[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 522-523]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            CRITICAL ISSUES

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we have heard some strong views, which, of 
course, is appropriate for the Senate. That is what we ought to be 
doing. We will always have a difference of view as to how we approach 
the problems that confront us. What we ought to do is approach some of 
those problems rather than stand in disrepair here for another few days 
and not do anything with the issues. But we will always have a 
difference of view. That is what it is all about.
  It is interesting that the Senator from Illinois talks about a 
bipartisan solution when we have no bipartisanship at all in this 
Chamber. There can't be a word, there has not been a word, offered 
about any of these proposals without criticizing the White House. You 
can have a different point of view, but you don't always have to 
criticize the person who has a different point of view than you do.
  We have a unique situation. We find ourselves with a difficulty in 
the Middle East, the challenge of war there. We have a challenge in 
North Korea as well. We also have an economy that has slumped. We have 
to do something about that. These are quite different situations than 2 
years ago. We have to do some things that are different.
  With respect to the economy, we need to do something. All I hear is 
criticism from the other side. I don't hear

[[Page 523]]

a plan. I don't hear any proposal. I don't see anything happening 
except just criticism.
  The fact is, we need to have a plan. The President has put forth a 
plan. His plan deals with the issue. Should it be altered? Could there 
be changes? Of course, that is always the case.
  The fact is, there is a plan that has three main goals: To encourage 
consumer spending that will continue to boost the economy; to promote 
investments by individuals and businesses that will lead to economic 
growth and job creation; and to deliver critical help to unemployed 
citizens, which we have already done to some extent and need to 
continue to do.
  The difference in point of view, apparently, as my friend from the 
other side of the aisle said, is they want to redistribute income and 
pass out money. That is their plan; $300 to everyone. And they talk 
about just doing it for 1 year. The fact is, what we need to resolve 
this problem is more investment and more jobs. Mr. President, $300 
doesn't solve a family's problems; $300 doesn't solve anyone's future. 
But a job does, and jobs require investment. The President's proposal 
would speed up the 2001 tax cuts to increase the pace of recovery and 
job creation, encourage job-creating investments in small and large 
businesses by ending some of the double taxation and giving other 
incentives to invest. These are the kinds of things that create jobs, 
that will help people and provide for unemployed Americans, which we 
have done to some extent.
  They talk about not doing anything immediately. They want to give 
somebody $300. Under the President's proposal to speed up tax relief, 2 
million taxpayers would receive an average tax cut of over $1,000 in 
2003; 46 million married couples would receive an average tax cut of 
$1,700; 34 million families with children would receive an average 
benefit of $1,400; 6 million single women with children would receive 
an average tax cut of over $500 immediately, this year; 23 million 
small businesses would receive tax cuts averaging over $2,000, which 
would help create more jobs and continue to move in the direction we 
would like.
  There is a chart in today's Washington Times that compares the $300 
with the things the Bush bill would do, and talking about a single 
person who makes an income of, say, $50,000, he gets more under the 
Bush plan. But more importantly, when you have a married couple, they 
get more like $1,700 as opposed to $600 or $300 each.
  So we can have a different view as to how we do this, but two or 
three things are important. One is we get the facts out there as to 
what is really going to happen. Two is we have a plan that applies more 
than just the distribution and redistribution of money, and the other, 
that would create jobs to stimulate the economy. We have seen what 
economies can do in terms of deficits. No one hates deficits worse than 
I. I am probably one of the more conservative spenders here, but I 
believe when you have a turndown in the economy, you have to do some 
things differently, particularly when they are coupled with the 
problems we have overseas. But a strong economy will replace that and 
we have seen that happen in the past. The best way to deal with the 
deficit is to have that strong economy and to get it moving again.
  Generally, the President's growth and job package provides for a 
short-term boost for the economy, creates jobs, promotes sustained and 
long-term economic growth. Accelerating the 2004, 2006 tax rates to 
2003 will provide 28 million taxpayers with an average of $1,100. We 
don't hear that when we talk about it.
  Mr. President, again, I respect the idea that we have different views 
as to how to deal with problems. I think it is very important that we 
make sure we get the facts out and, No. 2, if you disagree with it--and 
there is a problem as there is here--that there be an alternative, that 
there be some choices, and not just full-time criticism.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.

                          ____________________