[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1820-1822]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       STATE OF THE UNION MESSAGE

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I have listened to some of the 
conversation that has gone on. Obviously, much of it has been pointed 
toward this evening's speech that we all look forward to from the 
President, the State of the Union, at which time he will outline at 
least some of his plans for the direction this country will take.
  I am looking forward to it. The President has committed himself to 
going in certain directions. All of us understand that. All of us are 
in favor of the things the President wants to do. I suppose we have 
different views of how that might be done. That is the way it ought to 
be.
  I do hope we don't spend all of our time simply criticizing; that we 
not use this as a sort of political fulcrum, but we really talk about 
the issues. No one could disagree with the notion that we are looking 
for ways to grow the economy and create jobs. Who can argue with that? 
No one. How you do it, yes, I suppose there are different views.
  To strengthen and improve health care, certainly that is one of the 
issues all of us are faced with, whether it be Medicare, Medicaid, the 
CHIP program, or just general health care. We are all very much 
interested in it.
  In my State of Wyoming, a rural State, we have a little different 
problem, but interestingly enough, we have problems the same as they do 
in Chicago or New York City. The cost, for instance, of liability 
insurance is higher in our State than it is some others, which is kind 
of strange. Nevertheless, we would all agree with the fact that we need 
to do something about that.
  Obviously, the defense of our country against terrorism, the defense 
of our country against challenges overseas and security at home, no one 
disagrees. Again, we have different ways of doing it.
  I would like to deviate from the issue for a moment to talk a little 
bit about--I guess, philosophically or in a broader sense--the notion 
of dealing with these issues in terms of a longer term view. We have 
held in my State of Wyoming over the last couple years several 
meetings; in fact, about 26 meetings in 23 counties. We call them 
Vision 20/20. We met with the people in the community, all of whom 
would come--some invited for special reasons--to talk about what they 
wanted their community and their family and their business to be in 20 
years or 10 years or 15 years, how they envisioned the way things 
should be. Of course, as you might imagine, we found out there are 
different views from different people, but pretty much some of the same 
consistency in terms of wanting better jobs, better security, having 
health care, having freedom.
  We find ourselves in this body, as in many bodies, as a matter of 
fact, dealing almost exclusively with those issues that are right now 
upon us, fixing what is going to happen tomorrow.
  Of course, that is necessary. But it seems to me we would help 
ourselves a great deal and help our country a great deal if we could 
look a little further out into the future and say: What do we want this 
Government to look like in 15 years, what kind of a system would we 
think would be best for health care in 15 or 20 years, and then begin 
to get some kind of a general conception of where we want to be and 
where we think it is best to be for our country and for the people who 
live here. And then as we move through the daily issues and as we move 
toward the issues that we have to resolve, we can measure those against 
where we want to be and see if in fact they are contributing to the 
attainment of the goals we have set.
  One of them certainly is the role of Government. We haven't talked 
about this as much lately as we used to. What is the role of the 
Federal Government? How much Federal Government do we want in our lives 
over a period of time? This, after all, is the United States of 
