[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 14]
[House]
[Page 20552]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



             INCENTIVE TO TRAVEL ACT WILL STIMULATE ECONOMY

  (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to address 
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks and include 
therein extraneous material.)
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, as we look to stimulate the 
economy, we should help the industries that have been hit the hardest, 
the airlines and tourism. The airlines are losing billions. They have 
laid off over 100,000 people. Tourism is New York State and New York 
City's second largest industry, and it is reeling. 15,000 restaurant 
workers and over 6,000 hotel workers in New York City have been laid 
off since September 11.
  The Incentive to Travel Act, which has been introduced in a 
bipartisan way with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) will 
help the economy. It will give Americans the incentive to take a 
vacation at a time when we all deserve one. For 1 year, the bill would 
provide tax deductions for families of up to $2,000 nationally, and an 
additional $1,000 for New York for travel and entertainment expenses.
  It would immediately restore the deduction for business meals and 
entertainment to 80 percent from 50 percent. The Incentive to Travel 
Act is an incentive to stimulate the economy, unlike the Republican 
stimulus package, which is called the ``Special-Interest Payback'' in 
USA Today. They say it is time to take a vacation for the special-
interest Republican payback.
  Mr. Speaker, I request to put this editorial in the Record.

                    [From USA Today, Oct. 23, 2001]

                        Special-Interest Payback


     Crisis becomes excuse to raid federal till for favored groups

       Just about everyone recognizes that the events of Sept. 11 
     and afterward impose new challenges and responsibilities on 
     the nation and its leaders. But this new reality doesn't seem 
     to have penetrated House Republican leaders. In the latest 
     example, they take up today a special wartime ``stimulus'' 
     bill that's little more than a good old-fashioned special-
     interest giveaway.
       The case for a stimulus wasn't strong from the beginning. 
     While the economy is clearly suffering, no one yet knows how 
     bad it is or how long it will last. Given that uncertainty, 
     the best bet is for a temporary jolt that eases the current 
     slump without jeopardizing the nation's long-term economic 
     health with a return to deficit spending.
       Yet against Bush's advice, and that of experts such as Alan 
     Greenspan and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, the 
     House has decided to repay corporate patrons for their years 
     of campaign support. Among its many deficiencies, the House 
     plan is:
       Long-lived: More than a third of the tax cuts take effect 
     in 2003. Even if there's a recession this year, it most 
     certainly will be over long before those cuts kick in.
       Unfocused: Rather than target relief at those who need help 
     the most, the House lavishes tax benefits on just about 
     everyone with a lobbyist. Companies get 70% of the tax cuts 
     in 2002, and some of their breaks are permanent. Low-income 
     families get a one-time rebate check.
       Fiscally irresponsible: The House version blows through 
     Bush's stimulus goal of $75 billion. And with many provisions 
     long-lasting, it imposes costs on the country's fiscal health 
     over the next decade. That means less money to pay down debt, 
     higher mortgage rates and slower economic growth.
       This is easy to dismiss as politics as usual. But that's 
     the problem. These are times that require everyone, 
     especially political leaders, to put aside petty self-
     interest and everyday horse trading for the country's good.
       The House leaders showed an unwillingness to do that with 
     their adamant refusal to consider federalizing the nation's 
     airport-security system. Now they're at it again with their 
     brazen attempt to use the current crisis to please well-
     heeled special interests.
       Worse, they've weakened the hand of those in the Senate who 
     are trying gamely to provide focused relief to the economy. 
     If Republicans pay off their contributors under the guise of 
     stimulus, what's to prevent Democrats from doing the same? 
     Already, some Democrats have been trying to get a minimum-
     wage boost included along with money for road and school 
     construction, among other longstanding party priorities.
       History shows that Congress rarely gets the timing or the 
     size of stimulus packages right. The Fed, which can act far 
     more quickly and with greater precision, is best suited to 
     manage the ups and downs of the economy. If stimulus is to be 
     provided, it should be targeted at low- and middle-income 
     families most in need of help. That would cost far less than 
     the $160-billion House proposal. Ideally, any money used for 
     stimulus should be repaid down the road so that the nation's 
     debt-repayment schedule isn't also sacrificed in the war on 
     terrorism.
       If lawmakers can't rise above their traditional narrow 
     focus and produce a stimulus that works, the country would be 
     best served if they gave this idea a long vacation.

                          ____________________