Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to staff members of the late Senator Paul Wellstone during today's session.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, everyone knows we are attempting to resolve many of the unfinished pieces of legislative business that ought to be addressed prior to the time we depart for the election day break. As everyone knows, we will be coming back. It will be my hope that we can address a number of the issues involving conference reports. Of course, we will have to address appropriations when we come back. One of those issues that has been the subject of a great deal of debate and consideration on the Senate floor has been the issue of homeland security and the creation of the new Department. It is no secret that Democrats have been frustrated in the effort to bring the debate to a close. We have had five cloture votes. We have not reached cloture on each of those five occasions because of Republican opposition. My original thought was perhaps that opposition was because of legitimate language concerns or issues involving the creation of the Department. I now doubt whether that really is the motivation. I think there are many on the Republican side who simply oppose the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. The new Department was a Democratic idea originally. The President and our Republican colleagues objected and opposed it unanimously when we passed it out of committee last summer. The President finally reversed his position, and the administration's bill was written by four people with no consultation with Congress. They sent the bill up as somewhat of a surprise to us all. The bill they wrote seeks to exploit the issue of homeland security in order to advance a preexisting ideological agenda. It is an ultraconservative agenda that is antiworker and obviously anti-union. More importantly, it has nothing to do with homeland security. This bill would return us to an era when patronage and political cronyism ran the Federal workforce--and that is wrong. We say to the President and our Republican colleagues, public servants are not the problem. Terrorists are the problem. The administration's position is an insult to every public servant, every firefighter, and every first responder who risked their lives and, in many cases, gave their lives on September 11. When those union firefighters rushed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on that fateful day last September 11, nobody asked: Are you a member of a union? That is why the police and firefighters oppose the Republican plan. That is why the National Association of Police Organizations wrote to every Senator. I will quote from their letter. On September 11, 2001, the union affiliations of law enforcement officers did not keep them from responding to that tragic event, giving aid to those in need and in many cases, giving their own lives. Every New York Police Department and New York/New Jersey Port Authority officer who died that day was a union member, working under a collective bargaining agreement. The Administration's claim that the new Department will need ``management flexibility'' to perform its role properly ignores the heroic efforts of those whom they now wish to label as an organizational liability. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Since this debate began, Democrats have worked in good faith for a compromise. We have compromised and compromised and compromised. The bipartisan Nelson-Breaux-Chafee compromise is a long way from the Lieberman bill. It preserves the President's authority to take away the union rights of homeland security employees as long as he states there is a need, and it accedes to the President's demand that we waive civil service protections for Department employees. In fact, when it comes to new flexibility to hire, fire, and redeploy workers, there is absolutely no difference between the Gramm amendment and the Nelson compromise. The difference with our approach and the Gramm approach is simple: We require the Department to consult--to consult--with employee representatives as they develop a new personnel system, and if an agreement between management and employees cannot be reached, then management's proposal can be imposed by a Federal panel comprised entirely of the President's appointees. You can't get any more reasonable than that. Yet to prevent a vote on this bipartisan compromise, the Republicans, as I have noted, have blocked cloture not once or twice but now on five occasions--three times on the Lieberman bill and twice on their own bill. They filibustered because they said they wanted an up-or-down vote on their bill. We offered them that. They filibustered again because they said the vote on the Gramm bill had to come first. So today we are offering Republicans exactly what they claim they want. If they object again, it will be even more clear what is really going on. This is a Republican filibuster, plain and simple. Democrats want to finish this bill. We support homeland security. We always have. We introduced it. But the other side would rather have an issue. They are filibustering this bill because they want to use this issue against Democrats in the next 2 weeks before the elections. They would rather use this as an issue to run scurrilous ads, such as the one they are now running--or were running--to compare a war hero such as Max Cleland to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. That is what is going on here, and, Mr. President, it is unconscionable. They would rather play that nasty brand of politics than pass this bill. I hope they will reconsider and accept this unanimous consent request. Therefore, Mr. President, I will now propound it. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of H.R. 5005, the homeland defense bill, the motion to recommit be withdrawn and the Nelson amendment No. 4740 to the Gramm-Miller amendment be withdrawn; that there be a 1-hour time limit on the Gramm amendment, and at the conclusion or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on the Gramm-Miller amendment; that immediately upon the disposition of that amendment, if it is agreed to, Senator Nelson of Nebraska be recognized to offer an amendment, the text of which will be identical to amendment No. 4740; that it shall be in order notwithstanding the fact that it is to amended text; that there be a time limitation of 1 hour on his amendment, and that at the conclusion or yielding back of the time, the Senate vote on the Nelson amendment, with the preceding all occurring without any further intervening action or debate.