America. This is a federation of States. Most of us would agree that 
the Government that rules best is the one closest to the people. 
Obviously, there are roles for the national organization, there are 
roles for the Federal Government. But there are also limits that ought 
to be there, if we don't want the Federal Government to be the end-all 
of governmental activity.
  What do we see there? How do we want to do that? Most people would 
believe there are some constitutional limits to the role of the Federal 
Government. We seem to have dismissed those to a large extent and find 
Government involved in nearly every aspect of our life.
  That becomes kind of a political thing that we talk about. We talked 
about that last week--what can we do this week for somebody? We ended 
up with the other side of the aisle, in that week we spent trying to 
catch up with the appropriations, having proposals of $500 billion 
worth of spending that would grow Government over 10 years, at the same 
time complaining about a deficit. So we didn't have a good concept of 
where we wanted to go and measure against balancing spending and 
balancing the budget. Of course, we want to deviate from that from time 
to time, and the circumstances now require that we do something 
unusual, I am sure, about defense and terrorism and about the economy.
  So we are obviously going to spend more money now than we would 
normally spend because it is not a normal situation. We hear all the 
time ``back in 1998 we didn't have a lot of the problems that we have 
now.'' We have to deal with them. Overall, what do we want? We want a 
balanced budget. I think we want to be able to hold down spending, not 
increase it, which is what we hear about, frankly, all the time.
  We need to take a look at terminating activities that are out of 
date. It seems when we get something going in the Federal Government, 
it is there forever. In the private sector, when you have a company or 
an operation of your own and you find something is not contributing to 
that, you have to change it. Not so in the Government. But that ought 
to be one of the directions we want to take.
  Certainly, we ought to be able to do health care. What do we want 
over time with health care? We have already indicated pretty clearly 
over the past number of years, when it was tried in the last 
administration to have a Government-run program, we didn't accept that 
and most of us do not now. Obviously, some work needs to be done to 
help people who need help. But where do we want to be? Do we want this 
health care to be primarily in the private sector? I think so. Most 
people do. So these are things we need to talk about and think about 
and have a good deal of attention paid to. What is the role of the 
Federal Government on these issues?
  I noticed the other day a quotation from President Clinton that 
Government's responsibility is to create more opportunities, and the 
people's responsibility is to make the most of it. I agree with that. I 
don't think his policies were in line with that, but I agree with that 
statement. So what we are talking about here primarily tonight--and I 
am sure for several months--is about strengthening America's economy. 
The President's economic agenda has two main goals: To encourage 
consumer spending that will boost economic recovery, and promote 
investment by individuals and businesses that will lead to the economic 
growth and job creation. Those are two different points of view, and I 
respect that. Their point of view is to distribute money to everybody. 
Over here, it is to create incentive to create jobs so you have a long-
term, positive impact. We need to do that.
  So we will have great discussions, of course, on all of these issues. 
That is the way it ought to be and, indeed, that is the way it is.
  I see my friend from New Mexico here. I hope we can address ourselves 
on these issues and do it in a way that

