[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 176 (Tuesday, December 18, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H10232-H10235]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AMERICA NEEDS BIPARTISAN STIMULUS PACKAGE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, let me say that I do plan initially to
respond to some of the comments that were made by my Republican
colleagues about the potential stimulus bill that I gather we may see
on the House Floor as early as tomorrow. Regardless of the substance of
the stimulus package that the Republican leadership may bring up
tomorrow, I think the bottom line is, and everyone needs to know, that
it is going nowhere. They are fully aware of the fact that it is going
nowhere. I think what we are going to see tomorrow, and I think it is
very unfortunate, is basically a replay of what happened a couple of
months ago when, in the aftermath of September 11 and the World Trade
Center and Pentagon tragedies, there was an effort in the few weeks
afterwards, because of the realization of the impact on the economy and
because the recession was only, if you will, accelerated by the events
on September 11, there was a recognition that we needed to do a
stimulus package to get the economy going again, and that the only way
to achieve that, given that we have a divided government, one body
Democrat, one body Republican majority, that we needed to work across
party lines and to bring the House and the Senate together.
So there was sort of understanding that we would all sit down and
work on a stimulus package together, Democrats and Republicans
together, Senate and House together, as well as with the President.
{time} 2115
But unfortunately, very quickly that dissolved because the House
Republican leadership wanted to pass their own version of a stimulus
package and was not willing to work with the Democrats in the House or
with the other body. A bill was passed very narrowly, I think it passed
by one or two votes here in the House, and of course it was never taken
up in the other body. There was no meeting of the minds and no effort
to try to come to any kind of accommodation across party lines.
I would suggest, having been here, I guess, 12 years, that anything
like that, where one party which is in the majority tries to simply
shove down their throats, if you will, a bill that the other party
cannot stomach because they think it is the wrong way to go, is doomed
to failure.
Every one of my colleagues who spoke on the other side of the aisle
just in the last hour knows very well that if all they do tomorrow is
bring up another Republican leadership bill that has not been
negotiated with the Democrats, which this one has not been, then the
end result is failure. The end result is that that bill will go
nowhere, no stimulus package will pass; and we will go home within the
next few days having accomplished nothing for the American people.
The very fact that they are even talking about this bill means that
my Republican colleagues in the Republican leadership have basically
decided that they do not care to pass a stimulus package. So when they
suggest that they are going to try to help the unemployed, that they
are going to provide health benefits, that they are going to do things
for corporate America that are going to help create jobs, the very fact
that they are bringing a bill to the floor that was not negotiated on a
bipartisan basis means that those things will never happen; and it is
very unfortunate.
It is also very unfortunate that they keep talking about passing
another bill when the first one was doomed to failure; and the second
one will be, as well, because it is really nothing more than a hoax on
the American people. The American people will not see a stimulus
package. The best thing they could do would be to go back and sit down
and talk to the Democrats in the other body, in the Senate, and try to
come to some sort of accommodation, rather than just bashing and
bashing and hammering as this goes on.
I want to talk a little bit about why the Democrats feel that this
Republican stimulus package is really nothing different from the
previous one and will not help, even if it did pass, to stimulate the
economy.
Understand, on the one hand I am saying tonight that this bill that
they are going to bring up tomorrow, if it is brought up, cannot pass;
so it is hopeless from the beginning, cannot pass both houses and be
signed into law. But even if it did pass, it would not do anything to
stimulate the economy. That is what we are really trying to do here,
stimulate the economy on a short-term basis to have the recession be
over.
I wanted to talk a little bit about the Democratic alternative to the
original Republican bill to give my colleagues the flavor, if you will,
of what the Democrats would like to see and why the Democratic
alternative would serve the purpose of helping displaced workers get
unemployment compensation, get health benefits, and stimulate the
economy.
The original House bill that I was talking about, the original
Republican bill that was doomed to failure, passed the House on October
24, almost 2 months ago. It passed strictly on party lines, 216 to 214.
This is the Republican stimulus package. What it called for, and this
one, as well, that they intend to bring up tomorrow calls for, is
essentially tax cuts for big businesses and the wealthy.
Now, how do we get the economy going again if all we do is give big
tax breaks to big corporations and wealthy people? They do not have any
obligation, wealthy persons do not have any obligation to spend that
money. They may just put it in the bank. They may put it in stocks or
do something else. They are not immediately going to spend the money,
which is what is needed to stimulate the economy.
The way the economy is stimulated is when people have to spend money
because they have to buy food or have to pay their rent or whatever
they have to do. Generally speaking, our middle-class people or even
poor people, they go out and spend money, they shop, and the economy
gets going again.
