[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 462-465]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             DO UNTO OTHERS

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have listened to the remarks of my 
colleague from the State of Alabama very closely and carefully, and I 
have a very simple suggestion of three words for the organizing 
resolution, and the three words are: Do unto others.
  What the Democrats are proposing as an organizing resolution, in a 
51-49 Senate, is exactly what the Democrats proposed to the Republicans 
when we had 51 votes and the Republicans had 49. We said, this is such 
a close division of control in the Senate we are going to offer 
resources which historically had never been offered to a minority but 
we felt that it was only fair, and here is what we said: We will give 
55 percent of the resources to run the Senate to the majority party, in 
that case Democrats who had 51 votes, and 45 percent of the resources 
to the Republicans. And the Republicans said: thank you. That is fair. 
That is just. We accept it.
  Along comes an election and two Senate seats change, and guess what. 
Now the Republicans are in control with 51 votes, and this fair and 
just approach of running the Senate is now being rejected.
  I am hearing from the Senator from Alabama that we do not understand 
the mandate of the American people says we are not going back to this 
fair allocation of resources--no, no, no. Two-thirds of the resources 
go to the Republicans and a third to the Democrats. Democrats get fewer 
offices, fewer staff, fewer people working for them, and the fact the 
Democrats gave the Republicans 45 percent of the resources when they 
had 49 votes, forget it, those days are over.
  We are trying to, as the Senator from Alabama said, run over Senator 
Frist. No, we are offering to Senator Frist, the new majority leader, 
exactly as a proposal what we offered to the Republicans when they were 
in the same situation.
  Our organizing resolution is simple: Do unto others. We are asking 
the Republicans to be as fair to us as we were to them, and they have 
rejected it.
  My colleague has come to the floor today and said we are being 
unreasonable. I do not think so. When it came to allocating the 
resources of a closely divided Senate, we gave to the Republican 
minority of 49 Senators an extraordinary allocation of resources, a

[[Page 463]]

