[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 21]
[Senate]
[Pages 29054-29062]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          JOBS AND THE ECONOMY

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again I join Senator Dorgan and my 
colleagues on the other side in saying how pleased we are to be here 
this evening to continue this process of having legitimate debates on 
the Senate floor regarding topics of importance to the American people.
  Tonight we will be talking about jobs and the economy. In my 5-minute 
opening statement, I am prepared to show that Democratic economic 
policies are superior to Republican economic policies as it benefits 
the American public.
  How are Democratic policies better? Simply because we create more and 
better jobs.
  We create a better standard of living and quality of life for the 
majority of Americans who are working. We do this through worker and 
consumer protections, equal opportunity for women and minorities with 
basic measures such as the Family and Medical Leave Act, all historic 
steps led by Democrats, with Republicans either trailing or opposing 
outright.
  Now, another example: The last Democratic administration and our 
economic plan, embodied in the 1993 budget, set us on a course of 
adding 6.4 million jobs in just 2 years. We eroded the annual deficits 
and eventually created the actual largest projected Federal budget 
surpluses in history. Every Republican in the Congress voted against 
that budget in 1993, with dire warnings about its effect.
  We invested in people and family. We balanced the budget and we set 
the conditions for the most successful economic recovery and expansion 
ever in the history of the United States. Our friends on the other side 
cannot match our record on jobs, and I point to this chart I have. If 
we look at the average monthly change in jobs, Democratic versus 
Republican Presidents, jobs gained or lost per month, going clear back 
to Lyndon Johnson, we can see that under Johnson, Carter, and Clinton, 
we had tremendous job growth. Under Nixon, Reagan, Ford, and Bush 1, we 
had job growth but not as much as under Democrats.
  If we look to the far right, we will see some devastating things that 
have happened since this President took office, not a job growth but an 
actual job loss, my point being that under Democrats we build better 
jobs and more jobs.
  In 3 years, this administration has lost 3 million private sector 
jobs and their budget and tax policies have contributed to the largest 
and actual budget deficits in the history of the country.
  The last quarter showed some improvement in our economy, and that is 
good, but it is not nearly enough. This administration will be the 
first since Herbert Hoover's to preside over a net loss of jobs over a 
4-year period. We need to be creating about 150,000 jobs a month just 
to stay even. We are not doing that today. We are not even treading 
water in terms of job creation.
  If my colleagues think the economy is tough now, look at the economic 
future the Republicans are creating. This administration turned a 
projected 10-year, $5.7 trillion surplus into a $4 trillion deficit 
over the coming 10 years. That debt imperils Social Security and 
Medicare, which might not bother some of my friends on that side who 
would like to privatize Social Security or Medicare or end it as we 
know it. That debt hurts our economy, it crowds our private sector 
investments we need for economic growth. It makes it difficult for us 
to make the investments in education, health, schools, roads, and our 
infrastructure.
  For the long term, the Federal Government will have to borrow $400 
billion a year, squeezing out private sector investment we need for a 
growing economy. The law of supply and demand which cannot be repealed 
means that borrowing will make investment dollars scarce and interest 
rates higher. Higher interest rates in the future will limit growth and 
limit jobs.
  Now, instead of massive tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest, the 
answer should have been our approach: Fiscal responsibility, tax cuts 
targeted to low- and middle-income working families, and good job-
creating, direct investments such as building roads and schools, our 
economic infrastructure. That should be the path we should be on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republicans are recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for joining with us 
in this debate on the most important issue we have facing us in the 
Senate and in our country. That is: How can we work to make sure we 
have the best policies for more investment and more job creation?
  The reality is, right now things are getting better. They need to get 
better, though, than they are currently. Nevertheless, the facts are 
clear. Job growth is up by 126,000 in October. When my colleagues talk 
about the last 20 years, last month we had an annual growth rate of 7.2 
percent. That is the best in 20 years.
  The Republicans' point of view, I would say to my colleagues, is that 
we want to make sure every American, regardless of their race, their 
gender, their ethnicity, or their religious beliefs, has the 
opportunity to compete and succeed. That means our tax policies have to 
be conducive to investment. Regulations need to be based on sound 
science, not political science.
  We also need to make sure the people of our country, in our States, 
have the capabilities and the knowledge to get the good jobs in the 
future. We also need to have security. When we see people in 
communities worried about crime or worried about terrorism, those are 
adverse impacts, on confidence and investment and therefore job 
creation. We have seen the adverse impacts of 9/11, particularly in the 
travel and tourism industry.
  I know as Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia what matters to 
businesses when they are looking to invest. They look at what is the 
cost of doing business, what is the tax rate, what is the cost of 
workers compensation. Ours are low in Virginia because we keep lawyers 
out of workers compensation. We get the money to the person who is 
injured so he or she can get back to work. Unemployment insurance taxes 
matter. The fact that we have a right to work law, which gives 
individuals the right, if they so desire, not to join a union as a 
condition of work, that helps attract business. Health insurance 
matters as well.
  In a variety of areas, we have found Virginia ended up with much more 
job growth, more investment. It was called the Silicon Dominion because 
of the investment, because of having taxes competitively low, prompt 
permitting, reasonable regulations, and also investment in security and 
also in the capabilities of our students for high academic standards.
  The Democrats talk about all of these Presidents. Interesting. 
Richard Nixon was elected after President Johnson. If one wants to call 
Jimmy Carter their second best President, with the malaise and the high 
interest rates, the high unemployment, and the high inflation. People 
put in Ronald Reagan to help revive this economy and make us stronger 
as well as, of course, keep our peace through strength.
  I find it interesting my good friend from Iowa talks about, oh, the 
Republicans somehow want to imperil Social Security and gets off on 
these tangents on privatization. Of course the Democrats care about 
Social Security because in 1993 they not only taxed all families and 
all small businesses and every taxpayer, they even taxed Social 
Security benefits. When given the opportunity most recently on a 
measure introduced by Senator Bunning of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, 
virtually every Democrat voted against that effort to repeal the tax on 
Social Security benefits.
  The fact is, we are making good progress. We need to keep moving 
forward. We have ideas, as Republicans, in a variety of ways that we 
can make sure the American economy can compete internationally, can 
help create more jobs and greater opportunity. Indeed, we want to make 
health care costs more affordable and predictable, reduce the burden of 
lawsuits on our economy, whether it is asbestos reform or class action 
reform, make sure we have an affordable, reliable energy supply, 
streamline regulations, open new

