Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I came to the floor for a couple of reasons. One was to reiterate what I think I heard the assistant Democratic leader say with regard to our desire to have a vote. As we have indicated publicly and privately, we are prepared for an up-or- down vote. We want a vote on the Nelson-Breaux amendment. And once that vote is taken, we are more than willing to vote on the Gramm amendment. So there should be no question about that. I think I heard the Senator from Nevada say that there are some who cannot take yes for an answer. We are prepared to offer that vote any time. I would hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would take our offer in the manner in which it was intended. We hope to have a vote up or down on that particular amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the other matter I wanted to come to the floor to discuss is the reaction to some of the comments that I made this morning. A number of our colleagues have come to the floor and, as I understand it, the administration has stated that if I had understood the context in which the President made those remarks--the remarks that Senate Democrats are not concerned about national security--that I probably would not have been so critical. In fact, they criticized me for having criticized the President. Mr. President, what context is there that legitimizes an accusation of that kind? I don't care whether you are talking about homeland security, I don't think you can talk about Iraq, you can't talk about war, you can't talk about any context that justifies a political comment like that. This is politicization, pure and simple. I meant it this morning and I mean it now. I don't know what may have motivated those in the White House to make the decision to politicize this debate, but it has to stop. There is no context within which anybody can make that accusation about people on this side of the aisle on an issue relating to homeland security, or Iraq, or defense, or anything else. So let's get that straight. I would hope that we can finally bring this debate to a level that it deserves. I can recall in 1991 and 1992--especially in 1992--when President Bush made the decision he did. I can recall several of my staff coming to me, suggesting that we say this or that. But never once did I have someone on my staff, someone here in the Senate, refer to the politics of the war with Iraq. I remember sitting at my desk, handwriting my speech, explaining to my people in South Dakota, and to whomever else might be listening, why I made the decision I did. I did not make that decision for political reasons. And I don't think there is a person in this Chamber who did. We need that same level of debate this time if we are going to have a debate, if we are going to do it this close to an election. So I want all the apologies at the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue, all of these explanations about ``context'' to be taken for what they are worth. They are not worth the paper they are printed on. The time has come for us to quit the explanations, to quit the rationalizations, to quit the politicization, and do what we should do as Americans: Make our statement, make our judgment, have a debate, and send as clear a message to Saddam Hussein as we can. We are not going to tolerate his actions. And we, as a country, will build on a coalition to do the right thing. I hope this will be the last word. I look forward to talking directly with those in the White House, those on this side of the aisle, as we fashion our response, as we take this matter as seriously as we should, as we do it in a way that lives up to the expectations of the American people. I yield the floor.

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, I come to the floor at the end of the day to remind our colleagues that there will be two votes tomorrow morning. They will both be cloture votes. Those votes are ones we have cast before. This will be the third cloture vote on the drought and firefighting amendment that has been pending for weeks. It will be the second vote on homeland security. I am troubled by the rhetoric I hear off the floor with regard to Democratic efforts to slow this legislation down. I find it quite ironic that while there are some who suggest it is Democrats holding up this legislation and criticize us for doing so, it is the Democrats voting virtually with unanimity in support of cloture to end debate on both bills. This is the fourth week we will be on this legislation. I don't know what agendas are being played out. Some may think maybe the longer we wait to vote on these things, the more advantageous it is for one side or the other. There is a lot of work left to be done. I know the American people expect us to complete our work on homeland defense, and our farmers and ranchers and firefighters certainly expect us to have acted by now on the assistance they need so desperately. How cynical can it be for some to suggest, in the name of whatever, that we can hold up drought assistance, hold up firefighting assistance, hold up the extraordinary help this represents, in the name of whatever issue? I have said this before on the Senate floor, and I will say it again now. Just getting cloture on the Byrd amendment, which includes $5 billion or more in drought assistance, and almost a billion dollars in firefighter assistance--to get cloture on that amendment in no way precludes other amendments. It certainly doesn't preclude any Senator from offering the forest health amendment or anything else on the bill itself. It doesn't preclude that. So there is absolutely no reason Senators should oppose cloture on the drought and firefighters amendment--unless they are not serious about providing help in the first place. You have to wonder, after the third cloture vote, if people are truly serious about providing help; if they are serious when they say they want to provide some response to firefighters and drought victims in the agricultural areas of our country. You would have to believe if they were serious they would vote for cloture, they would send this amendment and this bill into conference, and we would get this job done. You would think that. All of the machinations and explanations and all of the excuses ring very hollow to ranchers and farmers and firefighters when they note that we are now in the third week of this filibuster from the other side, depriving these very people the sustenance they need to survive. Mr. President, there can be no explanation. So I hope the vote tomorrow will have a different result. I hope all these political strategies, as they play themselves out, have played their course. I hope we can say, on a bipartisan basis, that the time has come for us to send