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, regular order.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, early last Friday morning, the Senate acted on the President's request to grant him authority to use force in Iraq. I joined with a majority of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to support the resolution granting that authority, but made clear then and continue to believe now that our vote was the first step in our effort to address the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. In my statement before that vote, I indicated the President faces several challenges as he attempts to fashion a policy that will be successful in our efforts against Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. One of those challenges is preparing for what might happen in Iraq after Saddam Hussein and preparing the American people for what might be required of us on this score. To that end, I was interested to see an article in Friday morning's newspaper with the title, ``U.S. Has a Plan to Occupy Iraq, Officials Report.'' Citing unnamed administration officials, the article contends the administration is modeling plans for the economic and political reconstruction of Iraq on the successful efforts in post-WWII Japan. The article goes on to report that the Administration has yet to endorse a final position and this issue had not been discussed with key American allies. When questioned at a press conference Friday afternoon, the White House spokesperson distanced himself from this specific plan. If this news account is true, I have no choice but to conclude this administration has much to do before it will be in position to present a plan to the American people and the world about what it feels is necessary to promote economic and political stability in post-conflict Iraq. We do know, however, that a plan based on the Japan precedent would require a significant and lengthy commitment of American political will, economic resources, and military might. While I do not doubt either our resolve or capability to be successful in Iraq, it is critical that the Administration be clear with the Congress, the American people, and the world about what it believes will be needed in post-Saddam Iraq, what portion of that it believes America should undertake, and what it believes others should be prepared to do. To this end, I urge the President and his administration to keep in mind the following facts and questions as planning for post-conflict Iraq continues. General MacArthur and President Truman made a strategic choice in post-WWII Japan to leave intact as much as 95 percent of the imperial Japanese government, including the Emperor himself, because of the fear of what impact a massive upheaval of the government structure would have on stability in Japan. Do the President and his team intend to follow that precedent, or we will start from scratch in constructing post-conflict institutions in Iraq? We maintained nearly 80,000 troops in Japan for 6 years after V-J Day and still maintain 47,000 troops to this day, more than a half century after the conflict officially ended. How long does the administration anticipate having U.S. forces in post-conflict Iraq, and how much of this burden can we anticipate our friends allies will assume? Post-WWII Japan represented an ethnically and religiously homogenous population. How does the fact that Iraq is riven by ethnic and religious difference impact U.S. planning for post-conflict Iraq? From 1946 to 1950, the Congressional Research Service estimates that the United States spent a yearly average of $3 billion, in today's dollars, for the occupation of Japan. Are those the kinds of numbers the President and his team anticipate for political and economic reconstruction in post-conflict Iraq? If the administration plans on obtaining assistance from others, what nations is it assuming will be willing to help us? What is the administration assuming these other nations are prepared to do and for how long? If no plan is yet in place and no allies briefed, when does the administration believe such discussions should begin? I ask unanimous consent to print the article in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this resolution concerns a civil action commenced in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against several current and former Members of the Senate and House of Representatives. The plaintiff, Judicial Watch, Inc., is a legal watchdog group that has pursued numerous civil suits against the Government and its agencies and officials. In this case, Judicial Watch has sued former President Clinton and several current and former Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, alleging that those officials conspired to pressure the Internal Revenue Service to initiate and continue an audit of Judicial Watch in retaliation for its activities. The plaintiff in this case has named the current and former Senators as defendants in this suit based solely on the fact that these Senators sent routine transmittal letters to the IRS forwarding constituent correspondence inquiring why Judicial Watch was entitled to the benefits of tax-exempt status. Merely because of those routine buck letters, Judicial Watch alleges that those Senators entered into an unlawful conspiracy to pressure the IRS to continue to audit it in violation of its constitutional rights. This resolution authorizes the Senate Legal Counsel to represent the Senate defendants in this action.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, a Federal information in the Northern District of New York has been filed against an individual on four counts of refusing to follow lawful orders, obstructing a corridor, and trespass inside a Federal office building in Syracuse, NY. The charges arise from the refusal of the defendant to vacate the premises outside the office of Senator Clinton, despite being directed to do so by Federal Protective Service personnel charged with maintaining security in the Federal building. The U.S. Attorney has requested testimony at trial by an employee on the staff of Senator Clinton who had contact with the defendant. This resolution would authorize the Senate employee to testify and produce documents in this case with representation by the Senate Legal Counsel.