Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 143 (Wednesday, October 24, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 143 (Wednesday, October 24, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H7225-H7282]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ECONOMIC SECURITY AND RECOVERY ACT OF 2001

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 270 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 270

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3090) to provide tax
incentives for economic recovery. The bill shall be
considered as read for amendment. The amendment recommended
by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill
shall be considered as adopted. All points of order against
the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) One hour of debate on the
bill, as amended, equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways
and Means; (2) the further amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution, if offered by Representative
Rangel of New York or his designee, which shall be in order
without intervention of any point of order, shall be
considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for one
hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
H. Res. 270 is a modified closed rule, waiving all points of order
against consideration of H.R. 3090, the Economic Security and Recovery
Act of 2001.
The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate in the House, equally
divided and controlled by the ranking minority member and the chairman
of the Committee on Ways and Means. It also provides that the amendment
recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill
shall be considered as adopted.
H. Res. 270 provides for the consideration of only the amendment in
the nature of a substitute printed in the Committee on Rules' report
accompanying the resolution, if offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel) or his designee, which shall be considered as read and
shall be separately debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
The rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the
nature of a substitute. Finally, it provides one motion to recommit
with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in
approving this resolution so the House can move on to consideration of
this stimulus package, arguably one of the most important legislative
measures we will debate this year.
In light of the tragic events of September 11, 2001, along with more
recent developments here in Washington, D.C., New York, New Jersey and
Florida, observers are increasingly concerned about our Nation's
economy going into a recession. Indeed, President Bush has called upon
the Congress to quickly send him legislation that he can sign into law
to avoid such a scenario. With all of these events in mind, it is
imperative for the House of Representatives to take prompt action on
legislation that will provide our economy with a jump-start, and H.R.
3090 does just that.
I wanted to commend the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), for bringing this package
to the floor and doing so in a fiscally responsible fashion. As
approved by the committee, H.R. 3090 provides hard-working American
workers and businesses with roughly $99 billion in tax relief to help
stimulate the economy in the first year, and only $159 billion over the
next 10 years. Constructing the bill in this fashion will hopefully

[[Page H7226]]

maximize its stimulative impact, while minimizing its long-term
budgetary impact.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the rule
on this important stimulus package to ensure the economic security of
our country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of deep disappointment that I rise
today, not because it is difficult to oppose this rule and this bill.
Republican leaders have presented the House with a bill that is so
partisan, so unfair to laid-off workers and so fiscally irresponsible
that there is little doubt about the harm it would do to the economy,
to Social Security and Medicare and to public health and other homeland
security problems. A person could not write a more dangerous piece of
partisan posturing if they tried.
No, Mr. Speaker, my deep disappointment today is with the fact that
we are considering this bill at all. At a time like this, as Americans
pull together to fight anthrax in the mail and to support our troops in
Afghanistan, does anyone really believe we need more billion dollar
corporate tax breaks? At a time like this as American cities cry out
for bipartisan leadership, does anyone really believe we need more
partisan posturing and politics as usual?
It does not have to be this way, Mr. Speaker. Over the past 6 weeks,
Americans have pulled together to rebuild from the horror of September
11. Here in Washington, Democrats and Republicans strongly support the
President and the men and women of the U.S. military as we wage this
war against evil.
On the economy, we started off in the right direction. Democratic and
Republican leaders joined the President in committing ourselves to
build bipartisan consensus around an economic security package.
Unfortunately, Republican House leaders have today forgotten
bipartisanship on the economy. Today they hope to ram through a bill
that simply repackages a whole host of expensive tax breaks that
Republicans have been pushing for years.
Mr. Speaker, one hardly knows where to start with this bill. It
violates all the economic stimulus principles identified by the
bipartisan leadership of the House and Senate budget committees.
President Bush's Secretary of the Treasury called it ``show business''
for Republican special interest friends. One Washington lobbyist called
it ``a bag of goodies.''
Mr. Speaker, America's economy is slumping now, but this bill
provides precious little immediate stimulus. Instead, it hurts long-
term economic growth by squandering the Social Security and Medicare
Trust Funds and driving up long-term interest rates and families'
credit card and home mortgage payments.
Hundreds of thousands of hardworking Americans have lost their jobs
since September 11. Many laid-off workers do not get the unemployment
assistance they need to take care of their families while they look for
work, and many cannot afford health insurance after they lose their
jobs.
This bill pretty much leaves laid-off workers and their families to
fend for themselves. Instead, it provides a $20 billion tax refund to
the biggest corporations in America, and it does it retroactively to
1986. Let me repeat, it provides $20 billion of tax breaks to the
biggest corporations in America and does it retroactively to 1986.
Shame on the other side of the aisle. Shame. It gives these
corporations and corporations like them another $20 billion in tax
benefits when they decide not to invest in the U.S. economy but keep
their money abroad.
Finally, this Republican bill shortchanges America's homeland
security needs to pay for special interest tax breaks. The first duty
of the Government is the safety of the American people, and winning the
war on terrorism will be expensive; but this bill would not make a
single American more secure.
Instead, it spends $160 billion of Social Security money on tax
breaks for corporations and special interests. Unfortunately, tax
breaks will not pay for airport security or public health.
The truth is, this stimulus bill only stimulates special interests;
and it does it by sacrificing Social Security, the economy and homeland
security priorities. The truth is some Republicans believe the public
is distracted by the war on terrorism and sees an opportunity to slip
in a grab bag of special interest goodies that will neither stimulate
the economy nor make a single American safer.
Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better than that, and the
Members of this House in both parties can do better than that.
We still have the opportunity to agree on a bipartisan economic
security plan; and the Democratic substitute, which is based on the
principles outlined by the Democratic Caucus Task Force on the Economy,
was designed to serve as a basis for bipartisan consensus.
It is balanced, ensuring resources for homeland security priorities,
critical assistance for laid-off workers, and direct economic stimulus
like tax relief for those most likely to spend it, and it is fiscally
responsible. Every dollar is paid for by freezing the top tax rate at
38.6 percent.
Our plan puts security first by setting aside $20 billion for
immediate homeland security needs. Our plan ensures all laid-off
workers have the unemployment insurance and affordable health insurance
they need to strengthen families and stimulate the economy by putting
money in the pockets of the people who need it most. It provides for 26
additional weeks of unemployment benefits. It provides for 75 percent
of the COBRA costs of health insurance for 1 year for laid-off
employees, something that Republicans do not even begin to do.
Our plan includes a holiday tax relief for the millions of Americans
who pay taxes but did not receive a full rebate check and, in some
cases, did not receive any rebate check earlier this year. These new
rebate checks, $600 for couples, timed to coincide with the holiday
shopping season, could give the economy a crucial shot in the arm.
It also includes meaningful tax relief for small- and medium-sized
businesses. Short-term help, focused on encouraging immediate
investment, will help jump start the economy without threatening long-
term fiscal discipline.
Finally, our plan is fiscally responsible and paid for. So we protect
America's long-term economic health and strengthen Social Security and
Medicare. To win the war on terrorism and restore our economic
strength, we have to pull together and share fiscal responsibility.
These should not be Democratic or Republican priorities. These are
American priorities, and Americans deserve political leaders who work
together to achieve them. Democrats are committed to doing that. It is
my sincere hope, Mr. Speaker, that Republicans will join us in
defeating this rule and this partisan bill Republican leaders have put
together today.

{time} 1130

We can get back to the bipartisanship that America deserves from us.
And let me say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the people on the other
side of the aisle should be ashamed to show their heads in this Chamber
today when they provide $20 billion of retroactive tax breaks going
back to 1986 for the largest corporations in America. We should be
providing unemployment benefits and health care benefits and jobs for
the people who are suffering, not retroactive corporate tax breaks.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to thank the
gentleman from Texas for the generous and bipartisan spirit of his
remarks and for his honesty in pointing out that the Democratic
substitute is a spending program financed by tax increases.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Fossella).
(Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the rule and the
underlying legislation.
I think there are basically two competing views, and that is okay,
that is the beauty of our country, that we can have different views and
come to the

[[Page H7227]]

floor of this House and debate them. One suggests that we raise taxes
and thus raise spending to stimulate the economy. Personally, I do not
support that.
I think the vast majority of the American people understand that the
best way to stimulate our economy is to provide incentives to
individuals and businesses to create more jobs, really harnessing the
energy of the American people, the spirit of the American people. So on
two levels this bill is the right thing to do because it reduces the
top tax rate on individuals, thus providing incentives for people to go
out there, work a little harder and keep a little more money from their
paycheck, or a small business to keep a little more money in their
small business, to create more jobs, to provide health insurance for
their employees, to invest in the long-term prosperity of their
operations.
On another level it is important for New Yorkers. This is a good bill
for New York. We have seen what happened on September 11, and I want to
commend my colleagues and the administration on the other side of the
House for all they have done for New York; but we also saw in New York
an unbelievable spirit that came forward. That is nothing new. There
are those of us who believe that the American people have unbridled
spirit and, when given the tools, they can achieve everything and
anything. And that is what this bill allows to happen. It allows the
American spirit to take hold.
In New York, we have to rebuild downtown Manhattan. Fifteen to twenty
million square feet of office space needs to be rebuilt. This bill will
allow that to happen by decreasing the leasehold improvement for
tenants to 15 years. Normally a lease on commercial office space is 7
to 10 years; retail space 3 to 5 years. Current law is out of whack
with that. This bill rights that and will provide incentives for the
private sector to go into downtown New York and rebuild it as it will.
This is the tool that will allow that to happen.
We also recognize that in New York we want to provide incentives to
businesses to depreciate and expense their equipment, capital
equipment, capital investments that are going to create more jobs. Now,
it is one thing to have a view that more taxes is better and more
spending is better, but if at any time this country needed a shot in
the arm and a resurrection of the knowledge that the American people
are the fruit and the root of prosperity, it is right now.
This bill, championed by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas)
and the Speaker, and supported by the administration, is right for New
York, right for America, and right for this Congress.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel).
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule because the Committee on
Rules was kind enough to give us a substitute so that it would give
Republicans and Democrats an opportunity to really get off the
political hook.
There is nothing more disgraceful during a time of war for people to
take advantage of it and pull out old Republican tax cuts that are
totally unrelated to the stimulus that the President asked for and that
our leadership asked for. This bill that is coming up is the first time
on this floor that we have deviated completely from the whole concept
of bipartisanship. It is something that is just arrogantly brought to
us, as other bills have been brought to the floor by the Committee on
Ways and Means, without any consultation at all with the Democrats on
the committee. It shows utter contempt for Democrats, utter contempt
for the House, and in this particular case, utter contempt for the
other body, since we started off on a bipartisan way with guidelines.
Those guidelines are that this is supposed to be temporary tax
relief. This is not temporary. It was supposed to be no bigger than $75
billion over 10 years. This more than doubles that. It was supposed to
be offset, which is the budget's way of saying it should be paid for,
and even the budget chairman says it is not paid for.
This is a disgrace in terms of what it will do for long-term interest
rates. It really throws a tax bonus to some of the largest
multinationals in this country of some $25 billion, some receiving over
$2 billion, one receives $1 billion, others receive $400 million, $500
million, and $600 million. My colleagues cannot justify this as
building New York.
We want to have a stimulus for people to go out and spend, so we take
the people from the lower income and we give them a decent unemployment
compensation, and we help to pay for their health insurance. What do my
colleagues do for those same people? My colleagues do not take care of
airline security; they do not take care of the security of people in
the United States. These are bills we are waiting for.
My colleagues can ram this through, but I think this time the train
is going to hit a stone wall.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his
support of the rule, and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time; and, Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member on Ways and Means
for rising in support of the rule, although we have some profound
disagreements here.
Despite the tone of the rhetoric this morning, it is worth reminding
ourselves that good people can from time to time disagree. And I
suppose when we take a look at our Nation's economy, there is a
question, a fundamental question about who we should trust to
reinvigorate the economy. Should we trust small business and job
generators that have proven time and again that our way to long-term
prosperity is through job creation; or should we view the economy in a
static stagnant mode where government is the answer of first and last
resort? To hear my good friend from Texas on the Committee on Rules, it
seems he envelops that vision. Somehow, to reinvigorate the private
sector with economic stimulus, to make sure that funds are there to
provide for new plant and new equipment and thereby reinvigorate the
job market, that just does not compute in the vision we hear from the
left.
Folks are entitled to their opinions. We believe, however, that the
best way to reinvigorate our economy is to reduce taxes for everyone
and at this time of national need to make sure that business has the
funds to regenerate jobs. Rather than an inherent distrust or an effort
to engage in class warfare, it seems to me that as our Nation is at
war, we could do without a conflict on the home front. Good people can
disagree.
This rule is sound. It provides the minority with their opportunity
to offer a static stagnant finger-pointing approach that would somehow
stand to accuse all American business of being less than civic minded.
And that is certainly their philosophy, and they are entitled to it.
But we, instead, opt for the notion that the American people, through
saving, spending, and investing their own funds, whether on Wall Street
or on Main Street or on your street, Mr. Speaker, can make the
difference.
That is the underlying theme of our legislation. That is why I rise
in support of this rule and the underlying legislation, because the
American people, when left to their own devices rather than with the
heavy hand of government, the helping hands of neighbor helping
neighbor, business reaching out with job creation, that will make the
difference both here at home and in our battles abroad.
For that reason, I ask the House to join us in supporting the rule
and the underlying legislation.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. The gentleman
talks about small business. We all agree that small business should be
helped. The retroactive tax cuts going back to 1986 include the
following: General Motors, $832 million; General Electric, $671
million; IBM $1.424 billion; Ford Motor over $2 billion.
Certainly we want to help small business. The gentleman on the other
side of the aisle wants to give retroactive tax cuts to the biggest
corporations in America.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the rule.

[[Page H7228]]

I would also comment that the speaker from Arizona just talked about
class warfare, something that Republicans love to talk about; but in
fact, it is Republicans who commit class warfare on this floor every
day by giving tax cuts to the rich over and over and over again and
give so little to workers. All we do as Democrats is point out the fact
that Republicans are committing class warfare.
If you are a major corporation, this legislation is for you. But if
you are a laid-off worker, if you do not have health insurance, this
bill is woefully inadequate. The GOP bill gives damn near everything to
many of America's largest corporations, to the tune, as the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Frost) pointed out, of hundreds of millions of dollars
to each of these many corporations and so little to those who actually
need help.
We all know and we all celebrated and honored the heroes of September
11, and celebrated and honored those victims of September 11, those
people who gave their lives in the rescue efforts. However, this bill
has forgotten the victims all over the country, the victims of this
recession, the victims of all that has happened prior to September 11
and since September 11.
The Republican bill has nothing for health insurance, for instance,
for family members who are left behind after the September 11 tragedy.
The Republican bill sends none of the money for health insurance
directly to laid-off workers, to people who have lost their insurance.
The money goes through the States. And who knows how much of it
actually ends up for health insurance for those workers that were laid
off.
The Republicans know that only a little bit, only a few hundreds of
millions of dollars labeled for health care, will really provide
meaningful health insurance. It simply is woefully inadequate. It is
one-eighth the amount of money we put into health insurance in the
Democratic bill.
The Democratic bill understands that sometimes COBRA is a cruel hoax.
People lose their jobs and then simply cannot afford to pay the extra
two and three times the amount for health insurance that they were
paying before. The Democratic plan takes care of COBRA by giving a 75
percent subsidy, takes care of Medicaid to those workers that have lost
their insurance.
The Republican bill does not seem to care because they are
preoccupied with paying off their corporate contributors.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
(Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, the oldest trick in Washington is
that if you disagree with somebody, impugn their motives, do not attack
their policies. That is what we hear on the floor today. Motives are
being impugned. All of this talk about giving corporate contributors
back their money, those kinds of things, it is just ridiculous and it
is a shot to the motives of this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, let us bring this issue back to where it belongs, and
that is the fact that we have 7.8 million in America today without a
job. We are going into a recession. Now, the problem we have is we need
to get people back to work. That is what we are trying to do. The whole
entire purpose of a stimulus package is just that, stimulate the
economy, get people back to work.
So while some in this Chamber are talking about how to make
unemployment a more tolerable position, how to make it something that
is easier, what we seek to do in this package is to stop unemployment,
to get people back to work. What we are trying to do is to recognize
what brought us to this recession in the first place. It was a decline
in investment.
When investment dried up in this country, for instance, a 72 percent
decline in venture capital, a 50 percent decline in small business
financing, a credit crunch that is covering America, when that
happened, layoffs began to occur. Then, when people were losing their
jobs, when their neighbors around them were losing their jobs, people
stopped spending money in the economy.

{time} 1145

Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do is give people job security
back. The goal of this bill is job retention, job creation through
economic growth. We will not see a rebound in consumer confidence with
more rebates. We will see a rebound in consumer confidence if people
get their jobs back. People are not going to spend their money if they
have lost their job or are afraid of losing their job. People will
spend money if they have a job and know that they will keep their job.
The goal of this bill is to grow the economy and let people get their
jobs back. Do not believe the hype. I urge passage of this rule.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Stark).
(Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of rhetoric about
motives. There are 7.8 million unemployed people, and this bill will
give them less than $6 billion while it gives $25 billion to the
largest corporations in this country. Ford and General Motors alone
will get more money than all of the money spent on health care to those
7.8 million people. Chrysler and IBM alone will get more money than the
unemployment increase, the increase in unemployment benefits, to those
7.8 million people.
The entire bill gives more money to 100 corporations, over $25
billion, than it gives in rebates to 30 million people in unemployment
benefits and health care to 7.8 million people. It gives less than $20
billion, less than 20 percent to all middle and lower class Americans,
and it gives 25 percent to just these 100 corporations.
Mr. Speaker, Members must make their choice. Do Members think that
Chrysler and General Motors and IBM will do more for the unemployment,
or will increasing the health care benefits for the unemployed do more?
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I am astonished in hearing all this because
here we are going to give $8 billion to about 13 corporations, if
Members include Ford, which will get $2.3 billion. This is Social
Security money. This is payroll tax money that the average American has
contributed thinking it is going to go for retirement benefits. We are
going to take that payroll tax money and give it to corporations? Is
that my understanding of what the gentleman's analysis is?
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman, is that not correct?
This money will all come out of the Social Security Trust Fund. Not
only will people get very little, but they will pay payroll taxes to
bail out Chrysler and General Motors.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I find it astonishing. Perhaps Members think
we will not be hearing about this because of the anthrax scare. The
reality is Americans are going to find out about this. This is so
outrageous the American public will find out about this.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker implied that all of
the AMT relief is going to go to 100 corporations. That is a little bit
short. It is actually 17,000 corporations that will benefit from the
repeal of the AMT in this taxable year, and a refund of the credits. I
want to make sure that Members do not think that all of the $25 billion
for AMT relief is going to a few corporations. 17,000 corporations in
this country will benefit from that. The average benefit will be about
a million dollars. That should clear that up.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Florida to
correct a misstatement that has been made.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCRERY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. SHAW. It seems like when somebody is starting to lose the
argument around here, they start yelling about the Social Security
Trust Fund. I would challenge any Member to come to the floor and
explain how we are dipping into the trust fund. The trust fund is
there. It is solid. It has the treasury bills in it.

[[Page H7229]]

The Social Security surplus which goes into the general fund, part of
that is being used, just as the Democrats did for over 30 years,
because we are in a time of economic stress and we are in a time of a
war footing. I think both parties will agree that in these particular
times of stress, as long as we do not touch the trust fund, the surplus
is out there and we can no longer use all of it to reduce the debt as
we had been doing prior to September 11.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Matsui).
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, we are using Social Security money, payroll
tax money that people think is going to be going into a trust fund for
their retirement to pay essentially 13 corporations about $10 billion.
There is no way to deny that.
The gentleman who just spoke 2 years ago voted for the lockbox that
was supposed to preserve that money and put that money aside to protect
Social Security. How can the gentleman now deny his own vote?
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Mrs. Jones).
(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the
Committee on Rules for an opportunity to be heard.
Mr. Speaker, I am so happy that the American public is smarter than
many people think that they are. I am so happy that the American public
understands that when the airlines got paid, the workers did not get
paid, and we are still waiting for the workers to get paid. I am so
happy that the American public understands that we still have not put
any more security into the airline situation, and we are flying without
greater security.
Mr. Speaker, I am so happy that the American public understands that
if we are talking about saving industries, why is the steel industry
not in the bill for economic stimulus? I am happy that the American
public understands that 26 steel companies are in bankruptcy currently,
and there is no provision. Talk about saving jobs, what about the
steelworkers who built this country. Think about it like this. In fact,
there are steel companies that are in bankruptcy, and maybe in the
United States we will not even be able to use the steel that is
processed in the United States to rebuild our country. I am happy the
American public understands.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Foley).
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am searching on the Democrat side of the
aisle for some Members from Michigan. I hope they are going to come to
the aid of Ford Motor Company and General Motors.
When we had the discussion on CAFE standards, I know they were most
vociferous in protecting Detroit. Today, while this attack is being
leveled at Ford and GM, nary a word comes from Michigan. I await their
arrival to hopefully shed some light for Members on this floor
regarding the horrific layoffs that are occurring in the companies that
they mention.
I love Members using big names and big corporate people as ways to
have an argument here on the floor on tax policy.
Mr. Speaker, I remember a gentleman from Tennessee that ran for
office, the highest office in the land, and the reason he lost, class
warfare, pitting one against the other. Picking winners and losers,
deciding who is entitled. I love that about this party. I love the
Democrats because they get up here on the floor and try to obfuscate
the facts that are in this very good bill by the Committee on Ways and
Means.
They do not talk about welfare-to-work tax credit extension. They do
not talk about qualified zone academy boards, which was pushed by the
ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. They do not talk
about work opportunity tax credit. They do not talk about $11 billion
in interest-free financing for school construction. They do not talk
about these things because these affect average Americans. These help
our communities and neighborhoods. These help the most unfortunate who
are losing their jobs.
No, let us roll out the charts. Let us pick on big corporate America
because that way Members can rally the forces of those in their
communities who side with labor and other interest groups in this
Capitol.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to start that class war rhetoric. The
gentleman from Tennessee I mentioned has a nice time walking around the
country, not as President but as a former candidate, because he decided
rather than unite he would divide. He would determine who is lucky and
who is not.
As a Republican, I am proud of the bill we are offering. It covers
all Americans, and it will help lift the economy.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine
(Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to turn the debate in a different
direction. I met with a number of people in the State of Maine, which I
represent, the other day. They were concerned about all of the added
costs that the State and the municipality were incurring as a result of
their efforts to respond to terrorism. State revenues are declining
because of the reduced economy and State expenses are going up.
But this bill from the Committee on Ways and Means will further
reduce State revenues by $5 billion in each of the next 3 years because
the tax systems of so many States are tied to changes in the Federal
Tax Code, a reduction in State revenues of $5 billion. How will Members
from New York and California, which are both facing $9 million
deficits, say to their folks back home about what they are doing to
reduce State revenues even further? In Ohio, Florida, New Jersey, and
Michigan, in those States a billion-dollar deficit is going to be made
worse by this bill.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Traficant).
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, September 11 changed America. It
displaced many workers, and a lot of those workers are hurting, and
they will be helped by this Congress in incremental fashion.
I do not think that the terrorists realized the economic impact they
would have; but they did not win because Congress stood together and
stood tall to defeat terrorism. But what we see today is an unraveling
of that, and we see now the partisanship crawl back in with the class
warfare which I believe divides America. The Democrats, who want to
talk about Social Security, let us look at 50 years of Democrat
leadership where those problems were manifested. That is a fact. Let us
all take care of it.
Mr. Speaker, there is one bottom line here. Without an employer,
there is not an employee. Without a corporation, they are not dirty
words. This is in fact free enterprise.
Yes, these companies need a stimulus. This is not a perfect bill.
Tell me one that is. But I am going to vote for the rule. I am going to
vote for the bill. I am hoping in conference there will be some other
adjustments. But this bill overall is a stimulus, and that is what it
is about.
Today's debate is not about this bill. Today's debate is about who is
going to be in control of the House of Representatives. This is not the
time, when America is under attack, to decide through politics which
party is going to control. Now is the time to control our country. Now
is the time to provide that stimulus and incentivize our corporations,
our companies, our employers. I will tell Members what, without an
employer there is not an employee. Without a job there is no family.
Yes, there may be some better ideas; but quite frankly, this is a
good bill. It should be supported by all. I want to say one last word:
Let it go, Louie. Let it go with this class warfare business. It hurts
America. This is an important bill, as important as any we have dealt
with that deals with terrorism. We are defeating terrorism. Let us keep
up our record.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, 7 weeks after the unspeakable terrorist
attacks against our Nation, the country and Congress do face serious
challenges. A first priority must be to ensure the

[[Page H7230]]

safety and security of our airlines. The Senate passed a comprehensive
airline security bill by unanimous vote. It is unconscionable that this
House has failed to act. Ensuring airline safety is not only important
to the security of our citizens, but it is a critical component to our
economic recovery.
Mr. Speaker, how can we even consider an economic stimulus package
that does not include direct assistance for the nearly half a million
American workers who have lost their jobs as a direct result of
September 11. The unalternative bill, which I support, would extend
unemployment and health care benefits for these employees.

{time} 1200

Instead of these priorities, securing our airways and helping laid
off workers, the bill before us is a collection of inappropriate tax
measures. It will not help our economy in the short term and it will
hurt us in the long term.
Mr. Speaker, I have voted for tax relief time and time again. This
package favors special interests, not the public interest. I urge my
colleagues to defeat this rule and this bill.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn).
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, we have just heard from the previous speaker
about the airline safety bill. We are working very hard on that.
Unfortunately, that is not the bill before us on the floor today. The
Economic Security and Recovery Act is the bill that we are discussing
today and it contains some very important features. I just want to say
that I am delighted by the acceleration of income tax cuts that appears
in this bill. This means that people who are working all over the
country will see an immediate drop in their withholding tax. That will
provide them more dollars they can use for whatever they wish to spend
that money on.
I am also very pleased with the reduction in capital gains.
Effectively capital gains rates fall from 20 to 18 percent immediately.
This means more unlocking of assets, it allows for the sale of assets
at a lower tax price, and eventually more assets being turned over
means more taxes paid to the government, so it actually brings in
revenue rather than cost revenue.
But what I am particularly interested in, Mr. Speaker, is the amount
of money that this bill includes for people who are dislocated. These
are workers who have lost their jobs all over the country, not workers
in one particular line of work but people from the Boeing Company in my
neck of the woods, for example, where we are due to lose about 30,000
jobs over the next year and people from the Nordstrom Company where we
are due in our area to lose 900 workers and people from all kinds of
industries that were touched by what happened on the 11th of September.
This bill that we have worked on with great sensitivity, Mr. Speaker,
contains $12 billion in dislocation dollars to help people who are
unemployed as a result of 9/11. $9 billion of that money goes directly
to States in the form of block grants to be administered locally
through the offices of the governors, Republicans and Democrats alike,
to go for training, for unemployment extension, for whatever it is that
their State needs this dislocation money for. An additional $3 billion
goes to the States in the same form, through block grants, to cover
health care premiums.
This is a very good way to do business, Mr. Speaker, because it does
not, as in the Democrat substitute, merely meet the needs of the COBRA
plans, which can be terribly expensive plans but it allows for more
options. And so you are going to see people enrolling in the CHIPs
program or Medicaid or whatever the programs are that are offered in
their States, and the governor will have the influence and the ability
to help to subsidize these programs.
The third thing that is done to help dislocated workers, on a short
string no doubt, because it phases out the end of next year, is to be
able to use their pension funds, their private pension funds, their
retirement accounts, for a short period of time but without the 10
percent penalty that is paid now if you take out those funds before the
time.
We have done great thought on this bill. It contains a number of tax
relief provisions, but these provisions are worth a huge amount of
money. In my State alone, $256 million goes into Washington State to
help workers who are dislocated. I urge my colleagues to support this
bill.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the American public
understands what it means to steal from a dying man. The economy in
this Nation is dying and this stimulus package steals from a dying
economy. This is not divisiveness and partisan politics. This is
democracy in reality. This is bringing to the attention of the American
people the tragedy of this bill.
Let me tell you why. Stimulus means an infusion of dollars into the
economy that will drive the economy--help for the short term! The
Republican bill gives permanent relief, permanent removal, permanent
elimination of the corporate alternative minimum tax which continuously
uses and puts into corporate pockets billions and billions of dollars,
$20 billion now and it is even retroactive back to 1986.
I believe in giving relief, but this is stealing from a dying man.
Permanent reduction in corporate capital gains tax, stealing from a
dying man. No new benefits to laid-off employees for 6 months, flies in
the face of our responsibility to secure the American people and get
people back to work and provide support while they are looking for
work.
What does the Democratic package do? It gives relief to employees,
from 13 to 26 weeks additional. It helps part-time workers. It
increases the weekly benefit. This is not divisiveness, my friends.
This is responsible legislative action. Eight billions being taken from
the economy and none of those billions given for securing the American
homeland.
Throw out the Republican stimulus package and support the Democratic
stimulus package to give the working people of America a real stimulus
package that helps put real dollars into the American economy rather
than steal from a dying economy.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. McCRERY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago I rose to correct a previous speaker
who said that only 100 corporations would benefit from the AMT repeal.
I said 17,000 would. Actually it is 23,000 corporations that will
benefit from the repeal of the AMT. 17,000 refers to the number of
corporations who will benefit from the redemption of the credits.
Mr. PORTMAN. I thank my colleague for correcting the record on that.
We are going to hear a lot of angry rhetoric on the floor today. We
are even going to hear a healthy dose of class warfare. In fact, we
already have. I think it is very important to keep in mind something
very simple, which is that this package is designed to keep jobs. It is
designed to enable people to keep good jobs and to keep companies from
laying people off. It is to get this economy back on track. That is the
simple truth about this legislation. It reflects the good thinking of a
lot of people, a lot of economists who have come before our committee
and have talked to us as individual Members. It reflects the thinking
of the people in the trenches who actually make the decisions as to
whether to hire and fire people. These are small businesspeople and
large businesspeople alike. It is legislation that is designed to
ensure that the economy is not a casualty of the terrorism that hit
this country on September 11. It is also legislation which enjoys the
support of the Bush administration.
The Treasury Department strongly supports it. Read the statement of
administration policy. Their economists, their folks who are following
the economy, believe this is the right thing to do to get this economy
back on track.
The legislation sparks the economy by putting more money in the hands
of people. We have already talked about that some today. It also
focuses on incentives to work and invest. It provides

[[Page H7231]]

tax relief for individuals by allowing families who are middle-income
taxpayers to get the tax relief which we passed last spring but a
little bit faster, 4 years quicker. It also allows people who did not
get any tax relief with the checks that went out in August and
September and this month, by enabling people who do not have any income
tax liability to get checks for $300, $500 and $600. It also helps to
create jobs and that is a very important part of this legislation.
The package focuses on the alternative minimum tax. This has been
discussed today. I want to make a couple of things clear about the AMT.
First, over the years this has been something that Democrats and
Republicans have agreed upon. In fact, back in 1997, a Democrat
President signed legislation which eliminated the AMT for some
companies altogether and reformed the AMT in other very important
respects. Why? Because the alternative minimum tax has a negative
impact on our economy. Think about it. It is a minimum tax that is in
place that corporations are asked to pay when they take legitimate tax
preferences in the code that all of us put into the code. When does it
happen? It happens during economic down times, exactly the time when
corporations cannot afford those taxes and, therefore, lay people off.
The data is out there. During the last big recession, 1989-1990, half
of America's companies fell into AMT and laid off workers as a result.
It is directly related to stimulus. It is directly related to
increasing jobs. The gentleman from Louisiana just said 23,000
companies would benefit from this because they are in the AMT
situation. Let me tell you one. I saw a chart up here earlier about the
Ford Motor Company. Ford Motor Company laid off 4,500 people last
month, including in my district. These are companies that need the help
now in order not to lay people off.
It is also not a retroactive tax. The gentleman earlier said we
should be feeling ashamed. He should feel ashamed for not understanding
how this works and how he is misinterpreting it for the American people
today. It is not a retroactive tax break. It is allowing them to use
tax credits they have built up legitimately through the code. What are
you going to do, take those take credits away? I wish we had more time
to engage in that discussion, but for purposes of today's debate it is
important to set the record straight. This is not retroactive tax
breaks. This is about allowing the companies to use the credits they
have rightfully built up, and it is about jobs. The Democrat
alternative has increased spending and increased taxes. Our approach
says we believe that new spending is not the answer to our Nation's
problems right now.
The way to get this economy back on track, we believe, is by tax
incentives. That is a difference in philosophy, a difference in
opinion. I strongly support the rule and strongly support the
underlying legislation to keep and retain good jobs in this country.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the United States of America is
the only industrialized nation on the planet Earth who cannot produce
enough steel to meet its own needs. The word ``war'' has been mentioned
frequently this morning on this floor and I would point out it is those
specialty steels made by the domestic steel industry that are necessary
for those nuclear attack submarines and those armored vehicles.
Unfortunately, we have an industry in stress. Edgewater Steel in
Pennsylvania has ceased operations. Great Lakes Metals in Indiana has
ceased operations. Trico Steel in Alabama has ceased operations. CSC
Ltd. Steel Company in Ohio has ceased operations. Northwestern Steel &
Wire in Illinois has ceased operations. Laclede Steel in Missouri has
ceased operations. Al Tech Specialty Steel in New York has ceased
operations.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn) and I went to the Committee
on Rules yesterday to ask for $2.4 billion over 3 years to allow this
vital industry to consolidate and save itself. We were turned down, but
IBM gets $2.3 billion. Vote ``no'' on the rule.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule, but I
would like to acknowledge the fine work the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Visclosky), who just spoke on the floor, has done on behalf of steel.
I think there is a need, though, to correct the record. There has
been an impression provided here that somehow this stimulus package
overlooks the problems in steel, but let us look at the specifics.
Bethlehem Steel, which has just declared bankruptcy, under this bill
would receive $35 million in AMT relief, it would receive relief on its
NOLs, and it would receive benefits from cost recovery reform. They are
still trying to pour money, pour capital into improving their
facilities. They have to to survive. This would assist them and steel
companies all over the country.
The gentlewoman from Cleveland had brought up her concern about
steel. LTV would receive $46 million in AMT refunds under this bill.
They have $1 billion in NOLs hanging out there and they would also
benefit from cost recovery reform.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democratic leader.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask Members to vote ``no'' on
the previous question, bring up the aviation security bill, reject the
Republican tax cut bill and support the Democratic alternative to
strengthen our economy.
The Republican tax cut bill is disappointing for two important
reasons. First, while it is important to pass legislation to strengthen
our economy, it is more pressing today to pass a strong airline
security bill to put this responsibility in the hands of Federal law
enforcement officers. This is the people's highest priority. Congress
and the country should take action on this priority today.
Millions of Americans witnessed what happened on September 11. They
watched as hijackers with hate in their hearts smashed two planes, full
of innocent civilians, into the Twin Towers. They heard about what
happened in Pennsylvania and in the Pentagon, and they are resolved
that we do as much as we can to make sure that what happened on
September 11 never happens again.

{time} 1215

It has been 6 weeks, 6 weeks, since this happened. We were able to
get on the floor in a matter of days with a bill to cap the liability
of the airlines. I supported that bill. I thought it needed to be
passed quickly. But I also thought that simultaneously we should be
passing a bill on airline security and a bill to help the unemployed
workers of the airlines that have been partially out of business in the
last 6 weeks.
It is unexplainable to me that we could be here 6 weeks after this
event and not have an airline security bill on this floor long ago. I
plead with my friends in the other party to put that bill on the floor
today or tomorrow. Let us not leave this week with passengers and
flight attendants and pilots worried about security.
We have got to do it. I have been on flights to St. Louis. You have
discussions going on with people on the plane trying to figure out who
is going to be the vigilante committee to take care of security on the
plane if something happens. It is unacceptable to leave here this week
without doing this bill.
I do not know who is going to win. I have my views, the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has his views, the gentleman from Alaska
(Mr. Young) has his views. On the other side, others have different
views. I do not know who is going to win. Let us just put it up. Let us
see who prevails. Let us let the House work its will.
Well, the other issue is what to do about the employees, and I just
urge Members to understand that this stimulus bill is the wrong bill
with the wrong provisions at the wrong time. People who lost their jobs
as a result of September 11 are today worried about two things: one,
where are they going to get the money to support their families, to pay
their lease or their rent or their mortgage payment? How are they going
to afford food and clothing, and

[[Page H7232]]

how are they going to afford health insurance, which is their great
need?
This Republican bill does not help them. It does not help them as
much as they deserve to be helped. In fact, it does almost nothing for
them. It sends money to the States without clear direction of how the
money should be spent. It could be used for other things in the
unemployment system. And there is not enough to really help people with
the greatest need they have, which is COBRA, to be able to continue
their health insurance.
This bill is a giant tax giveaway to the largest corporations and the
wealthiest; it violates the principles to which the bicameral
bipartisan budget leaders agreed; and most egregious in my view, is
that almost all the assistance goes to the big givers and special
interests. It gives 86 percent of the total benefits to special
interests that do not need the help. It permanently repeals the
alternative minimum tax for corporations. It gives immediate refunds to
companies that paid this tax as far back as 1986. That is $21 billion
in total refunds and $5.5 billion to eight of the largest corporations
in America.
Now, we did the airline bill that gave billions of dollars that were
needed for the airlines that were on the ground. I guess now we are
going to come back and make sure every large corporation in the country
gets billions of dollars.
It contains a permanent reduction in the capital gains tax to benefit
again the top 2 percent of income earners. It accelerates tax rate
cuts, but the break does not help 75 percent of the people who pay
income taxes. The workers who have lost their jobs get bread crumbs
from this bill. This bill gives $9 billion to Governors to spend on
unemployment, but CBO estimates that only $1 billion or $2 billion will
go to the people who really need the help.
The Republican bill is an effort, in my view, to fulfill a wish list
of special interests who line up in these halls to lobby for more tax
breaks and more tax giveaways.
I urge my colleagues to consider our alternative. Our bill reflects
the values that we agreed to with our budget leaders a few weeks ago.
It puts money in people's pockets quickly, it focuses the help on those
who need it most, and it will make a positive difference in the lives
of millions of people.
What happened 6 weeks ago was the worst thing that has happened in
our country in my lifetime, and what has followed every day has been
another kick in the teeth to our country and our people. I want us to
fight back. I want us to win this fight against terrorism. But we will
not win this fight against terrorism if we do not stick together,
believe in one another and help all of the people in as equal and fair
and equitable fashion as we can.
We need our workers who are out of work to be with us every step of
the way, with their corporation employers and with their community
leaders. We need to be bound together as brothers and sisters in the
greatest challenge that this country has ever faced. I just urge
Members to understand that this bill is not consistent with that value
and that sentiment.
I plead with Members to vote for our alternative. Let us help
everybody. Let us bring America forward together.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Wu).
Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, about 3 weeks ago I convened a group of
economists, venture capitalists and investment bankers at home; and we
had a private discussion about economic stimulus. After about an hour
and a half of discussion, the conclusion was that there will be an
incredible temptation on the part of Congress and of this government to
take some relatively unhelpful steps which may do us damage in the long
term.
There is a lot of economic stimulus in the pipe already. But if you
are going to take some steps, if you are going to take some steps,
encourage short-term consumption, encourage long-term investment.
Yesterday, I brought up a series of amendments in the Committee on
Rules, one to return $500 to every household in America, $800 to heads
of household, a second one to encourage investment in education and
human capital, and a third one to bring the capital gains rate to zero
for true risk taking and true long-term investment.
The bill we have before us is the bill that the economists were
afraid of, the temptation to do something, and do something wrong.
Please vote against the rule and against this bill.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), a member of the Committee on the Budget.
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, on October 4 the Committee on the Budget principals,
with OMB concurring, laid down principles for economic stimulus. We now
have before us the Economic Security and Recovery Act, and it breaches
all of those principles.
It does little to help the economy recover. It does even less to help
those this recession will hurt. This bill consists mostly of corporate
tax cuts that were originally intended as Round Two of the President's
tax agenda, now relabeled as tax relief for an ailing economy.
This bill bends over backwards to help corporate taxpayers; yet it
barely stoops to help unemployed Americans. The total impact of this
bill on the budget is $275 billion over 10 years when interest is
added; and of this $275 billion total, all of $6 billion at most is
made available to assist the victims of this recession, the unemployed.
By contrast, there is $21 billion in tax relief for multinational
holding companies.
This bill not only ignores the bipartisan principles, it repeats all
the mistakes of the first Republican budget. It leaves no margin of
error in case this recession is deeper and longer than projected. It
makes no room for anything else, other than tax reduction, as if there
were no more defense increases coming, no homeland defense, no farm
bill, no natural disasters to pay for. It repeals the corporate minimum
tax, but assumes that the individual AMT will go on and on.
When we laid down those principles 2 weeks ago, what we tried to do
was provide for short-term stimulus and long-term discipline, and this
bill is miles off that mark. We started this year with a surplus
projected over 10 years of $5.6 trillion. By mid-August that surplus
had been cut to $3.4 trillion. By bipartisan revision it now stands at
$2.6 trillion. This bill will take it down to $2.3 trillion. That means
in less than a year we have cut the surplus by more than 60 percent.
This is another step down a slippery slope that will do little for
the economy but wipe out what is left of the surplus.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, one thing that is pretty constant around here is that
when we have debate on the rule, no one really talks about the rule. My
friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), I think he said it
best. He said he is going to support the rule, because it gives the
Democrats an even shot. It gives them an equal amount of debate, and it
gives them a straight shot at their bill. I think that is a good thing,
and I think that shows the bipartisanship that is existing under this
particular rule.
But when you start hearing about all of this money going to these
corporations and big businesses, that is where the jobs are. There is a
basic difference between the Democrat bill and the Republican bill. The
Republican bill believes in the preservation and creation of jobs.
We hear about the amounts going to these big corporations. Let us
look at the layoffs. IBM has had 1,500; Ford has had 4,500; General
Electric has laid off 35,000 people. I am just talking about the last
couple of months. Chrysler has laid off 19,000. It goes on and on.
United Airlines, 20,000; American Airlines, 20,000.
These are real people who want their jobs. They do not want a
handout; they want their jobs.
Support the Republican bill and turn down the Democrat alternative.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski).
(Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)

[[Page H7233]]

Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, any economic stimulus package we should consider should
have a major transportation infrastructure component. Unfortunately,
the underlying bill, the Republican alternative, does nothing for
environmental and transportation infrastructure. We should be providing
for infrastructure investment to enhance the security of our rail,
environmental infrastructure, highways, transit, aviation, marine
transportation, economic development, water resources and public
buildings.
Mr. Speaker, let me remind all of my colleagues that every $1 billion
invested in transportation infrastructure creates over 40,000 jobs. If
we want to put people back to work, if that is the biggest problem in
our country, we should be looking to rebuild America first. We should
do that by opposing the Republican bill and voting for the Democratic
substitute.

Rebuild America: Financing Infrastructure Renewal and Security for
Transportation (Rebuild America FIRST) Act (For Infrastructure
Investment as Part of the Economic Stimulus Package Introduced by
Representatives Borski, Costello, Oberstar, and Other Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee Members)

Provides $50 billion for infrastructure investment to
enhance the security of our rail, environmental, highway,
transit, aviation, maritime, water resources, and public
buildings infrastructure. By leveraging Federal
infrastructure investments, the ten-year cost to the Treasury
is less than $32 billion.
$50 billion of infrastructure investment would create more
than 1.5 million jobs and $90 billion of economic activity.
Each $1 billion invested in infrastructure creates
approximately 42,000 jobs and $2.1 billion in economic
activity.
Priority shall be given to infrastructure investments that
focus on enhanced security for our Nation's transportation
and environmental infrastructure systems. The bill
specifically requires that recipients of these Federal funds
(e.g., states, cities, transit authorities, airport
authorities, etc.) certify that they will first dedicate
these funds to meeting the security needs of their systems.
The bill also requires these funds to be in-vested in
ready-to-go projects. The bill requires funds to be obligated
within two years.
Finally, the bill includes a maintenance of effort
provision to ensure that recipients continue their current
investment levels, particularly with regard to infrastructure
security. It also allows recipients an extended period of
time to meet their state and local match requirements.

