Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the answer of the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma. Let me just say, though, every economist I have talked to has said you can stimulate the economy with spending or with tax cuts. What I find always intriguing, and somewhat amusing, is our Republican colleagues say spending ought to count, tax cuts don't count; we ought to spend as much as we want to with tax cuts, and they don't count; we are going to oppose totally the first dollar of additional homeland security investment; that is, spending; but we are going to propose $175 billion in tax cuts because that is not spending. We had an agreement, they said, on $686 billion in appropriations. Well, we also had an agreement on a tax cut that a lot of people did not like but now have reconciled to because it is law. It passed. It wasn't my part of the agreement, but it passed. Now the President says: Oh, wait a minute, we want another $175 billion of additional tax cuts over the $1.8 trillion we passed last spring because we don't have enough yet. We want to stimulate the economy a little bit more with $175 billion, drawing down the Treasury, drawing down Medicare, drawing down Social Security, drawing down all the retirement funds to pay for this tax cut, a tax cut that largely doesn't take effect until outyears, years after this one. There is nothing immediate about it at all. I find that very amusing. We will continue to have this debate. But the whole point is simply this: There are understandable positions that both sides will take in these philosophical debates. I believe there is a right and a wrong way, and they believe there is a right and wrong way. But the only way we are going to find common ground is to meet. Perhaps the most important point in answer directly to the Republican leader's question about what we are going to do with economic stimulus is, I say, let's meet. I propose we meet at 11:30. Let's have a meeting with all of those involved. Let's resolve these differences. They are saying not until you take half of yours off the table. We can't do that. I think every Republican will understand why.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will respond to the Senator from Illinois. I know there are other Senators waiting. I do not want to monopolize the floor. But let me say this. The answer is yes. I guess I would ask my Republican colleagues, which part of the homeland security bill do you oppose: The bioterrorism and food safety bill that allows for $3.3 billion to ensure that we can recognize the pathogens and treat victims of all of the array of bioterrorist possibilities that are out there? Improved State and local communication systems? Accelerating the purchase of smallpox vaccine? Is that the part you are opposed to? How about law enforcement? This bill includes $4.6 billion to provide additional help to law enforcement so they can deal with the tremendous challenges they are currently facing, and for which there is no funding. How about transportation security? This provides for $3.2 billion to ensure that there is protection, given the tremendous vulnerability that there is in our infrastructure right now. Is that the part they are opposed to? Would they oppose transportation security? Finally, providing some help to our mail and our Federal computer systems? We provide for Federal facilities to ensure that we can better screen the mail. No one is more sensitive to screening mail right now than I am. But there is an array of very specific investments in homeland security to protect our mail and to make our computer systems more efficient. We have some of the most archaic computer systems, in many of our Federal agencies, that you can find in the country. We have to update them if we are serious about homeland security. Is that the part they are opposed to? Which part of this do they not like? That is a really serious question. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Oklahoma for a question.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield in a moment. I yield to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. DASCHLE. Again, I think the Senator is absolutely right. But, again, we are willing to negotiate all this. We are willing to sit down with our Republican colleagues. We were willing to debate it until they made the point of order. They said: No, we are not going to debate it because we don't like it. No, we are not going to meet with you because we don't like it. But then they come to the floor and say: Where is it? I think the Senator is absolutely right, this is an exercise in curious judgment about the need for economic stimulus if that is the approach taken by Republican colleagues.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is absolutely right. I have not participated in a negotiation where the price of admission was lopping off at least a third of the entire package before you even sit down to negotiate the first sentence. That is the price of admission on the part of our Republican colleagues today. I have never participated in something such as that. What makes it all the more ironic, reading from the New York Times, November 22: Tom Ridge, the Director of Homeland Security, said today he would seek substantial new spending in President Bush's next budget, placing a priority on more agents and equipment for strapped federal law enforcement agencies and urgent improvements in public health facilities. I repeat: Strapped Federal law enforcement agencies and urgent improvements in public health facilities. This is not something that says they are going to be strapped. These are not urgent needs next year. These are urgent needs right now. He has identified them. The question is, If we are going to deal truly with economic security and vitality, if we are going to try economic stimulus, what is wrong with an immediate stimulation into those areas where we need it the most--law enforcement and the health agencies that need help right now, as identified by this administration?