a clear message to ranchers and farmers and firefighters that we are going to get them that help. I hope we can do that. Tomorrow is our chance because I will tell you if we don't get cloture tomorrow, we send just the opposite message--that in politics we can say anything we want and not be held accountable. We can say we are for you, but we can always think of a reason we are not at the end of the day. There is a great deal of cynicism in ranch and farm country and the forests as we fight these fires right now. People are shaking their heads wondering what in Heaven's name could be holding up this help. I cannot explain it, and I don't think anybody else can satisfactorily. They can come to the floor and say they are not filibustering. They can come to the floor and say there are other issues that are more important. They can come to the floor and try to explain in a hundred different ways, but there is no explanation. There is no excuse. There is no way to look in the eyes of those farmers and ranchers or firefighters and say: Just wait another week, wait another month. You have waited long enough, but we are going to make you wait a little longer. You cannot do that. So tomorrow is a big test. Are we serious about drought assistance? Are we serious about firefighter assistance? Are we serious about getting this job done and sending the right message? We will know the answer by late morning. The same could be said about homeland security. As I noted, we have already had one cloture vote. I am told the amendment offered by our Republican friends is germane. So there really is no reason to vote for cloture and bring this bill to a close. We have so much more work to be done. A day doesn't go by when three or four colleagues on both sides of the aisle come to me and say: When are we getting out? When are we going to be able to go home? The answer to that rests, in part, on tomorrow. If we can support cloture and get this legislation passed, if we can move this agenda forward, with all the other things that have to be done, there is no reason we cannot meet our adjournment day. Mr. President, I just come to the floor to urge my colleagues not to fall into the trap--the rhetoric trap--of attempting to explain why you are for homeland security, why you are for drought assistance, why you are for firefighting assistance, why you are for completing our work on time--and then turning around and voting against cloture, voting against bringing this debate to a close, after a month of legislative activity on the Senate floor. I will be watching. I know the American people will be watching. Tomorrow is a very big day. Tomorrow is a day when we will see who is sincere and who is not; who is prepared to bring help to those needy farmers and ranchers and firefighters, and who is not; who is prepared to answer the President who said just yesterday that the Senate needs to get its act together to pass homeland security. Tomorrow is our chance. So let's see whether we seize the moment and take that chance and do what we need to do to get the job done. I am sure on both sides of the aisle colleagues recognize the importance of doing just that. So we will have a chance to prove it tomorrow morning on the cloture vote.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as always, I appreciate the friendly advice from my friend and colleague, the Senator from Oklahoma. He is a student of the legislative process. He has every right to be embarrassed. If he wants to come to the floor to express how embarrassed he is, I certainly would not want to keep him from doing that, and I appreciate his candor. As to the appropriations bills, the House has sent us five. This is the fourth one that we have taken up. There are eight bills that are mired, that are languishing in the House of Representatives because the House Republican leadership cannot appear to find whatever wherewithal may be required to move the legislation forward. They have not sent them to the Senate so, obviously, we cannot bring them up. We are waiting patiently for additional legislative action on the part of the House. I am hopeful they will send it soon because they are the ones who should be embarrassed. I must say the Senator from Oklahoma is certainly within his rights to express himself and in characterizing these votes against cloture in any way he sees fit. That is the right of every Senator. I do not blame him for not wanting to be accused of filibustering this legislation, but I think anyone, just an objective observer would be hard pressed to say: We are not filibustering, but we are going to vote against cloture. What is cloture? Cloture is the means by which you bring an end to the debate on a particular bill or an amendment. That is what cloture is. I can read the rule. I can clearly, I am sure, share with my colleagues exactly what the rule says with regard to how one ends a filibuster, how one ends extended debate. How do you do that? You file cloture. When our Republican colleagues were in the majority, they used to fill the tree. They used to load up the amendment tree and then file cloture so that not only would they end debate, they would keep it from beginning. We would not even start the debate when our colleagues would come to the floor and not end it but prevent it. I have said I will not do that. We will have debates, but there comes a time, and I would say any objective observer would say at the end of 4 weeks, that is a pretty good time. I mean, just to pick a number--4 weeks of debate. We file cloture now for the third time on the Interior appropriations bill to end debate. That is what it will say tomorrow morning. We will support it. Our colleagues are going to oppose it, and then they are going to say: But we are not against ending debate; we are not filibustering. If you can convince anybody of that, you are a better speaker and a more persuasive person than I am. Bless your heart if you can do that. I am telling you, this is a filibuster, purely, simply, and without question. You vote against cloture for the third time, you vote to filibuster; you vote not to end debate; you vote to extend, and the bottom line is--forget all the parliamentary procedural gobbledygook--you are telling ranchers, and farmers, and firefighters they are going to wait a lot longer. That is what you are telling them. Forget the filibuster. Just remember what it means to extend debate in this case. It means they wait longer. It means that regardless of whatever excuses you can come up with, you continue to deny these people the chance to get help. That is what it means, pure and simple. They understand that in South Dakota. I think they even understand that in Oklahoma. But regardless of whether they understand it in Washington, we will have the chance once