fair allocation of resources, and they do not want to see that happen 
again.
  In talking about this last election, it was truly an historic 
election. The fact that the President's party would increase the number 
of seats in the House and the Senate is history making, and the 
Republicans deserve credit for that. Their party was successful in its 
campaign strategy, but to suggest that two Senate seats represent a 
revolution in thinking to the point where we can cast aside all of the 
fair allocations which we decided would be part of the future of the 
Senate is unreasonable to me. Why can't we play by the same rules?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am glad to acknowledge the Senator and allow him to 
speak on Republican time, but I want to maintain the 10 minutes I was 
allocated as part of morning business. I do not think that is unfair.
  What we are suggesting is exactly what we gave to the Republicans and 
now they cannot stand it. They cannot stand the thought we would end up 
with 45 percent of the resources.
  On the outside, people say, why are we haggling over 45 percent or 50 
percent? Well, it comes down to people and staff who are working on 
committees, who are trying to process and evaluate bills so we can have 
a lively and informed debate, and the Republicans want to deny us those 
resources, the same resources we offered to them. I do not think that 
is fair.
  As for this organizing resolution, make it simple, three words: Do 
unto others. Have the Republicans do unto us what we did unto them in 
exactly the same circumstances. They say they cannot live with that. It 
really tells the whole story.
  Let me talk for a moment about the failure of the last Congress, 
which the Senator from Alabama has addressed. It was breathtaking to 
hear his analysis of what happened over the 15 or 16 months when the 
Democrats were in control, how terrible it was, how things could not 
get done. He talked about the homeland security bill, and I remember 
when the Senator from Texas, Phil Gramm, came to this floor and tied up 
the Senate for 6 weeks and would not pass the homeland security bill 
because he would not allow an amendment to be called for a vote. For 6 
weeks he held up the Senate, which can be done. This is the greatest 
place in the world to get nothing done, and we do a lot of it. The 
rules are designed so that nothing is done. Senator Gramm knew the 
rules and the Republicans knew the rules. Time and again they 
established the roadblocks and stopped the bills we wanted to pass.
  Homeland security was a classic example. It got so bad that my former 
colleague, Max Cleland of Georgia, a triple amputee Vietnam veteran, a 
man I was proud to count as a colleague and friend, was attacked during 
the course of his Senate campaign for not being patriotic. He is a 
triple amputee Vietnam veteran, and they said in the campaign he was 
not patriotic because he would not go along with the Republican 
position on homeland security. To me, that represented the depths of 
campaigning in America, the absolute worst, and that is what we faced 
in the last election.
  It is a tough business. This is not a bean bag. One has to expect 
give and take in this business. It is part of it. But that really 
represented the bottom as far as I was concerned, and that is what we 
are up against.
  On prescription drugs, we came up with a proposal which said make it 
voluntary, make it universal, make it under Medicare so seniors have a 
chance to pay for their drugs. Who opposed it? The drug companies. Know 
why? Because if the Federal Government, under Medicare, offered this 
program we would bargain with the drug companies to bring down their 
prices.
  They did not want to do that. That would cut into their profits. They 
supported the Republican version of their bills which basically gave 
the seniors little or nothing, and then turned around, and if people 
did not believe who they were supporting, look at the money they spent 
in the election--tens of millions of dollars in support of Republican 
Congressional candidates who supported their point of view, that 
basically said consumers in America will keep paying the highest prices 
so the profit margins to these drug companies can be as high as they 
have always been. That was the whole story in that debate.
  Frankly, when I hear the Senator from Alabama blame the Democratic 
Senate on the failure of the appropriations process, I might remind him 
the appropriations bills originate in the House and they could not get 
started. We passed two bills. There were 11 appropriations bills that 
did not pass, and still have not passed. They could not pass them out 
of the House because they could not reconcile the Republican caucus in 
the House. They put that blame on Senator Daschle and the Democrats. We 
could have done a better job. I wish we had. Frankly, some of those 
criticisms are weak and wrong.
  Now a word about the President's stimulus package. Is it not 
interesting that the former Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neill, 
said yesterday that had he continued on as Treasury Secretary, he would 
have not supported President Bush's stimulus plan: I would not have 
done it, Paul O'Neill said. I can understand why. When you look at this 
plan, you see there are three fundamental problems. It is not a 
stimulus plan. To get the economy moving, do something now. Give people 
spending power.
  There are a lot of working families in Illinois and across the 
Nation. With a few more dollars, they would spend on goods and 
services, creating demand, creating jobs, creating opportunity. No way. 
This Bush approach is going to defer most of the money that will be 
spent for an extremely long period of time. Look at what the 
President's stimulus package does in the first year: 12 percent of the 
money he is proposing to be spent in the first year, $110 billion; over 
a 10-year period of time, $933 billion. This is not an economic 
stimulus. If it were, you would focus on the first year, as the 
Democrats have, put the money in the first year, get the economy moving 
again.
  I live in a State now No. 3 in the Nation for unemployment. I cannot 
imagine that this has happened, but it has. In Illinois, there is 6.7 
percent unemployment. We have lost over 20,000 manufacturing jobs in 
the last 12 months. The President says all the stimulus should come in 
years to come. What about the people losing their jobs today? Don't we 
want to put them back to work? Not under the President's plan.
  The second problem is the nature of the tax breaks. They are 
fundamentally unfair. I believe this, fundamentally, when it comes to 
tax law: The majority of the tax benefits should go to a majority of 
Americans.
  I have heard Republican Senators--one from Pennsylvania--say: Don't 
you understand? A third of the workers in America do not pay taxes.
  Hey, wake up. These people are paying payroll taxes every week.
  Oh, he just meant income taxes. What difference does it make if they 
are taking it out of your paycheck? That is what is happening to the 
workers who are being ignored by the President's proposal, ignored by 
the Republican majority in this Chamber.
  Look at these benefits: Typical middle-income taxpayers, adjusted 
gross incomes up to $38,000--that is at the lower end of middle income, 
I am sure--$265 a year under President Bush's proposal for tax breaks. 
Now look at those with incomes over $1 million a year: Under President 
Bush's proposal, those making over $1 million a year will get almost 
$89,000 in tax breaks. Think about that. When a citizen has $80,000 in 
income a month coming in, how big a difference in your life is $89,000?
  Somebody said the other day in one of the articles, the President is 
standing up for minorities in America. Sure, the minority being 
millionaires.
  Why in the world are we not standing up for the working people across 
this country? In my State and across the Nation, they are struggling to 
make ends meet. They are trying to pay the bills. These are folks who 
have seen their retirement income shrinking. If they are members of 
labor unions, they

[[Page 464]]

