[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 694-695]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND ASSISTANCE FOR AMERICAN WORKERS ACT OF 2002

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time in addition to 
the remaining Democratic time for my closing comments.
  Mr. President, the other day I came to the floor to talk briefly 
about our current circumstances. I will recount one last time for the 
record in case there is any question about how it is we got to this 
point this morning. I will again briefly recount the events over the 
course of the last several months. There were bipartisan Finance 
Committee discussions as early as last September about an economic 
stimulus package. There was a hope that we could come together, 
Republicans and Democrats, on an economic stimulus package as we did on 
airport security, on counterterrorism, on the assistance provided to 
New York and to the Defense Department in the wake of the tragedy of 
September 11.
  We reached out to experts who could give us guidance on what the 
principles ought to be for an economic stimulus package. We had a 
number of conversations with Alan Greenspan and Bob Rubin, both, early 
in the months of September and October.
  The bipartisan Budget Committee, I think on a unanimous basis, issued 
some principles on October 4. Those principles were: If you are going 
to have a stimulus package, make sure it is truly stimulative. If you 
are going to have a stimulus package, make sure it is temporary. If you 
are going to have a stimulus package, make sure it is immediate. If you 
are going to have a stimulus package, make sure you take into account 
cost. All of those principles were ones enunciated by the economists 
and agreed to, in large measure on a bipartisan basis, by the Budget 
Committee.
  That was the lead up to the discussions we had. The House Republicans 
broke off those bipartisan talks. What they said is that they wanted to 
use the regular order, move through the committee and present the 
Senate a bill. The Republicans blocked the Finance Committee bill on a 
point of

[[Page 695]]

order in December, even though they could have amended it. They could 
have said: Look, we don't like this but we will offer something else. 
We do not like this but we will amend this bill and have up-or-down 
votes on amendments.
  The Republicans refused to negotiate for a 3-week period of time, as 
they did mostly throughout the fall. There were no negotiations in 
large measure because Republicans delayed. First, they didn't like 
virtually the shape of the table. Then they didn't like who was in the 
room. They came up with reason after reason why we could not sit down 
and talk: delay, inaction, and ultimately a conflict that could not be 
resolved.
  In negotiations, the Republicans insisted on a couple of issues: 
repeal of the alternative minimum tax and an acceleration of the rates 
passed last spring. The session ended, obviously, without agreement. We 
got nowhere. They insisted on these issues. We had ideas they didn't 
like. So we ended in a stalemate last December.
  Over the break I kept examining ways that we might break the impasse, 
try to find ways with which to deal with the clear inability we had at 
the end of last year to come to some resolution. So what I did was to 
work with staff and examine just where the overlay was. Certainly all 
that the Republicans had proposed was not foreign to what the Democrats 
had suggested. And all that the Democrats had proposed was not foreign 
to what the Republicans had suggested. So we came up with a diagram 
that kind of looks like a MasterCard, ironically.
  You take the circle on the right-hand side and these two columns 
represent basically what the Democrats insisted ought to be in an 
economic stimulus package. We wanted to increase the unemployment 
benefits. We wanted to provide coverage for part-time workers and 
recent hires. Republicans said: Oh, no, we can't do that. That is 
ripping off the Federal Government. How terrible it would be if we gave 
those benefits to unemployed workers. Heavens. We can't afford that.
  Affordable group health coverage for the unemployed, we can't do 
that. We aren't going to start new entitlements, for Heaven's sake. 
Let's get real here.
  Job creation tax credit for business is something they said might be 
a possibility but that clearly isn't as good as a corporate AMT repeal.
  Republicans had ideas we did not like. We did not like the 
accelerated rate reduction. When I say ``we,'' I am talking about 
probably 95 percent of the Democratic caucus. We did not like corporate 
AMT repeal, or health coverage for the unemployed going through the 
individual insurance market, pitting an individual against a company, 
an individual with a preexisting condition, and just saying good luck--
we can't do that.
  What I said was if we can't do that, and they don't want us to do it, 
how about if we do the things we both said might work? We both said we 
wanted to extend unemployment benefits.
  Again, when I say ``we both,'' there were proposals for these issues 
by large numbers on both sides of the aisle. Not every single Member, 
but tax rebates, bonus depreciation, and 62 Senators voted for fiscal 
relief for States--62.
  Republicans, to a Governor, across the country, are saying if you are 
going to do us any good at all, if you are going to help us at all, 
give us some relief, especially through Medicaid. Letter after letter 
from Governors has come to the attention of every Member of this 
Senate, urging support for that fiscal relief.
  That was a bona fide effort to try to find common ground. I know the 
Republicans do not like that either because what they said, basically--
and what they are saying this morning--is if you don't give us 
everything in our circle, we don't want to have an economic stimulus 
package. It is all of this or it is nothing at all.
  We aren't saying if it isn't all of this it is nothing at all. We are 
saying we will just take what is here and it's a ticket to conference 
and then let's see what happens. What could possibly be wrong with 
sending a bill to conference, allowing both the House, the Senate, and 
the White House to work out a compromise? They don't want to do that. 
They are saying it is this entire package or we don't want to work with 
you. We don't want a consensus. We don't want a bill.
  They have said that now for 3 weeks. They have rejected the common 
ground approach. They are continuing to insist on two things that I 
hope everybody fully appreciates before they vote this morning. They 
are insisting on making the estate tax repeal and the Bush tax cuts 
permanent--that is what they are insisting on.
  Making the estate tax repeal permanent presents two concerns. If we 
are serious about listening to the Budget Committee recommendations, 
the principles the Budget Committee suggested ought to guide us, then I 
can't imagine that anybody with a straight face would say we want to 
repeal the estate tax permanently now under the guise of economic 
stimulus.
  First of all, the Budget Committee said--didn't they?--that you have 
to make sure it is temporary and that it is immediate. This does not 
take effect until the year 2011. There may be a recession in 2011, and 
it might be nice to be able to deal with that 2011 recession, but not 
with the recession happening in the year 2002.
  This thing costs $104 billion. We agreed the entire stimulus package 
should not be more than $75 billion, but they want to spend $104 
billion of Social Security money to make it permanent when it doesn't 
take effect until the year 2011.
  The tax cut, they want to make it permanent. CBO has provided an 
estimate of $350 billion in the first 10 years, $4 trillion in the 
second 10. There is nothing cost effective about that. And it, too, 
does not take effect until 2011. Again, what is the stimulative value 
of a tax provision that takes place in the year 2011? What is the 
wisdom--I guess that is the word I am looking for--what is the wisdom 
of exacerbating our already growing deficit this year by adding $350 
billion more?
  I don't know the answers to those questions, but I know this. On a 
bipartisan basis the Budget Committee said this is not the direction we 
should go.
  On a bipartisan basis, they said let us try to contain the cost. 
Let's do something stimulative, and do something immediate--not in the 
year 2011, but now.
  Really, there are only two choices. We can pass it, or we can block 
it. I do not know of anything else.
  I hope our Republican colleagues will pass it. I hope they won't 
block it. I hope we will do the right thing. I hope we will send the 
measure to conference so that we can try to work through these issues 
and resolve them and come back with a bill which we can support and 
move on to other priorities.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________