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. DASCHLE. Let me respond briefly. It has been the practice of the Senate, since we have been in the majority, to take up all nominations that have been reported out of the committee. This nomination has yet to be reported out of the committee. There have been a number of others who have sought recognition and have asked to be heard on the Shedd nomination, which is why the nomination was tabled. I hasten to add that, on that very day--I don't recall the exact number--a significant number of judicial nominations were passed out. I believe the number was 17. So there are 17 additional judicial nominations, which brings us close now to 100 judicial confirmations, if we deal with those 17 pending now on the calendar. More than 80 have already passed and were confirmed, and we have 17 pending and could be confirmed before the end of the year. That is close to an all-time record. I think that is all the more laudatory, given the fact that we have not been in the majority for the entire 2-year period of time. During that first 6-month period of time, the Republicans failed to confirm one judicial nomination; they failed on all counts to confirm even one. So the Shedd nomination is being reviewed. There are others who wish to be heard, and I respect the decision made by the chairman, in particular, that this nominee be given additional consideration, and that others who want to be heard be given that opportunity as well. I do object.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield to the distinguished Republican leader.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, there is always a possibility, and I will certainly work with the Republican leader on all the nominations. He and I have talked on numerous occasions about how we might accommodate all of those nominees whose names are pending on the calendar. We have not yet been able to address those. I would like very much to clear the calendar, to do as much as possible to get those who have been reported out cleared and confirmed prior to the time we leave. Clearly, I would work with him and certainly with the Judiciary Committee. I cannot make any commitments this afternoon without consultation with the Chair. But I think the committee has been more than fair and more than productive in its effort to move out of the committee the large number of nominations, both at the district and circuit levels. I will certainly consult with the distinguished Republican leader and the Chair in the coming days.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. DASCHLE. Unfortunately, I do. I think if we go back, we would recognize there are a number of nominees who waited 3 and 4 years and never even got a hearing. Mr. Shedd was at least given a hearing. As I say, people are continually coming before the committee and seeking additional opportunities to address the committee on the Shedd nomination. That is far more than what a number of the nominees were given over the course of the Clinton administration. We are hoping to rectify that, which is why we have confirmed as many judges as we have to date. As I say, almost 100 judges will have been confirmed if we clear the Federal calendar prior to the time we adjourn sine die. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, what is the regular order?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know the distinguished Republican leader wishes to speak. I ask unanimous consent that he be accorded whatever time required. I know Senator Mikulski has an interest in speaking for 5 minutes following the distinguished Republican leader. I ask unanimous consent that request be accommodated as well.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as we all know, Congress has not yet completed action on 11 appropriations bills. These bills fund such important domestic priorities as homeland security, education, and veterans medical care. In order to keep these important functions of Government up and running, we have already worked with the House to pass two continuing resolutions, the last of which expires on Friday. The House of Representatives has just passed and sent to the Senate a third continuing resolution. House Republicans are now proposing that we leave town and let the Government run on autopilot until November 22. Why November 22? By picking a Friday a week before Thanksgiving, House Republicans are signaling they are not serious about completing the appropriations bills in November either. It will be extraordinarily difficult, in the several days before Thanksgiving, for us to get all the parties together to settle all the issues that have been insoluble for the past several months. The House Republican proposal seems designed to be an auto-pilot until next year, a recipe for a CR that starves basic Government programs essential to the health and well-being of millions of Americans. Indeed, several leading Republicans have indicated this is really their preference. Senators should not be under any illusion: a long-term CR will do just that. It will starve vital functions of Government. And you don't have to take my word for it. According to Representative Bill Young, the Republican chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, a long- term CR, ``would have disastrous impacts on the war on terror, homeland security, and other important Government responsibilities.'' Chairman Young wrote that sentence in a memo he sent to Speaker Hastert. The memo went even further, detailing the impact of a CR on a host of important domestic programs. Here is a sampling of what Chairman Young said will be cut: FBI, funding to hire additional agents to fight terrorism and to continue information technology upgrades would be denied; bioterrorism, no funding for President's $800 million initiative to increase funding for new basic bioterror research, to develop and test a new improved anthrax vaccine, and to assist universities and research institutions; first responders, no funding for President's $3.5 billion initiative to provide assistance to local law enforcement, fire departments, and emergency response teams; SEC/ corporate responsibility, insufficient funding to support current staffing requirements let alone significant staff increases needed to monitor corporate behavior; veterans medical care, long-term CR would leave veterans medical health care system at least $2.5 billion short of expected requirements; firefighting, $1.5 billion taken from other Interior Department programs to pay for firefighting costs will not be replaced; Pell grants, a freeze in this program will result in a shortfall of over $900 million; Medicare claims, no funding for the President's $143 million increase to ensure that the growing number of claims are processed in a timely manner; Special Supplemental Feeding Program for WIC, funding would be reduced by $114 million below current levels, meaning less will be available for families that depend on