more to demonstrate who is for getting that help and who is not. That is what that vote is tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I join my colleagues today in this special presentation to acknowledge the distinguished Senator from South Carolina for his decades of service in this Senate. America has changed in many ways in the 48 years since James Strom Thurmond was first elected to the Senate. But some things have not changed. Among them are Senator Thurmond's fierce determination to do what he regards as the right thing for the people of his beloved South Carolina. While Senator Thurmond and I often reach different conclusions and cast different votes, I admire his devotion to his State, to our Nation, and to this Senate. In recent years, fulfilling that obligation has seemed at times to require an extraordinary exercise of will or love or both. Someday another Senator will sit in Senator Thurmond's seat, but it is hard to imagine anyone ever filling his shoes. He is, as I have said before, an institution within an institution. He has been alive for almost half the history of the United States. Theodore Roosevelt was President when he was born. He was 17 years old when American women secured the right to vote. He is one of only a few Americans alive who received votes from Civil War veterans. He has lived through the term of 18 of America's 43 Presidents and served as a Senator under 10 of them. His long and distinguished career is remarkable for its many successes, both in and out of the Senate. In 1996, Senator Thurmond became the oldest person ever to serve in the Senate. In 1997, he became the longest serving Senator. In 1998, he became one of only three Senators, in addition to our colleague, Senator Robert Byrd, ever to cast 15,000 votes in this Senate. In addition, Senator Thurmond has served as a senator in the South Carolina State Legislature and as Governor of that great State. He has been a senior member of both the Democratic and Republican parties and a Presidential candidate of a third party. There is not another American, living or dead, who can make that claim. He has also served our country in uniform. Senator Thurmond entered the U.S. Army for the first time in 1924. Twenty years later, he volunteered for service in World War II, and on June 6, 1944, at the age of 43, he took part in the first wave of the D-Day invasion, the airdrop of American troops on Normandy Beach. I am told that Senator Thurmond wanted to parachute into Normandy Beach, but another officer who clearly did not know with whom he was dealing, decided Senator Thurmond was too old to jump out of an airplane. So Senator Thurmond piloted a glider instead, landing, with the rest of his company, behind enemy lines. Senator Thurmond is today a retired major general in the Army Reserves, the President pro tempore Emeritus of the Senate, a member of the South Carolina Hall of Fame, and a recipient of more honors and awards than any of us can name, including the prestigious Presidential Medal of Freedom. Simply said, we will never see another like him. I join my colleagues this morning in our heartfelt expression of gratitude to Senator Thurmond for his decades of service. We wish him, his family, and staff our very best in his future, whatever life may hold beyond the 107th Congress. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I have had a discussion with Senator Lott with regard to next week's schedule. I have indicated privately to a number of Senators my concern for the legislative agenda we must confront prior to the time we leave. That agenda includes a number of issues that have support on both sides of the aisle. It recognizes that we have been on the homeland security bill now for 3 full weeks and the Interior appropriations bill for an equal amount of time. I am increasingly concerned that the longer we stay on those bills, the less likely it is that we will be able to adjourn on time. Given that realization, my expectation is that we will require colleagues to be here at least possibly as early as next weekend to confront this agenda and to complete our work. I am not announcing necessarily that next weekend will be a work period, but I am suggesting to all colleagues that they not make any firm commitments next weekend. We have to finish the homeland security bill next week. We have to deal with perhaps a continuing resolution, short-term, because of the pending end of this fiscal year. We have a number of other matters that have to be taken up prior to the completion of our work at the end of this session. As I look at that schedule, I conclude that there is virtually no way we will be able to do this, and do it successfully, without longer hours and more days. The only days available to us, of course, are the Mondays and Fridays that have oftentimes been travel days for our Members but also Saturdays and Sundays. It is my expectation that we will be using weekend days between now and the end of session, that we will require Senators to be here at least on Saturday and possibly on Sunday in an effort to complete our work. That may occur as early as next weekend. This is not meant to be a threat or in any way a signal that we are not prepared to take whatever action necessary to preclude that, but I also want Senators to know that that is a very likely possibility. I come to the floor with a recognition that we do need to make Senators aware of the importance of the schedule and the significant amount of work that needs to be done before we leave. I appreciate everyone's cooperation and will appreciate the opportunity to speak more specifically to the schedule early next week. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, September 20, 2002 at 10:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. to hold a joint open hearing with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence regarding the Joint Inquiry into the events of September 11, 2001.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will use my leader time. I ask unanimous consent to extend the time, should that be required, to complete my presentation this morning.