provides a one-time opportunity 
for us to assist the law enforcement officials to whom I am talking as 
well. And it will raise confidence among the American people. People 
are not confident today, and they will not be confident until they know 
their security is much more palpable, much more evident than it is 
right now.
  Mr. DURBIN. If I could ask the majority leader as well, in the 
spending side of our stimulus package, does not the issue of public 
health become an important consideration? I know people across America 
are concerned about bioterrorism and public health. It is my 
understanding what we are trying to do is provide additional money for 
public health agencies across America to protect our families and 
communities against the threat of bioterrorism. That is part of our 
economic stimulus package, which the Democrats support, which the 
Republicans stopped with their point of order.
  I heard a statistic which I think really tells the story about 
priorities. It is my understanding the Bush administration has asked 
for $300 million nationwide to help local and State public health 
agencies, while the House Republican stimulus bill has $1.4 billion in 
tax relief for one company, one corporation.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, is the Senator from Illinois asking a 
question or making a statement?
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the majority leader, does the 
stimulus package which we want to make part of this effort in the 
Senate, the Democratic stimulus package stopped by the Republicans, 
also include provisions for more resources for public health to protect 
communities across America?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will respond to the Senator from Illinois. I know 
there are other Senators waiting. I do not want to monopolize the 
floor. But let me say this. The answer is yes. I guess I would ask my 
Republican colleagues, which part of the homeland security bill do you 
oppose: The bioterrorism and food safety bill that allows for $3.3 
billion to ensure that we can recognize the pathogens and treat victims 
of all of the array of bioterrorist possibilities that are out there? 
Improved State and local communication systems? Accelerating the 
purchase of smallpox vaccine? Is that the part you are opposed to? How 
about law enforcement?

[[Page 22964]]

  This bill includes $4.6 billion to provide additional help to law 
enforcement so they can deal with the tremendous challenges they are 
currently facing, and for which there is no funding.
  How about transportation security? This provides for $3.2 billion to 
ensure that there is protection, given the tremendous vulnerability 
that there is in our infrastructure right now. Is that the part they 
are opposed to? Would they oppose transportation security?
  Finally, providing some help to our mail and our Federal computer 
systems? We provide for Federal facilities to ensure that we can better 
screen the mail. No one is more sensitive to screening mail right now 
than I am. But there is an array of very specific investments in 
homeland security to protect our mail and to make our computer systems 
more efficient. We have some of the most archaic computer systems, in 
many of our Federal agencies, that you can find in the country. We have 
to update them if we are serious about homeland security. Is that the 
part they are opposed to?
  Which part of this do they not like? That is a really serious 
question.
  I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Oklahoma for a question.
  Mr. NICKLES. I will try to make it a question. I think the Senator 
from Pennsylvania is making a good point; I think we are entitled to 
ask questions. I don't think we are entitled to make statements.
  You asked several questions. Which part of this don't we like? If you 
read Director Ridge's statement, he said ``in next year's budget.'' 
Some of us do believe in budgets. Some of us do believe we had a deal 
with President Bush that said $686 billion on October 5, plus $40 
billion. We have not even finished spending the $40 billion. Many of 
the things you suggested might well be in that $40 billion and are good 
causes. And ``budget'' is a key word.
  President Bush has said he believes there is ample money in the $686 
billion and the $40 billion to meet the needs, things that are needed 
now. The items the Senator listed were not requested by Director Ridge. 
They might be in next year's budget, and they may have offsets from 
other spending to pay for those needed items. The budget is a key item. 
We should have a budget.
  We agreed to $686 billion, and then we added $40 billion on top of 
that, and then we did $15 billion for airline security. We did untold 
billions in victims' compensation. No one knows how much that will 
cost. So some of us are saying, wait a minute, let's slow down just a 
minute on the spending. Let's at least request it be requested by the 
President.
  Again, I compliment my colleague. You defended your President very 
well--President Clinton. Some of us want to defend President Bush, 
trying to make sure we do not go too far, too fast on spending.
  Again, many of those items you have mentioned may well be in the 
second $20 billion that we have yet to allocate and appropriate. So 
that is part of the reason some of us are saying let's be reasonable; 
let's have a stimulus package that still can go for stimulus. Most of 
the stimulus package--just to make the comment--a lot of us believe 
should stimulate the economy, not be another excuse for spending.
  I wish to answer my colleague's question. You are saying, which one 
of these items are we against? We are not saying we are against any of 
those. We think they can be accommodated in the $40 billion that is yet 
to be totally allocated by this Congress.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the answer of the 
distinguished Senator from Oklahoma. Let me just say, though, every 
economist I have talked to has said you can stimulate the economy with 
spending or with tax cuts. What I find always intriguing, and somewhat 
amusing, is our Republican colleagues say spending ought to count, tax 
cuts don't count; we ought to spend as much as we want to with tax 
cuts, and they don't count; we are going to oppose totally the first 
dollar of additional homeland security investment; that is, spending; 
but we are going to propose $175 billion in tax cuts because that is 
not spending.
  We had an agreement, they said, on $686 billion in appropriations. 
Well, we also had an agreement on a tax cut that a lot of people did 
not like but now have reconciled to because it is law. It passed. It 
wasn't my part of the agreement, but it passed.
  Now the President says: Oh, wait a minute, we want another $175 
billion of additional tax cuts over the $1.8 trillion we passed last 
spring because we don't have enough yet. We want to stimulate the 
economy a little bit more with $175 billion, drawing down the Treasury, 
drawing down Medicare, drawing down Social Security, drawing down all 
the retirement funds to pay for this tax cut, a tax cut that largely 
doesn't take effect until outyears, years after this one. There is 
nothing immediate about it at all. I find that very amusing.
  We will continue to have this debate. But the whole point is simply 
this: There are understandable positions that both sides will take in 
these philosophical debates. I believe there is a right and a wrong 
way, and they believe there is a right and wrong way. But the only way 
we are going to find common ground is to meet. Perhaps the most 
important point in answer directly to the Republican leader's question 
about what we are going to do with economic stimulus is, I say, let's 
meet. I propose we meet at 11:30. Let's have a meeting with all of 
those involved. Let's resolve these differences. They are saying not 
until you take half of yours off the table. We can't do that. I think 
every Republican will understand why.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator for a question.
  Mr. DORGAN. I will make it brief, if the majority leader will yield 
for one question. I know our colleagues are waiting. They certainly 
have the right to ask a question. I appreciate the majority leader 
allowing me to do that.
  We just heard a discussion about what we can't afford with respect to 
homeland security, something that the Senator from South Dakota 
believes very strongly ought to be a part of the stimulus package.
  Is it not the case that some of those same folks who say we can't 
afford to have homeland security spending in the stimulus package 
believe that we can afford retroactive tax cuts going back to the 1980s 
to provide up to $1 billion in checks to one company, for example, for 
alternative minimum taxes they paid in the last 12-13 years? The same 
people say we can afford that. That is OK. It is not stimulus, by the 
way. But we can't afford the investment in homeland security. Isn't it 
the case that there is a huge contradiction?
  Mr. DASCHLE. It is not only a contradiction, it is a sad irony that 
somehow in the name of economic security we can, according to their 
approach, pay a company $1 billion-plus, but we can't find a way to pay 
for $1 billion in bioterrorism and food safety. We can't afford that. 
But we can afford $1 billion retroactive payments to some of the 
largest corporations in the country. How ironic. How incredibly 
misguided that is. Yet that is the debate.
  Mr. DORGAN. That totals $23 billion.

                          ____________________