Rail--$23 Billion

(Estimated 10-Year Cost to the Treasury--$8.5 Billion)

Provides for the issuance of $15 billion in tax-credit
bonds for construction of high-speed rail systems in
corridors selected by the Secretary of Transportation
(version of H.R. 2329, as introduced).
Provides $3 billion for capital investment for Amtrak.
Provides $500 million in direct grants and grants to
provide the credit risk premium for $5 billion in loans and
loan guarantees for freight railroad infrastructure projects
under Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing
program (RRIF) (version of H.R. 1020, as reported). Include
technical corrections to improve RRIF program.

environmental infrastructure--$8 billion

(Estimated 10-Year Cost to the Treasury--$8 Billion)

Provides $6.5 billion to construct, rehabilitate, and
restore the Nation's wastewater and drinking water
infrastructure through the existing State Revolving Fund
(SRF) programs, including $5 billion for the Clean Water Act
SRF and $1.5 billion for the Safe Drinking Water SRF.
Provides $1.5 billion for wet weather overflow grants for
planning, design, and construction of treatment works to
address combined sewer and sanitary sewer overflows
(authorized by P.L. 106-554).

highways--$7.4 billion

(Estimated 10-Year Cost to the Treasury--$5 Billion)

Provides $5 billion in additional authority for highway
capital investments, distributed to states pursuant to the
TEA 21 formula. Funds provided from the Highway Trust Fund.
Provides $2.4 billion of carryover authority for loans,
loan guarantees, and lines of credit for highway, transit,
intermodal, and high-speed rail projects under the
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
(TIFIA) program, as authorized by TEA 21.

transit--$3 billion

(Estimated 10-Year Cost to the Treasury--$3 Billion)

Provides $3 billion in transit formula grants, distributed
to states and cities pursuant to TEA 21 formula. Funds
provided from the Highway Trust Fund Transit Account and
General Fund.
Increases the maximum tax-free transit/vanpool fringe
benefit from $65 to $175 per month, equal to the current tax-
free benefit for parking (H.R. 318, as introduced).

aviation--$3 billion

(Estimated 10-Year Cost to the Treasury--$3 Billion)

Provides $2.055 billion for discretionary airport
improvement program (AIP) grants to enhance airport security
and capacity; and provides $945 million for FAA Facility and
Equipment security enhancements including the purchase and
installation of explosive detection equipment and the
hardening of security at FAA towers, tracons, and en route
centers. Funds provided from the Aviation Trust Fund.

marine transportation--$2.5 billion

(Estimated 10-Year Cost to the Treasury--$600 million)

Provides $500 million to port and terminal operators to
enhance port security and efficiency by financing
infrastructure investment, updated security enhancements, and
port-wide tracking systems.
Provides $100 million to Title XI loan guarantees to
finance $2 billion of construction of U.S.-flagged ships used
in the domestic commerce of the United States.

economic developement--$1.3 billion

(Estimated 10-Year Cost to the Treasury--$1.3 Billion)

Provides $1.3 billion in grants to economically distressed
communities for economic development infrastructure projects,
through the Economic Development Administration ($900
million), Delta Regional Authority ($200 million), and
Appalachian Regional Commission ($200 million).

water resources--$1.2 billion

(Estimated 10-Year Cost to the Treasury--$1.2 Billion)

Provides $1.2 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers to
carry out construction, operation, and maintenance activities
for authorized civil functions of which not less than $263
million will be available for security purposes at critical
infrastructure facilities as identified by the Secretary of
the Army.

public buildings--$600 million

(Estimated 10-Year Cost to the Treasury--$600 Million)

Provides $500 million to enhance the security of federal
buildings and provide additional funds for the repair and
alteration of federal buildings. Funds are deposited in the
Federal Buildings Fund. Provides $50 million to the Kennedy
Center and $50 million to the Smithsonian Institution to
enhance the security of and make other capital improvements
to these federal facilities.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Weller).
(Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, and I also rise in
support of President Bush's request to pass the Economic Security and
Recovery Act legislation before us today.
In the Committee on Ways and Means, we called in some respected
economists, both from the left and right spectrums, and asked their
advice. Pretty much the common message we received from the economists
was to get the economy moving again was, of course, to reward
investment and get some extra spending money out there for consumers.
The legislation before us today accomplishes that goal. Let us look
at what is in the bill. This legislation helps low- and moderate-income
workers, 34 million low- and moderate-income workers; $300 stimulus
payment for singles, $600 for a married couple filing jointly, $500 for
head of household. We help the middle class by lowering the 28 percent
rate bracket to 25 percent, effective immediately.
The bottom line is we put extra spending money into the economy. If
we act quickly, those stimulus payments could be in pocketbooks before
Christmas.
This legislation also rewards investment. Let me give an example, one
sector of our economy, the technology sector. We have seen because of a
reduction of almost 50 percent in investment in the technology sector,
a loss of almost 400,000 jobs in computers and telecommunications and
other key parts of this technology sector of our economy.

{time} 1230

The technology sector tells us, as we talk with them and listen, that
along with trade promotion authority this economic stimulus package are
the two most important votes that we will be casting to benefit them.
The question is, who benefits when we reward investment in computers
and telecommunications? Of course, the workers do, the workers who make
computers and telecommunications

[[Page H7234]]

equipment. The same as who benefits when we encourage purchases of
pickup trucks or bulldozers? The workers.
We reward investment in this legislation by providing for
depreciation reform; 30 percent expensing, helping businesses, both big
and small, recover the cost of purchasing computers and pickup trucks
and manufacturing equipment, causing the hiring of more workers. We
help small business recover the cost of purchasing additional capital
assets and equipment by raising it from $24,000 to $35,000. We also
free up capital with a 5-year carryback in net operating losses.
This legislation deserves bipartisan support. Let us join President
Bush. Let us pass this legislation and move quickly.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, how stimulated do we think the U.S. economy
will be if the terrorists blow up a couple more airplanes in the sky
and nobody gets on airplanes because the U.S. Congress has sat around
on its duff for 6 weeks and has not done a single thing about airline
safety? When my colleagues get on their airplane this weekend to get
home, I can tell them one thing for sure: 90 percent of the bags on the
airplane that they get on that go into the belly of that airplane will
not be checked for an explosive device. For 42 days, what have we been
able to accomplish to do something about that? Nothing.
Now, we tried to put a provision in this bill in the Committee on
Rules to make an investment in the machines that are capable of finding
these explosive devices. I will ask my colleagues, although we may lose
this vote today, I hope my colleagues will go to their leadership and
tell them that we should get an airline safety bill up for a vote this
week, because I do not think they will be proud going up to your
constituents this weekend and say I cared more about the financial
security of these corporations than I did about the airline safety of
these passengers.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Solis).
(Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that a few weeks
ago, many of us here were supporting legislation to bail out the
airline industry, with the hope that we would be able to help those
workers that were laid off or displaced. None of that happened.
Now we have an opportunity to do something and our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle are not looking at truly what was intended here
by an agreement that was made by our leaders, to provide support to
dislocated workers, people who lost their jobs. I went home to my
district this week and met with workers who were just laid off in the
hotel and restaurant industry. Many of them are not eligible to receive
unemployment insurance, will not even be able to pay for COBRA or
anything, because they are out, out of sight, out of mind, in terms of
Members here wanting to see how they can help families, working
families, not only in California and Los Angeles, but across the
country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to look, look deep into our hearts
to see who exactly is going to benefit from the Republican stimulus
package. The Republican stimulus package goes to 70 percent of the
upper income individuals and corporations in this country. What about
the vast number of people who voted for you and myself into office?
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, ask not what you can do for your country,
but what your country can do for you. That is the theme of this
outrageous bill.
While American pilots and soldiers today are fighting for our safety
in Afghanistan, supporters of this bill are fighting for special tax
breaks for themselves here safely at home.
How do I explain to a young military family that they do not have
adequate housing where their loved one is halfway across the world
fighting to defend our safety and our freedom?
This bill is not only unfair to the people of this country, the
average working families who get really no benefits from it, it is
fiscally irresponsible. Maybe we should oppose this bill and remember
the words of John Kennedy who said, you should not ask what your
country can do for you, you should ask what you can do for your
country. In that spirit, we should soundly reject this outrageous
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, ask not what you can do for your country but what your
country can do for you. That is the theme of this outrageous bill.
While firefighters and police officers have given their lives in New
York, profitable corporations would pay no taxes under this bill.
While American pilots and soldiers are fighting for our safety in
Afghanistan today, supporters of this bill are fighting for special tax
breaks for themselves here at home.
How do I explain to a young military family living in substandard
housing while their loved one is fighting in Afghanistan that we cannot
afford to give them better housing, but we can afford to give IBM a
$1.4 billion tax break in this bill?
To working families who have lost their jobs because of the attacks
of September 11 and have no health care, how do we explain how we can
afford to give the wealthiest families in America a multibillion dollar
tax break under this bill?
Mr. Speaker, in addition to being blatantly unfair, this bill is
fiscally irresponsible. It will lead to huge Federal deficits that will
ultimately increase long-term interest rates on homes, cars, and
businesses. The billions it puts into the pockets of a few will be paid
in higher mortgage and loan rates by millions of hard-working families
that can ill afford it.
No one knows what the final costs will be for America's military and
security response to terrorists. For sure it will be tens of billions
of dollars. To pass massive tax cuts before we know those military and
security costs not only is fiscally irresponsible, it will undermine
our ability to fund crucial homeland security programs.
In this time of national crisis, American citizens have shown their
willingness to serve and sacrifice for their country. Perhaps some of
the supporters of this bill misunderstood President Kennedy's inaugural
address. In a time of national crisis, in a time of national war, in a
time when our service men and women are in harm's way, his words should
shame those who would seek selfish gain from this bill. ``Ask not what
your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.''
Mr. Speaker, it is in that spirit that this bill should be soundly
defeated.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an
amendment to the rule. My amendment will provide that immediately after
the House passes the economic stimulus bill, it will take up two bills:
the airline safety bill introduced by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar) and the unemployed airline industry worker benefits bill
introduced by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt). My amendment
provides that the bills will be considered under an open amendment
process so that all Members will be able to express their views and
offer amendments that they feel are important to these two bills.
Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks have passed since the other body took up and
passed the airline safety bill by a unanimous 100 to 0 vote. It is time
for the House to do its work and pass both of these important bills.
Let me make clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will
not stop consideration of the stimulus package. A ``no'' vote would
allow the House to get on with the much delayed airline safety and
airline industry worker aid bills. On the other hand, a ``yes'' vote on
the previous question will prevent the House from taking up the airline
safety bill and the airline worker relief bill.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment
be printed immediately before the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Economic Stimulus Rule--Previous Question--H. Res. 270

Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:

[[Page H7235]]

That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the bill (H.R. 3090) to provide tax incentives
for economic recovery. The bill shall be considered as read
for amendment. The amendment recommended by the Committee on
Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall be considered as
adopted. All points of order against the bill, as amended,
are waived. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Ways and Means; (2) the further
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the report
of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if
offered by Representative Rangel of New York or his designee,
which shall be in order without intervention of any point of
order, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit
with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. Immediately after disposition of H.R. 3090, the
Speaker shall declare the House resolved into the Committee
of the Whole House on the state of the Union for
consideration of the bill (H.R. 3110) to improve aviation
security, and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be
considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the
bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the
bill to the House with such amendment as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 3. Immediately after disposition of H.R. 3110, the
Speaker shall declare the House resolved into the Committee
of the Whole House on the state of the Union for
consideration of the bill (H.R. 2955) to provide assistance
for employees who are separated from employment as a result
of reductions in service by air carriers, and closures of
airports, caused by terrorist actions or security measures.
The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. The bill shall be considered as read. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 4. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on H.R. 3090, H.R. 3110, or
H.R. 2955, then on the next legislative day the House shall,
immediately after the third daily order of business under
clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole
for further consideration of that bill.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee
on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the previous
question and the rule. The idea of claiming that somehow passing the
previous question prevents consideration of legislation is
preposterous.
As I have been listening to the arguments coming from my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle, I am reminded of the very famous
statement of the late democratic Senator Paul Tsongas who said, ``The
problem with my Democratic Party is that they love employees, but they
hate employers.''
The fact of the matter is, we understand, and the American people
understand full well, that half of us are members of the investment
class. September 11 hit both Wall Street and Main Street, but we have
learned in the past several years that Wall Street and Main Street are
one and the same. We are in this together. This bill, in fact,
addresses the concerns of both investors and consumers.
By speeding up that 25 percent rate and providing rebates to people
who did not qualify earlier, we are helping on the consumption side. By
dealing with the alternative minimum tax and accelerated cost recovery
systems, we are dealing with the issue of job creation. By dealing with
capital gains, we are encouraging investment and, Mr. Speaker, we will
generate an increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury,
so that we will be able to have the wherewithal to meet the increased
demands for security here and the increased demands that we have in the
area of national defense.
So we have a very balanced package which I believe deserves our
support. Provide a ``yes'' vote for this rule, a ``yes'' vote for the
previous question, and then an overwhelming, bipartisan ``yes'' vote
for economic security and recovery.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219,
nays 207, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 400]

YEAS--219

Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)

NAYS--207

[[Page H7236]]

Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--6

Bilirakis
Cubin
Gonzalez
Hill
Reyes
Young (FL)

{time} 1300

Mr. LANGEVIN and Mr. POMEROY changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225,
noes 199, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 401]

AYES--225

Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--199

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--8

Bilirakis
Burton
Cubin
Gekas
Gonzalez
Hill
Kaptur
Leach

{time} 1309

Mr. SCHIFF changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 270, I call up
the bill (H.R. 3090) to provide tax incentives for economic recovery,
and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 270, the bill
is considered read for amendment.
The text of H.R. 3090 is as follows:

H.R. 3090

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; ETC.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Economic
Security and Recovery Act of 2001''.
(b) References to Internal Revenue Code of 1986.--Except as
otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an
amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to,
or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference
shall be considered to be made to a section or other
provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(c) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; etc.

TITLE I--BUSINESS PROVISIONS

Sec. 101. Special depreciation allowance for certain property acquired
after September 10, 2001, and before September 11, 2003.

[[Page H7237]]

Sec. 102. Temporary increase in expensing under section 179.
Sec. 103. Repeal of alternative minimum tax on corporations.
Sec. 104. Carryback of certain net operating losses allowed for 5
years.
Sec. 105. Recovery period for depreciation of certain leasehold
improvements.

TITLE II--INDIVIDUAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Acceleration of 25 percent individual income tax rate.
Sec. 202. Repeal of 5-year holding period requirement for reduced
individual capital gains rates.
Sec. 203. Temporary increase in deduction for capital losses of
taxpayers other than corporations.
Sec. 204. Temporary expansion of penalty-free retirement plan
distributions for health insurance premiums of unemployed
individuals.

TITLE III--EXTENSIONS OF CERTAIN EXPIRING PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Two-Year Extensions

Sec. 301. Allowance of nonrefundable personal credits against regular
and minimum tax liability.
Sec. 302. Credit for qualified electric vehicles.
Sec. 303. Credit for electricity produced from renewable resources.
Sec. 304. Work opportunity credit.
Sec. 305. Welfare-to-work credit.
Sec. 306. Deduction for clean-fuel vehicles and certain refueling
property.
Sec. 307. Taxable income limit on percentage depletion for oil and
natural gas produced from marginal properties.
Sec. 308. Qualified zone academy bonds.
Sec. 309. Cover over of tax on distilled spirits.
Sec. 310. Parity in the application of certain limits to mental health
benefits.
Sec. 311. Delay in effective date of requirement for approved diesel or
kerosene terminals.

Subtitle B--One-Year Extensions

Sec. 321. One-year extension of availability of medical savings
accounts.

Subtitle C--Permanent Extensions

Sec. 331. Subpart F exemption for active financing.

Subtitle D--Other Provisions

Sec. 341. Excluded cancellation of indebtedness income of S corporation
not to result in adjustment to basis of stock of
shareholders.
Sec. 342. Limitation on use of nonaccrual experience method of
accounting.

TITLE IV--SUPPLEMENTAL REBATE; OTHER PROVISIONS

Sec. 401. Supplemental rebate.
Sec. 402. Special Reed Act transfer in fiscal year 2002.

TITLE V--HEALTH CARE ASSISTANCE FOR THE UNEMPLOYED

Sec. 501. Health care assistance for the unemployed.

TITLE I--BUSINESS PROVISIONS

SEC. 101. SPECIAL DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY
ACQUIRED AFTER SEPTEMBER 10, 2001, AND BEFORE
SEPTEMBER 11, 2003.

(a) In General.--Section 168 (relating to accelerated cost
recovery system) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(k) Special Allowance for Certain Property Acquired After
September 10, 2001, and Before September 11, 2003.--
``(1) Additional allowance.--In the case of any qualified
property--
``(A) the depreciation deduction provided by section 167(a)
for the taxable year in which such property is placed in
service shall include an allowance equal to 30 percent of the
adjusted basis of the qualified property, and
``(B) the adjusted basis of the qualified property shall be
reduced by the amount of such deduction before computing the
amount otherwise allowable as a depreciation deduction under
this chapter for such taxable year and any subsequent taxable
year.
``(2) Qualified property.--For purposes of this
subsection--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified property' means
property--
``(i)(I) to which this section applies which has a recovery
period of 20 years or less or which is water utility
property, or
``(II) which is computer software (as defined in section
167(f)(1)(B)) for which a deduction is allowable under
section 167(a) without regard to this subsection,
``(ii) the original use of which commences with the
taxpayer after September 10, 2001,
``(iii) which is--

``(I) acquired by the taxpayer after September 10, 2001,
and before September 11, 2003, but only if no written binding
contract for the acquisition was in effect before September
11, 2001, or
``(II) acquired by the taxpayer pursuant to a written
binding contract which was entered into after September 10,
2001, and before September 11, 2003, and

``(iv) which is placed in service by the taxpayer before
December 31, 2003.
``(B) Exceptions.--
``(i) Alternative depreciation property.--The term
`qualified property' shall not include any property to which
the alternative depreciation system under subsection (g)
applies, determined--

``(I) without regard to paragraph (7) of subsection (g)
(relating to election to have system apply), and
``(II) after application of section 280F(b) (relating to
listed property with limited business use).

``(ii) Election out.--If a taxpayer makes an election under
this clause with respect to any class of property for any
taxable year, this subsection shall not apply to all property
in such class placed in service during such taxable year.
``(iii) Repaired or reconstructed property.--Except as
otherwise provided in regulations, the term `qualified
property' shall not include any repaired or reconstructed
property.
``(iv) Qualified leasehold improvement property.--The term
`qualified property' shall not include any qualified
leasehold improvement property (as defined in section
168(e)(6)).
``(C) Special rules relating to original use.--
``(i) Self-constructed property.--In the case of a taxpayer
manufacturing, constructing, or producing property for the
taxpayer's own use, the requirements of clause (iii) of
subparagraph (A) shall be treated as met if the taxpayer
begins manufacturing, constructing, or producing the property
after September 10, 2001, and before September 11, 2003.
``(ii) Sale-leasebacks.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A)(ii), if property--

``(I) is originally placed in service after September 10,
2001, by a person, and
``(II) is sold and leased back by such person within 3
months after the date such property was originally placed in
service,

such property shall be treated as originally placed in
service not earlier than the date on which such property is
used under the leaseback referred to in subclause (II).
``(D) Coordination with section 280f.--For purposes of
section 280F--
``(i) Automobiles.--In the case of a passenger automobile
(as defined in section 280F(d)(5)) which is qualified
property, the Secretary shall increase the limitation under
section 280F(a)(1)(A)(i) by $4,600.
``(ii) Listed property.--The deduction allowable under
paragraph (1) shall be taken into account in computing any
recapture amount under section 280F(b)(2).''
(b) Allowance Against Alternative Minimum Tax.--
(1) In general.--Section 56(a)(1)(A) (relating to
depreciation adjustment for alternative minimum tax) is
amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iii) Additional allowance for certain property acquired
after september 10, 2001, and before september 11, 2003.--The
deduction under section 168(k) shall be allowed.''
(2) Conforming amendment.--Clause (i) of section
56(a)(1)(A) is amended by inserting ``or (iii)'' after
``(ii)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after September 10,
2001, in taxable years ending after such date.

SEC. 102. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN EXPENSING UNDER SECTION 179.

(a) In General.--The table contained in section 179(b)(1)
(relating to dollar limitation) is amended to read as
follows:

``If thThe applicable
amount is:
2001.....................................................$24,000
2002 or 2003............................................. 35,000
2004 or thereafter..................................... 25,000.''
(b) Temporary Increase in Amount of Property Triggering
Phaseout of Maximum Benefit.--Paragraph (2) of section 179(b)
is amended by inserting before the period ``($325,000 in the
case of taxable years beginning during 2002 or 2003)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.

SEC. 103. REPEAL OF ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX ON CORPORATIONS.

(a) In General.--So much of section 55 as precedes
subsection (b)(2) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 55. ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX FOR TAXPAYERS OTHER THAN
CORPORATIONS.

``(a) In General.--In the case of a taxpayer other than a
corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any
other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to the excess
(if any) of--
``(1) the tentative minimum tax for the taxable year, over
``(2) the regular tax for the taxable year.
``(b) Tentative Minimum Tax.--For purposes of this part--
``(1) Amount of tentative tax.--
``(A) In general.--The tentative minimum tax for the
taxable year is the sum of--
``(i) 26 percent of so much of the taxable excess as does
not exceed $175,000, plus
``(ii) 28 percent of so much of the taxable excess as
exceeds $175,000.
The amount determined under the preceding sentence shall be
reduced by the alternative minimum tax foreign tax credit for
the taxable year.
``(B) Taxable excess.--For purposes of this subsection, the
term `taxable excess' means so much of the alternative
minimum taxable income for the taxable year as exceeds the
exemption amount.
``(C) Married individual filing separate return.--In the
case of a married individual filing a separate return, clause
(i) shall be applied by substituting `$87,500' for `$175,000'

[[Page H7238]]

each place it appears. For purposes of the preceding
sentence, marital status shall be determined under section
7703.''
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Paragraph (3) of section 55(a) is amended by striking
``paragraph (1)(A)(i)'' and inserting ``paragraph (1)(A)''.
(2) Paragraph (1) of section 55(c) is amended by striking
``, the section 936 credit allowable under section 27(b), and
the Puerto Rico economic activity credit under section 30A''.
(3)(A) Paragraph (1) of section 55(d) is amended by--
(i) by striking ``for taxpayers other than corporations''
in the heading, and
(ii) by striking ``In the case of a taxpayer other than a
corporation, the'' and inserting ``The''.
(B) Section 55(d) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and
by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
(C) Subparagraph (A) of section 55(d)(2), as so
redesignated in amended by striking ``or (2)''.
(4) Section 55 is amended by striking subsection (e).
(5)(A) The heading for subsection (a) of section 56 is
amended to read as follows:
``(a) General Rules.--''.
(B) Paragraph (1) of section 56(a) is amended by striking
subparagraph (D).
(C) Paragraph (6) of section 56(a) is amended--
(i) by striking ``paragraph (2) or subsection (b)(2)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (2) or (9)'', and
(ii) by striking ``or (5), or subsection (b)(2)'' and
inserting ``(5), or (9)''.
(6)(A) Subsection (b) of section 56 is amended by striking
so much of such subsection as precedes paragraph (1) and by
redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as paragraphs (8),
(9), and (10), respectively, of subsection (a).
(B) Paragraph (9) of section 56(a), as so redesignated, is
amended by striking subparagraph (C) and by redesignating
subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C).
(7) Section 56 is amended by striking subsections (c) and
(g) and by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as
subsections (c) and (d), respectively.
(8) Subparagraph (E) of section 57(a)(2) is amended--
(A) by striking ``for independent producers'' in the
heading, and
(B) by striking clause (i) and inserting the following new
clause:
``(i) In general.--This paragraph shall not apply to any
taxable year beginning after December 31, 1992.''
(9) Subsection (a) of section 58 is amended by striking
paragraph (3) and by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph
(3).
(10)(A) Section 59 is amended by striking subsections (b)
and (f) and by redesignating subsections (c), (d), (e), (g),
(h), (i), and (j) as subsections (b), (c), (d), (e), (f),
(g), and (h), respectively.
(B) Paragraph (2) of section 59(d), as so redesignated, is
amended by striking ``(determined without regard to section
291)''.
(C) Sections 173(b), 174(f)(2), 263(c), 263A(c)(6), 616(e),
617(i), and 1016(a)(20) are each amended by striking
``59(e)'' each place it appears and inserting ``59(d)''.
(11) Subsection (d) of section 11 is amended by striking
``the taxes imposed by subsection (a) and section 55'' and
inserting ``the tax imposed by subsection (a)''.
(12) Section 12 is amended by striking paragraph (7).
(13) Paragraph (6) of section 29(b) is amended to read as
follows:
``(6) Application with other credits.--The credit allowed
by subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed the
excess (if any) of the regular tax for the taxable year
reduced by the sum of the credits allowable under subpart A
and section 27. In the case of a taxpayer other than a
corporation, such excess shall be further reduced (but not
below zero) by the tentative minimum tax for the taxable
year.''
(14) Paragraph (3) of section 30(b) is amended to read as
follows:
``(3) Application with other credits.--The credit allowed
by subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed the
excess (if any) of the regular tax for the taxable year
reduced by the sum of the credits allowable under subpart A
and sections 27 and 29. In the case of a taxpayer other than
a corporation, such excess shall be further reduced (but not
below zero) by the tentative minimum tax for the taxable
year.''
(15)(A) Paragraph (1) of section 38(c) is amended to read
as follows:
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Corporations.--In the case of a corporation, the
credit allowed under subsection (a) for any taxable year
shall not exceed the excess (if any) of the taxpayer's net
income tax over 25 percent of so much of the taxpayer's net
regular tax liability as exceeds $25,000.
``(B) Taxpayers other than corporations.--In the case of a
taxpayer other than a corporation, the credit allowed under
subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed the
excess (if any) of the taxpayer's net income tax over the
greater of--
``(i) the tentative minimum tax for the taxable year, or
``(ii) 25 percent of so much of the taxpayer's net regular
tax liability as exceeds $25,000.
``(C) Definitions.--For purposes of this paragraph--
``(i) the term `net income tax' means the sum of the
regular tax liability and the tax imposed by section 55,
reduced by the credits allowable under subparts A and B of
this part, and
``(ii) the term `net regular tax liability' means the
regular tax liability reduced by the sum of the credits
allowable under subparts A and B of this part.''
(B) Clause (ii) of section 38(c)(2)(A) is amended to read
as follows:
``(ii) for purposes of applying paragraph (1) to such
credit--

``(I) the applicable limitation under paragraph (1) (as
modified by subclause (II) in the case of a taxpayer other
than a corporation) shall be reduced by the credit allowed
under subsection (a) for the taxable year (other than the
empowerment zone employment credit), and
``(II) in the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation,
75 percent of the tentative minimum tax shall be substituted
for the tentative minimum tax under subparagraph (B)(i)
thereof.''

(C) Paragraph (3) of section 38(c) is amended by striking
``subparagraph (B) of'' each place it appears.
(16)(A) Subclause (I) of section 53(d)(1)(B)(ii) is amended
by striking ``subsection (b)(1)'' and inserting ``subsection
(a)(8)''.
(B) Clause (iv) of section 53(d)(1)(B) is hereby repealed.
(17)(A) Part VII of subchapter A of chapter 1 is hereby
repealed.
(B) The table of parts for subchapter A of chapter 1 is
amended by striking the item relating to part VII.
(C) Paragraph (2) of section 26(a) is amended by striking
subparagraph (B) and by redesignating the succeeding
subparagraphs accordingly.
(D) Subsection (c) of section 30A is amended by striking
paragraph (1) and redesignating the succeeding paragraphs
accordingly.
(E) Subsection (a) of section 164 is amended by striking
paragraph (5).
(F) Subsection (a) of section 275 is amended by striking
``Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the tax imposed by section
59A.''
(G) Paragraph (1) of section 882(a) is amended by striking
``59A,''.
(H) Paragraph (3) of section 936(a) is amended by striking
subparagraph (A) and redesignating the succeeding
subparagraphs accordingly.
(I) Subsection (a) of section 1561 is amended by adding
``and'' at the end of paragraph (2), by striking ``, and'' at
the end of paragraph (3) and inserting a period, and by
striking paragraph (4).
(J) Subparagraph (A) of section 6425(c)(1) is amended by
adding ``plus'' at the end of clause (i), by striking
``plus'' at the end of clause (ii) and inserting ``over'',
and by striking clause (iii).
(18) Section 382(l) (relating to limitation on net
operating loss carryforwards and certain built-in losses
following ownership change) is amended by striking paragraph
(7) and by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (7).
(19) Paragraph (2) of section 815(c) (relating to
distributions to shareholders from pre-1984 policyholders
surplus account) is amended by striking the last sentence.
(20) Section 847 (relating to special estimated tax
payments) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (9), by striking the last sentence;
(B) in paragraph (10), by inserting ``and'' at the end of
subparagraph (A) and by striking subparagraph (B) and
redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B).
(21) Section 848 (relating to capitalization of certain
policy acquisition expenses) is amended by striking
subsection (i) and by redesignating subsection (j) as
subsection (i).
(22) Paragraph (1) of section 882(a) (relating to tax on
income of foreign corporations connected with United States
business) is amended by striking ``55,''.
(23) Paragraph (1) of section 962(a) (relating to election
by individuals to be subject to tax at corporate rates) is
amended by striking ``sections 11 and 55'' and inserting
``section 11''.
(24) Subsection (a) of section 1561 (relating to
limitations on certain multiple tax benefits in the case of
certain controlled corporations) is amended by striking the
last sentence.
(25) Subparagraph (A) of section 6425(c)(1) (defining
income tax liability), as amended by paragraph (17) is
amended to read as follows:
``(A) the tax imposed by section 11 or 1201(a), or
subchapter L of chapter 1, whichever is applicable, over''.
(26)(A) Paragraph (2) of section 6655(e) is amended--
(i) by striking ``, alternative minimum taxable income, and
modified alternative minimum taxable income'' each place it
appears in subparagraphs (A) and (B)(i), and
(ii) by striking clause (iii) of subparagraph (B).
(B) Subparagraph (A) of section 6655(g)(1) (relating to
failure by corporation to pay estimated income tax), as
amended by paragraph (17), is amended to read as follows:
``(A) the sum of--
``(i) the tax imposed by section 11 or 1201(a), or
subchapter L of chapter 1, whichever applies, plus
``(iv) the tax imposed by section 887, over''.
(27) The table of sections for part VI of subchapter A of
chapter 1 is amended by striking the item relating to section
55 and inserting the following new item:

[[Page H7239]]

``Sec. 55. Alternative minimum tax for taxpayers other than
corporations.''

(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
(d) Refund of Unused Minimum Tax Credit.--
(1) In general.--In the case of a corporation--
(A) section 53(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
shall not apply to such corporation's first taxable year
beginning after December 31, 2000, and
(B) for purposes of such Code (other than section 53 of
such Code), the credit allowed by section 53 of such Code for
such first taxable year shall be treated as if it were
allowed by subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1
of such Code (relating to refundable credits).
(2) Special rules relating to carrybacks.--In the case of a
carryback of a corporation from a taxable year beginning
after December 31, 2000, to a taxable year beginning before
January 1, 2001--
(A) the tax imposed by section 55 of such Code shall not be
increased or decreased by reason of such a carryback,
(B) tentative minimum tax shall not be increased or
decreased by reason of such a carryback for purposes of
determining the amount of any credit other than the credit
allowed by section 38, and
(C) the amount of such a carryback which is taken into
account in determining tentative minimum tax for purposes of
section 38(c) shall be the amount of such carryback which is
taken into account in determining regular tax liability.

SEC. 104. CARRYBACK OF CERTAIN NET OPERATING LOSSES ALLOWED
FOR 5 YEARS.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 172(b) (relating
to years to which loss may be carried) is amended by adding
at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(H) In the case of a taxpayer which has a net operating
loss for any taxable year ending after September 10, 2001,
and before September 11, 2004, subparagraph (A)(i) shall be
applied by substituting `5' for `2' and subparagraph (F)
shall not apply.''.
(b) Election To Disregard 5-Year Carryback.--Section 172
(relating to net operating loss deduction) is amended by
redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (k) and by
inserting after subjection (i) the following new subsection:
``(j) Election To Disregard 5-Year Carryback for Certain
Net Operating Losses.--Any taxpayer entitled to a 5-year
carryback under subsection (b)(1)(H) from any loss year may
elect to have the carryback period with respect to such loss
year determined without regard to subsection (b)(1)(H). Such
election shall be made in such manner as may be prescribed by
the Secretary and shall be made by the due date (including
extensions of time) for filing the taxpayer's return for the
taxable year of the net operating loss. Such election, once
made for any taxable year, shall be irrevocable for such
taxable year.''.
(c) Temporary Suspension of 90 Percent Limit on Certain NOL
Carrybacks.--Subparagraph (A) of section 56(c)(1) (relating
to general rule defining alternative tax net operating loss
deduction), as amended by section 103, is amended to read as
follows:
``(A) the amount of such deduction shall not exceed the sum
of--
``(i) the lesser of--

``(I) the amount of such deduction attributable to net
operating losses (other than the deduction attributable to
carrybacks described in clause (ii)(I)), or
``(II) 90 percent of alternate minimum taxable income
determined without regard to such deduction, plus

``(ii) the lesser of--

``(I) the amount of such deduction attributable to
carrybacks of net operating losses for taxable years ending
after September 10, 2001, and before September 11, 2004, or
``(II) alternate minimum taxable income determined without
regard to such deduction reduced by the amount determined
under clause (i), and''.

(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to net operating losses for taxable years ending
after September 10, 2001.

SEC. 105. RECOVERY PERIOD FOR DEPRECIATION OF CERTAIN
LEASEHOLD IMPROVEMENTS.

(a) 15-Year Recovery Period.--Subparagraph (E) of section
168(e)(3) (relating to 15-year property) is amended by
striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii), by striking the
period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting ``, and'',
and by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iv) any qualified leasehold improvement property.''.
(b) Qualified Leasehold Improvement Property.--Subsection
(e) of section 168 is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(6) Qualified leasehold improvement property.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified leasehold
improvement property' means any improvement to an interior
portion of a building which is nonresidential real property
if--
``(i) such improvement is made under or pursuant to a lease
(as defined in subsection (h)(7))--

``(I) by the lessee (or any sublessee) of such portion, or
``(II) by the lessor of such portion,

``(ii) such portion is to be occupied exclusively by the
lessee (or any sublessee) of such portion, and
``(iii) such improvement is placed in service more than 3
years after the date the building was first placed in
service.
``(B) Certain improvements not included.--Such term shall
not include any improvement for which the expenditure is
attributable to--
``(i) the enlargement of the building,
``(ii) any elevator or escalator,
``(iii) any structural component benefiting a common area,
and
``(iv) the internal structural framework of the building.
``(C) Definitions and special rules.--For purposes of this
paragraph--
``(i) Commitment to lease treated as lease.--A commitment
to enter into a lease shall be treated as a lease, and the
parties to such commitment shall be treated as lessor and
lessee, respectively.
``(ii) Related persons.--A lease between related persons
shall not be considered a lease. For purposes of the
preceding sentence, the term `related persons' means--

``(I) members of an affiliated group (as defined in section
1504), and
``(II) persons having a relationship described in
subsection (b) of section 267; except that, for purposes of
this clause, the phrase `80 percent or more' shall be
substituted for the phrase `more than 50 percent' each place
it appears in such subsection.

``(D) Improvements made by lessor.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of an improvement made by
the person who was the lessor of such improvement when such
improvement was placed in service, such improvement shall be
qualified leasehold improvement property (if at all) only so
long as such improvement is held by such person.
``(ii) Exception for changes in form of business.--Property
shall not cease to be qualified leasehold improvement
property under clause (i) by reason of--

``(I) death,
``(II) a transaction to which section 381(a) applies, or
``(III) a mere change in the form of conducting the trade
or business so long as the property is retained in such trade
or business as qualified leasehold improvement property and
the taxpayer retains a substantial interest in such trade or
business.''

(c) Requirement To Use Straight Line Method.--Paragraph (3)
of section 168(b) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(G) Qualified leasehold improvement property described in
subsection (e)(6).''.
(d) Alternative System.--The table contained in section
168(g)(3)(B) is amended by adding at the end the following
new item:

``(E)(iv)...................................................15''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to qualified leasehold improvement property
placed in service after September 10, 2001.

TITLE II--INDIVIDUAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 201. ACCELERATION OF 25 PERCENT INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX
RATE.

(a) In General.--The table contained in paragraph (2) of
section 1(i) (relating to reductions in rates after June 30,
2001) is amended--
(1) by striking ``27.0%'' and inserting ``25.0%'', and
(2) by striking ``26.0%'' and inserting ``25.0%''.
(b) Reduction Not To Increase Minimum Tax.--
(1) Subparagraph (A) of section 55(d)(1) is amended by
striking ``($49,000 in the case of taxable years beginning in
2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004)'' and inserting ``($49,000 in the
case of taxable years beginning in 2001, $52,200 in the case
of taxable years beginning in 2002 or 2003, and $50,700 in
the case of taxable years beginning in 2004)''.
(2) Subparagraph (B) of section 55(d)(1) is amended by
striking ``($35,750 in the case of taxable years beginning in
2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004)'' and inserting ``($35,750 in the
case of taxable years beginning in 2001, $37,350 in the case
of taxable years beginning in 2002 or 2003, and $36,600 in
the case of taxable years beginning in 2004)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.
(d) Section 15 Not To Apply.--No amendment made by this
section shall be treated as a change in a rate of tax for
purposes of section 15 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 .

SEC. 202. REPEAL OF 5-YEAR HOLDING PERIOD REQUIREMENT FOR
REDUCED INDIVIDUAL CAPITAL GAINS RATES.

[[Page H7240]]

(A) by striking paragraphs (2) and (9),
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (8) as
paragraphs (2) through (7), respectively, and
(C) by redesignating paragraphs (10), (11), and (12) as
paragraphs (8), (9), and (10), respectively.
(3) Paragraph (3) of section 55(b) is amended by striking
``In the case of taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000, rules similar to the rules of section 1(h)(2) shall
apply for purposes of subparagraphs (B) and (C).''.
(4) Paragraph (7) of section 57(a) is amended by striking
the last sentence and by striking ``42 percent'' and
inserting ``28 percent''.
(c) Transitional Rules for Taxable Years Which Include
October 12, 2001.--For purposes of applying section 1(h) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in the case of a taxable
year which includes October 12, 2001--
(1) The amount of tax determined under subparagraph (B) of
section 1(h)(1) of such Code shall be the sum of--
(A) 8 percent of the lesser of--
(i) the sum of--

(I) the net capital gain taking into account only gain or
loss properly taken into account for the portion of the
taxable year on or after October 12, (determined without
regard to collectibles gain or loss, gain described in
section (1)(h)(6)(A)(i) of such Code, and section 1202 gain),
and
(II) the qualified 5-year gain properly taken into account
for the portion of the taxable year before October 12, 2001,
or

(ii) the amount on which a tax is determined under such
subparagraph (without regard to this subsection), plus
(B) 10 percent of the excess (if any) of--
(i) the amount on which a tax is determined under such
subparagraph (without regard to this subsection), over
(ii) the amount on which a tax is determined under
subparagraph (A).
(2) The amount of tax determined under subparagraph (C) of
section (1)(h)(1) of such Code shall be the sum of--
(A) 18 percent of the lesser of--
(i) the excess (if any) of the amount of net capital gain
determined under subparagraph (A)(i) of paragraph (1) of this
subsection over the amount on which a tax is determined under
subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of this subsection, or
(ii) the amount on which a tax is determined under such
subparagraph (C) (without regard to this subsection), plus
(B) 20 percent of the excess (if any) of--
(i) the amount on which a tax is determined under such
subparagraph (C) (without regard to this subsection), over
(ii) the amount on which a tax is determined under
subparagraph (A) of this paragraph.
(3) For purposes of applying section 55(b)(3) of such Code,
rules similar to the rules of paragraphs (1) and (2) of this
subsection shall apply.
(4) In applying this subsection with respect to any pass-
thru entity, the determination of when gains and loss are
properly taken into account shall be made at the entity
level.
(5) Terms used in this subsection which are also used in
section 1(h) of such Code shall have the respective meanings
that such terms have in such section.
(d) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided by this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to taxable years ending on or after October 12, 2001.
(2) Withholding.--The amendment made by subsection
(a)(2)(C) shall apply to amounts paid after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(3) Small business stock.--The amendments made by
subsection (b)(4) shall apply to dispositions on or after
October 12, 2001.

SEC. 203. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN DEDUCTION FOR CAPITAL LOSSES
OF TAXPAYERS OTHER THAN CORPORATIONS.

(a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 1211 (relating
to limitation on capital losses for taxpayers other than
corporations) is amended by adding at the end the following
flush sentence:
``Paragraph (1) shall be applied by substituting `$4,000' for
`$3,000' and `$2,000' for `$1,500' in the case of taxable
years beginning in 2001, and by substituting `$5,000' for
`$3,000' and `$2,500' for `$1,500' in the case of taxable
years beginning in 2002.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.

SEC. 204. TEMPORARY EXPANSION OF PENALTY-FREE RETIREMENT PLAN
DISTRIBUTIONS FOR HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS OF
UNEMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS.

(a) In General.--Subparagraph (D) of section 72(t)(2) is
amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iv) Special rules for individuals receiving unemployment
compensation after september 10, 2001, and before january 1,
2003.--In the case of an individual who receives unemployment
compensation for 4 consecutive weeks after September 10,
2001, and before January 1, 2003--

``(I) clause (i) shall apply to distributions from all
qualified retirement plans (as defined in section 4974(c)),
and
``(II) such 4 consecutive weeks shall be substituted for
the 12 consecutive weeks referred to in subclause (I) of
clause (i).''

(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to distributions after the date of the enactment
of this Act.

TITLE III--EXTENSIONS OF CERTAIN EXPIRING PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Two-Year Extensions

SEC. 301. ALLOWANCE OF NONREFUNDABLE PERSONAL CREDITS AGAINST
REGULAR AND MINIMUM TAX LIABILITY.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 26(a) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``rule for 2000 and 2001.--'' and inserting
``rule for 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003.--'', and
(2) by striking ``during 2000 or 2001,'' and inserting
``during 2000, 2001, 2002, or 2003,''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 904(h) is amended by striking ``during 2000 or
2001'' and inserting ``during 2000, 2001, 2002, or 2003''.
(2) The amendments made by sections 201(b), 202(f), and
618(f) of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation
Act of 2001 shall not apply to taxable years beginning during
2002 and 2003.
(c) Technical Correction.--Section 24(d)(1)(B) is amended
by striking ``amount of credit allowed by this section'' and
inserting ``aggregate amount of credits allowed by this
subpart.''.
(d) Effective Dates.--
(1) The amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) shall
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2001.
(2) The amendment made by subsection (c) shall apply to
taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000.

SEC. 302. CREDIT FOR QUALIFIED ELECTRIC VEHICLES.

SEC. 303. CREDIT FOR ELECTRICITY PRODUCED FROM RENEWABLE
RESOURCES.

(a) In General.--Subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of section
45(c)(3) are each amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2004''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 304. WORK OPPORTUNITY CREDIT.

(a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 51(c)(4) is
amended by striking ``2001'' and inserting ``2003''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to individuals who begin work for the employer
after December 31, 2001.

SEC. 305. WELFARE-TO-WORK CREDIT.

(a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 51A is amended
by striking ``2001'' and inserting ``2003''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to individuals who begin work for the employer
after December 31, 2001.

SEC. 306. DEDUCTION FOR CLEAN-FUEL VEHICLES AND CERTAIN
REFUELING PROPERTY.