[[Page 29055]]

markets for American products, and also make sure there is confidence 
in investment in this country by making sure the tax reductions are 
permanent.
  I will close with the words of Mr. Jefferson who said that the 
Government should restrain men from injuring one another but otherwise 
leave them free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and 
improvement and shall not take from the mouths of labor the bread they 
have earned.
  That remains the sum of good government today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A Democrat is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am not someone who believes Democrats 
are all right and the Republicans are all wrong. I believe both 
political parties contribute to this process.
  We do not have to debate theory today about jobs. Let's just debate 
what we know. Here is what we know. In the 8 years under the Presidency 
of President Clinton, 237,000 jobs a month were created. Since 
President Bush took over, we have lost 70,000 jobs a month. There were 
22.7 million jobs created during the 8 years of the Clinton 
administration; since President Bush took office, 2.3 million jobs 
lost. On June 7, 2002, the White House said: The tax cut will help 
create 800,000 new jobs by the end of 2002. In fact, we lost 1.9 
million jobs during that period.
  Finally, take a look at the red line, and my colleagues will see 
where these jobs have gone, and my colleagues will see the improvement 
about which my colleague just talked. They said, gosh, things are 
turning around. Here is the improvement; right here. All of us want 
good jobs in this country. They come with three things in my judgment: 
Fiscal policy that is responsible--no, not $500 billion deficits, which 
this administration is proposing and running up but fiscal policy that 
is responsible, trade policies that are fair to this country, to its 
businesses and workers, and especially as a result of good policies in 
both of those areas, confidence the American people would have in the 
future.
  In 1993, we put a new economic plan in place by one vote in the 
House, one vote in the Senate, and we didn't get one vote for it on 
that side of the aisle--not one, not even by accident. As a result: 
22.7 million jobs. On your side of the aisle they predicted 
catastrophe--the economy is going to be in terrible trouble. We had the 
strongest growth of any President, 22.7 million jobs.
  Let me talk for just a moment about trade. We now have a trade 
ambassador trying to negotiate trade agreements in every part of the 
world. Let me talk just a moment about Huffy bicycles. Mr. President, 
850 people in Ohio lost their jobs. They used to put American flags on 
the front of Huffy bicycles. They replaced that with a globe because 
they now make them in China. Why? Because the folks in Ohio who make 
them--who got fired, by the way--were making too much money, $11 an 
hour. So Huffy bicycles are now made in China for 33 cents an hour and 
sold at Wal-Mart, Target, and Sears. But they are not cheaper because 
they pay 33 cents an hour; it is just that Americans lost their jobs. 
Our trade policy is bankrupt, and we have a trade ambassador right now 
trying to do three more free trade agreements, more of the same. If you 
want good jobs in this country, then you have to stand up for American 
interests. You have to have a fiscal policy that adds up. This 
administration's doesn't. We are running the biggest deficits in 
history.
  You have to have a trade policy that stands for this country's 
interest, and this trade policy doesn't. We have the highest trade 
deficits in history, and we have jobs moving wholesale overseas, where 
you can hire 12-year-old kids, work them 12 hours a day, and pay them 
12 cents an hour, and that simply is not fair.
  As a result of trade and fiscal policies that do not add up, the 
American people do not have the confidence in the future they ought to 
have. Confidence, after all, is what relates to the expansion side of 
the business cycle. When people are confident about the future, they 
buy a home; they take a trip; they buy a car; they do the things that 
expand the economy. When they are not confident, they do exactly the 
opposite.
  We need to get to work and fix this country's fiscal policy, fix this 
country's trade policies, and not just go back right over the same old 
recipe about regulation and taxes and all those sorts of things. We 
know what creates jobs. We don't have to describe theory here. We can 
talk about the facts.
  The facts are we put in place a plan in 1993 that created 22.7 
million jobs because it said to the American people we are serious 
about fiscal responsibility. It said to the American people we are 
going to stop this sea of red ink, and we did. It was a hard vote, but 
it was the right vote. I have always been proud of it.
  Now we have a sea of red ink, the largest budget surplus in this 
country's history when President Bush took office has been turned to 
the largest budget deficit in our history, and that is not going to 
breed confidence for the American people about the future. We need to 
put this country's economic house in order, and we need to do it soon.
  Fiscal policy and trade policy that represents the long-term 
interests of the American people will represent expansion and jobs and 
opportunity once again for our country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition on the Republican side? 
The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, before I arrived here, I read many times 
about the Senate as the ``world's greatest deliberative body.'' Over my 
first 10 months, I would say that I have not experienced as much 
deliberating as I'd hoped. And I am glad my colleague, Senator Allen 
and I are doing this today--and that we are doing it deliberately.
  The subjects of jobs and the economy are very personal and important 
to every American family. With the lone exception of maintaining 
national security at home and abroad, we have no greater responsibility 
as a government. I note to my colleague from North Dakota that, by the 
way, consumer spending is up 6.6 percent in the last quarter. 
Confidence is up. It must tell you something about the way the American 
people are thinking.
  I want to begin by making a general observation. It seems to me that 
as a country we are awakening to a set of stark realities after what 
I'd call a decade of unrealism in the 1990s.
  In the 1990s we came to believe that somehow we had conquered the 
business cycle--that we had ended the age old rise and inevitable fall 
of economic activity.
  In the 1990s we came to believe that we are safe behind our borders 
from the violence and chaos that is a daily reality of many in the 
world because of the scourge of terrorism.
  We have had a rude awakening. The speculative bubble of dot com 
industries burst. Revenues generated by our highly progressive tax 
system fell rapidly at the national and State level. We were attacked, 
at the very symbol of our commercial strength. How can you talk about 
job loss without once mentioning 9/11? Every conceivable threat to the 
confidence of the American people was leveled at us. But like the 
residents of the Massachusetts countryside in 1775, when Paul Revere 
rode by, we were awakened, and we are fighting a difficult war to 
restore our safety and our prosperity.
  On Minnesota's Lake Superior; huge ore boats ply the world's largest 
body of fresh water. It literally takes miles and hours to turn around 
one of their massive boats. So it is with the American economy. The 
bigger the object, the longer it takes to turn. As we look at the 
American economy, we need to recognize a few critical facts.
  First, the economic difficulty we are in began in 2000, the year 
before President Bush took office. In March 2000, the NASDAQ lost 44 
percent of its value. In the year before the President took office, 
economic growth in this country fell from 3.9 percent to .9 percent.
  Second, we have not repealed the laws of economics. The aftermath of 
a