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. I know there are a lot of Senators who wish to speak, but the Republican position is that so long as Democrats hold a view that in addition to tax cuts and whatever can be generated legislatively from the Finance Committee, that there is a very legitimate need for immediate additional commitment to homeland security, fighting bioterrorism, fighting the array of challenges we face in defending our infrastructure, making sure people have adequate law enforcement to deal with the array of challenges we face even at the local law enforcement level--so long as that is part of our economic stimulus package, the Republican caucus is refusing to meet. That is the issue. So far, they have also refused to even deliberate on a bill that allows consideration of that, given their points of order or whatever other choices of parliamentary devices are available to them. So that is the issue. I have offered three alternatives. Let us have a good debate. Let us decide what we are going to do in the Senate. Let us have a meeting to see if we can resolve both the spending and the revenue side. That was unacceptable. I suggested then let us have separate meetings, one for appropriations. If their position is it ought to be zero and our position is it ought to be $15 billion, perhaps if there is a real desire to compromise and work this out to resolve our differences, we ought to be able to find some middle ground between zero and fifteen. The Republicans are saying, no, we do not even want to meet so long as that is an issue. So they are not willing to agree to separate meetings to talk about revenue and appropriations. Finally, I suggested, if we take it up as an amendment to the Defense appropriations bill once it comes to the Senate and have a good debate about that, can we be guaranteed the Republicans will not use whatever parliamentary device may be chosen to deny the majority the opportunity to pass that? Again, they could not provide us with that assurance. I know the distinguished Republican leader's suggestions are sincere and heartfelt. We have had many private conversations about the belief that he and I could probably work something out. He has a caucus to work with, and so do I. We do our best to try to represent our caucuses, but the Republican caucus has made it quite clear they are in no hurry to pass economic stimulus so long as economic stimulus is defined as, at least in part, an investment in homeland security. Never mind that it was reported in the Washington Post last week that the administration has $127 billion of homeland security needs that are unattended right now. Never mind that the Director of Homeland Security said we have to have a lot more money, a lot more resources in homeland security than what we have right now. He said, I am going to propose a supplemental next year. We are saying that if it is needed next year, and if the serious recognition of the need for homeland security is evident to him now, why do we wait until next year to deal with something we ought to do now? Especially when it involves improving the confidence level of the American people so they will lead their lives normally and restore this economic vitality that was so much a part of the last 8 years. I will work with the Republican leader to try to find a way to resolve this impasse. As I said, we are willing to sit down anytime, under any circumstances, and meet, so long as both pieces are on the table. That is the Democratic caucus position. To my knowledge, it is shared by virtually every member of our caucus. So we will continue to try to work through that.

Mr. DASCHLE. If I could respond to the Senator from Mississippi before he leaves, I will ask him a question. He asks: Where is the stimulus bill? I remind him, prior to the Thanksgiving recess, the Republicans defeated cloture on the stimulus bill. They are filibustering the stimulus bill as we speak. There is one way to break that filibuster and to get on with ensuring we can get a stimulus package even this week. I ask the Senator from Mississippi if he would sit down with me and with our Republican and Democratic colleagues in the House and negotiate a package that addresses homeland security and revenue tax reduction, and do it this afternoon. If he is willing to agree to a meeting of that kind--which they have not been willing to agree to so far--we can get to work and get an agreement certainly before the end of the week. Will the Senator from Mississippi agree to do that?

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct. The railroad retirement bill has 74 cosponsors. It is overwhelmingly supported on both sides of the aisle. I do not recall the exact vote in the House, but it passed overwhelmingly in the House. I know well over 300 House Members voted for it. This is a matter of great concern to a lot of railroad retirees. We were hoping that while we wait for the Defense appropriations bill, we could take up a couple of pieces of legislation that deserve consideration, and that certainly is one of them.