[[Page 1821]]

we can disagree without making a total political issue of each of 
them--talk about them on their merits, on what they will do for the 
country, and not the impact they will have in 2004. Frankly, we have 
had an awful lot of that. We need to move beyond that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. I thought I was 
to have 10 minutes. Am I too late for that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 22 and a half minutes available on 
the Republican side at this point. The Senator can take that time if he 
chooses.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will use 10 at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is rather amazing, in the United 
States we only have one country, we have one people, we have one 
President, and he gives one State of the Union Address. Today we began 
to see how difficult partisan politics has made the idea of having one 
President, because before our President--the one President we have--
takes the one opportunity to address the American people as to what he 
would like to do and what he would like help from the Congress and the 
people on, we have an array of Democratic Senators come to the floor, 
all of whom have today set their own standard for what he ought to do, 
all of whom have criticisms of what he might say, all of whom suggest 
if he doesn't do this, it will not work.
  Well, I submit the President will have a myriad of healthy ideas for 
the American economy, and I would like to discuss one major one for a 
few minutes with the Senate and the American people--that is, the 
concern we have in the United States about our economy not producing 
jobs as it should and, thus, creating worry among our people beyond the 
unemployed. Many Americans who are employed will not spend money, 
purchase, or build a new house because their fear causes restraint. The 
American economy is not producing jobs. The business investors don't 
want to invest because they are not sure what is going to happen, so 
they too are withholding. They are being investigated and have all 
kinds of pressures so they are holding back. Even with this 
combination, the American economy, when you add it all together, is 
moving ahead quite well. That piece of the economy or that element that 
we call the gross domestic product is increasing.
  Normally, when it is increasing, you produce more jobs. The gross 
product is not going down, which is negative, meaning a recession; it 
is going up. In fact, sometimes in history, if it went up this amount, 
jobs would be increasing in large numbers. This time it is not 
happening. That is why we call it a ``jobless'' recovery.
  Our President isn't laying blame on the Bill Clinton Presidency, when 
this recession started. I don't believe he has uttered a word about who 
caused it. I hope he does not tonight. As a matter of fact, on that 
score, we can all waste America's time talking about 3 years ago, what 
was going on--was the American economy on the downturn, and was 
President Clinton to blame or the Democrats?
  The truth of the matter is a series of phenomena have occurred, 
including a huge terrorist strike that occurred in New York, and a huge 
drop in the stock market of the United States. You cannot blame that on 
this President.
  All of those things, and others, have combined with a 10 or 11-year 
growth cycle that had to come down, bringing the American economy into 
a nongrowth era for a while. Now it is starting up, and we want our 
President to tell us how we can improve that situation for America. 
That is what it means to speak about the economy and jobs.
  Our President says: You all may have a lot of good ways, but I 
believe we ought to cut taxes. Most economists suggest cutting taxes, 
if you cut them right, will stimulate economic growth. The more money 
that is put into the economy--that means into the pockets of people and 
the pockets of business so they can spend it--the more you do that, the 
more you have a chance of moving the American economy.
  I understand the Democrats, with Senator Daschle as their leader, 
have a $141 billion package, a portion of which is giving money to the 
States because their treasuries are broke. If you want to do that, 
don't call it a stimulus package. We may do that in another event in 
the Senate, but our President, rightfully, is not including that in a 
stimulus package. That is not a stimulus, to help our States. At one 
time, we had a countercyclical problem. I don't know if Don Nickles 
remembers, but Senator Muskie started it, and every time the economy 
would go down, you give the States money. Well, the President doesn't 
have that in this budget, in this proposal on taxes; but it may be 
considered separately if we have to help. What he does is look at 
accelerated expansion of the 10 percent bracket, accelerated reduction 
in income tax rates, accelerated elimination of the marriage penalty, 
with some refund of money, and an accelerated increase in the tax 
credits. It has the exclusion of dividends from individual taxable 
income and increases in small business expensing. That means if they 
can expense more, they keep more, which I just said you must do. Let 
them keep more so they can buy more equipment, spend more on jobs. The 
President has a hold harmless provision under the alternative minimum 
tax, a very necessary provision, and the cost of the plan is $98 
billion in the first calendar year and $670 billion over 10 years.
  The Democrat plan is so small I think we ought to nickname it. I 
think we ought to call it ``the mouse.''
  The American economy is $10 trillion. If we are talking about 5 
years, it is $50 trillion. That means the sum of the transactions going 
on, paychecks, car purchases, house purchases, financing, equals $10 
trillion a year.
  When my colleagues say let's accelerate it, that means let's put 
money into the economy that stirs that up enough and shakes up all 
those transactions where a little bit more fever is put in each one of 
them so some action is occurring which we would equate with growth and 
jobs.
  Clearly, that cannot be done unless enough is put in to move the 
giant battleship called the American economy. So how can that be moved 
with a mouse? It cannot. If a mouse is put out there to do it, the 
mouse will die and nothing will happen.
  If my colleagues don't want to throw away taxpayers' money, then 
produce a plan that purports to create jobs and is so small it does 
nothing. Otherwise, that money will have been thrown away and my 
colleagues would be back in 18 months or 2 years asking the American 
people to give them another shot at it because we did not do enough.
  So I submit that the President's proposal, which he has already given 
us a glimpse of, which he will tell the American people about tonight 
in detail, is the right one for America. Am I alone? Of course I am not 
alone in thinking this. There are 110 economists. One would think from 
what some on the other side say that the President called on a few 
people and they gave him ideas and he picked this one and said: Oh, 
here is a new idea. Let's not tax dividends on the individuals who 
receive them.
  That idea has been around. I have been in Congress 30 years. It was 
around when I arrived. This is what 110 economists, with three Nobel 
prize winners, said. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record a summary of their approach.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