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we had a very good discussion this morning with the President talking about national security in several contexts--of course, the war on terror and the important challenges this country faces in continuing to make this country and the world a safer place in which to live. The arrests over the weekend and the cooperation we got from Pakistan ought to be particularly noted, and we ought to thank the Government of Pakistan for their cooperation. We talked about that this morning. We talked about Iraq and the threat it poses to us. We talked about the need for cooperation when dealing with the threats posed by Iraq, not only within the Congress and the country, but in the international community. So we had a very good discussion about national security, and I believe it ought to be uppermost in the minds of all people, and certainly the Congress as we continue to complete our responsibilities in the second session of the 107th Congress. Let me also say, just as we properly recognize the threat that exists in more traditional national security areas, we, as a country and particularly as a government, would be remiss in our responsibilities were we not to address economic security, were we not to recognize the peril this country is in economically, So, in addition to acknowledging the importance of our defense activities, I also wanted to come to the Chamber this morning to express my concern for the lack of attention paid to the state of economic security, to express the concern that many of us have with regard to what has been a very unfortunate, some would even say tragic, economic trend in this country over the course of the last 18 months. I have a number of charts that reflect more graphically some of these concerns, and I want, if I may, to walk through some of them at this time. If we look at the record of this administration over the past 18 months, perhaps it is best summarized in the very first chart: Record job losses; weak economic growth; declining business investment; falling stock market; shrinking retirement accounts; eroding consumer confidence; rising health care costs; escalating foreclosures; vanishing surpluses and higher resulting interest costs; raiding the Social Security trust fund; record executive pay; and stagnating minimum wage. If you were going to use the shortest list with the greatest concern, this chart is it. Let me go through many of these individual concerns a little more thoroughly. Over the last 2 years--actually the last 18 months--we have lost 2 million jobs--private sector jobs in this country. If there is any one criteria that would, more than any other, illustrate the health of the economy, it would be job growth. If the economy is growing, jobs are going to be there. If it is contracting, if the economy is weak or contracting, the jobs will not be there. We have lost 2 million jobs in 18 months. People might say: Well, that just happens; other administrations have lost jobs. If you wanted to go back and look at what other administrations have actually done, you would probably have to go all the way back to the 1930s to see the last time in our Nation's history when we last witnessed a loss in private sector jobs over the course of the life of an administration. Private sector jobs during this administration have declined by 1.2 percent on an average annual basis. Over the last 50 years, in every administration since Dwight Eisenhower, we have seen private sector job growth. It was not much in the Eisenhower administration. It was even less under the first Bush administration. And we have seen remarkable job growth on three other occasions--the Johnson administration in the 1960s, the Carter administration in the 1970s, and the Clinton administration in the 1990s. What have we seen in the first few years of the current administration? We have actually seen a decline in the number of private sector jobs for the first time in 50 years. One can look at it another way. It is not only how many jobs are lost. It is also important to see how many people have been trying to find jobs for long periods of time and have been unable to do so, those who have been out of work for more than 6 months, the so-called long- term unemployed. Some who lose their job are able to quickly find another one. For those who are unable to do so, such as those who fall into the category of long-term unemployed, we continue to come to this Chamber and press for the passage of unemployment compensation extensions. In January of 2001, the number of long-term unemployed was 648,000. In August of this year, that number had more than doubled to 1,474,000 people. That is also one of the most tragic figures. There is a human story behind every one of those numbers. Not only is that individual unemployed, but most likely that person and perhaps their family are without income. Most likely it is a family trying to survive on what meager unemployment compensation they have, looking for odd jobs, doing whatever they can to make ends meet. And today you have more than 1.4 million people who have suffered as a result of this administration's economic policies for the last 18 months. The larger picture beyond employment that is frequently used to gauge the performance of the economy is the change in our real gross domestic product. That is probably the most traditional economic indicator for assessing the strength of the economy. In the first 18 months of this administration, the economy has grown by 1 percent. The rate of growth was twice that figure under the first Bush administration. But those are the two lowest economic performances, the most meager economic performances we have seen in the last 50 years. President Eisenhower had economic growth of 2.4 percent; Kennedy, 5.4 percent; Johnson, 4.9 percent; the Clinton administration, 3.6 percent. We have seen growth, fortunately, in every administration. But in all those administrations with all the economic ups and downs we have seen, it is clear this administration has the worst performance in terms of real economic growth that we have seen in the last 50 years. That anemic economic performance has had huge consequences in national terms as well as in personal terms for American workers, American businesses, American investors, and American pension holders. This chart shows what has happened to the value of investments at the New York Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ stock market under this administration. When this administration took office in January, 2001, the overall market value, the market capitalization in those two markets alone, was $16.4 trillion. That was an all-time high. We had never seen anything close to that level. Under the Clinton administration, the markets had been booming. We saw growth in an unprecedented way. We expected, everyone expected, that growth to continue. But that is not what happened. What happened, instead, was over the last 18 months that $16.4 trillion pie has now shrunk to $11.9 trillion. We have lost $4.5 trillion in market capitalization just in 18 months. I defy anyone to find a record more abysmal when it comes to overall market valuation that is even comparable to the enormous loss we have seen in just the past 18 months. It goes beyond that. If you look at an individual worker's retirement savings--that is what we are talking about when we talk about the loss of market capitalization--the