[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 475-477]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        STIMULATING THE ECONOMY

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wish to discuss this same 
issue and do it with a different approach. We have been talking about 
the unconscionable cuts in education. We are about to see some huge 
cuts in homeland defense. A lot of this burden is being shifted to the 
States.
  On the question of local law enforcement and the question of port 
security, my State of Florida has 14 deep-water ports. The ports are an 
obvious target for those who are trying to do bad things to us. Right 
now only 3 percent of all the containers coming into this country are, 
in fact, inspected. A lot of this financial burden is being shifted to 
the States with the cuts that are being proposed in this coming 
appropriations bill to homeland defense.
  Wait until there is another attack, and then what is going to be the 
answer when this administration did not insist on an appropriations 
bill that would fully fund the adequate protection for this country's 
homeland?
  To come back to the issue of a tax cut, coming from Florida, I have a 
lot of folks who are retirees with a percentage of the population that 
is well above the national average--that is 65 and above--and, 
therefore, a lot of our population looks to income from dividends. In 
an ideal world, it would certainly be good if we could cut the tax on 
dividends and eliminate it, but we are not in an ideal world. We are in 
a war. We have increased expenses for war and, at the same time, we are 
in a sick economy.
  We need to get this economy moving again. We need to stimulate this 
economy. How can we do that? We can do it

[[Page 476]]

