[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 20467-20526]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 20468]]

the bill in this fashion will hopefully 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. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for

[[Page 20469]]

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 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

[[Page 20470]]

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.
  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. 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. 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

[[Page 20471]]

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.
  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. 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. 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

[[Page 20472]]

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 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. 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

[[Page 20473]]

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 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. 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.

[[Page 20474]]

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 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. 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

[[Page 20475]]

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. 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. 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

[[Page 20476]]

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 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. 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. 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

[[Page 20477]]

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:
       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. 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

[[Page 20478]]


     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

     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
     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)

[[Page 20479]]


     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.
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).''

[[Page 20480]]

       (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' 
     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.''

[[Page 20481]]

       (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:

``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

[[Page 20482]]

     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.

       (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) Section 311 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 is 
     amended by striking subsection (e).
       (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 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.

[[Page 20483]]

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

     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 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

[[Page 20484]]

       ``(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

       ``(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.

       ``(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:

[[Page 20485]]



                               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, 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

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, 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--
       ``(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--

       ``(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, 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.

       ``(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.

[[Page 20486]]

       ``(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' 
     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.
       ``(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(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

[[Page 20487]]

       (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.''

       (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(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--

       ``(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.

       (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''.

[[Page 20488]]

       (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.

       (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.

       (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.

       (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.

[[Page 20489]]



     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 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) 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.

       (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.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to discharges of indebtedness after October 11, 
     2001, in taxable years ending after such date.

     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 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.

       (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

       ``(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--

[[Page 20490]]

       ``(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.

       ``(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. 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.
  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. 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

[[Page 20491]]

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 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

[[Page 20492]]

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 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

[[Page 20493]]

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 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.

[[Page 20494]]

  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 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.

[[Page 20495]]

  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 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.

[[Page 20496]]


  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, 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

[[Page 20497]]

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. 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.
  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

[[Page 20498]]

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. 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.
  This--the repeal of the corporate alternative minimum tax, the 
permanent reduction in capital gains and other measures costing $274

[[Page 20499]]

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

[[Page 20500]]

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 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

[[Page 20501]]

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.
  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

[[Page 20502]]

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.
  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

[[Page 20503]]

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 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.

[[Page 20504]]

  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.
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

[[Page 20505]]

       (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 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--

[[Page 20506]]

       ``(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 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

[[Page 20507]]

     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 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

[[Page 20508]]

     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 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

[[Page 20509]]

     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 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.

[[Page 20510]]



     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 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

[[Page 20511]]

     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.

   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.

[[Page 20512]]

  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. 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.
  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

[[Page 20513]]

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. 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. 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

[[Page 20514]]

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 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

[[Page 20515]]

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 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. 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,

[[Page 20516]]

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 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.

[[Page 20517]]

  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 ensure that our country 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 country 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 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.''

[[Page 20518]]

  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. 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.
  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

[[Page 20519]]

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

[[Page 20520]]

  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 
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,

[[Page 20521]]

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. 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. 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 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. 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

[[Page 20522]]

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 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

[[Page 20523]]

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
     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.

[[Page 20524]]

  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. 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

[[Page 20525]]

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

                               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

[[Page 20526]]


     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.

                          ____________________