This notion that we are just going to give these big tax breaks to
big corporations, again, that has no stimulative effect. They do not
necessarily have to take that money and invest it in new equipment or
in new jobs or new production of any sort. I would venture to say that
many of them probably would not.
So the whole premise of the Republican proposal, which is essentially
tax cuts for big businesses and the wealthy, really does not help
anything. It does not help stimulate the economy, and it certainly does
not help with those workers who have been displaced and are looking for
a job.
The Democratic alternative that we have proposed back in October and
that we still have been pushing for today by contrast would provide
workers with extended unemployment benefits, health coverage, and tax
breaks for low- and moderate-income Americans.
If I could use my home State, I could say that I have some
statistics, if you will, from the U.S. Department of Labor with regard
to New Jersey. They say that an estimated 361,942, and I
[[Page H10233]]
guess it is not really an estimate but it is an exact figure, New
Jersey residents will apply for unemployment benefits over the next
year, and almost half of those, 166,493, will see those benefits expire
during that same period.
Nationally, half of the unemployed people do not currently qualify
for unemployment benefits, and the vast majority cannot afford health
coverage under our current system.
Let me get a little more specific about what the Democrats have been
talking about. In terms of unemployment compensation, individuals who
exhaust their 26-week eligibility for State unemployment would be
eligible for an additional 52 weeks of cash payment funded entirely by
the Federal Government. Individuals who do not meet their States'
requirements for unemployment insurance, in other words, part-time
workers, would receive 56 weeks of federally financed unemployment
insurance. Members can see how that would make a difference for a lot
of people.
With regard to health care benefits, under the Democratic proposal,
the Federal Government would fully reimburse eligible individuals for
their COBRA premiums. Individuals who do not qualify for COBRA and are
otherwise uninsured would be eligible for Medicaid, with the Federal
Government covering 100 percent of the premiums. These benefits would
last for a maximum of 18 months.
Now, the Democrats keep talking about the Federal Government paying
these costs, because we have to understand that State governments are
strapped. Many of them face deficits. They are not in a position to be
able to pay for these things, which is why the Federal Government is
proposing to do it.
The Democrats also have rebate checks for low- and moderate-income
workers who did not qualify for the rebate checks issued earlier this
year under President Bush's tax cut.
Now, I maintain that President Bush's tax cut from maybe 6 months ago
is the major reason why we are now in a deficit situation, and I do not
believe that accelerating those tax cuts is really going to make a
difference in terms of stimulating the economy. That is essentially
what the Republican leadership is proposing.
Under the Democratic proposal, these low- and moderate-income workers
who did not qualify for the rebate checks issued earlier this year
under President Bush's tax cut would receive a one-time payment of up
to $300 for single people and $600 for married couples.
There are many other aspects of the Democratic proposal, but I just
wanted to key into the fact that rather than giving these big corporate
tax breaks and tax breaks to the wealthy, we are trying to put some
money into the hands of low- and moderate-income people who will go out
and spend the money and stimulate the economy; the same with the
unemployment compensation, and the same with the health benefits. Even
providing health insurance and extended COBRA and Medicaid stimulates
the economy because that money is now being spent on health care.
Mr. Speaker, I always worry when I am on the floor of the House and I
do these Special Orders that someone is going to say, he is just giving
the Democratic line, and that is what all the Democrats are saying, but
why should I believe it?
I would like to back up what I am saying, contrasting what the
Democrats are proposing to do versus the Republicans with some of the
editorial comments that we have been getting from some of the leading
newspapers around the country. This one is particularly appropriate.
This is from the Los Angeles Times, and it is in today's paper.
Just to give some highlights of what this editorial says, and this is
an editorial, as I say, from today's Los Angeles Times, it talks about
some of the Republican tax breaks that are proposed not in the previous
Republican bill that passed the House, but the one that my colleagues
are talking about possibly bringing up tomorrow. So we are talking
about the current bill, not the previous bill.
What this editorial says in the Los Angeles Times, it first of all
talks about the retroactive corporate tax cuts. The Republican
leadership has been pushing not only these big corporate tax cuts, but
making them retroactive, so that the companies would get tax
money back, money back from taxes they paid years ago.
Well, it says in the editorial, and I quote: ``House GOP leaders such
as Dick Armey seem giddy thinking about the pleasure that corporations
would have upon receiving a refund of what they paid under the
`alternative minimum tax' over the last 15 years.'' They are now
getting refunds for taxes paid over 15 years.
