[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11249-11262]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              health care

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this past weekend my wife and I met up 
with some life-long friends from my home area of East Saint Louis, IL. 
We had a good time together. We sat around and talked about our lives 
and some of the challenges we face.
  My friends own a small business. It is a trucking company with about 
six or eight employees, and about the same number of trucks. It has 
been in their family for decades. They are very proud of it. They put 
their life work into it. We talk about business every time I see them. 
This time the conversation was not so much about business; it was about 
an issue which was clearly on their minds, and I believe the minds of 
small and large businessmen across America. The issue was health 
insurance.
  Something they had taken for granted for so many years has now become 
a challenge not only to their business but to their personal lives. A 
few years ago, one of their employees' wives had a baby with some 
serious medical problems. As a result of that, when the health 
insurance for their small company came up for renewal the next year, 
they saw their premiums double.
  This small company struggling to get by was faced with an impossible 
burden, how to continue to provide health insurance for the families 
and the workers in their employ at costs that were now out of reach. 
They tried for a year. When the rates continued to go up, in 
desperation they made a desperate decision. They called their employees 
in and said: We can no longer offer health insurance to you as an 
employee of this company. We will give you the amount of money we were 
paying monthly as a premium as an increase in your pay, but you have to 
go out in the open market and find health insurance.
  The sad reality is one of the families, the one with the sick child, 
could not find health insurance, and still has not. The others found it 
with costs going up every year. But that was not the end of the story. 
They went on to tell me the insurance they now have to buy in the open 
market is almost worthless. If they should ever turn in a claim during 
the course of the year for any medical problem, they can count in the 
next year that that will be excluded from coverage and protection. If 
you have a problem with your foot, of any kind, in the next year the 
health insurance policy offered to you will exclude anything to deal 
with feet, either one of them, any condition.
  The woman told me at this get-together: When I go to get a mammogram 
now and they ask me who my doctor is, I tell them I do not have one. 
Send the results to me personally. She said: I try to decide whether or 
not something serious has been found. I cannot let this get into my 
medical records because, frankly, I will find an exclusion to coverage 
if any question is raised.
  This was a very startling conversation for me. It was an eye opener. 
What troubled me the most about this, I do this for a living. I am a 
Senator, and I am proud of it. I have devoted my life to public service 
and I hope I have done some good, but when my friends, family members, 
and businesses across my State all come to me with the same concern 
over and over again, I cannot explain the feeling of helplessness and 
frustration I have.
  I think about that in the context of the debate in which we are 
engaged. Of all the debate in the last several years in Washington, DC, 
of all of the proposals from this administration and from the leaders 
in this Congress, why is it we can never get close to the issues that 
really count, the issues that are tearing families and businesses 
apart? The cost of health insurance is one of those issues. As a 
nation, is it expensive for us to try to come up with a new approach 
which says that every American, regardless of their wealth or poverty, 
will have a basic level of protection of health insurance? That cannot 
be beyond us.
  This is a country and a society which took a look at its impoverished 
parents and grandparents over 50 years ago and said, we are going to 
create Social Security. We want these people whom we love to live in 
dignity. This is the same

[[Page 11250]]

country and society which in the 1960s took a look at the same parents 
and grandparents and said, for goodness sakes, they ought to have basic 
health insurance. If they have retired, we are going to create 
Medicare. And we did. This is a country which stepped back and said we 
are no longer going to discriminate against people because of their 
disabilities or handicaps. We are going to provide them protection, and 
we did.
  Time and time again, we have risen to the challenge. But what do we 
have before us now? A debate on the floor of the Senate about a tax 
cut, the range of the cost of this tax cut over a 10-year period, $420 
billion to $550 billion, a significant sum of money, on top of a tax 
cut we just passed 2 years ago.
  How will this tax cut benefit my friends who are struggling with the 
cost of health insurance? How will it benefit families across America 
who cannot find health insurance and cannot find work? The answer, 
sadly, is that it is not designed to help them at all.
  President Bush comes before us with a tax cut proposal that is a 
nonstarter. It serves his political philosophy, which is to propose a 
tax cut whether we are in good times or bad, but it does not serve 
America and its needs. Our fear of government, our fear of working 
collectively to solve problems, has driven this Senate and this 
Congress away from the reality of the challenges of life in America.
  We passed a bill called No Child Left Behind. The President said: 
This is my answer to education in America. And then the President comes 
back and refuses to fund it. It is an unfunded mandate on the schools 
of Illinois, Ohio, New Mexico, and Nevada, when these States are facing 
deficits.
  When it comes to health care, this administration has no proposals or 
suggestions to help the families and businesses struggling to provide 
health insurance to cover their kids.
  When it comes to prescription drugs, there is lip service--nothing 
that will provide real and meaningful relief from the cost of 
prescription drugs, particularly for senior citizens and disabled 
people.
  Instead, what are we suggesting? We are discussing a tax cut with the 
Bush approach, a tax cut that will say to people making over a million 
dollars in income a year, this elite class will receive about $90,000 
more in breaks from the Federal Government.
  What is wrong with this picture? I will tell my colleagues what is 
wrong, from my point of view. It depends on one's outlook on the future 
of America. If they believe the future of America is driven and 
controlled by elite investors, the highest-income people in America, 
then they should sign on quickly to the Bush tax cut. That is what it 
is designed to do, to provide to those elite investors, those dividend 
earners, extra benefits so they can have a more comfortable life and 
perhaps spend their money in ways to help the economy. That is the Bush 
approach. For most Republicans--not all, but for most Republicans--that 
is their approach.
  There are others, such as myself, who take a different approach. We 
believe the future of this country has always been based on hard-
working families, those middle income working families which have made 
this country great. They have played by the rules. They paid their 
taxes. They have raised their families. They have been conscientious in 
making certain their schools and neighborhoods are strong and safe.
  What do we give them in this tax cut? Not $90,000 a year, like the 
millionaires in the Bush tax cut, but around $400 or $500 a year. That 
is not fair and it is not right. It is what we face time and time again 
when it comes to dealing with the problems across America.
  This week, the Senate will consider amendments to this tax bill. 
Republicans and Democrats will be given choices as to whether they want 
to cut taxes at the highest levels in the highest brackets or whether 
they want to provide real tax relief to working families and small 
businesses across America. The choices will be stark. They will 
contrast our attitude toward life and our attitude toward America's 
future.
  Is it worth it to reduce the tax cuts of people making over $300,000 
a year or give a tax credit to small businesses that offer health 
insurance to their employees? I would like to take that issue back to 
Illinois. In fact, I will take it back to any State, and I know what I 
will hear from small businesspeople and their workers: For goodness 
sakes, it does not make any sense to give a tax cut to people making 
over $300,000 a year. Give a helping hand to the families struggling to 
get by.
  Senator Schumer of New York is going to offer his amendment, which 
goes to the heart of the future of America. It goes to the cost of 
education.
  We now know what happens to young men and women, accepted to the best 
schools, finally graduate and find themselves deep in debt. Senator 
Schumer and others and I have joined to offer an amendment that says 
the cost of college education should be deductible so families wanting 
to give their kids the best, wanting their kids to achieve the most in 
their lives, will have a helping hand from this Government.
  What makes more sense, a tax break for an individual already 
successful in America making over $300,000 a year or a tax deduction 
for a working family whose son or daughter has been accepted to the 
college of their dreams, the best school possible, who just need a 
helping hand from this country so they can be all that they can be, 
achieve greatness?
  That is an easy call, too. I will take that home to Illinois, and I 
invite President Bush to come to Illinois and debate that. Pick the 
town, Mr. President. Whether he is going to be visiting Nebraska or 
Indiana, I would like the people in those environs to have the choice 
the Senate will face this week, choices that are meaningful.
  I close on this point. We have lost more jobs under this President 
than anyone ever imagined. In the Clinton 8 years, 22 million new jobs 
were created in America. Under the Bush administration, with this 
recession, we have lost more than 2 million jobs. In fact, we have lost 
more than 2 million jobs since the President's last tax cut, that 
failed policy which took more than $1 trillion from the Treasury and 
did not create jobs in America. It was a failure then and this 
replacement, even if it is smaller, will fail as well.
  Sadly, the unemployed people across America are reaching a level of 
desperation. They cannot find jobs in this economy with this recession.
  My home State of Illinois announced last week an unemployment rate of 
6.3 percent. We are in the top four States of unemployment across 
America.
  I met some of the workers while I was back this weekend. One man who 
was in the communications industry lost his job last December after 
working more than 30 years. He is desperately looking for a job and 
does not know which way to turn.
  Unemployed people like him across America, victims of this recession, 
cannot get a helping hand from this Bush administration. The helping 
hand is extended to the wealthy, to the millionaires, to those with all 
the dividends who want all the tax breaks, but no helping hand to the 
poor unemployed family member trying to keep it going.
  During President Bush's father's recession in the early 1990s, we 
extended unemployment benefits five different times; three times under 
President Bush senior, twice under President Clinton. In this 
administration, with this terrible recession, we have extended them 
only twice. Individuals are falling off eligibility. What happens to a 
person unemployed, no longer eligible for unemployment compensation?
  You can count on the following: First, they will find it difficult to 
pay their utility bills. Second, they will find they have to make real 
sacrifices on the basis of family, food, clothing. You will find many 
of them moving in with family and friends. You can count on one of the 
first items to go being health insurance. They have just enough money 
not to qualify for Medicaid for the poor but sadly not enough money to 
provide health insurance for their family.
  Over the weekend, my friends talked about health insurance and said, 
we

