[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 417-420]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              A CHANGE OF HEART OR ONLY A CHANGE OF FACE?

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I concur with the distinguished Senator 
from Nevada, the assistant Democratic leader. We have made a great deal 
of progress, as is evidenced by the number of women who now serve in 
the Senate as well as the House. In addition, of course, as we look to 
the election of the first woman as a leader of either caucus, I think 
that, too, speaks volumes for the transition that this country and the 
Congress itself have experienced over the course of the last couple of 
decades. We have made progress on women's rights, and many of us would 
like to think we have made progress as well on civil rights.
  Over the course of the last several weeks, this country has been 
focused on the issue of civil rights. I think virtually every Member of 
the body spoke

[[Page 418]]

strongly about the need for healing and reconciliation as we consider 
the issue of civil rights and the rights of minorities in this country. 
We recognize we have a long way to go.
  We have a new leader in the Republican caucus who has pledged to 
pursue these goals, and I applaud him for his willingness to do so. 
Unfortunately, yesterday the Republican leader may have caused 
confusion about his intent in that regard. His comments indicated to me 
that among the Republican leadership there may have been a change of 
face, but there has not been a change of heart.
  When the administration chose to renominate Charles Pickering to the 
second highest court in the land, it now appears that in many respects, 
they did not even have a change of face. The question is whether or not 
all of us, Republicans and Democrats, can express in our actions what 
so many have expressed in words. If indeed it is a change of heart, we 
need to see actions that bear out such a change.
  On the question of affirmative action, Senator Frist said he supports 
it if affirmative action is defined as it was in the 1960 Civil Rights 
Act. Well, that was not affirmative action; that was civil rights. That 
was equal rights.
  The real question of affirmative educational opportunity is now being 
asked in the United States Supreme Court. The administration has chosen 
to remain silent. Yesterday the Republican leader in the Senate did not 
ask them to break that silence or indicate a desire to break his.
  When it comes to protecting equal rights, we still have a lot of work 
to do in changing hearts, in changing minds, and in changing laws. 
Unfortunately, that lesson still seems to be lost on a number of our 
Republican colleagues, in spite of their expressions of intent over the 
course of the last several weeks.
  There will be much more to say and do on the issue of racial 
reconciliation in the coming weeks. I hope to see more than just words 
from our Republican colleagues, because yesterday it appeared that what 
we had hoped was a change of heart was little more than a change of 
face.
  Last week the administration announced we would be able to see the 
details of the economic stimulus package they intend to offer.
  Last week we also learned that during the month of December we lost 
100,000 jobs; 100,000 jobs in December. That brings the total job loss 
since George Bush took office to 2.3 million jobs. When the President 
puts forth his stimulus plan, my concern is it will be a stimulus plan 
for the rich and a sedative for the rest. The reason I say that, in 
part, is because there is very little job creation in the first year 
under what we know of the President's plan. The President has 
acknowledged that in his first year he will be creating approximately 
190,000 jobs. When that 190,000 jobs is compared to the 100,000 jobs 
lost in December alone, or the 2.3 million jobs lost in the first 2 
years, 190,000 jobs is hardly a drop in the bucket. It is hardly worth 
writing home about. It is not the stimulus that all economists and the 
rest of the country expect the Congress to consider. That is the 
concern many have: 90 percent of the so-called stimulus plan the 
President is proposing takes place in the outyears--not when we are 
losing the jobs by the hundreds of thousands each month. It takes place 
in years beyond 2003.
  If anything, the economists have said over and over if you are going 
to create a stimulus package, make sure it is immediate. Make sure it 
takes effect now, not at some point in the outyears. We made that 
mistake before. We are feeling the consequences of it. So, the fact it 
does not stimulate the economy is the first concern we have.
  My second concern is the question of fairness. Mr. President, 200,000 
millionaires get tax relief that exceeds the salary of 92 million 
Americans who make $50,000 or less. Again, 200,000 millionaires will 
get $89,000 annually as a tax cut while those who are making $50,000 a 
year or less will get somewhere in the vicinity of $70 or $80 a year in 
tax reduction. This proposal flunks the test of fairness.
  I am troubled on two other accounts. In the last few weeks young men 
and women at Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota have been sent 
off to the Persian Gulf to prepare for war. We hope that war will not 
come. But if war does come, they will be asked to put their lives on 
the line. They will be asked to put their lives on the line at the very 
time these millionaires are going to get an $89,000 tax break. For the 
life of me, I don't see where the fairness is in that.
  Over the last 333 days, we have also suggested there has to be some 
form of drought relief, some form of assistance given to farmers and 
ranchers and people in rural areas who are suffering as a consequence 
of the drought. So far we have been unsuccessful. We have been 
unsuccessful because the administration has said we cannot afford $6 
billion in drought assistance. What I don't understand is how in the 
name of fiscal fairness we can support $764 billion in tax cuts largely 
directed to those at the very top while we tell our farmers and 
ranchers they are not eligible for any assistance and while we send our 
young men and women off to war. On the issue of fairness, this plan 
also fails.
  Perhaps my biggest concern, however, goes to how reckless this plan 
is. People have to be reminded we are borrowing every single dollar of 
these funds to pay for the tax cut. We are borrowing that out of Social 
Security. We have no other recourse. Whatever money is going to go to 
the tax cut this year will be borrowed from the Social Security trust 
fund. So the fact we are borrowing at a time when we may go to war, 
where we may actually have to draw down more resources to be able to 
fight that war, seems senseless to me. To borrow at the magnitude the 
President is proposing, $764 billion in face value and perhaps $1 
trillion when interest costs are factored in, $1 trillion when we have 
to fight a war, seems like the most reckless course for fiscal 
responsibility I can think of.
  The Governors are not sounding a false alarm when they tell us this 
plan will cost them $4 billion. That is over and above the $50 billion 
shortfall they are currently experiencing all over this country. In my 
own State of South Dakota, we are experiencing about a $50 million 
shortfall, one of the largest on record. But it is $50 billion 
nationwide. This tax plan will exacerbate that $50 billion by another 
$4 billion.
  Mr. President, from the point of view of its stimulative value, from 
the point of view of fairness, from the point of view of our 
responsibilities and the potential for recklessness, this plan leaves a 
great deal to be desired. In fact, it causes very great concern to 
many.
  I am also troubled that as we contemplate the need for action on this 
stimulus package, as we contemplate the need to address the omnibus 
appropriations bill, as we recognize we still have to work out our 
organizing resolution, that the Congress may take vacation next week. I 
hope we would refrain from taking a vacation next week. I hope we come 
to the floor, resolve these matters, work on them intently, bring this 
economic stimulus plan, have a good debate, make sure we are acting in 
good faith to try to deal with these tragic unemployment numbers that 
roll out month after month. That is my hope, that we stay here next 
week, that we address these concerns in a realistic, in a bipartisan, 
and in an immediate way, sending a clear message we are a lot more 
interested in getting this work done than we are in taking a few days 
off so soon into the new session. I stand ready to work with our 
Republican leadership and certainly with those in the committees as we 
begin to do our work.
  Senator Frist and I have had some conversations with regard to the 
organizing resolution. We are not yet able to say with any confidence 
when we may finish those discussions. It is fair to say, as everyone 
knows, we had exactly the mirror circumstances in the 107th Congress 
that we have today. In the 107th Congress, there were 51 Members in the 
majority and 49 Members in the minority. In the 108th Congress, there 
are 51 Members in the majority and 49 Members in the minority. It would 
seem to me given the fact that

