Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to table the Domenici amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on final passage of H.R. 2646 occur at 12:30 p.m. today with rule XII, paragraph 4, waived.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Willie Morris was one of the great under- recognized American writers of the 20th century. He grew up in Yazoo City, MS--population 12,000--where he learned to tell stories by listening to old Black men who sat in the shade and whittled. He said their eye for detail helped him to see things he otherwise would have missed. At 34, Willie Morris became the youngest-ever editor of America's oldest magazine, ``Harper's Weekly.'' He wrote candidly about race long before most other white writers. Three years ago, Willie Morris died at the age of 64, leaving behind 19 books, many of them best-sellers. Like all great writers, a part of Willie Morris continues to live on in his words. But there is another part of him that lives on as well. You see, before he died, Willie Morris decided to donate his eyes in order to give someone else a chance to see. As it turned out, his corneas went to two different men, neither of whom he had ever met. One was black, one was white. His friends say he would have loved the irony of his gift: that a man who helped us see the world a little more clearly during his life is still helping people see after his death. America has changed since Willie Morris was a boy listening to the stories of those old men. We no longer accept legal discrimination. We no longer permit poll taxes to bar African-Americans from voting. We no longer tolerate ``separate but equal'' schools or water fountains or lunch counters. We have made considerable progress--due, in large part, to courageous African-American leaders including Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Thurgood Marshall, and John Lewis. During Black History Month, we honor those leaders and all of the other extraordinary African-Americans who have contributed so greatly to our nation--heroes like Crispus Attucks, who died at the Boston Massacre; Salem Poor, who fought at Bunker Hill and survived that brutal winter at Valley Forge; Harriet Tubman, the Underground Railroad ``conductor'' who rescued hundreds of people from slavery, served during the Civil War as a Union cook, spy, scout and nurse and was buried with full military honors. We honor the Tuskegee Airmen, the first African-Americans ever to fly combat aircraft and one of the most decorated fighter squadrons in our nation's history, who fought Nazism in Europe--and racism when they returned home; and Secretary of State Colin Powell, the first African- American to serve as Chairman of America's Joint Chiefs of Staff. We honor great scientists, including George Washington Carver and Benjamin Banneker, the mathematician and astronomer and the first African-American to receive a Presidential appointment--from Thomas Jefferson. We also honor great orators and champions of human rights, including Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth and Barbara Jordan; great educators, such as Mary McLeod Bethune and Booker T. Washington; and great artists, including Marian Anderson, the first African-American soloist to sing with the Metropolitan Opera in New York, Zora Neale Hurston, the novelist and Langston Hughes, ``the poet laureate of Harlem.'' This month, as the world watches the Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, we also honor extraordinary earlier Olympians like Jesse Owens, who shattered the myth of Aryan supremacy by winning four gold medals at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin; and Wilma Rudolph, the first African- American woman to win three Olympic gold medals, in 1960. We also honor other great athletes including Jackie Robinson, the first African- American to play Major League baseball; and Arthur Ashe, champion of tennis and human rights. We remember exceptional leaders such as W.E.B. DuBois, one of the founders of the NAACP; A. Philip Randolph, the former vice president of the AFL-CIO and founder of the first African-American trade union; and Ralph Bunche, diplomat, Under Secretary General of the U.N., and the first Black person from any nation ever to win the Nobel Peace Prize. And we honor the countless other African-Americans who changed our nation for the better simply by having the courage to say no to indignity and injustice in their own lives. The stories of African Americans are the missing chapter in America's history books. If we don't know them, we cannot truly know ourselves. But it's not enough just to celebrate their work. Especially this year, we must continue their work. To the terrorists who attacked us on September 11, the America Martin Luther King described--an America built on equality, justice, freedom and human dignity for every person--is not a dream. It is a nightmare. By attacking us, the terrorists thought they could destroy our dream. But they were wrong. Instead of turning on each other in the wake of the attacks, as the terrorists had expected, Americans turned to each other. We came together in ways that most of us had never seen in our lifetimes. We were truly one people, indivisible. Those of us who work in this building, and people all over the world who look to this Capitol as a symbol of democracy, are incredibly fortunate that another chapter in African-American history was written last fall. Just five days before September 11, former Army Major General