Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from Indiana for the manner in which he has made his points this morning. While we may have some disagreement, I do not know of a Senator who has greater respect and whose views are more widely appreciated than the Senator from Indiana. I appreciate the opportunity to hear many of his comments this morning. Amendment No. 2471

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use some leader time to make comments as if in morning business.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the Chamber for a few minutes to call to the attention of my colleagues an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal this morning. The article is headlined ``House GOP Ponders Scale-Backed Version Of Stimulus Package.'' I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the article provides new information about the current views of at least House leadership regarding the stimulus package that I find to be very encouraging. I will not read all of the article, but I will simply cite one paragraph. It says: House Majority Leader Richard Armey (R., Texas), one of two GOP House leaders appointed to negotiate a final package, said the version would include many of the most politically popular provisions on the table, some scaled back from levels that have been unacceptable to Senate Democrats. They include a depreciation bonus for new capital investments; higher expensing limits for small businesses; and extension of the net operating loss carry-back period to five years, from two; accelerated reductions in individual income-tax rates; $300 rebate checks for low-income workers; and extensions of tax breaks due to expire Dec. 31. The package also would feature at least $20 billion to extend unemployment benefits by 13 weeks and to help jobless workers buy health coverage. My response to this article is two words: I accept. I accept. I think this would go a long way in dealing with many of the concerns that Senate Democrats have expressed--concerns we have now had for some time. There is one major caveat. The only major change we would have to have is that we would trade the accelerated rate cut proposal currently listed as part of the Republican package for the Domenici payroll tax holiday. In other words, we would propose a Republican tax proposal-- one that is cosponsored by a lot of our Democratic colleagues--we would substitute the Republican payroll tax holiday for the rate cut acceleration, and, by and large, you have all the components of a deal. We don't need to go into more rooms in the back of the Capitol. We don't have to negotiate with a great deal of give and take here and procedural concerns about how we are going to address these issues. That would be it. Let us take what the Republicans have said as their new proposal and let us substitute a Republican payroll tax holiday proposal for the rate cut acceleration, and you have a deal. We want to clarify what it is we are talking about with regard to the unemployment compensation and health benefits. I think it is very important that the worker assistance package include extended unemployment benefits for all workers, especially the part-time workers and recent hires who would have to be part of the unemployment compensation package, a tax credit for employers and insurers to cover 75 percent of COBRA health care costs for laid off workers, an option for States to extend Medicaid coverage for those ineligible for COBRA, and a bipartisan National Governors Association proposal for State fiscal relief. I assume when we talk about health care, that would be part of the health care proposal we would have on the table. The tax rebates that are listed would certainly be a part of it, tax incentives for business to create and invest in new jobs; we are willing to accept a 30-percent depreciation bonus. These are clarifications, of course, of the proposals that the House Republicans say they would be prepared to put into an economic stimulus package. There you have it. Clarify what we are talking about with regard to unemployment compensation and medical benefits; let us make sure that part-time workers and recent hires are included; clarify health coverage so we are sure we are talking about the same thing here; and deal with the rebate checks; tax incentives for business for up to 30 percent of depreciation bonuses. All of that could be part of a plan that we could agree to today. All we have to do is substitute a Republican payroll tax holiday for the Republican accelerated rate cut idea and we have a deal. I hope my colleagues share the same enthusiasm. I have one more caveat. Of course, this is an issue that I have already vetted with Senator Baucus and Senator Rockefeller, our negotiators. I vetted it with our leadership this morning. I am very confident that two-thirds of our caucus, at least--if not the whole caucus--will support something such as this. But I would want to present it to my caucus--and we will have a caucus meeting this afternoon at 12:30, as we do on Tuesdays. I would recommend it, as I know my negotiators would as well. So, Senator Baucus, Senator Rockefeller, our leadership, examined this and share our view that we have the makings here of an agreement. I hope we will not waste any time. I hope we can move forward with a proposal of this kind. We could complete this stimulus package this week. It is my hope that we can do so, putting aside all of the procedural hurdles and all of the many differences and many of the accusations that have been made over the last several weeks.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the period under which the farm bill is being considered for debate purposes only end at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator from Indiana yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from North Dakota, and then of course I will yield to the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Iowa, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. The pending business today is the farm bill, and we are awaiting the legislation to be introduced. I ask unanimous consent that following the colloquy or the statement made by the Senator from Massachusetts, the Senate proceed to consideration of the bill itself for debate purposes only.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts very much.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask the Senator if he will yield for a unanimous-consent request for just a moment.