impact is profound. If that worker had a $100,000 retirement fund invested in the market in 2001 and kept it there during the 18 months this administration has been in office, that loss in market capitalization would mean the worker saw the value of his retirement savings decline by more than $31,000. In other words, the worker in just 18 months has lost nearly a third of the nest egg he was counting on for the balance of his retirement, all of their retiring years. One-third of his retirement savings meant for a life time, gone in 18 months. Not surprisingly, this shrinkage in market capitalization has had a profound effect on pensioners. It is why, when I was home over both the Fourth of July and August recesses, I was amazed to hear how frequently people came up and said, Tom, you know, I just saw my latest statement regarding my retirement. I think there was a mistake. I cannot believe what has happened. The value of my pension has declined precipitously. This is a shock to us all. You have to do something. These large economic numbers have large financial consequences for people in South Dakota and all over this country who believed if they regularly contributed to their retirement investment accounts, they would have retirement security. That security is not there today, a mere 18 months after this administration took office. Again, how does that compare? Some will say: Ups and downs in the market are just a way of life; those are cycles; accept the cycles; that is the way it works. However, if you look at the average annual change in the value of the market, you have to go back a long time to find a period where the performance is as bad as what we are witnessing now. During the Nixon administration, we lost approximately 5 percent in the S&P 500 account. You have to go all the way back to Herbert Hoover to see a performance in the Standard & Poors 500 equal to what we are experiencing right now. We saw a 30 percent decline under Herbert Hoover as compared to the 20 percent in the first 18 months of this administration. And this administration's watch is still ticking; that one is over. But look at all the other years, all the other administrations, all the other record performances, all the other economic strategies. It grew 15 percent in the Clinton administration; it grew 14 percent in the Ford administration; it even grew in the Coolidge administration. But if I had to pick one chart that compares economic performance, I cannot think of a more graphic illustration of how terrible this economy truly is and how poorly our markets are performing and how little confidence there is in the economic strategy of this administration. Again, I come back to what does this all really mean to the working family, to that rancher or farmer or small businessman, or to that hard-hat worker or blue-collar worker who comes to me in South Dakota? We have seen that meager economic growth and a collapsing stock market means fewer jobs, more unemployment, and less retirement security. But what has happened to the costs of their basic goods and services? Workers' payments for health insurance provides an excellent example of how strapped these people are. In just the past 18 months since this administration took office, the cost of an average family's health insurance coverage, a basic need for all families, has gone up 16 percent. Single coverage has gone up 27 percent. That is the kind of record we are talking about. We can move this to other aspects of health care. We see a similar trend when we look at the rising cost of prescription drugs. While the Consumer Price Index has gone up 1.6 percent since this administration took office, the cost of prescription drugs has grown by 5.7 percent, almost four times greater than the overall inflation rate. We also have seen something else we never thought we would see a dramatic increase in the number of foreclosures. A number of our colleagues have followed this even more closely than I have and have noted we are not just talking here about minimum wage workers when we talk about foreclosures. We are not just talking about people at the lowest end of the economic scale. What has happened is a phenomena we have not seen in a long time in this country. Middle-class workers, people with good incomes when working, are watching their mortgages foreclose. The thousands of layoffs have caused an increasing number of them to suffer in another way, the personal pain of losing their home. At the end of last year, 1.15 percent of mortgage loans were in foreclosure. By the second quarter of this year, that number had grown to 1.63 percent, an increase that affects not only lower income workers but workers across the economic scale. Another tragic aspect of this administration's economic policies can be seen when we look at its impact on our fiscal circumstances. We have talked about market capitalization. We have talked about the loss of jobs. We have talked about the economic pain our working families are feeling as they see their own pension security come down. As they see unemployment rolls go up, as they see the long-term unemployed numbers continue to climb, as they see all of that on one side and higher costs for health care and prescription drugs on the other, they ask why. How in the world could all of this happen in such a short period of time? There are a lot of answers to that question. But if I could point to one in particular, it would be this. If there is one reason we have seen the dramatic turn in such a short period of time, the historic turn in the economy, it is the unprecedented reversal in the federal government's fiscal picture. When President Bush took office, the Congressional Budget Office projected a $5.6 trillion surplus. As a result of what the President has signed into law or is currently proposing, the surplus projection becomes a $400 billion deficit. What does that do to economic confidence? What does that do to market capitalization? What does that do to long-term projections? To long- term interest rates? What does that do to the overall psychology in the economy, to see this precipitous a decline? I was talking to a journalist the other day, about what history will say about the last 2 years. I hope to have something to say about the way it is written. I am excited about a project I am working on in that regard. But he said, as we consider all of the historic moments of the last 2 years, the one that he believes has the greatest consequence for our country is the President's tax cut proposal. You know, a lot of people would argue he was right. The tragic set of financial and economic circumstances we are witnessing today, is directly connected to the tragic decline in our fiscal circumstance. This can be illustrated another way. At the beginning of