(a) In General.--Section 179A is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1)(B)--
(A) by striking ``December 31, 2001,'' and inserting
``December 31, 2003,'', and
(B) in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), by striking ``2002'',
``2003'', and ``2004'', respectively, and inserting ``2004'',
``2005'', and ``2006'', respectively, and
(2) in subsection (f), by striking ``December 31, 2004''
and inserting ``December 31, 2006''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 307. TAXABLE INCOME LIMIT ON PERCENTAGE DEPLETION FOR
OIL AND NATURAL GAS PRODUCED FROM MARGINAL
PROPERTIES.

(a) In General.--Subparagraph (H) of section 613A(c)(6) is
amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2004''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.

SEC. 308. QUALIFIED ZONE ACADEMY BONDS.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 1397E(e) is
amended by striking ``2000, and 2001'' and inserting ``2000,
2001, 2002, and 2003''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 309. COVER OVER OF TAX ON DISTILLED SPIRITS.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 7652(f) is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2002'' and inserting
``January 1, 2004''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 310. PARITY IN THE APPLICATION OF CERTAIN LIMITS TO
MENTAL HEALTH BENEFITS.

(a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 9812 is amended
by striking ``2001'' and inserting ``2003''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to plan years beginning after December 31, 2001.

SEC. 311. DELAY IN EFFECTIVE DATE OF REQUIREMENT FOR APPROVED
DIESEL OR KEROSENE TERMINALS.

Paragraph (2) of section 1032(f) of the Taxpayer Relief Act
of 1997 (Public Law 105-34) is

[[Page H7241]]

amended by striking ``January 1, 2002'' and inserting
``January 1, 2004''.

Subtitle B--One-Year Extensions

SEC. 321. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AVAILABILITY OF MEDICAL
SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.

(a) In General.--Paragraphs (2) and (3)(B) of section
220(i) (defining cut-off year) are each amended by striking
``2002'' each place it appears and inserting ``2003''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Paragraph (2) of section 220(j) is amended by striking
``1998, 1999, or 2001'' each place it appears and inserting
``1998, 1999, 2001, or 2002''.
(2) Subparagraph (A) of section 220(j)(4) is amended by
striking ``and 2001'' and inserting ``2001, and 2002''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

Subtitle C--Permanent Extensions

SEC. 331. SUBPART F EXEMPTION FOR ACTIVE FINANCING.

(a) In General.--
(1) Section 953(e)(10) is amended--
(A) by striking ``, and before January 1, 2002,'', and
(B) by striking the second sentence.
(2) Section 954(h)(9) is amended by striking ``, and before
January 1, 2002,''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.

Subtitle D--Other Provisions

SEC. 341. EXCLUDED CANCELLATION OF INDEBTEDNESS INCOME OF S
CORPORATION NOT TO RESULT IN ADJUSTMENT TO
BASIS OF STOCK OF SHAREHOLDERS.

(a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 108(d)(7)
(relating to certain provisions to be applied at corporate
level) is amended by inserting before the period ``,
including by not taking into account under section 1366(a)
any amount excluded under subsection (a) of this section''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendment made by this section shall
apply to taxable years beginning before, on, or after October
12, 2001.
(2) Exception.--The amendment made by this section shall
not apply to any shareholder with respect to any discharge of
indebtedness if the position upheld in Gitlitz v.
Commissioner (121 S. Ct. 701 (2001)) was taken by such
shareholder with respect to such discharge on a return or
claim for refund filed before October 12, 2001.

SEC. 342. LIMITATION ON USE OF NONACCRUAL EXPERIENCE METHOD
OF ACCOUNTING.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (5) of section 448(d) is amended
to read as follows:
``(5) Special rule for certain services.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of any person using an
accrual method of accounting with respect to amounts to be
received for the performance of services by such person, such
person shall not be required to accrue any portion of such
amounts which (on the basis of such person's experience) will
not be collected if--
``(i) such services are in fields referred to in paragraph
(2)(A), or
``(ii) such person meets the gross receipts test of
subsection (c) for all prior taxable years.
``(B) Exception.--This paragraph shall not apply to any
amount if interest is required to be paid on such amount or
there is any penalty for failure to timely pay such amount.
``(C) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe
regulations to permit taxpayers to determine amounts referred
to in subparagraph (A) using computations or formulas which,
based on experience, accurately reflect the amount of income
that will not be collected by such person. A taxpayer may
adopt, or request consent of the Secretary to change to, a
computation or formula that clearly reflects the taxpayer's
experience. A request under the preceding sentence shall be
approved only if such computation or formula clearly reflects
the taxpayer's experience.''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to taxable years ending after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
(2) Change in method of accounting.--In the case of any
taxpayer required by the amendments made by this section to
change its method of accounting for its first taxable year
ending after the date of the enactment of this Act--
(A) such change shall be treated as initiated by the
taxpayer,
(B) such change shall be treated as made with the consent
of the Secretary of the Treasury, and
(C) the net amount of the adjustments required to be taken
into account by the taxpayer under section 481 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be taken into account
over a period of 4 years (or if less, the number of taxable
years that the taxpayer used the method permitted under
section 448(d)(5) of such Code as in effect before the date
of the enactment of this Act) beginning with such first
taxable year.

TITLE IV--SUPPLEMENTAL REBATE; OTHER PROVISIONS

SEC. 401. SUPPLEMENTAL REBATE.

(a) In General.--Section 6428 (relating to acceleration of
10 percent income tax rate bracket benefit for 2001) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) Supplemental Rebate.--
``(1) In general.--Each individual who was an eligible
individual for such individual's first taxable year beginning
in 2000 and who, before August 16, 2001, filed a return of
tax imposed by subtitle A for such taxable year shall be
treated as having made a payment against the tax imposed by
chapter 1 for such first taxable year in an amount equal to
the supplemental refund amount for such taxable year.
``(2) Supplemental refund amount.--For purposes of this
subsection, the supplemental refund amount is an amount equal
to the excess (if any) of--
``(A)(i) $600 in the case of taxpayers to whom section 1(a)
applies,
``(ii) $500 in the case of taxpayers to whom section 1(b)
applies, and
``(iii) $300 in the case of taxpayers to whom subsections
(c) or (d) of section 1 applies, over
``(B) the taxpayer's advance refund amount under subsection
(e).
``(3) Timing of payments.--In the case of any overpayment
attributable to this subsection, the Secretary shall, subject
to the provisions of this title, refund or credit such
overpayment as rapidly as possible. No refund or credit shall
be made or allowed under this subsection after December 31,
2001.
``(4) No interest.--No interest shall be allowed on any
overpayment attributable to this subsection.''
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Subparagraph (A) of section 6428(d)(1) is amended by
striking ``subsection (e)'' and inserting ``subsections (e)
and (f)''.
(2) Subparagraph (B) of section 6428(d)(1) is amended by
striking ``subsection (e)'' and inserting ``subsection (e) or
(f)''.
(3) Paragraph (3) of section 6428(e) is amended by striking
``December 31, 2001'' and inserting ``the date of the
enactment of the Economic Security and Recovery Act of
2001''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 402. SPECIAL REED ACT TRANSFER IN FISCAL YEAR 2002.

(a) Repeal of Certain Provisions Added by the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997.--
(1) In general.--The following provisions of section 903 of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1103) are repealed:
(A) Paragraph (3) of subsection (a).
(B) The last sentence of subsection (c)(2).
(2) Savings provision.--Any amounts transferred before the
date of enactment of this Act under the provision repealed by
paragraph (1)(A) shall remain subject to section 903 of the
Social Security Act, as last in effect before such date of
enactment.
(b) Special Transfer in Fiscal Year 2002.--Section 903 of
the Social Security Act is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``Special Transfer in Fiscal Year 2002

[[Page H7242]]

``(i) beginning after the date of enactment of this
subsection, and
``(ii) ending on or before March 11, 2003.
``(4) Amounts transferred to a State account under this
subsection may be used for the administration of its
unemployment compensation law and public employment offices
(including in connection with benefits described in paragraph
(3) and any recipients thereof), subject to the same
conditions as set forth in subsection (c)(2) (excluding
subparagraph (B) thereof, and deeming the reference to
`subsections (a) and (b)' in subparagraph (D) thereof to
include this subsection).
``(5) Transfers under this subsection--
``(A) shall be made on such date as the Secretary of Labor
(in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury) shall
determine, but in no event later than 10 days after the date
of enactment of this subsection, and
``(B) may, notwithstanding any other provision of this
subsection, be made only to the extent that they do not to
exceed--
``(i) the balance in the Federal unemployment account as of
the date determined under subparagraph (A), or
``(ii) the total amount that was transferred under this
section to the Federal unemployment account at the beginning
of fiscal year 2002,
whichever is less.''
(c) Limitations on Transfers.--Section 903(b) of the Social
Security Act shall apply to transfers under section 903(d) of
such Act (as amended by this section). For purposes of the
preceding sentence, such section 903(b) shall be deemed to be
amended as follows:
(1) By substituting ``the transfer date described in
subsection (d)(5)(A)'' for ``October 1 of any fiscal year''.
(2) By substituting ``remain in the Federal unemployment
account'' for ``be transferred to the Federal unemployment
account as of the beginning of such October 1''.
(3) By substituting ``fiscal year 2002 (after the transfer
date described in subsection (d)(5)(A))'' for ``the fiscal
year beginning on such October 1''.
(4) By substituting ``under subsection (d)'' for ``as of
October 1 of such fiscal year''.
(5) By substituting ``(as of the close of fiscal year
2002)'' for ``(as of the close of such fiscal year)''.
(d) Technical Amendments.--(1) Sections 3304(a)(4)(B) and
3306(f)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are amended
by inserting ``or 903(d)(4)'' before ``of the Social Security
Act''.
(2) Section 303(a)(5) of the Social Security Act is amended
in the second proviso by inserting ``or 903(d)(4)'' after
``903(c)(2)''.
(e) Regulations.--The Secretary of Labor may prescribe any
operating instructions or regulations necessary to carry out
this section and the amendments made by this section.

TITLE V--HEALTH CARE ASSISTANCE FOR THE UNEMPLOYED

SEC. 501. HEALTH CARE ASSISTANCE FOR THE UNEMPLOYED.

Title XX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397-1397f)
is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 2008. GRANTS FOR HEALTH CARE ASSISTANCE FOR THE
UNEMPLOYED.

``(a) Funding.--For purposes of section 2003, the amount
specified in section 2003(c) for fiscal year 2002 is
increased by $3,000,000,000.
``(b) Use of Funds.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this title, to the extent that an amount paid to a State
under section 2002 is attributable to funds made available by
reason of subsection (a) of this section--
``(1) the State shall use the amount to assist an
unemployed individual who is not eligible for Federal health
coverage to purchase health care coverage for the individual
or any member of the family of the individual who is not so
eligible; and
``(2) the amount--
``(A) shall be used to supplement, not supplant, any other
Federal, State, or local funds that are used for the
provision of health care coverage; and
``(B) may not be included in determining the amount of non-
Federal contributions required under any program.
``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Unemployed individual.--The term `unemployed
individual' means an individual who--
``(A) is without a job (determined in accordance with the
criteria used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the
Department of Labor in defining individuals as unemployed);
``(B) is seeking and available for work; and
``(C) has or had a benefit year (within the meaning of
section 205 of the Federal-State Extended Unemployment
Compensation Act of 1970) beginning on or after January 1,
2001.
``(2) Federal health coverage.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the term
`Federal health coverage' means coverage under any medical
care program described in--
``(i) title XVIII, XIX, or XXI of this Act (other than
under section 1928);
``(ii) chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code;
``(iii) chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code;
``(iv) chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code (other
than coverage which is comparable to continuation coverage
under section 4980B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986); or
``(v) the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.
``(B) Special rule.--Such term does not include coverage
under a qualified long-term care insurance contract.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment printed in the bill is
adopted.
The text of H.R. 3090, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 3090

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; ETC.

Sec. 1. Short title; etc.

TITLE I--BUSINESS PROVISIONS

Sec. 101. Special depreciation allowance for certain property acquired
after September 10, 2001, and before September 11, 2004.
Sec. 102. Temporary increase in expensing under section 179.
Sec. 103. Repeal of alternative minimum tax on corporations.
Sec. 104. Carryback of certain net operating losses allowed for 5
years.
Sec. 105. Recovery period for depreciation of certain leasehold
improvements.

TITLE II--INDIVIDUAL PROVISIONS

TITLE III--EXTENSIONS OF CERTAIN EXPIRING PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Two-Year Extensions

Subtitle B--One-Year Extensions

Sec. 321. One-year extension of availability of medical savings
accounts.

Subtitle C--Permanent Extensions

Sec. 331. Subpart F exemption for active financing.

Subtitle D--Other Provisions

TITLE IV--SUPPLEMENTAL REBATE; OTHER PROVISIONS

Sec. 401. Supplemental rebate.
Sec. 402. Special Reed Act transfer in fiscal year 2002.

TITLE V--HEALTH CARE ASSISTANCE FOR THE UNEMPLOYED

Sec. 501. Health care assistance for the unemployed.

TITLE I--BUSINESS PROVISIONS

SEC. 101. SPECIAL DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY
ACQUIRED AFTER SEPTEMBER 10, 2001, AND BEFORE
SEPTEMBER 11, 2004.

(a) In General.--Section 168 (relating to accelerated cost
recovery system) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(k) Special Allowance for Certain Property Acquired After
September 10, 2001, and Before September 11, 2004.--
``(1) Additional allowance.--In the case of any qualified
property--
``(A) the depreciation deduction provided by section 167(a)
for the taxable year in which such property is placed in
service shall include an allowance equal to 30 percent of the
adjusted basis of the qualified property, and
``(B) the adjusted basis of the qualified property shall be
reduced by the amount of such deduction before computing the
amount otherwise allowable as a depreciation deduction under
this chapter for such taxable year and any subsequent taxable
year.
``(2) Qualified property.--For purposes of this
subsection--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified property' means
property--

[[Page H7243]]

``(i)(I) to which this section applies which has a recovery
period of 20 years or less or which is water utility
property, or
``(II) which is computer software (as defined in section
167(f)(1)(B)) for which a deduction is allowable under
section 167(a) without regard to this subsection,
``(ii) the original use of which commences with the
taxpayer after September 10, 2001,
``(iii) which is--

``(I) acquired by the taxpayer after September 10, 2001,
and before September 11, 2004, but only if no written binding
contract for the acquisition was in effect before
September 11, 2001, or

``(II) acquired by the taxpayer pursuant to a written
binding contract which was entered into after September 10,
2001, and before September 11, 2004, and

``(iv) which is placed in service by the taxpayer before
January 1, 2005.
``(B) Exceptions.--
``(i) Alternative depreciation property.--The term
`qualified property' shall not include any property to which
the alternative depreciation system under subsection (g)
applies, determined--

``(ii) Election out.--If a taxpayer makes an election under
this clause with respect to any class of property for any
taxable year, this subsection shall not apply to all property
in such class placed in service during such taxable year.
``(iii) Repaired or reconstructed property.--Except as
otherwise provided in regulations, the term `qualified
property' shall not include any repaired or reconstructed
property.
``(iv) Qualified leasehold improvement property.--The term
`qualified property' shall not include any qualified
leasehold improvement property (as defined in section
168(e)(6)).
``(C) Special rules relating to original use.--
``(i) Self-constructed property.--In the case of a taxpayer
manufacturing, constructing, or producing property for the
taxpayer's own use, the requirements of clause (iii) of
subparagraph (A) shall be treated as met if the taxpayer
begins manufacturing, constructing, or producing the property
after September 10, 2001, and before September 11, 2004.
``(ii) Sale-leasebacks.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A)(ii), if property--

``(I) is originally placed in service after September 10,
2001, by a person, and
``(II) sold and leased back by such person within 3 months
after the date such property was originally placed in
service,

such property shall be treated as originally placed in
service not earlier than the date on which such property is
used under the leaseback referred to in subclause (II).
``(D) Coordination with section 280f.--For purposes of
section 280F--
``(i) Automobiles.--In the case of a passenger automobile
(as defined in section 280F(d)(5)) which is qualified
property, the Secretary shall increase the limitation under
section 280F(a)(1)(A)(i) by $4,600.
``(ii) Listed property.--The deduction allowable under
paragraph (1) shall be taken into account in computing any
recapture amount under section 280F(b)(2).''
(b) Allowance Against Alternative Minimum Tax.--
(1) In general.--Section 56(a)(1)(A) (relating to
depreciation adjustment for alternative minimum tax) is
amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iii) Additional allowance for certain property acquired
after september 10, 2001, and before september 11, 2004.--The
deduction under section 168(k) shall be allowed.''
(2) Conforming amendment.--Clause (i) of section
56(a)(1)(A) is amended by striking ``clause (ii)'' both
places it appears and inserting ``clauses (ii) and (iii)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after September 10,
2001, in taxable years ending after such date.

SEC. 102. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN EXPENSING UNDER SECTION 179.

(a) In General.--The table contained in section 179(b)(1)
(relating to dollar limitation) is amended to read as
follows:

``If thThe applicable
amount is:
2001.....................................................$24,000
2002 or 2003.............................................$35,000
2004 or thereafter.....................................$25,000.''

(b) Temporary Increase in Amount of Property Triggering
Phaseout of Maximum Benefit.--Paragraph (2) of section 179(b)
is amended by inserting before the period ``($325,000 in the
case of taxable years beginning during 2002 or 2003)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.

SEC. 103. REPEAL OF ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX ON CORPORATIONS.

(a) In General.--So much of section 55 as precedes
subsection (b)(2) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 55. ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX FOR TAXPAYERS OTHER THAN
CORPORATIONS.

The amount determined under the preceding sentence shall be
reduced by the alternative minimum tax foreign tax credit for
the taxable year.
``(B) Taxable excess.--For purposes of this subsection, the
term `taxable excess' means so much of the alternative
minimum taxable income for the taxable year as exceeds the
exemption amount.
``(C) Married individual filing separate return.--In the
case of a married individual filing a separate return, clause
(i) shall be applied by substituting `$87,500' for `$175,000'
each place it appears. For purposes of the preceding
sentence, marital status shall be determined under section
7703.''
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Paragraph (3) of section 55(b) is amended by striking
``paragraph (1)(A)(i)'' and inserting ``paragraph (1)(A)''.
(2) Paragraph (1) of section 55(c) is amended by striking
``, the section 936 credit allowable under section 27(b), and
the Puerto Rico economic activity credit under section 30A''.
(3)(A) Paragraph (1) of section 55(d) is amended by--
(i) by striking ``for taxpayers other than corporations''
in the heading, and
(ii) by striking ``In the case of a taxpayer other than a
corporation, the'' and inserting ``The''.
(B) Section 55(d) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and
by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
(C) Subparagraph (A) of section 55(d)(2), as so
redesignated is amended by striking ``or (2)''.
(4) Section 55 is amended by striking subsection (e).
(5)(A) The designation and heading for subsection (a) of
section 56 is amended to read as follows:
``(a) General Rules.--''.
(B) Paragraph (1) of section 56(a) is amended by striking
subparagraph (D).
(C) Paragraph (6) of section 56(a) is amended--
(i) by striking ``paragraph (2) or subsection (b)(2)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (2) or (9)'', and
(ii) by striking ``or (5), or subsection (b)(2)'' and
inserting ``(5), or (9)''.
(6)(A) Subsection (b) of section 56 is amended by striking
so much of such subsection as precedes paragraph (1) and by
redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as paragraphs (8),
(9), and (10), respectively, of subsection (a).
(B) Paragraph (9) of section 56(a), as so redesignated, is
amended by striking subparagraph (C) and by redesignating
subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C).
(7) Section 56 is amended by striking subsections (c) and
(g) and by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as
subsections (b) and (c), respectively.
(8) Subparagraph (E) of section 57(a)(2) is amended--
(A) by striking ``for independent producers'' in the
heading, and
(B) by striking clause (i) and inserting the following new
clause:
``(i) In general.--This paragraph shall not apply to any
taxable year beginning after December 31, 1992.''
(9) Subsection (a) of section 58 is amended by striking
paragraph (3) and by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph
(3).
(10)(A) Section 59 is amended by striking subsections (b)
and (f) and by redesignating subsections (c), (d), (e), (g),
(h), (i), and (j) as subsections (b), (c), (d), (e), (f),
(g), and (h), respectively.
(B) Paragraph (2) of section 59(d), as so redesignated, is
amended by striking ``(determined without regard to section
291)''.
(C) Sections 173(b), 174(f)(2), 263(c), 263A(c)(6), 616(e),
617(i), and 1016(a)(20) are each amended by striking
``59(e)'' each place it appears and inserting ``59(d)''.
(11) Subsection (d) of section 11 is amended by striking
``the taxes imposed by subsection (a) and section 55'' and
inserting ``the tax imposed by subsection (a)''.
(12) Section 12 is amended by striking paragraph (7).
(13) Paragraph (6) of section 29(b) is amended to read as
follows:
``(6) Application with other credits.--The credit allowed
by subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed the
excess (if any) of the regular tax for the taxable year
reduced by the sum of the credits allowable under subpart A
and section 27. In the case of a taxpayer other than a
corporation, such excess shall be further reduced (but not
below zero) by the tentative minimum tax for the taxable
year.''
(14) Paragraph (3) of section 30(b) is amended to read as
follows:
``(3) Application with other credits.--The credit allowed
by subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed the
excess (if any) of the regular tax for the taxable year
reduced by the sum of the credits allowable under subpart A
and sections 27 and 29. In the case of a taxpayer other than
a corporation, such excess shall be further reduced (but not
below zero) by the tentative minimum tax for the taxable
year.''
(15)(A) Paragraph (1) of section 38(c) is amended to read
as follows:
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Corporations.--In the case of a corporation, the
credit allowed under subsection (a) for any taxable year
shall not exceed the excess (if any) of the taxpayer's net
income tax over 25 percent of so much of the taxpayer's net
regular tax liability as exceeds $25,000.

[[Page H7244]]

``(B) Taxpayers other than corporations.--In the case of a
taxpayer other than a corporation, the credit allowed under
subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed the
excess (if any) of the taxpayer's net income tax over the
greater of--
``(i) the tentative minimum tax for the taxable year, or
``(ii) 25 percent of so much of the taxpayer's net regular
tax liability as exceeds $25,000.
``(C) Definitions.--For purposes of this paragraph--
``(i) the term `net income tax' means the sum of the
regular tax liability and the tax imposed by section 55,
reduced by the credits allowable under subparts A and B of
this part, and
``(ii) the term `net regular tax liability' means the
regular tax liability reduced by the sum of the credits
allowable under subparts A and B of this part.''
(B) Clause (ii) of section 38(c)(2)(A) is amended to read
as follows:
``(ii) for purposes of applying paragraph (1) to such
credit--

(C) Paragraph (3) of section 38(c) is amended by striking
``subparagraph (B) of'' each place it appears.
(16)(A) Subclause (I) of section 53(d)(1)(B)(ii) is amended
by striking ``subsection (b)(1)'' and inserting ``subsection
(a)(8)''.
(B) Clause (iv) of section 53(d)(1)(B) is hereby repealed.
(17)(A) Part VII of subchapter A of chapter 1 is hereby
repealed.
(B) The table of parts for subchapter A of chapter 1 is
amended by striking the item relating to part VII.
(C) Paragraph (2) of section 26(b) is amended by striking
subparagraph (B) and by redesignating the succeeding
subparagraphs accordingly.
(D) Subsection (c) of section 30A is amended by striking
paragraph (1) and redesignating the succeeding paragraphs
accordingly.
(E) Subsection (a) of section 164 is amended by striking
paragraph (5).
(F) Subsection (a) of section 275 is amended by striking
``Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the tax imposed by section
59A.''
(G) Paragraph (1) of section 882(a) is amended by striking
``59A,''.
(H) Paragraph (3) of section 936(a) is amended by striking
subparagraph (A) and redesignating the succeeding
subparagraphs accordingly.
(I) Subsection (a) of section 1561 is amended by adding
``and'' at the end of paragraph (2), by striking ``, and'' at
the end of paragraph (3) and inserting a period, and by
striking paragraph (4).
(J) Subparagraph (A) of section 6425(c)(1) is amended by
adding ``plus'' at the end of clause (i), by striking
``plus'' at the end of clause (ii) and inserting ``over'',
and by striking clause (iii).
(18) Section 382(l) (relating to limitation on net
operating loss carryforwards and certain built-in losses
following ownership change) is amended by striking paragraph
(7) and by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (7).
(19) Paragraph (2) of section 815(c) (relating to
distributions to shareholders from pre-1984 policyholders
surplus account) is amended by striking the last sentence.
(20) Section 847 (relating to special estimated tax
payments) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (9), by striking the last sentence; and
(B) in paragraph (10), by inserting ``and'' at the end of
subparagraph (A) and by striking subparagraph (B) and
redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B).
(21) Section 848 (relating to capitalization of certain
policy acquisition expenses) is amended by striking
subsection (i) and by redesignating subsection (j) as
subsection (i).
(22) Paragraph (1) of section 882(a) (relating to tax on
income of foreign corporations connected with United States
business) is amended by striking ``55,''.
(23) Paragraph (1) of section 962(a) (relating to election
by individuals to be subject to tax at corporate rates) is
amended by striking ``sections 11 and 55'' and inserting
``section 11''.
(24) Subsection (a) of section 1561 (relating to
limitations on certain multiple tax benefits in the case of
certain controlled corporations) is amended by striking the
last sentence.
(25) Subparagraph (A) of section 6425(c)(1) (defining
income tax liability), as amended by paragraph (17) is
amended to read as follows:
``(A) the tax imposed by section 11 or 1201(a), or
subchapter L of chapter 1, whichever is applicable, over''.
(26)(A) Paragraph (2) of section 6655(e) is amended--
(i) by striking ``, alternative minimum taxable income, and
modified alternative minimum taxable income'' each place it
appears in subparagraphs (A) and (B)(i), and
(ii) by striking clause (iii) of subparagraph (B).
(B) Subparagraph (A) of section 6655(g)(1) (relating to
failure by corporation to pay estimated income tax), is
amended to read as follows:
``(A) the sum of--
``(i) the tax imposed by section 11 or 1201(a), or
subchapter L of chapter 1, whichever applies, plus
``(ii) the tax imposed by section 887, over''.
(27) The table of sections for part VI of subchapter A of
chapter 1 is amended by striking the item relating to section
55 and inserting the following new item:

``Sec. 55. Alternative minimum tax for taxpayers other than
corporations.''

SEC. 104. CARRYBACK OF CERTAIN NET OPERATING LOSSES ALLOWED
FOR 5 YEARS.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 172(b) (relating
to years to which loss may be carried) is amended by adding
at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(H) In the case of a taxpayer which has a net operating
loss for any taxable year ending after September 10, 2001,
and before September 11, 2004, subparagraph (A)(i) shall be
applied by substituting `5' for `2' and subparagraph (F)
shall not apply.''.
(b) Election To Disregard 5-Year Carryback.--Section 172
(relating to net operating loss deduction) is amended by
redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (k) and by
inserting after subjection (i) the following new subsection:
``(j) Election To Disregard 5-Year Carryback for Certain
Net Operating Losses.--Any taxpayer entitled to a 5-year
carryback under subsection (b)(1)(H) from any loss year may
elect to have the carryback period with respect to such loss
year determined without regard to subsection (b)(1)(H). Such
election shall be made in such manner as may be prescribed by
the Secretary and shall be made by the due date (including
extensions of time) for filing the taxpayer's return for the
taxable year of the net operating loss. Such election, once
made for any taxable year, shall be irrevocable for such
taxable year.''.
(c) Temporary Suspension of 90 Percent Limit on Certain NOL
Carrybacks.--Subparagraph (A) of section 56(b)(1) (relating
to general rule defining alternative tax net operating loss
deduction), as amended by section 103, is amended to read as
follows:
``(A) the amount of such deduction shall not exceed the sum
of--
``(i) the lesser of--

``(ii) the lesser of--

(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to net operating losses for taxable years ending
after September 10, 2001.

SEC. 105. RECOVERY PERIOD FOR DEPRECIATION OF CERTAIN
LEASEHOLD IMPROVEMENTS.

``(I) by the lessee (or any sublessee) of such portion, or
``(II) by the lessor of such portion,

[[Page H7245]]

``(B) Certain improvements not included.--Such term shall
not include any improvement for which the expenditure is
attributable to--
``(i) the enlargement of the building,
``(ii) any elevator or escalator,
``(iii) any structural component benefiting a common area,
and
``(iv) the internal structural framework of the building.
``(C) Definitions and special rules.--For purposes of this
paragraph--
``(i) Commitment to lease treated as lease.--A commitment
to enter into a lease shall be treated as a lease, and the
parties to such commitment shall be treated as lessor and
lessee, respectively.
``(ii) Related persons.--A lease between related persons
shall not be considered a lease. For purposes of the
preceding sentence, the term `related persons' means--

``(E)(iv)...................................................15''.

(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to qualified leasehold improvement property
placed in service after September 10, 2001.

TITLE II--INDIVIDUAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 201. ACCELERATION OF 25 PERCENT INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX
RATE.

SEC. 202. REPEAL OF 5-YEAR HOLDING PERIOD REQUIREMENT FOR
REDUCED INDIVIDUAL CAPITAL GAINS RATES.

(a) In General.--
(1) Sections 1(h)(1)(B) and 55(b)(3)(B) are each amended by
striking ``10 percent'' and inserting ``8 percent''.
(2) The following sections are each amended by striking
``20 percent'' and inserting ``18 percent'':
(A) Section 1(h)(1)(C).
(B) Section 55(b)(3)(C).
(C) Section 1445(e)(1).
(D) The second sentence of section 7518(g)(6)(A).
(E) The second sentence of section 607(h)(6)(A) of the
Merchant Marine Act, 1936.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Subsection (e) of section 311 of the Taxpayer Relief
Act of 1997 is repealed.
(2) Section 1(h) is amended--
(A) by striking paragraphs (2) and (9),
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (8) as
paragraphs (2) through (7), respectively, and
(C) by redesignating paragraphs (10), (11), and (12) as
paragraphs (8), (9), and (10), respectively.
(3) Paragraph (3) of section 55(b) is amended by striking
``In the case of taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000, rules similar to the rules of section 1(h)(2) shall
apply for purposes of subparagraphs (B) and (C).''.
(4) Paragraph (7) of section 57(a) is amended by striking
the last sentence and by striking ``42 percent'' and
inserting ``28 percent''.
(c) Transitional Rules for Taxable Years Which Include
October 12, 2001.--For purposes of applying section 1(h) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in the case of a taxable
year which includes October 12, 2001--
(1) The amount of tax determined under subparagraph (B) of
section 1(h)(1) of such Code shall be the sum of--
(A) 8 percent of the lesser of--
(i) the sum of--

(I) the net capital gain taking into account only gain or
loss properly taken into account for the portion of the
taxable year on or after October 12, (determined without
regard to collectibles gain or loss, gain described in
section (1)(h)(6)(A)(i) of such Code, and section 1202 gain),
and
(II) the qualified 5-year gain (as defined in section
1(h)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as in effect on
the day before the date of the enactment of this Act)
properly taken into account for the portion of the taxable
year before October 12, 2001, or

(ii) the amount on which a tax is determined under such
subparagraph (without regard to this subsection), plus
(B) 10 percent of the excess (if any) of--
(i) the amount on which a tax is determined under such
subparagraph (without regard to this subsection), over
(ii) the amount on which a tax is determined under
subparagraph (A).
(2) The amount of tax determined under subparagraph (C) of
section (1)(h)(1) of such Code shall be the sum of--
(A) 18 percent of the lesser of--
(i) the excess (if any) of the amount of net capital gain
determined under subparagraph (A)(i)(I) of paragraph (1) of
this subsection over the amount on which a tax is determined
under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of this subsection,
or
(ii) the amount on which a tax is determined under such
subparagraph (C) (without regard to this subsection), plus
(B) 20 percent of the excess (if any) of--
(i) the amount on which a tax is determined under such
subparagraph (C) (without regard to this subsection), over
(ii) the amount on which a tax is determined under
subparagraph (A) of this paragraph.
(3) For purposes of applying section 55(b)(3) of such Code,
rules similar to the rules of paragraphs (1) and (2) of this
subsection shall apply.
(4) In applying this subsection with respect to any pass-
thru entity, the determination of when gains and loss are
properly taken into account shall be made at the entity
level.
(5) Terms used in this subsection which are also used in
section 1(h) of such Code shall have the respective meanings
that such terms have in such section.
(d) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided by this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to taxable years ending on or after October 12, 2001.
(2) Withholding.--The amendment made by subsection
(a)(2)(C) shall apply to amounts paid after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(3) Election to recognize gain on assests held on january
1, 2001.--The repeal made by subsection (b)(1) shall take
effect as if included in section 311 of the Taxpayer Relief
Act of 1997, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be
applied and administered as if subsection (e) of such section
311 had never been enacted.
(4) Small business stock.--The amendments made by
subsection (b)(4) shall apply to dispositions on or after
October 12, 2001.

SEC. 203. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN DEDUCTION FOR CAPITAL LOSSES
OF TAXPAYERS OTHER THAN CORPORATIONS.

(a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 1211 (relating
to limitation on capital losses for taxpayers other than
corporations) is amended by adding at the end the following
flush sentence:

``Paragraph (1) shall be applied by substituting `$4,000' for
`$3,000' and `$2,000' for `$1,500' in the case of taxable
years beginning in 2001, and by substituting `$5,000' for
`$3,000' and `$2,500' for `$1,500' in the case of taxable
years beginning in 2002.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.

SEC. 204. TEMPORARY EXPANSION OF PENALTY-FREE RETIREMENT PLAN
DISTRIBUTIONS FOR HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS OF
UNEMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS.

(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to distributions after the date of the enactment
of this Act.

TITLE III--EXTENSIONS OF CERTAIN EXPIRING PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Two-Year Extensions

SEC. 301. ALLOWANCE OF NONREFUNDABLE PERSONAL CREDITS AGAINST
REGULAR AND MINIMUM TAX LIABILITY.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 26(a) is
amended--

[[Page H7246]]

(1) by striking ``rule for 2000 and 2001.--'' and inserting
``rule for 2000, 2001, 2002, and
2003.--'', and
(2) by striking ``during 2000 or 2001,'' and inserting
``during 2000, 2001, 2002, or 2003,''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 904(h) is amended by striking ``during 2000 or
2001'' and inserting ``during 2000, 2001, 2002, or 2003''.
(2) The amendments made by sections 201(b), 202(f), and
618(f) of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation
Act of 2001 shall not apply to taxable years beginning during
2002 and 2003.
(c) Technical Correction.--Section 24(d)(1)(B) is amended
by striking ``amount of credit allowed by this section'' and
inserting ``aggregate amount of credits allowed by this
subpart''.
(d) Effective Dates.--
(1) The amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) shall
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2001.
(2) The amendment made by subsection (c) shall apply to
taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000.

SEC. 302. CREDIT FOR QUALIFIED ELECTRIC VEHICLES.

(a) In General.--Section 30 is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(2)--
(A) by striking ``December 31, 2001,'' and inserting
``December 31, 2003,'', and
(B) in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), by striking
``2002'', ``2003'', and ``2004'', respectively, and inserting
``2004'', ``2005'', and ``2006'', respectively, and
(2) in subsection (e), by striking ``December 31, 2004''
and inserting ``December 31, 2006''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Subparagraph (C) of section 280F(a)(1) is amended by
adding at the end the following new clause
``(iii) Application of subparagraph.--This subparagraph
shall apply to property placed in service after August 5,
1997, and before January 1, 2007.''.
(2) Subsection (b) of section 971 of the Taxpayer Relief
Act of 1997 is amended by striking ``and before January 1,
2005''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 303. CREDIT FOR ELECTRICITY PRODUCED FROM RENEWABLE
RESOURCES.

SEC. 304. WORK OPPORTUNITY CREDIT.

SEC. 305. WELFARE-TO-WORK CREDIT.

SEC. 306. DEDUCTION FOR CLEAN-FUEL VEHICLES AND CERTAIN
REFUELING PROPERTY.

SEC. 307. TAXABLE INCOME LIMIT ON PERCENTAGE DEPLETION FOR
OIL AND NATURAL GAS PRODUCED FROM MARGINAL
PROPERTIES.

SEC. 308. QUALIFIED ZONE ACADEMY BONDS.

SEC. 309. COVER OVER OF TAX ON DISTILLED SPIRITS.

SEC. 310. PARITY IN THE APPLICATION OF CERTAIN LIMITS TO
MENTAL HEALTH BENEFITS.

SEC. 311. DELAY IN EFFECTIVE DATE OF REQUIREMENT FOR APPROVED
DIESEL OR KEROSENE TERMINALS.

Paragraph (2) of section 1032(f) of the Taxpayer Relief Act
of 1997 (Public Law 105-34) is amended by striking ``January
1, 2002'' and inserting ``January 1, 2004''.

Subtitle B--One-Year Extensions

SEC. 321. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AVAILABILITY OF MEDICAL
SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.

Subtitle C--Permanent Extensions

SEC. 331. SUBPART F EXEMPTION FOR ACTIVE FINANCING.

(a) In General.--
(1) Section 953(e)(10) is amended--
(A) by striking ``, and before January 1, 2002,'', and
(B) by striking the second sentence.
(2) Section 954(h)(9) is amended by striking ``, and before
January 1, 2002,''.
(b) Life Insurance and Annuity Contracts.--
(1) In general.--Subparagraph (B) of section 954(i)(4) is
amended to read as follows:
``(B) Life insurance and annuity contracts.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the
amount of the reserve of a qualifying insurance company or
qualifying insurance company branch for any life insurance or
annuity contract shall be equal to the greater of--

``(I) the net surrender value of such contract (as defined
in section 807(e)(1)(A)), or
``(II) the reserve determined under paragraph (5).

``(ii) Ruling request.--The amount of the reserve under
clause (i) shall be the foreign statement reserve for the
contract (less any catastrophe, deficiency, equalization, or
similar reserves), if, pursuant to a ruling request submitted
by the taxpayer, the Secretary determines that the factors
taken into account in determining the foreign statement
reserve provide an appropriate means of measuring income.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.

Subtitle D--Other Provisions

SEC. 341. EXCLUDED CANCELLATION OF INDEBTEDNESS INCOME OF S
CORPORATION NOT TO RESULT IN ADJUSTMENT TO
BASIS OF STOCK OF SHAREHOLDERS.

SEC. 342. LIMITATION ON USE OF NONACCRUAL EXPERIENCE METHOD
OF ACCOUNTING.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (5) of section 448(d) is amended
to read as follows:
``(5) Special rule for certain services.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of any person using an
accrual method of accounting with respect to amounts to be
received for the performance of services by such person, such
person shall not be required to accrue any portion of
such amounts which (on the basis of such person's
experience) will not be collected if--
``(i) such services are in fields referred to in paragraph
(2)(A), or
``(ii) such person meets the gross receipts test of
subsection (c) for all prior taxable years.
``(B) Exception.--This paragraph shall not apply to any
amount if interest is required to be paid on such amount or
there is any penalty for failure to timely pay such amount.
``(C) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe
regulations to permit taxpayers to determine amounts referred
to in subparagraph (A) using computations or formulas which,
based on experience, accurately reflect the amount of income
that will not be collected by such person. A taxpayer may
adopt, or request consent of the Secretary to change to, a
computation or formula that clearly reflects the taxpayer's
experience. A request under the preceding sentence shall be
approved only if such computation or formula clearly reflects
the taxpayer's experience.''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to taxable years ending after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
(2) Change in method of accounting.--In the case of any
taxpayer required by the amendments made by this section to
change its method of accounting for its first taxable year
ending after the date of the enactment of this Act--
(A) such change shall be treated as initiated by the
taxpayer,
(B) such change shall be treated as made with the consent
of the Secretary of the Treasury, and
(C) the net amount of the adjustments required to be taken
into account by the taxpayer under section 481 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be taken into account
over a period of 4 years (or if less, the number of taxable
years that the taxpayer used the method permitted under
section 448(d)(5) of such Code as in effect before the date
of the enactment of this Act) beginning with such first
taxable year.

[[Page H7247]]

TITLE IV--SUPPLEMENTAL REBATE; OTHER PROVISIONS

SEC. 401. SUPPLEMENTAL REBATE.

(a) In General.--Section 6428 (relating to acceleration of
10 percent income tax rate bracket benefit for 2001) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) Supplemental Rebate.--
``(1) In general.--Each individual who was an eligible
individual for such individual's first taxable year beginning
in 2000 and who, before October 16, 2001, filed a return of
tax imposed by subtitle A for such taxable year shall be
treated as having made a payment against the tax imposed by
chapter 1 for such first taxable year in an amount equal to
the supplemental refund amount for such taxable year.
``(2) Supplemental refund amount.--For purposes of this
subsection, the supplemental refund amount is an amount equal
to the excess (if any) of--
``(A)(i) $600 in the case of taxpayers to whom section 1(a)
applies,
``(ii) $500 in the case of taxpayers to whom section 1(b)
applies, and
``(iii) $300 in the case of taxpayers to whom subsections
(c) or (d) of section 1 applies, over
``(B) the taxpayer's advance refund amount under subsection
(e).
``(3) Timing of payments.--In the case of any overpayment
attributable to this subsection, the Secretary shall, subject
to the provisions of this title, refund or credit such
overpayment as rapidly as possible.
``(4) No interest.--No interest shall be allowed on any
overpayment attributable to this subsection.''
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Subparagraph (A) of section 6428(d)(1) is amended by
striking ``subsection (e)'' and inserting ``subsections (e)
and (f)''.
(2) Subparagraph (B) of section 6428(d)(1) is amended by
striking ``subsection (e)'' and inserting ``subsection (e) or
(f)''.
(3) Paragraph (3) of section 6428(e) is amended by striking
``December 31, 2001'' and inserting ``the date of the
enactment of the Economic Security and Recovery Act of
2001''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 402. SPECIAL REED ACT TRANSFER IN FISCAL YEAR 2002.