have seen their pension benefits threatened. Struggling working 
families in America are people who need tax breaks as well.
  Take the cost of health insurance. What do you think about that? Have 
you paid any attention to what is happening, whether you are small 
business, large business, or labor union? It is breaking the bank. In 
my State, construction workers with good jobs, with good paychecks, 
come to me and say: Another year has gone by, we have $1.50 more an 
hour under our contract, and I don't see a penny of it in take-home 
pay; it is being gobbled up by health insurance.
  At General Electric, the employees called a strike because of the 
cost of health insurance.
  And the President is saying, let's not worry about those folks, let's 
worry about the millionaires and give them $89,000 in additional tax 
breaks. Why in the world are we not giving tax benefits to help working 
families and small businesses cope with the real expenses of life?
  My colleague, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, has a proposal, 
which I cosponsor, which allows the deductibility of college education 
expenses. That just makes sense to me. A new couple with a new baby, 
and you go see them and say: Looks like his dad. Looks like his mom. Is 
he sleeping at night? Are you starting to save money for college for 
this little baby? The first thing that comes to mind: You know how 
expensive it is. Why in the world, if we are talking about tax breaks 
to help people, to spark the economy, aren't we talking about things 
like that--breaks for small businesses to offer health insurance, 
breaks for families so they can pay for their kids' college education 
expenses, reductions in the payroll tax that would help every single 
American across the board. No way.
  When this President takes a look at it, he cannot even see those 
people. The only people he sees are those making $1 million a year; 
$89,000 in tax breaks for them. That is not fair.
  Let me tell you about something that troubles me greatly. Not only 
are the President's tax breaks unfair in terms of whom they help--not a 
stimulus, because they do not take place in the first year--the thing 
that troubles me greatly is we are returning to that era of deficits in 
America that we had under Presidents Reagan and Bush and the first few 
years of President Clinton: Red ink as far as the eye can see.
  When you ask the Bush Cabinet, Aren't you worried about the deficits 
you are going to create with this tax program the President is 
proposing, they say that deficit is ``manageable.'' Manageable--$350 
billion in deficit?
  Let me tell you what we are doing. We are betraying two generations 
with the President's economic stimulus package. The first generation we 
are betraying is the baby boomers who within a few years are going to 
show up for Social Security and Medicare. For their entire lives, as 
long as they have worked, they have dutifully paid every single hour of 
every day of work into the Social Security trust fund with the 
understanding that when they were eligible for Social Security, it 
would be there and Medicare would be there. But the President's 
proposal is taking money--in this case, $933 billion over 10 years--out 
of the Social Security trust fund, just at the baby boomers are looking 
for their benefits. At a time when the largest number of retirees come 
in, President Bush is taking more money out of the Social Security 
trust fund to make it more difficult to meet our obligation. Will we 
meet it? We will, but at the expense of everything else in our 
Government--at the expense of education, at the expense of prescription 
drugs, at the expense of helping families pay for their basic education 
needs and basic needs of their family. These are the topics central to 
this debate.
  The second generation we are betraying is our children. President 
Bush's proposal betrays the generation of our children. Why do I say 
that? They have to pay off this debt. All this money that we are 
borrowing at this point in time in our history has to be paid back, or 
at least interest on it to service it over the years. The Republicans, 
fiscal conservatives, watchdogs of the Treasury, are digging us into 
this deep deficit of red ink so we can give tax breaks to the 
wealthiest people in America. How can that make sense?
  Let me add another perspective. This is a time when usually a country 
cinches its belt, takes a view toward reality, and is prepared to 
sacrifice. We are in the midst of a war on terrorism.
  I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent for 7 minutes afterwards.
  Mr. DAYTON. Reserving the right to object, is there an order 
established right now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an order.
  Mr. DAYTON. Is the Senator from Alabama asking consent--is part of 
the unanimous consent request--I see the Senator from Vermont is here. 
I ask the Senator from Vermont if he wants to add his time to the 
unanimous consent request, and I request 15 minutes after the Senator 
from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. If you want to proceed, that is fine with me.
  Mr. DAYTON. I refer to the Democratic whip.
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding the Senator from Alabama wishes to 
speak. Is that right?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Seven minutes.
  Mr. REID. Following the Senator from Illinois. And then following 
that, the Senator from Vermont wishes to speak for how long?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Five minutes.
  Mr. REID. And then the Senator from Minnesota wishes to speak for how 
long?
  Mr. DAYTON. Fifteen minutes.
  Mr. REID. I ask the Chair, do the Democrats, with our allotment of 
time, have that much time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent, then, that the Senator from 
Alabama be recognized following the statement of the Senator from 
Illinois; then the Senator from Vermont be recognized for 5 minutes; 
then the Senator from Minnesota for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me conclude by saying the following: 
On the organizing resolution, the Republicans should offer to the 
Democrats exactly what we offered to them under the same allocation of 
seats in the Senate, 51-49, Democrats over Republicans. We offered to 
the Republicans 45 percent of the funding for the Senate and they took 
it and said, thank you; that's only fair. That is all we are asking for 
now. It is not unreasonable.
  Second, the President's economic stimulus package is not a stimulus 
because most of the benefits do not occur in the first year. It is not 
fair because most of the money is going to people in the highest income 
categories. And it is reckless in terms of the deficits it is creating 
for this generation of baby boomers who are going to need Social 
Security and for our children who will have to ultimately pay for this 
debt.
  The final point I make is this. At a time of national sacrifice, 
facing a war on terrorism and the potential of at least one other war 
in some other part of the world, we are allocating tax cuts and deeper 
deficits instead of saying to the American people: Stand with us; take 
care; let us go through this time of crisis together and then as the 
economy is restored we will stand together and prosper together. 
Instead, we are saying: Tax cuts for everybody--as long as you are 
wealthy in America.
  That is not the best approach to get America moving again.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I strongly disagree with the 
characterization of the President's stimulus package as stated by the 
Senator from Illinois. He is a great advocate and eloquent spokesman 
for his values and views, but I don't agree with that analysis.
  The problem we are dealing with today is that it does little good to 
be talking about stimulus packages, war,