``The proposal would hand out millions to corporations such as
General Motors and Ford for doing nothing. Even Enron, which recently
went broke after deceiving investors and workers, could conceivably get
this windfall. Whopping corporate tax deductions.''
Now, the other thing, of course, the Republicans are saying is that
they want to accelerate the drop in income tax rates for higher-income
people.
``Some Republicans hope to make the season bright,'' and they are
talking about the Christmas season in the editorial, ``by cutting the
27 percent rate to 25 percent in 2002. But this gift would benefit the
top one-fourth of taxpayers and cost $54 billion in lost revenue over
10 years. Where's the stimulus in giving a break to upper-income folks
who are unlikely to use it to buy extra groceries?''
Further on the editorial says, and I think some of my colleagues even
mentioned this on the other side in the last hour, ``A 30 percent 3-
year tax write-off on new equipment. The Bush administration wants to
include this, although multiyear tax cuts have little immediate
stimulus effect.''
Of course, we would like to see some kind of tax break for new
equipment, but we are talking about 3 years. Yet I heard some of my
colleagues on the other side talk about how they want this to be
immediate. How is it immediate with a 3-year write-off on new
equipment?
The last thing the editorial says, it talks about ``A Trojan horse 2-
year voucher-credit health care plan. The White House is offering a
scheme that would give displaced workers a temporary tax credit for
health care. But what Representative William M. Thomas (R-
Bakersfield),'' the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, ``and
other congressional Republicans really want is to use the voucher idea
as a wedge in replacing current employer-paid health care with a free
market approach similar to the use of vouchers for education.''
So what are we seeing here? We are seeing some of my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle, some of the Republicans, not just trying
to extend COBRA or provide Medicaid for those displaced workers, which
is the easiest thing to do and what the Democrats want, but some sort
of tax credit or voucher.
Most of the people who are now out of work will not even be able to
use that tax credit. It is not going to get them health insurance; but
it is a sort of voucher, if you will, that has the potential of getting
people out or actually hurting the current system, where most employees
get their health insurance through their employer and switching to some
sort of free market system, which I do not think is going to work and
is probably only going to line the pockets of some insurance company.
I hate to be so dramatic about it, but this is what we are facing.
Again, one could argue that there is no point in even talking about any
of this anyway, because they have no intention of passing anything.
They are just going to pass it in the House, and it will die in the
other body. I can talk here all night about how bad this proposal is,
only because I want to counteract all the things that were said by my
colleagues an hour before.
But I go back to what I originally said, that their real intention is
to do nothing, because everyone knows that this bill is going nowhere.
Let me just talk a little bit about another aspect of the Republican
proposal which is so different than the Democrats that is very scary,
that is, that it is not paid for.
Now, we know that we are in a deficit situation now. In the 8 years
under the Democratic President, and I know people say we certainly have
to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt because he has been
doing such a great job in dealing with the war, and actually very
successful in going against
[[Page H10234]]
terrorism and the al Qaeda network. I am very happy about all that.
But when it comes to these domestic issues, it is very scary what is
really happening. Because of the Republican tax cut that took place
about 6 months ago, we are now in a deficit, which has been aggravated
by what happened on September 11 because of the recession and because
of what comes from the recession, which is less income to the Federal
Government.
The least that the Republicans could do when they put forth a
stimulus package is come up with a plan that is short term and that is
paid for, or if it is not paid for immediately, makes a way to pay for
it fairly quickly over the next few years so we do not deepen the
deficit, because we do not want to continue to have a deficit
situation. It is a huge drag on the economy and could prolong the
recession, rather than stimulating the economy.
{time} 2130
Well, the problem with the Republican bill and, again, I am talking
about the one they plan to bring to the floor tomorrow, is that it is
pretty much paid for out of Medicare. It either increases the national
debt or it is paid for out of Medicare and Social Security.
So what you have is it is either going to increase the debt or it is
going to take money from the Medicare and Social Security trust fund.
And it is almost the same thing as increasing the debt, because we know
that those trust funds are at some point in the next 20, 30 years going
to run out of money, and we have been talking about trying to find ways
of making Medicare and Social Security solvent over the long term. All
the Republican leadership is going to do with this bill is increase the
Federal debt and aggravate the solvency problem for Medicare and Social
Security by taking the money away from there.
The cost of the Republican stimulus package, again, the one that is
coming up tomorrow, would approach $200 billion over the next 10 years
when you take into account debt service cost. Even without enactment of
the stimulus bill, the government will be in overall deficit throughout
the entire first term of President Bush. And with the enactment of this
new stimulus bill, the government will continue to raid the Social
Security and Medicare trust funds for the foreseeable future long after
the current recession is estimated to end.
