[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 14 (Monday, January 27, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H156-H157]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                ECONOMY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, the President has the wrong 
plan on the economy. We need to focus on job creation and not on 
elimination of the tax on dividends. The President's plan only helps 
the wealthy and not middle-class and low-income Americans.
  Fifty-five percent of Americans believe that President Bush is not 
paying enough attention to the economy. The economy has lost 1.7 
million jobs over the last two years and there are now 8.6 million 
Americans out of work. The plan unveiled by the President is simply 
more huge tax breaks for the few that will not stimulate growth and 
create jobs.
  As millions of people are out of work and the economy continues in a 
weak and jobless recovery, we must have a strong and immediate economic 
program that gives workers and families money immediately.
  The centerpiece of the President's plan--the complete elimination of 
all taxes on stock dividends--will primarily benefit the wealthy rather 
than putting money into the hands of working class families.
  The Congressional Budget Office concluded last year that ``tax cuts 
that are targeted toward lower-income households are likely to generate 
more stimulus dollar for dollar of revenue loss--that is, be more cost-
effective and have more bang for the buck--than those concentrated 
among higher-income households.''
  Ending the dividends tax will not provide the economy with a short-
term stimulus. The Bush plan calls for a 10-year, $600 billion tax cut 
package. The President's plan simply favors the wealthy. The Democrats 
have offered a $136 billion plan for families and businesses and tax 
cuts that would take effect this year.
  Projections indicate that the President's plan would boost budget 
deficits even higher. A study by the Urban Institute and the Brookings 
Institution show that a typical taxpayer with taxable annual income of 
$30,000 to $40,000 would receive a tax cut of $42 in 2003. For a 
family, this does not amount to much. However, those with taxable 
incomes of more than $1 million would receive on average $27,097.
  The Democratic plan provides $55 billion in tax relief for working 
families, including a one-time rebate of $300 for individuals and $600 
for married couples. It also includes $32 billion in business tax cuts; 
small businesses could write off up to $50,000 in investments; and 
cash-strapped state governments would be provided with $31 billion 
which could be used for homeland security, roads and bridges, Medicaid 
and aid to the unemployed.
  Unemployment is at its highest levels in a decade. Nearly 6 percent 
of Americans are unemployed and daily we hear about corporations laying 
off tens of thousands of employees. Our trade deficit stands at 14 
percent.
  The President's economic stimulus package and a war against Iraq 
would push the federal budget deficit into record levels--as high as 
$350 billion.
  Tax cuts cost and we are already operating under deficits--and the 
President has not clearly outlined who will pay for these tax cuts to 
the wealthy.


                                  Iraq

  I am pleased that the United States, in seeking United Nations 
support for a new Security Council Resolution regarding Iraq, chose the 
path of multilateralism in dealing with Iraq and the potential threat 
of any weapons of mass destruction that it may possess.
  Through strong diplomacy, we have placed weapons inspectors back on 
the ground, armed with greater investigative power and new technology 
that enables them to be more effective at their difficult task.
  To date, it appears that Iraqi officials are granting access to all 
sites visited including presidential palaces and other sensitive 
locations. Now that we have re-established a system that contains all 
of the components that we deemed necessary in the latest resolution, it 
is important that we give this program a change to succeed.
  The policy of the government appears confused at this point--still 
determined to effect regime change even as we profess to be choosing 
the path of peace. This is troubling because the Congress still retains 
the obligation to declare war should it become necessary, and the UN 
Security Council has been vested with the authority to evaluate the 
level of Iraqi cooperation prior to authorizing the use of force.
  All preparations seem to be for war, and not for peace. The military 
buildup in the region does not appear to be countered by an equally 
aggressive diplomatic agenda to solve the crisis.
  When our military openly speaks of planning for a war to begin in mid 
to late February, our foreign policy appears to be directed solely by 
the weather conditions in Iraq instead of serious consideration of what 
war will do to the region as well as to the economic and military 
security of our own country.
  This is tantamount to holding a finger up to the wind to decide which 
route to take. The lives of our brave members of the armed forces are 
far too precious to risk based on planning that makes the weather the 
primary consideration on whether or not to wage war.
  And now in recent weeks there has been an increasingly tense war of 
words between the North Korean Defense Ministry and U.S. government 
officials.
  By all accounts, North Korea poses a more immediate threat to its 
neighbors and the United States than does Iraq. North Korea 
undisputedly has a deadly nuclear arsenal and has unabashedly pledged 
to reactive its nuclear weapons program.
  When confronted recently with the possibility of sanctions to force 
its compliance with its previous non-proliferation agreement, North 
Korea responded by stating that sanctions are war, and that in war it 
would be merciless.
  Today's threats are not the same as they were only months ago. 
Today's new threats pose new challenges to our Nation--challenges that 
our Congress is duty-bound to meet.
  Congress is obligated to examine the new challenges that face our 
country and the world and to make crucial decisions based upon all of 
the information available. Making a truly informed decision with 
respect to the threats we may face today demands that we reconsider the 
decision we made months ago when our world was a different place.
  On January 7, 2003 I introduced legislation that would repeal the Use 
of Force Against Iraq Resolution that was signed into law last October. 
Public Law 107-243 was enacted into law on October 16, 2002 prior to 
the deployment of United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq, and at a 
time when the current nuclear crisis in North Korea had not reached its 
present level of dangerous tension.

[[Page H157]]

  This legislation, H. Con. Res. 2, seeks to repeal Public Law 107-243 
in order to ensure that Congress is afforded the opportunity to 
reexamine the threat posed by Iraq, which would include taking the time 
to review fully and accurately the findings of the international 
weapons inspectors prior to the engagement of military forces.
  Passage of H. Con. Res. 2 would also provide Congress the time to 
consider any exit strategy that must be developed prior to deploying 
troops, as well as the serious domestic impact that possible war with 
Iraq would involve.
  The domestic considerations include the impact on our already 
struggling economy and the high numbers of troops needed over an 
indefinite period of time. Such concerns raise the issue of our 
security at the most basic level when, for example, some municipalities 
are already losing nearly 10% of their police forces due to officers 
who have been activated with the reserves of the armed forces.
  Iraq has allowed international weapons inspectors to re-enter the 
country in order to identify and destroy weapons of mass destruction 
and development capabilities. Weapons inspectors have also begun to 
interview Iraqi scientists who have been key to the development of the 
privy to the country's military.
  Taking the time to deliberate more intelligently in no way diminishes 
the valor of our troops. To the contrary, because we love and support 
our young men and women who are willing to give their lives to defend 
their nation, they deserve our fullest efforts to keep them out of 
harm's way.
  When President Bush addressed the UN last Fall, he warned that it 
risks irrelevancy if it did not stand up and take decisive action with 
regard to Iraq. Now that it has, we risk rendering it irrelevant when 
we appear ready to act on our own conclusions--conclusions that have 
yet to be supported by substantive evidence.
  If the Administration has credible evidence of illegal weapons of 
mass destruction in Iraq, it should immediately share this information 
with the weapons inspectors so it can be substantiated once and for 
all. And here at home, the Administration should own up and tell the 
truth to the American people regarding the level of threat we are 
actually facing.

                          ____________________