[[Page 11251]]

feel very badly for people who are poor, those who are unemployed, but 
it is the working families of America who are losing today. This tax 
break, this $400 to $500 billion tax bill, ignores those families, 
ignores that reality, and in ignoring that reality, it calls into 
question whether those who have dedicated our time to public service 
are really listening to the people we represent.
  I hope during the course of this week as we debate this bill and we 
debate the debt limit, as we get into these important issues, some of 
my friends on both sides of the aisle will reflect on what they have 
heard at home from the real working families of America. They need 
help. The Bush tax program does not help. It is irresponsible. It is 
unfair. It will not move this economy forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as 
in morning business for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Domenici and Mr. Reid pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 1051 are located in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is pending 
before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Feinstein second-degree amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Feinstein second-degree amendment to the ethanol 
amendment to S. 14, the comprehensive energy bill; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I might say, if anyone cares to speak on either the 
amendment or the underlying bill or, for that matter, the comprehensive 
energy bill, the floor is open for that purpose. I have asked the 
majority leader if it would be appropriate to have a vote on the 
Feinstein amendment, a vote on it or in respect to it, this evening. He 
has indicated that sometime after 7 o'clock that might be in order. I 
am not asking for that at this point, but I am just saying to Senators 
that probably will happen.
  If there are no other Senators desiring to do so, I will myself move 
to table it sometime after 7 o'clock, when it is deemed appropriate by 
the majority and minority leaders.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to proceed for 5 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Relief for Tchisou Tho

  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts for giving me this opportunity to make this presentation. 
I am very appreciative.
  I wish to talk about a young man I read about in the Minneapolis Star 
Tribune last Friday. It was the story of Tchisou Tho, an 18-year-old 
currently facing two situations: in three weeks, high school graduation 
and, in one day, the threat of deportation.
  Yesterday, I introduced legislation that would grant citizenship to 
Tchisou, a senior at Como Park High School in St. Paul, MN who would 
become the first member of his family to attain a high school diploma.
  In 1975, Tchisou's parents fled Communist rule in Laos and settled 
their family in France. At age 5, with his parents having visitors' 
visas, Tchisou's family came to the United States, first settling in 
California before eventually moving to Minnesota in 1993, mainly for 
the quality schools and educational opportunities for their children. 
As Tchisou's mother commented, ``We consider it a precious thing to 
wear the gown and receive the diploma with honor and applause.''
  The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Service states that the Tho 
family defied a judge's order to leave the United States voluntarily 
before March 26 of this year. Mr. and Mrs. Tho had been granted work 
authorizations, but a meeting with immigration officials to request 
modifications of their status resulted in knowledge of the March 
deadline and consequently the deportation order.
  I have great respect for the folks of Immigration. They do their job. 
they do it well. They are following the law. Unfortunately, Tchisou is 
a good kid experiencing a bad situation.
  The sins of the parents should not automatically fall upon the 
shoulders of the children. Actively involved in his church, Tchisou 
teaches Sunday school, belongs to the youth group, and sings in the 
choir. At Como Park High, he is registered for challenging courses such 
as advanced-placement calculus. Furthermore, Tchisou has been accepted 
by the University of Minnesota, where he plans on studying either 
aerospace engineering or natural resources.
  The situation Tchisou faces is not all that uncommon. It is a 
circumstance that, I am sorry to say, many children have to experience. 
In response, it is my understanding that my good friend and colleague 
Senator Hatch reintroduce the Dream Act in the near future, a bill that 
will address tough circumstances such as this, in a comprehensive 
manner, and I look forward to working with Senator Hatch on this 
important legislation. However, Tchisou can't wait for the Dream Act to 
become law, and that is why I introduced private relief legislation for 
him last night.
  Mr. President, good kids like Tchisou should not pay for the mistakes 
of others. Tchisou should graduate from high school with his friends, 
and I believe the bill I introduced last night will make that happen.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand we are speaking as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is not the order of business. The Senate 
currently has before it the Feinstein amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent to be able to proceed as if in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   The Real Cure for Our Sick Economy

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the health of the American economy has 
been deteriorating for more than 2 years and the patient's vital signs 
are getting steadily worse.
  President Bush's response has been to prescribe sugar pills--tax cuts 
for the wealthy that may taste good for a moment but do nothing to cure 
the patient's illness. Like a quack doctor who knows only one remedy, 
while the patient keeps getting worse despite the treatment, the 
President just keeps prescribing larger and larger doses of sugar 
pills. The Bush administration's policies will never revive this sick 
economy.
  I am deeply concerned about the continued stagnation of the economy. 
Unemployment is still on the rise. We climbed to 6 percent in April. 
There are now 8.8 million men and women unemployed across the Nation. 
The economy has lost more than a half million jobs in just the past 3 
months, and there is no end in sight. In the absence of an effective 
stimulus from the Federal Government, the economy is not likely to 
improve quickly.
  Behind such disturbing statistics are people who need our help. A 
strong economy allows working men and women to have greater control 
over their lives and more opportunity to pursue their personal dreams. 
A stagnant economy takes much of that control out of their hands, 
leaving families vulnerable to circumstances they cannot control.
  Across America in the last 2 years, workers have lost their job 
security. As layoffs mount, they live in fear of being the next to be 
let go. There are 2.7 million fewer private sector jobs in

[[Page 11252]]

America today than there were in January of 2001. Those looking for a 
job are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain one. The number of 
long-term unemployed has tripled.
  The pain caused by this destructive wave of economic stagnation is 
not limited to those who have lost their jobs. Health insurance is 
becoming less and less affordable for workers and their families across 
the country. The Congressional Budget Office now estimates that over 
the course of a year, 60 million Americans go without health insurance. 
One in ten small businesses which offered their employees health 
insurance in 2000, no longer do so.
  Nationally, the average cost of health insurance is rising at double 
digit rates, up by 11 percent in 2001, and another 12.7 percent in 2002 
nearly 4 times the rate of inflation. The health care squeeze on 
working families is getting tighter and tighter.
  Senior citizens who desperately need prescription drug coverage are 
suffering, too. While their incomes are stagnating because of low 
Social Security cost-of-living adjustments, the cost of prescription 
drugs is escalating at double digit rates, increasing an average of 16 
percent each year. Children who are being asked to do more in school 
are receiving less support. School districts faced with declining tax 
receipts have increased class sizes, cut weeks from school calendars, 
and laid off teachers. Our economy's inability to support public 
education is setting up America's children to fail in the global 
marketplace.
  There is a crisis in public higher education as well that has been 
created by a weak economy. States are being forced to sharply cut aid 
to public colleges. State and community colleges in turn have increased 
tuition to an unprecedented rate to cope with State budget cuts.
  Nationally, the gap between the cost of college tuition and the 
tuition assistance provided by the Federal Government has grown by 
$1,900 in the last 2 years.
  Millions of families have seen their retirement savings seriously 
eroded. The value of savings in 401(k) plans and other defined 
contribution plans has declined by $473 billion in the last 2 years.
  These are the realities American families face today.
  It is imperative that the National Government respond to the growing 
economic crisis. There is much the Government can do to stimulate 
economic growth in the near term without generating huge deficits that 
will undermine prosperity in the long term. Unfortunately, the Bush 
administration has consistently refused to follow such a course of 
action.
  Historically, Republicans and Democrats have had fundamentally 
different views on how to strengthen the economy. Republicans believe 
if you give tax breaks to the wealthiest taxpayers, they will invest 
more and the economy will grow. It is called trickle-down economics. 
The problem with this theory is the wealthy may not immediately use the 
money to create jobs and expand production. If there is no demand 
because consumers are not buying, companies will not produce more. They 
will just wait until the economic climate improves.
  Democrats believe that tax relief and public resources should go to 
America's working families. They are the ones who are struggling most 
in this brutal economy, and they will quickly spend the money. They 
will create the demand which is needed to get the economy moving again.
  It is an old debate. We have very different approaches to stimulating 
the economy. Republicans keep making the same mistake. If trickle-down 
economics worked, the economy would not be stagnating today. In 2001, 
at President Bush's insistence, Congress passed one of the largest tax 
cuts in history, and wealthy taxpayers got the lion's share of the tax 
benefits. America has lost more than 2.5 million jobs since the first 
Bush tax cut passed. The Republican response is more of the same. But 
the American people want a new approach.
  The President has repeatedly rejected the pragmatic advice of 
mainstream economists and opted instead for an ideologically rigid and 
ineffective strategy. His single-minded commitment to ever larger tax 
cuts for the wealthy as the cure to every economic ailment has made a 
bad situation worse. The administration has ignored remedies that would 
provide a significant stimulus this year, while implementing policies 
that will undermine our future economic strength. As a result, the 
economy continues to stagnate, and the number of families facing 
hardships continue to grow. The budget presented to Congress by 
President Bush this year calls for over $1.6 trillion in new tax cuts, 
in addition to the massive tax cuts already enacted in 2001. According 
to the Congressional Budget Office, if the President's budget is 
accepted, the on-budget deficit will grow to $4 trillion by 2013. More 
than three-quarters of that amount would be directly attributable to 
the Bush tax cuts. A deficit that large would make it impossible for 
the Federal Government to meet its most basic obligations to the 
American people in national security, in health care, in education, and 
in retirement security.
  While imposing this enormous long-term burden on the economy, the 
President's economic growth plan would not even provide the immediate 
stimulus the economy needs. The economy needs a real stimulus plan. A 
genuine economic stimulus must meet three criteria. It must have an 
immediate impact. It must be temporary. And it must be fair in bringing 
the recovery to all Americans and not just the wealthy few.
  The Bush proposal fails on all three counts. Only $40 billion of the 
$726 billion cost of the administration's plan would reach the economy 
in 2003, when it is needed to stimulate growth. Most of the revenue 
will be spent long after the recession has ended. Eighty percent of 
that total amount would not be spent until 2005 or later. What we need 
is just the reverse. We need to put much more money into the economy in 
2003 and keep the long-term costs low. Temporary tax cuts to stimulate 
the economy are affordable, but the President's large, permanent, new 
tax cuts are not.
  The Republican plan will not provide the timely and targeted stimulus 
that the economy needs.
  Under the President's so-called economic growth package, households 
with annual incomes over $1 million would receive an average tax cut of 
$90,000 each year. They are not the ones who are struggling to make 
ends meet in this faltering economy. They are not the ones who need our 
help. Nor are they the ones who will quickly spend the money they 
receive.
  In contrast to this windfall for the richest taxpayers, households in 
the middle of the income spectrum would receive an average of less than 
$300 per year in tax benefits.
  The Bush plan is simply not an effective stimulus. A recent analysis 
of the administration's economic growth plan by a respected independent 
financial research firm, Economy.Com, determined that elimination of 
the income tax on corporate dividends, the centerpiece of the 
President's plan, is one of the least effective forms of stimulus, 
generating less than a dime of stimulus for every dollar of Federal 
revenue lost. By comparison, extending unemployment benefits and 
providing aid to State and local governments would produce 
substantially more than a dollar of stimulus for every dollar of 
Federal revenue spent.
  The plans announced by House and Senate Republicans in the past few 
days both contain the same fundamental flaws as the Bush plan. They put 
far too little money in the economy this year and cost far too much in 
the long term. Only $60 billion of the House's $550 billion tax cut 
would go into the economy this year, and even less, just $33 billion of 
the Senate's $420 billion tax cut, would reach the economy in 2003, 
when it is needed to create jobs.
  The Senate Republican bill reported out of the Finance Committee last 
week would give taxpayers who earn more than $1 million a year an 
average annual tax cut of $64,400, while middle-income taxpayers would 
only receive