[[Page 29056]]

long expansion and a speculative economic bubble is recession, a slow 
recovery and large Government deficits. Even it its peak, our 
unemployment rate is substantially below that of previous recessions. 
In 1983 unemployment was over 10 percent and in 1992 it was almost 8 
percent. And the difference between 6 percent and 8 percent or 10 
percent represents millions of families back at work.
  And third, the economy is now moving forward. The American economy 
has been bent, but it did not break.
  Historic growth in the GDP--a growth rate of 7.2 percent--is nothing 
to scoff at. Yet, my Democratic colleagues seem to be able to find 
gloom and doom even during the brightest days.
  We've added 225,000 new jobs in the last 2 months. A jobless 
recovery? I think not. Job growth is still a challenge, but a we have 
always seen, employment gains are the lagging feature of recovery.
  I have not been the White House as often as some of my colleagues. 
But as far as I know there is not a brake pedal or a throttle for the 
economy under the president's desk.
  But the President has done good work with the tools at his disposal. 
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has lauded the 2001 tax cut, 
which the Treasury Department has reported saved some 1.5 million jobs. 
The most recent tax cuts for both mom's and dad's and small businesses 
have been key to the 7.2 percent growth in GDP in the last quarter.
  More than a generation ago there was Nobel Prize winning economic 
research done at the University of Minnesota. It seems obvious to us 
now, but the point of that research was that raw numbers and events are 
not the only thing that moves the economy. An equal or greater affect 
is the way people perceive what is happening.
  At this point, I am forced to point out there is a drag on the 
economy from nine candidates for President constantly standing up and 
bad mouthing the economy. It seems they are living in that weird 
political world where good news is bad news and bad news is good news. 
I would like to remind these Democrats of something a hero of theirs 
and mine one said in a similar situation. ``We have nothing to fear,'' 
said FDR, ``but fear itself.'' Those who talk tough and breed fear and 
cynicism to get notice in a political environment bear some 
responsibility for the fear they spread.
  Tough times are not new to the American people. Each generation has 
its own new challenges. Ours is that we are asked to deal with 
overlapping threats to our national security and our economic security.
  But almost all of the key economic indicators; job growth, business 
investment, consumer spending, have shown that we are making progress 
on both fronts. We need to listen to the voices of hope and optimism at 
such times, or we can become our own enemy.
  Today we face unparalleled challenges to our security--and concerns 
about our economy.
  We will only get through them if we say yes to the things Republicans 
are working on now, such as tax cuts, continuing our jobs agenda by 
passing an energy bill; stemming the costly litigation mentality, 
keeping the lid on spending, and say no to those who would snatch 
defeat from the jaw of victory.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republicans have 1 minute to ask a 
question.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, contrary to specific evidence that shows 
the economy is growing, Alan Greenspan's positive comment about the 
2001 tax cut, and most observers crediting the 2003 tax cut for 
creating the recent 7.2 percent GDP figure, some of the leading 
Democratic candidates for President, Dean and Gephardt, have said we 
should repeal all the tax cuts, in effect raising taxes just as our 
economy is beginning to grow. Senator Edwards has said that Governor 
Dean misses the point. On that, I quote:

       Unfortunately, instead of addressing the problem, he makes 
     it worse by raising taxes on the middle class and families 
     that work.

  Senator Lieberman has said repealing all the Bush tax cuts, as Dean 
and Gephardt have proposed, would hurt the middle class. I wonder if my 
colleagues will join me by rejecting the proposals by Dean and Gephardt 
to roll back the entire tax cut, which would raise the lowest tax 
bracket back up to 15 percent from 10 percent, reduce the child tax 
credit from $1,000 to $500, and force 4 million working poor people to 
pay taxes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes to respond from the 
Democrat side.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it is an interesting question posed by my 
colleague from Minnesota, and prior to him posing the question, he 
talked about more tax cuts and a lid on spending. Frankly, he is 
proposing and his party is proposing more defense spending, more 
homeland security spending, more spending in virtually every category, 
and then tax cuts in addition, which leaves us with very large 
deficits.
  But he asked specifically about tax cuts, so let me describe the 
difference in tax cuts relative to our party and their party. We 
believe in tax cuts and support tax cuts for working families. In fact, 
we had a very significant tax cut plan that would have said to working 
families in this country who bear a pretty significant tax, payroll tax 
and income tax, that we are going to give you a pretty good size tax 
cut. But the majority party said that is not what we want to do.
  But the majority party said: That is not what we want to do. We want 
to say to the person who is making $1 million a year, you really need 
the relief. We are going to give you a $93,000 tax cut because we 
believe the economy works better when you put something in at the top 
and somehow it trickles down. We happen to believe the percolate-up 
approach is what makes this economic engine of ours work. And we 
believe if you give working people something to work with, tax cuts 
targeted to working people, we will have an economy that regains its 
footing, provides economic growth, opportunity, and hope once again. 
That is the way to engineer economic growth and new jobs and expansion 
of opportunity in this country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute for rebuttal on the 
Republican side.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, the comments of my colleague from North 
Dakota indicate that they do reject the Dean-Gephardt proposal that 
will roll back all the tax cuts.
  Two observations: No. 1, spending. Goodness gracious, the Republican 
Conference has rejected $1.3 trillion in additional spending proposals 
from my colleagues across the aisle since the beginning of January. 
That is like the kid who kills his parents and throws himself on the 
mercy of the court and says: I need mercy. I am an orphan.
  You are talking about spending and, in addition, talking about tax 
cuts. We always hear: Tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich. 
Seventy-nine percent of the tax cuts at the top bracket are small 
business people. They are folks in Minnesota I deal with all of the 
time who come to me and say: This makes a difference; this is important 
to us. Seventy-nine percent. We have to get away from the class warfare 
and recognize that we are growing jobs by helping small business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Democrats are recognized for 1 minute to ask a question.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Bush administration wants to eliminate 
overtime pay for some 8 million Americans, including many policemen, 
firefighters, and nurses. One big reason overtime pay was created in 
1938 was to create jobs by Franklin Roosevelt to give employers the 
incentive to hire new workers rather than paying time and a half to 
current workers. By killing overtime for millions of workers, the 
administration will also kill the incentive to create new jobs and hire 
new workers.
  At a time when we are struggling to create new jobs, why in the world 
do so many Republicans want to give employers a new disincentive to 
begin hiring again by taking away what we have