Mr. DASCHLE. I object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Byrd for his extraordinary leadership in putting together a plan that addresses America's most urgent homeland defense needs. I also thank him for his tremendous eloquence, which has helped all of us, and all of America, understand the critical importance of strengthening our homeland security. I also thank Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens for their persistence in making sure we didn't leave here before we acted to protect Americans at home and abroad. Thanks to our colleagues, Senators Schumer and Clinton, for making sure this agreement helps keep commitment we made to stand with the people of New York as they recover from September 11. And, as always, I thank my friend, the assistant majority leader. Once again, Harry Reid's patience and his mastery of politics, policy, and process have enabled us to find a principled, bipartisan compromise. Sixty years ago, America was attacked at Pearl Harbor. After Pearl Harbor, Americans instantly and instinctively came together to protect our nation. Together, we defeated a mighty enemy. Nearly 3 months ago, America was again attacked on our soil by a foreign enemy. It was the first time since Pearl Harbor. Now we must decide. Will we do what that earlier generation did? Are we willing, in this Congress, to put aside our party's agendas, and perhaps our personal agendas, and do what it takes to protect our Nation. It had seemed that the answer to that question was clear. After September 11, Congress and the President worked together to respond quickly to the terrorist attacks and the ongoing threat. We expressed our strong support for the President's leadership in the war on terrorism, and authorized the use of force in the war. We worked together to keep the airlines flying, and to make America's airports safer. We made a commitment to the Pentagon, and to the people of New York and Pennsylvania, that we would help them rebuild and recover from the horrific attacks of September 11. We did all of those things with strong, bipartisan agreement. We had hoped that support for strengthening America's homeland security would be just as broad. Clearly, the need is just as urgent. Yesterday, we learned that the President is preparing his own homeland security package that he intends to send Congress next year. The President's plan reportedly will cost $20 billion--nearly three times what is our plan. We also know that, after Congress authorized $20 billion to strengthen homeland security and help communities recover from the terrorist attacks, the President's own agencies submitted to the White House requests totaling more than $200 billion for homeland security alone. The President's own Cabinet members identified $200 billion in domestic security needs they said urgently needed to be addressed to prevent future terrorist attacks. So we all understand that the need is great, and urgent. We also understand, on our side, that the Senate can only act when there is broad support. So, we will support this bipartisan agreement. The amount is different than our plan, but the priorities are the same. We said there must be more money to fight bioterrorism. This agreement includes more money for bioterrorism. We said there has to be more money to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons or the materials to build them. This agreement includes more money to do just that. We said we must keep our word to New York. This package does that. It doesn't meet all of America's homeland security needs. It doesn't even meet all of our most urgent homeland security needs. But it is better than the inadequate proposal we started out with. It is a downpayment on a stronger, more secure America. In that regard, it is at least a partial victory for the American people. For that reason, I intend to support it, and I hope my colleagues will as well. When this debate began, Democrats proposed a $20 billion homeland security package as part of a larger economic recovery plan. We believe strongly that was the right thing to do. After all, if we want people to get back on planes, and go on with their business and their lives, they need to know they are safe. But our Republican colleagues refused to even talk about homeland security as long as it was part of an economic recovery plan. So we agreed to take homeland security out of our economic plan. Then, the other side said $20 billion is too much for homeland security. So we cut $5 billion from our proposal. They said even that was too much. So we cut our proposal in half--to $7.5 billion. Again and again, we have made principled compromises in an effort to reach a bipartisan solution. Now we are accepting even further reductions in size of the package--in exchange for a commitment from our Republican friends that they will support more money for bioterrorism and other urgent homeland security needs. We want to caution our friends, however. We will not compromise our principles. We will not compromise the safety of the American people. We expect to see these commitments in the final conference report. We do not want a plan that sells our homeland security short. Sixty years ago today, more than 4,000 American sailors and soldiers were killed at Pearl Harbor. Three months ago next week, more than 4,000 innocent civilians were killed in New York, at the Pentagon, and in Pennsylvania. The attacks of September 11 revealed, in a horrific way, some of the gaps in our homeland defense. With this vote, we are taking an important first step toward closing some of the most dangerous gaps.