Mr. DASCHLE. If I could respond briefly to the Senator from Oklahoma, I appreciate, as always, his honesty and forthrightness in telling his colleagues of his intentions on the railroad retirement bill. He mentioned one of the reasons we ought to stay on the economic stimulus bill is the House has passed it and we ought to pass it. The House, many, many months ago, passed the railroad retirement bill. The House several months ago passed the farm bill. If that is the criteria by which we decide what ought to be taken up, I would think there is a strong argument both railroad retirement, as well as the Agriculture bill, ought to be addressed. The distinguished Republican leader was asking a similar question, What is the hurry in bringing up the farm bill? He noted the farm bill expires next year. That is the answer: The farm bill expires next year. More than a dozen national farm organizations wrote a letter yesterday pleading with the Congress, pleading especially with the Senate, to take up the bill, unencumbered, to pass it cleanly, to get on to conference and resolve our outstanding differences with the House and get this legislation passed this year. Farmers need to know what the circumstances are going to be next year when the current farm legislation expires. They need to have time to plan. The Department of Agriculture needs time to adjust to the array of changes that will occur in public policy once this takes effect. That cannot be done overnight. If we don't do it now, it will encumber and perhaps impede in very serious ways the Department's ability to provide continuity in farm policy next year. This is very clearly a must-pass piece of legislation. The Republican leader also made mention of the fact we had agreed in earlier bipartisan meetings about making sure the stimulus package is immediate and cost contained. He is not here, and I will not belabor this point because he is not here, but I certainly urge the Republican leader to go back and look at his own bill. If he is concerned about that, my guess is he will vote against the Republican bill in the Senate Finance Committee. It is twice the size of the Democratic plan. It is $175 billion. We agreed it would only be a $75 billion package overall. The House Republicans are proposing a $175 billion package, and most--I emphasis ``most''--of the provisions do not take effect this year. Most of them take effect in the outyears. There is almost no stimulus effect and it is twice the cost of the agreed-upon amount of stimulus we were going to provide this year. I urge our Republican leader to look closely at his bill. I am sure he will come to the same conclusions I have with regard to his legislation if, indeed, those criteria are important to him as well. I am happy to yield to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is absolutely correct. We intend to bring up for purposes of debate and amendments and consideration a bill we will introduce next week. It will be rule XIV'd. It will be brought to the floor. As the Senator knows, not just the Energy Committee, but the Finance Committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, the Governmental Affairs Committee, and I think even the Armed Services Committee have all played a role in the creation of this comprehensive, multifaceted energy policy. Because it is so multifaceted and multijurisdictional, we chose to put a proposal together that will allow the Senate to work its will on energy policy during that period of time. That bill will be, as I say, introduced next week, available to all Senators for the period we are not in session. It would be my expectation we would take the bill up--not only my expectation, but my commitment that we will take the bill up during that first work period.

Mr. DASCHLE. The distinguished Senator is absolutely correct. This is a critical piece of legislation. We have been waiting for the House to produce a bill on which we can begin working. They have had some difficulty in arriving at a consensus. As I understand it, as the Senator has noted, the House now does plan to make another effort at reaching a consensus this week. Just as soon as the bill is sent here, I am quite sure the Appropriations Committee will take it up in their committee, and then at some point shortly after that, whenever that time may be, it would be my intention to bring it to the Senate floor for debate and passage. Since we do not know exactly when the House will be able to send us a bill, it is not as clear to me when we can move on the Senate side, but just as soon as we have a bill, we will move.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Illinois is absolutely right. I recall having several bipartisan meetings with economists. They said there were three things you really ought to do if you are going to stimulate the economy: First, it has to be immediate; second, it has to be temporary; and third, to the extent possible, you have to raise the level of confidence among the American people. That is exactly what this homeland security package does. It is immediate. It is temporary--it provides a one-time opportunity for us to assist the law enforcement officials to whom I am talking as well. And it will raise confidence among the American people. People are not confident today, and they will not be confident until they know their security is much more palpable, much more evident than it is right now.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is absolutely right. Technically, it is not taken off the floor, but it is still pending. A point of order was raised and Republicans supported the point of order, as you know, and this is an important point. The identical point of order could have been made against the House Republican bill. We chose not to do that. Our view is if we are going to try to create a bipartisan resolution here, we don't need a partisan conflict about the way we ought to proceed to getting to that resolution. That is exactly what has now been done by the actions taken by our Senate Republican colleagues. The very same point of order could have been raised against the House bill. Again, we chose not to do that. I appreciate the Senator's comments.

Mr. DASCHLE. I retain the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. If I could clarify, because I think the Senator has put his finger on exactly the issue. The Democratic position on economic stimulus is--and the economists have all verified this--there are two ways to stimulate the economy. One is through spending, and our homeland security package would provide spending for bioterrorism, for law enforcement, for an array of very specific needs. In fact, the Director of Homeland Security said there is a specific array of needs he should have, and he would like to have them sometime next year. What we are saying is if they are important next year, they ought to be important this year. We are saying that is part of it. The other is tax reduction. Is the distinguished Republican leader saying that as long as homeland security is part of our package, they will refuse to have the meeting to find some resolution to this issue?

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct. We have to complete the work of the appropriations process. Certainly that is an issue that has to be resolved.