by putting dollars in the pockets of everyone across the board so they 
will spend and let those dollars circulate through the economy and, 
thus, rev up the economic engine.
  There is something else we can do with regard to business. We can 
give business the incentive to invest in more plant and equipment in 
the short term to create more jobs and to get the engine of the economy 
stoked up again. How can we do that? We can accelerate depreciation--
not 5 years from now, not 3 years from now, but accelerate depreciation 
in the next year.
  If we are looking at what works with regard to stimulating the 
economy, it would be my suggestion--and I think this is common sense--
we pick tax policies and tax cuts that will directly do that now, not 
some hoped-for stimulation several years down the road.
  When we balance that against all the needs in a huge deficit 
situation that is being projected as $250 billion in this present 
fiscal year--in other words, we are spending $250 billion more than we 
have coming in in tax revenue. When we realize that the sick economy 
is, in part, a reflection of lack of confidence of the American people 
in the future of the economy because of the deficit spending, while at 
the same time we are going into a war where we are going to have more 
expenditures, then the tax cuts that should be used should be 
surgically and strategically determined in order to stimulate the 
economy.
  It would be this Senator's opinion that even though I would like very 
much to eliminate the tax on dividends and that would help a lot of my 
people, the first requirement of our people in Florida and this country 
is to get this economy moving again and to stimulate the economy. We 
could be much wiser in how we approach our ultimate decision on this 
stimulus of the economy through a tax cut.
  I have been quite disturbed by what I see emerging as a means of 
cramming an appropriations bill down the throat of Congress by bringing 
about a number of major cuts in homeland security and education. The 
mechanism that is being employed is under the gun of shutting down the 
Government at the end of this month. A continuing resolution is being 
proposed, which is a resolution that continues the funding of 
Government under last year's appropriations levels, up through the end 
of this month, but there is a threat of shutting down the Government on 
January 31 unless there is a new continuing resolution or continuing 
funding of the Government. There are huge cuts being proposed in 
homeland security and education but some of us are going to fight that 
as not in the best interest of this country.
  Ultimately, we are being maneuvered into a position, are you going to 
shut down the Government by refusing to enact a continuing resolution 
or are you going to accept that and accept it at last year's levels, 
which would totally not have our country prepared for the defense of 
this homeland? That does not make sense to this Senator, and that is 
not in the interest of my State particularly since it seems as if 
whatever happens often happens first in Florida.
  Anthrax happened. We even had a kid flying a plane into a tall 
building. We have the threats in the 14 deepwater ports in Florida of 
what kind of cargo could come in that would never be inspected. It 
could not even come in on a commercial cargo ship. It could come in on 
a pleasure craft. So many of the ports of this Nation have deepwater 
access all the way up to a highly urbanized downtown area. There is the 
opportunity for mischief by those who want to do damage to the United 
States.
  I urge upon my colleagues that we be very careful as we approach 
these decisions on the appropriations bills, and on the concurrent 
decisions on tax policy, that we do what is in the interest of the 
defense of this country and also in the interest of the stimulus of 
getting this sick economy moving again.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need to 
truly stimulate our economy and create jobs and how we can do that in a 
way that is fair for everyone, that puts dollars back in the pockets of 
middle-class Americans who we know literally drive the economic engine 
by buying cars, homes, clothes for their children, groceries, and all 
of the other purchases that keep our economy going.
  I have grave concerns about the so-called economic proposal that has 
come from the President. In fact, it does not meet the definition of 
that term, and I have great concern because it does not put the 
majority of money back in the pockets of people who drive the economic 
engine.
  We can come together on issues such as eliminating the marriage tax 
penalty, increasing the child credit, and helping small businesses, 
which by the way are the majority of new jobs being created today. The 
majority of new jobs is coming from small businesses. We need to be 
focusing on ways to help small businesses pay for their health care and 
to have the kinds of incentives they need to invest back in their 
companies so they will grow.
  When we look at the proposal the President has brought forward, if we 
were to come together, we could easily pass relief as it relates to the 
marriage tax penalty, with bipartisan support. We could easily pass 
increases in the child tax credit on a bipartisan basis. We could 
easily support small business in ways that we can provide tax relief 
and other kinds of support.
  The problem is two-thirds of the President's plan, the vast majority, 
does not do any of that. Two-thirds of the plan is focused on the very 
top income earners in the United States who already have one, two, or 
three homes, multiple cars, and who are not necessarily going to be 
spending these dollars back into the economy, at the expense of 
everyone else.
  When we look at what this proposal from the White House means to 
Americans, taxpayers with incomes of over $1 million would get back an 
average of $88,873, almost $89,000 coming back to them. The majority of 
taxpayers, the typical middle-class taxpayer in the United States of 
America, would get $265. That is a huge disparity.
  Some say, well, if we talk about the differences, if we talk about 
the fact that the majority goes to those at the very top, we are 
engaged in class warfare. With all due respect, that is a bunch of 
baloney. We are talking about how we can fairly put money into people's 
pockets. We want to make sure the majority of the middle-income 
taxpayers, the ones who are keeping the engine going, have tax relief 
and get dollars back in their pockets. Of course, that happens in a 
variety of ways. Tax relief is one. This kind of a difference is not 
fair. It is simply not fair.
  There is another way to make sure we have money in people's pockets. 
That is to make sure we are not exploding the national debt and causing 
interest rates to rise. There is another kind of tax on people we went 
through in the 1980s and the 1990s. That is high interest rates. When 
citizens buy an automobile--coming from Michigan, I am very interested 
in people buying a lot of automobiles, a lot of domestically made, 
American-made automobiles; we want people to be able to afford that--
high interest rates affect your ability to buy that new car. High 
interest rates affect your ability to buy your new home, or to be able 
to afford to send your children to college. Interest rates which 
directly relate to the national debt affect how much money goes in 
people's pockets.
  This proposal of the President is not fair on its face. We are 
looking at the top .2 percent, 226,000 millionaires, receive more than 
half, almost two-thirds of all of the tax cuts being imposed; 68 
percent of the people receive $15 billion; and .2 percent of the 
taxpayers get $20 billion. It is not fair on its face. If you add in 
the fact this is a proposal that will greatly increase the national 
debt on the back end, what we are doing is saddling these middle-class 
taxpayers and our baby boomers--of which I am one--and our children and 
grandchildren with more debt. We will increase interest rates and take 
more money out of people's pockets.

[[Page 477]]


  Mr. REID. If I could ask my friend from Michigan to withhold. The 
majority leader is on the floor with important business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________