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished assistant Democratic leader for his comments just now and add my voice. He has said it so well. I know within the hour the distinguished chair of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, along with the Senator from Hawaii, our dear colleague, Mr. Inouye, will lay down the Defense Appropriations Committee bill. Of course, a key part of that Defense Appropriations Committee bill is the homeland defense legislation incorporated within that bill. The homeland defense bill is one-half of our economic stimulus plan, first and foremost. It responds to the economists across the country who have said, if you are going to improve the economy, if you are going to strengthen our economic circumstances, the very best way to do it--in fact, the only way to ensure that it happens--is to make sure the confidence level of all Americans improves. Confidence has been shaken. The only way we can address it effectively is by ensuring that, regardless of where they travel, regardless of their circumstances at home, the mail they are now receiving--that under any circumstances we begin to put the safety back into our system, safety that we have lost since September 11. That is what homeland defense is all about. Read the headlines in almost any daily newspaper. You don't need any more evidence than that, that we have a set of circumstances unlike this country has seen before. God forbid we have another event tomorrow, an attack within the week. I have no doubt, if we had any kind of additional terror activity, regardless of where it may be, even abroad, it would trigger the need, it would trigger the desire on the part of our colleagues, to ensure that we have the resources for homeland defense. That is what we are saying. We should not be response oriented, we should be preventive in our desire to ensure the infrastructure is in place. We have proposed a very narrowly drawn bill, a bill that addresses the need for bioterrorism response, the need for greater law enforcement, the need for protecting our infrastructure, the need for ensuring that we have the health facilities in place. That is what this bill does. I don't know that you could make a better case than the New York Times editorial this morning about the need for homeland defense now. They simply make a statement, about two-thirds of the way through the editorial, that says basically: The American people want this protection now. They don't want to wait until next year. They know what we know: The terrorists do not operate on a fiscal year basis. Terrorists operate now. Terrorists will operate whenever it is convenient and appropriate for them. There is no time to wait, when it comes to the homeland defense investments that are so important to us, as we look to restoring confidence, restoring safety, restoring the opportunities that we need in this country to be ready should something happen. That is what this fight is going to be all about. I hope our colleagues will join with us in supporting it. I hope we are not going to be required to go through it piece by piece, which is what we will have to do if we have no other option; we will offer amendments piece by piece. I asked my Republican friends, rhetorically, over the last several days: Tell us which part of it you do not support. Is it the effort at bioterrorism? We have 76 cosponsors on the Kennedy-Frist bill. I think there would be strong support for that. Is it efforts to provide greater resources to local law enforcement? If they are opposed to that, let's have an amendment. We'll take it out. Are you opposed to providing the new vaccine for smallpox and anthrax antibiotics? If that part is what you are opposed to, we will take that out. But we will be required, of course, to take each of these pieces step by step. I hope that will not be necessary. I hope people understand this is going to be a very important debate, a debate that I think will give us our first chance to see how willing the Senate is to respond to the very critical need in this country for homeland defense. This is the first opportunity, and it is on the Defense bill. There could not be a more appropriate vehicle for it. I hope my colleagues will support it, will work with us to get it. It has such import that it is my intention to stay on this bill until we finish it. If it takes Saturday to do it, I want to put my colleagues on notice. Because Monday is a Jewish holiday, Hanukkah, we really have to complete our work this week. So we will be on the bill this afternoon. We will be on the bill tomorrow. We will be on the bill Saturday if necessary. But we will stay on the bill and complete our work on it because it is that critical. We need to get in conference with our House colleagues, and we need to get this job done before we leave. Clearly, because of the importance we must place on completing our work, we will have to accommodate whatever schedule is required to ensure that we complete it this week. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the New York Times editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE. Just 3 years? Not a 10-year difference but just 3 years?

Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. DASCHLE. Did the Senator from North Dakota say $140 billion over how long?

Mr. DASCHLE. I really appreciate the Senator from North Dakota clarifying and reporting to the body about the intentions of the administration. I was not aware they are contemplating a supplemental of that magnitude. I find it all the more ironic, I guess, that at the very time they oppose $7.5 billion, they would be contemplating a supplemental of the magnitude the Senator has just announced--a $20 billion supplemental. If $20 billion is good for February, why isn't $7.5 billion good for December? Where is the difference? Why is it that we must wait? And what happens between December and February if something, God forbid, would happen? So it seems to me that it makes the case all the more that this isn't necessarily about money, it isn't about the need. It cannot be about the administration's intentions. I do not understand the basis for their opposition, if, in just 60 days, as the Senator from North Dakota reports, they could be preparing a supplemental of the magnitude he has just discussed. So I hope our colleagues can clarify that because I think the $20 billion is a clear indication they, too, understand the importance of homeland defense. What we are arguing over is whether we ought to do it now or we ought to do it later. What the Senator from North Dakota is saying is, we ought to do it now. This is the time when we ought to be putting much of the preventative infrastructure in place. So I appreciate very much the Senator's comments and his contribution to this colloquy. Mr. CONRAD: I just say to my colleague, I was startled to hear the criticism coming from the other side on the question of $7.5 billion to deal with specific threats that we all know exist. After all, our vulnerability in these matters is not something we just discovered. We have had report after report made by very respected Members. In fact, the former Republican majority leader in the Senate, Howard Baker, did a report that alerted us to the need for tens of billions of dollars of expenditure to deal with weapons of mass destruction being developed in other parts of the world, specifically the former Soviet Union; and there are also the reports that were done on a bipartisan basis of the terrorist threats that existed to this country's infrastructure and the need to respond. It takes money to respond. In light of what I have been told by people within the administration that they are, right now, working on a potential supplemental of $20 billion for early next year, perhaps in the March timeframe, that they would be bringing before us, they themselves know it is going to take more money to respond to bioterrorism; it is going to take more money to strengthen our airports against terrorist attack; it is going to take more money to provide defense for our harbors and to deal with the threats to the rail infrastructure of this country. I do not think there is a person here that does not know there are these additional threats. When I couple that with what the Republicans are doing in terms of their stimulus package that would add, in comparison to our package, over $140 billion of additional deficit and debt over the next 3 years, and they are talking about defending the deficit on $7.5 billion of funding necessary to protect this Nation at the same time they are working on a plan for $20 billion of additional funding to protect this Nation, that kind of rings hollow.

Mr. DASCHLE. I say to the Senator from North Dakota, it does ring hollow. I would hope our colleagues could enlighten us as to the intentions of the administration. If, indeed, they are going to be requesting this $20 billion supplemental, we ought to know that. If they are going to be requesting it, how much would be dedicated to homeland defense? If they can tell us that, they ought to be explaining why it is important to do it in March but it is not important to do it in December. Can they assure us that between December and March there will not be any need at all? I do not think anyone can do that. Nobody is that clairvoyant. So it is a risk. I do not think anybody ought to be willing to take that risk today. Clearly, we could commit a lot more than $7.5 billion to our own personal security. But that is what we are doing in the name of reaching accommodation with our Republican friends. We started out with $15 billion, and we have cut it back in an effort to try to find a way to reach some compromise. What we have done is to cut it back to the bare essentials. As the Senator from North Dakota pointed out, the essentials--which includes the fight against bioterrorism; the fight to ensure that our infrastructure, our nuclear facilities, our ports, our airports are secure; the fight to ensure that we have the health facilities in place--we were just apprised of a situation where somebody contracted West Nile disease in September. The diagnosis was sent to the Centers for Disease Control, and they were not informed as to what that diagnosis was until just this week because they are so backlogged because they do not have the resources, they do not have the personnel. My goodness, that is a wakeup call of a magnitude about which everybody should be concerned. But that is what we are talking about with homeland security: ensuring that we have the resources to deal with diagnosis, ensuring we can work with local law enforcement officials. To which part of what I have just described is our Republican caucus opposed? Which part of it do they want to take out? I think that is what we are going to have to try to figure out. I think clearly within each one of those cases not only are we attempting to address it in as conservative a way as we can from a fiscal point of view but in as prudent a way as possible, taking what needs to be done first and dealing with those issues that could be dealt with later at a later date. So I appreciate very much the Senator's comments this morning.