110 Economists Back Bush Tax Plan; 3 Nobel Laureates Join Group Urging 
                           Congress' Support

                          (By James G. Lakely)

       The Washington Times--January 18, 2003.--A letter signed by 
     100 economists, including three Nobel Prize winners, urges 
     Congress to support the main elements of President Bush's 
     $647 billion tax-cut plan, make his 2001 tax cut permanent 
     and restrain federal spending to spur the sluggish economy.
       ``As a rule, government cannot create wealth or expand the 
     economy. Only the private sector can do that,'' said the 
     letter this

[[Page 1822]]

     week to all members of Congress.'' Government can, however, 
     hinder economic growth through excessive taxes, high marginal 
     tax rates, over-regulation, or unnecessary spending.'' The 
     economists, including Nobel laureates Milton Friedman, James 
     Buchanan and 2002 winner Vernon Smith, said increased 
     spending to combat terrorism is warranted but that 
     ``excessive federal spending has a dampening effect on the 
     American economy.''
       To remedy that, Congress should ``end programs that outlive 
     their usefulness and roll back government's share of the 
     Gross Domestic Product.''
       According to the Congressional Budget Office, government 
     spending represented 19 percent of the GDP in 2002, a level 
     that has remained roughly stable during the past 15 years but 
     threatens to explode to 40 percent because of entitlement 
     spending by 2075.
       The ``wobbly'' financial markets can gain solid footing 
     again, said the economists, if Mr. Bush's $1.35 trillion tax 
     cut in 2001 is made permanent.
       ``Investors and individual taxpayers will be able to make 
     better decisions on their finances if they have greater 
     confidence about what tax laws they will be facing in coming 
     years,'' the letter said. ``It is imperative for Congress to 
     make the entire 2001 tax cut permanent.''
       The economists also applauded Mr. Bush's proposal to 
     eliminate the double-taxation on corporate dividends, a 
     policy they said is ``especially harmful to economic 
     growth.''
       Support for Mr. Bush's tax plan largely follows party 
     lines. House Democratic leaders have scheduled an event 
     Tuesday on Capitol Hill to argue that the president's plan is 
     neither fair nor fiscally responsible and would leave state 
     governments starving for money.
       The various Democratic tax-cut proposals are dramatically 
     smaller, short-term, targeted more narrowly and feature 
     payments of at least $300 to all families, including those 
     who pay no federal income tax.
       A spokesman for the Democrats on the House Appropriations 
     Committee criticized the president's plan for being too 
     skewed toward ``the superwealthy.''
       ``The White House needs to wake up and realize that giving 
     their rich cronies another tax break is not going to halt the 
     Bush recession,'' the Democratic aide said.
       ``We need to put money in the hands of people who are 
     having trouble putting food on their table, not people who 
     want to buy a second yacht.''
       But Sen. Evan Bayh, Indiana Democrat, said he is ``keeping 
     an open mind'' on supporting a pro-growth tax bill that has 
     many of the features of the president's package. ``I'm not 
     someone who has an allergic reaction to the dividend proposal 
     as some do,'' Mr. Bayh said.
       ``I think you'll see a great many elements of the 
     president's proposal [in the final bill]. I think, frankly, 
     we'll improve it to make it even more growth-oriented for the 
     economy today.''

  Mr. DOMENICI. They suggest that only the private sector can do what 
is required. Government cannot create wealth or expand the economy. 
Friedman, Buchanan, and Vernon Smith, all Nobel laureates, said 
increased spending to combat terrorism must be done, but to the extent 
that it is a lot of money, it will not help the American economy. They 
go on to say we need what the President is suggesting in his plan.
  This summary I have before me, News World Communications, from the 
Washington Times quotes this series of communications.
  I see Mr. Nickles, the Senator from Oklahoma. I was going to speak 
about Iraq for a few minutes but I think I will not because I assume he 
will speak on the economy and taxes. I think it would be good today to 
have my speech and his back to back.

                          ____________________