Al Lenhardt became this Senate's Sergeant at Arms, the first African-American ever to serve as an elected officer in either the House or the Senate. I know I speak for all of us when I say how grateful we are to him for seeing us safely through September 11 and the anthrax attack. We are also proud of our men and women in uniform, who are now bringing justice to the killers of September 11. What they are doing is right and necessary. But it is not the only way we can honor the nearly 3,000 innocents who died in New York, at the Pentagon and in western Pennsylvania. We can defy the killers right here at home--by keeping Martin Luther King's dream alive, and strengthening the democracy the terrorists sought to destroy. We can start this month by strengthening our election system so that we never again experience an election like we did in 2000, when millions of votes went uncounted, especially those of African- Americans. We have an extraordinary opportunity. Senators Dodd, McConnell and Bond have given us a good, truly bipartisan election reform bill that requires states to meet uniform, nondiscriminatory voting standards, and provides the resources they need to do so. That bill is on the Senate floor now. I hope we will pass it this week with overwhelming support. If we are a democracy in fact as well as in name, the right to vote and to have that vote count must not be compromised. The income gap between Blacks and whites in America is narrower today than it has ever been. But it is still too wide. We can do better. Last week, we voted to provide an additional 13 weeks of benefits to laid- off workers who have exhausted their unemployment benefits. I hope we can still find a way to expand unemployment insurance coverage to part-time workers and recent hires--a disproportionate number of whom are African-American--and to help all laid-off workers maintain their health benefits. Let's also raise the minimum wage. It's been five years since the last increase. The purchasing power of the minimum wage is now the lowest it's been in more than 30 years. And a full-time minimum wage income won't get you over the poverty line. We can do better. Nothing has more power than education to move us from separate to equal. Yet today, nearly half-a-century after Brown v. Board of Education, mst minority students still attend schools that are predominantly minority. Their class sizes, on average, are larger, their books are older, their lessons are less challenging and their teachers have less training in the subjects they teach. Last year, we passed a promising, bipartisan school reform act. This year, let's work togther to make sure that ``Leave No Child Behind'' is a promise kept, not a dream deferred. Our goal should be to make sure that every child in America comes to school ready to learn and leaves school ready to succeed. If we learned anything from the terrible ordeal of September 11, it is that we cannot tolerate acts of hatred and discrimination. Make no mistake about it: Chaining a man to the back of a pickup truck and dragging him to his death for no reason other than the color of his skin is an act of terrorism. And while James' Byrd's death may be the best-known racially motivated hate crime in recent years, it is not the only such crime. A hate crime scars this country every hour and 10 minutes of every day, 365 days a year. In the last Congress, the Senate passed a bipartisan bill strengthening federal protections against hate crimes only to see it die in conference with the House. We need to pass it again this year. And this time, let's make sure it becomes law. W came together on September 11. If we are to stay together, we must stand against every form of bigotry and hatred. Finally, we know that protecting rights in law is only half the battle. We also need a judiciary that protects our rights in court. As Senators, we have a special obligation to ensure that the men and women who are nominated for lifetime positions on the federal bench or the Supreme Court will protect the basic rights for which so many Americans, from Crispus Attucks on down through the years, have given their lives. Let us honor that obligation this month and every month we are privileged to be here. We don't need Willie Morris' eyes to see how far America has come on civil rights since he was a boy. We also don't need Willie Morris' eyes to see that there is still a gap between the America we are and the America we can be. We all see those things. Our challenge today is to envision ways to close that gap, and then to transform that vision into law. In doing that, we will honor African-Americans and every American of every race and creed who died on September 11. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``The Application of Federal Antitrust Laws to Major League Baseball'' on Wednesday, February 13, 2002 at 10 a.m. in Dirksen Room 226. Witness List Panel I: The Honorable Paul Wellstone, the Honorable Bill Nelson, and the Honorable Mark Dayton. Panel II: The Honorable Bob Butterworth, Attorney General of Florida, Tallahassee, FL; the Honorable Lori Swanson, Deputy Attorney General of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN; Mr. Robert DuPuy, Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer, Office of the Commissioner of Major League Baseball, New York, NY; Mr. Donald M. Fehr, Executive Director and General Counsel, Major League Baseball Players Association, New York, NY; and Mr. Stan Brand, Vice President, Minor League Baseball, Washington, DC.