last year, CBO projected the publicly held debt would be $36 billion by the year 2008. In fact, members actually came to the Senate floor to argue we were paying down the debt too quickly, and we would pay a price for having done so. Let me say that problem is no longer a concern. There is no way we are going to have to worry about paying off anything too quickly because in the space of 18 months that projection has grown from $36 billion to the new projection issued last month of $3.8 trillion. That is the record. We have gone from a projected $5.6 trillion surplus to a $400 billion deficit and from $36 billion in projected debt by 2008 to $3.8 trillion. What a tragic, deplorable, abysmal set of circumstances for us to find ourselves in as we close out this session of Congress. The Bush economic record could be also described in terms of what it costs us. You can talk about deficits. You can talk about all the economic impact that deficit may have, the accumulated debt. But practically speaking, what it really means is that we have to pay hundreds of billion in additional interest costs. It is thievery. It is robbery. Increased interest payments steal from the very heart and soul of the commitments we have to make, as a country, to national defense, to education, to housing, to infrastructure, or to additional tax cuts. In short, these costs take away resources from all of national security, economic, and environmental priorities facing our nation today. They are all robbed by the fact that we have to pay $1.9 trillion in interest costs over the next 10 years. When this administration took office, we thought we were only going to have to pay $620 billion. Since this administration took office, we have gone from $620 billion in interest costs to $1.9 trillion. And every dollar was either going to be dedicated to Social Security or dealing with the investments we as a country must make, or in tax cuts, the need for which both sides have talked about. When you talk about what the historic fiscal reversal means in real terms, it is higher interest costs, it is lack of an opportunity to invest in national defense, education, and health. But here is the real story. We all promised--I will bet there is not a Senator in this Chamber who did not say: We are going to put Social Security first; who did not rise to the standards set by the past administration in saying to the country: Whatever else we do, we are going to protect Social Security. In fact, President Bush had a Web page. I haven't looked recently to see if it is still there. But the President made a solemn pledge on that Web page: I will never take a dollar of your Social Security trust funds. Here we are. We had a commitment in January of 2001 that we were never going to touch those Social Security dollars. We find ourselves now, in August of 2002, having already committed $2 trillion of the Social Security trust fund--$2 trillion, and we are not finished yet. That number is going to continue to grow. If current economic trends continue and we enact the President's tax and spending proposals, there is no doubt we will be spending even more of the Social Security trust fund. What is the President's solution? Mr. President, President Bush's solution appears to be pretty clear. There is not any other solution I have heard this administration talk about. They have one all-purpose, economic antidote to everything, and that is tax cuts--tax cuts largely dedicated to those at the very top. The only thing I have seen the Bush administration fail to suggest a tax cut for, so far, is the drought. Except for the drought, I can't think of another serious problem this country faces where the administration has offered up a tax cut as the solution. Let's look a little bit at the tax cut proposed by this administration. The Bush economic record already is very clear. This is already on the books. This is what is going to happen. The tax cuts that have been enacted so far favor the very wealthiest of Americans. If you are in the lowest 20th percentile, with an average income of $9,300 a year, your average annual tax cut was $66. We have a lot of South Dakotans in that category. If you are in the second 20 percent, with an average income of $20,000--and I would say that is the majority of South Dakotans, the overwhelming majority--you get $375 a year. If you are in the upper brackets in my State, making somewhere around $40,000, your tax cut was $600 a year. If you make $56,000--now we are getting into pretty rare air here in my state--you get a tax cut of about $1,000. If you make about $100,000 year, you get a tax cut of $2,000. If you make $210,000--there are not many of those in South Dakota--you get a tax cut of $3,345. If you make an average of $1.1 million a year and you are in that top 1 percent, you get a tax cut of $53,000, an amount that is actually twice the average income of the people in the State of the Presiding Officer, South Dakota. These are the beneficiaries. A lot of these people make a lot more than $1 million a year. They make $700 million, $148 million, $127 million, down to $23 million a year. Look at all those names and all that money, and you know where their friends are. You know who their defenders are. (Mr. JOHNSON assumed the Chair.)

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. The chairman of the Banking Committee has put his finger on exactly what it is we are trying to focus on here--the disparity and the extraordinary maldistribution this tax cut represents. There is an unbelievable disconnect here between those at the lowest end who have already seen cuts in education and health care, declines in their retirement accounts, and who are probably in many cases working three or four minimum wage jobs, attempting to make a living. They get a $66 tax cut. Those making an average of $1.1 million a year get a tax cut of more than $53,000. In fact, some in this category make more than $700 million a year and who knows the size of the tax cut these people would get? The sad thing is--and the Senator from Maryland makes such a good point--that those people who have virtually no tax cut available to them are the very ones who have seen their purchasing power decline. Since 1997, we have seen the real earnings of full-time minimum wage workers, over half of whom are women and heads of households, decline from $11,560 to $10,300. But can we get a minimum wage vote on this floor? Can we get the kind of support on a bipartisan basis required to deal with this situation? No. We can get the support for that $53,000 tax cut for the top 1 percent. But I can't find the Republican support nor the administration support and leadership required to deal with this extraordinary and sad consequence of the government's inaction on the minimum wage.

Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. DASCHLE. The distinguished Senator from New Jersey makes a very good point. Probably no one can make that point with greater credibility than can he. Let me just simply compare this chart. You have seen an increase in the draw down of the Social Security trust fund. We have actually spent $2 trillion of Social Security. We put those resources into this tax cut, providing $53,000 per year to the top 1 percent of income earners in this country. You have seen an income transfer from those paying payroll taxes--largely at the lower end of the income scale--to those at the upper end of the income scale. This represents an income transfer in the opposite direction from poor working people to those at the very top.

Mr. DASCHLE. I know the Senator from New Jersey remembers this. But I recall the House passed their economic stimulus package, and part of that package included a $254 million retroactive tax cut for Enron. The administration saw no problem with that. Our Republican friends were anxious to vote for it. In fact, when we stopped it, we were called obstructionists. But that was the kind of obstructionism that stopped Enron from getting $254 million from their taxes. To summarize, what ought to be going up is coming down and what ought to be going down is coming up. What ought to go down is the raid on the Social Security trust fund. It is going up. What ought to go down are interest costs, but they are going up. What ought to go down is the national debt, but it is going up. What ought to go down are foreclosures, health care costs, and job losses, but they are going up. What ought to go up--economic growth--is going down. What ought to go up is business investment, the market, retirement accounts, consumer confidence, and the minimum wage. They ought to go up. But in these last 18 months, every single one of these factors has gone down. This will be the subject of a lot more discussion, debate, and hopefully illumination over the course of the next several weeks and months. But we have to change these arrows. We have to ensure that economic growth goes up. We have to ensure that the stock market, retirement accounts, pension funds, consumer confidence, and the minimum wage go up. We have to do what we did in the 1990s--have an economic performance that gives people the sense that they can live in dignity and in confidence, knowing their retirement accounts and Social Security checks are going to be there. We have to end the job loss, deal with health care costs, and make sure we reduce the raid on the Social Security trust fund. I hope Republicans and Democrats can do for economic security what we are attempting now to for our national security--recognizing that this won't change unless we do it together, and recognizing that while this national security issue dealing with Iraq may be accomplished with one resolution, it is going to take a lot more than one resolution to turn our economy around. It is going to take the same kind of discipline we demonstrated in the 1990s. It is going to take the same kind of commitment on a bipartisan basis for these issues to be addressed, and a lot more consequential. As busy as we are and as important as the effort on Iraq is, I hope this administration will dedicate some of its time this week to economic security as well, to these declining numbers, to this atrocious record, to a recognition that it takes leadership not only with regard to international and foreign policy but leadership here at home and economic policy as well. We haven't seen it to date, and the time has come for leadership on this as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time to make a couple final remarks before I leave the floor for another event I need to attend. The Senator from West Virginia just now said it so well. There is an ongoing filibuster on this amendment, but not on this side. It is not on this side. There is no question that, on controversial issues, this Senate must acquire 60 votes to pass an amendment. The Senator from Idaho has offered an amendment that does not have the requisite 60 votes. The Senator from New Mexico and others on our side have offered an alternative that we acknowledge does not have 60 votes. Over the course of the last several weeks, we have attempted to find common ground and, at least to date, have failed. In fact, I recall vividly last week on the floor the Senator from Idaho indicated they were going to make another effort yesterday to attempt to reach that common ground. That has not happened. So it is fair to say that both sides have failed to reach the Senate requisite for controversial amendments, which is 60 votes. We had offered a procedural compromise since we could not find a substantive one. That compromise would be to have side-by-side votes, to indicate that there is support, but not the level of support required under Senate rules. That, too, failed. So the bottom line is that we have an amendment pending that 1 week ago today generated 79 votes; 79 people went on record--Republican and Democrat--supporting drought assistance on an amendment that supports firefighting assistance. The President and others have said the firefighting money is urgent. I would like to reread the speeches made last week about the urgency of getting something done on drought assistance, about how important it is to get out there and provide this help now. Well, in the next 5 minutes we will have a chance to provide this help now. The Senator from Idaho is not precluded from reoffering this amendment to the Interior appropriations bill. He can do that. So to say it is now or never for them is just not correct. There is nothing to preclude them from going back and offering this amendment to the underlying bill--nothing. So if they vote against cloture, they are voting against firefighting assistance, against drought assistance, and there can be no other conclusion. Don't tell me you have to do it on this amendment or you cannot do it at all. That is not right. So let's get real and be honest here. There is a game being played here that I think ought to be shown for what it is--a game that, for whatever reason, is denying this amendment passage today, even though the debate and consultation and the continued cooperative effort to see if common ground can be achieved. I just talked, moments ago, to Senator Bingaman. He said he has another meeting scheduled--I think it is this afternoon--with Senators on both sides of the aisle to see if they can reach common ground. If they can, it can be offered to the bill. For the life of me, I don't understand why anybody can say, on one hand, how urgent it is to get firefighter assistance, drought assistance--by the way, I ask unanimous consent that the votes of those Senators who supported that amendment a week ago be printed in the Record at this time.

