[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1799-1801]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               THE PRESIDENT'S STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this is one of those big days in 
Washington. It happens every year with the President's State of the 
Union Address. We

[[Page 1800]]

look forward to it. It is an opportunity for the entire membership of 
the Senate and House to gather on the floor of the House of 
Representatives and bring in the Members of the Cabinet, Supreme Court 
Justices, the diplomatic corps, and Joint Chiefs of Staff. The 
President of the United States comes before us in a well-publicized 
event to speak from his heart about the State of the Union, our Nation.
  For about an hour--some Presidents take a little longer than others--
the President has center stage, as he should; he is our leader, our 
Commander in Chief. There is an air of anticipation during this lead-up 
time to the State of the Union Address because, until he speaks the 
words, we are never quite sure what he is going to say. The White 
House, whether it is under a Democrat or Republican, will tantalize us 
with hints and little notions, but I have found in the time I have 
served in Congress that sometimes they are misleading and they don't 
tell you the whole story. It is not until you go into the House Chamber 
and sit in the chair and listen to the President that you hear 
firsthand what is on his mind.
  You are not certain, as well, about the people he will honor and pick 
out. It has become a standing tradition, I think since President 
Reagan, for the President to invite people to sit in the gallery, 
usually with the First Lady. They are pointed to with pride as great 
Americans who have done extraordinary deeds. There is a lot of 
speculation who will be up there. Will it be the family of a Reservist 
who has been activated for a potential war in Iraq, a firefighter, a 
policeman, or a member of the health professions who has distinguished 
himself or herself in our homeland security? You are never sure. It is 
this uncertainty which leads to the excitement about the State of the 
Union Address.
  But we learned today in a story published in the Chicago Tribune that 
some people living here in Washington, some who work on Capitol Hill, 
have no uncertainty about what the President is going to say. This 
morning, in the Chicago Tribune, in an article written by Jeff Zeleny, 
it was disclosed that the White House has invited a select audience of 
Republican lobbyists and political executives down to the White House 
today to hear the State of the Union Address. I think that is 
unprecedented. I don't think there has been a time before when a 
President has invited in lobbyists, special interest groups, to hear 
the State of the Union Address in advance.
  These top strategists and opinion leaders are going to attend a 
``closed-door State of the Union briefing inside the White House 
complex.'' Who will be included? We are not sure of all of them. There 
will be about 70 top strategists, pollsters, and conservative groups, 
such as American Cause, founded by Pat Buchanan; Americans For Tax 
Reform, whose leader is Grover Norquist, someone who is well known in 
political circles in Washington. Then, of course, the lobbyists for the 
biggest corporations are going to be there in advance for the sneak 
preview, including personnel from AT&T and Eli Lilly, which is a major 
pharmaceutical company. They get a chance, before the American people, 
to hear the State of the Union Address.
  Why would the White House want to open the doors for these special 
interest groups to hear the State of the Union Address before the 
President speaks to the American people? Well, it is certainly a 
special privilege he has granted to them. But it also reflects on what 
he is going to say in that State of the Union Address. He is certainly 
not bringing in these Republican strategists and business leaders and 
special interest groups to hear something they are going to find 
unsettling. He is really assembling a chorus of praise for those who 
will say after the speech that it is the best ever.
  When the President really speaks to America and its issues, I just 