[[Page 419]]

we have simply seen a reverse, the mirror image of the makeup of the 
107th Congress, we ought to have exactly the same organizing 
resolution; the same funding, the same membership, the same space, the 
same circumstances. That really is as simply as I can describe what the 
Democratic position is. If it was good enough for Republicans and 
Democrats in the 107th Congress, you would think it would be good 
enough for Democrats and Republicans in the 108th Congress.
  We are willing to settle for 49 percent of the resources, 49 percent 
of the space, and a one-vote Republican majority on committees in the 
108th Congress. That is our position. It is the same position we held 
last time. Unfortunately, there are some who have argued that ratio is 
not satisfactory any longer. Since they are in the majority, they want 
more--more resources, more space. I hope, in the interests filling the 
committee positions and moving through the legislative agenda we have 
before us, that we can move as quickly as possible to a resolution of 
this matter.
  Let's do in this Congress what we did in the last one. We all signed 
off on it. We all said it was the right thing to do. We all agreed, and 
the time has come for us to agree again.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator allow me to ask a question?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to.
  Mr. REID. The leader has made it very clear, but I want to make sure 
again that everyone hears the fact the Democrats simply want to have 
the same exact program for committees that was here last year. The only 
thing is the Democrats are now in the minority and Republicans are now 
in the majority, but the funding and the staffing and the space would 
be exactly the same, is that right?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, that is exactly what I am proposing and 
what I assume would be the circumstance in the 108th Congress.
  As I say, I did not have one chairman last year express a concern 
about the inadequacy of resources while we were in the majority. I 
can't imagine, with the cost-of-living adjustment, that anyone would 
have difficulty accepting those resources--as I say, with a cost-of-
living adjustment--in this Congress.
  Mr. REID. If there is a problem here and the organizational efforts 
are not going forward, it would not be anything the Democratic leader 
has done? You want exactly the same situation as last year, is that 
right?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is absolutely correct. What we are simply 
saying is what we had agreed to with a 51-49 breakdown in the 107th 
Congress is what we ought to agree to with a 51-49 breakdown in the 
108th Congress.
  Mr. REID. If I could ask the Democratic leader one other series of 
questions based upon what I think was his very clear speech, the Wall 
Street Journal, which I understand has a circulation of about 2.5 
million people, came out today with something you usually don't see in 
the Wall Street Journal, something supporting what we think is going 
wrong in the country. The headline in the Wall Street Journal:

