[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 23071-23076]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



            THE SUPERIORITY OF THE DEMOCRAT STIMULUS PACKAGE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jeff Miller of Florida). Under the 
Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of 
the minority leader.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, during the Thanksgiving recess or break, I 
had a longer period of time to talk to my constituents about many 
issues that they are concerned about, and I was particularly concerned 
about the state of the economy, and about so many people now that 
continue to lose jobs who have been displaced because of the events on 
September 11, in particular.
  I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that my district, being so close to New 
York and to the World Trade Center, we did have many people, maybe 
almost 200 people in the two counties that I represent, who died in the 
World Trade Center tragedy. So people are still concerned about 
terrorism. A lot of attention is focused on the war on terrorism 
overseas, certainly, as well as security issues here at home.
  But I also noticed that although people still focus primarily on 
those security issues, that many of them are suffering. The economy is 
not what it used to be. Of course, this past Monday we had the official 
economic experts who proclaimed that we do in fact officially have a 
recession; that the recession in fact began last March and was 
accelerated by the tragic events on September 11.
  So I come here tonight urging my colleagues to pass an economic 
stimulus package. We only have 3 or 4 weeks now before Christmas, and 
probably only 3 weeks, maybe 4 weeks, that Congress will continue to be 
in session before the end of the year. I think it is incumbent upon us 
during this period to pay attention to the economic needs and to the 
suffering that more and more Americans face, and try to do something 
about it by passing an economic stimulus bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we know that when talk first began on how Congress 
should address the economic aftershocks of September 11, Members 
pledged to work together across party lines on a bipartisan basis to 
create a stimulus package. However, in just a few weeks after the 
attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the House 
Republican leadership broke off talks with Democrats and essentially 
crafted a stimulus package of their own, which I maintain primarily 
benefits corporate interests and wealthy Americans and not the 
displaced workers and not the people who are losing their jobs, not my 
constituents that I am talking to when I go home.
  On October 24, the House actually passed, strictly on party lines, 
216 to 214, the Republican stimulus package. I wanted to talk a little 
bit this evening about why I think this Republican bill is not the way 
to go, why it cannot be the basis for any compromise that would 
ultimately pass the House and Senate and be signed by the President.
  I also had the opportunity a week ago during the Thanksgiving break 
to do a press conference with one of my colleagues, the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Holt), and also with the president of our New Jersey 
State AFL-CIO, Charlie Wowkanech, representing some displaced workers, 
and in particular one displaced worker who was a limousine driver, who 
basically expressed the concern that he has for himself and his family 
over the fact that the economy has moved into a recession, and what it 
means to him in a real sense.
  I mention that because when I say that the Republican bill does not 
address the crisis that we face, the economic recession, it is not out 
of some ideology, that I am opposed to the Republican bill, but just 
because I do not think it works. I do not think it will accomplish the 
goal of ending the recession, getting the economy back on track. 
Something like the Democratic alternative is more likely to accomplish 
that goal and also more likely to be the basis for some kind of 
bipartisan package that we can all support and get signed into law by 
the President.
  The Republican bill, very much like the Bush tax plan that was passed 
earlier in the year, was loaded with tax breaks to the rich and big 
business. The legislation made no mention of unemployment benefits for 
displaced workers and does not adequately address the issues of health 
benefits for those workers, as well. It just basically does not provide 
for stimulus and any kind of relief or any kind of benefits for 
displaced workers.
  The reason this Republican bill will not stimulate consumer demand is 
because it does not focus on low- and middle-income families who are 
most likely to spend money. It does little to protect those who lost 
their jobs and may lose their health insurance benefits.
  Where it does address the issue of possibly dealing with unemployment 
compensation or health benefits or other benefits for displaced 
workers, it basically gives monies to the States and asks them to try 
to allocate the funds in some way that would help displaced workers. 
But Mr. Speaker, that could take months; and it could likely be very 
uneven, and it really was not very much money compared to all the money 
that was going to the tax breaks, primarily for corporate interests and 
wealthy individuals.
  The Democratic proposal, the Democratic alternative, the Democratic 
economic stimulus package, included unemployment benefits, health 
insurance premiums, and rebate checks for low- and moderate-income 
workers who did not qualify for rebate checks issued under the original 
Bush tax bill that we passed earlier this year.
  It also has additional spending on programs for domestic security 
that probably would result in hiring people, many of whom have lost 
their jobs, and therefore spur the economy by getting those people back 
to work.
  I just want to give, if I could, Mr. Speaker, a brief synopsis of 
some of the finer points of the Democratic proposal and then contrast 
it with the Republican bill and explain again why I think one is much 
more likely to accomplish the goal of getting us out of the recession 
and actually the goal of trying to get something passed.
  With regard to income support under the Democratic bill, individuals 
who exhaust their 26-week eligibility for State unemployment would be 
eligible for an additional 52 weeks of cash payment funded entirely by 
the Federal Government. Individuals who do not meet their State's 
requirements for unemployment insurance, in other words part-time 
workers, would receive 26 weeks of federally financed unemployment 
insurance. So it goes directly to the problem of people who are not 
eligible or have limited options with regard to unemployment insurance.
  With regard to health care benefits, under the Democratic proposal, 
the Federal Government would fully reimburse eligible individuals for 
their COBRA premiums. Individuals who do not qualify for COBRA and are 
otherwise uninsured would be eligible for Medicaid, with the Federal 
Government covering 100 percent of the premiums. These health benefits 
would last for a maximum of 18 months.
  Under the Democratic proposal, we try to get a rebate check to low- 
and moderate-income workers who did not qualify for the rebate checks 
issued earlier this year under the President's tax plan. They would 
receive a one-time payment of up to $300 for a single person and $600 
for married couples.
  People in this income category who are suffering would spend this 
money immediately, and it would certainly