wonder, will we witness the same level of moral outrage from the 
conservative cable commandos as we heard in years gone by when special 
interest groups were invited to the White House? For this President to 
make history by bringing in lobbyists to hear the address before the 
people of the Nation, I am anxious to hear all of the people you see on 
cable channels and the reaction they will have.
  Frankly, I am disappointed. I think this is a special moment for all 
of America. It is really not a special treat for lobbyists. 
Traditionally, this has been a moment for all America, to hear the 
President speak from his heart. When I reflect on what the President 
might say this evening, I know for certain he will speak about 
security, terrorism, North Korea and Iraq. That goes without saying. 
Those will be the issues that certainly will draw together many in 
Congress, Democrats and Republicans, on a bipartisan basis to stand 
behind our fighting troops and behind America as a leader in the world.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes, I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. REID. I also read that article in the Senator's hometown 
newspaper, and I am wondering, if this is a closed hearing, is this a 
focus group? And I wonder if the lobbyists don't like certain lines of 
that speech, or certain paragraphs or phrases, do you think he will 
change the speech?
  Mr. DURBIN. I don't know. Someone said this morning the White House 
said it is baked and he is not going to change a word of it. I cannot 
say if they are being called in as a focus group to see if there is 
anything they find objectionable. I think it is probably more likely 
that they already know in advance they are going to have a warm 
reception from the special interest groups for the State of the Union 
Address.
  Mr. REID. I ask the Senator, also, based on what was reported in the 
Senator's home State newspaper, it appears to me, in answering my own 
question, that maybe they had a lot more to do with writing that speech 
than one would necessarily think. I think these people already know 
what is going to be in the speech, if you represent Eli Lilly. You can 
tell about that from what went on on the floor last week.
  Mr. DURBIN. Eli Lilly is a special case. You will remember when we 
passed the homeland security bill to keep America safe from terrorism, 
someone stuck in a special provision that helped that drug company, 
which is based out of Indianapolis, IN. There was, I guess, 
embarrassment all around when it was discovered. Many times, these 
provisions are stuck in a bill in the hopes nobody will find them. 
Well, they were found and many people objected to that on the floor. If 
the Senator will remember, we had a vote on this issue. Several 
Republican Senators said they were embarrassed that a drug company 
would get a special break in the homeland security bill, which had 
nothing to do with homeland security, and it was going to come out 
soon. Despite that momentary embarrassment, the fact is that Eli Lilly 
is front and center in the White House when special interest groups are 
called in to have a preview of the President's State of the Union 
Address. That is troubling. I hope the press will ask those who made 
this decision whether they have not compromised the integrity of that 
institution as relates to the State of the Union Address. Why in the 
world is the President letting this happen?
  I know what is going to be said tonight. The President is going to 
speak to us about Iraq. I think it bears repeating, as I said last 
week, America's future is about more than Baghdad. It is about the 
challenges that moms and dads across America worry about every single 
day. It is about more than Iraq. It is about the rock and the hard 
place which millions of Americans find themselves between when they 
deal with the Bush-burdened economy. How bad is this economy? How 
likely is it that this President will do something now at the end of 2 
years to turn it around? The numbers are staggering. The numbers I give 
you are not cooked by Democratic strategists. These are numbers 
reported by President Bush's own agencies of Government.
  We have had the first back-to-back years of job loss in America in 50 
years; the worst job creation record of any