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 Wednesday, February 13, 2002 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed business meeting.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts be authorized to meet on Wednesday, February 13, 2002 at 2 p.m. in Dirksen 226, to conduct a public briefing by Richard A. Clarke, Special Advisor to the President for Cyberspace Security and Chairman of the President's Infrastructure Board, the White House, Washington, DC.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Wednesday, February 13, 2002 at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing to examine ``Illicit Diamonds, Conflict and Terrorism: The Role of U.S. Agencies in Fighting the Conflict Diamond Trade.''

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 13, 2002, at 9:20 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on active and reserve military and civilian personnel programs, in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2003.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the community of Highmore, SD, and the Highmore School District as they celebrate the grand opening of their new high school. Helping each child obtain the best possible education is more important than ever. While some of our Nation's schools are providing instruction at an exceptional level, others are simply not making the grade. Poor infrastructure and inadequate facilities can have an effect on student learning. When a school has a leaky roof, or holes in the walls, or other unsafe conditions, it sends a message to the students who attend that school that education is not really a high priority. Highmore is sending a different message to its children. Highmore's commitment to give its students a safe learning environment will have tremendous effects on this community for years to come. This community should be commended for its efforts to ensure every child in the district has access to a quality education, starting with a great school building. I am especially impressed by the determination of the school district and Superintendent Larry Gauer to see this project to completion. School Board President Julie Gutzmer, Vice Chairman Leroy Scott, board members Jim Frost, Ed Westcott, Jerry Dittman, Rod Kusser and Peggy Kroeplin, and the outstanding faculty and staff are all to be commended for their vision and dedication to this project. It is true that our Nation's future security depends on the soundness of its foundation. Our future will be strong and bright only if we help all of our children grow up to be well-educated, healthy, contributing citizens. I view public education as an investment in our national security, and I will continue my efforts to see that all students have access to a healthy, positive school environment that encourages them to learn and grow. But the Federal Government can only be a partner in this important effort. The efforts of dedicated people in communities like Highmore working together is what will make the difference for the youth of South Dakota and across the Nation. It is wonderful to see that the people of Highmore are making education a priority. I salute them for their foresight.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time in addition to the remaining Democratic time for my closing comments. Mr. President, the other day I came to the floor to talk briefly about our current circumstances. I will recount one last time for the record in case there is any question about how it is we got to this point this morning. I will again briefly recount the events over the course of the last several months. There were bipartisan Finance Committee discussions as early as last September about an economic stimulus package. There was a hope that we could come together, Republicans and Democrats, on an economic stimulus package as we did on airport security, on counterterrorism, on the assistance provided to New York and to the Defense Department in the wake of the tragedy of September 11. We reached out to experts who could give us guidance on what the principles ought to be for an economic stimulus package. We had a number of conversations with Alan Greenspan and Bob Rubin, both, early in the months of September and October. The bipartisan Budget Committee, I think on a unanimous basis, issued some principles on October 4. Those principles were: If you are going to have a stimulus package, make sure it is truly stimulative. If you are going to have a stimulus package, make sure it is temporary. If you are going to have a stimulus package, make sure it is immediate. If you are going to have a stimulus package, make sure you take into account cost. All of those principles were ones enunciated by the economists and agreed to, in large measure on a bipartisan basis, by the Budget Committee. That was the lead up to the discussions we had. The House Republicans broke off those bipartisan talks. What they said is that they wanted to use the regular order, move through the committee and present the Senate a bill. The Republicans blocked the Finance Committee bill on a point of order in December, even though they could