[[Page 465]]

or other matters when we can't get the Senate organized. He challenged 
some of the statements I made and I want to talk about that a little 
bit.
  First, it is indisputable that the last Congress was marked by 
obstructionism and failure. We produced no budget for the first time in 
the history of the Budget Act, almost 30 years. No budget was passed. 
We were not under a budget. It is a historic failure of monumental 
proportions.
  Mr. President, 11 of the 13 appropriations bills that should have 
been passed by October 1 of last year remain unpassed. This Government 
cannot operate, cannot spend money not authorized by Congress. So we 
are at this moment unable to even take serious steps toward passing 
these appropriations bills from last year when the Senator's leadership 
was in control because we can't get the Senate organized.
  Homeland security was held up interminably, over nothing more than 
labor issues, driven by the other side. After the election, the 
President got exactly what he wanted. The other side capitulated on 
that because they were not sound objections. They never were. And the 
American people didn't appreciate it, and they knew it, and the bill 
passed.
  There were a lot of bills that failed last year that should have 
passed had we met each other halfway. Let me tell you how that year 
started. This is important.
  Two years ago the Senate was 50-50. That changed when the 
distinguished Senator Jeffords made a decision to change last year. But 
when it began, it was 50-50. The Republicans had an effective majority 
because the President of the Senate was Vice President of the United 
States, Dick Cheney, and he would have broken the tie on these matters. 
In an effort to work in a bipartisan way, Trent Lott agreed to 
something never before agreed to. He agreed to basically a divided 
Senate financing and an organization that was historically favorable to 
the Democrats, because we were at a 50-50 deal, and he wanted to work 
in a bipartisan way the last 2 years, in the last Congress. That was a 
big step, to not fight but to reach an accord. Some criticized him for 
that but he did that.
  In the course of that agreement, somebody said: Well, what happens if 
the majority changes in this year? We don't know that is going to 
happen, but over every 2-year period often things change that you do 
not expect. So the agreement was reached that if the majority changed 
and the Democrats achieved a majority and got 51 Senators, then the 
funding would remain the same for the Republicans so we would not have 
disruption in the middle of that Congress. That was the agreement 
reached. When Senator Jeffords made his change--and he remained as an 
Independent but he organized with the Democrats and they had 50 
Democrats and 1 Independent to organize and elect Senator Daschle the 
majority leader--then the funding continued as we had agreed months 
before when the original resolution was agreed to.
  That is what happened. That is how it is that it came out that the 
funding ended last year the way it did. It was not as if the Democrats 
made a great concession. In fact, Trent Lott made the concession. As 
part of that agreement that they worked out, they worked out how it 
would continue throughout that Congress, and that is what happened.
  Now we are here in a situation in which every committee is chaired by 
Republicans, every subcommittee is chaired by Republicans, and we are 
back into the normal historical deal where you have a majority in the 
Senate--whether it is 51, 52, 53, or 54--and the majority needs 
funding. The majority needs other capabilities to operate the Senate so 
we can pass our appropriations bills; so we can pass a budget; so we 
can move legislation that needs to be moved.
  So it is just not right to say this plan that Senator Frist is 
working on to return to the historic way that we have organized this 
Senate throughout our lifetimes, and perhaps even more, is somehow 
unfair and not legitimate. It is the way we organized and the way we 
ought to organize this time.
  So I hope we do not start this Congress with this kind of spat. I 
know Senator Frist has, for days now, been working to reach an accord 
with which people can be familiar. I think there are some who think if 
they keep shoving it, the crisis in our agenda is so important that 
Senator Frist will just give in. I think he will be cooperative and 
reach out, but there is a limit as to how far he can and should go. I 
know he is not going to capitulate and give in to an unhistorical way 
to divide the leadership in this Senate and to accept a resolution of 
organization that is not consistent with our traditions and the needs, 
frankly, of this body.
  I hope this will be worked out. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

                          ____________________