[[Page 29057]]

had since 1938--overtime pay protection for almost 8 million American 
workers? Why would we want to take that away and give employers more of 
an incentive to continue to hire people--or to work people longer in 
the day or the week without paying them any more money?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republicans are recognized for 2 minutes 
to respond.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, first, we can have a great debate about 
overtime. I can tell you from talking to folks in Minnesota--I get 
calls from the building trades and others--that the issue doesn't 
affect them.
  The fact is what we are looking to do is make business more 
efficient. That is what it is about. We do not want to hurt workers. I 
think it is about time we addressed the root causes. What is it that 
helps business expand or not? I think that is what my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle at times just do not seem to get.
  You talk to business people, and what do they tell you? Cut taxes, 
cut regulation, give them the opportunity. That is what is in the tax 
cut. Increasing depreciation, increasing expensing for small business, 
if we do those things, they will grow jobs.
  There are a whole range of issues on which I hope we can find common 
ground when it comes to protecting workers. I will work with you, but 
in the end, you have to have workers, and you can't have workers unless 
you do those things that allow small business to grow. If you roll back 
tax cuts and roll back expanding accelerated depreciation, if you roll 
back the increased expensing, if you continue to short business and 
increase regulation, in the end there will be no jobs for folks to work 
overtime. That is what it is all about.
  Let us address the root causes of things that grow jobs. That is what 
this Republican agenda is doing. That is what the President's tax cuts 
are doing. Let us keep moving in that direction.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democrats have 1 minute for rebuttal.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I had some calls like that, too, from 
labor groups and building trades on the overtime issue. I thought, 
well, it doesn't affect you. With a union contract they get their 
overtime pay. But check with their spouses. They will be told to stay 
another 2 or 4 hours. Right now, sometimes in America almost 25 percent 
of a family's income comes from overtime pay. That is taking away 
family income. It is taking away time from ones family. And, it is 
reducing the need to hire additional workers. That is why we oppose the 
administration's regulation to take away overtime pay protection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The 
Republicans have 1 minute to pose a question.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I would like to pose a question to Mr. 
Harkin, the Senator from Iowa. This question gets into the issue we are 
talking about, which is jobs.
  Taxes cuts help create more jobs for small businesses, especially the 
most recent tax cuts for accelerated depreciation. Regulations from the 
Federal Government also can reduce choice and cost jobs. For example, 
we believe free people and families ought to be able to keep working. 
The proposal would harm those choices and jobs.
  For example, the proposal which has strong Democrat support would 
increase the cost of purchasing pickup trucks, SUVs, and minivans. 
America is dominant in the manufacturing of minivans, SUVs, and pickup 
trucks. Many people are choosing to buy them for the safety of their 
families.
  I ask the Senator from Iowa: How many SUV jobs would have been lost 
had your side prevailed?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am trying to understand the question 
posed by my friend from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. How many jobs would have been lost had your position 
prevailed?
  Mr. HARKIN. On SUVs and pickup trucks?
  Mr. ALLEN. I am talking about the CAFE standards.
  Mr. HARKIN. I see.
  First of all, as my friend from Virginia knows, I represent a rural 
State, as does my colleague from North Dakota. We have a particular use 
for SUVs as pickup trucks and heavy vehicles in the country.
  I happen to have a house out in the Senator's State, in Fairfax 
County. I drive back and forth to work 12 miles every day. There is 
traffic congestion. I can't believe how many SUVs, pickup trucks, and 
big trucks I see. I do not believe that we need to give high income 
doctors a special $100,000 tax deduction if they buy an oversized SUV 
weighing more than what is the tax definition of a car so they can 
drive around the suburbs. For legitimate business reasons, a farmer or 
a rancher might need them out in the countryside for that kind of work, 
you bet. They need that, but not the people who live in this city.
  We are hemorrhaging debt and don't need to create that tax break.
  CAFE standards: I have to say to my friend from Virginia, you can't 
have long-term sustained economic growth in this country if you are 
destroying the environment or if we continue to sharply increase our 
oil supply. That makes us far more dependent on Mideast oil. There has 
to be a balance. We do have to have balance. But what I see from the 
other side is just to heck with any regulations, throw caution to the 
wind, pollute as much as you want and not to worry about the huge oil 
bills we are paying to the Mideast.
  Our taxpayers today--the Senator's taxpayers and mine--are coughing 
up billions of dollars every year to clean up the toxic waste sites 
that big corporations left and walked away from, and now our taxpayers 
have to pay to clean it up. That is why it is important to have 
regulations to make sure that companies don't pollute and that they do 
things in the best environmentally sound manner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute is remaining for the Republicans.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I don't think SUVs, minivans, and pickup 
trucks cause toxic waste sites. I will agree with one thing, and I 
think most people in America will agree: The comments of the Senator 
about all of these SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks driving around in 
northern Virginia are driving to nowhere; most people in America would 
probably consider DC nowhere.
  Cost in lives: 4,500 deaths would occur each year if they had 
increased these standards. Vehicle costs would have gone up $2,500 for 
cars and $2,750 for SUVs and pickup trucks. The United Auto Workers 
said this proposal would have cost hundreds of thousands of jobs.
  We have a Ford assembly plant in Virginia. And I would hate to see a 
20-percent loss there and have to go to those 2,200 employees and say 1 
out of every 10 of you is going to lose a job because the nannies up in 
Washington want to take away your choice to drive a vehicle that people 
would want for their families and for their safety.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized 
for the next question.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the issue this evening is jobs. Let me ask 
a question of my colleagues about the insidious and perverse incentives 
in our Tax Code that subsidize companies which move their United States 
jobs overseas.
  I mentioned Huffy Bicycles, gone from Ohio because they made $11 an 
hour. That is too much. They can produce bicycles where they pay 33 
cents an hour. I am saying your party has included, and is at the 
moment, coming from the Finance Committee, including more incentives to 
move jobs overseas. I ask the question whether you are prepared to vote 
with us to shut down the incentives in the Tax Code that tell people if 
you move your United States jobs overseas and shut your U.S. plant 
down, we will give you a benefit in the Tax Code. Where I come from, 
that does not add up and it makes no sense. Are you prepared to join 
with us and vote to end all of those subsidies now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

[[Page 29058]]