Mr. DASCHLE. I had a good conversation with the chairman of the Education Committee last night. He has given me a progress report. Clearly, if the conference completes its work, I want to bring up the education bill. Clearly, that is an issue of great import, as the Senator has noted. It is one that deserves the attention and priority of Congress and would be reflected in the schedule. I did not list it simply because the conference has not completed its work, but if it completes its work, I will certainly be interested in pursuing an opportunity to take it up on the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am not through. I have a statement I will be making about further issues to be considered and raised. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DASCHLE. At least one rollcall vote will occur during today's session between 4 and 5 p.m. It is my intention to take up the railroad retirement bill today. We will make a motion to proceed to the bill shortly. After we dispose of the railroad retirement bill, my hope is that we can take up the farm bill. We are going to be taking both of these bills up, waiting for the Defense appropriations bill to be sent here from the House. We are not sure yet when that will be. My hope is it will be sometime before the end of this week. Appropriations Committee chairman Senator Byrd has made it clear it is his intention to take up the bill in committee as quickly as possible, and then we will be prepared to take up the Defense appropriations bill as soon as or shortly after the Appropriations Committee has acted.N O T I C E Effective January 1, 2002, the subscription price of the Congressional Record will be $422 per year or $211 for six months. Individual issues may be purchased for $5.00 per copy. The cost for the microfiche edition will remain $141 per year with single copies remaining $1.50 per issue. This price increase is necessary based upon the cost of printing and distribution. Michael F. DiMario, Public Printer In addition to that, our hope is to take up the economic stimulus package. That is very important legislation that we hope we can finish certainly before the end of this session. The conference reports on appropriations--there are four conference reports still outstanding. We will want to address those as quickly as possible. I also inform my colleagues that the Judiciary Committee is prepared to report out, as I understand, nine judicial nominees, including one circuit court nominee, this week. We will be taking up those nominees as soon as the committee has reported them out, in addition to other nominations. I have not mentioned the terrorist insurance bill, the port security bill, counterterrorism, or bioterrorism legislation. There is a lot of work left to be done. My hope is we can complete our work on all of those pieces of legislation prior to the time we depart for the Christmas holidays. Once again, the issue of energy has come up on a number of occasions. For good reason, it is a very important piece of legislation. The House has acted on an energy bill. We need to act as well. I have indicated it was my plan to take it up as soon as many of the issues relating to the response to the terrorist attack of September 11 could be resolved. Of course, we are still dealing with many of those issues right now. We also are continuing to deal with what I think most Senators would agree is must-pass legislation; that is, the array of appropriations bills that have yet to be completed. It is for that reason I don't know that we will have an opportunity to complete our work on an energy bill before the end of this session. I am prepared to commit to taking up the energy bill prior to the Founders Day recess; that is, during that first work period, between January 22 and the time we break for the Founders Day recess. We ought to recognize that this bill is important. It is comprehensive, but it is also controversial. We are going to have to leave some time for debate on the legislation. It is my intention--and I intend to be more clear as I know what remains of this session when we come back--regardless of whatever additional legislation may be required to be considered in that first block of time, my determination, my commitment will be that we raise this issue, debate it, and have a good opportunity to consider energy legislation prior to the Founders Day break.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will conduct a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. The Senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly party conferences. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate go back into morning business beginning at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last week, as I was celebrating Thanksgiving with my family, I was reminded of the history of the holiday. We often forget that Thanksgiving was not always a feast of abundance. The Pilgrim's first Thanksgiving, in 1621, didn't begin with plates full of turkey and vegetables, but with five small kernels of corn at each setting. For the Pilgrims, it served as a stark reminder of the hardship, struggle, and starvation they had suffered the previous winter. It wasn't until 1863 that we had our first national Thanksgiving. In the autumn of that year--at the height of the Civil War--Abraham Lincoln proclaimed a national day not to honor abundance, but to remember ``all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers.'' And so, to me, this Thanksgiving came closer to the original meaning of the day: a day to remember, in the midst of hardship, that we have so much to for which to be thankful. A day to remember, in the midst of comfort, the many who are suffering. In the last 2 weeks, I have been asked by many people and many of my colleagues what the Senate intends to do before the end of the year. There are a number of things I would like to get done, but I believe that nothing we do here in the Senate is more important than helping those who are suffering, and passing an economic recovery plan. Last month, we saw the largest jump in the unemployment rate in 21 years. Yesterday, a panel of economists announced that our Nation has officially entered a recession. For the more than 7 million Americans who are out of work, this Thanksgiving was a time of uncertainty. For all Americans, this has been a season of deep concern about threats to our safety. America needs an economic recovery plan that lifts our economy, secures our Nation, and remembers those who are suffering. It is time for us to renew our efforts to pass such a plan. In the weeks following the September 11 attacks, Democrats and Republicans in both the House and the Senate asked the experts: ``What