have amended it. They could have said: Look, we don't like this but we will offer something else. We do not like this but we will amend this bill and have up-or-down votes on amendments. The Republicans refused to negotiate for a 3-week period of time, as they did mostly throughout the fall. There were no negotiations in large measure because Republicans delayed. First, they didn't like virtually the shape of the table. Then they didn't like who was in the room. They came up with reason after reason why we could not sit down and talk: delay, inaction, and ultimately a conflict that could not be resolved. In negotiations, the Republicans insisted on a couple of issues: repeal of the alternative minimum tax and an acceleration of the rates passed last spring. The session ended, obviously, without agreement. We got nowhere. They insisted on these issues. We had ideas they didn't like. So we ended in a stalemate last December. Over the break I kept examining ways that we might break the impasse, try to find ways with which to deal with the clear inability we had at the end of last year to come to some resolution. So what I did was to work with staff and examine just where the overlay was. Certainly all that the Republicans had proposed was not foreign to what the Democrats had suggested. And all that the Democrats had proposed was not foreign to what the Republicans had suggested. So we came up with a diagram that kind of looks like a MasterCard, ironically. You take the circle on the right-hand side and these two columns represent basically what the Democrats insisted ought to be in an economic stimulus package. We wanted to increase the unemployment benefits. We wanted to provide coverage for part-time workers and recent hires. Republicans said: Oh, no, we can't do that. That is ripping off the Federal Government. How terrible it would be if we gave those benefits to unemployed workers. Heavens. We can't afford that. Affordable group health coverage for the unemployed, we can't do that. We aren't going to start new entitlements, for Heaven's sake. Let's get real here. Job creation tax credit for business is something they said might be a possibility but that clearly isn't as good as a corporate AMT repeal. Republicans had ideas we did not like. We did not like the accelerated rate reduction. When I say ``we,'' I am talking about probably 95 percent of the Democratic caucus. We did not like corporate AMT repeal, or health coverage for the unemployed going through the individual insurance market, pitting an individual against a company, an individual with a preexisting condition, and just saying good luck-- we can't do that. What I said was if we can't do that, and they don't want us to do it, how about if we do the things we both said might work? We both said we wanted to extend unemployment benefits. Again, when I say ``we both,'' there were proposals for these issues by large numbers on both sides of the aisle. Not every single Member, but tax rebates, bonus depreciation, and 62 Senators voted for fiscal relief for States--62. Republicans, to a Governor, across the country, are saying if you are going to do us any good at all, if you are going to help us at all, give us some relief, especially through Medicaid. Letter after letter from Governors has come to the attention of every Member of this Senate, urging support for that fiscal relief. That was a bona fide effort to try to find common ground. I know the Republicans do not like that either because what they said, basically-- and what they are saying this morning--is if you don't give us everything in our circle, we don't want to have an economic stimulus package. It is all of this or it is nothing at all. We aren't saying if it isn't all of this it is nothing at all. We are saying we will just take what is here and it's a ticket to conference and then let's see what happens. What could possibly be wrong with sending a bill to conference, allowing both the House, the Senate, and the White House to work out a compromise? They don't want to do that. They are saying it is this entire package or we don't want to work with you. We don't want a consensus. We don't want a bill. They have said that now for 3 weeks. They have rejected the common ground approach. They are continuing to insist on two things that I hope everybody fully appreciates before they vote this morning. They are insisting on making the estate tax repeal and the Bush tax cuts permanent--that is what they are insisting on. Making the estate tax repeal permanent presents two concerns. If we are serious about listening to the Budget Committee recommendations, the principles the Budget Committee suggested ought to guide us, then I can't imagine that anybody with a straight face would say we want to repeal the estate tax permanently now under the guise of economic stimulus. First of all, the Budget Committee said--didn't they?