       U.S. Job-Market Slump Is Longest in Decades--Near-Term 
     Prospects for Workers Remain Grim . . .

  The leader is aware that even the Wall Street Journal is painting a 
very bleak picture about this economy, is that true?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is certainly true. I read that article 
this morning. I commend the distinguished Senator from Nevada for 
raising its content.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the article be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 13, 2003]

 U.S. Job-Market Slump Is Longest in Decades--Near Term Prospects for 
             Workers Remain Grim Despite Hopeful Forecasts

                         (By Jon E. Hilsenrath)

       The later market in the U.S. appears to be in the most 
     protracted slump in decades, and the near-term prospect for 
     workers isn't encouraging.
       The Labor Department said payroll employment contracted by 
     101,000 in December, led by more hemorrhaging in the 
     manufacturing sector, which eliminated jobs for the 29th 
     straight month, and by struggling retailers that hired less 
     than normally during the Christmas selling season. The 
     unemployment rate was steady in December at 6%, mainly 
     because workers are leaving the labor force, which contracted 
     by 191,000 last month.
       For more than a year, economists have said that the current 
     economic recovery was too limp to spur hiring because 
     corporate profits have been so weak. In recent weeks, 
     however, economists have speculated that the jobs market 
     would start to pick up later this year, in part because they 
     expect business confidence to improve. Some recent reports 
     support that argument. The Institute for Supply Management, 
     for instance, said earlier this month that orders to 
     manufacturers picked up in December.
       But Friday's report suggested that, despite signs that the 
     corporate sector is healing, cost cutting remains the order 
     of the day for many companies. That could mean more setbacks 
     for labor.
       The surprising labor market weakness heightened attention 
     on Wall Street and in Washington on the need for fiscal 
     stimulus. President George W. Bush last week proposed $674 
     billion in tax cuts and spending increases to lift economic 
     growth. Analysts said the weak job market probably softens 
     opposition to some kind of action out of Congress in the 
     months ahead, although the shape of that action remains to be 
     hashed out by Washington partisans.
       Bush administration officials seized on the report to make 
     their case. ``The president views the latest report on 
     unemployment as another reason why it's so important for 
     Congress to pass the president's job-creating economic 
     plan,'' said presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer. Democrats 
     argue that the Bush plan doesn't provide enough short-term 
     stimulus and costs too much in the long-term.
       Even before Friday's report, economists were likening the 
     U.S. economy's performance to the jobless recovery of the 
     early 1990s. The latest data suggest it might be that and 
     more. Few job-market downturns have been this protracted. The 
     29 straight declines in manufacturing employment is the 
     longest stretch of manufacturing retrenchment in post World 
     War II history. Overall in the 22 months since the recession 
     began in March 2001, employers have eliminated 1.75 million 
     jobs. By contrast, 22 months after the 1990 recession began, 
     employment had already started to pick up, and fewer jobs--
     1.57 million--had been eliminated.
       Executive caution about hiring has made it increasingly 
     hard for unemployed workers to get back in the work force 
     once they have lost jobs. The Labor Department said 22% of 
     all unemployed workers have been out of work for more than 
     half a year, the highest ratio of long-term unemployed 
     workers since 1992. Also in December, 30% of workers said 
     jobs were hard to get, the highest level since 1994, an 
     earlier report by the Conference Board indicated.
       Some economists said the weak job market puts the economy 
     on more insecure footing at the beginning of 2003. Business 
     spending has been held back for months by uncertainties 
     surrounding the possibility of war with Iraq. Economists are 
     becoming concerned that the weak job market could pinch 
     consumer spending.
       But the job market news wasn't all bad last week. Several 
     economists said they expect the employment statistics to look 
     a bit better in January because of seasonal adjustment 
     factors. And the U.S. government's measure of retail 
     employment fell for December after seasonal adjustments, 
     because retailers hired fewer workers than they normally do 
     in the month. In January, they are conversely likely to lay 
     off fewer seasonal workers, which should boost the retail 
     employment statistics.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, simply to summarize the article, it says 
not only are we suffering month-to-month joblessness at levels we have 
not seen in 8 years, but if you look at the joblessness in the context 
of the economy over the last several decades, this is one of the most 
severe slumps we have seen in decades.
  So we have both an immediate context and a long-term context. In both 
of those contexts, as the Wall Street Journal article points out, this 
matter is of great consequence. Mr. President, 2.3 million jobs, now, 
in the last 24 months have been lost. What the article simply states is 
that, while it is a serious immediate concern, we have to be very 
concerned about the long-term repercussions of this joblessness. I 
thought it was one of the better articles I had seen in recent times 
with regard to the economic dilemma we face as we deal with the 
stimulus package later this month.
  Mr. REID. If I could ask one more question? The leader mentioned we 
were borrowing money. It is true, is it