this program; Social Security claims, no funding for the President's increase to process and pay benefits to millions of Social Security recipients. In addition to the program cuts listed by Chairman Young, the House CR omits assistance for thousands of farmers all over this country who are confronting the worst drought in more than 50 years. This is the wrong way to do business. We should be completing our work on the bipartisan appropriations bills, not cutting education, veterans affairs, homeland security and other important priorities. Each of these bills properly funds key priorities. And, most importantly, each enjoyed the unanimous support of the Democrats and the Republicans on the Committee. There is no reason why the full Senate cannot do the same. Passage of these bills would fund Government for a year, with no need for any more stopgap, starvation diet CRs. Regretfully, our Republican colleagues in the House have refused all year to consider appropriate funding levels for crucial functions of Government, even though all Senators on the Senate Appropriations Committee, Democrats and Republicans, were able to agree on all 13 bills. The difference between the aggregate total of spending for the bipartisan Senate bills and the aggregate total proposed by the House Republican budget resolution is roughly $9 billion in budget authority. That's a tiny fraction of the $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus that's been squandered since the current administration came to office. To hold up funding for all the non-defense areas of Government in order to claim credit for fiscal responsibility over such a tiny proportion of overall spending is the height of irresponsibility. Unfortunately, it is crystal clear that is precisely what our Republican colleagues would like to see happen. They want to run the Government on a starvation diet into next year. Because the House resolution is now the only way to keep the Government operating, it will be passed by voice vote. But I want to be very clear that, if there had been a recorded vote on this measure, I would have voted no.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this resolution concerns a civil action commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against Secretary Jeri Thomson, Financial Clerk Timothy Wineman, their counterparts in the House of Representatives, the Congress, and the United States. The plaintiff in this case, Mr. Michael Newdow, is the individual challenging the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance in California. Mr. Newdow alleges in this action that the disbursement of public funds to the offices of the congressional chaplains violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, and Article VI. Both the United States Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit have already established the constitutionality of the congressional chaplaincies, which date from 1789. In the landmark Supreme Court decision Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), the Supreme Court unequivocally rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of Nebraska's legislative chaplain. It stated that given the ``unambiguous and unbroken history'' of legislative chaplains, the ``practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society'' and is not ``an `establishment' of religion or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgement of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.'' Id. at 792. Several months later, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, sitting en banc, dismissed a constitutional challenge to the Congressional chaplains. Murray v. Buchanan, 720 F.2d 689 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (en banc). It stated that the Supreme Court ``answered the question presented in Marsh with unmistakable clarity: The `practice of opening each legislative day with a prayer by chaplain paid by the State [does not] violate[] the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.' '' Id. at 690 (quoting Marsh, 463 U.S. at 784). This resolution authorizes the Senate legal counsel to represent Secretary Thompson and Mr. Wineman to seek dismissal of this action.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, an unsuccessful applicant for U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles has commenced a civil action in Federal court in California against Senator Feinstein, Senator Boxer, a prominent Republican businessman and political leader in California, and a judicial screening panel set up by these defendants, to challenge the use of this screening panel to identify potential nominees for Federal District Court judgeships in California. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that the use of informal screening panels to develop lists of potential judicial nominees violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Government in the Sunshine Act, and the separation of powers. The laws underlying this suite do not apply to the Senate, and the Speech or Debate Clause bars suits against legislators for the performance of their duties under the Constitution. Thus, there is no legal basis for suing Senators for their role in forming, appointing, or relying on judicial screening panels. Further, the use of informal judicial selection panels to identify potential judicial nominees as a part of the advice and consent function has a long and respected history. Also, the Supreme Court's holding in Public Citizen versus U.S. Department of Justice that the Federal Advisory Committee Act does not apply to the longstanding practice of soliciting views on prospective judicial nominees from an American Bar Association committee provides ample support for the challenged practice. This resolution would authorize the Senate legal counsel to represent the Senators sued in this action to protect their role in the advice and consent process by which the President and the Senate share responsibility for the appointment of Federal judges under the Constitution.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last week we completed our debate on Iraq. It was a difficult debate, but at the end we were able to come together to speak with a large degree of consensus on an issue of national security. To Democrats, security means more than national security and homeland security. It also means economic security, retirement security, the security of knowing that if you lose your job, you can find a new one, and if you get sick, you can get health care. And it means the security of knowing that those goals are not being undermined by poor economic leadership and ideologically driven economic leaders. The news, when it comes to America's economic security today, has not been good. This chart shows one of the many ways with which to determine the state of the economy. Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that we are experiencing the worst market since the 1930s. This is not just a bear market, it is a grizzly bear market. The broad Standard & Poor's 500 Stock Index has now lost nearly half of its value. Since President Bush took office, Americans have seen the markets lose $5.7 trillion in value. That is $9.5 billion a day that has come out of the market. This red piece of the pie chart is an approximation of what has been lost. About one-third of the entire market capitalization has been lost in less than 2 years--$5.7 trillion. Here is what that means to a person with $100,000 in a 401(k) invested in the Standard & Poor's 500 Index when President Bush took office. The value of their investment has now decreased by $35,000. Many who were invested more aggressively have lost much more. If you had $100,000 in January of 2001, you now have $65,000 in September of 2002. A lot of Americans who are lucky enough to have a little bit of money saved and invested are seeing their children's college investments and their own nest eggs disappear. We have recently seen an increase in the number of 60- to 70-year-olds in the workforce. These people are not wondering when they will be able to retire. Now they are wondering if they will be able to retire. This chart shows what has happened in the job market in the last 2 years. The people wondering if they will be able to retire are the lucky ones. To even think about retiring, you have to have a job. Since President Bush took office, unemployment has jumped by 1.5 percent. More than 2 million people have lost their jobs. These are private sector jobs. We started in January of 2001 at 111 million jobs actually being held. We have now dropped from 111 million to 109 million in about 18 months. Many of those who lost their jobs are having trouble finding new work. Nearly 1.5 million people have been unemployed now for over 6 months. These people have not just lost their jobs, they are starting to lose hope. This chart shows what we had at the beginning of the year 2001. About 648,000 people were unemployed for more than 26 weeks. That number has now jumped from 648,000 to 1,585,000 people. Now they are also losing their unemployment insurance. Unemployment insurance is supposed to provide temporary help to people who lose their jobs to tide them over until they find new ones. But now many who lost their jobs in the months after September 11 are losing their benefits. Now they are trying to find a job in an economy even worse than the one that had caused them to lose their job in the first place. This chart shows what has happened. In 1992, 1.4 million workers had exhausted their unemployment benefits. Now, in the year 2002, we expect that number to be exceeded by 800,000--the number of people who will experience the expiration of their unemployment benefits. The market is in steep decline. People are losing jobs. People are unable to find jobs. There is a daily drumbeat of negative economic news. There is no question--any one of these charts points out very clearly--Americans are hurting. But this administration does not understand their pain because it does not see a problem. On September 5, president Bush said confidently: I am optimistic about our economy. I am optimistic about job growth. The next day--the very next day--the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in the previous month manufacturing lost 68,000 jobs and retail businesses lost another 55,000. On September 14, we learned that because homeowners were having such a hard time paying bills, home foreclosure rates reached their highest rate in 30 years. A couple of days later, Lawrence Lindsey, Director of the National Economic Council, said: There's a lot of good news out there. We have challenges as well. But given those challenges, I think the economy is doing very, very well. On September 24, we learned that the poverty rate increased for the first time in 8 years with 1.3 million more Americans falling into poverty. We also learned that median household income fell for the first time in a decade. The next day, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told us: The latest indicators are good. On September 29, the census reported that the number of Americans without health insurance rose yet again--this time by 1.4 million people to 41.2 million. Not only are low- and middle-income families losing income because of the skyrocketing price of health care premiums and prescription drug costs, they are now losing their health insurance. Two days later, the President said: I think the economy is strong. There are some rough spots, but we will deal with it. Last Thursday, Secretary O'Neill and Secretary Evans had a joint press conference. Secretary O'Neill said: We are on a bumpy road to recovery, but the direction is still up. Secretary Evans added: I am one that is pleased with the recovery that is now underway. The next day--the very next day--this is what we saw: Consumer confidence and consumer spending depicted in this chart both falling, retail sales taking their worst drop since November of last year, and consumer sentiment dropping to levels last seen in the fall of 1993. This chart shows the consumer expectations and what has happened over the course of the last 6 months. In May, consumer expectations were relatively high at 92.7. Many thought the economy was going fairly well and thought it was going to continue to do better. That index dropped to 87. It went down to 81 in July, and then down to 80. Now it is all the way down to 72. We have lost almost 25 percent of consumer confidence in just 5 months. ``The direction is up.'' That is what the Bush administration said. Optimistic about job growth, the latest indicators look good, the economy is doing very well. Some rough spots? I don't know where these guys are living, but it must be somewhere within the neighborhood of oblivious. When it comes to America's economic problems, this administration is woefully out of touch. A couple of weeks ago, the President said: I spend a lot of my time worried about the job security of our fellow citizens. Last week, it became even more clear that this administration's focus is not the economy. The White House announced that the President will be hitting the campaign trail for 14 straight days before the November 5 election. In fact, I am told he will be coming to South Dakota--my