--that you have to make sure it is temporary and that it is immediate. This does not take effect until the year 2011. There may be a recession in 2011, and it might be nice to be able to deal with that 2011 recession, but not with the recession happening in the year 2002. This thing costs $104 billion. We agreed the entire stimulus package should not be more than $75 billion, but they want to spend $104 billion of Social Security money to make it permanent when it doesn't take effect until the year 2011. The tax cut, they want to make it permanent. CBO has provided an estimate of $350 billion in the first 10 years, $4 trillion in the second 10. There is nothing cost effective about that. And it, too, does not take effect until 2011. Again, what is the stimulative value of a tax provision that takes place in the year 2011? What is the wisdom--I guess that is the word I am looking for--what is the wisdom of exacerbating our already growing deficit this year by adding $350 billion more? I don't know the answers to those questions, but I know this. On a bipartisan basis the Budget Committee said this is not the direction we should go. On a bipartisan basis, they said let us try to contain the cost. Let's do something stimulative, and do something immediate--not in the year 2011, but now. Really, there are only two choices. We can pass it, or we can block it. I do not know of anything else. I hope our Republican colleagues will pass it. I hope they won't block it. I hope we will do the right thing. I hope we will send the measure to conference so that we can try to work through these issues and resolve them and come back with a bill which we can support and move on to other priorities. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, could the Chair inform the Members of the time remaining.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, it is unfortunate we were unable to move the economic stimulus legislation forward, but I hope at the very least we could recognize, as we have in past recessions, that at some point one has to acknowledge the pain, the uncertainty, the financial difficulty that so many families are facing. In 1992, we extended unemployment benefits for up to 59 weeks. In 1982, we extended them for up to 49 weeks. In 1974, we extended them for up to 65 weeks. I ask unanimous consent that we extend them for at least 13 weeks now. I have been discussing the matter with our Republican colleagues, and they have had the opportunity to view the language. Let me make one other clarification. This is a simple extension of current law. There is no other extraneous matter, and there is no other issue I would suggest at this point be included in the extension. So for all Senators, this is simply an extension of current law as we now have it enacted. Amendment No. 2819 (Purpose: To provide for a program of temporary extended unemployment compensation)

Mr. DASCHLE. I send an amendment to the desk regarding 13 weeks' extension of unemployment benefits. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, that the bill, as amended, be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table without intervening action or debate.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will first, again, propound the unanimous consent request, and then I will yield to the Senator from Minnesota. I ask unanimous consent that all pending amendments be withdrawn. So I propound the unanimous consent request once more.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I hope the House will take the matter up immediately, perhaps as early as this afternoon, and get it to the President. As has been noted, the President has indicated already he supports the extension. I think it is now up to the House to do their part so that these people will be a little more confident they can be given some assistance now. Too many of them have already run out of benefits to which they are entitled. We have to act now. For those who have lamented the fact we could not reach a compromise, 56 Senators went on record today looking for that compromise. We only fell four short. There were a couple of absentees. So there is no doubt that there is a growing percentage, an overwhelming majority, in my view, who want to move forward. I would have only hoped some of those who lamented this could have supported cloture so we could have had the ticket to conference. We were denied that. But I have said on the floor before, and I will say it again, I am open to any overtures, any suggestions, on how we might do it, that will allow the 60 votes required to move forward. Anytime I can be assured that a 60-vote margin can be achieved, we will bring this bill back up. It is unfortunate we could not do more than this, but I am very pleased and grateful to colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their willingness to support this. Amendment No. 2820

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. If I might say to my colleague, this is not the appropriate time, but we will certainly work with the Senator and find a time, perhaps before the end of the day today, where we can take up the legislation. We need to run a hotline to ensure that we can get a unanimous consent agreement to take the bill up. We will certainly do that and come back to the floor as soon as we have the assurances on both sides of the aisle that this bill can be agreed to.