``Special Transfer in Fiscal Year 2002

``(d)(1) The Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer (as
of the date determined under paragraph (5)(A)) from the
Federal unemployment account to the account of each State in
the Unemployment Trust Fund the amount determined with
respect to such State under paragraph (2).
``(2) The amount to be transferred under this subsection to
a State account shall (as determined by the Secretary of
Labor and certified by such Secretary to the Secretary of the
Treasury) be equal to--
``(A) the amount which would have been required to have
been transferred under this section to such account at the
beginning of fiscal year 2002 if section 402(a)(1) of the
Economic Security and Recovery Act of 2001 had been enacted
before the close of fiscal year 2001, minus
``(B) the amount which was in fact transferred under this
section to such account at the beginning of fiscal year 2002.
``(3)(A) Except as provided in paragraph (4), amounts
transferred to a State account pursuant to this subsection
may be used only in the payment of cash benefits--
``(i) to individuals with respect to their unemployment,
and
``(ii) which are allowable under subparagraph (B) or (C).
``(B)(i) At the option of the State, cash benefits under
this paragraph may include amounts which shall be payable as
regular or additional compensation for individuals eligible
for regular compensation under the unemployment compensation
law of such State.
``(ii) Any additional compensation under clause (i) may not
be taken into account for purposes of any determination
relating to the amount of any extended compensation for which
an individual might be eligible.
``(C)(i) At the option of the State, cash benefits under
this paragraph may include amounts which shall be payable to
1 or more categories of individuals not otherwise eligible
for regular compensation under the unemployment compensation
law of such State.
``(ii) The benefits paid under this subparagraph to any
individual may not, for any period of unemployment, exceed
the maximum amount of regular compensation authorized under
the unemployment compensation law of such State for that same
period, plus any additional benefits (described in
subparagraph (B)(i)) which could have been paid with respect
to that amount.
``(D) Amounts transferred to a State account under this
subsection may be used in the payment of cash benefits to
individuals only for weeks of unemployment--
``(i) beginning after the date of enactment of this
subsection, and
``(ii) ending on or before March 11, 2003.
``(4) Amounts transferred to a State account under this
subsection may be used for the administration of its
unemployment compensation law and public employment offices
(including in connection with benefits described in paragraph
(3) and any recipients thereof), subject to the same
conditions as set forth in subsection (c)(2) (excluding
subparagraph (B) thereof, and deeming the reference to
`subsections (a) and (b)' in subparagraph (D) thereof to
include this subsection).
``(5) Transfers under this subsection--
``(A) shall be made on such date as the Secretary of Labor
(in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury) shall
determine, but in no event later than 10 days after the date
of enactment of this subsection, and
``(B) may, notwithstanding any other provision of this
subsection, be made only to the extent that they do not to
exceed--
``(i) the balance in the Federal unemployment account as of
the date determined under subparagraph (A), or
``(ii) the total amount that was transferred under this
section to the Federal unemployment account at the beginning
of fiscal year 2002,

whichever is less.''
(c) Limitations on Transfers.--Section 903(b) of the Social
Security Act shall apply to transfers under section 903(d) of
such Act (as amended by this section). For purposes of the
preceding sentence, such section 903(b) shall be deemed to be
amended as follows:
(1) By substituting ``the transfer date described in
subsection (d)(5)(A)'' for ``October 1 of any fiscal year''.
(2) By substituting ``remain in the Federal unemployment
account'' for ``be transferred to the Federal unemployment
account as of the beginning of such October 1''.
(3) By substituting ``fiscal year 2002 (after the transfer
date described in subsection (d)(5)(A))'' for ``the fiscal
year beginning on such October 1''.
(4) By substituting ``under subsection (d)'' for ``as of
October 1 of such fiscal year''.
(5) By substituting ``(as of the close of fiscal year
2002)'' for ``(as of the close of such fiscal year)''.
(d) Technical Amendments.--(1) Sections 3304(a)(4)(B) and
3306(f)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are amended
by inserting ``or 903(d)(4)'' before ``of the Social Security
Act''.
(2) Section 303(a)(5) of the Social Security Act is amended
in the second proviso by inserting ``or 903(d)(4)'' after
``903(c)(2)''.
(e) Regulations.--The Secretary of Labor may prescribe any
operating instructions or regulations necessary to carry out
this section and the amendments made by this section.

TITLE V--HEALTH CARE ASSISTANCE FOR THE UNEMPLOYED

SEC. 501. HEALTH CARE ASSISTANCE FOR THE UNEMPLOYED.

Title XX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397-1397f)
is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 2008. GRANTS FOR HEALTH CARE ASSISTANCE FOR THE
UNEMPLOYED.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as
amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed
in House Report 107-252 if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel), or his designee, which shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.

[[Page H7248]]

The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 30 minutes of debate on the bill.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the desire for bipartisanship,
especially about the fact that the administration has been working to
try to bring groups together so that we can move forward on a package
to stimulate the economy, indeed secure economic security, and recover
from what I think everyone will soon agree, if they do not now, is a
short-term recession.
I think it is important, then, that if we are going to say that we
should listen to the President, that we should listen to the President.
My colleagues cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that they want
to be with the President, but then do not focus on the statement of
administration policy in regard to H.R. 3090.
The first thing I think we should do, Mr. Speaker, is clearly
establish where the President is, where this administration is on this
bill, the Economic Security and Recovery Act.
I will include the Statement of Administration Policy in the Record.
It says, Mr. Speaker, in the very first line: ``The Administration
strongly supports House passage of H.R. 3090.''
It then goes on to say: ``The Administration is very pleased that the
bill includes the main elements that the President has proposed for an
economic stimulus package.'' It then goes on to list some of them:
``Tax relief for low to moderate income individuals and families and an
acceleration of scheduled tax rate cuts that are in the bill.''
The policy statement goes on to say, ``increased business expensing
and repeal of the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax to create jobs and
encourage capital investment.'' Let me underscore that. The President
is pleased that he asked Congress for and contained in this bill is the
repeal of the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax to create jobs and
encourage capital investment.
The statement goes on to say: ``The Administration commends the fact
that this bill is focused primarily on tax relief.'' The assumption is
any bill not focused primarily on tax relief is not one that the
administration would support.
It concludes by saying: ``The Administration urges quick action in
the Congress to enable an economic stimulus package to take effect as
quickly as possible.''
The right remedy, done quickly. The administration supports this
package; and I am pleased to say, the House will pass today H.R. 3090,
the Economic Security and Recovery Act of 2001.

Statement of Administration Policy

(This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the concerned
agencies.)

h.r. 3090--economic security and recovery act of 2001

(Rep. Thomas (R) California)

The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R.
3090. The Administration is pleased that the House has
started the process of acting on a stimulus package to help
get the economy going again following the terrorist attacks
of September 11th.
The Administration is very pleased that the bill includes
the main elements that the President has proposed for an
economic stimulus package: (a) tax relief for low-to-moderate
income individuals and families and an acceleration of
scheduled tax rate cuts to spur consumer spending, improve
economic growth incentives, and restore confidence; and (b)
increased business expensing and repeal of the corporate
Alternative Minimum Tax to create jobs and encourage capital
investment.
The Administration commends the fact that this bill is
focused primarily on tax relief, since Congress has already
adopted adequate spending measures to address the economic
disruption caused by September 11th. Over sixty billion
dollars has been committed or proposed since September 11th,
including monies for disaster relief, security enhancements,
and defense. As part of this amount, the President has
announced a Back-to-Work Relief proposal and looks forward to
working in a bipartisan fashion with Congress to enact it.
This is ample spending to address the direct impact of the
terrorist attacks. Stimulus is best accomplished through
prompt tax relief to restore consumer confidence, spur
capital investment, and thus create new jobs. The
Administration opposes alternative proposals that contain
large spending and tax increases. Raising taxes on small
businesses--which create most new jobs--as well as on
families and individuals is ill-advised in any environment,
but is particularly troubling in an already slow economy.
Additional spending and tax increases will retard economic
recovery rather than stimulate it.
The Administration urges quick action in the Congress to
enable an economic stimulus package to take effect as quickly
as possible. The Administration remains committed to working
with the Congress in a bipartisan manner to produce a
fiscally responsible end product consistent with the
President's principles to help consumers, spur investment,
and contribute to the recovery from the terrorist attacks of
September 11th.

pay-as-you-go scoring

Any law that would reduce receipts or increase direct
spending is subject to the pay-as-you-go requirements of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act.
Accordingly, H.R. 3090, or any substitute amendment in lieu
thereof that would reduce revenues or increase direct
spending, will be subject to the pay-as-you-go requirement.
OMB's scoring estimates are under development. The
Administration will work with Congress to ensure that any
unintended sequester of spending does not occur under current
law or the enactment of any other proposals that meet the
President's objectives.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1315

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman from California, the chairman of the Committee on Ways
and Means, referred to bipartisanship in his opening statement. His
mentioning the bipartisanship is about as close as he will ever get to
it. We had had some preliminary meetings to see whether or not we could
support the President as he gave guidelines as to what he wanted in
this stimulus package. The fact that a handful of Republicans visited
the White House and the President changed his mind is not very, very
impressive.
I think, though, that one of the gentlemen who spoke for the rule
spelled it out as to the difference between Democrats and Republicans,
and that is that Republicans just have a difficult time helping poor
folks or helping people not wealthy. They just have a propensity to
help faceless multinational corporations. Now, you can call it a bonus,
you can call it a credit, you can call it a loan, you can call it what
you want; but at the end of the day these firms will be receiving
billions of dollars out of monies that basically have been paid into
the Social Security and the Medicare Trust Fund. That is not deniable.
The guideline was supposed to be that it was not supposed to be a
permanent fix, but they do have permanent tax remedies that they are
selecting. It is outrageous to do something like this when the country
is going through a crisis. And instead of raising the funds to pay for
the war, they are actually giving bonuses to those people who are the
beneficiaries of this dilemma we find ourselves in today.
Patriotic people ought to know that it takes more than going to
Disneyland to pay for a war. And what we ought to do is take a look at
the tax cuts that the President proposed and got passed before he was
commander in chief, because certainly we would like to believe that he
wanted to support the very same things he campaigned on, and that is a
viable Social Security System, Medicare, education, to make certain
that we have prescription drugs, and to make certain that we had a
Patients' Bill of Rights. All of this does not stop America from moving
forward just because we have a lot of bum insane terrorists after us.
This is the time for America to be at its strongest. And we ought to
expect those that got strong economically in this country to help to be
responsible and pay their fair share, instead of taking care of the
people that are displaced, the people that are unemployed, instead of
making certain to take care of those that are supposed to be the ones
to spur the economy. You can give billions of dollars to the corporate
structure; but if no one is buying cars, if no one is buying washing
machines, what are they going to invest in? You have to be able to
create consumer demand.
What is happening here is that they found out the country was in
trouble, and they were able to outrageously just hold the Democrats on
the committee in utter contempt, hold the

[[Page H7249]]

other body in utter contempt, and just decide that every time they go
in a back room they can bring out a bill. Forget the bipartisanship,
forget the President's problems, just ram it through. Well, it is not
going to be rammed through the Senate.
The President has already had his people call it show business. So
what I am saying is if this is a show business bill, let us get the
producers, let us get the actors, close down the show and run them out
of town.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I tell the gentleman that he is desperately hanging on to an offhand
comment by one member of the administration who has since said a number
of different things, and apparently he chooses to ignore the statement
by the President that they strongly support House passage of H.R. 3090.
One of the problems, I guess, is that we wind up talking about
individuals and benefits to individuals, and then the other side we
wind up talking about business or corporations. I do believe there is a
kind of an internal rejection on the part of my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle, by and large, when we use the term business or
corporation. Somehow that has a negative connotation.
I think maybe it might help in this debate if instead of calling them
businesses or corporations we would call them job-creating machines.
Because if you understand that what these entities do is create jobs,
then we might be able to deal with this debate slightly differently,
and that would be this: this bill puts about $100 billion into the
economy right away over the next 12 months, and it is divided this way:
About 40 cents of every dollar goes to individuals. About $14 billion
of it goes to individuals who filed an income tax form, but who
possibly did not pay any income taxes at all or even any payroll taxes.
They had no tax obligation, but they are going to receive as part of a
stimulus, i.e. give them money because they will spend it, about $14
billion. We also accelerate a reduction already on the books for the
middle-income folk, and that is about $12 billion. And then there is
about an additional $12 billion to assist unemployed and assist in the
purchasing of health care of those who are temporarily unemployed. Now,
that is about 40 cents out of every dollar.
Sixty cents out of every dollar goes to help the job-creating
machines. See, there is an idea that if you can create a job, a real
job, people get recurring income from the job. They also get health
care very often in the workplace. But then they also wind up paying
taxes, and, lo and behold, the job-creating machine pays taxes. So we
thought it was appropriate to do 40 cents on the dollar to stimulate
the individual spending, but 60 cents to help the job-creating
machines.
Now, the spending is a gift. It is a one-time gift. It is a gift that
gets spent. The $14 billion to those low-income individuals gets spent
in the next 12 months and it costs $14 billion over 10 years. There is
no other tax consequence. It gets spent. That is a one-time gift. But
if you want a gift that keeps on giving, then you assist the job-
creating machines. Because what they do is not provide unemployment,
they provide a job, and they provide tax revenue, and the machine
itself provides tax revenue. That is a gift that keeps on giving.
So, really, what we ought to be talking about is the fact that this
package assists with a government gift, spending, 40 cents out of the
dollar; but it also deals with 60 cents out of every dollar helping
those machines that create jobs so that we can have a gift that keeps
on giving.
And that I think is the fundamental difference between the approach
that we take to a stimulus package. Do you want a one-time gift? We do
that, 40 cents on the dollar. Do you want a gift that keeps on giving?
We do that, 60 cents on the dollar. It seems to me the administration
wisely said that this is something that they commend us for doing, but
that first and foremost it needs to be passed to be effective. Let us
get on with our business.
I would prefer both sides yield back the balance of their time and we
can vote, but I know full well that will not occur.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, we have to continue to debate this because,
for all we know, the administration may change its mind before the
debate is over.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Matsui), a senior member of the committee.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel), the ranking member. The gentleman from California, the
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, protests too much.
Obviously, what he does not seem to understand, and this is what the
real problem is, is the economy and why we are now suffering a
recession. The reason we are having this problem now is because
consumer demand is not there.
Obviously, what was going on and what happened after September 11 and
since, is there has been a drop in confidence in terms of purchasing in
this country. So what we want to do is we want to put money in
individuals' pockets so that they will then begin to have more
confidence in the economy, spend money, and that will then result in
more capital investment by companies, because all of a sudden they will
want to make products in order to have it available to the people that
are going to be spending money.
So the Democratic alternative, which we will be explaining shortly,
will provide for that. It will put money in individuals' pockets so
they can spend it, particularly during the holiday season, when about
25 percent of all retail sales occur.
But what the gentleman from California, the chairman of the
committee, wants to do is basically give it to corporations, mainly
because they want to pay off those people that have been wonderful
contributors to them. I just point to this chart here. Fifteen
companies in the first year will get $25 billion of this tax cut. The
gentleman talked about individuals getting $14 billion over 10 years.
That is just a one-shot deal. A one-shot deal.
The reality is this is a permanent tax cut. And what it does, which
is so surprising, it eliminates the alternative minimum tax. And then
what it does, it retroactively repeals it to 1986, 15 years ago. And
that is why these companies will get $25 billion.
I have to tell my colleagues that what is so outrageous about this is
this is Social Security money. This is what the corner grocery store
owner, this is what perhaps many of the Members' mothers and fathers
and grandparents pay in the form of payroll taxes. They think this
money is going into the Social Security Trust Fund to protect their
retirement benefits. Unfortunately, it is being used for another
purpose. It is being used basically for these tax cuts to these major
companies and major corporations.
I know that my colleagues think that, well, we are in the middle of
an anthrax scare, we have obviously a war going on in Afghanistan,
nobody is going to pay any attention. That is why the gentleman perhaps
thinks they will get away with this. They may get away with it for a
while; but the reality is the American public will find out about this,
because this will have nothing to do with stimulating the economy. In
fact, it will set us back, because this is not even paid for; and it
will result in an increase in long-term interest rates.
Sometime around June of next year we are going to be talking about
this vote and this issue. So the reality is that this is taking Social
Security payroll tax money to pay for those major big corporate tax
cuts. I have never seen, in my 23 years in this institution, such an
outrageous piece of legislation as I see in this. Vote ``no'' on this
bill and vote for the substitute.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Notwithstanding the fact the gentleman impugned the motives of the
Members on this side of the aisle, I am sure he was carried away by
emotion and did not really intend to do that, and I understand that.
He also said those corporations on the list get $25 billion. The fact
of the matter is, he knows that if he had a list of the corporations it
would be 23,000 names long and not just the list there.
I told you if we quit talking about corporations and talked about
them as job-creating machines, we could look

[[Page H7250]]

at this entire argument slightly differently. That list the gentleman
held in front of us represents 1,500,000 jobs. Now, that is more jobs
than there are people in 15 of these United States. They are job-
creating machines; and 1,500,000 people are employed by just that short
list that the gentleman provided, let alone the fact there are more
than 23,000 corporations that will benefit from the repeal of the
alternative minimum tax, which by the way the President requested that
we do.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Saxton), the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time, and I rise today in strong support of the economic stimulus
package needed to address the weakness that is evident in the economy.
Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to point out that we are
addressing an economic trend. This situation was not created on
September 11, nor was it created on January 1, 2001.

{time} 1330

Nor was it created on January 1, 2001. This trend began in the second
quarter of the year 2000, barely remaining positive during that quarter
of the year. The manufacturing sector has been hit especially hard, and
it is to encourage investment in that sector wherein lies the key to
turning this economy around.
One bright spot has been in housing and consumer spending, we do not
have to worry quite as much about that, but it is a concern as well.
Therefore, a logical response is to offset the costs that have been
foisted upon our economy by encouraging investment.
As a matter of fact, just last week the Chairman of the Federal
Reserve, Alan Greenspan, said, ``My own impression is it is in the
investment area where the greatest sensitivity for fiscal stimulus
lies.'' Those were Alan Greenspan's words, and in effect that is
precisely what this tax package does.
The economic stimulus bill will reduce the costs and benefit the
economy in several ways. The bill would reduce the 28 percent personal
income tax rate to 25 percent. The bill would reduce capital gains tax
rates on many investments, thereby encouraging investment. The bill
provides a 30 percent expensing of investment in most forms of
depreciable property over a 3-year period. This would increase
incentives to invest, precisely what the Chairman of the Fed says we
need.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge a ``yea'' vote on the bill.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank God we have an honest person in the House to
call it a Republican bill, so that officially shatters the myth of
bipartisanship.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up the statement of the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and the chairman of the committee
is not listening at the moment, but the gentleman read the statement of
the administration and apparently says that makes it bipartisan.
Bipartisanship is not rubber-stamping the position of the other party.
There have been close to zero efforts, certainly within the
committee, to reach any bipartisan position on this bill. I think the
guidelines should be a short-term stimulus and long-term discipline,
and in that respect this bill is woefully unbalanced.
The $20 billion for financial services, we need to continue to reform
the international tax system, but tell me what jobs that is going to
create. In terms of the corporate AMT credits, I want to say one word.
The administration says repeal them. They do not say give in one check
all of the credits. If that is the position of the administration, they
ought to say so; but tie it to how it is going to create jobs in our
States.
The acceleration of the tax cut, a family with $150,000 and four kids
will get 15 times what the family of $70,000 in income will receive.
Now, how is that going to help stimulate the economy? It is woefully
imbalanced in terms of unemployment comp and health care.
Corporations are important in this country. My colleagues give
individuals the back of the hand. $5 billion, a few percentage points
of what Members allocate here? Maybe $2 billion for those who are
unemployed, and maybe some crumbs for those who do not have health
insurance.
I want to finish up on fiscal discipline. One Member said this was a
package of fiscal discipline when my colleagues do not spend one red
dime to pay for it. My colleagues have become the economic radicals.
They pay for nothing. Nothing. The other side of the aisle is trying to
sell a bill of goods to this country that we can go into debt again,
cut into Social Security and Medicare monies, and someday they will be
replaced. We have heard that song before.
Mr. Speaker, this is a woefully unbalanced, fiscally reckless package
that does not have even the patina, even a fig leaf of bipartisanship.
Members are getting us off on the wrong foot. Let us vote this down and
start over again.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), just to indicate to all that no good deed goes
unpunished.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, in response to the claims that there is no
bipartisanship present in this bill, that is not so. The chairman, I,
and other Members on the Republican side took into account in drafting
this bill that is on the floor today the Democrat ideas for net
operating losses to be carried back. That was a Democrat proposal. We
included it in the bill.
We included in the bill the provision to provide a rebate of taxes to
taxpayers who did not get a check under the previous tax cut. That was
a Democrat proposal. Both of those are in the bill. I reject
categorically the claims that no Democrat ideas are included in this
bill. This is a bipartisan compilation of ideas.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, that shows the depth of arrogance on the Republican side
of this aisle. To really think that bipartisanship is their
interpretation of democratic ideas is the epitome of arrogance. So that
means that any time we want to have a bipartisan bill, all we have to
do is go to the Democratic Campaign Committee and wonder what these
rascals are thinking about and include it in a bill and come to the
floor and claim that it is bipartisan. Shame on my colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, everyone in this country has been impacted
by what happened on September 11; but I think we all agree that our
first priority needs to be for the victims, their families, the
businesses that were put out of business and lost opportunity, and the
workers that no longer have jobs as a result of what happened on
September 11.
It also happens to help our country by giving these unemployed
workers benefits because we know they will spend the money. They will
help economic growth. So from the humanitarian point of view, the
fairness point of view, and the economic point of view, our priority
must be to get the unemployed worker additional resources.
The bill before Members would cost over $200 billion over a 5-year
period, and virtually none of that money goes to the people who have
lost their jobs as a result of September 11.
The unemployment insurance provisions in the bill are inadequate. It
allows the States to draw down on their own money a little bit faster,
but there is no guarantee that even one dime of that money will be
spent on increased unemployment insurance benefits for the unemployed
worker, for the States can use the money as they see fit in their
unemployment insurance system.
In order for the States to provide more benefits, the legislatures
would have to meet. Many State legislatures are not scheduled to meet.
New laws would have to be passed. It is for that reason that our
Congressional Budget Office estimates that as little as $700 million
will get out under the underlying bill to unemployed workers.
Mr. Speaker, individual corporations will receive more money in tax
breaks than all the workers in this country will receive in increased
unemployment insurance benefits. That is not fair. We can do better.
The substitute that will be offered by the gentleman

[[Page H7251]]

from New York (Mr. Rangel), the amendment that I offered in committee,
allows us to provide real help to the uninsured by expending those who
are eligible to include part-time workers and using the most recent
wage quarter, to provide additional benefits for those people who are
unemployed today, so we can increase the benefits and increase the
number of weeks that they are eligible to receive benefits.
The substitute does this all at Federal cost so we do not impose any
new burdens on the States, and we make these provisions temporary, as
we should, in any bill that is aimed at the direct impact of September
11. It is a 1-year bill only. It is the right thing to do.
So if Members share my concern for the people who are unemployed as a
result of what happened on September 11, Members will have a chance to
voice that concern by voting for the substitute of the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel) that provides relief for the unemployed. I urge
Members to support the substitute and reject the underlying bill.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, existing law put out almost $28 billion in unemployment
payment. Frankly, it is beginning to take my breath away the degree to
which the bill is being, I hope, knowingly misrepresented. Otherwise,
it indicates that the gentleman has no understanding of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Mrs. Johnson) who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
this legislation. I think it both secures current jobs, will lay the
groundwork for bringing people back into jobs they had recently, and
will open up new job opportunities through all of the provisions that
stimulate growth in the economy. But it is also a bill that is about
people, the help that they need right now through the unemployment
compensation system and help with their health benefits.
This is an immediate stimulus bill, and under our provisions within
10 days States will get $9 billion back. They will not be able to spend
it on just anything. They will be able to spend it to pay or increase
unemployment benefits. They will know whether their people need double
benefits in the short term. They can use it to extend benefits instead
for those who have exhausted their benefits, or they can use it for
better employment services.
Some States will know exactly where their unemployment problems are
and where they have openings, and they can use this money to provide
customized training to move people from unemployment into employment.
This is $9 billion within 10 days to help people who are unemployed get
jobs, get better benefits, get the help that they need.
Secondly, it is $3 billion more that again can go out very rapidly
right to the community themselves through our community services block
grant dollars where it is most sensitive to local need, and anyone who
is unemployed will thereby be eligible for health insurance.
But it will not just be subsidies for COBRA, which are the most
expensive health insurance plans, often with premiums of $350 a month,
unaffordable to people unemployed, but unaffordable even with
subsidies. This will give States the money to help uninsured people
enter CHIP, enter the State Employee Benefit Program or however States
want to do it. It needs no new legislation. It helps people now, and
that is what a stimulus bill should do.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee would like us to believe
that those who disagree with the gentleman and his bill are either
stupid or do not understand the bill. The gentleman from California
(Mr. Thomas) said that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin)
misrepresented the bill, but he never had enough time to share with us
what part of the bill he misrepresented.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I remember last January how excited I was
when President Bush stood right here and told us he did not believe
that a tax code should pick winners and losers.
The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) said there are real
benefits for real people. She said they will be eligible for them. The
money will be put out there, and they might get them.
Mr. Speaker, if I came out here with a bill that guaranteed that
everybody get unemployment insurance and health care coverage when they
were laid off, and I also wanted to give $25 billion to the governors
of this country to distribute to whatever corporations they wanted to,
Members would laugh me off this floor.
My colleagues give the guarantees to the corporations, and then
Members put the workers out there sort of to hope that the governors
have the money or the legislature gets in session.

{time} 1345

Everybody here who has been a member of a State legislature knows
that you cannot get these unemployment benefits out without changes in
State law. For anybody to say that this is an immediate benefit is
simply missing the entire point.
We spent already out here, we gave $15 billion to the airline
industry. What did we get? We got 75,000 people laid off. We were told,
with very solemn faces, we will get to the problems of the workers.
What do we get here as the solemn promise to the workers? $9 billion.
If you look at the State of Texas, they have not got enough money in
their unemployment insurance to cover workers for 3 months. I know why
the President ran for President. He wanted to get out of Texas before a
problem ever got there.
But what we have is this bill now, and this is our promise. Now we
are giving $151 billion. If you take the same figures from the last
bill, I guess we will get another 750,000 people unemployed. You are
giving this money back, this $25 billion goes back to the corporations
that have done well. They had to pay the AMT because they were doing so
well they were not paying any taxes whatsoever. If I said I was going
to give 15 years of taxes back to people making $25,000 a year, you
would say he has lost his mind. They live in this country, they deserve
to pay for it, but no, not if you are a big corporation.
And big corporations are not job-creating machines. They are money-
making machines for stockholders. Incidentally they may produce some
service but there they are, and we give them all this money back, and
if there is not a stock dividend that goes to all the companies that
get this, I will be very, very surprised.
Vote against this. It is not fair. There is no tax equity in it.
There is no guarantee for workers. It is all for people at the top on
the list of 15 corporations.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the admonition by my ranking member from New York,
because I do want to give specific citation to the two particular areas
that I was concerned about, both in the Democratic substitute and in
the underlying bill. The gentleman from Maryland and the gentleman from
Washington repeated the argument that legislatures must pass laws in
dealing with the unemployment money available to them. That is simply
not so. The bill provides three different ways that States can assist:
One, they can go ahead and provide regular pay or increased
unemployment benefits; they can provide extended benefits; or they can
furnish unemployment services and support to health.
The second concern I had was the misrepresentation that the gentleman
made of the Democratic substitute. The gentleman said that it was all
Federal money, that it was money that went from the Federal Government
on unemployment insurance to States. If anyone wants to take the time
to read the bill and look at the Congressional Budget Office scoring
sheet, what it says is it has zero cost over 10 years because it comes
from the unemployment insurance fund. Why is it a zero cost over 10
years? Because they assume the States will pay back that amount over 10
years. They give it with one hand

[[Page H7252]]

and say it is Federal money and require the States to pay it back over
the next 10.
Those are two misrepresentations of the underlying bill and of the
substitute. Those are the points that I made and I gave the
particulars.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Camp), a valued member of the committee.
Mr. CAMP. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, even before September 11, our economy was hurting. The
stock market was weak, investments were declining and exports had begun
to fall. And, very importantly, there had been a decrease in consumer
spending. Since then, we have seen a significant impact on our economy.
Both job creators and individuals are facing difficult times. In
addition, in the third quarter of this year, U.S. employers announced
almost 600,000 job cuts, about 50 percent more than the previous two
quarters. This includes almost 200,000 job reductions since September
11. Already this year, companies have announced more job cuts than they
did during the entire 1990-1991 recession. We must take action to
create jobs and improve the economy. This package not only helps to
stimulate individual spending but also assists job creators.
H.R. 3090 addresses the human impact of the economy and the September
11 attacks. It accelerates the reduction of income taxes passed last
spring; it sends supplemental rebate checks to those who did not
receive a full rebate under our last tax cuts; it gives relief to
individuals from the onerous AMT; and in a provision requested by
Democrat and Republican governors, allows the States, like Michigan, to
have the flexibility to supplement unemployment and health benefits,
thereby tailoring relief in the way it is most needed.
This bill helps job creators because it extends important tax credits
for employers making it easier to hire people transitioning to work
from dependence, so important for those just beginning to climb the
economic ladder. It extends the ability of individuals to contribute to
medical savings accounts to continue to provide for their health care.
Let me just say something about the repeal of the alternative minimum
tax. This outdated law requires corporations to compute their taxes
twice. It hurts employers mostly who invest and depreciate heavily,
precisely the kind of company we need to help get back on their feet.
In some cases it requires employers to give an interest-free loan to
the government. And because it requires employers to estimate and
prepay their tax liability, it is the opposite of what we need in a
declining economy. Vote for this bill.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, we are beginning to understand it now, that
is, that if you want to create jobs and avoid layoffs, give billions of
dollars of tax bonuses to the corporations but exclude airline
industries, because if you give them $15 billion, they will fire some
75,000. It is getting a little clearer.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank my chairman for at least
giving me the specifics. The Congressional Budget Office agrees with me
and disagrees with him. The Congressional Budget Office points out very
clearly that very little of this money is going to get out because it
requires a change of policy at the State level that requires the
legislatures to meet.
Number two, FUTA taxes, which is the money that we are advancing to
the States, are Federal tax receipts and are Federal funds. We are even
thinking about reducing or eliminating that tax. It is a Federal tax
and it is Federal money.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, this is probably the most shameless tax
bill that I have seen come before the House since I have been a Member
of Congress. Today we are asked to vote for this $99 billion tax
giveaway in an effort to stimulate the economy under the flag of
patriotism and, in the words of the chairman of the committee, so our
country remains free. That is a quote from his presentation before the
Committee on Ways and Means.
I will indicate that there are some portions of the bill that will
stimulate the economy, the additional rebate checks, the depreciation
schedule changes that will encourage businesses to invest, but these
are short term. These are sunsetted. My major concern is with three
major portions of the bill. I think the Washington Post was correct
when in a recent editorial they termed this a stimulus charade. Mr.
Speaker, this is a charade. They go on to say that the only thing that
is going to be stimulated is campaign contributions to those who
support this product.
Mr. Speaker, after the World Trade Center towers were struck by the
terrorists and the buildings collapsed, we were informed by the news
media that certain individuals got into the shops of the basement and
they were looting the shops amid this horrific tragedy. The Nation,
including all of us here, were shocked, that at a time of national
disaster, looters would take over and steal Rolex watches and whatever
else was available.
What we are doing today, Mr. Speaker, by passing this bill is in
essence the same thing. The treasury is being looted today. This cost,
$99 billion, will drain the treasury and throw this country into a $48
billion deficit. My major opposition to the bill is threefold: The
capital gains reductions, costing $10 billion, we are told by all
economists will not help in the short run, will not stimulate anything.
That is wrong. Moving up the 28 percent tax cut bracket will affect 25
percent of the highest income earners in the country. Are these the
folks that are going to run out to Kmart to buy their pumpkin costumes
for Halloween? Clearly not. That costs $50 billion. And, lastly, making
retroactive the repeal of the AMT.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the
committee, is correct. This is the gift that keeps giving. We give Ford
and we give General Motors and we give the other corporations hundreds
and hundreds of millions of dollars, and next year the gift will come
back in the form of not jobs, campaign contributions.
I just want to talk about one of the job-creating machines on the
chart. Let us use Texaco. For the last 2, 3 years, this oil company has
been gouging the American public through the gas prices and over this
period they have made record profits. So we are going to give them $572
million in one check, and what kind of jobs are they going to create?
None. That is for the bottom line. That is for the stockholders.
Mr. Speaker, the question is very clear today. Those who vote for the
bill can be looters or those of us who oppose it can be fiscally
responsible and take care of the security of our great Nation.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
tell the gentleman I appreciate the partially accurate quote. Everyone
knows the phrase ``freedom isn't free,'' and what I did say was that we
are free in part because we are strong and that for us to remain free,
we need to remain strong. I do not think anyone does not believe that
one of the reasons we have been able to remain free is because we have
been strong. Perhaps the gentleman does not remember the comment made
during World War II that America was the arsenal of democracy. To be
and remain free, you must be strong. And to be strong, you need a
healthy economy. That is exactly what I said.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Herger), chairman of the Subcommittee on Human
Resources.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3090, the economic stimulus package,
includes significant new funds to support unemployed workers and their
families between jobs. This legislation provides $9 billion in surplus
Federal unemployment funds to every State. States can use this new
money for regular or extended unemployment benefits and services to get
workers back on the job. These funds alone would allow States to pay
unemployment benefits to an estimated 2 to 3 million workers.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation also creates a new $3 billion block
grant to States to provide health care coverage for unemployed workers
and their families. Together, this legislation provides $12 billion in
immediate help for

[[Page H7253]]

unemployed workers as well as the flexibility for States to target that
assistance to those who need it most.
Mr. Speaker, this funding and flexibility is a much better approach
than the Democrat substitute. The Democrat substitute mandates new
benefits and benefit programs even in States where unemployment rates
have not risen. Mr. Speaker, that is not targeted, it is too expensive,
and it will result in permanent increases in unemployment spending and
taxes. Higher taxes is the last thing we need under the current
circumstances, but that is exactly what the Democrat substitute offers
for the long run.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support H.R. 3090 and oppose the
Democrat substitute.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Lewis), a member of the committee.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this so-called economic stimulus
package is a sham. It is a shame. It is a disgrace. It is a stimulus
charade.
A couple of weeks ago, the Washington Post published a great
editorial about this bill. It said, ``It's the wrong thing to do, a
hijacking of the current crisis, economic and otherwise, on behalf of
an agenda that long preceded the crisis and has little to do with
easing it. These are tax cuts far more likely to stimulate increased
campaign contributions than increased economic activity.''

{time} 1400

The Washington Post got it right. This so-called economic stimulus
package does very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy; and it
will hurt us in the long run.
This bill, this proposal, does not help a woman, a mother, who lost
her husband one week at the World Trade Center, and the next week she
lost her job. This proposal is not fair, it is not right, it is not
just. It fails to meet the basic human needs of our citizens who are
hurting. This bill is business as usual, politics as usual. We have
seen these tax cuts before.
Since September 11, the American people have been concerned about
their safety and the security of their families. That is what we should
be focused on, not passing tax cuts for big corporations. It is the
same tired old list of tax cuts. They have nothing to do with
stimulating the economy or helping us to recover from September 11.
This is not the time for irresponsible tax cuts that we cannot
afford. We should be considering a comprehensive economic stimulus
package that addresses the problem. It must help people who have lost
their jobs and health care. It must help low-income Americans who are
struggling very hard to make ends meet. We should be considering
reasonable temporary breaks for businesses that will encourage them to
spend money right here and now. We should be investing in
infrastructure projects that create jobs and help us prepare for the
future. But any package, any proposal, must be paid for over time so we
can get our economy back on track.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is not the answer. It is a Republican bill. It
is partisan. It is a charade. We need to be working together to pass
legislation that truly helps the American people and gets this country
back on its feet.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to have the courage, raw
courage, to stand up, be counted and vote against this bill.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would remind my friend from Georgia that one of the
very first things we did the day after the World Trade Center tragedy
was to move special legislation for every one of those individuals who
lost a loved one or other economic circumstances, and that currently is
over on the Senate side and will be brought back. We did respond
immediately to those individuals involved in the World Trade Center.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Houghton), the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Oversight, who probably knows more about the job-creating machines
called corporations or businesses than most of us because he dedicated
a significant portion of his life to making sure that people have
really good jobs.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, there are many features of this bill. You can argue
about any one of them. There is too much money, it is the wrong target,
it favors one group over another, it is not sufficient short-term
impact. But when I try to sort this all out, the basic conclusion is
this bill is going to stimulate, and that is what we want. In other
words, we want to put money into the hands of individuals and of job
creators, to invest and to save and to spend.
Right now, as we try to catch our balance as a country, one of the
features of the bill is a thing called a temporary extension of net
operating loss carry-back. That is quite a mouthful, but let me try to
tell you what it means and how it works.
It means that a company, when it makes money in the past and loses
money now, can claim a cash credit for the money lost, really deducting
it from the previous profits. In other words, it can still get a refund
soon for the money it lost, and the present law says you can go back 2
years; but many times that pool is not large enough, so this law
suggests that it goes back 5 years.
This means a lot. There was a story of a company this morning that
lost $8.8 billion in the first quarter. It has made money in the past.
It has fallen off the cliff. This will be a tremendous help in order to
keep some of the people employed.
So if you file in March, on the 15th of March, for the previous
recorded profits or losses for the year 2001, and then you file a
carry-back form by May 1, or 45 days later, you will get a cash check
from the IRS. That means a great deal. The cost to the Government the
first year is $4.7 billion. The cost over a 5-year period is $3.7
billion.
Now, I am not wise enough to know what is exactly right and what is
the right proportion, but I do know that this moves us in the right
direction; and, therefore, I support it.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if my friend from New York has found the net operating
loss provisions to be the redeeming factor in the so-called Republican
bill, he should feel comfortable in voting for the substitute, because
it is there as well.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs.
Thurman).
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, we cannot lose sight of our long-term
fiscal health, so that when the war is over, we will be a strong
country that can meet the needs that existed before September 11.
Some of the best economic minds in the country, such as Alan
Greenspan and Robert Rubin, said that any economic response to the
attacks needs to be cautious, targeted and temporary.
I want to quote from 1917 when Congress was considering how to pay
for World War I, when the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means,
Claude Kitchin, said, ``Your children and mine had nothing to do with
bringing on this war. It would be unjust and cruel and cowardly to
shift upon them the burden.''
Our leaders in World War I and World War II knew that we had to pay
for those wars and that we could not risk our economic security.
Further raising the national debt in the long term makes us vulnerable.
Guess what? That is just exactly what the terrorists want, and we
cannot let this happen. The fact of the matter is that this bill is not
paid for. It is not temporary and targeted to people who need it the
most, those who would spend the money today and tomorrow. At a cost of
$159 billion over 10 years, it threatens the economic future of the
country.
Prior to September 11, the debate in Washington was about Medicare
and Social Security, education, the environment and energy issues. When
we have met this crisis, we will still have to address these issues.
Others will talk about the tax provisions of this bill. I want to
discuss the unmet needs. During the debate on the airline bill, we were
told that Congress would help airline employees, especially those who
lost health care coverage. We were assured that we would bring an
appropriate legislative response to the floor as soon as possible.
This is not that bill. Since September 11, 500,000 Americans have
lost jobs,

[[Page H7254]]

150,000 in aviation, 120,000 in tourism and hospitality.
We need a real unemployment compensation program. We have a huge
problem in Florida with the Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund. The
solvency has declined to where it may fall below the statutory trigger
of 4 percent of the State's payroll. Guess what? That means they would
have to raise the tax.
I do not believe that the States can afford a tax increase and the
added burden of providing additional benefits for the unemployed. That
is why giving the money to the States for unemployment compensation is
not viable.
We also need to address the health care for the jobless, whether it
is true Medicaid or COBRA, which allows people to continue their
employer-provided health benefits. I believe we need a temporary
Federal program, rather than trying to run it through the States. We
cannot add to the 40 million people in this country who are already
uninsured.
Since September 11, do you know what? We have worked in a bipartisan
spirit on many issues, such as the war powers authority, airline relief
and the $40 billion package and recovery bill that we did. I support
bipartisanship, but I do not want to make a mockery of bipartisanship
when told to me I have to support something.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in her exuberance, the gentlewoman from Florida
indicated that World War II was fought without deficit spending. I
believe if she will check the record, there was significant deficit
spending, because our job was to win the war and not necessarily
balance the budget. In fact, up until the 1980s, that was the single
largest addition to the national debt, that is, the deficit funding of
World War II.
I know in her exuberance the gentlewoman carried over from World War
I to World War II, and she does not intend the record to reflect we
actually fought World War II with a balanced budget, because the facts
simply do not prove that to be the case.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), a member of the committee.
(Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, we face many challenges in the wake of the terrorist
attacks since September 11. We have responded as far as allocating
additional resources to address some of our military needs, our
intelligence needs, in fact some monies for airline security; and we
have more to do. But one of the most difficult challenges we are trying
to face today is the state of the national economy.
As was stated before, our economy was in distress before September
11, but it has worsened since. A recent Wall Street Journal analysis
says in the last 6 weeks, we have taken a $100 billion hit to the
economy, not counting the tens of billions of dollars for the disaster
assistance and rebuilding Lower Manhattan or rebuilding the Pentagon.
One part of the solution I think is what we are considering today.
Some say we should not even respond in a fiscal year. I reject that.
Should we let the business cycle run its course? Should we allow a
faltering economy to topple into recession, like those magnificent
towers in Lower Manhattan?
I believe fiscal stimulus is as essential as the expedited disaster
relief for the clean-up efforts in Lower Manhattan and Northern
Virginia. I think this is a balanced approach. We addressed the human
impact of the attacks. Hundreds of thousands of individuals who are in
dire financial straits through no fault of their own are offered a
helping hand by rate acceleration, by payments to individuals.
We accepted, I would say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel),
your idea of a tax rebate or income supplement to those who pay income
tax, payroll taxes, but did not share in the tax rebates of this last
tax bill. We add supplemental health insurance as well as unemployment
benefits.
But let me say something to my colleague from Missouri, from south
St. Louis, who spoke earlier. The United Auto Workers at the GM plant
in Wentzville, Missouri, in my district, do not want a check from the
Government. Those workers on the assembly line want to do what they do
best, and that is to build these prototypes, these state-of-the-art
minivans.
They want to do what they know how to do best. They want to continue
to turn out these state-of-the-art minivans on the assembly plants that
I had the good fortune to visit 2 months ago.
So it is a good balance, Mr. Speaker, that we are putting money in
the pockets of those consumers to go out and buy the minivans. But we
are also focusing on some business incentives, the 30 percent
expensing, the 5-year carry-back losses that the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Houghton) talked about.
I want to talk about something that my friend from Wisconsin on the
committee talked about as far as capital gains. In 1997 this body
passed in a very bipartisan effort a reduction in the capital gains tax
rate of an 18 percent and an 8 percent capital gains tax rate. What we
did at that time, of course, was we created this very complicated 5-
year holdover or carryover of these types of assets. All we do is
simply eliminate that 5-year carry-back.
For those people saying it is not an economic stimulus, look at the
chart. In fiscal year 2003, we are going to raise tax revenues by $1.45
billion in that year alone, just because of this simplification. I urge
all my colleagues to vote for this plan.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am fascinated by this new description of
bipartisanship. The gentleman just said he picked out the Democratic
tax provisions, and so therefore by including that in the Republican
package, it is bipartisanship. So anytime we agree with anything that
you do, that automatically is charged to us, and it is bipartisan.
Absolutely unbelievable.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Becerra), a member of the committee.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, today in Los Angeles, the Los Angeles International
Airport will lose more than $1 million, as it has since September 11.
Half of that loss is due to the fact that it had to increase security
and half of that loss is due to lost revenues. Today in Los Angeles,
our hazardous material crew within the Los Angeles Police Department is
operating in cruisers, regular cruiser vehicles, where it has to put
all of its equipment in the front and back seats of its vehicle and the
trunk because it does not have the appropriate vehicles to carry all of
its equipment to safeguard, to be the frontline defense against anthrax
and all hazardous materials, biological or chemical.
And today, Mr. Speaker, the Mayor of my city, along with just about
every other Mayor in this country, is meeting with the Bush
administration to figure out what we do about security.

{time} 1415

Today, I say to my colleagues, what are we doing? We are talking
about giving away $159 billion over the next 10 years, and what will
that do to address the concerns that those mayors are talking to the
Bush administration about today? Not a thing. Not a thing. I say to my
colleagues, we owe it to the American people to provide them security.
I say to my colleagues, we owe it to the American people to provide the
confidence to buy again, to fly again. I say to my colleagues, we owe
it to the American workers to tell them we will do everything possible
to get them back to work, because that is all they want. They do not
want a handout, they just want their jobs back. They just want to work.
We owe it to the American people to tell them, if you are a senior,
we are not going to use your Social Security, and if you are not yet
retired, we are not going to raid your Social Security Trust Fund. How
are we paying for this $159 billion? Through the Social Security and
Medicare Trust Funds.
I say to my colleagues, we owe it to the American people to tell them
we are going to get them to work today. One of the first things that
are most important on the minds of the American people are security,
safety, and economic security as well. We can do that. We can do it in
a bipartisan fashion. This bill does not do it.