State--at least 2 of those 14 days. I would ask President Bush to do one thing: Cancel the political trips and spend less time trying to save jobs for Republican politicians and more time trying to save the jobs of average Americans. Unfortunately, not only are the President and his advisers out of touch with our economic problem, but they are out of step when it comes to solutions. They have seemingly pursued ideological goals at the expense of sound economics, and the American people will pay the price. Last year, it became clear that our economy was starting to slow. Every objective economist told us tax cuts could help solve the problem. But they had to be the right kind of tax cuts. They had to boost consumption be getting money into the hands of people who would spend it--people with moderate incomes. It had to be done now, affecting the economy now, and affecting people's incomes now. At the same time, we were told that whatever we did, we should make sure it didn't do any long-term fiscal damage. Here is what the Democrats said: let us pass a bill to provide immediate tax relief for all families. Let us do that now--just as the economists proposed we do it. It included a tax cut check. Unlike the plan that passed, it made sure every taxpayer, including those who pay only payroll taxes, would get one. It would have also reduced the 15- percent tax rate--the rate paid by all income-tax payers--to 10 percent, and it would have done it permanently. It would have been fair, fiscally responsible, and stimulative. Instead of passing that responsible plan, the President and his advisers insisted on a plan that had far less immediate tax relief but had a cost that explodes to $250 billion in the year 2011 alone. Smart tax relief for everyone was held hostage by the President and his advisers to a massive tax cut for the very few at the very top. Moderate earners got their $300 immediate rebate check, but not until millionaires got a tax cut equal to that $300 rebate check every other day. Now, after going from record surpluses to real deficits, we are seeing just how bad a decision that was. After September 11 dealt another blow to our already staggering economy, we all agreed that the American economy needed a stimulus. So Democrats and Republicans of the Senate asked the experts, including Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, what are the most effective steps we can take to shore up our economy? Here is what they told us: Put money into the hands of low- and middle-income workers. They are the ones who will spend it quickly. Make sure that workers who have lost their jobs receive unemployment benefits, and cut taxes for businesses, but limit the tax cuts to those who actually help create jobs. Finally, they said our plan must be affordable and temporary. After all, the baby boomers start retiring in less than a decade, and we shouldn't be taking on major long-term spending or revenue obligations that will make it even more difficult to meet our responsibilities to Social Security and Medicaid. That was the advice we received. What did this administration propose? They proposed permanently eliminating the corporate alternative minimum tax. House Republicans went a step further and proposed making the alternative minimum tax cut retroactive. Incredibly, that one provision would have given $250 million in one check from the U.S. taxpayers to the Enron Corporation. That is right--$250 million from every taxpayer in America to none other than the Enron Corporation. That had nothing to do with stimulus. To this day, I am not sure what it had to do with. Instead of a temporary business investment incentive, they insisted on a 3-year bonus depreciation, which was passed. That essentially said to businesses: You don't need to invest now. Wait a couple of years and see how it goes. The Administration and congressional Republicans have refused to provide any aid to hard-hit States which, as a result, are now being forced to cut health care and education programs. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming to an extension of unemployment insurance despite the fact that former Treasury Secretary Rubin called it ``a near perfect stimulus.'' When the markets were shaken by a wave of corporate scandals, it was clear we needed real reform in order to boost investor confidence. The administration again said and did the wrong thing. On January 14, 1 month after Enron declared bankruptcy, 4 days after the Justice Department confirmed that a criminal investigation of Enron had begun, Secretary O'Neill said: Companies come and go. It's part of the genius of capitalism. After dragging their feet on corporate accountability, this administration reluctantly came to the conclusion it had to support it. But now it is standing idly by as its appointees try to undermine the tough reforms that we passed last summer. Last week, it was reported that Harvey Pitt, the former accounting industry lawyer chosen by President Bush to head the SEC, has given the accounting industry a veto over who will head the new Accounting Standards Board, the centerpiece of the corporate accountability law we passed. According to news reports, Chairman Pitt blocked the appointment of John Biggs, a highly respected reformer, to head that new board at the insistence--at the insistence--of the accounting industry. If this is true, it means Harvey Pitt intends to let the same accounting industry insiders, who ran Enron and other corporations into the ground, run the new board that is supposed to prevent future Enrons. Now, as our markets plummet and people are losing their savings, their jobs, and their confidence, this administration is again proposing the wrong remedies. Even now, they are calling to make the tax cut permanent. Regardless of how you feel about that as a policy proposal, everyone should be able to agree that new tax cuts in the year 2011 will have no immediate effect on our economy. In fact, by piling on another $4 trillion in debt during the next decade, it could hurt our economy in the short term by pushing up long-term interest rates. Last week, House Republicans pushed through the Ways and Means Committee a completely ill-timed increase in the capital loss limit. Coming at this moment of intense market volatility, it is likely to cause wealthier investors to sell their stock, thereby forcing the market down and forcing down the value of 401(k) and other investment accounting even more. When it comes to dealing with our economy, the President, his advisors, and congressional Republicans have put forward two kinds of ideas: old ideas and bad ideas. They have been