[[Page 11253]]

an average tax cut of $233. Sixty percent of all the tax benefits in 
the legislation would go to the wealthiest 10 percent of taxpayers.
  This chart I have in the Chamber reflects that. This chart is the 
result of an analysis by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. The 
average tax cut for middle-income families is $233 a year, and for the 
millionaires, $64,400 a year.
  While the Senate Republican bill is not as extreme as the Bush 
administration proposal, it still fails the test of an effective and 
immediate stimulus. It does not maximize the economic impact in 2003. 
We can create many more jobs much sooner by better targeting the 
resources provided in the legislation. Senate Republicans are still 
proposing to spend $80 billion on a permanent dividend tax cut and $35 
billion on lowering the tax rate on the highest incomes. These cuts, 
which constitute one-third of the entire cost of the bill, do not 
provide the needed effective stimulus, and they take resources away 
from proposals that would.
  It is incredible that Republicans could not find the dollars to 
extend unemployment benefits and to provide tax relief for low-income 
workers but they could find the money to pay for these tax breaks 
benefitting the wealthiest taxpayers. These priorities are all wrong 
for America.
  Let me just point out that in their Republican tax proposal, there 
are virtually no provisions for unemployment compensation for American 
workers--either the almost 3 million American workers who have lost 
their jobs over the period of the last 2 years or those who have 
already seen their unemployment compensation expire because of the 
downturn in the economy, let alone the hundreds of thousands of part-
time workers and low-income workers, who are primarily women. There is 
no proposal whatsoever in the Republican tax proposal to have an 
extension of unemployment compensation in spite of the fact that the 
unemployment compensation fund is in heavy surplus. At this time, it is 
well able to afford it.
  A well-designed stimulus plan could generate far more economic 
activity at a small fraction of the cost of the Republican proposals. 
The Senate Democratic plan would inject $125 billion into the economy 
this year and is designed to maximize the stimulus effect of each 
dollar. There is twice as much stimulus effect in 2003 as the House 
Republican plan and three times as much as the administration's plan 
and the Senate Republican plan.
  Three widely respected economic models all show that the Democratic 
plan would generate substantially more growth in 2003 and create a half 
million more jobs this year than the Republican plan.
  In the Democratic plan, half of the total amount would be used to 
provide immediate tax relief to working families. It would provide tax 
relief to all those who pay either income tax or payroll tax and would 
provide additional tax cuts to families with children. The tax cuts are 
directed to hard-working families who need them most and are most 
likely to spend the dollars quickly.
  The current installment of Federal unemployment benefits runs out at 
the end of this month, and the Democratic plan would extend those 
benefits.
  An effective stimulus plan also needs to provide immediate, targeted 
tax relief for businesses to stimulate new investment. Accelerating 
depreciation to 50 percent for this year and tripling the amount small 
businesses can expense this year makes sense. The goal is to provide 
businesses with strong tax incentives to invest in new plants and 
equipment now, rather than postponing those expenditures until future 
years.
  To be credible, a stimulus plan must recognize the dire fiscal 
problems that State and local governments across America are facing. 
The current fiscal crisis in the States is the most severe in decades. 
Collectively, States are facing budget deficits of nearly $100 billion 
and making up for it by cutting education programs.
  Last Congress we passed a good bill, a bipartisan bill, in the No 
Child Left Behind Act, in order to ensure we had smaller classrooms, 
better trained teachers, improved curricula, and after school services. 
We had a whole range of commitments: improving literacy, and putting 
additional kinds of expectations on schools to perform. We did all of 
that.
  But we have found now that the administration has backed out of that 
commitment at the same time we are finding the States are backing out. 
We have a golden opportunity to strengthen and enhance K through 12 
education, but we are undermining that possibility with the cuts that 
are taking place at the State level as a result of the first Bush tax 
cut. And we know that this new tax request by this administration will 
permanently undermine our ability to fund these programs into the 
future.
  It is important to remember that more people need to rely on State 
and local programs in an economic downturn. The number of people 
eligible for Medicaid grows substantially in times of recession, and 
many other costs rise as well. Without jobs and without health care, 
families have nowhere else to turn. They don't have the health 
insurance, so they have to go to the neighborhood health centers. Who 
do we think picks up the cost in terms of the neighborhood health 
centers? It is the local communities that are going to be required to 
do this. We should make certain that the needed resources are available 
for them.
  Our stimulus plan would provide at least $40 billion to hard-pressed 
States and communities. It would provide additional dollars to maintain 
health care, education, and social services. It would also help with 
the substantial costs of dealing with the threat of terrorism. It is 
money well spent which will help stimulate the economy now. 
Unfortunately, the President's plan completely ignores this need.
  We had the hearings in our human resources committee not long ago 
about the dangers associated with the outbreak of SARS and about how 
local, State, and public health services are so heavily burdened in 
responding to various kinds of inquiries and tension in local 
communities on this, and how they are stretched to the breaking point.
  SARS is not the result of a terrorist activity, but if it had been or 
if we should have one now, we know our public health systems are 
stretched to their limit. And they are our first responders. We also 
know that the major hospitals now are overstretched because of the 
reductions in their budgets. They need to be ready to contain any kind 
of an outbreak of a major terrorist attack that is going to use 
chemical or biological agents. So we are talking about matters that 
involve the security of this Nation in terms of terrorism and the 
potential use of anthrax and other dangerous substances.
  The best way to stimulate real economic growth is to make sound 
investments in our human capital and in our infrastructure.
  That is what the Bush administration does not realize. That is the 
essential element missing from all their economic plans. If we deny the 
necessary resources now, we are jeopardizing the future well-being of 
our people. We are also jeopardizing our future prosperity. Today we 
need an economic growth plan that recognizes the real forces which 
drive our economy and invests in them. As President Kennedy said 43 
years ago, at the time of another Republican recession: It is time to 
get America moving again.
  As debate on the tax bill progresses, I intend to offer amendments to 
reverse the misguided priorities of the Republican bill. One of my 
amendments will eliminate the dividend tax cut and the accelerated 
reduction in the rate of the top brackets in order to provide the 
necessary funding for a Medicare prescription drug benefit that will 
effectively meet the needs of the elderly. The people's representatives 
will have a chance to say what is more important for the American 
people, a tax cut for the wealthy or a solid prescription drug program 
which was effectively left out of the Medicare program when we passed 
Medicare in 1965. We got the hospitalization. We got the physician 
services. But we left out prescription drugs. We made a commitment to 
American seniors: Work hard and your health care needs are taken

[[Page 11254]]