[[Page H7255]]

First things first. Security for America, economic security as well,
and truth to the American people. We will not use your Social Security
and Medicare Trust Funds to pay for something which will bankrupt us in
the future. Our kids do not deserve to have to pay for this today. Let
us take care of this war, let us take care of this effort to combat
terrorism, and let us do it without going on our children's dime.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from California
(Mr. Thomas) has 5 minutes remaining; the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel) has \1/2\ minute remaining.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).
(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the tragedy of September 11 is
going to live forever in the hearts and minds of those who value peace
and prosperity. Now more than ever people want economic security as
well as personal security, and one way to give Americans peace of mind
during these trying times is to give people more confidence about their
bank accounts, about retirement plans and, ultimately, about our
national economy. Cutting taxes and helping businesses is a surefire
way to do that.
Under this plan, the average family of four would see their
disposable annual income increased by $940 a year. But economic
stimulus bill is not just for people. If we are going to help our
economy, we must help our businesses, from Wall Street to Main Street.
Corporate AMT relief, also known as the Alternative Minimum Tax, will
give businesses a fresh infusion of cash into the market. In short, it
is going to help people and companies expand and encourage them to hire
more people.
We know the AMT is a parallel tax system meant to prevent companies
from zeroing out their tax liability and forces them to calculate their
taxes a second time without the benefit of deductions such as
depreciation. The problem is that corporations and individuals fall
into AMT and never get back out. AMT is a cyclical tax. When the cycle
is down, the AMT kicks in and requires payment of taxes at 20 percent,
even though they have lost money. It makes recessionary times worse,
because it takes money away from businesses that should be retaining
workers or investing.
The payment of taxes under AMT amounts to an interest-free loan to
the United States Government. There are companies that fell into AMT
during the recession of 1991 and 1992 that have not used up yet all of
their credits. During that recession, roughly 50 percent of American
businesses in America were caught by AMT. When companies are in AMT,
they cannot use their additional targeted tax benefits either. The
corporate tax breaks that Congress might consider must take this into
account. Depreciation and other incentives to invest are of no use to
companies in AMT.
It is time to renew our Constitution. This is a war effort and free
enterprise must prevail.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I noted that two speakers on the Committee on Ways and
Means have again gotten up and said something about invading the Social
Security Trust Fund. Even when the Democrats had control of the House
of Representatives and were awash in deficit spending, and that was
even over and above spending all of the Social Security surplus, not
once was the trust fund invaded. It cannot be invaded by law because,
by law, there are Treasury bills that are put into the trust fund and
they remain there until they are needed to be cashed in in order to pay
benefits. Nobody has invaded the trust fund, period, not from the
beginning of the system when it was first put in place. So let us put
that aside. We can argue as to the value of Treasury bills when it is a
debt by the government to the government, but that stays intact.
We can talk also for a moment about the Democrat alternative. We have
heard a lot about bipartisanship. No one called me from the other side
to ask me what I would like to see in this bill; even though the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and I are very close friends, he
never asked for my advice. So I think that there is a little bit of
politics as usual, I know, and we can certainly operate this House in
that fashion. We have from the beginning of time.
But I think we need to be sure that we actually talk straight
politics, particularly when members of the Committee on Ways and Means
get up and talk about doing something to the Social Security Trust
Fund, which simply is not accurate and it has not been done.
The distinction between the two bills, ours, which we call the
bipartisan bill, which the gentleman from New York disputes the use of
those words, but I call it that because we will have Democrat votes on
this bill, it simply emphasizes the creation of jobs, not the creation
of benefits. We teach people to fish; we want people to go back to
work. The good American workers do not want a handout, they want their
jobs preserved. They want job creation. That is what the bipartisan tax
bill does.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has
30 seconds remaining; the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has 30
seconds remaining.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of the time to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, America needs a stimulus package. That is
why the House and Senate Budget Committees worked in a bipartisan
manner to put forth principles to stimulate the economy. The package,
it said, should be short-term, give a quick boost to the economy, and
not sacrifice our long-term fiscal stability.
The Republican package here today fails on all three scores. It is
not a stimulus package; it is a shameless package which gives $10.4
billion in ill-timed capital gains cuts. It gives $53.6 billion tax
cuts to the wealthiest Americans and, are we ready for this? It gives a
$24 billion retroactive to 1986 tax cut on the Alternative Minimum Tax,
and 86 percent of this benefit goes to the wealthiest Americans.
Vote ``no'' on the shameless Republican bill.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
Well, I guess the gentlewoman was not present for most of the debate,
because she just repeated all of the syllabuses that had been laid in
front of us on which we have been spending the entire hour indicating
that it is simply not so.
The Alternative Minimum Tax elimination requested by the President is
not retroactive. It is a 1 percent stimulus for the economy: $100
billion over the first 12 months, 1 percent, and it costs $160 billion
over 10. Even former Secretary of the Treasury Bob Rubin could not say
this was inflationary.
It is the right medicine at the right time and we need to put the
right vote up, that is an ``aye'', on H.R. 3090.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to state my strong opposition
to H.R. 3090, the so-called economic stimulus bill that was passed out
of the Ways and Means committee, and my support for the Democratic
substitute.
There is no one who questions the dire need this country has for a
meaningful economic stimulus package. Anyone, those who are our
economic experts and ordinary people just using their God-given common
sense, can see that H.R. 3090, the Republican Bill, is only a package
of hand outs to the few top income earners who not only do not need the
help being offered, but will do nothing to provide the immediate and
temporary measures that this country and our constituents need.
The leadership of this House, who are bringing this travesty of a
bill before us, is not even in sync with the President who is of their
own party. This goes to show how off the mark and far afield they are;
and they are clearly out of touch with the rest of the country.
One member put it just right--the supporters of this bill are
looters. I have experienced looting in my district. It was after an
especially devastating hurricane. Then the people in our community had
fears that there would not be enough food, or other necessities to take
care of us in the midst of the wasteland they saw around them. It was
not condoned but it was understood.

[[Page H7256]]

This--the repeal of the corporate alternative minimum tax, the
permanent reduction in capital gains and other measures costing $274
billion which is not paid for--is looting of a different and the worst
kind. The leadership here, is taking advantage of a disaster caused by
terrorists and the people's fears to raid the treasury--the people's
money to give it away to the wealthiest among us. This big spender
give-away, will undermine our opportunity to help those Americans who
are most in need and for whom this disaster does not affect only their
pocketbooks, but their very existence, and mortgage the lives of future
generations in the process.
This country has experienced a tragic event of immeasurable and far-
reaching impact. If we pass this bill--H.R. 3090, instead of the
Democratic substitute, not only will we be undermining the safety-nets
needed by many in our country, and social security and Medicare, but we
will be saying to all of the countless compassionate and selfless
Americans that their stellar example of the past few weeks, is not
appreciated.
Instead of continuing the oneness, generosity and sense of community
that their response has revived, the Republican Bill will reach out and
help not all of us, but only a very small few. And instead of bringing
us together it will re-separate us--the haves and the have-nots, the
rich from those of us with low or moderate incomes, and begin to again
broaden the divide, which we have just begun to close, and in the
process diminish us all.
Colleagues, reject H.R. 3090, and support the real stimulus bill,
which helps everyone, and will begin to bring our country back.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3090, the
Economic Security and Recovery Act and the Democratic substitute and in
support of the motion to recommit.
In the past six weeks, we have enjoyed unprecedented bipartisan
cooperation as we have worked together to respond to the events of
September 11. I am concerned, however, that by considering this
legislation and its substitute today, Congress is quickly returning to
business-as-usual partisan politics.
At this time, it is important that we step back and take a fresh look
at the processes currently underway in Congress to address all of our
nation's needs. I am concerned that the piecemeal approach Congress is
taking puts the cart before the horse. In particular, the stimulus bill
and the substitute being voted on today both fail to effectively
balance our nation's priorities.
Mr. Speaker, out nation is at war. Never, in the history of this
country, during a time of war, have we cut taxes or spent our precious
resources on items unrelated to achieving our wartime objectives.
Simply, our objective today must be winning the war against terrorism
without jeopardizing the economy. This objective cannot be achieved by
either the Republican or Democrat plans, rather it is best achieved
through a comprehensive and bipartisan approach.
We have critical needs both domestically and globally to defeat
terrorism and to protect the safety and security of the American
people. Congress will be required in the coming days and weeks to
prioritize its efforts to strengthen domestic security, fight the war
on terrorism, provide assistance to dislocated workers and stimulate
our economy. These needs will then have to be balanced with our
obligation to protect against long-term fiscal harm.
Winning the war against terrorism and providing for the safety and
security of the American people will require significant resources. We
should not enact further tax cuts or spending proposals unrelated to
meeting these challenges until we have a better understanding of how
much funding the various agencies will need which are involved in
domestic security, law enforcement, intelligence, military and other
activities in the fight against terrorism will need.
Making this determination will require close operation between the
administration and the appropriate committees in the House and Senate.
The motion to recommit will allow each of these committees, and their
executive branch counterparts, to take recommendations, pass
legislation and adequately fund our defense and domestic security
needs. Moreover, by providing resources to meet these two priorities,
we will provide a direct, short-term economic boost both by creating
jobs to implement security measures and through restoring consumer
confidence by providing reassurance to the American people.
The motion to recommit also responds to the immediate economic
downturn without damaging the economy over the long-term. It stimulates
the economy in a focused, limited and temporary manner. Most
importantly, however, the motion to recommit requires us to enact out-
year offsets to ensure that we pay for the cost of short-term stimulus.
Finally, the motion to recommit addresses the personal hardships
experienced by thousands of Americans who lost their jobs as a result
of the events of September 11. It will extend the coverage period and
expand unemployment compensation to individuals previously ineligible
to receive compensation.
Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit represents the priorities of the
American people--winning the war against terrorism and protecting the
safety and security of every American. I urge all of my colleagues to
vote against H.R. 3090 and its substitute and to vote for the motion to
recommit so this Congress' committees may quickly begin their work to
identify and provide for all of our national needs.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, the September 11, 2001 attacks came at the
worst possible time for this economy. The stock market was sagging,
corporate investment was declining and all our economic benchmarks
indicated that we were teetering on a recession. The September 11th
attacks seemed to seal this economy's fate. Mr. Speaker, we can pull
ourselves from the grips of recession and grow this economy, however,
the legislation before us today, H.R. 3090, contains non of the
elements necessary to get this economy moving.
A successful stimulus package could include elements such as speeding
up and expanding the newly-established 10 percent income tax rate,
which is slated to be fully effective in 2008 or immediately increasing
the child tax credit to $1000 per child, which is already scheduled to
occur by 2010 or extending tax provisions that expire this year, such
as the Work Opportunity Tax Credit and Qualified Zone Academy Bonds.
Mr. Speaker, we must craft a fiscally-balanced plan that puts money
back in the economy today by not only dealing with the immediate
economic impact of the current crisis, but also does no harm to the
nation's fiscal health or long-term economic recovery.
Mr. Speaker, any true stimulus package must concentrate its benefit
on consumers. Consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of our Gross
Domestic Product (GDP). We must focus our efforts on getting Americans
back to work by helping those who are the economic victims of the
September 11th attacks and putting money back into today's economy by
enhancing the economic security of America's families and promoting
consumer spending.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3090 is not directed to promoting consumer spending
and endangers our long-term fiscal health. The bulk of the benefit of
this package will go to businesses not consumers. Specifically, in 2002
alone, the business tax provisions of H.R. 3090 are projected to
consume 70 percent, or $70.1 billion, of the $99.5 billion in stimulus.
More broadly, in the year 2002 and 2003, the critical period for
recovery, individual taxpayers will realize less than $49 billion of
tax benefit or less than one-quarter of one percentage point of the
GDP, while $112 billion of the benefit will be conferred to businesses.
Mr. Speaker, this misdirected effort has little chance of providing
direct economic stimulus and relief and has little hope of stimulating
consumer demand because it does not focus on the low and middle-income
families most likely to spend the money. Businesses make investments
based upon demand, and in a period of slack demand, we cannot expect
business to make capital investments. As such, any stimulus effect
would be limited. The size of H.R. 3090 is well over the $75 billion
the President requested to stimulate the economy. Further, this bloated
measure which carries a projected price-tag of $260 billion over ten
years, undermines our efforts to protect the Social Security and
Medicare trust funds and threatens to return us to the ``bad old days''
of deficit spending.

Mr. Speaker, time is of the essence, we must take meaningful steps to
protect those who lost their jobs and may lose their health insurance
as a result of the Sept. 11 attacks as well as the states, on which
much of this economic burden is borne. Mr. Speaker, today American
workers are at the frontline of our war on terrorism and, in far too
many cases, were the unwitting victims of the economic dislocation
following the attacks. In fact, it was recently reported by the
Department of Labor that the joblessness rate reached a nine-year high.
H.R. 3090 provides a mere $9 billion to the states from the Federal
Unemployment Accounts. This patently inadequate figure does little to
help displaced workers, and puts that responsibility squarely on the
already over-extended states. Further, as the cosponsor of airline
worker relief legislation that would assist displaced workers with
COBRA continuation costs, I believe that H.R. 3090 represents a missed
opportunity.
The challenge before us is how to inspire Americans to go out and
spend in an environment where far too many Americans live with the
impending doom that their jobs will disappear. Additionally, we must
act to boost consumer confidence in the safety of our air travel
infrastructure. Our efforts to stabilize the airline industry, in the
wake of September 11th, are undermined by this body's failure to bring
legislation to the floor that addresses airline security. Congress
cannot expect consumers to feel confident at the mall or on a

[[Page H7257]]

plane at a time when consumers are overwhelmed by lingering uncertainty
as to their economic and physical security.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the provisions of H.R. 3090 relating to
individual taxpayers are insufficient. Under this measure, those who
received a partial rebate under the tax package passed last spring
would be eligible to receive a ``top up'' to full $300 per individual,
or $600 per couple. Additionally, H.R. 3090 would accelerate the phase-
in of the reduction to the highest tax bracket, the new 25 percent tax
bracket, which was scheduled to take full effect in 2006 under existing
law, not the new 10 percent bracket which would effect lower-income
families, who spend the greatest percentage of their income on consumer
goods and services.
As a senior member of the House Budget Committee, I was heartened by
the unanimity of opinion among House and Senate Budget leaders, on a
bipartisan basis, as well as the President, that any economic stimulus
package must be temporary, and designed to create an immediate, short-
term impact, without jeopardizing our long-term economic security. Mr.
Speaker, H.R. 3090 misses the mark on every count.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R.
3090 fails to provide the necessary immediate stimulus that this Nation
needs in this time of national crisis. What we need is responsive and
immediate stimulus that helps all Americans.
In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on America on September 11,
2001 more than 500,000 people are losing their jobs. Nearly 150,000
jobs in the aviation industry and 120,000 hospitality and tourism jobs
are now lost. What is worse, the plan before us today puts working
American families on notice that they will be served last and least in
our new economy.
Responsive and meaningful stimulus would target businesses hurt by
the current recession. This plan does not. Responsive and meaningful
stimulus would help all Americans with tax breaks, and not just
distribute billions to large corporations by permanently eliminating
the AMT--how is this a short-term stimulus--especially since the refund
will date back to 1986. Let's face the facts the economic slowdown that
began prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks was worsened by those
attacks. The plan before us departs from proven recession--fighting
tactics that recognize that extending unemployment benefits and
healthcare are crucial to economic stimulus. The unemployment and
health insurance benefits provided for under this plan are inadequate
and misguided, transferring funds from Federal to State unemployment
funds which could allow States to reduce benefits overall. This is
wrong.
Finally, this bill costs $274 billion over ten years--driving the
government, once again, into deficit spending. This will require the
government to borrow from payroll taxes dedicated to Social Security
and Medicare all for the sake of tax breaks for the wealthiest
Americans.
Mr. Speaker, America needs help now. We must provide it, but this
plan is simply not the answer.
Finally, the American public needs responsible legislators who will
effectively deal with the threat of terrorism. In this special interest
Republican tax give away there is not one dollar provided for American
security--to fight anthrax, smallpox, help health facilities, postal
workers, for airline security and to combat the horror of terrorism.
Mr. Speaker, this bill should be resoundly defeated and the
Democratic substitute that helps secure America passed.
Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this deeply
flawed bill.
The country needs an economic stimulus package that will effectively
spur economic activity in the short term while doing no damage to our
nation's economic prospects in the long run. Experts have indicated
that such a package should be $50 billion to $100 billion in size. The
country also needs Congress to provide additional assistance to the
many households that are suffering as a result of the layoffs that have
taken place in recent weeks. Fortunately, assistance to laid-off
workers and their families constitutes one of the best economic stimuli
possible--so we could ideally address both problems with one
initiative.
Unfortunately, the majority on the House Ways and Means Committee has
not put together such legislation. Rather than provide extended
unemployment insurance benefits and COBRA premium support to laid-off
workers, the legislation before us provides an inadequate level of
funding to states to help them deal with the crisis. In fact, the
funding included in this bill for helping unemployed workers is too
small by an order of magnitude. Instead, this bill, allocates the vast
majority of its $160 billion in ``economic stimulus'' to tax cuts for
corporations and upper-income households. I believe that such a plan is
both unfair and ineffective and is, consequently, unwise.
The package is unfair because it doesn't do enough to help the tens
of thousands of people who have lost their jobs in recent weeks--or
those who may lose their jobs in the coming weeks. In past recessions,
Congress has extended unemployment benefits to help the people who are
out of work. The block grants contained in this bill will not do much
to help the unemployed. Neither will the provisions dealing with health
insurance benefits. The stimulus package that we eventually enact
should extend unemployment benefits for at least an additional 13 weeks
and provide enough federal support for health insurance premiums under
COBRA that the families of those workers can afford to continue their
health insurance coverage.
The bill is also unfair because it doesn't provide most of its tax
relief to families that need help the most. Much of the relief it
provides would go to corporations. The single largest component of this
stimulus package that affects individual taxpayers is the acceleration
of the already enacted reduction of the existing 28 percent tax rate to
25 percent, which would cut taxes owned by $12 billion in 2002 and by
$53 billion over the next ten years. This provision, however, would do
nothing to help the 75 percent of taxpayers who don't have enough
income to pay taxes in the 28 percent bracket.
The package is ineffective for a number of reasons. First, it doesn't
get assistance to the people who need it--the people who, incidentally,
are also most likely to turn around and pump that money back into the
economy. A number of economic studies have shown that low- and middle-
income families are more likely to spend most or all of any additional
income. As income increases, households are more likely to save
increasingly large percentages of any additional income. Consequently,
if our goal is to get as much stimulative effect as possible out of the
stimulus package--and it is--the most effective package would target
its tax breaks to low- and middle-income families.

Second, the corporate tax breaks in the bill will not be particularly
effective at stimulating the economy. In fact, they may actually hurt
the economy. The bill, for example, would make permanent an existing
tax provision allows multinational corporations to defer taxation of
income earned overseas until the money is repatriated. Not only would
this provision not stimulate the economy, but it could actually have an
adverse effect by encouraging companies to keep money abroad for longer
periods of time. Similarly, the capital gains tax cut would encourage
investors to sell stocks in the short term, driving the already
depressed stock market prices even lower. Such a change at this time
would probably hurt, rather than help, the economy.
Third, this legislation would be ineffective because it would require
state action to authorize and carry out the states' responsibilities
under this bill--and it is my understanding many state legislatures are
not in session, and won't be in session in the critical coming months.
Given the lag time that exists before economic stimulus measures take
effect, such provisions could condemn the country to unnecessary
additional months of recession. I believe that such an approach is not
optimal.
Fourth, and finally, this legislation could be downright harmful to
the economy. In order to promote the fiscal responsibility that is
essential for the long-term health of our economy, the stimulus package
should be temporary, and it should be paid for in subsequent years--
ideally, as soon as the recession has ended. It is essential for the
federal government to pay down the national debt over the next ten
years in order for it to be in a position to maintain the Social
Security and Medicare programs as their caseloads double in the coming
decades. In order to achieve that end, the federal government must for
most of that time continue to run surpluses. The stimulus package
before us today makes it much more difficult for us to continue running
surpluses. Consistently smaller surpluses, or even worse the return of
deficits, would leave the federal government in a weaker financial
posture in the future when it has to deal with dramatically increased
costs in the Social Security and Medicare programs. If the cost of the
stimulus package is not offset in the out-years, the public debt will
be higher, government borrowing will be greater, and interest rates
faced by families and businesses will be higher--choking off future
economic growth. We should not take such an approach.
That is why I support the Democratic alternative, which provides
adequate assistance to families in need, channels its economic stimulus
to the households most likely to pump that money back into the economy,
provides important investments to protect our infrastructure and
produce future economic growth, and holds Social Security and Medicare
harmless over the next ten years. I urge my colleagues to reject this
legislation and support the substitute. Let's enact legislation that
will fairly and effectively stimulate our economy.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to revise
and extend my remarks.

[[Page H7258]]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3090 and in support
of the Rangel Substitute. Our people deserve far better than the
Committee's sorry product. Both the bill and the process that produced
it are fundamentally flawed. While Chairman thomas may have labored
mightily, he has brought forth a mouse. He's produced a bill for K
Street lobbyists, not Main Street!
Low and moderate income people in my community of Miami--the skycaps,
the food service workers, the airplane mechanics, the flight
attendants, the bellhops, the bus and taxi drivers--all of the average
working men and women who make Miami hum and who I am so privileged to
represent: These people have borne the brunt of the layoffs in the
travel and tourism industry resulting from the September 11th attacks.
Their needs and concerns should be the primary focus of any economic
stimulus program. Yet while this bill has plenty in it for the
executives who wear pinstripe suits, it has little for working men and
women. Why, in this bill, will we not speak and act on behalf of
working people?
Many elements of the bill are simply recycled proposals from a failed
Republican economic plan that had been offered and rejected, even by a
number of Republican members of the House, long before the events of
September 11th. Since September 11th, more than 100,000 airline
employees have lost their jobs. Many thousands more workers in
industries directly and indirectly affected by the disruption of the
airline industry and in other fields also have been laid off. Where is
their relief?
Small businesses also have been hit very hard by the September 11th
attacks. Many of them lost key customers who constituted the lion's
share of their business, as well as key suppliers who enabled them to
do business.
The September 11th attacks have radically altered business prospects
throughout our country. No community has been spared. While even places
thousands of miles from the destruction of September 11th have been
severely affected, tourist dependent communities that rely upon the
airlines and the hotel industry, like my home town of Miami, have been
particularly hard hit. H.R. 3090 does not even attempt to address their
needs.
It is highly discouraging that Chairman Thomas and the Republican
Leadership have seen fit to schedule this bill for floor action today
without making the necessary efforts to consider and include Democratic
proposals for restoring vitality to our economy.
What America needs and wants is an effective, bipartisan economic
recovery package to stimulate our economy and address the needs of
working Americans after the horrific events of September 11, 2001. H.R.
3090 is not that bipartisan bill. We need payroll tax relief and other
remedies that will help restore our economy for the long haul while
providing adequate relief to those who lost their jobs and/or their
benefits as a result of the economic slowdown.
The Thomas bill does not provide economic stimulus' along the lines
recommended by Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan. Instead of temporary
tax cuts, many of the Committee tax provisions are permanent and
provide little or nothing in terms of stimulus within the next 15
months.
The Committee bill is not directly related to economic stimulus and
relief. The proposal's tax cuts do not maximize consumer demand by
focusing on those low- and middle-income households most likely to
spend the money. The lion's share of individual tax cuts in the
Committee bill goes to the wealthy, and many of the business tax cuts
go to businesses that are least in need of relief. The Committee bill
includes permanent tax cuts that have nothing to do with the terrorist
attack or its economic aftermath. Rather, the bill provides special
interests with tax cuts they have wanted for years.
The Committee bill will cost nearly $160 billion over the next ten
years and is not paid for through offsets. The bill ignores the need
for out-year offsets to make up over time for the cost of near-term
economic stimulus. This is not fiscally responsible. Our economic
stimulus package should be focused and be paid for through short- and
long-term revenue offsets.
The Committee bill fails to guarantee any unemployed worker increased
or extended unemployment compensation. There is not even anything in
the legislation that would prevent states from using the Reed Act money
to replace state funding for unemployment benefits--meaning the net
result could be no new assistance for displaced workers.
The Committee bill does not protect newly unemployed individuals and
their families and other affected by the terrorist attacks from the
very real danger that they will lose their health insurance and join
the ranks of the nearly 40 million uninsured Americans.
The most effective and efficient manner by which to provide quick,
short-term assistance with health insurance coverage is to build on
existing programs, namely a subsidy for COBRA coverage for those who
are eligible and a temporary expansion of Medicaid and CHIP for those
who are not.
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, it seems clear that our economy has not
yet hit bottom. Many more hard working Americans, through no fault of
their own, soon will lose their jobs. All of these workers desperately
need our help and they need it now.
Mr. Speaker, the human costs of this economic downturn for many of
our fellow Americans are truly staggering. Airline and airport workers,
transit workers, employees who work for airline suppliers such as
service employees and plane manufactures, all face common problems and
challenges. Their mortgages, rents, and utilities still must be paid.
Food must be placed on the table. Children must be clothed. Health care
costs must be covered.

While some will get by through depleting their savings, the vast
majority of those who have lost their jobs have little or no savings to
deplete. All of these workers need a strong, flexible and lasting
safety net, the kind that only the Federal government can provide.
Just like those workers who qualify for help under the Trade
Adjustment Assistance Program, workers who lost their jobs because of
the September 11th attacks need extended unemployment and job training
benefits.
Displaced workers especially need COBRA continuation coverage, that
is, they need to have their COBRA health insurance premiums paid for in
full for up to 78 weeks, or until they are re-employed with health
insurance coverage, whichever is earlier. Those without COBRA coverage
need coverage under Medicaid.
Mr. Speaker, this Congress acted quickly and responsibly to meet some
of the challenges posed by the September 11th attacks. We authorized
the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the
attacks against the United States.
We unanimously passed the $40 billion Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations bill to finance some of the tremendous costs of fighting
terrorism and of helping and rebuilding the communities devastated by
these horrendous attacks. We provided cash assistance and loan
guarantees to the airline industry.
Now it is our workers' turn. They have already waited far too long.
All of these hard working, innocent displaced workers and their
families desperately need our help. We must hear and answer their
pleas. We cannot rest until we have met their needs.
Mr. Speaker, the American people are depending on Members of Congress
to cooperate and work with each other on a bipartisan economic stimulus
plan. They expect and should get no less. We can and must do better
than H.R. 3090. I urge my colleagues: reject the Thomas bill and
support the Democratic Substitute.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support of H.R.
3090, the Economic Security and Recovery Act of 2001. I would also use
this opportunity to address some important budgetary issues raised by
this bill and other legislation enacted in the wake of the recent
terrorist attacks.
As reported from the Committee on Ways and Means--on which I am proud
to serve--the Economic Security Act would, among other things, provide
an additional tax rebate, accelerate the shift to a 25-percent tax
rate, repeal the corporate minimum tax, and extend various expiring tax
provisions.
As you know, the Congressional Budget Resolution--H. Con. Res. 83--
established a revenue floor and directed the Ways and Means and Finance
Committees to report a 10-year tax cut of $1.4 trillion. Earlier this
year, the Ways and Means Committee reported, and the President signed,
a reconciliation bill that reduced taxes by the amount envisioned by
the budget resolution.
As reported by the Committee on Ways and Means, this bill would
reduce projected revenue by an additional $99 billion in fiscal year
2002 and by about $195 billion over 5 years. Additionally, a provision
to increase health care coverage for unemployed workers would increase
outlays by $3 billion in the current fiscal year.
Clearly this bill was not envisioned under the budgetary framework of
the budget resolution. The bill would reduce Federal revenue below the
revenue floor specified in the resolution. This would violate section
311(a) of the Budget Act, which prohibits the consideration of measures
that would cause revenue to be less than the levels permitted in the
budget resolution. Similarly, the refundable tax provisions and the new
spending element of the bill would breach the 302(a) allocation of new
budget authority that was provided to the Committee on Ways and Means
pursuant to H. Con. Res. 83.
Yet there are obviously times when it is appropriate to set aside
budget constraints for the greater good. Perhaps the most important is
during war or military conflict, when the nation's resources must be
available to protect the nation itself. Another is during times of
recession when it may be necessary to consider various initiatives to
help sustain the economy.

[[Page H7259]]

This year, we face both. On September 11, we entered into a new era
when terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in New York City and
the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. After these attacks, we committed
to providing whatever resources are necessary to wage a war on
terrorism. On September 18, the President signed a supplemental
appropriations bill that provide $40 billion to respond to these
attacks. On September 22, the President signed a bill providing
economic assistance to an already beleaguered aviation industry.
The terrorist attacks, in turn, exacerbated an economic slowdown that
was already under way. In August, the Congressional Budget Office
revised its economic forecast to reflect virtually no growth in the
first half of this year. This was reflected in both lower GDP growth
and higher unemployment rates. The terrorist attacks of September 11
dealt a further blow to the economy by depressing markets and rattling
consumer confidence.
While the Congressional Budget Act and the Balanced Budget Act both
envisioned a process in which Congress could suspend various budget
rules, there is simply not enough time to go through this process if
the President is to have the resources to wage this war and if the
economic incentives are to be helpful.
The Budget Committee has moved swiftly to increase the discretionary
spending limits to accommodate any additional spending. It will also
take any necessary steps to ensure that the tax bill does not
inadvertently trigger a sequester, which would clearly be
counterproductive if the goal is to stimulate the economy.
This bill clearly provides some important benefits at a time of
economic weakness. I believe that this a good though not perfect
package. It does manage to get money out the door to taxpayers. It also
has a number of provisions that will provide incentives for Iowa
businesses to create jobs, spur innovation, and invest in our
government's future.
I urge Members to support this bill both in the interest of reducing
taxes and supporting the economy. Still we should be under no illusion
where this bill, the supplemental and airline security bills will leave
us. Next year we may well find that the double digit surpluses that
were projected as recently as May have all but evaporated.
Although a departure from the budget resolution we adopted in May can
be justified as a necessary response to the extraordinary circumstances
facing our country, our long-term framework should continue to be a
balanced budget. We should then work to pay off as much Federal debt as
possible and accumulate sufficient resources to strengthen and reform
Social Security and Medicare.
This will require the Congress, working together with the President,
to begin to make some very tough decisions. I hope in the next few
months to begin a dialogue with Members on both sides of the aisle on
developing a framework for making some of these decisions.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise against this so called stimulus bill
that is before us today. H.R. 3090 purports to help our economy, but
fails to provide assistance to the thousands of hardworking American
workers who lost their jobs as a result of the September 11 tragedy.
Now, I may not be an economist but there is something fundamentally
wrong with a bill that provides 86% of tax benefits to corporate
special interests, while providing nothing to middle income workers who
are the backbone of this country's industrial might.
This bill is lacking in many ways. First it fails to provide a
minimum wage increase for the American workers. Second, it does not
provide adequate health coverage to displaced workers. Third, it places
an additional burden on many states, including my own home state of
Illinois, which is still reeling from the devastating losses suffered
by United Airlines post September 11.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is a Sham, it is nothing more
than corporate welfare. If we are going to use precious resources, let
us give to those most in need--American workers. Corporate and
individual tax cuts will do little to stimulate the economy.
We must not return to the partisan politics that existed before
September 11. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support the Democratic substitute, which provides assistance to those
most in need and provides temporary fiscal stimulus to restart the
economy.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule
and to the majority's so-called stimulus package, H.R. 3090. The
primary reason I speak against both the rule and the bill is the
failure once more on the part of the majority to include the concerns
of the insular areas especially my home island of Guam.
When we talk about a stimulus package for the nation, we are informed
that a possible rise in the nation's unemployment rate to 6% is a sure
sign of impending economic crisis. The very rise to the number is
designed to bring chills of concern to all of membership of this body.
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, the people of Guam are suffering
an unemployment rate triple that amount, totaling 18% of the workforce
of my people. Moreover, as a result of the terrorist attacks and the
resulting decline in tourism (especially international tourism),
hundreds of workers are being laid off and hundreds more are having
their hours cut off. We must take clear, positive and strong steps to
include the territories in any stimulus package. We must be directly
responsive to the concerns of our fellow Americans who live in the
insular areas.
I introduced and amendment to H.R. 3090 to the Rules Committee
yesterday. The amendment was not made in order. This amendment would
have provided assistance to the territories, brought relief to the
people of Guam and ease their heavy burden. My amendment would have
ensured the participation of the territories in the nation's
unemployment programs, made territories eligible for any future
national emergency grants, lifted the caps for Medicaid, increased the
matching waiver for federal programs and would treat Guam the same as
any other U.S. jurisdiction in taxing foreign investors.
This amendment would have provided Guam's unemployed (which is almost
one out of every five workers) something to hang onto while the economy
recovers. The measure would have eased the stress our local government
is facing in budgeting health care for the indigent, accessing needed
federal program and in making sure that Guam is eligible for federal
emergency grants.
The Government of Guam is anticipating a 15-20% revenue shortfall
caused by the on-going Asian economic malaise and compounded by the
hesitancy to travel as a result of the terrorist attacks. Guam is
dependent upon international tourists for her livelihood. We are
dependent upon the Asian economies for our survival and we are
dependent upon your goodwill and understanding to give us the tools to
develop economic self-sufficiency.
Guam is a crucial part of the current struggle against the
terrorists. Guam is a part of the air bridge to bring justice to Osama
bin Laden. Guam is the major Pacific point in the bridge from the West
Coast to our bombers based in the Indian Ocean. The President said we
should bring justice to the terrorists. As we bring justice to the
terrorists, lets bring justice and fairness to the people of Guam, to
our fellow Americans who live closest to the action.
The package as presented does not include us; it turns a blind eye to
the needs of the territories; to the needs of Guam.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, Christmas has come early for the special
interests this year. This so-called stimulus package is nothing more
than the eternal wish list of big business wrapped up in a nice, neat,
little bow.
When the President put together his mammoth tax cut for the rich
earlier this year, businesses were told to wait their turn. They would
get their huge tax cut, but it couldn't be in the same package or it
would shatter the illusion that the first one was for working families.
So, we all knew this big tax cut was coming. But frankly, I'm shocked
that the Republican Leadership would trot it out so soon, under the
guise of ``economic stimulus.'' Quite simply, there is virtually no
economic value to this package.
The key to economic stimulus is to put money in the pockets of people
who will spend it immediately. At Democrats' insistence, there is at
least a small amount of money going to those who are hardest hit by
these economic times. But the overwhelming majority of cuts in this
bill are skewed to the very rich, who are more likely to put savings in
the bank than to spend it. By some estimates a whopping 75% of the
benefits of this package would go to the top 10% of wage earners. This
is not just dramatically unfair, it economically foolish.
Not surprisingly, the portions of this bill that are aimed at lower
income workers are temporary. But, the special breaks to big business,
like capital gains reductions and repeal of the corporate Alternative
Minimum Tax are permanent. This bill even has the gall to provide for
refunds to any business that has paid the corporate AMT since 1986.
That's not economic stimulus, that is corporate give-away
In addition, these provisions will simply worsen our long-term
economic outlook, upon which current investment decisions are made.
Rather than provide an immediate boost, these tax cuts are more likely
to hinder spending in the short-term and plunge us deeper into
recession. That's a pretty big price to pay for pacifying the special
interests.
And, the flaws in this bill are not just limited to what's in it. It
is equally poor policy because of what's missing. Any responsible
stimulus package would include new direct spending on the pressing
needs of the nation. This would create jobs while shoring up the
infrastructure critical to our future economic growth. For example, in
this new world of heightened security at the airports, we must invest
in high-speed rail to accommodate travel between short distances. But,
as usual, this bill simply

[[Page H7260]]

relies on the old gospel of the Republican Party--that tax cuts are the
solution to any problem.
This corporate wish list may settle some old debts in the potential
arena, but it will do nothing to nurse our ailing economy back to
health. It is special interest pandering at its worst and should be
defeated.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3090, the
Economic Security and Recovery Act. While our nation is still tending
to the wounds inflicted upon us on September 11th, it may be necessary
to provide an economic stimulus package that jump starts our currently
sagging fiscal system and helps our country recover. I do not believe,
however, this is the time for Congress to use this economic slump and
the war against terrorism as an excuse to revisit previous agendas in a
budget-busting frenzy.
It is fiscally irresponsible to put our country back into deficit
spending to ensure that the House Leadership secures its priority tax
cuts for their large campaign contributors. These tax cuts will not
have the desired affect of boosting our economy; rather they will
threaten the fiscal discipline that prompted much of the 1990's
economic boom, because H.R. 3090 is paid for by taking funds directly
out of the Social Security surplus rather than finding responsible
offsets in the budget. The cost over ten years, including added
interest to national debt, is a hefty $274 billion. Again, it would be
taken out of the Social Security trust fund after virtually everyone in
this Congress promised not to do so.
The goal of a stimulus package should be to give the economy a quick
jolt while minimizing the damage to the long-term budget. In order to
achieve this fine balance, the legislative package we pass today should
provide an immediate but temporary, short-term injection of resources
that will put money into the pockets of families and business that need
it and will spend it.
Unfortunately, H.R. 3090 includes an acceleration of income tax cuts
that would put $39 billion in the pockets of the richest quarter of
taxpayers in the years 2003 to 2005, when the downtown presumably will
be over. This is not an economic stimulus. This is a policy that
reflects the supply-side faith that cutting taxes is always a good
thing, never mind the cost. It will also take $5 billion out of state
budgets every year since states base their corporate tax rates on the
federal tax code.
Furthermore, a return to deficit spending will increase long-term
interest rates, and will put a drag on any kind of economic recovery.
The higher cost of borrowing increases the costs to families and firms,
making economic revival less likely. Even the president acknowledged
this when he said he wanted a stimulus package between $60 billion and
$75 billion because he was ``mindful of the effect on long-term
interest rates.'' Unless the administration weighs in against these tax
cuts, the baby-boom budget crunch may get even nastier and make it
impossible for our country to deal with the impending baby-boom
retirement by keeping Social Security and Medicare solvent for that
huge influx of recipients.
H.R. 3090 will not provide the average American the extra cash to put
into our financial system. This is not the time to pursue our
individual agendas but it is the time for a fiscally responsible short-
term package that pushes our economy forward and provides relief for
families in need.
I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3090 and support the motion to
recommit. The rush to cut corporate taxes to stimulate economic
recovery is at best a questionable economic prescription and at worst
one that could do more harm than good. The motion to recommit is simple
and straightforward in its instructions to reduce the tax cut
provisions of the bill in an amount necessary to fund the additional
appropriations that are needed to fix the war on terrorism and protect
the safety of the American public; to provide that the legislation is
temporary and fully paid for in the budget over the next ten years to
avoid deficit spending; and to provide immediate relief to workers who
lost their jobs and health coverage and to businesses affected by the
economic circumstances.
That is what a sensible and fiscally responsible stimulus bill should
look like.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, health insurance coverage is a critical
component of any economic stimulus package. Uninsured Americans have
greater problems obtaining needed medical care. They are also less
likely to get needed care. It is simply good medicine to ensure that
families can keep their health insurance coverage.
It is also, however, good economics. The uninsured pay more out-of-
pocket for health care, reducing their consumer spending. If families
have health insurance, more of their resources are freed up to meet
other critical needs such as paying their mortgage or utility bills.
Half of Americans who file for bankruptcy protection do so because of
high medical expenses. An increase in the number of uninsured workers
will lead more Americans into bankruptcy.
We know that the number of uninsured will very likely increase during
this economic downturn. That is why any responsible economic stimulus
package must include meaningful provisions to prevent the number of
families without health insurance coverage from increasing.
The Democratic substitute does just that. This package provides a
federal subsidy to allow workers and their families to remain covered
under their former employer's policy for twelve months. Without this
subsidy, bearing the full freight of their health insurance costs--on
average $7,053 for family coverage--will prove too much for many
families already struggling to make ends meet.
The Democratic substitute also allows states the option of extending
Medicaid coverage to those uninsured workers and their families who are
ineligible for COBRA coverage. For workers in firms with fewer than
twenty employees or for workers in firms that go out of business, this
provision is particularly important as COBRA coverage is not available
to them. By building on Medicaid, we are building on an insurance
program that we know works and that states can use quickly and easily
to ensure workers and their families have health coverage.
A responsible stimulus package should recognize the importance of
health insurance to good health and a good economy. The Democratic
substitute will see that American families remain insured during this
economic downturn. This package is the right approach for our economy,
our workers, and their families.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the economic stimulus package brought to
the House floor today is an embarrassment. It is 50 percent larger than
the stimulus that the President and the Treasury Secretary asked for.
It is a series of tax cuts and big refund checks to corporations that
will be paid for with dollars from the Social Security Trust Fund. It
is not paid for over time, but adds to the federal deficit for years to
come.
The Republican leadership has used the occasion of America's present
economic emergency to lead a stampede toward the public trough. Every
pet tax cut on lobbyists' wish lists found its way into this bill,
which has nothing to do with economic stimulus but a great deal to do
with unjust enrichment. A handful of America's largest corporations
will receive refund checks totaling nearly $6 billion of business taxes
paid since 1986. There is absolutely no assurance that those tax
dollars will be invested in job creation or other economic growth.
By contrast, the Democratic alternative provides the bulk of its tax
relief to individuals and families that are likely to spend their tax
savings on household needs, adding to economic activity and providing a
true stimulus. It extends health care and other benefits to laid-off
workers. It includes real investments in America's communities and
security. Most importantly, it maintains fiscal responsibility by
paying for itself over time--simply by delaying the Bush Administration
tax cut for households earning over $350,000 per year.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for general debate has expired.

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Rangel

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:

Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Rangel:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, ETC.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Fiscal
Stimulus and Worker Relief Act of 2001''.
(b) References to Internal Revenue Code of 1986.--Except as
otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an
amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to,
or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference
shall be considered to be made to a section or other
provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title, etc.

TITLE I--TAX PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Supplemental Rebate

Sec. 101. Supplemental rebate.

Subtitle B--Extensions of Certain Expiring Provisions

Sec. 111. Allowance of nonrefundable personal credits against regular
and minimum tax liability.
Sec. 112. Credit for qualified electric vehicles.
Sec. 113. Credit for electricity produced from renewable resources.
Sec. 114. Work Opportunity Credit.
Sec. 115. Welfare-to-Work credit.
Sec. 116. Deduction for clean-fuel vehicles and certain refueling
property.

[[Page H7261]]

Sec. 117. Taxable income limit on percentage depletion for oil and
natural gas produced from marginal properties.
Sec. 118. Qualified zone academy bonds.
Sec. 119. Cover over of tax on distilled spirits.
Sec. 120. Parity in the application of certain limits to mental health
benefits.
Sec. 121. Delay in effective date of requirement for approved diesel or
kerosene terminals.

Subtitle C--Other Provisions

Sec. 131. Alternative minimum tax relief with respect to incentive
stock options exercised during 2000.
Sec. 132. Carryback for 2001 and 2002 net operating losses allowed for
5 years.
Sec. 133. Temporary increase in expensing under section 179.
Sec. 134. Temporary waiver of 90 percent AMT limitations.
Sec. 135. Expansion of incentives for public schools.

TITLE II--WORKER RELIEF

Subtitle A--Temporary Unemployment Compensation

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Federal-State agreements.
Sec. 203. Temporary Supplemental Unemployment Compensation Account.
Sec. 204. Payments to States having agreements under this subtitle.
Sec. 205. Financing provisions.
Sec. 206. Fraud and overpayments.
Sec. 207. Definitions.
Sec. 208. Applicability.

Subtitle B--Premium Assistance For COBRA Continuation Coverage

Sec. 211. Premium assistance for COBRA continuation coverage.

Subtitle C--Additional Assistance for Temporary Health Insurance
Coverage

Sec. 221. Optional temporary medicaid coverage for certain uninsured
employees.
Sec. 222. Optional temporary coverage for unsubsidized portion of COBRA
continuation premiums.

TITLE III--FREEZE OF TOP INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATE AND DOMESTIC
SECURITY TRUST FUND

Sec. 301. Freeze of top individual income tax rate and domestic
security trust fund.

TITLE I--TAX PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Supplemental Rebate

SEC. 101. SUPPLEMENTAL REBATE.