  Mr. ALLEN. I am not sure what the Senator from North Dakota is 
actually talking about. What we are talking about and what we are 
trying to do is make sure the United States of America is a place that 
is conducive to do business. It is a shame and it is aggravating to all 
of us when a company goes overseas. It takes jobs away. One of the 
reasons they will move away is the cost of doing business. We are in 
competition with other countries. It is our view what we ought to be 
doing is target assistance to businesses to invest in this country. 
That is why we tripled the amount that could be expensed for small 
businesses, allowed also that if people buy new equipment, new 
technology, to be more productive and more competitive, they could 
write it off more quickly.
  These initiatives, the depreciation, the writeoffs, have actually had 
a beneficial impact on our economy, not only those businesses that are 
investing in this country, most of which are small businesses that 
create about 75 percent of the jobs, but those that fabricate or 
manufacture whatever equipment or manufacturing efforts they have, 
whoever is assembling it, whoever is transporting it, packaging it, or 
selling it. That is all beneficial.
  Our point of view is we need to make sure America has tax laws and 
the regulatory policies that allow America to compete so companies do 
not have any incentives or need to move overseas. I will later bring up 
a question which I think will be very helpful for getting those profits 
back into this country.
  Republicans will join with Democrats saying we do not like to see 
companies go overseas, but we have positive, constructive solutions and 
ideas to keep those jobs here, so companies do not feel they have to go 
to another country with less regulations and lower taxes for them to 
provide for themselves and their shareholders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute for the minority.
  Mr. DORGAN. One of the issues of competition is wages. Companies now 
leave this country because they can find somewhere in the world where 
they can hire a 12-year-old and pay them 12 cents an hour. Some think 
that is global competition. That ignores that which we fought for, for 
a century, about safe workplaces, environmental standards, child labor 
laws, and fair compensation.
  Let me also say there is a bill coming from the Finance Committee 
that will give us a chance to vote on the question of whether we want 
to keep subsidizing the movement of jobs overseas. That bill will once 
again say to companies, we will give you a break. Move your jobs 
overseas, you do not have to pay tax on your income until you 
repatriate. And when you do, by the way, we will charge you 5 percent. 
We will charge you a third or fourth the tax rate a receptionist is 
paid, the lowest in the office.
  Is that fair? The answer is no. Once again, it is another incentive 
to say to people, if you move your jobs overseas, go find lower labor 
rates somewhere else, call yourself an American firm but hire foreign 
labor, we will give you a benefit. That ought to be shut out of the Tax 
Code. Your party is opening it up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired. One minute for the next 
question from the majority.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, Democrats express concern of a loss of 
manufacturing jobs and our country's ability to compete in the world; 
again, a concern I share. But then Democrats turn around and oppose 
each and every policy objective the National Association of 
Manufacturers says it needs to stay competitive.
  That is what this is about. How do we stay competitive--including 
medical malpractice reform, to rein in runaway health care costs 
killing our small businesses, asbestos reform, class action reform, and 
a myriad of other reforms.
  In addition, there is talk of perhaps Democratic obstruction to an 
Energy bill that will create 500,000 to 700,000 new jobs. Are the 
Democrats prepared to come around on these issues and finally support 
the thing our Nation's manufacturers say they need to stay alive?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have not heard a description of my 
colleagues riding Huffy bicycles or their desire to ride a Huffy 
bicycle in the future, but let me come back to that point. You are 
talking about U.S. manufacturers and the conditions of competition. Do 
you think Huffy bicycles decided to make bikes in China rather than 
Ohio because of some bill we did or did not pass in the Senate? I am 
sorry, they went China because they could pay 33 cent an hour in China, 
they could have people work 7 days a week, 15 hours a day, and they 
could not do that in this country. That reduced the price and the cost 
of producing that bicycle.
  I ask, if you have bought a bicycle for your child lately, whether 
you saw a reduction in the price of Huffy bicycles just because they 
went from $11 an hour to 33 cents an hour. I will answer for you. The 
answer is no. It was about profits.
  The question is, do you want to have a race to the bottom? Is that 
what you want for the American businesses and the American workers? Do 
you want to have a race to the bottom on wages, on health standards? Is 
that where we are? I don't think so.
  We can compete anywhere in the world, but the competition has to be 
fair. American companies and American workers ought not to have to 
compete with 12 cents an hour or 33 cents an hour labor. That is not 
fair competition. That is why I raised the issue of trade.
  We have the trade ambassador busy running around the world right now 
trying to do more trade agreements. The last one, incidentally, which 
both of you voted for, put in an immigration provision that had nothing 
to do with the trade agreement, so that we could have an enormous 
number of people come through Singapore to take jobs in this country. 
We could not get it out. They will displace American workers, coming 
into this country to take American jobs, and we had an amendment we 
could not get out. Instead, they pass an amendment that says you better 
watch it, but you cannot take something out of a trade bill because of 
fast track.
  This issue of competition--you want to change the subject, let's talk 
about what fair competition is for American businesses and American 
workers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
  One minute for rebuttal for the majority.
  Mr. COLEMAN. I deeply appreciate my colleague's concern for fair 
compensation. I note Senator Dorgan has been one of the chief advocates 
for trade with Cuba. I hope he would take that same philosophy about 
human rights and workers rights in dealing with Cuba.
  I would also reflect a little bit on the comment about trade. NAFTA 
was signed by President Clinton and the Uruguay Round after being 
approved by a Democrat House and Democrat Senate. I believe Senator 
Harkin supported both of those votes. On NTR trade with China, I 
believe both Senators Dorgan and Harkin supported that. The reality is, 
we have a trade ambassador going there right now to push for some 
controls, push for expanded buying by China, cut down the deficit. But 
the bottom line is, How do we make us competitive?
  Going back to the National Association of Manufacturers, they say the 
U.S. industry is burdened by legal and regulatory systems that retard 
growth and destroy jobs. That is what we have to deal with. We have to 
deal with the underlying things that make it impossible for businesses 
to grow in this country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. One minute for 
the minority to ask a question.
  Members are reminded to direct their remarks through the Chair.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in less than 3 years time President Bush 
has turned a projected surplus of $5.7 trillion into a projected 
deficit of $4.2 trillion over the next 10 years. Now not even Congress 
is powerful enough to reverse the law of supply and demand.