care of. We didn't say they would be taken care of with the exception 
of prescription drugs, but that is exactly what has happened. Every day 
that we have Medicare without prescription drugs, it is a violation of 
that commitment.
  We will have an opportunity tomorrow to make a decision whether we 
are going to as a nation place the funding of a good prescription drug 
program ahead of providing additional kinds of tax reductions for the 
wealthiest individuals in this country. It is an issue of choice. It is 
an issue of priorities. The Members of the Senate will be able to make 
that judgment and decision. One will take place; the other will not. 
Which way will the Senate go?
  Too many of our elderly citizens choose between food on the table and 
the medicine their doctors prescribe. Too many elderly are taking half 
the drugs their doctors prescribe or none at all because they cannot 
afford them. The Republican budget shortchanges senior citizens who 
desperately need prescription drug coverage. Prescription drug spending 
for senior citizens will cost $1.8 trillion over the next decade, but 
the Republican budget allocates only $400 billion additional dollars 
for Medicare. This $400 billion is not even reserved just to pay for 
prescription drug coverage. The additional $115 billion my amendment 
provides will help us to enact a real drug benefit without coverage 
gaps and high deductibles and will meet the needs of all seniors. It is 
a statement by the Senate that mending the broken promise of Medicare 
and providing seniors with the lifesaving prescription drugs they need 
is far more important than additional tax breaks for millionaires.
  The Republican budget also seriously underfunds education. I am 
planning to offer an amendment that would reduce the size of the tax 
cut and use the funds to make real the promise of No Child Left Behind.
  We made a commitment to parents and children, with No Child Left 
Behind, that we were going to guarantee a well-qualified teacher in 
every classroom. We made a commitment that they would be in smaller 
classes. We made a commitment that parents would be informed as to the 
progress those children were making and the school was either making or 
not making. We made a commitment that we would hold schools 
accountable, and if the schools were not going to perform, they would 
be altered or changed. And if they still were not performing 
effectively, they would be completely reorganized. We made that 
commitment to parents. We made that commitment to the American people.
  But we also made a commitment to the American people that we were 
going to do our share by providing the resources to get that done. We 
have failed them.
  My amendment will also address the needs of college students caught 
up in the widening financial gulf between tuition assistance and the 
cost of higher education.
  We make choices in the Senate. We are going to give the Members of 
the Senate the opportunity to make a choice about which is more 
important: Investing in our youngest children, and those children who 
are continuing their education into college as well who today are in 
many instances spending their time during the breaks, rather than 
talking about their books or the courses they are taking in school, are 
talking about when their next job will be and how much they will get 
paid and how much their student loan is going to take out of that. We 
know so many of the most talented and most gifted students come from 
hard-working, middle-income families and they turn down the opportunity 
to go on to school and college because they do not want to assume that 
debt or assume the debt for their families.
  We are going to provide an opportunity for the Senate of the United 
States to make a choice. Do you want to provide more tax breaks for the 
wealthiest or do you want to invest in schools? They will have that 
chance tomorrow.
  Unemployment benefits expire 2 weeks from now. My third amendment 
will extend the current program for 6 months and help the 1.1 million 
Americans who are long-term unemployed, and the hundreds of thousands 
of part-time, low-wage workers. These are men and women who have worked 
hard and paid into the fund. If they haven't paid into the fund, they 
are not eligible. Make no mistake. These are men and women who, through 
no fault of their own, because of the downturn in the economy, are 
thrown out of work. They are able to collect some unemployment 
compensation. But then after a period of time, that compensation 
expires.
  Historically, in a nonpartisan way, Republicans and Democrats 
together have said: We will provide a helping hand to you until we get 
the economy back. And then, when they are on their own feet, they repay 
back into that fund. That is the way it has worked historically. But 
not under this Republican proposal. There isn't 5 cents in here, not 
one nickel for these fellow Americans who are trying to pay a mortgage, 
educate their children, and put food on the table. We will have a 
chance tomorrow to vote on this issue and to find out the decision of 
the Members.
  The debate will only last for 2 days because of the rules of the 
Senate. We are limited to 25 hours under the process that was accepted 
a number of years ago, with which I have great difficulty when we have 
a situation such as this.
  We know that national economic policy has a most dramatic and 
important impact in terms of the national economic well-being and 
welfare. In the early 1960s, sound fiscal policy led to a long period 
of economic growth and price stability. We did see a reduction in taxes 
under President Kennedy at that time, when taxes were up to 90 percent 
of income. Imagine that. They went down to 70 percent.
  The distribution in that tax bill, which eventually was signed into 
law in 1964, was for middle income and low income working families, and 
over $3 billion went to reduce and close tax loopholes. We don't have 
that now. There are some provisions in here that raise the taxes on 
Americans who are working overseas. But I wish we had a committee that 
would review the tax expenditures the same way that we review the 
expenditures in terms of spending.
  We hear a great deal about reduced spending, and there are areas 
where it should be reduced. But what we don't see is any call for 
reducing the tax expenditures that have been building up over years and 
years and benefit just the few, the privileged, in the Tax Code. They 
have been growing and growing and growing.
  Make no mistake about it, the working families make that up every 
time we see another tax loophole created. If we are going to get back 
to a balanced budget, somebody has to fill it in, and it turns out to 
be the working families who are the ones filling that in. That is 
wrong.
  When we saw a strong tax program in the early 1960s, we saw, as a 
result, economic growth and price stability. It continued for a number 
of years until we found additional expenditures as a result of the 
Vietnam war. Then we saw the same thing as the result of President 
Clinton's economic program in 1993. After that we had the longest 
period of economic growth and price stability in this country in years, 
with the creation of millions of jobs as a result of the economic 
policy decided on the floor of the Senate.
  We are going to be debating how to recreate this success this week in 
the Senate. I believe that is the most important question that will be 
decided by this Congress this year--outside of the particular assurance 
of our own national security and defense and the battle against terror.
  The challenge the American people should give to us is to make sure, 
one, that the economic policy is going to be fair and, two, it is going 
to be a stimulus to the economy and, three, it is going to be 
temporary. If we do that, whatever the program, Democrat or Republican, 
we will have met our responsibilities.
  We should put an emphasis on meeting the Nation's priorities with 
respect to education, health care and unemployment insurance.

[[Page 11255]]

  America should be watching this debate and paying close attention 
because the decisions that are going to be made in the next 36 hours 
will have a profound impact on our economy and what kind of country we 
are going to be over the period of these next several years.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Chair.


                              Junk E-mail

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to talk 
about what we are going to be considering for the next couple of days, 
which is the fiscal policy of this country. Before I do, I am compelled 
to share again with my colleagues the brief remarks I had made this 
morning about an experience I had yesterday in my Tampa office. Having 
opened up the office from the weekend, our employees in the Tampa 
office went into their e-mail account for the Senate. What they found 
was their e-mail mailbox was filled with unwanted junk, so much so that 
one of my employees in the Washington office talks about the unwanted 
e-mail junk, including pornography, that comes to the Senate office in 
Washington. In the course of the day's activities, it takes her some 45 
minutes to clean up this unwanted e-mail.
  We are already seeing the statistics that it is upwards of 45 and 50 
percent now of an average person's e-mail that is unwanted. Therefore, 
the normal course of commerce of e-mail, this new and wonderful 
mechanism for instant and cost-effective communication, is being denied 
to our everyday consumers because their e-mail mailbox is so cluttered 
and, in fact, is imposed on them. Then they have to go through the 
process of deleting it.
  I thought it was also instructive that the intern we have in our 
Tampa office happened to be gone for the last week and came back and 
checked on her own personal e-mail, and she had 321 unsolicited e-mail 
messages that had accumulated in the course of a week.
  This is getting out of control and it needs to be addressed. In part, 
we addressed it last year in the Senate Commerce Committee, but 
legislation never flowed because there was so much of whose ox was 
going to get gored.
  Various e-mail companies certainly do not want to impair their 
commerce, and so in the past they did not want any kind of check and 
balance on the ability to e-mail. But now we are seeing those companies 
such as AOL coming around and suddenly they are recognizing their 
ability to use their mechanism of e-mail is being impaired because 
there is so much unwanted junk.
  As I was in the Tampa office yesterday, I happened to look through 
this single-spaced page of all the e-mail messages that had just come 
in that morning. The third one on the list was all about salacious sex 
pictures. Well, that is obviously not something that is appropriate and 
yet this kind of information is being forced on the consumers of 
America, and the American people are saying enough already.
  What we are going to do in this session of Congress is stop it. There 
are only 20-some States that have addressed this issue, the most recent 
of which is the Commonwealth of Virginia. They have passed the most 
severe penalties for this kind of junk e-mail. As we address it in this 
Congress, what we should be doing is recognizing that if a State wants 
to adopt an even higher standard than the penalties we are going to set 
in law at the Federal level, then a State clearly ought to have the 
right to make it even more punitive.
  The bill I introduce will basically have two parts. The first part of 
the legislation is going to set up criminal penalties, both financial 
and jail time, for unwanted e-mail.
  Now, it is not going to catch the unsuspecting person whose post 
office you cannot trace--in other words, masking their identity because 
they did not intend it to. It is going to be intentional masking that 
we are going to stop or else they are going to get heavy fines and/or 
up to 5 years' jail time.
  The second act we are going to prevent is we are not going to let 
bulk e-mails, which I think is defined in terms of over 10,000 e-mail, 
falsify information. If they do, they are going to suffer the 
consequences.
  Third, we are going to try to work out some process so that normal 
commerce will not be impeded but that excessive junk that clutters your 
e-mail box will be stopped. That is the first part of the bill.
  If you violate those three standards, you are going to be subject to 
prosecution, and the penalty is already in law for fines and/or jail 
time.
  There is a second part to the legislation. We are going to make that 
first criminal act a component part of the RICO statute. That is the 
Racketeering Influence and Corruption Organizations Act. It was the 
statute passed some two decades ago giving prosecutors new tools to go 
after the criminal enterprise, the enterprise of many different 
criminal activities which had a pattern of criminal activity that 
became a criminal business. The prosecutors had a new tool to go after 
them because they could seize the assets of the criminal enterprise--
not just the fine and the jail time.
  If we want to be serious about stopping this, we need to get serious 
about fines and criminal penalties and giving prosecutors the 
additional tools to stop this terrible invasion of individual privacy 
by invading an individual's mailbox.
  That is the bill I introduce today. Clearly, I have not seen a 
reaction like this. I mentioned this yesterday to some assembled press 
when I was in the Tampa office. I am getting all kinds of reaction.
  The senior Senator from Virginia has arrived. I have been talking 
about the Senator's Commonwealth of Virginia. They just passed the 
strongest antispam legislation in the entire country. Virginia now has 
the strongest in penalties against those who clutter our consumers' e-
mail boxes with unwanted mail, including pornographic stuff.
  To the Senator from Virginia I tell of my personal experience in 
Tampa yesterday and in the Washington office today, the amount of time 
it takes our staff to delete this unwanted e-mail. It has become such a 
burden for our consumers.
  I yield to the Senator from Virginia, my distinguished chairman of 
the Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I came on the floor to see my colleague. 
I was aware of the Governor's action. The Governor and I have the same 
name, although we are not related. He has shown great leadership on 
this issue. We hope for the best.
  Virginia has often struck out and led America in the right direction 
to correct what is perceived as an invasion of privacy and a wrong. I 
thank the Senator for his remarks.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I look forward to working with the Senator 
from Virginia. Clearly, his State will be protected. There are some 27 
other States that do not have laws. They are begging the Federal 
Government to step in and establish a standard that will stop this 
obnoxious practice.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. DOLE). The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Debt Extension and the Tax Cut

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I rise to talk about the legislation 
we are scheduled to deal with this week, the debt limit extension bill 
and the tax cut.
  The debate over the debt ceiling may seem esoteric to the folks back 
home, but it is actually a fairly simple issue. The President has 
decided to borrow more money on our Nation's credit card and now he is 
asking his credit be