[[Page 420]]

not, that when this administration took over there was a 10-year 
surplus, in the trillions of dollars? Whether it was $5 trillion or $6 
trillion, it was trillions of dollars. In the last 2 years every penny 
of that is gone, and the leader is certainly aware of that, is that 
true?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I would say to the Senator from Nevada, that is one of 
my greatest concerns. Obviously, the debt we were able to eliminate 
over the final years of the 1990s, thinking that somehow--I can recall 
having conversations that we may be spending down the debt too fast. 
People expressed the concern we might be eliminating the debt too fast.
  I just now shake my head in disbelief we even had conversations like 
that. But, nonetheless, that was one of the concerns expressed by some 
during that period of time.
  I can recall so vividly this question about what it is we were going 
to do with a $5.5 trillion projected surplus. We no longer have that 
surplus projection. We no longer have those year-to-year balanced 
budgets we were proud to report to the American people. We now have a 
deficit of $200 billion to $300 billion, depending on whether or not 
you consider the Social Security trust fund. We are expected now to see 
a deficit of $350 billion in the next fiscal year. So we will see debts 
of a magnitude we have not seen, deficits of a magnitude we have not 
experienced as a result of what has happened over the course of the 
last 24 months.
  In spite of it, we are going to be actually borrowing to exacerbate 
that debt even more, borrowing to provide a tax cut to those at the 
very top of the income scale.
  I have always been concerned about the relationship between the 
circumstances we face now in the war on terror and the circumstances we 
faced in World War II. President Roosevelt stood up and said: I want 
all Americans to sacrifice. In fact, he raised revenue, he did 
everything possible to ensure there was an adequate degree of sacrifice 
across the board. Now we are asking young men and women to sacrifice 
perhaps their lives at the very time we turn around and give a 
millionaire an $89,000 tax break. It turns logic on its head, but that 
is the concern I have.
  I appreciate very much the Senator from Nevada raising the question.
  Mr. REID. I know how busy the Democratic leader is, but I would ask 
one more question. The Democratic leader is going into his 9th year 
being leader of this caucus. Prior to that time Senator Mitchell of 
Maine was leader. I can remember the Democratic leader today and myself 
going into a meeting with Senator Mitchell. The problem there is the 
Republicans were having a mad rush to have a constitutional amendment 
to balance the budget, but they were going to use Social Security 
surpluses to offset that deficit. The Senator remembers that, does he 
not?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I sure do.
  Mr. REID. You remember at that time I agreed to sponsor an amendment 
to have a constitutional amendment to balance the budget but not using 
Social Security surpluses? That worked out well enough that we were 
able to stop that very mischievous amendment from passing. It would 
have wiped out Social Security. Social Security would be gone by now.
  But I say to my friend, the Democratic leader, the money that is 
being borrowed now is coming from Social Security. Not only that, the 
deficit would even be more if they didn't use Social Security surpluses 
to hide it, isn't that also true?
  Mr. DASCHLE. That's the concern we have about a $200 billion Social 
Security cushion that is all being drawn down; not only this year, but 
for every year in the foreseeable future, every year in the coming 
decade. Every dollar of Social Security revenue coming in will be used 
to offset the costs involved in running the Government and providing 
the resources for the tax cuts the President has either advocated or 
actually enacted.
  There is no doubt that the fiscal irresponsibility and the 
recklessness that comes with the extraordinary reliance on Social 
Security trust funds at the very time the baby boomers are coming into 
retirement age is very troubling. I think it ought to be the subject of 
a lot more debate and scrutiny in the days and weeks ahead.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as the leader is leaving the floor, I wish 
to recognize my friend from North Dakota who after I offered that 
amendment was on the forefront of the next Congress making sure that we 
continued our efforts to beat down that mischievous constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget which would have used the Social 
Security surplus to balance the budget. I applaud my friend from North 
Dakota for taking that tough stand which allowed us to move forward and 
help us defeat one of the most dangerous efforts in the guise of 
balancing the budget and destroying Social Security.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from South Dakota.

                          ____________________