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now enter into a period of morning business for 35 minutes.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, pursuant to past practice, I ask unanimous consent that the live quorum with respect to the cloture vote be waived.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I come to the Chamber to talk briefly about our current circumstances legislatively and see if we might clarify where we are. It is important for everyone to understand how we reached this point. Last fall, the Democratic and Republican leadership, in concert with the administration, worked very closely together to come up with a legislative agenda that addressed the needs in the aftermath of the tragedy of September 11. We worked together and passed a supplemental appropriations bill that dealt directly with the needs of our armed services, as well as the needs of New York. We passed it virtually unanimously. We took up legislation to deal with the use of force authority that the President felt he needed. Working on that, along with appropriate Members in both the House and the Senate, Republican and Democrat, working collectively, we passed the use of force resolution almost immediately--and unanimously. We then took up the airline subsidy legislation. Again, we had to work through some very difficult questions regarding what kind of assistance, how fast, and what the criteria would be. We passed along with it a victims fund for the victims of New York and the Pentagon. Again, working with that working group and those who were directly involved legislatively, we passed that nearly unanimously. We had suggested in addition, of course, we try to provide benefits for dislocated workers. Our Republican colleagues said: No, let's save that for another time. We are supportive, we just don't want to do it now. So we backed away. We then took up the airport security bill. Again, working collectively, it came to the floor, and we passed it nearly unanimously. Again, many of our colleagues raised the concern about the degree to which employees were still at the end of the line. We helped airlines. We helped airports. We helped the Defense Department. We had done as much as we could to respond, but again our Republican colleagues said: No, let's wait until the end of the line. We said: OK, we will wait. We did have a cloture vote, but we pulled the amendment after we failed to get cloture. We then took up the counterterrorism legislation. Again, we worked collectively. It was beginning to be a model that seemed to work fairly well as we responded to each and every one of the stated needs and the agenda that both parties shared with regard to responding to the disaster. I recall vividly in early meetings at the White House, in discussions with the joint leadership, that is what we needed to do on economic stimulus: Let's take a model that worked. If it had worked for all of those legislative items, it would work for economic stimulus as well. So let's do it there as well. We could move ahead, we could negotiate, we could come to the floor. If people had amendments, we could do that. I recall vividly our Republican colleagues saying: No, on this one we have to draw the line; we are not going to negotiate. We are going to use what is called regular order. We are going to send you something from the House, and you can take it up and deal with it here in the Senate. I felt it coming. I knew why we were going to go to ``regular order.'' The reason is because there was an agenda. That agenda had many pieces with which they knew we would not be in agreement. They did not want to negotiate those out before they could roll out that so- called agenda, and that is exactly what has happened. The House acted. We had hoped we could get bipartisan consensus here in the Senate before we moved to legislation. Those were blocked. Negotiations broke off. We had no option other than to move forward without the benefit of a bipartisan consensus even here in the Senate. I find it all the more ironic that some of us are accused of obstructing when it was we who clearly made the outreach effort at every level, at every stage, with every group. Republicans refused to negotiate for 3 weeks last fall. Time was wasting. We had no other choice but to move forward with the hope that at some point our Republican colleagues could join us. We now know that never happened. In the negotiations after we began moving our legislation forward-- and, by the way, we talked to the experts, Alan Greenspan, Bob Rubin, so many experts during that period from September through October. The Budget Committee on a bipartisan basis was doing about the same thing. I found it remarkable, and I remember commenting at the time, based upon the negotiations and the discussions we had, how clear it was that the economists, regardless of party, had specific recommendations on which they were in agreement. It was clear that the stimulus package ought to be temporary. It was clear that it ought to be cost contained. It was clear that it had to be truly stimulative if it were going to be of any value. Those were the goals. They specified with some frequency that those goals had to be in place. I found it all the more disconcerting that when we finally saw the Republican proposal, there was very little temporary. It was all permanent. There was very little immediately stimulative. A lot of it was delayed many years. And while we had all agreed that maybe a $60 billion to $70 billion stimulus package made the most sense, theirs was about $180 billion, more than twice what was the agreed-upon amount. They insisted on eliminating the corporate alternative minimum tax. That was one of those issues they were just determined would be in any economic stimulus package. They insisted on rate acceleration, even though the CBO has reported that both rate acceleration and alternative minimum tax repeal have very little stimulative value. That is not a Democratic Policy Committee review. That is not a partisan analysis. That is the Congressional Budget Office. So overlooking the advice of the economic experts, ignoring the evaluative report of the Congressional Budget Office, our