[[Page 29059]]

This vast new debt will raise interest rates and damage the economy in 
the long run. It is going to hurt the Federal Government's ability to 
cover the Social Security and Medicare costs of baby boomers and the 
education of our kids.
  The tax bill gave a $93,000 tax cut, on average, to those earning 
more than $1 million a year. The majority of Americans, however, get 
less than $100.
  Also, right now, more and more foreign countries are owning our debt 
and more and more will be owning that debt over the next 10 years.
  My question is, are these tax cuts for wealthy Americans worth the 
long-term damage they will cause our economy?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Senator from Iowa for that great question. 
What we care about is fiscal discipline and we do care about fiscal 
deficits, but what we care most about, as Republicans, is the job 
deficit.
  As my wonderful colleague from Minnesota, Senator Coleman, said, this 
country has been hit by something that is unprecedented, other than 
maybe Pearl Harbor, with the attacks on September 11. That had a 
devastating impact on the confidence and the capabilities of our 
economy for a short while, but we are coming back, even in the midst of 
a war on terrorism.
  When our friends on the Democrat side of the aisle talk about fiscal 
discipline, what they are talking about is continuing to tax the 
taxpayers. The bottom line is they think taxes ought to be higher on 
married people, on families, on individuals, on small businesses; even 
on people who die.
  When you discuss fiscal discipline, as shown on this chart, here is 
the reality. As we were trying to cut taxes to help create more jobs 
and more investment in this country, Democrats proposed a variety of 
different amendments on the floor, as shown on this chart, is how much 
it would have raised spending: Each year it would be about $87.9 
billion; over 10 years, $1.3 trillion--$1.3 trillion additionally 
spent.
  Our view is, the best way to raise revenues for the Government, for 
key priorities in research, in aeronautics, in education, for national 
defense and homeland security is to have a vibrant economy where people 
are working and paying taxes, and businesses are prospering and paying 
taxes, rather than going bankrupt or having people unemployed.
  Shown on this chart is the cost of Democratic proposals in the 
Senate. Fortuitously, we have a majority, and we are able to include 
responsible spending so that the taxpayers will get more of their money 
and not have added burdensome debt for the future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). There is 1 minute for the 
minority to rebut.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am somewhat taken. I cannot believe it. 
The Republicans are in charge of the White House, the Senate, and the 
House, and they are blaming the Democrats for this economic downturn 
and for the fact that we have these huge budget deficits. They are the 
ones who are in charge.
  They are the ones that produced an 8 percent increase in domestic 
discretionary spending last year, far more than the average increase in 
the Clinton years. And, that excludes Iraq and Defense.
  I would respond to my friend from Virginia, no, we do not believe in 
higher taxes, but we do believe in fairer taxes--fairer taxes--for the 
American people.
  Right now, the corporate income tax rate is the lowest it has been 
since the 1930s except for 1983--1.2 percent--yet payroll taxes, paid 
by every hard-working American, is at the highest level ever. That is 
what has been happening; not that the people ought to pay more taxes, 
we ought to have fairer taxes.
  Why is it fair that in the 2003 tax bill those making over a million 
dollars a year are getting, on average, $93,000 while half the 
taxpayers got $100 or less. That is what we are opposed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute for the majority to ask a 
question.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. 
Dorgan, this question. It follows up on some of his questions to me, 
and that has to do with what we call the Invest in the USA Act, which 
the Senate has passed, although there were dozens of Democrats who 
voted against it.
  Current tax policies in this country hinder and punish U.S. companies 
that conduct business overseas. We would like them to do well and get 
into other markets, but if they want to bring that money back into this 
country, they are taxed at 35 percent.
  Now, Senator Dorgan and Senator Harkin oppose this investment in 
America. Can Senator Dorgan share with us the positive economic impact 
if this were actually put into law?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it is interesting that this behaves in 
exactly the opposite way as the Senator from Virginia understands it.
  When you say to a company in this country, if you will simply invest 
overseas, heck, move a plant overseas, fire your workers in North 
Dakota and Virginia and Ohio, and employ foreign workers, if you will 
just do that, we will give you a deal. You will never, ever have to pay 
taxes on your earnings overseas. So get rid of that U.S. plant. Move it 
overseas. Earn your money there. And you simply do not have to pay 
taxes on it. That is called deferral. And the only time you will ever 
have to pay taxes is if you repatriate your income to this country. So 
there is a built-in incentive to move your company overseas.
  I am surprised the Senator from Virginia would ask a question about 
that because, in fact, the Finance Committee is now saying: I have an 
even better deal. We will keep deferral in the law--which is the 
perverse incentive--and we will allow you to repatriate that which you 
did earn, and we will charge you only a 5-percent income tax.
  Any company that takes a look at that would say: Well, I can't have a 
better deal than this. They will continually support me to invest 
overseas. And there will now be precedent to allow me to repatriate the 
income and pay--I don't know--a fourth of the tax of the lowest paid 
workers in this country. What a deal, except that every company will 
now understand that is the way this Congress works, and so there is a 
big bonus for me to shut down my U.S. plant and invest overseas.
  You talk about perversity, look, I am interested in jobs. I am 
interested in companies to expand their job base. The way to do that is 
to encourage that expansion in this country, to hire American workers, 
and pay them well, and to give them good benefits, and then, through 
them, earn good profits.
  That is what I want for this country. But this country cannot any 
longer ignore the perversity in the Tax Code. And one of them is 
exactly what the Senator from Virginia alleged, that subsidizes the 
flight of jobs overseas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute for the Republican side to 
rebut.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I would say, thank goodness the views of 
the Senator from North Dakota are the minority view. The reality is, 
most countries do not impose these 35 percent taxes. The current tax 
law prohibits businesses or impinges on their ability to bring profits 
back into this country to help create jobs.
  A number of people, from Dr. Allen Sinai to Decision Economics to JP 
Morgan, have shown there would be 400,000 to 500,000 new U.S. jobs in 
this country, $100 billion in increased investment in this country in 
equipment and research and development, and a reduction in corporate 
debt if this legislation were enacted.
  You can keep the laws the way they are without this provision, and 
what you will see is more jobs going overseas. But if you have this 1-
year benefit, you will find the benefit being in the hundreds of 
thousands of new jobs, with important investment here in America as 
opposed to overseas.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, as I ask a question, might I say, I don't 
know