[[Page 11256]]

enlarged. The President's credit card is very clearly over the limit. 
He is asking the bankers in this room to approve his credit expansion.
  So we are going to talk about it because we want to be sure he can 
afford to take on this much debt based on the fiscal management he is 
directing. By the end of this month, the President's card will be 
revoked because his balance will far exceed the credit card limit. What 
is that limit? The limit the President cannot comply with is $6.4 
trillion. That is the amount of indebtedness we are currently permitted 
to have.
  Now he is asking us, the bankers in this case, the 100 Senators, to 
extend his limit by another $984 billion. But the President does not 
have to pay that back. That debt is going to be deferred to future 
generations, about $3,400 for every man, woman, and child in America.
  Right after he gets the extension of the debt limit, the President 
wants to charge at least another $350 billion on the credit card for a 
tax cut that goes primarily to the wealthy among us. The best part for 
the President is that he doesn't have to worry about paying the 
balance. He will hand the credit card off to someone else in a few 
years and say: You deal with this. All of us will be stuck with the 
bill--all of our children, all of our grandchildren. I personally was 
blessed with the birth of a ninth grandchild last Monday. I did not 
want to greet him with the news he might be inheriting a debt of $3,400 
as he starts life. That will be his part of the deficit we are facing. 
At the rate President Bush is going, maybe our great grandchildren will 
participate as well.
  The flawed economic budget policies have been nothing short of a 
disaster. It is a disaster of the administration's own making. Now the 
President wants to make the situation worse with another bloated, 
irresponsible tax cut.
  I thought it was common knowledge when trapped in a hole you stop 
digging. Our President wants us to keep on digging and digging until we 
are in a budgetary canyon.
  This chart tells a tale of three administrations and fiscal 
discipline, between the growing deficits of the two President Bushes, 
then the Clinton administration. We see the bars go from red deficit to 
a white surplus in the Clinton administration. And now we are headed 
back for deep deficits.
  We see what has been happening with our fiscal conditioning in the 
last years. Under the first President Bush we had a fairly rapidly 
growing mass deficit. And then we had a new President come in with a 
different view of how we ought to manage our financial affairs. In 8 
years, we see an amazing change. From 1992-1993 when President Clinton 
took over, we see it going rapidly into a surplus.
  As a coauthor of the 1997 balanced budget agreement, I was proud to 
work with President Clinton to attain that surplus. At the signing of 
the agreement as the official Senate representative, I escorted 
President Clinton, along with Vice President Gore and Speaker Gingrich, 
across the White House lawn to permit the entire country to see this 
historic agreement put into effect--a balanced budget agreement. We 
made tough choices and they paid off and we put the country's fiscal 
health back on track.
  But shortly after President George W. Bush took over, we saw the 
downward slide to fiscal irresponsibility. President Bush inherited 
Bill Clinton's surplus and it was squandered in short order. While 
there are many factors in such a slide, President Bush's irresponsible 
2001 tax cut undid any hope of staying in surplus. Now the President--
and this is just an honest policy disagreement--now the President's 
answer is to borrow more and more. That is why we are talking about 
expanding the debt with yet another tax cut.
  We already passed an irresponsible, bloated tax cut in the last 
Congress and it has not helped the economy. Circumstances have gotten 
worse and worse.
  Just look at the job situation in America: How people earn their 
living, pay their bills, take care of their families. Those folks get a 
heck of a tax cut. Half of the taxpayers of middle income get about 
$100 a year--basically nothing. If they should lose their jobs, heaven 
forbid, they will be darned lucky to find new work, and this 
administration is unwilling to expand their unemployment benefits.
  I recently saw President Bush talking about this tax cut plan in 
front of a board that had written on it: Jobs, growth, jobs, growth--
all over it. The White House staff made sure those words would be in 
every television image, every photograph of the President at that 
event. But simply printing the words ``jobs'' and ``growth'' on a board 
will not turn the President's irresponsible tax cut plan into a job 
creation plan.
  No one seriously believes this program will do anything to create 
jobs anytime soon. Beyond the slogans, the reality is this 
administration has, unwittingly or otherwise, been a job eliminator. 
They have done nothing to stimulate the economy or create jobs. They 
say, ``Trust us, and if we get more tax cuts, some will surely dribble 
down to the job market.''
  Look at this chart:

       If You Want to Keep Your Job, Stay Out of the Bushes.

  Unemployment rate grows rapidly under the Presidents Bush. The higher 
the bars go, the worse the situation is for thousands of working 
people. After the high unemployment rates of the first President Bush, 
we saw President Clinton bring the unemployment rate steadily down, all 
the way to 4 percent. Virtually no economist thought we could get to 4 
percent, but we did. Now we look at how President Bush, George W. Bush, 
has handled employment. We see unemployment rising again. Just this 
month we hit 6 percent.
  The first Bush tax cut was supposed to create jobs, but we haven't 
seen any. Since January of 2001, the number of unemployed has increased 
over 45 percent, with 8.8 million Americans out of work. Since the 
beginning of the Bush administration, 2.7 million private sector jobs 
have been lost--over 500,000 jobs have been lost in the last 3 months, 
with 48,000 lost in the month of April just past.
  On top of that, the administration has indicated it would like to 
eliminate 850,000 Federal employee jobs. In historical context, 
President George W. Bush has had a rather grim picture, the worst job 
growth record since the Great Depression. What is growing is 
unemployment.
  Just look at this chart: From the highest job growth to the worst job 
growth in 58 years. That is terrible.
  The chart has a certain attractiveness about it. But if you look 
beyond the colors, you see a very grim picture. All of these people who 
are presently out of work are struggling--this shows it very 
graphically--with an almost impossible situation.
  The chart shows President Truman on the left. We see job growth in 
all the administrations except one. That administration is the current 
Bush administration. This administration is in the red. It is not 
creating jobs. We are losing 74,000 jobs on average each month.
  Compare this administration with either of the two terms of the 
Clinton administration. We averaged over 200,000 new jobs throughout 
the Clinton administration. We are losing jobs in this country. But 
President Bush's preference is to give more huge tax breaks that go 
primarily to the wealthiest among us. He is addressing the problem with 
symbols and signs that suggest a rosier future, but it does not happen, 
and that adds outrage to neglect. In almost every category, these 
economic policies are failing.
  Real GDP growth is another example. Look at this chart. It shows the 
average annual percent change in real GDP in Clinton's two terms and so 
far in President Bush's tenure. It is a stark contrast, as you see--the 
Clinton first and second terms here and the present George W. Bush 
term. President Clinton had us above 4 percent real GDP growth, and 
President Bush's average is barely above 1 percent.
  President Clinton practiced fiscal discipline and it paid off. Under 
President Clinton, we attained a budget surplus. Under President Bush, 
we are back in deficits as far as the eye can

[[Page 11257]]