are the most effective steps we can take to shore up our economy?'' Here is what they told us: Put money into the hands of low- and middle-income workers; they are the ones who will spend it quickly. Make sure that workers who have lost their jobs receive unemployment benefits. And cut taxes for businesses--but limit the tax cuts to those businesses that actually help create jobs. They told us that any plan to stimulate the economy should help people regain the sense of security they need to shop, travel, and invest. Finally, they said our plan must be affordable, and temporary. Based on those conversations, the House and Senate budget committees agreed to four principles that should underpin any economic stimulus measure we pass. With their principles as our foundation, and those discussions as our guide, we began negotiations on how best to help our economy recover. Unfortunately, Republican leaders in the House chose to withdraw from that effort. Instead, they pushed through--on a party line vote--a bill that is not a recovery bill at all, but merely another laundry list of tax cuts--with the lion's share going to profitable businesses and wealthy individuals. It includes next to nothing for laid-off workers--the very people who most need our help. And, with an exploding price tag, it runs the risk of actually hurting our economy in the long term. In the Senate, we sought a better approach. Even after Republicans in the House walked away from the negotiations, Senator Baucus continued to call for bipartisan meetings on the Senate side. In the end, he and his staff held nearly a dozen of them. He put together a serious bill that: extends unemployment benefits and health care coverage for unemployed workers; cuts taxes for families who didn't get a rebate as part of the tax cut passed earlier this year; cuts taxes and for businesses that will invest and create jobs; and, with provisions authored by our distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, strengthens our homeland security with investments in things like infrastructure security and bioterrorism preparedness. The Wednesday before Thanksgiving, that bill was killed by a budget point of order--a procedural technicality which said that what we are facing is not an emergency. Republicans said they opposed our economic recovery plan because the bill contained too much spending. Democrats feel strongly that homeland security provisions should be a part of any economic recovery package. These measures not only make important investments to secure our food and water supply, ports, bridges, tunnels, as well as our stockpile of antibiotics and vaccines. They also give people the sense of confidence they need to shop, travel, and invest. The past couple of weeks have reminded us again about the importance of homeland security. We have seen another anthrax death, this time in Connecticut, and the FBI found an anthrax-tainted letter sent to Senator Leahy. The President's Director of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, has indicated that billions in additional funds are needed to make America safer. In fact, it was reported that, in the wake of September 11, Federal agencies have asked the White House for $127 billion more to recover from that assault and beef up security according to David Broder in Sunday's Washington Post. Defending against anthrax, making our infrastructure safer, protecting our water supply--these things are not pork. They are necessary goals, and an important part of any stimulus package. But despite my commitment to the homeland security provisions, I have indicated my willingness to negotiate them separately in the name of reaching an agreement. That idea was rejected. We also offered to debate only the economic recovery component, if Republicans would allow us an up or down vote on homeland security as an amendment to the DOD appropriations bill. That proposal was also rejected. That was 2 weeks ago. And since then, I have heard nothing. We are at the table, ready to negotiate. It is time for Republicans to get serious about reaching a compromise, and come join us at the negotiating table. This is not time to play politics with our economy and our security. In the meantime, perhaps our Republican colleagues would find it less objectionable if we consider, individually, the components of our plan on which we are all agreed. I will ask unanimous consent at a later time to bring up just the part of our plan that helps laidoff workers. Extending unemployment insurance is more than the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do. It puts money into the hands of people who are most likely to spend it immediately. As Robert Rubin has said, unemployment insurance is ``a near-perfect stimulus.'' During the first Bush administration, when we were facing a recession, Democrats and Republicans agreed to extend unemployment insurance four times. I believe we can agree to do the same now. Everyone in this body has said that they want to help the workers. But the voices of delay always claim they want to help the workers. If you want to help the workers, you will have an opportunity to do so today. In the days ahead, we can continue our work to protect America's families from terrorism, and discuss what kinds of tax cuts will be most effective in helping the economy. But when we talk about helping the hardest hit, we need to realize that the people we are talking about don't have unlimited savings. The holidays are fast approaching, and this delay is a luxury they literally cannot afford. Our Republican colleagues have a new mantra. They say, ``We need paychecks, not unemployment checks.'' I think they should talk to some laidoff workers. Yes, they need a paycheck. And like most hard-working Americans, they don't want the Government to do anything for them that they can do for themselves. But right now, many of them need just a little help to make it through one of the most difficult times in their lives. As we return from Thanksgiving, we have an opportunity to honor the true meaning of the holiday--to remember those left behind and left out, to lift those who are suffering, and to make our Nation--this land for which we are all so thankful--even stronger in the future. So when people ask me what the Senate intends to do in the next couple of weeks, that is my answer, and that is my goal.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. In light of this objection, I then ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 69, H.R. 10.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. In light of this objection, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1140, and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.