Republican colleagues have insisted on a nonstimulative, permanent tax change that is very costly. We were at this for several months last year. We laid down a bill. They made a point of order stopping the process from going forward. They could have amended it, but they made a point of order instead and stopped the legislation from going forward. Yet Democrats were accused of obstructing. In as genuine an effort as I knew how to make, over the period between the first and the second session, I thought: How are we going to break this impasse? We could go back and have another rehash of all the old debate of November and December. We could have brought a bill to the floor that we knew didn't have the 60 votes. Some suggested that we take up the House bill. We knew it didn't have 60 votes. That was not going to break the logjam. So the idea we came up with was simply to take the components-- admittedly, they were not word for word but they were components found in both bills--components dealing with extending unemployment benefits--both parties profess to be supportive of that. After all, in 1992 we extended benefits for up to 59 weeks. In 1982, we extended benefits for up to 49 weeks. And in 1974, we extended benefits for up to 65 weeks. Today, we are talking about extending benefits for an additional 13 weeks. Both parties agreed to that. Both parties agreed to a bonus depreciation. Both parties believed it was important to have a bonus depreciation. We differed in the years, but that was the second component. The third component was a recognition about the rebate--that some got it; others didn't. Why not provide a tax rebate to those who got no help the first time, last year? Both parties addressed that as something they could support. And both parties acknowledged in different ways that States are going to be exposed to huge costs, first, with the bonus depreciation, $5 billion, and, second, costs they will incur in additional Medicaid benefits they are going to have to pay out as a result of people losing their jobs and incomes going down. So there was a recognition, No. 4, that we would provide some assistance to those States. This is the third week on this bill. One of our Republican colleagues said no bill is better than the bill Daschle laid down. Madam President, I don't know where we go. Our colleagues have chosen not to try to amend the pending legislation, this proposal, but the underlying bill. Why? I don't know. And they are rejecting this common ground proposal and have suggested, now, other amendments that have nothing to do with stimulus in the short term--absolutely nothing. A couple of examples: Some want to make the estate tax repeal permanent. That takes place, not now in 2002, but in 2010. The Bush tax cut passed last year. Some suggest we make that permanent. That is not a stimulative approach to the economic circumstances we are facing right now. You can argue philosophically whether they are good or bad, but what that tells me is that our Republican colleagues are not interested in an economic stimulus bill right now. I am not sure why. If they were interested, we would come up with stimulative proposals that do not permanently amend the Tax Code. The economic experts told us: Don't do anything permanent, don't do anything long term, don't do anything that takes place a decade from now; do something that affects the economy now. They also said: Try to contain the cost. But making the estate tax repeal permanent costs $104 billion over 10 years. It would not take effect until the year 2010. Making the Bush tax cut permanent costs $350 billion over the first 10 years and $4 trillion over the next 10. That wouldn't take effect until 2011. Here you have the economic experts saying do something stimulative, do something immediate, do something that doesn't exacerbate the long- term fiscal picture. Yet Republican colleagues are doing just the opposite. They are doing something that takes effect in 2011. They are not doing something temporary. They are doing something permanent. They are racking up debt. On those two issues alone, we are talking about $350 billion in the first 10 years alone and $4 trillion in the second 10 years when the baby boomers retire. That is just permanent tax cuts, and much of this is Social Security and Medicare money that we are talking about. We only have two choices. The first choice is to pass them. The second choice is to block them. Those are the only two choices. It appears the Republicans want to block them. You don't need to be on an economic stimulus bill for 3 weeks. They all tell me it is important for us to take up the agriculture bill. I am told it is important to take up the election reform bill. We all heard the passionate speeches about taking up the energy bill. The longer we are on the economic stimulus bill, the longer it will be before we can take up these other very important pieces of legislation. I know there is plenty of opportunity for the blame game. How easy it is to say, well, they haven't taken up these bills, and it is their fault. We will take our share of the responsibility, but I don't want to hear that in the Senate Chamber. It isn't us holding up this bill for 3 weeks. I have no other choice but to file cloture today for a vote on Wednesday on this bill. That is the only way I know to bring this to a close. If the cloture motion is agreed to, we will finish the bill this week. Regrettably, it will probably take most of the week. If we fail to get cloture, I will have no other choice but to pull the bill and to move to other legislation. It will then become clear that we will not have a stimulus bill in the short term. I believe it will become clear who it is that doesn't want one. We have done all we know how to do. In good faith, I have put a bill down. In good faith, I offered it for debate. In good faith, we have entertained amendments on both sides. In good faith, we have had little schedule to accommodate Senators who have other scheduling priorities. We have little time left and much to do. I am hopeful that beginning Wednesday we will know what it is we will be able to do. Cloture Motion Madam President, I send the cloture motion to the desk.