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his contribution. I underscore what he said just now about the stimulative value of confidence. You can't calculate how much of an improvement in the economy it will make when people feel safe again. You know it is there; intuitively, you know that if people feel good about flying and traveling and doing all the things we did months ago, this economy is going to start improving. People are going to start putting their lives back together again with a sense of normalcy that we have not experienced in some time. They have to know it is safe to do so, that our airports and our ports and our nuclear facilities and all of our infrastructure are safer today than they were before. That is, in essence, what we are talking about, creating that psychology, that confidence, that sense of normalcy that we have not had now for some time. I hope my colleagues will work with us in a way that will allow us to address this need. If we are going to do it next March, let's do it now. Let's do it in a way that we can agree ought to be done. Homeland security is not a partisan issue, and it should not be in this case either. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Nevada. Also, there really have been, as I understand, two basic concerns expressed by our Republican friends about their additional commitment to homeland defense. One was that we agreed to $68.6 billion in appropriations for this calendar year. The fact is that is true. We have agreed to $68.6 billion in overall money. But we also have always recognized that in cases of emergency there is a need for an additional commitment in resources. That agreement was reached before the anthrax attack. That agreement was reached before we had three specific incidents where we were put on high alert as a result of the potential for additional attacks somewhere in this country. Clearly, the circumstances have changed dramatically since that agreement. They certainly have in my office, and I think we could say across the country. No. 1, I think we all have to recognize the changed circumstances, and the emergency circumstances. We need to at least begin to put in place the homeland defense structure that is so critical. The second concern is that our Republican colleagues have said this really doesn't have anything to do with stimulus, and for that reason they are opposed to it. Yet that is contrary to what every single economist has told us--that there is a tremendous stimulus out there. In fact, there was an article on the front page of the Washington Post a few days ago which said as a direct result of the efforts we are now making on homeland defense, the economy has actually started to blossom again because of some of these new commitments we have made. On both counts--No. 1, because the emergency circumstances have changed, and, No. 2, clearly there is a stimulative value to what it is we are doing beyond the security value to which we should all aspire-- there is ample reason for us to be overwhelmingly supportive of homeland defense. I only ask my colleagues: What would happen if we were attacked tomorrow? I have no doubt we would respond with not $7.5 billion, but we might respond with $70 billion, if another attack were to occur. We don't want to see another attack. God forbid that there would be another attack. But we have to assume that if it is up to the terrorists, because they do not look at fiscal years--they are not going to wait until after we put all of this in place--they are going to attack whenever they think it is right. And I don't want to see that happen to this country. I think it is critical that we be prepared for whatever comes. Our Republican friends say we can't afford $7.5 billion right now. I find that the most illogical of all their arguments given their position. They say we can't commit $7.5 billion. But then they go out and commit $175 billion to an economic stimulus package all in the name of tax cuts, $23 billion of which goes in the form of retroactive AMT relief to the largest corporations in the country--General Motors, $1 billion; IBM, close to $1 billion; Ford, almost $1 billion in retroactive payments. Where is the stimulative value in retroactive payments of that magnitude to corporations that have billions of dollars of cash on hand? Their notion is, we can't afford it, while at the same time our Republican friends will tell us, well, we still think we ought to be spending not $75 billion, which is what the President advocated for a stimulus package, but $175 billion--$100 billion more than what the President has acknowledged would be of stimulative value to us. I have to say that argument doesn't hold much water either. Based on what opposition I have heard so far, I don't think the argument is even close. The bottom line is that we have to be prepared. The bottom line is that for an economic stimulus package to work, people have to feel more secure. The bottom line is that we need these resources to put in place a homeland defense system that we recognize will be needed for all perpetuity--not just this year and not just next year. I hope our colleagues will join with us in supporting this package in the recognition that we need to be just as cognizant of our needs here at home as we are abroad.