Mr. DASCHLE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, shortly we will dispose of the Lieberman and Thompson amendments.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I have that right, and we will accommodate the Senator's request. I appreciate very much his support of the cloture motion.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will be brief. The President again today admonished the Senate for moving slowly on homeland security. He again told his audience that he was very concerned that we are moving slowly on an issue of great import in terms of his design on homeland security and the need for a recognition of national security through this legislation. Let me simply say to the President and to anybody else who has question: There is no desire to slow down this legislation. There are Senators who have very significant concerns about various provisions, but there ought to be no question about our desire to continue to work to complete the deliberation of this legislation and send it to conference as quickly as possible. We have only had an opportunity to debate one amendment and bring it to closure. It would be my hope we could take up Senator Byrd's amendment sometime very soon and we could take up other amendments to the legislation as soon as possible. We have now been on this bill for 3 weeks, and I understand why some would be concerned about the pace with which the Senate is dealing with this legislation. I discussed the matter with Senator Lott, and I think he shares my view that we have to move the bill along. I note that if the President had supported homeland security legislation when the Democrats first offered it last summer, we probably would have completed it by now. It took them about 2 months to respond to the actions taken by the Governmental Affairs Committee in the Senate. But that has been done. They have responded, and we have worked with them to come up with a plan of which we are very proud and a product that can be addressed. Senator Byrd has a good amendment. There are others who have amendments as well, but the time has come to move on. I had originally hoped we could get an agreement that only relevant amendments would be offered. We have not had a case of nonrelevant amendments. We have had a case of no amendments in this process. It is very important for us to demonstrate to the American people, it is very important for us to make as clear as we can that we want to come to closure on this legislation--take up amendments and deal with them effectively, but the amendments ought to be germane and we ought to work within a timeframe. Cloture Motion

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, with respect to the Lieberman substitute amendment to the homeland security bill, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

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, I know Senators are just getting back into town from the Jewish holiday yesterday. And I hope we can make the most of this week. We have a lot to do, on the Interior appropriations bill as well as on the issue of homeland security. As our colleagues are aware, this afternoon we will have a cloture vote on the Byrd amendment. I reluctantly filed that cloture vote last week because we are now in the third week of debate on the Interior appropriations bill as well as on homeland security. With all of the work that must be done and with all of the issues we must address, we simply cannot prolong this debate indefinitely. Seventy-nine Senators a couple of weeks ago voted for an amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Montana, myself, and others responding to the crisis we now face in drought-stricken parts of the country. The regions of the country which are experiencing drought are growing--the Southeast, the Midwest, and the far West--areas throughout the country that have experienced drought conditions, and in some cases it is unprecedented. We also have a very serious situation with regard to firefighting, so serious that this administration changed its position from one which said we will not provide any new resources for firefighting--that all firefighting moneys that ought to be dedicated to firefighting this fall be taken from the Forest Service budget. They changed from that position to say, we now recognize how serious this situation is, and we will commit $850 million and ask the Congress to support it. You have two very important priorities in dealing with disaster and crisis: One with the Forest Service and firefighting needs. This is urgent. This is extraordinarily important to the ongoing effort to fight fires throughout the country, especially again in the West. And, second, as I noted, the drought. We have voted for this legislation. We have gone on record on a bipartisan basis in support of this legislation. I know there are those who still would like to work out other compromises relating to other issues, and if that can be done, I certainly will welcome it. But we simply cannot go on week after week after week without more notable progress, without more of a tangible way with which to address these needs, and, secondly, without a way to recognize that we have a lot of work to do in a very short period of time. We have what amounts to about 15 legislative days left prior to the time we adjourn for the year. I am troubled, to say the least, by the extraordinary list of items that have to be addressed and the very minimal amount of time legislatively we have to address them. I come to the floor this morning urging colleagues on both sides of the aisle to recognize the need, to recognize the urgency, to recognize the shortness of legislative time available, and to recognize how important it is that we move on to accomplish as much as we possibly can in a very short period of time. I can only hope we will get a good vote this afternoon--I would like it to be unanimous--on cloture, so at least on this particular amendment we have the opportunity to move on to other issues, and hopefully to a time for final passage on the Interior appropriations bill. I will have more to say about homeland security later on in the day, but I must say, this is something that just begs our support, recognizing the prioritization it deserves as we consider the schedule and the need that is so clearly a recognition around the country. I yield the floor.