(a) In General.--Section 6428 (relating to acceleration of
10 percent income tax rate bracket benefit for 2001) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) Supplemental Rebate.--
``(1) In general.--Each individual who was an eligible
individual for such individual's first taxable year beginning
in 2000 and who, before October 12, 2001, filed a return of
tax imposed by subtitle A for such taxable year shall be
treated as having made a payment against the tax imposed by
chapter 1 for such first taxable year in an amount equal to
the supplemental refund amount for such taxable year.
``(2) Supplemental refund amount.--For purposes of this
subsection, the supplemental refund amount is an amount equal
to the excess (if any) of--
``(A)(i) $600 in the case of taxpayers to whom section 1(a)
applies,
``(ii) $500 in the case of taxpayers to whom section 1(b)
applies, and
``(iii) $300 in the case of taxpayers to whom subsections
(c) or (d) of section 1 applies, over
``(B) the taxpayer's advance refund amount under subsection
(e).
``(3) Timing of payments.--In the case of any overpayment
attributable to this subsection, the Secretary shall, to the
maximum extent practicable, refund or credit such overpayment
before December 31, 2001.
``(4) No interest.--No interest shall be allowed on any
overpayment attributable to this subsection.''
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Paragraph (1) of section 6428(d) is amended by adding
at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) Coordination With supplemental rebate.--No credit
shall be allowed under subsection (a) to any individual who
is entitled to a supplemental rebate amount under subsection
(f).''
(2) Paragraph (3) of section 6428(e) is amended by striking
``December 31, 2001'' and inserting ``the date of the
enactment of the Fiscal Stimulus and Worker Relief Act of
2001''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

Subtitle B--Extensions of Certain Expiring Provisions

SEC. 111. ALLOWANCE OF NONREFUNDABLE PERSONAL CREDITS AGAINST
REGULAR AND MINIMUM TAX LIABILITY.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 26(a) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``rule for 2000 and 2001.--'' and inserting
``rule for 2000, 2001, and 2002.--'', and
(2) by striking ``during 2000 or 2001,'' and inserting
``during 2000, 2001, or 2002,''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 904(h) is amended by striking ``during 2000 or
2001'' and inserting ``during 2000, 2001, or 2002''.
(2) The amendments made by sections 201(b), 202(f), and
618(f) of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation
Act of 2001 shall not apply to taxable years beginning during
2002.
(c) Technical Correction.--Section 24(d)(1)(B) is amended
by striking ``amount of credit allowed by this section'' and
inserting ``aggregate amount of credits allowed by this
subpart.''.
(d) Effective Dates.--
(1) The amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) shall
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2001.
(2) The amendment made by subsection (c) shall apply to
taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000.

SEC. 112. CREDIT FOR QUALIFIED ELECTRIC VEHICLES.

(a) In General.--Section 30 is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(2)--
(A) by striking ``December 31, 2001,'' and inserting
``December 31, 2002,'', and
(B) in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), by striking
``2002'', ``2003'', and ``2004'', respectively, and inserting
``2003'', ``2004'', and ``2005'', respectively, and
(2) in subsection (e), by striking ``December 31, 2004''
and inserting ``December 31, 2005''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.

SEC. 113. CREDIT FOR ELECTRICITY PRODUCED FROM RENEWABLE
RESOURCES.

(a) In General.--Subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of section
45(c)(3) are each amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2003''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.

SEC. 114. WORK OPPORTUNITY CREDIT.

(a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 51(c)(4) is
amended by striking ``2001'' and inserting ``2002''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to individuals who begin work for the employer
after December 31, 2001.

SEC. 115. WELFARE-TO-WORK CREDIT.

(a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 51A is amended
by striking ``2001'' and inserting ``2002''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to individuals who begin work for the employer
after December 31, 2001.

SEC. 116. DEDUCTION FOR CLEAN-FUEL VEHICLES AND CERTAIN
REFUELING PROPERTY.

(a) In General.--Section 179A is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1)(B)--
(A) by striking ``December 31, 2001,'' and inserting
``December 31, 2002,'', and
(B) in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), by striking ``2002'',
``2003'', and ``2004'', respectively, and inserting ``2003'',
``2004'', and ``2005'', respectively, and
(2) in subsection (f), by striking ``December 31, 2004''
and inserting ``December 31, 2005''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.

SEC. 117. TAXABLE INCOME LIMIT ON PERCENTAGE DEPLETION FOR
OIL AND NATURAL GAS PRODUCED FROM MARGINAL
PROPERTIES.

(a) In General.--Subparagraph (H) of section 613A(c)(6) is
amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2003''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.

SEC. 118. QUALIFIED ZONE ACADEMY BONDS.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 1397E(e) is
amended by striking ``2000, and 2001'' and inserting ``2000,
2001, and 2002''.
(b) Extension of carryover of unused limitation from
1998.--Paragraph (4) of section 1397E(e) is amended by
striking ``3 years for carryforwards from 1998 or 1999'' and
inserting ``4 years for carryforwards from 1998 and 3 years
for carryforwards from 1999''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 119. COVER OVER OF TAX ON DISTILLED SPIRITS.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 7652(f) is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2002'' and inserting
``January 1, 2003''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 120. PARITY IN THE APPLICATION OF CERTAIN LIMITS TO
MENTAL HEALTH BENEFITS.

(a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 9812 is amended
by striking ``2001'' and inserting ``2002''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to plan years beginning after December 31, 2001.

SEC. 121. DELAY IN EFFECTIVE DATE OF REQUIREMENT FOR APPROVED
DIESEL OR KEROSENE TERMINALS.

Paragraph (2) of section 1032(f) of the Taxpayer Relief Act
of 1997 (Public Law 105-34) is amended by striking ``January
1, 2002'' and inserting ``January 1, 2003''.

Subtitle C--Other Provisions

SEC. 131. ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF WITH RESPECT TO
INCENTIVE STOCK OPTIONS EXERCISED DURING 2000.

In the case of an incentive stock option (as defined in
section 422 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) exercised
during calendar

[[Page H7262]]

year 2000 or 2001, the amount taken into account under
section 56(b)(3) of such Code by reason of such exercise
shall not exceed the amount that would have been taken into
account if, on the date of such exercise, the fair market
value of the stock acquired pursuant to such option had
been--
(1) its fair market value as of--
(A) April 15, 2001, in the case of options exercised during
2000, and
(B) December 31, 2001, in the case of options exercised
during 2001, or
(2) if such stock is sold or exchanged on or before the
applicable date under paragraph (1), the amount realized on
such sale or exchange.

SEC. 132. CARRYBACK FOR 2001 AND 2002 NET OPERATING LOSSES
ALLOWED FOR 5 YEARS.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 172(b) (relating
to years to which loss may be carried) is amended by adding
at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(H) In the case of a taxpayer which has a net operating
loss for any taxable year beginning in 2001 or 2002,
subparagraph (A)(i) shall be applied by substituting `5' for
`2' and subparagraph (F) shall not apply.''.
(b) Election To Disregard 5-Year Carryback for Net
Operating Loss Arising in 2001 or 2002.-- Section 172 of such
Code (relating to net operating loss deduction) is amended by
redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (k) and by
inserting after subjection (i) the following new subsection:
``(j) Election To Disregard 5-Year Carryback for Net
Operating Loss Arising in 2001 or 2002.--Any taxpayer
entitled to a 5-year carryback under subsection (b)(1)(H)
from any loss year may elect to have the carryback period
with respect to such loss year determined without regard to
subsection (b)(1)(H). Such election shall be made in such
manner as may be prescribed by the Secretary and shall be
made by the due date (including extensions of time) for
filing the taxpayer's return for the taxable year of the net
operating loss. Such election, once made for any taxable
year, shall be irrevocable for such taxable year.''.
(c) Suspension of 90 Percent AMT Limit on 2001 and 2002 NOL
Carrybacks.--Subparagraph (A) of section 56(d)(1) (relating
to general rule defining alternative tax net operating loss
deduction) is amended to read as follows:
``(A) the amount of such deduction shall not exceed the sum
of--
``(i) the lesser of--

``(I) the amount of such deduction attributable to net
operating losses (other than the deduction attributable to
carrybacks of net operating losses for taxable years
beginning in 2001 or 2002), or
``(II) 90 percent of alternate minimum taxable income
determined without regard to such deduction, plus

``(ii) the lesser of--

``(I) the amount of such deduction attributable to
carrybacks of net operating losses for taxable years
beginning in 2001 or 2002, or
``(II) alternate minimum taxable income determined without
regard to such deduction reduced by the amount determined
under clause (i), and''.

(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to net operating losses for taxable years
beginning after 2000.

SEC. 133. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN EXPENSING UNDER SECTION 179.

(a) In General.--The table contained in section 179(b)(1)
(relating to dollar limitation) is amended to read as
follows:

``If thThe applicable
amount is:
2001 or 2002.............................................$50,000
2003 or thereafter..................................... 25,000.''

(b) Temporary Increase in Amount of Property Triggering
Phaseout of Maximum Benefit.--Paragraph (2) of section 179(b)
of such Code is amended by inserting before the period
``($400,000 in the case of taxable years beginning during
2001 or 2002)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.

SEC. 134. TEMPORARY WAIVER OF 90 PERCENT AMT LIMITATIONS.

Subparagraph (A) of section 56(b)(1) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 and paragraph (2) of section 59(a) of
such Code shall not apply in determining alternative minimum
tax liability for taxable years beginning in 2001 or 2002.

SEC. 135. EXPANSION OF INCENTIVES FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end
the following new subchapter:

``Subchapter Y--Public School Modernization Provisions

``Sec. 1400K. Credit to holders of qualified public school
modernization bonds.
``Sec. 1400L. Qualified school construction bonds.
``Sec. 1400M. Qualified zone academy bonds.

``SEC. 1400K. CREDIT TO HOLDERS OF QUALIFIED PUBLIC SCHOOL
MODERNIZATION BONDS.

``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of a taxpayer who
holds a qualified public school modernization bond on a
credit allowance date of such bond which occurs during the
taxable year, there shall be allowed as a credit against the
tax imposed by this chapter for such taxable year an amount
equal to the sum of the credits determined under subsection
(b) with respect to credit allowance dates during such year
on which the taxpayer holds such bond.
``(b) Amount of Credit.--
``(1) In general.--The amount of the credit determined
under this subsection with respect to any credit allowance
date for a qualified public school modernization bond is 25
percent of the annual credit determined with respect to such
bond.
``(2) Annual credit.--The annual credit determined with
respect to any qualified public school modernization bond is
the product of--
``(A) the applicable credit rate, multiplied by
``(B) the outstanding face amount of the bond.
``(3) Applicable credit rate.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the applicable credit rate with respect to an issue is
the rate equal to an average market yield (as of the day
before the date of issuance of the issue) on outstanding
long-term corporate debt obligations (determined under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary).
``(4) Special rule for issuance and redemption.--In the
case of a bond which is issued during the 3-month period
ending on a credit allowance date, the amount of the credit
determined under this subsection with respect to such credit
allowance date shall be a ratable portion of the credit
otherwise determined based on the portion of the 3-month
period during which the bond is outstanding. A similar rule
shall apply when the bond is redeemed.
``(c) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax.--
``(1) In general.--The credit allowed under subsection (a)
for any taxable year shall not exceed the excess of--
``(A) the sum of the regular tax liability (as defined in
section 26(b)) plus the tax imposed by section 55, over
``(B) the sum of the credits allowable under part IV of
subchapter A (other than subpart C thereof, relating to
refundable credits).
``(2) Carryover of unused credit.--If the credit allowable
under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation imposed by
paragraph (1) for such taxable year, such excess shall be
carried to the succeeding taxable year and added to the
credit allowable under subsection (a) for such taxable year.
``(d) Qualified Public School Modernization Bond; Credit
Allowance Date.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Qualified public school modernization bond.--The term
`qualified public school modernization bond' means--
``(A) a qualified zone academy bond, and
``(B) a qualified school construction bond.
``(2) Credit allowance date.--The term `credit allowance
date' means--
``(A) March 15,
``(B) June 15,
``(C) September 15, and
``(D) December 15.

Such term includes the last day on which the bond is
outstanding.
``(e) Other Definitions.--For purposes of this subchapter--
``(1) Local educational agency.--The term `local
educational agency' has the meaning given to such term by
section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965. Such term includes the local educational agency that
serves the District of Columbia but does not include any
other State agency.
``(2) Bond.--The term `bond' includes any obligation.
``(3) State.--The term `State' includes the District of
Columbia and any possession of the United States.
``(4) Public school facility.--The term `public school
facility' shall not include--
``(A) any stadium or other facility primarily used for
athletic contests or exhibitions or other events for which
admission is charged to the general public, or
``(B) any facility which is not owned by a State or local
government or any agency or instrumentality of a State or
local government.
``(f) Credit Included in Gross Income.--Gross income
includes the amount of the credit allowed to the taxpayer
under this section (determined without regard to subsection
(c)) and the amount so included shall be treated as interest
income.
``(g) Recapture of Portion of Credit Where Cessation of
Compliance.--
``(1) In general.--If any bond which when issued purported
to be a qualified public school modernization bond ceases to
be a qualified public school modernization bond, the issuer
shall pay to the United States (at the time required by the
Secretary) an amount equal to the sum of--
``(A) the aggregate of the credits allowable under this
section with respect to such bond (determined without regard
to subsection (c)) for taxable years ending during the
calendar year in which such cessation occurs and the 2
preceding calendar years, and
``(B) interest at the underpayment rate under section 6621
on the amount determined under subparagraph (A) for each
calendar year for the period beginning on the first day of
such calendar year.
``(2) Failure to pay.--If the issuer fails to timely pay
the amount required by paragraph (1) with respect to such
bond, the tax imposed by this chapter on each holder of any
such bond which is part of such issue shall be increased (for
the taxable year of the holder in which such cessation
occurs) by the aggregate decrease in the credits allowed
under this section to such holder for taxable years beginning
in such 3 calendar years

[[Page H7263]]

which would have resulted solely from denying any credit
under this section with respect to such issue for such
taxable years.
``(3) Special rules.--
``(A) Tax benefit rule.--The tax for the taxable year shall
be increased under paragraph (2) only with respect to credits
allowed by reason of this section which were used to reduce
tax liability. In the case of credits not so used to reduce
tax liability, the carryforwards and carrybacks under section
39 shall be appropriately adjusted.
``(B) No credits against tax.--Any increase in tax under
paragraph (2) shall not be treated as a tax imposed by this
chapter for purposes of determining --
``(i) the amount of any credit allowable under this part,
or
``(ii) the amount of the tax imposed by section 55.
``(h) Bonds Held by Regulated Investment Companies.--If any
qualified public school modernization bond is held by a
regulated investment company, the credit determined under
subsection (a) shall be allowed to shareholders of such
company under procedures prescribed by the Secretary.
``(i) Credits May Be Stripped.--Under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary--
``(1) In general.--There may be a separation (including at
issuance) of the ownership of a qualified public school
modernization bond and the entitlement to the credit under
this section with respect to such bond. In case of any such
separation, the credit under this section shall be allowed to
the person who on the credit allowance date holds the
instrument evidencing the entitlement to the credit and not
to the holder of the bond.
``(2) Certain rules to apply.--In the case of a separation
described in paragraph (1), the rules of section 1286 shall
apply to the qualified public school modernization bond as if
it were a stripped bond and to the credit under this section
as if it were a stripped coupon.
``(j) Treatment for Estimated Tax Purposes.--Solely for
purposes of sections 6654 and 6655, the credit allowed by
this section to a taxpayer by reason of holding a qualified
public school modernization bonds on a credit allowance date
shall be treated as if it were a payment of estimated tax
made by the taxpayer on such date.
``(k) Credit May Be Transferred.--Nothing in any law or
rule of law shall be construed to limit the transferability
of the credit allowed by this section through sale and
repurchase agreements.
``(k) Reporting.--Issuers of qualified public school
modernization bonds shall submit reports similar to the
reports required under section 149(e).
``(l) Penalty on Contractors Failing To Pay Prevailing
Wage.--
``(1) In general.--If the Secretary of Labor certifies to
the Secretary that any contractor on any project funded by
any qualified public school modernization bond has failed,
during any portion of such contractor's taxable year, to pay
prevailing wages as would be required under section 439 of
the General Education Provisions Act if such funding were an
applicable program under such section, the tax imposed by
chapter 1 on such contractor for such taxable year shall be
increased by 100 percent of the amount involved in such
failure. The preceding sentence shall not apply to the extent
the Secretary of Labor determines that such failure is due to
reasonable cause and not willful neglect.
``(2) Amount involved.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the
amount involved with respect to any failure is the excess of
the amount of wages such contractor would be so required to
pay under such section over the amount of wages paid.
``(3) No credits against tax.--The tax imposed by this
section shall not be treated as a tax imposed by this chapter
for purposes of determining--
``(A) the amount of any credit allowable under this
chapter, or
``(B) the amount of the minimum tax imposed by section 55.
``(m) Termination.--This section shall not apply to any
bond issued after September 30, 2006.

``SEC. 1400L. QUALIFIED SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION BONDS.

``(a) Qualified School Construction Bond.--For purposes of
this subchapter, the term `qualified school construction
bond' means any bond issued as part of an issue if--
``(1) 95 percent or more of the proceeds of such issue are
to be used for the construction, rehabilitation, or repair of
a public school facility or for the acquisition of land on
which such a facility is to be constructed with part of the
proceeds of such issue,
``(2) the bond is issued by a State or local government
within the jurisdiction of which such school is located,
``(3) the issuer designates such bond for purposes of this
section, and
``(4) the term of each bond which is part of such issue
does not exceed 15 years.
``(b) Limitation on Amount of Bonds Designated.--The
maximum aggregate face amount of bonds issued during any
calendar year which may be designated under subsection (a) by
any issuer shall not exceed the sum of--
``(1) the limitation amount allocated under subsection (d)
for such calendar year to such issuer, and
``(2) if such issuer is a large local educational agency
(as defined in subsection (e)(4)) or is issuing on behalf of
such an agency, the limitation amount allocated under
subsection (e) for such calendar year to such agency.
``(c) National Limitation on Amount of Bonds Designated.--
There is a national qualified school construction bond
limitation for each calendar year. Such limitation is--
``(1) $11,000,000,000 for 2002, and
``(2) except as provided in subsection (f), zero after
2002.
``(d) 60 Percent of Limitation Allocated Among States.--
``(1) In general.--60 percent of the limitation applicable
under subsection (c) for any calendar year shall be allocated
by the Secretary among the States in proportion to the
respective numbers of children in each State who have
attained age 5 but not age 18 for the most recent fiscal year
ending before such calendar year. The limitation amount
allocated to a State under the preceding sentence shall be
allocated by the State to issuers within such State.
``(2) Minimum allocations to states.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall adjust the
allocations under this subsection for any calendar year for
each State to the extent necessary to ensure that the sum
of--
``(i) the amount allocated to such State under this
subsection for such year, and
``(ii) the aggregate amounts allocated under subsection (e)
to large local educational agencies in such State for such
year,

is not less than an amount equal to such State's minimum
percentage of the amount to be allocated under paragraph (1)
for the calendar year.
``(B) Minimum percentage.--A State's minimum percentage for
any calendar year is the minimum percentage described in
section 1124(d) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6334(d)) for such State for the most
recent fiscal year ending before such calendar year.
``(3) Allocations to certain possessions.--The amount to be
allocated under paragraph (1) to any possession of the United
States other than Puerto Rico shall be the amount which would
have been allocated if all allocations under paragraph (1)
were made on the basis of respective populations of
individuals below the poverty line (as defined by the Office
of Management and Budget). In making other allocations, the
amount to be allocated under paragraph (1) shall be reduced
by the aggregate amount allocated under this paragraph to
possessions of the United States.
``(4) Allocations for indian schools.--In addition to the
amounts otherwise allocated under this subsection,
$200,000,000 for calendar year 2002, and $200,000,000 for
calendar year 2003, shall be allocated by the Secretary of
the Interior for purposes of the construction,
rehabilitation, and repair of schools funded by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs. In the case of amounts allocated under the
preceding sentence, Indian tribal governments (as defined in
section 7871) shall be treated as qualified issuers for
purposes of this subchapter.
``(e) 40 Percent of Limitation Allocated Among Largest
School Districts.--
``(1) In general.--40 percent of the limitation applicable
under subsection (c) for any calendar year shall be allocated
under paragraph (2) by the Secretary among local educational
agencies which are large local educational agencies for such
year.
``(2) Allocation formula.--The amount to be allocated under
paragraph (1) for any calendar year shall be allocated among
large local educational agencies in proportion to the
respective amounts each such agency received for Basic Grants
under subpart 2 of part A of title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6331 et seq.) for
the most recent fiscal year ending before such calendar year.
``(3) Allocation of unused limitation to state.--The amount
allocated under this subsection to a large local educational
agency for any calendar year may be reallocated by such
agency to the State in which such agency is located for such
calendar year. Any amount reallocated to a State under the
preceding sentence may be allocated as provided in subsection
(d)(1).
``(4) Large local educational agency.--For purposes of this
section, the term `large local educational agency' means,
with respect to a calendar year, any local educational agency
if such agency is--
``(A) among the 100 local educational agencies with the
largest numbers of children aged 5 through 17 from families
living below the poverty level, as determined by the
Secretary using the most recent data available from the
Department of Commerce that are satisfactory to the
Secretary, or
``(B) 1 of not more than 25 local educational agencies
(other than those described in subparagraph (A)) that the
Secretary of Education determines (based on the most recent
data available satisfactory to the Secretary) are in
particular need of assistance, based on a low level of
resources for school construction, a high level of enrollment
growth, or such other factors as the Secretary deems
appropriate.
``(f) Carryover of Unused Limitation.--If for any calendar
year--
``(1) the amount allocated under subsection (d) to any
State, exceeds
``(2) the amount of bonds issued during such year which are
designated under subsection (a) pursuant to such allocation,

the limitation amount under such subsection for such State
for the following calendar

[[Page H7264]]

year shall be increased by the amount of such excess. A
similar rule shall apply to the amounts allocated under
subsection (d)(4) or (e).
``(g) Special Rules Relating to Arbitrage.--
``(1) In general.--A bond shall not be treated as failing
to meet the requirement of subsection (a)(1) solely by reason
of the fact that the proceeds of the issue of which such bond
is a part are invested for a temporary period (but not more
than 36 months) until such proceeds are needed for the
purpose for which such issue was issued.
``(2) Binding commitment requirement.--Paragraph (1) shall
apply to an issue only if, as of the date of issuance, there
is a reasonable expectation that--
``(A) at least 10 percent of the proceeds of the issue will
be spent within the 6-month period beginning on such date for
the purpose for which such issue was issued, and
``(B) the remaining proceeds of the issue will be spent
with due diligence for such purpose.
``(3) Earnings on proceeds.--Any earnings on proceeds
during the temporary period shall be treated as proceeds of
the issue for purposes of applying subsection (a)(1) and
paragraph (1) of this subsection.

``SEC. 1400M. QUALIFIED ZONE ACADEMY BONDS.

``(a) Qualified Zone Academy Bond.--For purposes of this
subchapter--
``(1) In general.--The term `qualified zone academy bond'
means any bond issued as part of an issue if--
``(A) 95 percent or more of the proceeds of such issue are
to be used for a qualified purpose with respect to a
qualified zone academy established by a local educational
agency,
``(B) the bond is issued by a State or local government
within the jurisdiction of which such academy is located,
``(C) the issuer--
``(i) designates such bond for purposes of this section,
``(ii) certifies that it has written assurances that the
private business contribution requirement of paragraph (2)
will be met with respect to such academy, and
``(iii) certifies that it has the written approval of the
local educational agency for such bond issuance, and
``(D) the term of each bond which is part of such issue
does not exceed 15 years.

Rules similar to the rules of section 1400L(g) shall apply
for purposes of paragraph (1).
``(2) Private business contribution requirement.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the
private business contribution requirement of this paragraph
is met with respect to any issue if the local educational
agency that established the qualified zone academy has
written commitments from private entities to make qualified
contributions having a present value (as of the date of
issuance of the issue) of not less than 10 percent of the
proceeds of the issue.
``(B) Qualified contributions.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), the term `qualified contribution' means any
contribution (of a type and quality acceptable to the local
educational agency) of--
``(i) equipment for use in the qualified zone academy
(including state-of-the-art technology and vocational
equipment),
``(ii) technical assistance in developing curriculum or in
training teachers in order to promote appropriate market
driven technology in the classroom,
``(iii) services of employees as volunteer mentors,
``(iv) internships, field trips, or other educational
opportunities outside the academy for students, or
``(v) any other property or service specified by the local
educational agency.
``(3) Qualified zone academy.--The term `qualified zone
academy' means any public school (or academic program within
a public school) which is established by and operated under
the supervision of a local educational agency to provide
education or training below the postsecondary level if--
``(A) such public school or program (as the case may be) is
designed in cooperation with business to enhance the academic
curriculum, increase graduation and employment rates, and
better prepare students for the rigors of college and the
increasingly complex workforce,
``(B) students in such public school or program (as the
case may be) will be subject to the same academic standards
and assessments as other students educated by the local
educational agency,
``(C) the comprehensive education plan of such public
school or program is approved by the local educational
agency, and
``(D)(i) such public school is located in an empowerment
zone or enterprise community (including any such zone or
community designated after the date of the enactment of this
section), or
``(ii) there is a reasonable expectation (as of the date of
issuance of the bonds) that at least 35 percent of the
students attending such school or participating in such
program (as the case may be) will be eligible for free or
reduced-cost lunches under the school lunch program
established under the National School Lunch Act.
``(4) Qualified purpose.--The term `qualified purpose'
means, with respect to any qualified zone academy--
``(A) constructing, rehabilitating, or repairing the public
school facility in which the academy is established,
``(B) acquiring the land on which such facility is to be
constructed with part of the proceeds of such issue,
``(C) providing equipment for use at such academy,
``(D) developing course materials for education to be
provided at such academy, and
``(E) training teachers and other school personnel in such
academy.
``(b) Limitations on Amount of Bonds Designated.--
``(1) In general.--There is a national zone academy bond
limitation for each calendar year. Such limitation is--
``(A) $400,000,000 for 1998,
``(B) $400,000,000 for 1999,
``(C) $400,000,000 for 2000,
``(D) $400,000,000 for 2001,
``(E) $1,400,000,000 for 2002, and
``(F) except as provided in paragraph (3), zero after 2002.
``(2) Allocation of limitation.--
``(A) Allocation among states.--
``(i) 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 limitations.--The national
zone academy bond limitations for calendar years 1998, 1999,
2000, and 2001 shall be allocated by the Secretary among the
States on the basis of their respective populations of
individuals below the poverty line (as defined by the Office
of Management and Budget).
``(ii) Limitation after 2001.--The national zone academy
bond limitation for any calendar year after 2001 shall be
allocated by the Secretary among the States in proportion to
the respective amounts each such State received for Basic
Grants under subpart 2 of part A of title I of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6331 et seq.)
for the most recent fiscal year ending before such calendar
year.
``(B) Allocation to local educational agencies.--The
limitation amount allocated to a State under subparagraph (A)
shall be allocated by the State to qualified zone academies
within such State.
``(C) Designation subject to limitation amount.--The
maximum aggregate face amount of bonds issued during any
calendar year which may be designated under subsection (a)
with respect to any qualified zone academy shall not exceed
the limitation amount allocated to such academy under
subparagraph (B) for such calendar year.
``(3) Carryover of unused limitation.--If for any calendar
year--
``(A) the limitation amount under this subsection for any
State, exceeds
``(B) the amount of bonds issued during such year which are
designated under subsection (a) (or the corresponding
provisions of prior law) with respect to qualified zone
academies within such State,

the limitation amount under this subsection for such State
for the following calendar year shall be increased by the
amount of such excess.''
(b) Reporting.--Subsection (d) of section 6049 (relating to
returns regarding payments of interest) is amended by adding
at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) Reporting of credit on qualified public school
modernization bonds.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term
`interest' includes amounts includible in gross income under
section 1400K(f) and such amounts shall be treated as paid on
the credit allowance date (as defined in section
1400K(d)(2)).
``(B) Reporting to corporations, etc.--Except as otherwise
provided in regulations, in the case of any interest
described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, subsection
(b)(4) of this section shall be applied without regard to
subparagraphs (A), (H), (I), (J), (K), and (L)(i).
``(C) Regulatory authority.--The Secretary may prescribe
such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to carry out
the purposes of this paragraph, including regulations which
require more frequent or more detailed reporting.''
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Subchapter U of chapter 1 is amended by striking part
IV, by redesignating part V as part IV, and by redesignating
section 1397F as section 1397E.
(2) The table of subchapters for chapter 1 is amended by
adding at the end the following new item:

``Subchapter Y. Public school modernization provisions.''

(3) The table of parts of subchapter U of chapter 1 is
amended by striking the last 2 items and inserting the
following item:

``Part IV. Regulations.''
(e) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to obligations issued after December 31, 2001.
(2) Repeal of restriction on zone academy bond holders.--In
the case of bonds to which section 1397E of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (as in effect before the date of the
enactment of this Act) applies, the limitation of such
section to eligible taxpayers (as defined in subsection
(d)(6) of such section) shall not apply after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

TITLE II--WORKER RELIEF

Subtitle A--Temporary Unemployment Compensation

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``Temporary Unemployment
Compensation Act of 2001''.

SEC. 202. FEDERAL-STATE AGREEMENTS.

(a) In General.--Any State which desires to do so may enter
into and participate in an

[[Page H7265]]

agreement under this subtitle with the Secretary of Labor
(hereinafter in this subtitle referred to as the
``Secretary''). Any State which is a party to an agreement
under this subtitle may, upon providing 30 days' written
notice to the Secretary, terminate such agreement.
(b) Provisions of Agreement.--
(1) In general.--Any agreement under subsection (a) shall
provide that the State agency of the State will make--
(A) payments of regular compensation to individuals in
amounts and to the extent that they would be determined if
the State law were applied with the modifications described
in paragraph (2), and
(B) payments of temporary supplemental unemployment
compensation to individuals who--
(i) have exhausted all rights to regular compensation under
the State law,
(ii) do not, with respect to a week, have any rights to
compensation (excluding extended compensation) under the
State law of any other State (whether one that has entered
into an agreement under this subtitle or otherwise) nor
compensation under any other Federal law (other than under
the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of
1970), and are not paid or entitled to be paid any additional
compensation under any State or Federal law, and
(iii) are not receiving compensation with respect to such
week under the unemployment compensation law of Canada.
(2) Modifications described.--The modifications described
in this paragraph are as follows:
(A) An individual shall be eligible for regular
compensation if the individual would be so eligible,
determined by applying--
(i) the base period that would otherwise apply under the
State law if this subtitle had not been enacted, or
(ii) a base period ending at the close of the calendar
quarter most recently completed before the date of the
individual's application for benefits,

whichever results in the greater amount.
(B) An individual shall not be denied regular compensation
under the State law's provisions relating to availability for
work, active search for work, or refusal to accept work,
solely by virtue of the fact that such individual is seeking,
or available for, only part-time (and not full-time) work.
(C)(i) Subject to clause (ii), the amount of regular
compensation (including dependents' allowances) payable for
any week shall be equal to the amount determined under the
State law (before the application of this subparagraph), plus
an additional--
(I) 25 percent, or
(II) $65,

whichever is greater.
(ii) In no event may the total amount determined under
clause (i) with respect to any individual exceed the average
weekly insured wages of that individual in that calendar
quarter of the base period in which such individual's insured
wages were the highest (or one such quarter if his wages were
the same for more than one such quarter).
(c) Nonreduction Rule.--Under the agreement, subsection
(b)(2)(C) shall not apply (or shall cease to apply) with
respect to a State upon a determination by the Secretary that
the method governing the computation of regular compensation
under the State law of that State has been modified in a way
such that--
(1) the average weekly amount of regular compensation which
will be payable during the period of the agreement
(determined disregarding the modifications described in
subsection (b)(2)) will be less than
(2) the average weekly amount of regular compensation which
would otherwise have been payable during such period under
the State law, as in effect on September 11, 2001.
(d) Coordination Rules.--
(1) Regular compensation payable under a federal law.--The
modifications described in subsection (b)(2) shall also apply
in determining the amount of benefits payable under any
Federal law to the extent that those benefits are determined
by reference to regular compensation payable under the State
law of the State involved.
(2) TSUC to serve as second-tier benefits.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, extended benefits shall not be
payable to any individual for any week for which temporary
supplemental unemployment compensation is payable to such
individual.
(e) Exhaustion of Benefits.--For purposes of subsection
(b)(1)(B)(i), an individual shall be considered to have
exhausted such individual's rights to regular compensation
under a State law when--
(1) no payments of regular compensation can be made under
such law because such individual has received all regular
compensation available to such individual based on employment
or wages during such individual's base period, or
(2) such individual's rights to such compensation have been
terminated by reason of the expiration of the benefit year
with respect to which such rights existed.
(f) Weekly Benefit Amount, Terms and Conditions, etc.
Relating to TSUC.--For purposes of any agreement under this
subtitle--
(1) the amount of temporary supplemental unemployment
compensation which shall be payable to an individual for any
week of total unemployment shall be equal to the amount of
regular compensation (including dependents' allowances)
payable to such individual under the State law for a week for
total unemployment during such individual's benefit year,
(2) the terms and conditions of the State law which apply
to claims for regular compensation and to the payment thereof
shall apply to claims for temporary supplemental unemployment
compensation and the payment thereof, except where
inconsistent with the provisions of this subtitle or with the
regulations or operating instructions of the Secretary
promulgated to carry out this subtitle, and
(3) the maximum amount of temporary supplemental
unemployment compensation payable to any individual for whom
a temporary supplemental unemployment compensation account is
established under section 203 shall not exceed the amount
established in such account for such individual.

SEC. 203. TEMPORARY SUPPLEMENTAL UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
ACCOUNT.

(a) In General.--Any agreement under this subtitle shall
provide that the State will establish, for each eligible
individual who files an application for temporary
supplemental unemployment compensation, a temporary
supplemental unemployment compensation account.
(b) Amount in Account.--
(1) In general.--The amount established in an account under
subsection (a) shall be equal to the product obtained by
multiplying an individual's weekly benefit amount by the
applicable factor under paragraph (3).
(2) Weekly benefit amount.--For purposes of this
subsection, an individual's weekly benefit amount for any
week is the amount of regular compensation (including
dependents' allowances) under the State law payable to such
individual for a week of total unemployment in such
individual's benefit year.
(3) Applicable factor.--
(A) General rule.--The applicable factor under this
paragraph is 13, unless the individual's benefit year begins
or ends during a period of high unemployment within such
individual's State, in which case the applicable factor is
26.
(B) Period of high unemployment.--For purposes of this
paragraph, a period of high unemployment within a State shall
begin and end, if at all, in a way (to be set forth in the
State's agreement under this subtitle) similar to the way in
which an extended benefit period would under section 203 of
the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of
1970, subject to the following:
(i) To determine if there is a State ``on'' or ``off''
indicator, apply section 203(f) of such Act, but--

(I) substitute ``5 percent'' for ``6.5 percent'' in
paragraph (1)(A)(i) thereof, and
(II) disregard paragraph (1)(A)(ii) thereof and the last
sentence of paragraph (1) thereof.

(ii) To determine the beginning and ending dates of a
period of high unemployment within a State, apply section
203(a) and (b) of such Act, except that--

(I) in applying such section 203(a), deem paragraphs (1)
and (2) thereof to be amended by striking ``the third week
after'', and
(II) in applying such section 203(b), deem paragraph (1)(A)
thereof amended by striking ``thirteen'' and inserting
``twenty-six'' and paragraph (1)(B) thereof amended by
striking ``fourteenth'' and inserting ``twenty-seventh''.

(4) Rule of construction.--For purposes of any computation
under paragraph (1) (and any determination of amount under
section 202(f)(1)), the modification described in section
202(b)(2)(C) (relating to increased benefits) shall be deemed
to have been in effect with respect to the entirety of the
benefit year involved.
(c) Eligibility Period.--An individual whose applicable
factor under subsection (b)(3) is 26 shall be eligible for
temporary supplemental unemployment compensation for each
week of total unemployment in his benefit year which begins
in the State's period of high unemployment and, if his
benefit year ends within such period, any such weeks
thereafter which begin in such period of high unemployment,
not to exceed a total of 26 weeks.

SEC. 204. PAYMENTS TO STATES HAVING AGREEMENTS UNDER THIS
SUBTITLE.

(a) General Rule.--There shall be paid to each State which
has entered into an agreement under this subtitle an amount
equal to--
(1) 100 percent of any regular compensation made payable to
individuals by such State by virtue of the modifications
which are described in section 202(b)(2) and deemed to be in
effect with respect to such State pursuant to section
202(b)(1)(A),
(2) 100 percent of any regular compensation--
(A) which is paid to individuals by such State by reason of
the fact that its State law contains provisions comparable to
the modifications described in section 202(b)(2)(A)-(B), but
only
(B) to the extent that those amounts would, if such amounts
were instead payable by virtue of the State law's being
deemed to be so modified pursuant to section 202(b)(1)(A),
have been reimbursable under paragraph (1), and
(3) 100 percent of the temporary supplemental unemployment
compensation paid to individuals by the State pursuant to
such agreement.
(b) Determination of Amount.--Sums under subsection (a)
payable to any State by reason of such State having an
agreement under this subtitle shall be payable, either in
advance or by way of reimbursement (as may

[[Page H7266]]

be determined by the Secretary), in such amounts as the
Secretary estimates the State will be entitled to receive
under this subtitle for each calendar month, reduced or
increased, as the case may be, by any amount by which the
Secretary finds that the Secretary's estimates for any prior
calendar month were greater or less than the amounts which
should have been paid to the State. Such estimates may be
made on the basis of such statistical, sampling, or other
method as may be agreed upon by the Secretary and the State
agency of the State involved.
(c) Administrative Expenses, etc.--There is hereby
appropriated out of the employment security administration
account of the Unemployment Trust Fund (as established by
section 901(a) of the Social Security Act) $500,000,000 to
reimburse States for the costs of the administration of
agreements under this subtitle (including any improvements in
technology in connection therewith) and to provide
reemployment services to unemployment compensation claimants
in States having agreements under this subtitle. Each State's
share of the amount appropriated by the preceding sentence
shall be determined by the Secretary according to the factors
described in section 302(a) of the Social Security Act and
certified by the Secretary to the Secretary of the Treasury.

SEC. 205. FINANCING PROVISIONS.

(a) In General.--Funds in the extended unemployment
compensation account (as established by section 905(a) of the
Social Security Act), and the Federal unemployment account
(as established by section 904(g) of the Social Security
Act), of the Unemployment Trust Fund shall be used, in
accordance with subsection (b), for the making of payments
(described in section 204(a)) to States having agreements
entered into under this subtitle.
(b) Certification.--The Secretary shall from time to time
certify to the Secretary of the Treasury for payment to each
State the sums described in section 204(a) which are payable
to such State under this subtitle. The Secretary of the
Treasury, prior to audit or settlement by the General
Accounting Office, shall make payments to the State in
accordance with such certification by transfers from the
extended unemployment compensation account (or, to the extent
that there are insufficient funds in that account, from the
Federal unemployment account) to the account of such State in
the Unemployment Trust Fund.

SEC. 206. FRAUD AND OVERPAYMENTS.

(a) In General.--If an individual knowingly has made, or
caused to be made by another, a false statement or
representation of a material fact, or knowingly has failed,
or caused another to fail, to disclose a material fact, and
as a result of such false statement or representation or of
such nondisclosure such individual has received any regular
compensation or temporary supplemental unemployment
compensation under this subtitle to which he was not
entitled, such individual--
(1) shall be ineligible for any further benefits under this
subtitle in accordance with the provisions of the applicable
State unemployment compensation law relating to fraud in
connection with a claim for unemployment compensation, and
(2) shall be subject to prosecution under section 1001 of
title 18, United States Code.
(b) Repayment.--In the case of individuals who have
received any regular compensation or temporary supplemental
unemployment compensation under this subtitle to which they
were not entitled, the State shall require such individuals
to repay those benefits to the State agency, except that the
State agency may waive such repayment if it determines that--
(1) the payment of such benefits was without fault on the
part of any such individual, and
(2) such repayment would be contrary to equity and good
conscience.
(c) Recovery by State Agency.--
(1) In general.--The State agency may recover the amount to
be repaid, or any part thereof, by deductions from any
regular compensation or temporary supplemental unemployment
compensation payable to such individual under this subtitle
or from any unemployment compensation payable to such
individual under any Federal unemployment compensation law
administered by the State agency or under any other Federal
law administered by the State agency which provides for the
payment of any assistance or allowance with respect to any
week of unemployment, during the 3-year period after the date
such individuals received the payment of the regular
compensation or temporary supplemental unemployment
compensation to which they were not entitled, except that no
single deduction may exceed 50 percent of the weekly benefit
amount from which such deduction is made.
(2) Opportunity for hearing.--No repayment shall be
required, and no deduction shall be made, until a
determination has been made, notice thereof and an
opportunity for a fair hearing has been given to the
individual, and the determination has become final.
(d) Review.--Any determination by a State agency under this
section shall be subject to review in the same manner and to
the same extent as determinations under the State
unemployment compensation law, and only in that manner and to
that extent.

SEC. 207. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this subtitle:
(1) In general.--The terms ``compensation'', ``regular
compensation'', ``extended compensation'', ``additional
compensation'', ``benefit year'', ``base period'', ``State'',
``State agency'', ``State law'', and ``week'' have the
respective meanings given such terms under section 205 of the
Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970,
subject to paragraph (2).
(2) State law and regular compensation.--In the case of a
State entering into an agreement under this subtitle--
(A) ``State law'' shall be considered to refer to the State
law of such State, applied in conformance with the
modifications described in section 202(b)(2), subject to
section 202(c), and
(B) ``regular compensation'' shall be considered to refer
to such compensation, determined under its State law (applied
in the manner described in subparagraph (A)),
except as otherwise provided or where the context clearly
indicates otherwise.

SEC. 208. APPLICABILITY.

(a) In General.--An agreement entered into under this
subtitle shall apply to weeks of unemployment--
(1) beginning after the date on which such agreement is
entered into, and
(2) ending before January 1, 2003.
(b) Specific Rules.--Under such an agreement--
(1) the modification described in section 202(b)(2)(A)
(relating to alternative base periods) shall not apply except
in the case of initial claims filed after September 11, 2001,
(2) the modifications described in section 202(b)(2)(B)-(C)
(relating to part-time employment and increased benefits,
respectively) shall apply to weeks of unemployment (described
in subsection (a)), irrespective of the date on which an
individual's claim for benefits is filed, and
(3) the payments described in section 202(b)(1)(B)
(relating to temporary supplemental unemployment
compensation) shall not apply except in the case of
individuals exhausting their rights to regular compensation
(as described in clause (i) thereof) after September 11,
2001.

Subtitle B--PREMIUM ASSISTANCE FOR COBRA CONTINUATION COVERAGE

SEC. 211. PREMIUM ASSISTANCE FOR COBRA CONTINUATION COVERAGE.