[[Page 29060]]

about all these doctors and analysts, but I know about Americans who 
lost their jobs because of this perverse incentive; and that is what I 
want to shut down.
  But let me ask my colleagues a question about this record. Again, we 
do not have to debate theory tonight. Let's just debate what has 
happened.
  The odds against this being a coincidence are highly unlikely. Every 
Democratic administration has produced far more jobs than every 
Republican administration. Does that mean one is good and one is bad? 
No. It means different strategies produce different results.
  Isn't it the case that, over many years, the strategy by which we 
invest in working people and invest in small businesses, and giving 
them something to work with, produces the robust economic opportunity 
and economic growth across this land? It is true with Clinton, Carter, 
Johnson, right on down the line. And the evidence does not lie.
  As I said, might this be a coincidence? Mathematicians say the odds 
are highly unlikely against that being a coincidence. In the last 40 
years, every Democratic administration has done better than every 
Republican administration in creating jobs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. President. I love that chart. Let's go 
back to Jimmy Carter: 18 percent inflation, 23 percent interest rates, 
long lines at the gas pump. You talk about turning a sow's ear into a 
silk purse, that chart does it.
  But let's talk about reality and let's get away from the abstract. I 
agree with my colleague from North Dakota: Let's get away from what the 
economists say. I want to quote Joan Thompson, executive vice president 
and CFO of Midwest Wire and Cable in St. Paul, Minnesota, a small 
business. She says:

       Our company will be stronger, continue to grow and provide 
     more jobs with these type of incentives [we have seen in the 
     tax cut].

  She singled out the increase in small business expensing for new 
investment and increase in first year bonus depreciation as two keys in 
her company's resurgence.
  Cirrus Manufacturing, one of the largest private employers in Duluth, 
MN, an area up north that suffered a lot of job loss right after the 
tax cut was passed--they sell private airplanes--talked about how they 
got sales that all of a sudden happened, that had been on hold for 
ages, because of the increase in depreciation.
  I am not going to talk about charts. I am going to talk about 
reality.
  I have to hit one other thing about reality; and that is, the reality 
is we were hit with September 11. We were hit with Enron and Worldcom. 
We were hit with the burst of the dot.coms. And we have come back. And 
why? That is the choice here today. Do we come back with providing the 
opportunity for small business to invest and grow jobs or do we 
continue to tax? Do we continue to regulate? Do we continue to 
overspend and drive this economy further down?
  We are moving forward. Business investment is up, consumer spending 
is up, GDP is up. Housing starts are up. Jobless claims are down. 
Payroll jobs are up. Productivity is increasing substantially. Total 
investment is up. The unemployment rate is down.
  We are moving in the right direction with this President's and this 
Republican Senate's vision. Let's keep moving in that direction.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute for the minority.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we certainly agree. I hope very much that 
we are moving in the right direction. We want economic expansion and 
jobs. But the fact is, Jimmy Carter has come up several times here. I 
am not surprised it is Grover Cleveland. There are so many excuses.
  We are choking on Federal budget deficits. We are choking on a trade 
deficit that is the highest in history. The fact is, the American 
people lack confidence in the future because we don't have our fiscal 
house in order. We can blame others but we are dramatically increasing 
spending on defense, on homeland security, and cutting taxes 
substantially, and we have a fiscal policy that does not add up.
  I want one that adds up, that creates new jobs and new economic 
expansion and hope for the American people. Most families just want a 
good job that pays well, that gives them some security. Most small 
businesses want a chance to expand in order to create new employment. 
That is all we want. The question is rooted in this chart. Where has 
the performance been? We don't have to debate theory. Just debate the 
performance of those who believe if you invest in working families, our 
economy does just fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At this time, each Member will have 2 minutes 
for closing argument, beginning with a Member on the minority.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this has been a good debate. I wish we 
could go for another hour.
  Just a couple points. First, on job growth, that I have heard my 
friends on the other side talk about here this evening and the last 
month. The fact is, manufacturing jobs are going down. The service 
sector has increased. Manufacturing jobs continue to lose. One in seven 
manufacturing jobs were lost during the Bush administration. We are now 
at the lowest level of manufacturing jobs in our country since 1958, 
and it continues to go down. So when they talk about job growth, they 
are talking about the lowest kinds of jobs and the lowest paid kinds of 
jobs in the service sector.
  Again, what we ought to be talking about are jobs. Again, as my 
colleague from North Dakota said, just look at the facts, the three 
major budget bills and job creation bills. In 1981, 1.4 million jobs 
were lost in 2 years after the Republican budget bill past. Under the 
Democratic budget bill passed in 1993, under our economic plan, 6.4 
million jobs were created in 2 years. Of course, we know what is 
happening under this President Bush: after his budget bill passed in 
2001, 2.1 million jobs were lost in the next two years. It is the same 
old thing--Republican trickle-down economics was tried in 1981 and 
2001. Put it in at the top, hope that it trickles down. That is the 
fundamental difference between Democratic and Republican economic 
policies.
  We have long believed--and the proof is what we did in the 1990s--
that if you put it in at the bottom, give it more to working families, 
invest in education and health care, educational opportunities, make 
the economy more efficient, it percolates up. It is percolate-up 
economics that works versus trickle down.
  The problem with trickle down is when you give it to those at the 
top, they take too big a cut and it never quite trickles down. But when 
you put it at the bottom, you put people to work and you get the 
economy humming. We need to do it by expanding educational 
opportunities. Under this President, we have had the lowest request for 
educational funding in the last 30 years. That policy is going to mean 
a less well trained work force in the long-term, an economy that will 
not compete as well and larger deficits for our country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator 
from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Again, I thank my Democratic colleagues for 
participating in this debate. Much of the reasoning I have heard this 
evening reminds me of the definition of an economist: Someone who sees 
something beginning to work in reality and tells you why it won't in 
theory.
  Simply put: The President's tax cuts have begun to stimulate the 
economy and grow jobs. I will go out on a limb here and say as a fact 
that the sky has not fallen, that we are not in the worst economy since 
Herbert Hoover, and the United States is not selling off the Grand 
Canyon to cover its debts.
  Facts are facts. The business cycle lives. The economy started down 
long before George Bush became President. After a relatively short time 
of negative growth, the economy began to recover. Despite serious 
setbacks not of the President's making, such as 9/11, the economy is 
coming back strong.