The Democrats, of course, have said that that is not acceptable. If
you are going to do a stimulus package which is going to have a short
term impact on the economy, then do not give us a long term impact on
the economy by increasing the debt or making the solvency problem for
Social Security and Medicare even worse.
I wanted to talk a little bit about this health tax credit aspect of
the Republican bill that is likely to come up tomorrow because, again,
I think it is a very scary thing. I have always said over and over
again, let us not let ideology get in the way of doing something
practical to help the American people. The stimulus bill should be
that. It should be nothing more than a practical bipartisan effort to
do something to restore the economy in the short run. And to try to
load it up with some sort of ideological voucher system for health care
that would break the traditional health care system primarily financed
through employers is basically grafting some sort of right wing
Republican ideology on a stimulus package in a way that is totally
wrong given what we are trying to accomplish here.
I do not know if I can get into all the details of it tonight, but I
want to just explain a little bit about what this health care tax
credit that the Republicans are proposing would actually do. What they
are doing is creating an individual tax credit for use in purchasing
either COBRA or individual market health insurance policies. So unlike
the Democrats, they are not just going to pay for your COBRA benefits
and put you or make you eligible for Medicaid with Federal funds. They
are giving you some sort of credit for voucher, if you will, that you
can use to help pay for COBRA or go out into the individual market and
try to buy health insurance policy.
Now, anybody who has ever tried to go out into the individual market
and try to find a policy knows that it is a horrendous situation. The
costs are incredible. The tax credit is not going to help you. Unless
you are going to buy some basically rotten policy that is going to give
you very little coverage, and then what you will have is the government
money through the tax credit being used to give people a policy that
essentially is not really very helpful to them and does not provide
them the kind of benefit package that would be useful to them, if they
can even find it.
Again, I would say, Mr. Speaker, they are not even going to find this
policy, but if they did it would be a lousy policy. Now, just to give
you some research, the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office did some
research and they indicated that few people would actually benefit from
this Republican health care tax credit. According to the CBO, up to 9
million displaced workers would receive relief under the Democratic
plan; 5.1 million would be covered by COBRA, about 80 percent, and up
to 3.8 million under Medicaid. But the same estimate shows that of the
Republican style tax credit, only 3.35 million individuals would be
eligible for this benefit, less than a majority.
So when my Republican colleagues in the last hour said we are going
to provide all this health care coverage, not only do we have the
danger of this breaking the system, the traditional system and this
voucher, but it is not even going to provide coverage to the majority
of the people that would need it and who are unemployed.
I just cannot believe essentially what they are up to with this
scheme. If you think about it, as Members of Congress we are getting an
incredibly good health care coverage policy that is paid for by the
Federal Government. The very Republican leaders who are talking about
this voucher for health insurance, 75 percent of their health care
coverage as Members of Congress is provided to them at taxpayers'
expense.
The other thing that I think we are going to see here is that this
kind of coverage that they are talking about that you might be able to
get at individual market, a lot of it is probably going to go to HMO's.
Because without a guaranteed minimum benefit package, which is what
should be provided to make sure we get a decent health care plan, I
think most of the people are going to end up with some kind of an HMO
which limits what doctors they can get, limits what coverage they can
get.
Again, I can talk all night about this and I do not know in some ways
what the point is, because as much as I am trying to contrast the
Republican plan with the Democratic proposals, I really want to stress
over and over again, Mr. Speaker, that the fact that they are bringing
up tomorrow a Republican plan without input from the Democrats and
without input from the Senate, essentially means that we will have not
planned. Their proposal is due to failure.
I do not want to go into this any more because I hopefully have made
the point, but what I would say to my colleagues is, regardless of
whether you like what the Democrats propose or you like what the
Republicans propose, the most important thing is to have the
negotiations and sit down and try to come up with an accommodation and
do not come here on the floor of the House and blame the other body and
say, oh, the other body, the Senate better take this up because if they
do not, the blame falls on them.
Well, clearly, if you put something together that is not done in a
bipartisan basis, it is going nowhere. And I am not going to sit here
and accept the notion that somehow this Senate is going to be blamed
because they do not pass this Republican package. This is not a
Republican package that is aimed to accomplish anything. It is just
being done for some sort of publicity stunt.
Mr. Speaker, with that I would like to end my discussion tonight or
my response if you will to my Republican colleagues on the economic
stimulus package. I probably will be back again, hopefully not.
Hopefully we will pass something. But we will probably be back again
talking about that another time, tomorrow or the next day as we
progress here in these last few days before the holidays.
