[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Pages 27691-27692]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                       ECONOMIC STIMULUS PACKAGE

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President and colleagues, while we are waiting some 
other colleagues to return to this Chamber to negotiate, I would like 
to make just a short comment on the economic stimulus package.
  I would imagine that right now the political pundits of Washington, 
and really the political pundits all around the country, are already 
sharpening their pencils, and the editorial writers are already banging 
away on their typewriters, as well as the political consultants and all 
the special-interest groups are preparing, already, their attack ads to 
blame someone for the failure of this Congress to complete and pass an 
economic stimulus package.
  Over the next several days, and possibly even over the next several 
weeks, we are going to hear some say: Well, it is Tom Daschle's fault 
that we do not have an economic stimulus package because he did not 
bring the package to the Senate floor. We will also hear that, no, it 
is the Republican leader's fault because they only supported a package 
that helped the rich special interests. Or perhaps we will hear that, 
no, it is the fault of the President of the United States for not 
providing the leadership to bring both sides together.
  The blame game has now begun. I have noticed the papers already this 
morning.
  The Wall Street Journal said: The White House and congressional 
leaders fail to reach a compromise and now turn their efforts instead 
to casting blame for its failure.
  The front page of the Washington Post this morning said: Yesterday, 
as both sides began engaging in a furious legislative end game designed 
to assign blame to the other party for failure . . .
  The front page of the New York Times said the same thing, in essence. 
They said: The Bush administration, along with others, turned instead 
to partisan finger pointing over who was to blame for the impasse.
  So, my colleagues and folks around the country, the blame game has 
already begun.
  But one thing is very certain, and that is Americans cannot go to the 
grocery store and buy bread and buy milk with blame. It does not work.
  When Congress fails to act, it is not our political parties that are 
hurt but the people we represent are truly the ones who are hurt.
  Unfortunately, our political parties sometimes believe that they are 
actually helped when nothing is done so that they can blame the other 
side for failure and perhaps pick up a few congressional seats or 
perhaps even take over the White House.
  Perhaps we, as members of the centrist coalition, should have gotten 
involved sooner. Maybe we should have offered our congressional 
proposal, blending the best ideas from both sides, earlier than we did. 
It might have helped.
  Perhaps the White House should have become engaged earlier than they 
did. Maybe they should have been stronger in telling both sides to work 
together for an agreement.
  Perhaps, perhaps, maybe, maybe, might have, might have, but in the 
end our biggest enemy was time. There simply was not sufficient time 
remaining to take up an extremely complicated package, only passed late 
last night by the House of Representatives, and to try to explain it 
sufficiently to colleagues in the Senate in order for people to take a 
rational vote on that legislation.
  To those who try to blame Leader Tom Daschle, I say, baloney. I was 
there. I worked hard for an agreement. But we did not in the end--and 
we do not now--have the votes to pass such a package in the Senate. I 
know that. We all know that. And it serves no one to bring up, in the 
last few hours, a very complicated package only for political purposes 
when we know the votes are not there.
  The good news is that we came very close and can use the progress 
that we made in these negotiations to pass a package when we return in 
January. Both sides moved. We moved on taxes. We moved on health 
coverage. But only if we allow the outside forces to poison the wells 
so badly that we cannot negotiate will we not be able to reach an 
agreement.
  Both sides must realize in a divided government we must compromise or 
nothing will get done. Businesses will get no relief or incentives to 
grow. Individuals will get no stimulus checks.
  Unless we come together and reach an agreement, businesses will get 
no relief. They will get no incentives to grow. Individuals, on the 
other hand, will get no stimulus checks. They will get no extended 
unemployment compensation. They will get no Federal assistance to buy 
their health insurance.
  For the first time in this country's history, we had the Federal 
Government paying for over one-half of an unemployed worker's health 
insurance. Now they must pay 100 percent. We came close.
  The special interests in both our Democratic Party and our Republican 
Party must realize that in representing their constituents, they need 
to be flexible. They cannot insist that those of us who care about them 
be forced into a ``we want it all or nothing'' situation. In that case, 
the ``all or nothing'' situation produces nothing.
  Is ``nothing'' what they want for the people they represent? Can they 
tell the workers, over the holidays, that not getting $14 billion in 
stimulus checks and not getting $18 billion in unemployment money and 
not getting $21 billion more in health assistance was the right thing 
for them because there were other provisions that would not directly 
help them that was also part of the package?
  Can business lobbyists say they are better off with no accelerated 
depreciation because they wanted it for 3 years? Or are they really 
better off with no AMT relief because they wanted a permanent repeal 
instead of only a partial repeal?
  Is it not better to reach an agreement that you can get 70 percent of

[[Page 27692]]

what you want and then fight for the remainder in the future?
  Neither Medicare nor Social Security started out providing everything 
they provide today. Government is a gradual thing, and that is not bad. 
It is what American Government does best. We evolve. We cannot be 
stagnant.
  More and more Americans look at Washington and wonder why it does not 
work as it should. Why do grown men and women fight and argue when 
solutions need to be reached? Especially is this true as a feeling 
among younger voters.
  Let me conclude by pointing out that in the height of the 
Presidential election squabble in Florida, the Gallup organization 
asked Americans at that time, in a national poll, about their political 
affiliation. Shockingly, for some Americans, the poll came back and 
said that 42 percent of Americans identified themselves as 
Independents. That was more than who identified themselves as either 
Democrats or Republicans.
  There is a message there: Americans do not want blame as a theme song 
for their Government. They want results. They want results that help 
them, and they do not particularly care who produces it.
  I hope we can all learn from this experience. The greater challenges 
ahead can be solved only by working for the greater good. We can only 
do that by working together in order to achieve it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MILLER addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the Senator from 
Georgia allowing me to make a unanimous consent request.


        UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--H.R. 3338 CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have been negotiating with a number of 
our colleagues regarding the Defense appropriations conference report. 
I would like to propound a unanimous consent request, with an 
expectation that it may need further clarification.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, be 
recognized; that the Senator from West Virginia, the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, be recognized; that the two subcommittee 
chairs, the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii, also be 
recognized; and that the Senator from Michigan be recognized; that upon 
the recognition of those Senators and their remarks in regard to the 
Defense appropriations conference report, the Senate vote immediately 
on its final passage.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Reserving the right to object, I just ask the 
question, Will the subcommittee chairs be designating time from their 
time?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The answer is yes. It is not necessarily in that order, 
I would clarify, Mr. President.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank all of my colleagues.

                          ____________________