(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury, in
consultation with the Secretary of Labor, shall establish a
program under which premium assistance for COBRA continuation
coverage shall be provided for qualified individuals under
this section.
(2) Qualified individuals.--For purposes of this section, a
qualified individual is an individual who--
(A) establishes that the individual--
(i) on or after July 1, 2001, and before the end of the 1-
year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this
Act, became entitled to elect COBRA continuation coverage;
and
(ii) has elected such coverage; and
(B) enrolls in the premium assistance program under this
section by not later than the end of such 1-year period.
(b) Limitation of Period of Premium Assistance.--Premium
assistance provided under this subsection shall end with
respect to an individual on the earlier of--
(1) the date the individual is no longer covered under
COBRA continuation coverage; or
(2) 12 months after the date the individual is first
enrolled in the premium assistance program established under
this section.
(c) Payment, and Crediting of Assistance.--
(1) Amount of assistance.--Premium assistance provided
under this section shall be equal to 75 percent of the amount
of the premium required for the COBRA continuation coverage.
(2) Provision of assistance.--Premium assistance provided
under this section shall be provided through the
establishment of direct payment arrangements with the
administrator of the group health plan (or other entity) that
provides or administers the COBRA continuation coverage. It
shall be a fiduciary duty of such administrator (or other
entity) to enter into such arrangements under this section.
(3) Premiums payable by qualified individual reduced by
amount of assistance.--Premium assistance provided under this
section shall be credited by such administrator (or other
entity) against the premium otherwise owed by the individual
involved for such coverage.
(d) Change in COBRA Notice.--
(1) General notice.--
(A) In general.--In the case of notices provided under
section 4980B(f)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with
respect to individuals who, on or after July 1, 2001, and
before the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of
the enactment of this Act, become entitled to elect COBRA
continuation coverage, such notices shall include an
additional notification to the recipient of the availability
of premium assistance for such coverage under this section.
(B) Alternative notice.--In the case of COBRA continuation
coverage to which the notice provision under section
4980B(f)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 does not
apply, the Secretary of the Treasury shall, in coordination
with administrators of the group health plans (or other
entities) that

[[Page H7267]]

provide or administer the COBRA continuation coverage
involved, assure provision of such notice.
(C) Form.--The requirement of the additional notification
under this paragraph may be met by amendment of existing
notice forms or by inclusion of a separate document with the
notice otherwise required.
(2) Specific requirements.--Each additional notification
under paragraph (1) shall include--
(A) the forms necessary for establishing eligibility under
subsection (a)(2)(A) and enrollment under subsection
(a)(2)(B) in connection with the coverage with respect to
each covered employee or other qualified beneficiary;
(B) the name, address, and telephone number necessary to
contact the plan administrator and any other person
maintaining relevant information in connection with the
premium assistance; and
(C) the following statement displayed in a prominent
manner:
``You may be eligible to receive assistance with payment of
75 percent of your COBRA continuation coverage premiums for a
duration of not to exceed 12 months.''.
(3) Notice relating to retroactive coverage.--In the case
of such notices previously transmitted before the date of the
enactment of this Act in the case of an individual described
in paragraph (1) who has elected (or is still eligible to
elect) COBRA continuation coverage as of the date of the
enactment of this Act, the administrator of the group health
plan (or other entity) involved or the Secretary of the
Treasury (in the case described in the paragraph (1)(B))
shall provide (within 60 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act) for the additional notification required to be
provided under paragraph (1).
(4) Model notices.--The Secretary shall prescribe models
for the additional notification required under this
subsection.
(f) Obligation of Funds.--This section constitutes budget
authority in advance of appropriations Acts and represents
the obligation of the Federal Government to provide for the
payment of premium assistance under this section.
(g) Prompt Issuance of Guidance.--The Secretary of the
Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, shall
issue guidance under this section not later than 30 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(h) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``administrator'' has the
meaning given such term in section 3(16) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
(2) COBRA continuation coverage.--The term ``COBRA
continuation coverage'' means continuation coverage provided
pursuant to title XXII of the Public Health Service Act,
section 4980B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (other
than subsection (f)(1) of such section insofar as it relates
to pediatric vaccines), part 6 of subtitle B of title I of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (other
than under section 609), section 8905a of title 5, United
States Code, or under a State program that provides
continuation coverage comparable to such continuation
coverage.
(3) Group health plan.--The term ``group health plan'' has
the meaning given such term in section 9832(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(4) State.--The term ``State'' includes the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands.

Subtitle C--Additional Assistance for Temporary Health Insurance
Coverage

SEC. 221. OPTIONAL TEMPORARY MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR CERTAIN
UNINSURED EMPLOYEES.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, with respect to any month before the ending month, a
State may elect to provide, under its medicaid program under
title XIX of the Social Security Act, medical assistance in
the case of an individual--
(1)(A) who has become totally or partially separated from
employment on or after July 1, 2001, and before the end of
such ending month; or
(B) whose hours of employment have been reduced on or after
July 1, 2001, and before the end of such ending month;
(2) who is not eligible for COBRA continuation coverage;
and
(3) who is uninsured.
(b) Limitation of Period of Coverage.--Assistance under
this section shall end with respect to an individual on the
earlier of--
(1) the date the individual is no longer uninsured; or
(2) 12 months after the date the individual is first
determined to be eligible for medical assistance under this
section.
(c) Special Rules.--In the case of medical assistance
provided under this section--
(1) the Federal medical assistance percentage under section
1905(b) of the Social Security Act shall be the enhanced FMAP
(as defined in section 2105(b) of such Act);
(2) a State may elect to apply alternative income, asset,
and resource limitations and the provisions of section
1916(g) of such Act, except that in no case shall a State
cover individuals with higher family income without covering
individuals with a lower family income;
(3) such medical assistance shall not be provided for
periods before the date the individual becomes uninsured;
(4) a State may elect to make eligible for such assistance
a spouse or children of an individual eligible for medical
assistance under paragraph (1), if such spouse or children
are uninsured;
(5) individuals eligible for medical assistance under this
section shall be deemed to be described in the list of
individuals described in the matter preceding paragraph (1)
of section 1905(a) of such Act; and
(6) the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall not
count, for purposes of section 1108(f) of the Social Security
Act, such amount of payments under this section as bears a
reasonable relationship to the average national proportion of
payments made under this section for the 50 States and the
District of Columbia to the payments otherwise made under
title XIX for such States and District.
(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this subtitle:
(1) Uninsured.--The term ``uninsured'' means, with respect
to an individual, that the individual is not covered under--
(A) a group health plan (as defined in section 2791(a) of
the Public Health Service Act),
(B) health insurance coverage (as defined in section
2791(b)(1) of the Public Health Service Act), or
(C) a program under title XVIII, XIX, or XXI of the Social
Security Act, other than under such title XIX pursuant to
this section.

For purposes of this paragraph, such coverage under
subparagraph (A) or (B) shall not include coverage consisting
solely of coverage of excepted benefits (as defined in
section 2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act).
(2) COBRA continuation coverage.--The term ``COBRA
continuation coverage'' means coverage under a group health
plan provided by an employer pursuant to title XXII of the
Public Health Service Act, section 4980B of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, part 6 of subtitle B of title I of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, or section
8905a of title 5, United States Code.
(3) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given such
term for purposes of title XIX of the Social Security Act.
(4) Ending month.--The term ``ending month'' means the last
month that begins before the date that is 1 year after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(e) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect upon
its enactment, whether or not regulations implementing this
section are issued.
(f) Limitation on Election.--A State may not elect to
provide coverage under this section unless the State elects
to provide coverage under section 222.

SEC. 222. OPTIONAL TEMPORARY COVERAGE FOR UNSUBSIDIZED
PORTION OF COBRA CONTINUATION PREMIUMS.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, with respect to COBRA continuation coverage provided for
any month through the ending month, a State may elect to
provide payment of the unsubsidized portion of the premium
for COBRA continuation coverage in the case of any
individual--
(1)(A) who has become totally or partially separated from
employment on or after July 1, 2001, and before the end of
the ending month; or
(B) whose hours of employment have been reduced on or after
July 1, 2001, and before the end of such ending month; and
(2) who is eligible for, and has elected coverage under,
COBRA continuation coverage.
(b) Limitation of Period of Coverage.--Premium assistance
under this section shall end with respect to an individual on
the earlier of--
(1) the date the individual is no longer covered under
COBRA continuation coverage; or
(2) 12 months after the date the individual is first
determined to be eligible for premium assistance under this
section.
(c) Financial Payment to States.--A State providing premium
assistance under this section shall be entitled to payment
under section 1903(a) of the Social Security Act with respect
to such assistance (and administrative expenses relating to
such assistance) in the same manner as such State is entitled
to payment with respect to medical assistance (and such
administrative expenses) under such section, except that, for
purposes of this subsection, any reference to the Federal
medical assistance percentage shall be deemed a reference to
the enhanced FMAP (as defined in section 2105(b) of such
Act). The provisions of subsection (c)(6) of section 221
shall apply with respect to this section in the same manner
as it applies under such section.
(d) Unsubsidized Portion of Premium for COBRA Continuation
Coverage.--For purposes of this section, the term
`unsubsidized portion of premium for COBRA continuation
coverage' means that portion of the premium for COBRA
continuation coverage for which there is no financial
assistance available under 211.
(e) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect upon
its enactment, whether or not regulations implementing this
section are issued.
(f) Limitation on Election.--A State may not elect to
provide coverage under this section unless the State elects
to provide coverage under section 221.

[[Page H7268]]

TITLE III--FREEZE OF TOP INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATE AND DOMESTIC
SECURITY TRUST FUND

SEC. 301. FREEZE OF TOP INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATE AND
DOMESTIC SECURITY TRUST FUND.

(a) Freeze of Top Individual Income Tax Rate.--Paragraph
(2) of section 1(i) (relating to reductions in rates after
June 30, 2001) is amended--
(A) by striking ``37.6'' and inserting ``38.6'', and
(B) by striking ``35.0'' and inserting ``38.6''.
(b) Domestic Security Trust Fund.--Subchapter A of chapter
98 (relating to trust fund code) is amended by adding at the
end the following new section:

``SEC. 9511. DOMESTIC SECURITY TRUST FUND.

``(a) Creation of Trust Fund.--There is established in the
Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the
`Domestic Security Trust Fund', consisting of such amounts as
may be transferred or credited to the Trust Fund as provided
in this section and section 9602(b).
``(b) Transfers to Fund.--There are hereby transferred from
the General Fund of the Treasury to the Domestic Security
Trust Fund so much of the additional amounts received in the
Treasury by reason of the amendment made by section 301(a) of
the Fiscal Stimulus and Worker Relief Act of 2001 (relating
to freeze in top individual income tax rate) as does not
exceed the sum of--
``(1) $32,000,000,000, plus
``(2) the amount determined by the Secretary to be
necessary to pay the interest on any repayable advance made
to the Trust Fund.
``(c) Expenditures.--Amounts in the Domestic Security Trust
Fund shall be available, as provided by appropriation Acts,
for purposes of making the following expenditures to the
extent such expenditures are hereafter authorized by law:
``(1) $7,000,000,000 for domestic economic development
programs.
``(2) $25,000,000,000 for programs to significantly enhance
safety and security of transportation systems, facilities,
and environmental protection, including the emergency
management systems and emergency response training.
``(d) Repayable Advances.--
``(1) In general.--If amounts in the Trust Fund are not
sufficient for the purposes of subsection (c), the Secretary
shall transfer from the General Fund of the Treasury to the
Trust Fund such additional amounts as may be necessary for
such purposes. Such amounts shall be transferred as repayable
advances.
``(2) Repayment of advances.--
``(A) In general.--Advances made to the Trust Fund shall be
repaid, and interest on such advances shall be paid, to the
General Fund of the Treasury when the Secretary determines
that moneys are available for such purposes in the Trust
Fund.
``(B) Rate of interest.--Interest on advances made to the
Trust Fund shall be at a rate determined by the Secretary of
the Treasury (as of the close of the calendar month preceding
the month in which the advance is made) to be equal to the
current average market yield on outstanding marketable
obligations of the United States with remaining periods to
maturity comparable to the anticipated period during which
the advance will be outstanding and shall be compounded
annually.''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for
subchapter A of chapter 98 is amended by adding at the end
the following new item:

``Sec. 9511. Domestic security trust fund.''.

(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 270, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and a Member opposed each will
control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, as I was saying at the close of the other
debate, instead of supporting the shameless Republican package, we
should support the Democratic stimulus package put forth here today. It
honors the principles of bipartisanship in that it is short term,
provides a quick boost to the economy, and does not, does not sacrifice
our long-term fiscal stability.
It is paid for, Mr. Speaker. It is paid for.
What it does is there are many good ideas that are being brought to
the table, including a one-time rebate for people who were left out of
the last rebate because they only pay payroll taxes. It gives new
resources to help unemployed workers get access to health insurance and
unemployment benefits, and funds to help small business and increase
infrastructure investments to create jobs.
We must pass a bill that includes a proper balance between spending
and tax cuts and must target tax cuts that are included to low-income
families with the greatest need.
I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic stimulus package which
is, as I say, a stimulus in every respect, and to reject the Republican
shameless package on the floor today.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thomas) seek to control the time in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. THOMAS. I do, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I guess if I were adopting the tactics of our colleagues, I could
begin by saying we just saw this bill last night. It was not offered in
committee. I cannot believe that they would create a bill without
allowing us to work with them in a bipartisan way. I cannot believe
they would generate a purely partisan document. But indeed, all of
those are the facts.
I guess I could spend a lot of time talking about the Democratic
stimulus, but sometimes it is better to let others speak for us.
The newly-elected spokesperson for the Democratic minority called
this the Democratic stimulus package. Perhaps we should find out what
neutral third parties believe it is. In today's Washington Post in an
editorial it says, ``The Democrats have an implausible alternative. It
was written mainly for show.'' And then, the well-respected economic
columnist Robert J. Samuelson I believe hit the nail on the head when
he said, instead of stimulus, we have a vehicle for pet agendas.
``Democrats propose a hodgepodge of tax rebates for low-income
families, expanded government health insurance, and spending, from
schools to construction. This is income redistribution posing as
stimulus.'' More accurate words were never spoken.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, it just shows, I would say to the gentleman,
that we have more confidence in people spending than we do in
corporations that are not doing well in creating new jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Stark), a senior member of the committee.
(Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I would point out to the gentleman on the other side, those with the
least experience with corporations, those who have had their elbows
furthest in the trough all of their lives, seem to know most about what
corporations can do. I am always curious to see how this wisdom from
these people who have never held a job outside the public sector is
going to create jobs.
But in this stimulus bill, one of the shameless things that the
Republicans do, in contravention to the statement of the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas) on September 21st, is fail to provide
meaningful help with health insurance. He said, and I am quoting,
``That every American who was laid off should have the ability to get
assistance on their health insurance if they are laid off. The way we
do that is to go back to the bipartisan legislation which provided a
window of opportunity, and it is true that under current law they have
to pay the full cost, and that is what we are going to do, is mitigate
that cost.''

{time} 1430

The fact is that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) did not
perform as he said. They do not mitigate the cost for COBRA in this
bill. If a lick and a promise is mitigation, that is fine. But under
the substitute of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), we would
provide 75 percent of the COBRA premium, equal to roughly $450 a month
in 2002, as opposed to approximately a $90 contribution under the
Republican bill.
The Republican bill does nothing to help those people who would
qualify for Medicaid in the States because it specifically prohibits
their money from being used for anybody who qualifies for a Federal
benefit. Our bill would provide that people who are not fortunate
enough to be eligible for COBRA and the new subsidy under our
substitute, could get Medicaid assistance from the States.

[[Page H7269]]

Yes, our package of health care subsidies to these 7.8 million
unemployed is $25 billion. That is a lot of money. But I just ask the
Members, and this is the choice when we vote, would Members rather give
the $25 billion to the unemployed to help them for a year to get decent
health care in this country? I particularly ask those who all get free
health care from the Federal Government every time they stub their toe,
would they rather help the unemployed while they sit with their fat,
free health benefits, or would Members rather give the $25 billion to
their friends in the big corporations who we may hear from in pillow
talk or from campaign contributions?
Do Members want to go home and say, That is what I have done. I am a
Republican, and I am proud I gave $25 billion back to some of the
richest corporations with no strings attached, and a piddling little $3
billion to the people who have been laid off to protect their health
care benefits? That is shameless.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican so-called
``economic stimulus package'' presented to us today. Their plan will do
little to stimulate the economy and even less to aid displaced workers
who have lost both their incomes and their health insurance. Their bill
lavishes billions of dollars on special interests, while shortchanging
recently laid-off American workers and others hurt by the terrorist
attacks on September 11.
Their bill offers 14 large U.S. corporations more than $6.3 billion
in tax breaks in one provision alone. That is more than double the $3
billion they provide in block grants to the States as their so-called
solution to helping displaced workers obtain health insurance. In
contrast, the Democratic Alternative would provide approximately $25
billion in health insurance assistance.
If that comparison isn't stunning enough, look at this way. The part
of our proposal that helps with COBRA coverage would finance 75 percent
of a family premium per month, about $450 out of $600 premium, while
the Republican proposal--if States even choose to use it--could only
pay $90 of that same premium. It's the equivalent of throwing a 10-foot
rope down a 30-foot hole.
Adding insult to injury, if this bill becomes law, it could bankrupt
many people before they retire by encouraging people to use their IRA
savings to pay for the health care they've lost due to the economic
downturn. Yes, you heard me correctly. At the very time that
Republicans are trying to privatize Social Security and undermine the
stability of that program, they are urging people to spend their
private savings on health care before reaching retirement age. It makes
no sense.
The Republican plan is nothing more than another tax bill for their
wealthy contributors--be it corporations or individuals. It may be
cloaked in the sheepskin of ``economic recovery,'' but this package is
the same old Republican special interest tax breaks they've been
pushing forever.
In contrast, the Rangel substitute is a sensible, targeted package
that includes urgently needed, temporary health insurance assistance
for millions of dislocated workers and their families during this
difficult time.
We are all painfully aware of the families who have lost loved ones
in the horrific terrorist attacks on September 11, and of the workers
who have lost their jobs during the economic downturn that began even
before September 11.
Among the many difficulties these families and individuals face is
the very real danger that they will also lose their health insurance
and join the ranks of the nearly 40 million uninsured Americans.
More than 15 years ago, we created ``COBRA'' continuation coverage,
which enables displaced workers and their family members, as well as
family members of workers who have died, to retain their employer-
sponsored health insurance for a limited time after separating from the
workplace. But people have to pay 102 percent of the premium for this
continuation coverage. In 2002, that's projected to average $600 per
month, or $7,200 per year, for family coverage.
Workers and family members who are already suffering from a loss of
income thus face a Hobson's choice between making ends meet and
protecting the health of their families.
As a result, just 7 percent of unemployed adults participate in COBRA
under current law. Not surprisingly, participation among high-income
households is more than double that of low-income--11 percent versus 5
percent, respectively.
In addition, COBRA isn't even an option for many displaced workers. A
recent study estimates that only 57 percent of all workers are even
eligible for COBRA. That is because COBRA doesn't generally apply to
firms with 20 or fewer employees and many employers don't provide
health insurance, or workers are not eligible for or can't afford to
participate in the plan, or they get their insurance elsewhere.
The Democratic substitute answers the health insurance needs of
dislocated workers and their families by first building on the existing
COBRA continuation law. Our bill would pay for 75 percent of the cost
of COBRA coverage for those eligible for COBRA, and it would create an
optional Medicaid expansion to offer temporary coverage for those who
are not eligible for COBRA. These new temporary programs would be in
place for only 1 year--long enough to provide a cushion of support to
working families as we lift ourselves out of this economic downturn.
This is an ``economic stimulus'' of the most basic, compassionate
kind. It provides the kind of health and financial security that people
need right now. It ensures that some families can continue with their
same health care providers, which is vitally important for someone
undergoing a course of treatment. And it builds on existing programs
that work.
The Rangel substitute recognizes that people will more quickly get
back on their feet and back into the workforce when their health needs
are met. Importantly, this legislation would provide peace of mind to
millions of Americans by saying that you don't need to worry about
losing your house or your car due to high health care costs--when you
have already lost your job.
Mr. Speaker, what Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas said on
September 21 holds true today. Unfortunately, he seems to have
forgotten his recent advocacy for our approach.
Now is the time to take Mr. Thomas at his earlier word and to vote
for the Rangel substitute to assist unemployed Americans with their
health insurance needs. I hope you will join me in supporting this
amendment, and supporting families across the Nation in their time of
need.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the gentleman let slip the fact
that he was talking about working a program which would provide for the
unemployed for a year. Our hope is that they are back and working way
before then. That is why we are putting the stimulus where we are.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a very valuable member of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I have listened with growing disappointment to the
bipartisan inflection coming from the other side, because I represent
Erie County, Pennsylvania. That is my home community, and we have
experienced a 6 percent drop in manufacturing employment in the last
few months. Just last week, roughly 800 jobs were permanently
eliminated.
Mr. Speaker, we need to move today not only to retain jobs, but to
also encourage new job growth. The alternative being offered by the
other side does not really do a lot to help grow the economy. The
underlying bill does. That is why I rise in strong support of it.
By increasing the opportunities for businesses, particularly
manufacturers, to expense their capital purchases for most appreciable
property, our bill does just that.
Huge additional amounts of business capital investment are going to
be necessary to restart the economy. We know that productivity is
spurred by investment in innovative capital equipment. The sooner
manufacturers can recapture the cost of their equipment, the sooner
they will be passing higher wages on to employees, lower costs on to
consumers, and create good-paying jobs.
I strongly support H.R. 3090 because it encourages an investment in
jobs through cost-recovery reform. Businesses want to invest in the
most productive capital equipment, but the current Tax Code impairs
their ability to do it. The current tax depreciation rules needlessly
and haphazardly increase the cost of all productive machinery and
equipment, including new advanced technologies. The result is to impair
productivity and wage growth.
Mr. Speaker, this bill also repeals the corporate AMT, the kick-them-
when-they-are-down tax, the tax that is a dead drag on the productivity
of the American economy that has been killing America's manufacturing
sector.
Critics have somehow suggested that this is a giveaway to large
companies.

[[Page H7270]]

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely ridiculous. While it makes good
political rhetoric, it could not be further from the truth. The
reality, once we get beyond bumper sticker tax policy, is that the
corporate AMT is a job killer that has never worked.
An economic slowdown, such as the one we are experiencing, increases
the number of companies who are adversely affected by the corporate
AMT. With a downturn in the economy, the AMT puts employers at a major
disadvantage and threatens thousands of jobs. Since I came to Congress,
I have been advocating repealing the corporate AMT because it is a dead
drag on the growth of the economy, and its elimination is going to lift
the entire economy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge that we move forward on a bipartisan basis and
adopt this stimulus bill so we can give a stimulus to the manufacturing
economy and get us back on a growth path.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I guess we are not going to wait for this pleasant
moment here when the President and the Senate hang this party in the
House, the majority party, out to dry on these issues, because very few
of the suggestions they have had today are ever going to be enacted
into law.
Somebody was talking about show business. The Secretary of the
Treasury talked about show business. He said the Republican proposal
was show business. Unless he has turned in his party registration, I
think he is one of them.
Now, the Republican alternative today is composed of some well-worn
tax items that have been around for a long time. Some of them perhaps
have some merit; but by and large, if we really want to talk about
items that might have merit today, in reference to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, we should be here doing something about the individual
alternative minimum tax for real people caught in the middle of perhaps
a decision that has outlived its usefulness.
But these are two very different proposals today. Ours deals with the
immediacy of the problem in front of us in the aftermath of September
11. One side clings to that old, tired economic philosophy of trickle-
down economics. Economic solutions are to be found in taking care of
large, wealthy powerful institutions in society. If they are well, then
benefits can trickle down to the rest of us.
The other side, the Democratic side, we want to provide significantly
more aid directly to those out of work, those who lack health insurance
as a result of the downturn, along with some help for corporations to
get through these difficult times.
It is a question of philosophy. It is a question of values. Do
Members value giving a $20 billion tax break to major financial
institutions, or do we give them a 1-year extension in the supposedly
temporary stimulus bill, and invest the balance in expanding
unemployment compensation for families that are really hurting?
Mr. Speaker, it is about philosophy, and it is about values. Do we
cash out $20 billion in corporate AMT tax credits for GE, GM, and IBM
to distribute to their shareholders, or do we invest this money in
providing temporary health insurance for unemployed airline workers,
travel agents, bus drivers, and others who no longer have employer-
provided health insurance for themselves or their families? It is a
question of philosophy and values.
I find it very disheartening that the bill before us states that
powerful corporations do not have to live with the decisions that they
made under the current tax system. It turns a cold shoulder to
America's AMT families who are losing their homes and their pension
savings. They are suffering because they listened when Congress told
them that if they did not diversify their stock holdings this year,
Congress would reward them with a lower capital gains rate.
This may be the only entrepreneurial group in history that some on
the other side do not seek to lavish assistance on. I began with the
notion, Mr. Speaker, that there were some good items in the legislation
proposed today. I would reiterate this assertion as I close.
But this is not the time and not the place for approval. There are
many others that have a claim on these needs at this time, and I hope
we will stand in support of the Democratic alternative.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn).
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about an impression that is
being created by our opponents in this debate over our Economic
Security and Recovery Act. They talk as if the money they are going to
use to offset the COBRA payments is the best way to help people who are
out of work and need to be covered by health insurance.
In fact, we have had many deep and thoughtful discussions about how
we wanted to approach this issue, because certainly we appreciate that
people have lost their jobs as a result of the September 11 tragedies,
and we want to make sure that they understand that they can count on
some Federal help to get them through what we hope will be a very short
period of unemployment.
In actuality, the block grants that we grant to the States are the
grants that are best able to cover everybody's, every displaced
worker's, health insurance. For example, the COBRA system is not
available to displaced workers who have worked for a company with fewer
than 20 employees, so the money one puts aside will not even touch
those folks. It eliminates a large number of people who work for small
businesses.
Also, it is the truth that unemployed workers may wish to have
coverage by other types of health care that is available in their
States, like the SCHIP program or Medicaid, or they can get subsidized
coverage in private health plans, including medical savings accounts or
individually purchased policies, plus COBRA.
So our proposal to award $3 billion immediately to the Governors of
each of the 50 States to use in the way that they believe is the best
for their particular needs in their State actually is a far better way
to use these Federal dollars than limiting the subsidies to people who
wish to continue or only continue in COBRA plans.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a member of the Committee.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to put into context the evaluations of the
House majority Committee on Ways and Means proposal. We are not just
dealing within the evaluation of this Chamber, but the broader
evaluation.
So when some of my friends on the other side of the aisle decry the
criticisms we are raising today as mere partisan attacks, let us
consider others that have voiced opinion about this work product:
The Secretary of the Treasury of the Bush administration has called
this bill ``show business.''
The Senate Republican Caucus believes it is a budget-buster, hits the
budget to well beyond what we can afford.
And none other than Robert Novak, hardly one we could call a Democrat
partisan, has attacked this, and attacked it with language that
describes it so well, and I quote: ``The tax stimulus bill awaiting
House action is a hodgepodge that only a lobbyist could love. But among
numerous questionable provisions, one stands out: a $17 billion grant
to corporate America in the form of retroactive reductions in taxes
already paid.''
Novak goes on to quote a Bush administration official in saying, ``I
frankly cannot understand the rationale for this.'' He is darned right
he cannot understand it, because there is no rationale from a stimulus
standpoint or a budget standpoint. Why in the world would they offer a
package that not only repeals the corporate AMT, but then goes and
gives back every nickel collected under it since 1986?
Stimulation? Do Members think the $1.5 billion rebate one single
corporation is going to get under this windfall provision alone is
going to all be invested in new jobs, new economic creation? Absolutely
not. Debt retirement

[[Page H7271]]

and other things, but certainly not a stimulative effect on the
economy.
Imagine. Why in the world would the majority, under the earlier-
passed tax bill, give individuals or individual households $600 but
give a single corporation $1.5 billion? That is a twisted sense of
priorities, and it is that same twisted sense of priorities that is
going to undermine significantly any stimulative effect of this
package.
This package does not give resources in a broad way to people who
will spend them to help stimulate the economy; rather, it taps the
Treasury for a few and busts the budget while it does it. The cost of
this measure is absolutely devastating. While the budgeteers, House and
Senate, Republican and Democrat, agreed this should be offset, this
bill has a net cost of more than $260 billion over 10 years, including
the cost of debt service.
As a result, it puts us back into deficits, deficits, using all of
the general fund surplus, all of the Medicare surplus, all of the
Social Security surplus, and then borrowing some more for the next 2
years and spends all or part of the Social Security Trust Fund for the
next 5 years.
We cannot afford this bill. This bill does not stimulate the economy.
This bill is not directed the right way. This bill is a travesty and
must be rejected by this House.

{time} 1445

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair would remind Members
they are not to characterize the position of individual Senators or
Senate caucuses.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
You are not allowed to speak ill of the Senate. You can trash us and
impugn our motives all you want to. Apparently those are the rules of
the House.
Let us take a look at what the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr.
Pomeroy) just said. We are talking about repealing the alternative
minimum tax in which some people, because the depreciation rate on the
alternative minimum is not the same as the regular tax rate, therefore,
wound up loaning tax free to the government which we call credits which
they are now going to be able to reclaim. And he said it is entirely
possible that these businesses may not use all that money, for example,
under the 30 percent expensing for depreciation. And, you know, the
gentleman may be absolutely right.
What else would these job-creating machines do with the money besides
reinvest it so they can continue to be in business? They actually might
take some of that money to keep some of their employees on the payroll.
So that money would wind up as payroll to employees. What are the
employees going to do with it? I think they are going to spend it. That
is called stimulus. Or, heaven forbid, please some of you Democrats
plug your ears, they might actually give some back to the shareholders.
They might indicate that since they are now once again profitable that
people might invest money in the corporation so they could continue to
do what? Create jobs.
What would the shareholders do if they got some of that money back?
They will either invest it or spend it.
See, it is called the circular flow of economic activity. Since you
are most used to government programs that give money to people and it
is one way and it is a one-time gift, you do not understand the concept
of gifts that keep on giving by virtue of reinvestment in the circular
flow of economic activity.
I hope you people have been looking at that list of corporations that
has been shown periodically. Number one up top is IBM, International
Business Machines. I would urge all of you who are listening to me who
belong to a union to call up your union shop and ask your steward in
your union has your pension funds invested in IBM. I think you will
find virtually every one of those unions have their funds invested in
IBM and your union members' pensions are dependent upon IBM remaining
healthy.
It seems to me that would be the most ironic circular flow of
economic activity that anyone could imagine.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay), the majority whip of the House of Representatives.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the chairman, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), and that explanation of real
economics. I hope the other side of the aisle was listening. Maybe they
can really understand it.
The gentleman from North Dakota and many on this side of the aisle
keep quoting underlings in the administration, that keep quoting the
Secretary of the Treasury. But let us look at the man who actually
speaks for the administration, the President of the United States,
George W. Bush, who just an hour ago in a major speech outlined for
America what a true growth package is. And it is the package that we
are debating, the package that came out of the Committee on Ways and
Means; and he urged the House of Representatives to pass this package,
not the substitute.
The President of the United States, it does not matter what everybody
that works for him says, what matters is what the President of the
United States said.
Secondly, the gentleman from North Dakota was talking about deficits,
and this bill is going to cause deficits. Well, he ought to know. He is
an expert on deficits. For the last 40 years when the Democrats were in
control of this House, they created all kind of deficits. And under
their watch, deficits flowed and debts went up. But under our watch,
not only is the public debt going down, but we actually balanced the
budget for the first time in over 40 years.
So I think we know what we are talking about, Mr. Speaker. There is
no doubt that someone has probably already stood up and recklessly
labeled the Democrat substitute a panacea. Well, I disagree. It is
worse than that. Panaceas are ineffective but harmless. The Democrat
substitute actually raises taxes and grows the size of government.
Their plan is a prescription for retarding economic growth, not
sparking it. It is a lingering relic sired by discredited economic
fallacy, that is, higher taxes, government spending and new regulations
on the pathway to prosperity.
Now if that is true, what about Russia? Where is the Soviet Union? If
that is true, why is Japan's economy still in the tank? They have been
trying to spend their way out of recession for the last 10 years.
We need a package that is a stimulus in more than just name. The
package that the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) put
together is well-balanced. It has incentives for both sides of the
aisle.
I would prefer to see more tax relief for workers and families.
However, I understand that we need to compromise on a plan that
everyone including those on the left could support. But we ought to
begin with the first principle, that most important principle, that is
a stimulus plan has to actually stimulate economic growth.
Unfortunately, some Democrats just cannot resist playing that old
tired, tired, tired class warfare card.
H.R. 3090 is the right medicine for our economy. It is the best way
to put people back to work and create jobs. This bill does that with
incentives for business to create jobs and put America back to work.
Members should vote against the substitute and for the underlying
bill.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Democratic
alternative to the stimulus package. I ask my colleagues to reject the
shameless boondoggle offered by my Republican colleagues.
Capital gains tax break? Alternative minimum tax? Elimination
retroactive? Give me a break. The Democratic plan is a well-planned
alternative that will extend and expand unemployment benefits, supports
health care for laid-off workers, a tax rebate to the working poor that
receive no benefits from the Bush tax reform, and it creates jobs.
I have worked very hard on an economic development plan; and I chased
my colleague, the gentleman from California down. I put it before him.
I worked on it. I worked with his staff on it. It is a plan that will
help small businesses. We have the CDBG, the Community Development
Block Grant, and all the cities and counties, they need

[[Page H7272]]

money. That money can get into the economy very quickly.
We have the Community Development Financial Institution that supplies
monies for small businesses to create jobs. We have the enterprize
zones, and it is all paid for. So do not tell me you want to be about
job creation. You have ignored it. You have rejected it. You are doing
nothing but creating a higher and bigger budget deficit.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins), a valued member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
(Mr. WATKINS of Oklahoma asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. WATKINS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I have been seated over here
listening with great interest. I came to this Congress as an
entrepreneur. I came here as a Democrat. I was a conservative Democrat.
I sat on the Democrat side for 14 years, concerned about balancing the
budget and building jobs. I represent an area that has the highest
unemployment and underemployment of private sector jobs in Oklahoma.
But in order to build private sector jobs you have to have employers.
You have to have businesses and industries.
Let me say any of you who do not want any of those ten major
corporations and all the corporations you call faceless, along with
other names, I would welcome those industries in my district. You can
come any time because we need jobs, private sector jobs. (I consider
this a defining moment in this House. It is a defining moment
considering the economy.)
Yes, we have got to stimulate the economy. We have got to have this
$100 billion investment to turn this economy around, and also turn
around the pension plans. We must turn around the 401(k)s of our
workers who have lost 25, 30, and 40 percent of their retirement.
We must stimulate the economy. You can do that with capital gains
reduction. You can do that repeal with AMT. You can do that with the
stimulation, accelerated depreciation. Let me say, you can do it in the
worst economic conditions. I know in my area working with Native
Americans and others, we have industries that are ready to make the
investment but due to the tax situations we have pending, hundreds of
millions of dollars worth of investment which can be turned around
immediately. We need that in investment in this country.
Yes, it is a defining moment, between the parties. I have a lot of
great friends that I have known for years, and one of them is the
ranking member right here. But your people and my people need jobs, and
we need to build those jobs here in this country with this legislation.
That is why I am a supporter of H.R. 3090.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
(Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote and a yes on the
Democratic plan that helps AMT, middle class victims.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans
to vote against H.R. 3090 and to vote for the Democratic substitute.
The bill before us is no Economic Stimulus Package because it fails to
deliver immediate relief to our struggling economy. It neglects the
needs of the people in our economy who are at the forefront of our
fight against terrorism--middle class Americans.
Both the absence of and the inclusion of many provisions in this bill
are troubling to me, Mr. Speaker. But the absence of one provision will
result in may Americans losing everthing--their homes, their retirement
savings, their children's college funds. The Republican bill does not
provide tax relief to Americans across this country who because of an
antiquated tax code have incurred enormous AMT liabilities. They are
responsible for paying taxes on income they never made!
In true entrepreneurial spirit, these Americans accepted positions at
companies that offered incentive stock options (ISOs). While ISOs are
not a form of compensation, they are used as a form of ``sweat
equity''. If the employee invests his time and energy in a company and
the company succeeds and grows, then the employee will have valuable
shares in the company. Their hard work pays off in the growth of the
price of their company stock.
Unfortunately because of the downturn in the economy and the impact
of the alternative minimum tax, these individuals are now responsible
for taxes on stock at the time of purchase.
I have heard from countless Americans in my district but also from so
many across America from Des Moines to North Carolina to Boston to
Seattle. These Americans have banded together to form a grassroots
coalition and a mutual support group called ReformAMT. No doubt over
the past several months, you have heard from them.
And over the past several months, I have shared their stories with
you in Dear Colleagues. For Don and Ginny and Michele and Manine and
Steve and so many others, I urge my colleagues to vote for the
Democratic alternative. Help these middle class Americans stimulate the
economy by allowing them to hang on to their homes, their college
savings, their retirement funds, their children's education funds.
Mr. Speaker, why isn't AMT relief for these Americans in your
package? Doesn't the Republican leadership care about these middle
class American taxpayers? Doesn't the Republican leadership care that
these people will be losing everything they've worked so hard for?
I would like to thank my Democratic colleagues, in particular
Minority Leader Gephardt, Congressman Rangel, and Congressman Neal for
their acknowledgement of the seriousness of this tax problem and for
their commitment and cooperation in ensuring that this provision was in
the Democratic alternative, and Senator Lieberman for taking up the
mantle on the Senate side. I would also like to thank Congressman tom
Davis for reaching out across the aisle and working with me. I
sincerely believed when I began working on this issue that it was one
on which to build consensus, one that Republicans could have joined
Democrats in supporting on the floor of the House. Unfortunately for
our constituents, that is not to be.
Mr. Speaker, I vote ``no'' on the Republican Tax Package and I urge
my colleagues to do the same.

Meet Janine--A Real-life AMT Story

Janine Valdivieso, 44, grew up in Southern California, and
now works as an office administrator in San Jose. She is
married, has three daughters, and lives in a middle-class
neighborhood in San Jose. After they were married, Janine and
her husband, Joe, began saving for college tuition for their
two youngest daughters, and setting aside money to buy stock
for their retirement fund.
Most of her life, Janine was a Correctional Officer for
various government agencies. It wasn't until August 1999,
when she was offered a job at Symyx, that she made the
decision to enter the private domain. As a part of her
overall offer, Janine was granted incentive stock options
(ISOs), and like many others, hoped it would offer her family
a little better financial future. She accepted a lower salary
then she had wanted, because her company offered her ISOs.
Janine and her husband Joe (who works for Sandisk) were told
by their employers that they would not be impacted by
alternative minimum tax (AMT), as long as they held on to the
stock, and did not sell during the same year, information
that would prove to be both incorrect and financially
devastating.
Janine and Joe followed the advice, and purchased their
shares as they vested throughout the year. One transaction in
particular was especially damaging. The option, or strike
price, was around $3, but the company stock trading on the
market closed that day at $94. The alternative minimum tax is
assessed based on the difference between the price they paid
for the options and the fair market value, or closing price,
on that same day. By the end of the year, even though it was
a paper profit only because they did not actually sell any of
those shares, the Valdivieso's owed tax in the amount of
$100,000 in addition to the almost $25,000 they paid
throughout the year, an amount greater then their combined
annual income.
To pay it, they had to sell most of their stock, at a much
lower price than what they were taxed on. They also had to
sell all of the stock in their retirement funds, and cash in
the girls' college tuition savings.
____

Meet Norma--A Real-life AMT Story

Norma Mogilefsky, 59, grew up in New York, has a master's
degree in special education, and currently works as a
curriculum developer at a software company. She is a single
mom with two grown children. Throughout her life, she worked
hard to raise her family, pay the bills, and build perfect
credit. She hoped to retire in June.
Last spring, on the advice of the recommended enrolled
agent, Norma took out a second loan against her home for
$80,000 so she could purchase her incentive stock options
(ISOs), and then hold them for a year. This, the agent
advised, would put her into a long-term capital gains tax
bracket, which was the prudent thing to do. The agent never
mentioned the potential for an Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
disaster. He also did not speak with Norma again until the
day that he did her taxes.
Her company, meanwhile, sent an e-mail to its employees on
April 2, recommending that those who exercised ISOs in 2000
might be subject to AMT, and should seek professional

[[Page H7273]]

advice immediately. It was too late. On April 15, 2001, Norma
owed a tax bill of $303,000, three times her annual salary,
on paper profits she never saw.
By that time, the stock price was so low she could not
recover enough from sale of the ISOs to pay the tax bill. She
cleared out her stock purchase plan, and sold other assets
that she had set aside for retirement, but has not yet
managed to cover the debt.
Although she will have a whopping AMT credit, she will
probably not live long enough to use the credit. Due to
limitations on the way that credit can be recovered, it is
estimated that she will not be paid back in full until the
year 2041!
After a lifetime of financial responsibility and planning,
Norma is coping with the fact that she will never retire. ``I
thought I would be talking to a travel agent next month.''
she said. ``Instead, as I turn 60, I will be re-financing my
house and planning my long-term career strategy.''
____

Meet Judy--A Real-life AMT Story

Judy Pace, 48, grew up in the Bay Area, has two daughters
in college, and currently works as a benefits administrator
at Equinix. Five years ago, she took a job in human resources
at a small startup company called BroadVision, and worked
long hours to ensure its success. They company did well, and
grew to nearly 2000 employees. Having had no college
education, Judy was proud of her accomplishments and that,
thanks to the BroadVision incentive stock options (ISOs), she
had managed to secure a financial future for herself and her
two daughters.
Although Judy still enjoyed her job at BroadVision, she
missed the small company atmosphere that it once offered.
After accepting her current position, she was given a
standard term of 60 days in which to either purchase her
shares and hold, or perform a same day sale. She had always
heard that purchasing and holding shares was the right thing
to do, and her CPA agreed. Although he warned her of a
possible alternative minimum tax (AMT) situation, he was
unaware of the full scope of the issue.
In August of 2000, Judy purchased all of her options and
held them. While she did not sell any of those options, or
realize any resulting gain, she found herself subject to an
incredible AMT bill of $430,441. her current annual salary is
$85,000. She liquidated all of her cash, took out an equity
home loan, and still cannot pay the entire bill. She is
currently waiting to hear from the IRS regarding penalties
and interest that are accruing, and she wonders how she will
be able to afford the payments.
Judy not only works hard in her career and as a mom but
also volunteers to raise guide dogs for the blind. In July
she'll take on the Avon 3-day, 60-mile Breast Cancer Walk.
She is strong, takes good care of herself and, until now,
felt satisfied that she had managed to secure a solid
retirement fund and money for her daughter's college tuition
and future. ``Now I feel vulnerable and unsafe,'' says Pace,
``and I wonder if I'll ever be able to enjoy the comfortable
retirement that I worked so hard for.''
``Our main concern right now is coming up with the funds to
pay for our daughter's tuition at State college next year,''
says Janine. ``And we have to start all over on the
retirement fund. It's not going to happen anytime soon.''

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, times of crisis like this can bring out the
best in us. We have witnessed that in the thousands of Americans who
have lined up to give blood, in those who have contributed as they
toiled in New York and in Washington with their muscles and their
sweat, and even our children setting up lemonade stands to do their
part in the relief effort. Now Americans will be asked to sacrifice by
purchasing war bonds.
At the same time that all of us are being asked to sacrifice some and
some have already given their all, why is nothing being asked of the
largest corporations in the United States. Can this really be the
reason why the Congress is convened today at a time we cannot even
assure the safety of our own office buildings here in Washington, so
that we can meet here and grant another set of corporate tax breaks?
Our country cannot afford further diversion from either its Treasury
or from our time in dealing with the very real threats that we face
today. If we are to assure our country that it is worthy of our
children, our first focus our only focus ought to be the security of
American families both here and with our armed forces abroad.
Why now do we jeopardize our economic security by opening up the
public treasury so that our largest corporations can get their fill?
Our Social Security trust fund is not a limitless cornucopia. Every
dollar that they take away today is a dollar taken away from security,
whether it is retirement security or postal security or security
provided by those in uniform defending our countries and our borders
and overseas.
To the clarion call of President John F. Kennedy, ``Ask not what your
country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,'' these
special interests have responded, How big is my tax rebate? Because
under this bill, they do not just get a tax cut in the future, these
Republicans are going to mail them a check for every bit of taxes they
paid since 1986.
That check is drawn directly on the Social Security trust fund. This
outrage arises from the near fanatical faith of our Republican friends
on tax cuts as the end all, be all, cure all for every ill that faces
the world.
Yes, sir, I ask about Osama bin Laden and whether he would get a tax
break. Yes, sir, I ask if airline security would provide a tax break
because those are the kind of security problems you cannot solve with a
tax break. And that is the whole purpose of that inquiry.
You cannot block an Osama bin Laden with a tax break. You cannot
protect the Pentagon and our shores with a tax break. These are
security breaches that ought to be the focus of this Congress today
instead of the same tired old worn out agenda they were pursuing on the
morning of September 11.
It is time to have new thinking to work together to try to solve the
real problems that American families face and not to just engage in
more loopholes and dodges and economic stimulus cloaked as an excuse
for enacting an agenda that is only designed to stimulate the
pocketbooks of the biggest campaign contributors to the Congress of the
United States.