see. Just as a reminder, when President Clinton left office we were 
looking at the prospect of a $5 trillion surplus over a 10-year period. 
Now it is expected we will have a $2.2 trillion deficit. Look at the 
change--$7.2 trillion in a period of 10 years. Under President Clinton, 
tremendous job growth; under President Bush, losing jobs at a record 
pace.
  President Bush's economic policies are not working the way we would 
like them. I am sure they are not working the way he would like them to 
either. Our economy and the Federal budget are in real trouble and it 
is my hope there will be a reexamination of the tax cut plan in front 
of us. The first Bush tax cut didn't stimulate anything except the 
wallets of some of the most wealthy among us. Are we going to make the 
same mistake twice? It seems as if we are on the verge of doing just 
that.
  We should not have to increase our Nation's debt limit. We should not 
have to pass the irresponsible tax bill we are considering. But the 
reason we are going to have to increase that debt limit $984 billion is 
to accommodate another tax cut, a tax cut that will not stimulate the 
economy, will not reward those who are working hard to make a living, 
taking care of their families, providing for education and a roof over 
their heads, health care, all that is essential in this day and age to 
provide good, responsible leadership for a family. It will not help.
  It is alleged that the tax cut will produce something like $2,000 for 
the middle class, but it is untrue. It is more like $100 or $200. When 
you get rid of or reduce the tax obligation for the wealthiest among 
us, there is not enough left to do more than $100, on average, for half 
of the taxpayers in the country.
  So I hope we will take a second look at what we are doing and curb 
the expansion of debt that this country is going to have to suffer for 
many years, maybe decades, to come and not proceed with a tax cut that 
extends, again, the best benefits to the wealthiest among us, people 
who need it the least.
  I have had many conversations with people, and we have heard from 
distinguished entrepreneurs such as Warren Buffett, who said he would 
rather not have a tax cut because he knows that if he pays more taxes, 
he is left with a higher result in his pocket. I think we have to look 
at it realistically.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, for the remainder of this week we are 
going to be discussing some very important fiscal policy issues dealing 
with increasing Federal debt limits and proposals to reduce taxes in 
our country. We will have a substantial amount of debate about both of 
those issues. Both of them relate to the question of whether our 
country's economy is growing or whether it is stagnant, whether it is 
producing jobs or losing jobs. I want to talk just a bit about that.
  In the last couple of weeks, we have heard all of the discussions 
about our country having lost some 2 million jobs over the last 2\1/2\ 
years. In fact, in the last week or so even Michael Jordan got laid 
off. It tells you a little something about the state of our economy, I 
guess.
  Some while ago, I was reading about an opening for the Oscar Mayer 
Wienermobile driving position. They had an opening for a driver for the 
Oscar Mayer Wienermobile. Most people remember what that is because 
they have seen it in parades or on television. So they posted this in 
the newspaper: We have an opening for a driver for the Oscar Mayer 
Wienermobile. Eight hundred college graduates applied to be the driver 
for the Wienermobile. That also says a little something about the state 
of our economy and the state of jobs.
  As we discuss these issues of jobs and economic expansion, I think 
the first place to start is with this understanding: Both political 
parties in the Senate want the same thing for our country. We want an 
economy that expands, that provides opportunity and jobs and growth and 
hope for the American people. That is what we all want. There is no 
disagreement about the goal here. The question is, What is the menu of 
policies we can implement in the Congress that might help achieve this 
goal?
  I recall, going back 10 years to the year 1993, when our economy was 
at that point stagnant, in deep trouble. We had the largest deficits in 
this country's history at that point.
  President Clinton came to office, and he said: I want to put this 
economy of ours on a different track. I want to change some policies. 
And they were controversial. They passed the Senate by one vote, and 
passed the House by one vote, were signed into law by the President, 
and put this country on a different track altogether. They were not 
easy to vote for. I voted for them. But the easiest vote was simply to 
say no.
  In the 1990s--as a result of fiscal policy that the American people, 
that Wall Street, that Main Street, that the bond market could look at 
and say: This is a sound policy. It puts the country on the right 
track. It gets rid of these Federal budget deficits. It makes tough 
choices--but people had confidence, and that confidence was manifested 
by doing the things you might not otherwise do.
  If you are confident about your job, about your family, about the 
future, about your security, then you buy a home, buy a car, take a 
trip, make a purchase, and do the kinds of things that manifest that 
confidence you have in the future for yourself and your family and your 
country. And that is the expansion side of the American economy.
  In the 1990s, this economy grew and grew and grew. Millions and 
millions of new jobs were created in the private sector in this 
economy. But things have changed. We have run into some tough sledding 
these days. Let me describe some of the circumstances that occurred.
  We began to run into an economic slowdown which then became a 
recession. On top of that recession, we had the terrorist attack in 
this country on 9/11. We had the bursting of the technology bubble and 
the pancaking of values in the stock market. We had the largest 
corporate scandals in American history. Companies such as Enron, Arthur 
Andersen, Tyco, and others were splashed across the front pages of 
America's newspapers. We saw some of America's best known executives 
led away in handcuffs. And we had a range of other circumstances that 
caused great uncertainty in this country.
  As a result, instead of gaining jobs, in the last couple of years we 
have lost jobs. At the start of this period, President Bush was elected 
and came to town and said: My policy is, I want a $1.7 trillion tax cut 
over 10 years. And the reason I want that tax cut, he said, is because 
I can see surpluses as far as the eye can see. This money belongs to 
the American people, and we ought to give it back. If we are going to 
have surpluses for 10 years, let's put in place permanent, deep tax 
cuts for 10 years.
  Some of us said: Well, we support tax cuts, but perhaps we ought to 
be a bit conservative. What if something happens? What if we run into 
some tough times? What if we find some white water on these economic 
waters of ours? What if we find some difficult circumstances?
  No, never mind about that, they said. This is about tax cuts right 
now that are permanent. And they won--by one vote. And the result is 
long-term, permanent tax cuts. Very shortly thereafter we discovered 
that we had a recession, and then the terrorist attack, then the war on 
terrorism, and corporate scandals. And guess what happened. Very 
quickly, those long-term, big-budget surpluses turned into large 
projected Federal budget deficits as far as the eye can see.
  So things have changed dramatically. What do we do about that? The 
American people are concerned about the future. They lack the 
confidence that is

[[Page 11258]]

necessary to provide a boost for the expansionary phase of the economy. 
What do we do about that? The President says: I have a recipe. My menu 
is, let's cut taxes once again.
  Let me describe in economic terms where we find ourselves. In fiscal 
policy, we have this year a budget deficit of over $1 billion a day 
that we spend more than we take in--over $1 billion a day. That is our 
deficit, every day, 7 days a week, 365 days in the coming year. It is 
pretty hard to be more stimulative to the economy than that. You talk 
about Keynesian; that is Keynesian economics. Those are very large 
deficits. How can you be more stimulative than that to the economy? 
That is a huge fiscal policy stimulus.
  Monetary policy: The Federal Reserve Board has driven short-term 
interest rates down about as far as they can go, a percent and a 
quarter. It is hard to see a monetary policy that is more stimulative 
than that.
  So we have policies in place, both monetary and fiscal policies, that 
are stimulative. Yet our economy is barely moving. It is not producing 
new jobs; it is losing jobs. So what do we do about that? The President 
says: Let's cut taxes again.
  What the President has said is that he wants to cut taxes at this 
moment. I want to show the consequences of that. On page 4 of the 
Budget Act, the concurrent resolution passed by both the House and the 
Senate, it says: Debt subject to limit. This is the Federal debt. It 
says, in fiscal year 2003, it will be $6.7 trillion.
  The President says: If I get all that I want from you, Members of 
Congress, I propose we grow the Federal debt from just over $6 trillion 
to $12 trillion.
  What he is saying is: Adopt my plan and double the Federal debt in 10 
years.
  I don't know, I come from a really small town, but that doesn't seem 
to me like it is moving forward. It seems to me like this is losing 
ground. We have lost 2 million jobs. We are proposing to double the 
Federal debt in the next 10 years. I just don't understand how this 
inspires confidence in the American people that we somehow have our 
fiscal house in order.
  I don't understand where conservatives are hiding. I thought being a 
conservative was to say: Let's be a bit conservative in the way we deal 
with this. Let's make sure we will have a sound dollar in the future. 
Let's make sure we have our fundamentals right. Let's make sure we are 
moving towards some balance in the budget. And let's make sure we are 
investing in things that produce big dividends for the people.
  Let me say what the President has talked about. He says his dividend 
for the American people is to cut taxes. That all sounds good. The 
easiest lifting in American politics by far is for any politician to 
say: My proposal is to cut taxes.
  I guarantee you, that makes you popular.
  How about the alternative that says: My proposal is to double the 
Federal debt? The President is not going to say that, but that is what 
he is proposing. He won't get on Air Force One and go to Indianapolis 
to say: I have a great proposal for the people; I propose we double the 
Federal debt to $12 trillion.
  I would just like to hear it once because here it is. It is in black 
and white. It is not me saying it. It is the President proposing it 
here on this document. That is the end result of this fiscal policy. 
Will that inspire confidence about the future? It will not.
  So we will have a debate this week on these proposals, and these 
proposals will be to increase the Federal debt limit by nearly $1 
trillion. Let's make sure we understand that. It is actually just $984 
billion. It is hard to keep billions and trillions separate in the 
Congress some days. They have constructed this debt ceiling increase so 
that it is just under $1 trillion.
  So let's understand what this means. We will vote this week to 
increase the debt ceiling by nearly $1 trillion. I want to tell you how 
many times we will do that again in order to meet what the President 
proposes to happen with this fiscal policy. We will increase it $1 
trillion now, $1 trillion later, $1 trillion after that, another $1 
trillion later, another $1 trillion, and finally another $1 trillion. 
Those debt ceiling increases will all be necessary in order to meet the 
President's objective with a fiscal policy that results in doubling the 
Federal debt from $6 trillion to $12 trillion.
  Is that putting this country on track? Is that making tough choices? 
In McCullough's book I have mentioned previously, John Adams writes to 
Abigail frequently, as he is serving his country in France and England. 
He writes to Abigail plaintively asking, in different words: Where is 
the leadership going to come from? Where on Earth, he asks 200 years 
ago, will the leadership come from to help create this new country of 
ours? Who will provide it?
  He laments: There is only us. There is myself, George Washington, Ben 
Franklin, Mason, Madison, Thomas Jefferson. There is only us.
  Of course, we understand now, with the hindsight of two centuries, we 
had some of the greatest talent in human history thinking through how 
to put this country of ours together. But it seems to me that it is 
important to constantly ask the question: Where is the leadership going 
to come from?--in this case on fiscal policy.
  We have good people on all sides of the political aisle. The 
President is a good person. Members of the Senate, Republican and 
Democrat, come here because they have a passion in their heart to want 
to do good things for the country. They all share the same goal. They 
want this country to expand and provide opportunity and jobs and 
prosperity.
  The fact is, they have different visions about how to approach the 
goal. Some believe this economic engine runs because you put something 
in at the top and somehow it trickles down; that which is put in at the 
top one day will benefit everyone. There are others who believe you 
give everyone a little something to work with, jobs, especially for 
working people, and things percolate up, and this engine runs best that 
way. We have had plenty of opportunities to test those theories.
  Let me submit that the test in recent years has been quite clear: Put 
your economic house in order. Give people some confidence that you are 
making tough choices, that you will carve out a future for their 
children and grandchildren that is one we can be proud of, and have 
them inherit a growing economy rather than be saddled with the burden 
of debt. If we do that, it is quite clear that people will do what is 
necessary to expand this economy. If we don't, the economy languishes 
and contracts.
  I will offer some amendments to the tax bill. I don't intend to vote 
for a large permanent tax cut on top of what we did in 2001. I don't 
intend to vote for it because every single dollar that is used for this 
tax cut--most of which will go to upper income people--is going to come 
from the Social Security trust funds. Let me use Donald Trump's name 
because he doesn't mind. Donald Trump puts his name on everything, and 
I am sure he doesn't mind. He is a very successful American 
businessman. Assume that a successful American businessman makes $1 
million a year in net income. My assumption is that Donald Trump does 
much better than that. But assume he made $1 million a year in income. 
Under the President's plan, he will get a $90,000-a-year tax cut. Now, 
I have just described to you that this process is going to double the 
Federal debt. You know and I know and everyone in the Chamber knows it 
is going to make it much more difficult to fund Medicare and Social 
Security. This plan is going to use the trust funds that we were 
supposed to save for Social Security. My Aunt Blanche is dependent upon 
Social Security. And Aunt Blanche is not going to like it when she 
discovers that Congress has decided to use the trust fund surpluses to 
provide a tax cut to people at the top of the income ladder. That is 
just not something she and many other senior citizens want to have 
happen in this country. It is not something they expect the Congress or 
the Government to do; yet, we are just hours away from making that 
mistake.
  Let me try to describe a couple of amendments I am going to offer as 
we go through this process. There is a $323 million expenditure 
included in the