wrong at every turn. And this dramatic failure of economic leadership is doing real harm to America's businesses and to the economic security of average working families. America deserves better leadership, better ideas, and a real debate about economic future in this country. Democrats believe there are five areas in which we can take quick action to help our economy in the short term. These are areas where there should be absolutely no disagreement. First, we should extend unemployment insurance. During the first Bush administration, Democrats and Republicans agreed to extend unemployment insurance three times. We were able to agree that extending unemployment benefits was the right approach to a Bush recession then. We should be able to agree that it is the right approach to a Bush recession now. Second, we should provide immediate fiscal relief for States. Right now, States are facing severe budget shortfalls, and many are finding themselves forced to cut crucial services, such as education, health care, and transportation. As Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times, aid to the States will ``do double duty, preventing harsh cuts in public services, with medical care for the poor the most likely target, at the same time that it boosts demand.'' Third, we need to increase the minimum wage. The minimum wage has lost significant purchasing power since it was last increased in 1996. Raising the minimum wage is not only a statement of our strongly held belief that people who work full time should not live in poverty, but by putting money in the pockets of people who are most likely to spend it, it is a strong stimulus as well. Fourth, we need a strong bill to protect pensions. Democrats have a plan that allows workers to hold employers accountable and helps workers get their money back if the people responsible for protecting their investment abuse that trust. It makes it easier for workers to sell their company's stock and diversify their holdings, and it gives workers access to independent, unbiased investment advice. We should be able to reach quick agreement and pass a bill that includes these elements. Fifth, we need to make sure that the strong corporate accountability bill we designed, defended, and passed is strongly enforced. The centerpiece of this legislation is an effective, reform-oriented accounting oversight board. It is time for the administration to demand that a strong leader is chosen in order to make this a strong board. In addition, we should consider some fresh new ideas about how to get our economy moving again. Last Friday, Senator Dorgan and others hosted a bipartisan economic forum. Unlike the White House economic summit this summer, we heard from people across the political and ideological spectrum. It was a shame the White House decided not only to decline our invitation to participate but to dismiss the forum as a publicity stunt because there were a number of interesting ideas discussed. For example, one participant raised the possibility of a second rebate, one that would go to everyone who pays payroll or income taxes, and time-disbursed spending around the holiday season. It was also suggested that we look to improve the investment incentives we enacted earlier this year. The problem with allowing businesses 3 years to take advantage of a tax break on new equipment purchases is that many have chose to do what we said they would do, they have chosen to wait. Because we want businesses to invest now, one of the panelists suggested making the investment incentive more immediate but more generous. Earlier today, Minority Leader Gephardt laid out a series of other ideas, including a rebate aimed at lower and middle-income Americans, investments in school construction, antiterrorism, and help for States as they struggle with the health care crisis. These are all ideas that deserve a fair hearing. We should have a real discussion about them, and other ideas, to help our economy in the short term. But we also need to focus on the long term. As a result of what the President has signed into law, or is currently proposing, our projected surplus of $5.6 trillion becomes a $400 billion deficit. The baby boomers are getting ready to retire. This administration did not invite Democrats to their economic summit, and they did not want to attend our economic forum. This administration needs to realize we are all in this together, and the only way we will spark our economy in the short term and strengthen it in the long term is by doing it together. Whether that conversation is part of a real economic summit or part of some other forum, it is a conversation that needs to happen. For the last month and more, the country has been completely consumed with the debate about our proper course in Iraq. Because that debate was about issues of war and peace, and America's national security interests, it was altogether appropriate that we should have a completely focused dialogue. The President asked for that dialogue, and he demanded we have it before the election. We have met his demand. But the American people have their demands as well. People are anxious, not just about their security against an international threat, but about the security of their jobs, the security of their retirement, the security of their health, and the strength of our national economy. By virtually every measure, the President's economic plan has put America on the wrong track. He cannot escape responsibility by blaming the previous administration. He has had almost 2 years to generate a recovery. His economic team cannot divert attention with out-of-touch happy talk or appeals to one or two positive economic indicators. People see their income falling, their jobs disappearing, their retirement funds declining, and the cost of health care rising. We have given the American people the debate the President says they need with regard to Iraq. Now the President should give the American people the other debate they are saying they want: a serious debate about their economic future. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for calling attention to yet another economic issue that could have profound consequences on the ability the average working family has today to pay their bills and to keep their standard of living. As she and I have traveled the country, and certainly traveled our States, the issue of the cost of prescription drugs comes up over and over again. The Senate passed a prescription drug bill that would reduce the cost to every single person purchasing drugs today. It sits languishing in the House of Representatives. I hope the President will do as the Senator suggests. I hope he will pick up the phone from Air Force One, since he is traveling all over the country, and tell the Speaker: Pass the bill, give us some real opportunity for relief this year. That, to me, would be one of the many things he could do to bring about longer term economic security. The House also did real damage earlier this year. No one has looked at the bill, but I hope some day somebody will write the real story about the atrocious legislation passed by the House in the name of prescription drugs benefits. Basically, as the Senator from Michigan knows so well, because she has become such a leader on this issue, the House of Representatives has turned over prescription drug coverage for seniors to HMOs. Given the horrific examples of abuse in our health system today, in large measure because of abuse by HMOs, can you believe anybody would say, well, that is enough. We are now going to turn over drug coverage for seniors to HMOs, to the private sector, to people who simply are unable to live up to the expectations of all seniors, of the American people? Again, the Senator makes a very important point. We have not been able to address prescription drugs this year, in part because of their determination to turn over responsibility for drug coverage under Medicare to HMOs and their unwillingness to deal with the generic legislation passed in the Senate by an overwhelming margin last summer. I thank the Senator for asking the question.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, one year ago today, a letter containing about two grams of anthrax was opened in my office. My staff, Senator Feingold's staff, and the law enforcement and medical personnel who responded to the incident were suddenly thrown into a world of frightening uncertainty. Twenty-eight people tested positive for exposure to multiple lethal doses of anthrax, and about 45 others were presumed to be significantly exposed. They endured 100 to 120 days of antibiotics and the fear and anxiety that accompany the largest bioterrorist attack on U.S. soil. All the while, they continued to come to work and do their jobs--jobs that included trying to protect the rest of America from a similar fate. Of course, the effects of this attacks were felt well beyond my office. Hundreds of others from the immediate area were placed on preventive antibiotics. House and Senate office buildings were closed for several days, and the Hart building was closed for 3 months. Every member and employee of the Senate was affected, and I must say it was an inspiration to see how well our community pulled together to ensure that the Senate continued to address the business of the country. In retrospect, we were very lucky. We knew exactly when and where people had been exposed, which gave us an advantage that others did not have--the opportunity to provide those who were exposed with immediate preventive care. And while there were some terrifying times, no one in the Senate community died as a result of their exposure to anthrax. Sadly, others were not so lucky. Robert Stevens and Ernesto Blanco had no idea they had been exposed to anthrax when they fell ill. October 5 is the anniversary that Ernesto Blanco remembers; October 5 is the day his co-worker, Robert Stevens, died. Next week America's postal workers will mark two more tragic anniversaries: October 21 is the day Thomas L. Morris, Jr. died of inhalation anthrax, and his colleague Joseph P. Curseen, Jr. succumbed the following day. Because it was not yet understood that the deadly bacteria could escape through envelopes, Mary Morris, Celeste Curseen, and their families and friends have endured a terribly painful year. Thomas Morris, Joseph Curseen, and all of America's postal workers continued to work even when they knew they could risk for exposure to anthrax or other biological or chemical agents. Postal workers accept those and other risks every day, and for their courage and dedication, they deserve a nation's gratitude. Those who knew and loved Kathy Nguyen and Ottillie Lundgren have their own anniversaries approaching: October 31 and November 17. Exactly how these women were exposed remains a sad mystery. Still others, including Ernesto Blanco, LeRoy Richmond, and Naomi Wallace, survived the disease. But many of them are suffering from debilitating often painful long-term health effects. They have no anniversary to mark the end of their ordeal, for it is ongoing. All of these people, like the first responders and Senate employees exposed to anthrax, were innocent victims. My staff and I feel a special kinship with the families of those who died and with those who continue to struggle with their health. On their behalf, and on behalf of the entire Senate, I extend our deepest sympathy to those to who lost friends and loved ones and our very best wishes for a full recovery to those who survived the disease. What else shall we offer these families? They need more than our sympathy. They--and all Americans--need our absolute resolve to ensure that our country does everything it reasonably can to prevent and address the bioterrorist threat, so that others do not suffer what they have suffered. As tragic as the anthrax attacks of last fall were, they could have been much worse, and we must prepare ourselves for and defend against the possibility of far greater threats. We must be vigilant in our effort to identify and neutralize terrorist cells. We must develop better ways to detect chemical and biological agents in the air, water, and food supplies. We must develop better vaccines. We must develop better treatments for those who are exposed to deadly viruses, bacteria, and agents. And we must develop better coordination between the various public health, intelligence and other government entities responsible for addressing the bioterrorist threat. The victims and their families also need and deserve to know that the perpetrator or perpetrators of these terrible crimes will be brought to justice. We are all frustrated by the fact that the person or persons responsible are still out there, capable of striking again. This is a complex case, and I know the FBI has focused many resources on it. I am hopeful they will soon be in a position to bring the case to a successful close. One year ago today, an anthrax-laden letter was opened in my office. Let us mark this anniversary--and all the sad anniversaries since September 11--with a renewed sense of community, a renewed determination to protect each other, and a renewed resolve to preserve America's strength and spirit. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.