[[Page 1801]]

President in 58 years, with 2.3 million private sector jobs lost since 
the beginning of this administration; a 43 percent increase in 
unemployment rates since President Bush took office--43 percent; the 
loss of $4.9 trillion in the stock market. Did my colleagues notice 
what happened yesterday in the stock market? People who follow this, as 
they should, know the Dow Jones hit 8,000. It lost 141 points in 1 day. 
What does it mean? It means for people who have stocks that they own 
directly or through mutual funds for their savings or their retirement, 
as the people say on the late night talk shows, they have seen their 
401(k)s turn into 201(k)s--and maybe 101(k)s, if we are not careful. It 
is hard to even smile at that suggestion because a lot of people who 
counted on the stock market for their future have seen it disappear 
over the last 2 years during the Bush administration.
  We have seen the elimination of a surplus in our budget. When 
President Clinton left office--and these are indisputable facts--we 
were generating a surplus each year to pay off the debt of America. 
Well, we are back in debt again. We are back in deficit. The projection 
is that this next year, the deficit we will face in America will be the 
worst deficit in 20 years, worse than any deficit under President 
Ronald Reagan, President Bush's father, or the early years of the 
Clinton administration. We are back in the deficit world.
  What will the President say about that tonight? Will he remind us 
that his response to the deficit is a $676 billion tax break primarily 
for the wealthiest people in America? Think about that for a moment. At 
a time when we are in recession, at a time when we are most certainly 
to be involved in war in the Middle East--I pray that does not happen, 
but most certainly we are going to see that, with added expense to the 
taxpayers--at a time when we should be funding the security of America, 
our homeland security, instead of meeting those obligations, the 
President has said give a tax break to the wealthiest people in 
America--a $90,000-a-year tax break to people who make $1 million a 
year in income.
  Because of our deficits and because of the President's tax cuts, he 
is unable to fund things which are critically important to America. 
President Bush's plan is no stimulus to our economy. It is, in fact, a 
debt burden that we are passing on to our children and grandchildren. 
We have classrooms that assemble with us regularly in Washington to 
talk about what is going on in Washington. The sad news for those young 
students is that this administration, with the cooperation of this 
Republican Congress, is running up the balance on America's mortgage 
for our kids to pay. That mortgage, incidentally, is money taken 
directly out of the Social Security trust fund to fund the tax breaks 
for the wealthy people in America. That is not fair.
  I think the President should address the real challenges facing 
America, real job creation, a stimulus plan that will put people back 
to work, not one that is going to help the folks who sit around the 
country club and try to figure out what to do with their portfolios but 
the people on Main Street who are trying to keep their small businesses 
open and the folks who are struggling to keep their jobs.
  One million American workers who have run out of unemployment have 
been left behind by this administration. There will be more to follow 
unless the President changes his approach.
  Secondly, this President should address the costs of health care in 
America. Health insurance expenses have become a crippling liability on 
businesses and families who cannot afford to buy protection. Instead, 
the President is going to talk about tort reform, an important issue 
but one that does not bear directly on the cost of health insurance and 
the run-up we have seen there. He is going to talk about privatizing 
Medicare. So we are going to say to senior citizens, for the first time 
they have a choice: They can pick their doctor or they can have their 
prescription bills paid, but they cannot have both. Boy, is that the 
future of health care in America?
  We also need to give a helping hand to middle-income families. Would 
it not be great to have the President say tonight: We are going to 
provide a tax deduction for college education expenses for middle-
income families? Think about families worried whether their kids can 
afford to graduate from college because of all the debts they are going 
to have. Would it not be great for the President to say, ``I believe in 
education''; instead of this being a tax break for millionaires, this 
will be a tax break for working families. Unfortunately, we should not 
hold our breath.
  The President should also promise to fund his program of No Child 
Left Behind. He has created a mandate on every State and school 
district in America to do certain things, but he has refused to fund 
it. It is an unfunded mandate when the States are deep in debt. That is 
not fair, and the President should rise to that challenge.
  Senator Boxer of California will speak to protecting the environment, 
so I will not dwell on that, but this President in 2 years has a dismal 
record. When it comes to the polluter pays for Superfund sites, the 
President says, no, the taxpayers should pay, not the polluting 
industries. That is plain wrong.
  The President should commit himself to protecting Social Security. We 
know the baby boom generation is coming along in big numbers and they 
will be needing Social Security and Medicare. This President ignores 
that and instead increases the deficit and the debt of America at the 
expense of Social Security.
  Finally, as to homeland security, listen carefully to see if we hear 
the following words tonight in the State of the Union Address: Osama 
bin Laden. Let's see if the President even mentions the name of the 
person we believe was responsible for September 11 who has disappeared 
from the headlines, disappeared from the news stories, because our 
pursuit of him has, frankly, not ended as we wanted. Let's see if the 
President mentions that effort. Let's see if he mentions investing in 
police and firefighters and health care across America to provide real 
security to the people of this Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.

                          ____________________