[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 15]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 21818-21819]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



      REGARDING H.R. 3090, THE ECONOMIC SECURITY AND RECOVERY ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JAMES R. LANGEVIN

                            of rhode island

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, November 6, 2001

  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for enacting 
a fair and reasonable economic stimulus package, and to voice my strong 
opposition to H.R. 3090, the Economic Stimulus and Recovery Act.
  For the economy to get back on track, it needs insurance against a 
severe recession in the short run and insurance against escalating 
deficits and debts in the long run. A stimulus package consisting of 
temporary tax relief and temporary increases in government spending can 
provide both.
  With the exception of the household tax rebate aimed at lower- and 
moderate-income workers, this stimulus package does little to help 
those that need it most. The majority of the tax provisions contained 
in this package are permanent, including a cut in the capital gains 
tax, a retroactive repeal of the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax 
(AMT) and an extension of benefits for multinational insurance and 
finance corporations. These permanent changes will not stimulate the 
economy in the short run and instead will put the Social Security and 
Medicare trust funds at risk in the long-term.
  Additionally, the acceleration of recently-enacted tax cuts would 
only benefit the top 25 percent of all income tax filers, who are 
likely to save more and spend less of these tax cuts than those with 
lower incomes. A more effective stimulus package would combine the 
household rebate aimed at lower- and moderate-income workers with a 
temporary incentive for business investment.
  Congress has historically responded to severe economic downturns by 
providing additional weeks of extended unemplovment benefits for 
workers. In fact, during the 1990-1991 recession, Congress extended 
unemployment insurance (Ul) benefits nationally on four separate 
occasions. H.R. 3090 blatantly disregards these past precedents by 
simply giving states a mere $9 billion worth of block grants that may 
or may not be used to extend or increase unemployment benefits for 
laid-off workers.
  This measure also falls to provide laid-off workers with adequate 
health care coverage. The average monthly COBRA premium is unaffordable 
for most displaced workers, who are barely making ends meet with their 
monthly Ul benefits. Although H.R. 3090 would (give states $3 billion 
in health care block grant funds, thousands of workers who have lost 
their jobs since September 11th would still remain uncovered.
  Equally important to these short-term stimulus policies is insurance 
against escalating debt. We need a multiyear budget plan that covers 
the real costs of both the war on terrorism and the country's 
commitments to current and future retirees. Unfortunately, if this 
measure is adopted, its permanent toll on government revenues will 
require even more painful trade-offs among the nation's priorities in 
the future.
  Even before the terrorist attacks, the enormous tax cuts scheduled 
over the next decade had dealt a severe blow to the nation's long-term 
fiscal outlook. According to both the Office of Management and Budget 
and the Congressional Budget Office, during the next decade, the 
federal surplus will be limited to funds earmarked for Social Security 
and Medicare. The Administration's tax cuts for the most affluent 
households have already wiped out the remaining on-budget surplus.
  We must ensure these surpluses are replenished so that we can honor 
our future obligations. We must also provide every dollar needed to win 
the war against terrorism and to ensure the security of Americans 
wherever they may be. But in addressing these new and urgent 
priorities, we should remember the challenges that we faced even before 
the tragic attacks. Without compromising our vital commitments, we need 
to ensure that any policy changes address these new short-term 
challenges without worsening our continued long-term concerns.
  For these reasons, I support the balanced, fiscally responsible 
Democratic substitute that deals with our immediate economic concerns 
without damaging the nation's fiscal health. It provides immediate 
relief to displaced workers while stimulating the economy with 
temporary business and individual tax cuts. Unlike H.R.

[[Page 21819]]

3090, the substitute promotes long-term economic stability and national 
security by making targeted investments in our nation's infrastructure. 
Finally, the substitute pays for itself by delaying the top income tax 
rate cut approved earlier this year, which benefits only our nation's 
wealthiest individuals.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic substitute and to 
reject this reckless and misguided economic stimulus package, which 
will further jeopardize our future fiscal security, while offering 
little assistance to those most vulnerable in the current economic 
climate.

                          ____________________