[[Page 29061]]

Jobs and deficits are the remaining problems. In the aftermath of 
recessions, they always are for a period. But we are headed strongly in 
the right direction. What every person knows is what matters is what we 
do here.
  This is the question: Which do you think helps the economy and which 
hurts, raising taxes on everyone, especially on small business and job 
creators and then increasing Federal spending, or leaving that money in 
the pockets of consumers to consume or save or invest?
  Tax increases would clearly hurt the economy more than increased 
spending would help. Today we need to look forward. To my Democratic 
colleagues, I ask you to join your Republican colleagues to keep the 
wheels of economic progress turning. I ask you to join us in enacting 
class-action reform, medical malpractice reform, asbestos reform, all 
of which the National Association of Manufacturers says is absolutely 
critical to this country's ability to maintain domestic manufacturing 
jobs. Help put an end to the perception that Democrats care about 
manufacturing jobs, just not enough to offend the trial lawyers.
  As for the deficit, talk about the kid who killed his folks and then 
threw himself on the mercy of the court because he was an orphan. Here 
we have Democrats offering $1.3 trillion in new spending above and 
beyond what the budget will allow since January.
  The question before us is whether Democrats will roll up their 
sleeves and help get the job done by passing an Energy bill or will 
more obstruction be the order of the day?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator 
from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. My dad always told me never buy something from somebody 
who is out of breath. There is kind of a breathless quality to this 
debate from the other side. They want us to essentially ignore the fact 
that we have lost more than 3 million jobs in a couple of years. Of the 
biggest fiscal policy budget deficit in history, the biggest trade 
deficit in history, just ignore that. Be happy. In fact, call for more 
tax cuts, preferably tax cuts for businesses that are moving jobs 
overseas and tax cuts for people at the top of the income ladder.
  Let's talk about jobs, though. What is the menu that creates new 
jobs? The Oscar Meyer Company had an opening for their Weinermobile 
driver. Eight hundred college graduates showed up to apply to drive the 
Weinermobile. What does that tell you about jobs in this country? This 
is a sad commentary on our job situation.
  This country needs new jobs. We don't need an economic strategy that 
shrinks. We need one that expands jobs. We will best serve the American 
people if we decide these things matter. Deficits matter. Trade 
policies matter. If we decide these things matter and start working on 
them in a bipartisan way, in a thoughtful way, in a commonsense way, we 
will best serve this country's interests.
  But facts remain. This is the first administration since Herbert 
Hoover that had a net loss of jobs, nearly 3 million jobs since it took 
office. I take no pleasure in saying that. I wish it were not so. I 
hope a year from now I can say there are massive new jobs being created 
and our economy is growing.
  But I tell you this: That won't happen if we ignore the fundamentals. 
Let's get back to the fundamentals: fiscal policy that adds up and 
works; trade policy that adds up and supports this country's best 
interests in a way that can give confidence to the American people 
about the future. We won't provide confidence by putting our head in 
the sand and saying: Be happy. Just call for more tax cuts.
  I am for tax cuts, but I am also for a world-class educational 
system, protecting our environment, and creating more jobs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for joining in this 
debate. I think we all do share the same goals for this country: a 
strong national defense, homeland security; education, stronger 
nanotechnology, aeronautics and so forth. The question though is, How 
do you get there? How do you achieve this goal? That is where the 
difference lies.
  We have been pushing for tax cuts because we trust free people and 
free enterprise. We figure families who have children, when they got 
that $400 check this summer, needed that money for their kids. You have 
seen the results. They spent it on shoes or clothes or electronics, and 
it increased retail selling, which is great for the retailers and 
manufacturers of the products and the transporters and all the rest.
  You see the job growth. Is it where we want to be? Of course not. 
What we are doing on the Republican side is putting forward a positive, 
constructive agenda and solutions to move America forward and help 
create more jobs. The difference is, on the Democrat side, their view 
is more taxes. They opposed our efforts to reduce taxes on married 
people. We wanted to get rid of the marriage penalty tax. We wanted to 
reduce taxes on families, on small businesses, entrepreneurs. They 
opposed us. But things are moving forward in the right direction.
  We also disagree on their taxing of Social Security benefits. I know 
some of them, my friend from North Dakota, even want to tax the 
Internet which I believe ought to be free from burdensome regulations.
  The bottom line of our philosophy was best summed up by Ronald Reagan 
who said in 1985: Every dollar the Government does not take from us, 
every decision it does not make for us will make our economy stronger, 
our lives more abundant, and our future more free.
  That sums up the Republican approach and, indeed, its current success 
shows that it is right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, at this time the 
Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, and the Senator from Arizona, 
Mr. Kyl, will each be recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, first of all, I have enjoyed the 
opportunity to exchange views with my colleagues. They are very able 
legislators. I thank my colleague from Iowa and my colleagues from 
Virginia and Minnesota and also my colleague from Arizona, chairman of 
the Republican Policy Committee.
  I must, however, correct one little misstatement at the end. My good 
friend from Virginia just raised this little issue about the Internet 
tax, and nobody is suggesting we tax the Internet. We will save that 
for another day. We can have another date--just the two of us--on that 
subject. We need to do that based on facts.
  I will say that I think this is a good exchange of views. My 
colleague from Arizona and I, with our caucuses, have created an 
opportunity--and we will try to do this each month--which allows us to 
exchange views on specific subjects. I think it merits additional 
opportunities in the Senate, and I will be pleased in the coming months 
when we are in session to work with my friend, Senator Kyl, to find 
additional topics and debaters and to further advance discussions on 
public policy in our country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I, too, thank our four debaters this evening, 
and especially my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan. He and I 
chair the policy committees of our respective conferences. We decided 
that too much of our debate in this body wasn't very civil or very much 
in the way of debate because we were frequently talking to an empty 
Chamber. We basically were talking past each other rather than engaging 
with each other.
  The best way for the American people to understand our different 
philosophies and actually test ideas was to see us in a situation in 
which, like tonight, you saw questions being asked of each other and 
the responses being given at that same period, the rebuttals and the 
replies in proximity to each other, so that these ideas could be 
evaluated in a context of real meaning, rather than the way the debate 
frequently occurs here. That is not to denigrate our colleagues in the 
way we conduct other debates, but we think that by having this kind of 
an opportunity, we will not

[[Page 29062]]

only elucidate particular issues, as was done this past week, but we 
can work together as friends and colleagues and bring out the best 
ideas and participate in debate of the kind that was originally 
contemplated in this Chamber.
  Again, I thank the debaters. As was indicated, we intend to do this 
about once a month, and we hope everybody will tune in again. With 
that, I think we have a wrap-up request.
  For the time being, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________