{time} 1500

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
thank the gentleman from Texas for pouring oil on the troubled waters
so we can work in a more bipartisan way. He always makes a significant
contribution to a reasonable and sane debate. However, to clarify a
couple of the points which he got a little carried away on, I will
yield to our next speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Shaw), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from Texas, who I
know knows better because he is on the Committee on Ways and Means,
``There you go again.''
The gentleman knows the Democrats have never invaded the trust fund;
the Republicans have never invaded the trust fund. The trust fund is
made up of Treasury bills. We do not go get any of the Treasury bills.
There is a use of the surplus, the Social Security surplus, which is
the amount that is not used to pay benefits in both the bipartisan bill
and in the Democrat substitute.
So let us not go there if we are not going to correctly state the
facts.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
just comment that apparently the buzz words today on the Democratic
side are shameful and Social Security Trust Fund. We will hear those
repeated over and over again, and here we go again.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
comment that another thing my colleagues will hear repeated over and
over again is the fact that you are looting the Social Security Trust
Fund in order to pay these faceless corporations. And the American
people understand this.
You can talk about loans and credits all you want. You are using
Social Security money to give bonuses to your corporate friends.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, David Stockman wrote in his book about the
economics that supply side economics brought us. The gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay) has now left the floor, but he always gets up and
says on your watch, meaning the Republican watch, presumably, we
balanced the budget. That is, of course, not the case. The budget was
balanced because of the 1990 bill, the 1993 bill, and the first
bipartisan part of that trifecta, the 1997 bill.
Republicans railed against the 1990 bill, not one of them voted for
the 1993

[[Page H7274]]

bill, and the deficits that we incurred and all the money we spent that
the gentleman from Florida talks about in terms of Social Security were
signed on to by Ronald Reagan and George Bush. All of it. We never
overrode a veto of a spending bill of Ronald Reagan. Not once.
This bill on the floor is neither bipartisan nor responsible. It is
``Here we go again,'' Mr. Chairman, you are right. Here we go again
putting on the floor of this House a bill that the gentleman knows we
have not paid for and that future generations will be called on to pay
for, our children and grandchildren.
That was what was wrong with the economics of the 1980s when we
incurred the largest deficits, signed on to by Ronald Reagan, the one
person who could have stopped it; and George Bush, the first, the other
person who could have stopped it; until 1993, when we started bringing
those deficits down. And, yes, we finally created surpluses.
President Bush said that we could have a massive tax cut, against
which I voted, and be fine. That lasted for 10 weeks. He signed it in
June, and by mid-August CBO, not Democrats, CBO was saying we have a
deficit problem confronting us.
Now, I say to my friend from Florida, yes, we talked about Social
Security; and the gentleman is absolutely correct, of course, the trust
fund is inviolate. But what is not inviolate is the money. What Bob
Rubin suggested is that we pay down the debt with the excess Social
Security money. Why? Because it would make it easier and more probable
that we could pay for Social Security well into the future. But, no, we
are spending that money, raised at a 7 percent flat tax on everybody
who makes under $83,000. Why? So that we can continue to give massive
tax cuts to the wealthiest in America.
And when Bob Novak says that does not make sense, it is not Democrats
calling your hand. I suggest to my colleagues that you ought to go back
to the drawing board and be bipartisan. Sit down with ranking member
Rangel and the Democratic Members and come up with a bill that is
responsible.
I will vote for this substitute because I believe it puts money into
the pockets of the people who need it and who will spend it and who
will therefore stimulate the economy, and in so doing will create jobs.
This GOP bill, reported out of the Ways and Means Committee on a
straight party-line vote, is simply Halloween candy for big business
and Americans who are doing well economically.
Meanwhile, those who have been hit hardest by the recent slump in the
economy are left holding a Halloween bag filled with nothing but rocks.
Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill didn't mince words. A week ago, he
called this legislation ``show business'' that was designed to please
the GOP's corporate constituency.
Even conservative columnist Robert Novak wrote that this bill is ``a
hodgepodge that only a lobbyist could love.''
In fact, this bill violates virtually every principle for economic
stimulus that the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate
Budget Committees agreed to in early October.
Congressional budget leaders agreed that a stimulus plan must be
fiscally disciplined. This bill is not. When higher Federal debt
service is included, this GOP bill will cost an estimated $274 billion
over 10 years.
And it will threaten our efforts to strengthen Social Security and
Medicare and pay down debt, which keeps long-term interest rates low.
Congressional budget leaders agreed that a stimulus plan should
provide an immediate economic boost.
However, many of the provisions in this bill provide little or no
stimulus within the next 15 months.
Congressional budget leaders agreed that stimulus proposals should
sunset within one year.
However, this GOP bill would make many tax cuts permanent, including
a reduction in the capital gains tax rate and repeal of the corporate
alternative minimum tax.
Congressional budget leaders agreed that stimulus proposals should
``help those most vulnerable.''
However, the tax rate-cut acceleration and capital gains tax cuts are
tilted toward those who are doing well, rather than those most likely
to spend tax cuts. Furthermore, the $21 billion foreign-income tax
break for corporations can only be termed outrageous.
Congressional budget leaders agreed that stimulus proposals should be
offset. However, unlike the Democratic alternative, this GOP bill
contains no offsets.
I urge my colleagues to embrace the bipartisanship that has guided us
since September 11. Vote for the Democratic stimulus plan.
It invests in homeland security and helps unemployed workers and
their families. It stimulates the economy through temporary tax cuts.
And it maintains the fiscal discipline necessary to keep long-term
interest rates low.
The American people deserve more than partisan Halloween pranks and
posturing. Let's pass a stimulus plan that provides the economic boost
we need.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
comment that, once again, the gentleman gives us his history lesson,
but he fails to complete it.
In 1993, the Democrat majority in the House and a Democrat President
did in fact pass the largest tax increase in the history of the United
States. What happened in 1994 was the American people rejected that
majority and a new majority was created in the House. Most people know
that the Constitution says that all money bills originate in the House
and that new majority did not spend the money from the largest tax
increase in history that was passed by the Democrats.
So it was the majority, the new majority that was elected in November
of 1994 and took office in January of 1995 that is primarily
responsible for the surpluses that we have seen in recent years.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed emotions that I come to
the well. I talked to many of my constituents in the wake of the shock
of September 11, and how gratified they were to see us unite at a
moment of national need. This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, what I would
remind the American people is that good people can disagree.
The distinction I would make is when there are those who come to this
well and who compare us with the enemies of this country, and imply
that anyone aids and abets our enemies because of honest differences of
opinion. They should be ashamed. They have incurred the shame of this
House. How dare those, in a sense of honest disagreement, compare us to
those who would loot and malign and weaken this American Nation. There
is no place for that dialogue on this floor. Shame on you for those
comments. Shame on you for those actions. Join us, together, to at
least disagree in civil fashion, not with the catcalls and the
horrendous talk we have heard in this Chamber today.
Now, I stand here in opposition not because I doubt the patriotism of
my friends on the left, but because I believe they are bringing forth
the wrong ideas: a $90 billion tax hike. Tax hike. Let us go ahead and
increase taxes, that is what the substitute does. Let us go, in terms
of unemployment benefits, and create a new layer of government rather
than letting the States that handle unemployment benefits use that
money and get it into the hands of the people who are unemployed. And,
oh, when we talk about layoffs, let us impugn the corporations, the job
generators, because somehow it is less than noble, unless it is the
direct hand of government.
I categorically reject that. I am sorry that there are those who
would stand and impugn the patriotism of honest disagreement, but I
will stand here clearly and unmistakably to oppose this wrongheaded
alternative and the wrongheaded rhetoric that has accompanied it. Shame
on you.
Mr. RANGEL. Oh, the show is over.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Democratic
proposal that supports the neediest not the greediest.
Mr. Speaker, the events of September 11 have left a mark on all our
lives, and, many, are left unemployed and struggling to make ends meet.
While officially 400,000 job layoffs have been announced since
September 11, its's most likely only a short while before others find
themselves unemployed. How we respond to these workers during a time of
crisis is a true reflection of our Nation's values.

[[Page H7275]]

As a member of the progressive caucus, I'm proud that the Democrat
plan builds on the progressive's proposal to put the neediest ahead of
the greediest. Unlike the Republicans' bill, the Democratic economic
stimulus plan provides us an opportunity to right by America's workers.
But, that won't be the case if we enact the permanent tax cuts that
are in the GOP plan. It won't take long for the American people realize
that the GOP proposal is just another excuse to give tax cuts to
corporations and the wealthy.
The American people know a real economic stimulus package means
immediate, short-term assistance, in the form of extended and expanded
unemployment insurance. Instead, the GOP bill provides generous breaks
for corporations while ignoring real assistance for low-income workers
and their families. That's just plain wrong!
What's right is that the Democratic plan is paid for . . . no
surprise, the GOP bill isn't. The Democratic plan is fiscally
responsible because it protects Social Security and Medicare. It's
smart public policy that a real economic stimulus plans looks out for
the future of Federal programs that our constituents rely on.
Mr. Speaker, the Democratic plan proves we can strengthen our economy
while also safeguarding our workers and their families.
I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Caucus supports the
Democratic substitute, which includes a significant increase in
unemployment benefits.
The $30 billion in increased unemployment benefits included in the
Democratic alternative is 20 times the amount the majority bill
allocates for working men and women who have been laid off. The
majority would give a retroactive tax cut to big companies who are not
hiring but they are laying off thousands, tens of thousands of
Americans.
There is a clear difference between the two parties on this issue.
The Democratic alternative includes a Federal supplement to State
unemployment benefits of $65 a week, or 25 percent, whichever is
greater. Extended benefits of up to 26 weeks for unemployed individuals
for a total of 52 weeks worth of coverage, expanded eligibility to
include part-time and other low-wage workers.
Under the administration plan, an unemployed individual will not
receive $1 more in benefits than he or she already receives from the
State of residence. In my own State of Ohio, an unemployed individual
would receive nothing under the administration plan but $65 extra per
week under the Democratic plan. A Texas worker, nothing under the
administration plan, $65 extra under ours. A worker in California,
nothing under their plan, $65 under ours. Their plan would give nothing
extra to an Illinois worker, while the Democratic plan would give at
least $65. Iowa, New Hampshire, the great State of Florida, $65 under
our plan, not a dime extra under their bill.
The administration plan provides for extended benefits but only in
those States that see unemployment increase 30 percent in the next 18
months. Most Americans will not see a penny of extended benefits. By
contrast, our plan guarantees a full year of benefits to any individual
eligible for unemployment benefits under State law, and our plan
expands eligibility to include part-time and other low-wage workers.
But the administration does not do that.
This is a defining moment. Whose side are we on, the hundreds of
thousands of workers suffering under the declining economy, or the
large corporations who want retroactive tax cuts off the backs of the
American people?
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Weller), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
(Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WELLER. My colleagues, I stand with President Bush. President
Bush has called on this House of Representatives to pass the
legislation that has already been approved by the House Committee on
Ways and Means. President Bush has called on this House of
Representatives to pass the Economic Security and Recovery Act, and I
join with President Bush in support of that legislation and oppose the
partisan Democrat substitute.
We hear a lot of partisan political rhetoric in opposition to the
plan that was approved by the Committee on Ways and Means, but here is
what we do not hear. The basic component of the Democratic so-called
stimulus plan is a $90 billion tax increase. I will say that again. A
$90 billion tax increase.
Now, many of us have consulted economists, and I know of not one
respected economist that has called on Congress in this time of great
economic concern to say that we can help the economy by increasing
taxes. But that is what the Democrats do. They say it is paid for. They
pay for it with a $90 billion tax increase.
What economists have told us, both Democrats and Republicans, is that
we need to encourage investment and we need to put more money in the
pockets of consumers so they can spend it. The legislation already
approved by the Committee on Ways and Means, legislation we are going
to vote on today, accomplishes that goal.
We give a $300 stimulus payment to low-income taxpayers, $300 for
singles, $600 for a couple, $500 for head-of-household, helping low-
income families. We lower taxes to the middle class, going from 28 to
25 percent, putting extra spending money in middle-income, low-income,
and moderate-income taxpaying families. That will help them with money
to spend to meet their needs. But we also reward investment. The 30
percent expensing provisions and appreciation reform will cause greater
investment in cars and trucks and computers.
The bottom line is, when somebody buys a computer, buys that pickup
truck, or somebody buys that bulldozer, there is a worker out there
that makes it. I know if somebody buys a Taurus made in the tenth ward,
Chicago, and Hegwich, there is an auto worker that helped make that
Ford Taurus. Bottom line is, if we want to get America moving again,
get this economy moving again, we need to put money in people's pockets
and we need to reward investment. We accomplish that with our expensing
provisions.
Let us join with President Bush. Let us oppose the Democrat tax
increase, let us join with President Bush, and pass the Economic
Security and Recovery Act.

{time} 1515

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
I am glad the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) mentioned this so-
called tax increase because I was wondering where he got the idea.
Someone got ahold of the gentleman from Texas' (Mr. Armey) stationery
and misused it and called the Democratic tax bill a $90 billion tax
hike. Actually, we do pay for our bill by freezing the top rate for the
one percent of the highest income people in the United States of
America.
We think in a time of war there should be a shared responsibility;
and so, therefore, that provision is in there, but by no stretch of the
imagination can we call an increase what people never received.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
(Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the democratic
substitute, which is a real economic stimulus and economic recovery for
Americans who need it. I rise in support of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is not a stimulus package. There is no
provision in the bill that allocates money to the workers, unemployed
or the uninsured. The tax deductions are significantly
disproportionate, giving over 70% of the tax cuts to big businesses and
very little to the working American. That is not the type of stimulus
that Americans want or need.
H.R. 3090 does little to assist those who may or have lost their jobs
and their insurance because of the September 11 attacks. What the bill
does is give a grant to the States and permits them to spend when and
as they see fit. We need a bill that will put benefits directly in the
hands of those who need it. The unemployed need COBRA and our
government should assist them.
The ultimate goal of Congress should be to pass a bill that puts
money into the hands of those who need it and will spend it, the low-
and moderate-income workers and families.

[[Page H7276]]

Instead, this bill focuses on big corporations and the wealthy. A
serious economic stimulus package will give unemployment and health
insurance benefits to those who do not have it. It will build jobs for
those who are unemployed. It will spend money to build economic
programs and assist our transportation systems safer by expanding and
reinforcing our out dated system.
Any agenda that gives the majority of the tax breaks to the wealthy
and big businesses will do little to stimulate the economy. The only
apparent stimulus this bill can possibly have is assisting in
Republican politics and that should not be our focus. We need to act
swiftly in assisting our country.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
(Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, as a conservative Democrat, I have worked
hard for bipartisanship. I voted for a $1.3 trillion tax cut, voted for
a $17 billion bill to help our airline industry, and voted for a $40
billion bipartisan emergency supplemental. But the Republican bill on
the floor today falls short in a disappointing fashion in a host of
different ways. It helps the few and costs the many.
It is not bipartisan; it is more partisan. It is not a stimulus
package; it is a spending package. It is not a fair proposal; it is
unfair to too many taxpayers.
Sub-part F in this tax proposal says to corporations keep your money
overseas and we will extend and expand your tax breaks to the tune of
$20 billion over the next 10 years; do not invest your money in the
U.S. economy, keep it overseas and we give you a $20 billion tax break.
That is not fair to our workers. That is not bipartisan. That is not a
stimulus.
I hope my colleagues will reject this package.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), a member of the committee.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas) for yielding me the time.
Once again, we have heard some revisionism of history. Just recently,
I have spoken on this House floor. I came here in 1994 when the
Democrats had the majority. They had just passed in 1993 the highest
tax increase in the history of this country, planning on balancing the
budget. But when I got here, they were running a $200 billion deficit,
and those deficits were going to be there as far as the eye could see.
In 1995, we took the majority, the Republicans; and we said we were
going to balance the budget. We were going to cut taxes; and after
debating that issue in 1997, we finally got enough votes in the House,
got some bipartisan support, and we got the President to sign it into
law, President Clinton.
That budget was not supposed to balance for 5 years. Actually, it was
not supposed to balance until this year. That was the plan. Do my
colleagues know it balanced in a year. Why did it balance in a year?
Why was that such a surprise? How did that happen? I will tell my
colleagues why it happened. It was because we cut capital gains taxes.
That is why. It infused billions of dollars into the economy.
Now we want to cut them just a little bit more to stimulate the
economy once again. I would like to cut them a lot more, but we are
going to do what we have to do. And we are going to cut them a little
bit. That will help, I think, bring this economy around as quick as
anything, but once again, we believe that if we give businesses, small
businesses the opportunity to make a profit, that they can create jobs
in this economy.
What do the Democrats want to do in this substitute? Once again, just
like in 1993, they want to increase taxes. They want to increase taxes
by $90 billion more. Who will it hurt the worst? It will hurt the small
business, the ones that provide more than half of the private workforce
in this economy.
We cannot have that. We have to cut taxes. We have got to allow them
to have some relief so that they can provide the jobs that this country
needs, and they need them now.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats put together an economic
recovery plan to meet the obligation of this Nation, and that is to
rebuild, to rebuild where the terrorists attacked, to rebuild our
economy that was falling into recession before the attack on September
11.
Our goals help those workers and those industries who have been hurt
and who face great financial and health care needs. Rebuild confidence
that America is strong economically. Stimulate the economy to increase
economic activity and employment.
We must act in the Nation's interests, not in the interests of any
who would opportunistically take advantage of this moment. We must not
endanger the long-term economic health of this country.
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal headlined, ``Companies could reap big
tax refunds from the House bill.'' What companies? IBM, Chevron, Enron.
In today's Washington Post, and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thomas) only quoted selectively from it, the alternative minimum tax
which Republicans would repeal was put in place so that profitable
companies would have to pay some amount, no matter how clever its tax
attorneys might be.
This is mainly the use of a current crisis to further an agenda that
has little to do with the crisis and long predated it.
To my friends, I would say there is no other word for the Republican
economic package than greed. It is, in fact, an unpatriotic grab on the
public Treasury.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas)
has 7 minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has
6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the committee.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the measure
proposed by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), chairman of the
Committee on Ways and Means, and supported by the President.
The President's measure is important to the country because we cannot
stand idly by and let a terrorist topple our economy as they toppled
the World Trade Center. We have a big economy in America so any
stimulus bill we have has to be focused. It cannot be scattered.
This bill helps boost consumer spending, but its main focus is to
preserve and create new jobs. Getting our economy moving will not
happen because people go to the shopping mall with a shopping list. It
will happen because they go to the mall with a job and the shopping
list.
The tax code we have today discourages companies from helping people
get jobs and keep them. We changed that. We are encouraging companies
to buy that new piece of equipment, to open that new satellite office,
to approve that new project, to create jobs; and as importantly, we
stop taking money from businesses that they could better use to keep
their good people on board during these economic tough times.
Who is creating these jobs? One of my favorite bumper stickers says,
``If you can read this, thank a teacher.'' Well, if someone has a job,
who do they thank? The IRS, a Washington bureaucrat, or do we thank the
free enterprise system where a farmer or a business of any size that
builds a better mouse trap and sells it creates new jobs?
My people back home from Continental and Compaq and others who are
laid off in my neighborhood, they do not want a rebate check. They want
a paycheck. They do not want unemployment benefits in a year. They want
a job today. They do not want a plan that helps a few industries. They
want to plug all the holes in our economic boat so we can rise together
faster.
They know that when they are unemployed they are not paying into our
Social Security trust fund; they are not making Medicare stronger; they
are not helping pay off the debt. This economic stimulus is an
investment, a long-term investment that does not cost. It pays.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Green).
(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my concern about this, and I do not

[[Page H7277]]

serve on the Committee on Ways and Means, but this seems like we have
returned to partisanship. We are back to it is either my way or the
highway because the bill had very little Democratic votes.
After September 11, the American people came together: Democrats and
Republicans, rural or urban, geographically, racial and ethnicity. We
put all that aside to fight the war that we have to. The American
people wanted this and they demanded it of us, their elected officials;
but to date, it is a different story.
This so-called stimulus package is a partisan plan that is wrapped in
our red, white, and blue; but it is a loot on the Treasury, a charade,
and a Trojan horse filled for special interests. The American people
are not and will not be fooled. They will reject false patriotism in
the light of trying to give a tax cut for special interests and that
does nothing for laid-off workers.
We want them to have a job. We also know that those same Continental
employees that I represent need to have unemployment. They need to have
health care coverage, and they may not get it through the governor's
office.
This so-called stimulus package is a wish list of special interest
tax rebates and cuts that will not stimulate our economy and has
nothing to do with the tragedy of September 11.
The wrapping of special interest legislation in the flag. It is
wrong. It is despicable. And we should get back to our bipartisan
spirit, and the American people will get us there.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the chairman of the policy
committee.
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Economic
Security and Recovery Act that the committee has worked so hard on and
that responds directly to the need of the country right now to get our
economy back to get people working again.
The legislation that we will soon approve in this House extends
unemployment benefits. It accelerates the already scheduled modest
reductions in tax rates on all individuals except those in the highest
bracket, an enormous concession to the minority that is not sound
economics in my view; and it very modestly reduces the capital gains
rate, modestly meaning two percentage points, something we are told by
the nonpartisan analysts that will actually increase revenues to the
Treasury.
The alternate is a $98 billion tax increase. It is, in fact, a tax
increase because it will change existing law, which has scheduled a
reduction rate for individuals. It will apply a tax increase to those
people. It will divide up a rapidly shrinking pie and redistribute
rather than providing incentives for people to work and save and
invest.
If we believe in the American people, if we trust the American
people, they will produce. Given the opportunity then, we should enact
into law the bill that the Committee on Ways and Means has put before
this House.
I strongly urge rejection of the $98 billion tax increase that has
been offered as a substitute.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Crowley), my friend.
(Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, less than a week after the September 11
attack on America, this Congress passed a bailout package bill for the
airline industry overwhelmingly, despite objections from this side of
the aisle. We were told to have faith in the leadership of the
Republican side of the aisle to address the issues of displaced
workers. So much for faith.
This bill does nothing to provide an influx of money into our
economy, something that should be part of any stimulus package. It
provides nothing to take care of the workers who need assistance like
the 100,000 aviation employees thrown out of work in the past 6 weeks.
It includes nothing to fund hiring and training of 75,000 new
firefighters.
I am from New York; and I have been to ground zero, as many of my
colleagues have been. But the rebuilding of New York has begun, and
thanks to this Congress it has begun, but we are nowhere near finished.
We need to provide incentive for business to remain in New York City to
keep our financial services sector strong. We need to provide
assistance to our travel industry to help Americans know New York is
open for business. We need to provide funding to rebuild and strengthen
the infrastructure of New York. This was an attack on America and not
just on New York. Do not further assault New Yorkers by neglecting
them.
This bill is not a stimulus package but an impediment package. I ask
my colleagues to vote it down
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and privilege to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas) yielding me the time; and Mr. Speaker, let us
boil this down to simple terms. Let us cool the hot rhetoric that is
flowing through here.

{time} 1530

What this is about is jobs. It is getting Americans back to work. We
have got 7.8 million Americans who have lost their jobs in this
economy. The terrorists know they cannot take on our military. They
know they cannot take a frontal assault against our country, so they
are trying to get Americans to retreat from participating in our
economy.
Let us go with what works. When we have cut the cost of capital in
this country, when we have reduced the cost of employers reinvesting in
their businesses, we have created jobs. Accelerated depreciation,
alternative minimum tax, simplifying capital gains, those proposals are
designed to make it easier for Americans to reinvest in America, to
create jobs, for employers to reinvest in their employees, because if
you do not have employers, you do not have employees.
Mr. Speaker, this substitute, and I have read it and it is a valid
attempt, this substitute puts a $90 billion tax on small businesses,
the engine of growth in this economy. Eighty percent of the last number
of jobs we have had in this economy were created by small businesses. A
$90 billion tax increase on the engine of jobs in America is contained
in this Democratic substitute. More importantly, it has a $32 billion
spending spree in this bill. If more Federal spending were the answer
to getting our economy back on its feet again, we would not be heading
into a recession today. We are spending the most we have in the history
of this Federal Government.
We know that as we look at other nations, if we look at the second
largest economy in the world, Japan, they have been in recession for 10
years. They have had four recessions over the last 10 years, and they
have had five stimulus packages. Every one of those five stimulus
packages looks just like this Democrat substitute. Every one of those
five stimulus packages has failed. I urge to pass what works. Get
Americans back to work. Pass the Republican stimulus package which is
true in stimulus.
Mr. RANGEL. I can see the bumper sticker now: ``Fight Terrorism,
Support Welfare Reform for Corporations.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Engel).
(Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill because it
does not provide short-term economic stimulus and does long-term damage
to the Federal budget.
Mr. Speaker, having served in Congress 13 years, I have had to cast
votes on a number of large bills that contain numerous provisions. And,
I can say most of those large bills contained provisions I do not care
for. What I, and the rest of our colleagues, must do is weigh the pros
and cons. The large bill before us today is weighted heavily toward the
con.
The challenge we face is providing a short-term economic stimulus
without endangering the long-term health of the Federal budget. This
bill does neither, and will cause long-term, and I fear irreparable
harm to the Federal budget.
Let me point out one such egregious provision in this bill.
Permanently eliminating the Corporate AMT while only making minuscule
changes to the Individual AMT is wrong. What are the leaders of the
Ways and Means Committee thinking when they give hugh corporations the
chance to skip out on their taxes

[[Page H7278]]

while continuing to force middle-income families to endure this
hardship? What kind of stimulus is that?
Even more disheartening is the lack of true assistance to America's
unemployed. We have an opportunity to assist people immediately. In
fact, we have a responsibility to assist these people. But, instead
this bill forces State governments to pass new laws making assistance a
long time in coming--if at all. Where is the compassionate conservatism
in that?
The Democratic substitute provides immediate assistance. It contains
a provision that draws upon a successful history of Federal programs--
building things--in this case schools. The Federal Government has done
a great job building military bases and an interstate road network.
Building schools will employ people now and finally provide our
children the facilities they deserve.
I would also note that the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee
walked away from bipartisan negotiations that included the President.
The White House has already signaled it has concerns about this bill--
and rightly so. It is too heavily weighed toward helping huge
corporations and not toward the average American.
Mr. Speaker, there are good parts of this bill. The provisions that
will allow faster depreciation of business equipment purchases and of
leasehold space are good provisions. These would spur short-term
economic activity. Why we are not providing new short-term incentives
like this is a mystery to me.
In short, the egregious provisions in this bill weigh this bill down
too much. I urge a yes vote on the Democratic bill and a no vote on the
Thomas bill.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Brown).
(Ms. BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, let me just point out that I am
the Member from Florida, Florida, who does not know how to conduct an
election. But we do know how to do tax cuts. For the past 3 years, we
have had these same kind of cuts in Florida. And what are the results?
The Florida State legislature is in session today as we speak cutting
the budget because of these tax cuts that have been going on, over $1
billion in tax cuts to the rich.
Yes, Republicans know how to rob from the poor to give big tax cuts
for the rich. Shame on you. Shame on you.
Let me tell you something. One of the things that we are talking
about cutting, Medicaid, hospitals, school lunch programs. Someone
asked the question on the floor and I am going to ask you, why is it
when the Republicans present something on the floor that the big dogs
always have to eat first? And, in fact, in this bill that you have on
the floor, they are the only dogs that are eating.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, during the Civil War, the wealthy could
exempt themselves by buying their way out of fighting, and the war
became known as a rich man's war but a poor man's fight. That is what
the Republican bill is today. It is, in time of war, a big goody grab
bag of tax breaks for the wealthiest corporations and individuals in
America: capital gains tax break; alternative minimum tax break for
corporations, retroactively; an accelerated income tax break for the
wealthiest Americans.
But what is in it for ordinary Americans? For poor Americans? There
is nothing. It is all for the wealthy. President Kennedy used to say,
ask not what your country can do for you but, rather, what you can do
for your country. The Republican bill today says, ask not what you can
do for your country, ask what you can do for their country club pals.
This is not a bill that helps ordinary Americans. This is a bill that
helps the upper 1 percent wealthy people in our country at the expense
of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and health care and
education for every other family in America.
Vote for the Democratic substitute. Vote against this Republican bill
that helps the wealthiest people in our country.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from New York is
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Republican colleagues for
fashioning a bill that really makes it so easy for people to
distinguish the difference between Republicans and Democrats. It is
abundantly clear that you are just as patriotic as anybody in this
House and you believe the way to fight terrorism is to provide funds to
multinationals which converts that into jobs.
Some of the economists that we were listening to kind of thought that
this should be consumer-driven. They never thought that corporations
with large inventories, with cars they cannot sell and washing machines
they cannot sell, that they would be entitled to a $25 billion, would
you say loan or would you say credit or would you say giveaway? And
then you have got to convert this automatically into jobs but some say,
or into dividends.
I think that your ideas are not well founded. Certainly they have
been rejected by what used to be the Secretary of the Treasury, but
when he disagrees with your leadership, he becomes an underling. When
the President disagrees with you, he is a bad fellow; but when he
agrees with you, he is enlightened.
Let me tell you this, we are going to have a conference and you can
run and hide all over this House of Representatives, but Charlie Rangel
is going to find that conference this time and I am going to be
involved in the conference this time. If the President wants a
bipartisan bill, I have assurances that is what we are going to get.
You have to learn that America, they really do not want to go for
these tax giveaways. They want security. They want to know that the
Social Security fund is there. They want to know that Medicare is going
to be there for them. They want education for their kids. We have not
forgotten the newly found ideas that President Bush found on the
campaign trail, Patients' Bill of Rights, help with prescription drugs.
These are still the American dream. And when we are at war, the rich
have to know that spending money at Disneyland does not pay for it.
Yes, we freeze the top rate for a tax rate that they did not get yet.
And we say that everyone has to share.
You just came around to realizing that those who pay payroll taxes
are entitled to some relief. I thank you for it. I assume that is what
you call bipartisanship. You take a good idea, label it Democrat, talk
with nobody, fold it in with the garbage that you have and you got a
bipartisan bill.
I think we have got to clean that up; but I do hope that you consider
trying to talk with people, being nice with people, being considerate
with people. It did not last too long, this bipartisanship; but the
little time we had it, I enjoyed it.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the Chair appreciates the climate that the
gentleman from New York clearly provides to allow us to continue to
work together. And now to close on the Democratic substitute and all
debate on what was called in today's Washington Post a hodgepodge of
tax rebates for low-income families, expanded government health
insurance and spending from schools to construction, that is income
redistribution posing as stimulus, I yield the remainder of my time to
the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for
2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the committee for their
outstanding work. It is good work. It is serious work. It is work that,
when enacted into law, should help millions of American families.
Mr. Speaker, this has been a partisan debate. We are back to usual. I
do not think the American people regret that. They understand there is
a difference between the two parties. They expect these differences to
be debated. It does not bother me.
It also has, Mr. Speaker, been a rancorous debate. There has been a
lot of screaming and hollering and finger-pointing, accusing, yelling,
bellowing about whose motives are what, yack, yack. I think the
American people do regret that, but I am neither surprised and quite
frankly I do not regret all of this hot rhetoric from the Democrats. I
do kind of regret the fact that we Republicans, some of us, felt the
need to respond. And while I regret that, I understand that sometimes
we feel a need to respond to this heated diatribe, because we have a
fear that the American

[[Page H7279]]

people might not understand. But I think we should remind ourselves
that the diatribe comes from a greater fear, a fear with a greater
reality based to it on the part of the Democrats, their abiding fear
that indeed the American people will understand. And let us remind
ourselves, they do understand and they see clearly the difference
between these two offerings here before us.
The substitute that we are debating asks the fundamental question:
Mr. and Mrs. America, let us tell you what we can do for you with your
money.
It is offered on the presumption that the American people look to
Washington and seek from Washington an opportunity for Washington to do
for them with their own money, a presumption that will not hold water
with the American people.
The base bill, the one brought by the committee, makes the following
observation: it says, very simply, Mr. and Mrs. America, let us
appreciate what you can do for yourself with your own money. Let us
honor what you can achieve and indeed have achieved to the base
foundation prosperity of America by keeping some larger share of your
own money that you earned for yourselves to serve yourself, your
family, your small business, and your employees.
Yes, it is tilted somewhat on behalf of those Americans that would,
if left with a larger share of their money, invest that money in new
plant and equipment, increased productivity, greater opportunities to
do something we Americans do well, provide jobs for one another through
our entrepreneurial effort.
Investment is important. I am an economist. Every economist, when he
hears another economist say a smart thing, stops and says, Gee, I wish
I would have said that first. But this time the chairman of the Federal
Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, beat me to the punch when he said, ``You
will leverage more money out of tax revenues left in the hands of
investors than you will out of tax revenues left in the hands of
consumers.'' We responded to that good advice, sound advice,
empirically proven advice; and, yes, we leave money in the hands of
those people who will invest because investment is the driving engine
of economic growth. This is a good bill for that insight.
But it does not ignore people who would have more of their own money
in the form of that precious American dream called take-home pay by
reducing taxes so that they can spend it on consumption, and there is
plenty here for that purpose. But the main thing about this bill that
has been brought to the floor, this bill that is being contested by
this substitute, is it says, Mr. and Mrs. America, it is your money.
You worked hard for it. You earned it. You know what you can accomplish
with it if it is left in your hands. So we take the opportunity to
leave it to you to invest, build, create jobs, consume, buy, on your
own behalf, provide for your families, do well for yourself and, by
doing so, do good for America.
This is our choice. Vote for the substitute if you believe the
Government of this Nation, through its programs, can take care of you
and your family better than you can do yourself with your money. Vote
for the base bill if you believe the American people are the practical,
hardworking geniuses that made this all possible in the first place,
and they will take their own money in the form of higher take-home pay
and do better for themselves.

{time} 1545

My final point: ask yourself, or your friend, your neighbor, somebody
at your church, maybe somebody you met at a PTA meeting that is out of
work do they really want a government that promises them nothing but a
longer period to survive unemployed, or a government that says the
strength of America is in America? Let us rebuild the growth of this
economy by trusting it to the American people to use their own money,
and let us get your job back.
It is very simple, very simple. Is the answer to this dilemma: jobs
for Americans, by Americans, or jobs in the Government, by the
Government?
Vote down the substitute. Vote for the base bill.
Take heart. The American people do understand. It is understood by
everybody in this Chamber, or why else would they be so loud?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate on the
amendment in the nature of a substitute has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 270, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended, and on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Rangel).
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 166,
nays 261, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 402]

YEAS--166

Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doyle
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wynn

NAYS--261

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Manzullo
Matheson
McCarthy (MO)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon

[[Page H7280]]

Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez
Sandlin
Saxton
Schaffer
Schiff
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--5

Cubin
Gonzalez
Hart
Hill
McIntyre

{time} 1607

Mr. CRAMER and Mrs. NORTHUP changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 402, I was unavoidably
detained by traffic and missed this vote. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the
engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Turner

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. TURNER. I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Turner moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 3090, to the
Committee on Ways and Means with instructions that the
Committee report the same back to the House promptly with
amendments that--
1. Reduce the tax cut provisions of the bill in an amount
equal to the expense of financing short and long-term efforts
to combat terrorism; and
2. Provide that the legislation is temporary and is fully
offset in the Internal Revenue Code over the next ten years,
such that the long-term deficit and national debt are not
increased; and
3. Provide assistance to workers who lost their jobs and
health insurance coverage, and to businesses affected by the
economic circumstances following the occurrences of September
11, 2001.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Turner) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his
motion.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit reports the bill
back to the committee with the suggestion that it be amended to reduce
the tax cut provisions in an amendment necessary to fund the war on
terrorism and to protect the public safety. It provides that the
legislation that comes back should be temporary and fully offset in the
Internal Revenue Code over the next 10 years, and it provides for
assistance to workers who lost their jobs and health insurance
coverage, and to businesses affected by the economic circumstances
following the occurrence of September 11.
As has been nobly demonstrated throughout the history of this
country, Americans are willing to pay for the cost of preserving our
freedom during time of war. The investment that will be required to win
this war and protect the safety of American citizens who this very day
have reason to fear the very opening of their mail is going to cost
billions of dollars. Are we as a Congress going to ask the next
generation to pay for a war that we must now wage? Will we ask young
men and women in uniform to risk their lives to fight against terrorism
without providing them the very best in equipment and training this
Nation can provide? Will we risk the safety of every American citizen
by failing to aggressively address the safety and security needs of
this country? The answer is clearly no. None of us would be for those
things.
That is why funding this war and funding public safety must take
priority over tax cuts.
The investment we must make will represent the very best stimulus
package we could devise. The investments in war-fighting, the
investments in security measures, the investments in public health will
all find their way into the American economy, creating jobs and
economic activities, and they will do so immediately.
We must not forget that what we are spending, whether for tax cuts or
defense or security, is Social Security payroll taxes. We should not
ask future generations to pay for anything other than true emergencies.
This emergency we face justifies spending Social Security payroll tax
dollars to win the war on terrorism and to protect the security of all
Americans, but there is no justification for spending payroll taxes on
unnecessary, untimely tax cuts and spending initiatives.
The founders in this country pledged their lives and sacred honor in
the defense of liberty. Today, we can do no less. It is not recession
that Americans fear today, it is the safety and protection of their
lives, their homes, their businesses, and their public places of
gathering. No stimulus package will help this economy unless and until
this fear is removed.
Our mutual commitment to winning the war on terrorism and protecting
public safety is the first step in economic recovery. On September 11,
our world changed. The old debates that once dominated this floor are
outdated and inconsistent with today's realities. The reality of today
is that our Nation faces the greatest challenge it has faced since the
Second World War. We can win the war on terrorism without losing the
war to save our economy; but first, we must determine the investments
required to win this war and protect the safety of the American people,
and they should be paid for within a responsible budget that neither
mortgages our future nor adversely impacts long-term interest rates.
I talked to a friend of mine who lives in Houston the other day on
the phone. I asked him what he was hearing about the interest in tax
cuts. My friend said, I will tell you what my coffee drinking buddies
and I are saying about tax cuts. We want to know where to send our
contribution to win this war.

{time} 1615

From Wall Street to Main Street, from the investment bankers to the
firefighters and law enforcement personnel who are working overtime
today to protect our safety, they know what every American knows:
Unless we win this war and restore our homeland security, nothing else
matters.
President John Kennedy once said, ``Americans will bear any burden
and pay any price in the defense of liberty.'' Now is the time; now is
the hour. Vote for the motion to recommit.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas)
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield to the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, the only thing I would add is 45 days ago,
less than that, we in this country incurred the most barbaric act in
the history of civilization against humanity, save maybe for the
Holocaust during World War II.
There is no higher duty that a Representative in the United States
Congress has than the safety and defense of this country and the
citizens that live here. We ought to do that first.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with the gentleman more.
The other committees that are supposed to be working on that provision,
and the leadership that met to help us address those, all of us believe
we need to put together a product and get it to us as soon as possible.
But what we have today is a motion to recommit on a stimulus package
that is under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Normally, as Members know, I admonish Members to read the motion to
recommit. It is usually in legislative language. This time it is in
plain English.

[[Page H7281]]

Sometimes we actually run into problems when we are dealing with plain
English. I will show the Members why.
The first provision says, ``Reduce the tax cut provisions of the bill
in an amount equal to the expense of financing short-term and long-term
efforts to combat terrorism.''
What is combatting terrorism? In listening to the gentleman from
Texas, I heard him say that it is fighting the war. I heard him say it
is security. I heard him say public health. Does anyone dispute that
making sure the economy remains strong so that we can be a vigilant and
free America is combatting terrorism? That is exactly what this bill
does.
Secondly, they want to provide that the legislation is temporary. I
would advise my friend, he really ought to go look at underlying
legislation. For example, making the 15-year life for leasehold
improvement permanent, which is in this bill, was a piece of
legislation, H.R. 1030, which 48 Democrats cosponsored, 12 of them
members of the Committee on Ways and Means, and if I had the time I
would read every name who want this to be permanent, not temporary.
Indeed, permanently extending subpart F was in H.R. 1357. Fifteen
Democrats, 11 members of the Committee on Ways and Means, said they
wanted it permanent. We listened to our colleagues, Democrats on the
Committee on Ways and Means, and made subpart F permanent. So if
Members are only going to make it temporary, it makes it very, very
difficult to carry out the wishes of people who are supposed to
understand tax policy.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let us look at the third provision. It says,
``Provide assistance to workers who lost their jobs and health
insurance coverage.'' If we are going to take this provision literally,
it says ``lost their jobs and health insurance coverage.'' Does the
gentleman from Texas know there are some people who have jobs who do
not have health insurance; that they are employed by small business
people who cannot afford the health insurance? Since it says ``and'',
those people are not going to be able to get any assistance under the
gentleman's motion to recommit because they not only have to lose their
job, they also have to lose their health insurance.
That is what happens when one hastily writes up a motion in an
attempt to make a point, rather than to make law.
Keep reading it. It says, ``to businesses affected by the economic
circumstances following the occurrence of September 11.'' Does that
mean they only deal with people who were unemployed after September 11?
If people were unemployed before September 11, what are they, chopped
liver? It seems to me we ought to deal with the unemployed, whether it
was before September 11 or after September 11.
Then if we take a look at what the Democrats offered, which is every
unemployment check going up, every new program, new part-time additions
to it, the gentleman, I will have to compliment him, is running totally
counter to what his colleagues wanted in the other bill, but he is
very, very close to what we are doing; that is, putting assistance
where it is needed.
But if Members read the English that makes up this particular motion
to recommit rather than the legislative language, if Members vote for
this motion to recommit, they are only going to help those people who
were unemployed after September 11 and who had a job but did not have
health insurance.
Who in the world wants to single out that group to be the only ones
to receive assistance? Certainly not Republicans. We are fair-minded
where we help people who are unemployed. Even those who had health
insurance we believe ought to be covered, and if they were unemployed
before September 11 they ought to be covered as well.
So if Members have a heart, they have to vote down this motion to
recommit.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to recommit.
The tragic events of September 11 completely changed the priorities
and policies on which this House approved the budget for fiscal 2002.
Yet, the House is poised to act again in a piecemeal fashion as if
nothing had happened--nothing has changed.
Mr. Speaker, in light of September 11th's events, we need a new
budget--we need to start over.
We need to reassess what we need to fight the war on terrorism. And
fighting this war is our first priority.
Instead, the House is being asked to vote for a package of
ineffective tax cuts disguised as an economic ``stimulus'' and
inevitably spending the Social Security surplus and putting our nation
deeper into debt.
This bill is an example of misplaced priorities.
Another misplaced priority is the facility for the Centers for
Disease Control.
Earlier this week, I joined several of my Intelligence Committee
colleagues on a tour of the CDC in Atlanta. I could not believe the
deplorable conditions in which dedicated scientists identify and
contain infectious diseases, including some which terrorists might use
against the American people.
Security is less than adequate and some work areas are closed because
ceilings have collapsed as a result of water damage. Connected to an
antiquated electrical network, a 15-hour power failure put the Center
out of commission at the height of last week's anthrax investigation.
Yet, notwithstanding the urgency of CDC's work, neither Congress nor
the Administration has provided the funds necessary to repair or
improve these labs.
Mr. Speaker, in the absence of a new budget that reflects the new
post-September 11 reality, we don't know what other priorities are
being ignored.
Mr. Speaker, let's start over and reconsider every element of the
budget passed this year. Let's fashion a new budget that ensures that
we have resources necessary to win the war on terrorism and protect
public safety.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote on the
question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 199,
noes 230, not voting 4, as follows:

[Roll No. 403]

AYES--199

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

[[Page H7282]]

NOES--230

Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--4

Cubin
Gonzalez
Hill
Schaffer

{time} 1638

So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the passage
of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216,
nays 214, not voting 3, as follows:

[Roll No. 404]

YEAS--216

Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--214

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Ganske
Gephardt
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--3

Cubin
Gonzalez
Hill

{time} 1650

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________