[[Page 11259]]

large tax cut legislation that will be coming to us from the Senate 
Finance Committee that is interesting and troubling to me as well. Do 
you know what it is for? It is to have the IRS go out and hire private 
collection companies to collect Federal tax bills. I will say that 
again. In this bill is $323 million, I believe, to have the Internal 
Revenue Service go out and hire private collection agencies to collect 
taxes. That is quite a departure. We spend a lot of money on the IRS. 
They want to hire--the Finance Committee and those in Congress who 
support this--private collection agencies.
  Let me give you an example of what happened. They did a pilot project 
of this in 1996, a test. I didn't support it then and I don't support 
it now. I will offer an amendment to strike this. They did a little 
test in which they hired private collection agencies to collect tax 
debt. The test was a failure. Among other things, an IRS internal audit 
found some collectors violated their contracts with the IRS by placing 
telephone calls outside the time frames specified by the Fair Debt 
Collection Practices Act. In this little test, there were 294 calls 
placed before 8 a.m., or after 9 p.m. The earliest call was received at 
4:19 a.m. How would you like to get a call from a debt collection 
agency at 4:19 in the morning about a tax bill?
  I don't support that at all. The IRS ought to collect their own 
receivables. They ought not turn them over to private collection 
agencies. This is, after all, the most sensitive of people's financial 
information. That test also discovered problems with the safeguarding 
of that information. I am going to offer an amendment that will strike 
that provision. I don't know whether it will prevail, but it is a 
terrible idea to suggest we ought to spend hundreds of millions of 
dollars turning some of the Internal Revenue Service collection rolls 
over to private collection agencies.
  I will, with my colleague, Senator Reid, offer an amendment dealing 
with the issue of concurrent receipt for retired military personnel. At 
the moment, as most in this Chamber know, if somebody served our 
country for 20 years in the armed services and they were disabled 
during that period, they cannot receive both their full military 
retirement pension as well as veterans' disability compensation. That 
is outrageous and that ought to be changed. Of all the things to do to 
disabled veterans, this makes no sense at all. We tried to fix this 
last year and the President blocked it by threatening to veto the 
Defense Authorization bill. I hope to offer an amendment with Senator 
Reid to solve this problem.
  I also intend to offer an amendment that will provide a trigger, and 
perhaps some other colleagues will. If they do, I will probably not 
offer this. But there needs to be an amendment that decides that we 
will have these tax cuts, provided we have the capability to offer 
them. If the on-budget deficit exceeds a certain amount, or the 
Secretary of the Treasury cannot certify that it such deficit doesn't 
exceed a certain amount, two things would happen: One, we would freeze 
some of the tax cuts and, two, we would identify the spending in 
Federal agencies that represents overhead burden and cut that spending 
by 5 percent at the same time. So you have a combination of both 
delaying a tax cut and also cutting some Federal spending.
  I believe also the income tax increase on Social Security benefits 
that occurred in 1993 should be repealed. It seems to me the question 
is, what has more priority, dividend exclusion for those at the upper 
income level, or dealing with this Social Security tax increase? I will 
submit an amendment to repeal the 1993 income tax increase on Social 
Security payments. These and other things, I think, represent a number 
of approaches we ought to take.
  Also, this week when we deal with the increase in the debt limit, we 
are going to increase that by nearly $1 trillion--but not with my vote, 
because I didn't vote for the fiscal policy that creates this. But for 
those who support it, have at it. You really ought to vote for this 
increased debt limit.
  I am going to also propose an trade deficit amendment. The structure 
is not complete, but I will make this point. We have a debt limit with 
respect to fiscal policy in this country. When you reach that limit, 
bump up against it, you either have to extend it, or cut back in 
certain areas, or freeze spending. The fact is, there is no similar 
limit with respect to the trade debt.
  The trade deficit on an annual basis is $470 billion at the moment 
and growing rapidly. It is Katie bar the door, whatever it is, it is; 
nobody has to approve it, nobody has to do anything about it. The 
President and the trade ambassador and the Congress can sleep through 
it and never utter a sentence, knowing that all their newspaper 
friends--the major daily newspapers, friends of the Republicans and 
Democrats who support this trade policy--will never say a critical word 
about the trade deficit threatening to undermine this country's economy 
as well. I will offer an amendment that deals with that.
  I will finish by saying this. What most American families want from 
their Government is pretty simple. It is what they sit around the 
supper table and talk about. There are very simple questions they ask 
each other. The questions are: Do I have a decent job? Does my job pay 
well? Do I have job security? Do I have decent benefits on my job? Are 
we sending our kids to schools we are proud of? Do we live in a safe 
neighborhood? Do Grandpa and Grandma have access to good health care 
when they reach their limited income years? Are we treating our two 
uncles who served this country in the Second World War fairly on 
veterans' health care? All of these are issues families ask about every 
day. It is what matters to them. It is what makes a difference in their 
lives.
  The answers to these questions, in many cases, are what has made this 
a great country. Just go around the globe and you will see the same 
green places where there are trees and grass, and you will see the same 
ground where there is sand and you will see a world that looks pretty 
much the same. But there is one spot that is dramatically different, 
and that is this great country of ours. We are lucky to be Americans 
and lucky to be alive now. We have inherited an obligation for us not 
to just think about today, but to think about our kids and about 
tomorrow. The one thing that has made this country, I think, really a 
remarkable, unique country is that we decided two centuries ago that 
every child in the country shall be able to become whatever their God-
given talents allow them to become. We are not going to separate kids 
in the education process and say you are going to go to this school, or 
you will go to trade school and you will go to college. We don't do 
that. We say every kid who enters a classroom has the opportunity to be 
whatever their God-given talent allows. It is a wonderful thing. This 
notion of universal education is a wonderful thing for our country.
  I told this story before. I will do it again. When I came to 
Congress, the oldest member was Claude Pepper from the State of 
Florida. He had, behind his desk, above his chair, two pictures I have 
never forgotten that were autographed to him. One picture was of 
Orville and Wilbur Wright making the first airplane flight. It was 
autographed to Congressman Claude Pepper with admiration from Orville 
Wright. Before he died, he apparently autographed a picture for Claude 
Pepper. And Claude Pepper had an autographed picture of Neil Armstrong 
setting foot on the Moon. One human being in a picture of the first 
person to fly and leave the Earth, and the first person to walk on the 
Moon.
  What is the difference between those two autographed pictures in one 
person's lifetime? The distance is education--the science, the math, 
and the learning that allows us as a country to produce men and women 
who learned to fly and then take off and fly to the Moon. That is how 
important education is. It is about progress in this country.
  The question for us, it seems to me, as we consider this issue of 
fiscal policy and tax cuts, is about choices. What is it in the choices 
we make in

[[Page 11260]]

public policy in America that strengthens our country? What produces 
dividends, growth, opportunity, and hope in our country? What makes our 
country unique?
  Those are the choices we have to make, and part of that, in my 
judgment, has always been we have been willing to choose the kinds of 
things that give people an opportunity. Education is about opportunity. 
Education, health care--one can think of a whole series of these 
policies that we have over many years said: Let's set these policies in 
place to give people opportunity.
  The policies we see today coming from the Finance Committee and from 
the White House are to say the choice for us in every circumstance, 
whether it is tax cuts versus Medicare for the elderly, tax cuts versus 
Social Security, tax cuts versus education, tax cuts versus veterans' 
health care, you name it, the choice for us is tax cuts.
  I know there are some in this country who say that is a pretty 
logical choice because, frankly, we pay too much in taxes. The fact is, 
with these tax cuts, we will inherit a deficit that will burden our 
children and their children.
  The President often says: This is your money; people should be able 
to keep more of their money. That is certainly true. It is also the 
case that this is your debt, and when this $6 trillion debt turns to a 
$12 trillion debt, the question is, Isn't this debt something with 
which we are saddling America's children and grandchildren, and is that 
sound public policy? Is that the seedbed for economic growth? Does that 
produce and inspire confidence in the American people about the future 
of this economy?
  The answer clearly is no. That is why my hope would be, in the coming 
days at least, that we could find some common ground. Perhaps there is 
an appetite for tax cuts that says we have to do this unabated under 
any circumstance, but there is perhaps another appetite by people who 
say: Let's do a series of things. Let's together both deal with Federal 
spending and Federal taxes and also the choices of investment in 
education, health care, and other issues. Let's do it in a way that 
represents sound thinking, sober thinking; in a way that gives people 
confidence and inspires them that we are going to have a better future.
  I do not know how this is going to come out this week. I worry a 
great deal that we have a viewpoint that has been expressed that says: 
There is only one way and that is our way. It is tax cuts, tax cuts, 
tax cuts. You have big surpluses, then tax cuts. Big deficits, tax 
cuts. The economy is doing well, tax cuts. The economy is in the tank, 
tax cuts.
  It seems to me that for every politician who ever has run for public 
office, the instinctive reaction to understanding how to be popular is 
to propose tax cuts. The American people, in my judgment, deserve 
better than that. They deserve an answer to the question John Adams 
kept asking: Where is the leadership going to come from to make tough 
choices; choices that may not be so popular, not so attractive in the 
short run but, in the long run, will produce opportunity, economic 
growth, and new jobs?
  Those sometimes are choices that we are required to make in public 
service. I think this is one of those times.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Honoring Our Armed Forces

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, it is with a heavy heart that I stand 
before the Senate today to pay tribute to the life of CWO Hans 
Gukeisen.
  Just before 8 p.m. on Friday, May 9, Hans was sitting in the copilot 
seat of an Army UH-60 air medical helicopter somewhere near Smarrah in 
northern Iraq. Gukeisen and his crewmembers were involved in the rescue 
of an Iraqi child injured by a landmine when they came upon hostile 
fire.
  While the circumstances remain unclear, the helicopter crashed in the 
Tigris River killing three crewmembers. The wounded child was riding in 
another helicopter.
  Chief Warrant Officer Gukeisen, 31, became the first South Dakota 
casualty of the war in Iraq, and he will be sorely missed. His mother 
Margaret of Hill City and his father, Terry of Lead remember their son 
as a considerate and easygoing young man who enjoyed hunting, fishing, 
and stock car racing. A member of a proud military family, Hans was 
dedicated to the military and had dreamed of becoming a warrant officer 
and helicopter pilot. He is survived by his brother Ray, a Special 
Forces instructor at Fort Bragg.
  I offer my deepest condolences to the Gukeisens. Their son has made 
the supreme sacrifice while working to protect an innocent child.
  I join with every South Dakotan and every American in expressing my 
heartfelt gratitude to Hans and his family for his years of brave and 
dedicated service on behalf of our country and its ideals. We grieve 
his death but celebrate the life he chose to lead.