[[Page H10235]]
Evidence of Terrorism by Pakistani-Based Groups
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I did want to take 5 minutes of my time
this evening to talk about a totally different issue, and that is my
concern over what is happening and what has been happening in India
with the terrorist attacks that have been taking place in India and,
most notably, with the attack on the Indian parliament that took place
last week.
I mention this because in the effort to fight the war against
terrorism, President Bush has made it clear many times that this is a
battle with many fronts. It has a homeland security element. It has an
overseas element. And of course it is primarily been manifested
overseas in the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
But we know that al Qaeda has cells in a lot of different countries and
we know that a lot of these terrorists groups are linked. And so the
President has made clear this is not a battle that will be limited to
Afghanistan or that is going to be limited to this year. It is going to
go on for many years and it is going to manifest itself in many ways.
But one of the disappointing aspects of it all from my perspective is
that I have watched Pakistan help the United States in a significant
way in the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, and against al Qaeda
in Afghanistan; yet at the same time I see that same Pakistani
government continuing its effort to back terrorists who inflict pain
and death and injury on Indian citizens, particularly in Kashmir. But
even more so, of course, now it has actually gotten to the stage where
attacks were made on the parliament, the symbol of Indian democracy.
My point tonight, and I have said it many times, is that if Pakistan,
like any country, really wants to be sincere in fighting the war
against terrorists, they cannot limit it to Afghanistan. They have to
also not support terrorist activities against India or any other
country.
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned last Thursday, we learned about a
horrific terrorist attack on the parliament of India in New Delhi.
Reports indicate that the terrorist attackers died during the attack
but, unfortunately, eight people, including guards and workers, were
killed and at least 17 people were injured at the hands of the suicide
bomber and the other assailants equipped with grenades and guns that
attacked the Indian parliament.
India has conducted intense investigations since the attack and has
obtained evidence that two Pakistani based militant groups, I am not
sure I can pronounce them, Mr. Speaker, but I will try, Jaish-e-
Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba are responsible for the attack.
Indian evidence also makes it clear that these groups received
directives from Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence or ISI. Mr.
Speaker, this comes as no surprise to anyone who has been following
these two groups' history of cross-border terrorism in Kashmir, and I
have confidence that India's evidence is both strong and accurate
against the two terrorist groups.
I have criticized and denounced the actions of these groups many
times on the floor of the House. The most recent incident I have found
to be appalling was the suicide car bomb attack on the Jammu and
Kashmir State Assembly on October 1. Jaish-e-Mohammed came forward and
took credit for that crime which they later revoke, and I have
encouraged President Bush to add this group to the list of terrorist
organizations whose financial assets would be frozen. Although this
group has been placed on the list, Pakistan continues to allow them to
operate with no financial restrictions.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that General Musharraf, the President of
Pakistan, has been willing to help the U.S. in the global fight against
terrorism, however, it is clear that Pakistan has deep-rooted and
intricate ties to the Taliban, al Qaeda and, most importantly, the
terrorist groups operating in Kashmir and now in New Delhi.
India has requested that General Musharraf eliminate the terrorist
capabilities of both Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba. This would
consist of Pakistan shutting down these groups operations,
discontinuing moral and logistical support, arresting the leaders, and
once and for all freezing their financial assets.
I believe that India has every right to make these requests and I
have requested today in a letter to President Bush that the U.S. make
the same demand of General Musharraf, to put an end to Pakistan's
support and tolerance of these terrorist groups.
Mr. Speaker, the attack on the world's largest democracy and the
Indian people must be answered with punitive action. The U.S.
administration must push General Musharraf harder to arrest the leaders
of Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba. In addition, he must follow
through and shut down all terrorist camps operating in Pakistan and all
jihadi schools that indoctrinate terrorism from children. Not only is
this in the interest of India, it would equally benefit Pakistan as
well. It has been made clear that terrorist groups operating in
Pakistan have links to Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda terrorist
networks. And I believe that efforts to eliminate these terrorist
groups is also in the best interest of the United States.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I make these comments not because what I think is
going to hurt Pakistan but by what I think is going to help Pakistan.
In the same way that General Musharraf has come to the conclusion or
came to the conclusion after September 11 that aiding the United States
in the war against the Taliban and against al Qaeda would ultimately be
helpful to Pakistan because of the terrorist activities that take place
within Pakistan, I think the same thing is true of these groups that
operate and get support from Pakistan and attack India.
In the long run, all of these terrorist groups have to be eradicated
and Pakistan must deal with the situation and try to suppress the
terrorism, not only when it is geared towards the United States or
Afghanistan, but also when it is geared towards Kashmir and India.
____________________