                               Debt Limit

  Madam President, I come to the floor, in addition to speaking of this 
very tragic moment in the life of the Gukeisen family, to talk about an 
issue of great concern that will be the subject of significant debate 
later on this week. I will take a minute, while we are waiting for 
others to come to the Senate floor, to talk about the issue of the debt 
limit.
  Last June, Congress was forced to raise the national debt limit by 
$450 billion to avoid defaulting on our loan obligations for the first 
time in American history.
  Now the administration informs us that we must raise our Nation's 
debt limit again. House Republicans have already acted to raise the 
debt ceiling by nearly $1 trillion, the largest increase in debt in our 
Nation's history. If the Senate follows their lead, our national debt 
will increase by $1.4 trillion in less than 12 months, by far the 
largest 1-year increase in debt in our Nation's history.
  The debt figures by themselves are shocking, but even more shocking 
is the fact that at the same time there are many who, while requesting 
the American people take on this record new debt, but also insist on 
another massive round of new tax breaks that would increase the 
national debt by another trillion dollars or more over the next decade.
  Supporters of these new tax breaks insist that they will pay for 
themselves. The Republican request for another nearly $1 trillion 
increase in the Nation's debt limit shows that that is not so.
  There are no free lunches. And there are no cost-free tax cuts.
  War, recession, and terrorism have all taken a toll on America's 
economy over the last 2 years. But they are not the only reasons we are 
being forced to consider raising the national debt limit. Another major 
reason is the massive tax cut of 2001.
  Republican economic policies are undermining the fiscal strength of 
the United States.
  Before the 2001 tax cut, we had not had to raise the debt limit once 
in nearly 4 years. Now we are being asked to raise the debt limit twice 
in one year, for a total of $1.4 trillion in new debt.
  In 2 years, we have gone from record surpluses to record deficits.
  Late last week, the Congressional Budget Office announced that the 
deficit this year is likely to exceed $300 billion--an all-time high. 
That is without any new tax cuts, so the actual deficit this year is 
likely to be even higher. Many private economic forecasters warn that 
it could exceed $400 billion.
  Deficits and debt do matter.
  The national debt clock is in the Capitol today. It shows that every 
man, woman and child in America already owes more than $22,260 toward 
our national debt.
  Last year, Americans paid $332,536,958,599.42 just in interest on the 
national debt. That is money that cannot be used to educate one child, 
cure

[[Page 11261]]

one illness, build one tank, or make America one bit safer.
  Bigger deficits and a larger national debt also hurt America's 
families by driving up interest rates, which will make it more 
expensive for consumers to buy homes and cars and pay their credit card 
bills.
  Yet instead of reducing the deficit--or even just slowing its 
growth--the administration is insisting that the American people take 
on more debt.
  The tax and spending plans proposed by the administration will add 
another $2.7 trillion in deficits to the national debt over the next 
decade. Just the interest on that new debt would cost taxpayers an 
extra $500 billion.
  Actions have consequences. Tax cuts have costs. And those costs have 
a real impact on the fiscal strength of our Nation and on the economic 
well-being of working families in my State of South Dakota and all 
across America.
  For that reason, we sought consent yesterday, and again today, that 
the Senate take up and consider the Republican request to raise 
America's debt limit by another nearly $1 trillion today--before we 
vote on the administration's request for another trillion-plus dollars 
in new tax breaks and additional debt.
  America has lost more than 2.7 million jobs since January 2001, 
nearly 100,000 jobs a month. A half-million jobs were lost in the last 
3 months alone.
  We are proposing a plan to get America back to work and put the 
Federal Government back on the path to fiscal discipline.
  Our plan will create jobs, opportunity and prosperity for all 
Americans. It will create twice as many jobs as the Republican plan, at 
a fraction of the cost. It will also provide a tax cut to every working 
American this year, when our economy needs the boost.
  We look forward to making a strong case for our plan on the Senate 
floor.
  Before we move to that debate, however, the Senate should level with 
the American people about the costs and consequences of the Republican 
economic policies. We should admit that the Republican plan for even 
more tax breaks for the elite will be paid for the same way the first 
round is being paid for: by heaping even more debt on America's 
families.
  Mr. REID. Will the leader yield before he leaves the floor?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. The distinguished Democratic leader, I am certain, is aware 
of the fact that during the last 3 years of the Clinton administration 
there was an actual paydown of the national debt. Is the leader aware 
of that?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is absolutely right. The record is very 
clear. In those years, we had surpluses for the first time in almost 40 
years. We were able to begin paying down the debt some $600 billion 
totally, and if the Senator will recall, there was even debate by those 
who were concerned we were paying down the debt too quickly. It sounds 
almost too hard to believe, but that indeed was part of the discussion.
  Mr. REID. I ask the distinguished Senator from South Dakota if he is 
as concerned as I am about there being no concern as to the unbalanced 
budget we now have. I have in front of me statements made by Republican 
leaders in years past where they said, among other things:

       The real threat to Social Security is the national debt. If 
     we do not act to balance the budget and stop adding to the 
     debt, then we are truly placing the future of Social Security 
     in jeopardy.

  That is a direct quote from a Republican leader in 1997. I have 
several pages of quotes about the Republicans feeling the importance of 
balancing the budget. Is the Senator as concerned as I am that they no 
longer are concerned about balancing the budget?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Well, there are those who appear to argue that not only 
do they not want a balanced budget but they are using the deficits to 
shrink the Government--a very crass, clumsy, and dangerous way of 
reducing Government expenditures. The majority leader in the House even 
argued a few weeks ago that tax cuts are the most important matter 
before the country, even more important than war, he argued. So clearly 
tax cuts have a special place in the minds of many on the other side, 
but as the Senator says, I do not think there is the same degree of 
interest or commitment to fiscal responsibility.
  I was on Wall Street yesterday, and I was taken aback by the 
extraordinary concern expressed to me by so many people in the 
financial community, people who are concerned about what message we are 
sending about fiscal responsibility and what international investors 
are saying about our position. The euro continues to increase in 
strength against the dollar, in part because in some circles people 
have more confidence in the euro today than they do the dollar. Why is 
that the case? Because they are very concerned about the implications 
of U.S. fiscal policy today.
  So I believe that whether it is our fiscal policy, our trade policy, 
our long-term circumstances with regard to the budget in particular, we 
are going to pay dearly for the consequences of what some have proposed 
in tax cuts this week.
  Mr. REID. I listened to a speech just delivered, and the leader 
indicated we are going to be asked in the next few days to increase the 
national debt by almost a trillion dollars--not a billion, almost a 
trillion dollars. Is that what the leader said?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Well, unfortunately, the request by the administration 
is to increase the debt by $984 billion. That is the single biggest 
increase in our Nation's history. Never before has there been a request 
of that kind.
  I would add, as I did just a moment ago, that that is in addition to 
the $425 billion request that was made less than a year ago--last 
summer. We were told then that that increase in the debt limit would 
last for some time. Unfortunately, those predictions were erroneous. So 
now we are back again, in large measure because of the consequences of 
the tax cuts of 2001. So it is all the more ironic that in the very 
week we are going to be passing this increase in the debt limit by 
close to a trillion dollars, we are going to be passing the first 
installment of yet another trillion-dollar tax cut that will be 
enacted, if the Republicans have their way, before the end of this 
year.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the statements 
of five Republican Senate leaders regarding their beliefs in years past 
about balancing the budget be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 In Their Own Words--Senate Republicans on the Importance of Balanced 
                                 Budget


                   SENATE MAJORITY LEADER BILL FRIST

       We have a moral obligation to balance the budget . . . I'm 
     very hopeful that we're going to see that.--[Chattanooga Free 
     Press, 1/5/96]


                         SENATOR RICK SANTORUM

       The American people are sick and tired of excuses for 
     inaction to balance the budget. The public wants us to stay 
     the course towards a balanced budget, and we take that 
     obligation quite seriously.--[Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 11/15/
     95]


                           SENATOR TRENT LOTT

       I think the most important thing really does involve the 
     budget, keeping a balanced budget, not dipping into Social 
     Security, and continuing to reduce the national debt.--
     [Chattanooga Free Press, 1/27/02]


                          SENATOR CHUCK HAGEL

       The real threat to Social Security is the national debt. If 
     we don't act to balance the budget and stop adding to the 
     debt, then we are truly placing the future of Social Security 
     in jeopardy.--[Omaha World Herald, 2/6/97]


                           SENATOR JUDD GREGG

       As long as we have a Republican Congress, we're going to 
     have a balanced budget, and if we can get a Republican 
     President, we can start paying down the debt on the Federal 
     government.--[New Hampshire Sunday News, 2/1/98]

  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from California.


                      Amendment No. 542 Withdrawn

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Earlier this morning I sent to the desk my amendment 
numbered 542. There is no unanimous consent agreement. I withdraw that

[[Page 11262]]

amendment at this time because it is scheduled for a vote at 7:30 
tonight and Members are not yet returned from the codel. Therefore, 
they would have no advance warning of the amendment. I will do it at 
another time. Therefore, I withdraw amendment No. 542.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________