[[Page 23072]]

help with any kind of economic recovery.
  The other thing the Democratic package includes, as I mentioned, is 
domestic security upgrades. Infrastructure is addressed in order to try 
to deal with potential terrorist problems.
  The package on the Democratic side includes up to $9 billion in 
spending programs to improve our Nation's infrastructure to protect 
against terrorism. Included would be funding for bioterrorism 
prevention and food safety programs, local police and fire departments, 
border security, airport security, and highway, bridge, and tunnel 
improvements.
  These upgrades would require more workers. Obviously, these are all 
the types of things, this is the type of spending, that would result in 
more jobs and take people off the rolls of the unemployed.
  Let me just contrast, if I can for a minute, for a couple of minutes, 
the Republican alternative. The Republicans, of course, call it an 
economic stimulus package, but it really is just an extension of the 
Republican tax cut bill that the President sought and successfully got 
passed in Congress earlier this year.
  The Republican stimulus package was basically crafted to respond to 
the business lobbyists, whose favorite tax breaks were left out of the 
$1.35 trillion tax bill that the President proposed earlier this year. 
If we look at the bill for the year 2002, next year, nearly 90 percent 
of the bill is tax cuts and only 11 percent would provide benefits to 
unemployed workers and their families. I am not going to mention all of 
them, and I see I am joined by one of my colleagues here.
  Just to give a little example of where 89 percent of this money goes, 
it is pretty much to corporate interests. The Republican bill has a 
repeal of the corporate alternative minimum tax. It not only repeals 
it, but it allows companies to receive refunds based on past AMT 
payments dating back to 1986.
  The AMT raised only $3.3 billion in 1998, but this Republican 
provision costs $25.4 billion in 2002. It is an incredible giveaway, 
essentially, to large corporations.
  A multinational government-financed tax break. The Republican bill 
allows multinational corporations to defer U.S. income taxes on profits 
from certain offshore activities, so long as they are kept outside of 
the country. How is that possibly going to help with any economic 
recovery here at home?
  The capital gains tax rate. The tax rate on income from capital gains 
would be reduced from 20 percent to 18 percent for taxpayers in higher 
brackets, and from 10 percent to 8 percent for those in the 10 to 15 
percent brackets. Over 90 percent of this tax cut would benefit the top 
10 percent of taxpayers who have incomes over $100,000.
  Then we have acceleration of the reduction of the 28 percent rate to 
25 percent. It has already been cut. But this change does not benefit 
the 75 percent of taxpayers who are in the 15 percent bracket or lower.
  I could go on and on talking about all the tax breaks that are in 
this Republican bill. The bottom line is that universally, almost, we 
have seen independent analysts, editorials in the Nation's leading 
newspapers, pointing out and essentially rejecting this GOP economic 
stimulus bill because it will not achieve the goal of stimulating the 
economy and trying to get us out of this recession that has now been 
declared.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), if he would like to speak.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
New Jersey, for yielding to me. I also appreciate his leadership on 
this very important issue, because it really is important.
  Mr. Speaker, we talk about a lot of things here in this people's 
House, but today the American people face a war on terrorism, not only 
here at home and around the world, but we also face an economic 
recession here at home, as my good friend, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone), has so eloquently talked about. It has now been 
verified by the economists who do these things.
  I think the American people have come together like I have never seen 
them in my lifetime since September 11. I know in my district, I have 
always thought it to be a fairly patriotic place, and I think they are; 
but I have seen more American flags flying as I travel across North 
Carolina than ever in history, certainly, over the past 10 weeks.
  In Congress, we need to do our part to help people address the 
economic problems that they now face. I think that is what we are 
talking about tonight. We face probably one of the greatest challenges 
when we talk about the issue of terrorism as a result of September 11 
that I think we have faced probably since World War II, and we saw evil 
in this country unlike we have ever seen it before. The economy was 
already slowing down, as many know. That did not help it at all. That 
attack, I think, really pushed us on the brink of and into a recession.
  Many sectors of our economy have been affected adversely by that 
attack. In October, as an example, the unemployment rate jumped a half 
a percentage point, to 5.4 percent. That is a 5-year high. I have not 
seen the latest numbers, but that was the biggest monthly increase in 
20 years. So this year we have seen the economy go from having a 
surplus to something we are not sure what we are going to have as it 
relates to our budget when we end this year.
  Last month, the U.S. manufacturing activity plunged to the lowest 
level in more than a decade, and it is clear that we are hurting across 
the board. No sector of our economy is immune from this economic 
slowdown, and my district has been hit particularly hard. Not only does 
it have a lot of high tech in it, it has a lot of farming interests; as 
a result of that, a lot of manufacturing and textiles and furniture.
  We have just seen people lose their jobs by the hundreds and by the 
thousands. Today I call on this Congress to come together and pass an 
economic stimulus package that gets people back to work.

                              {time}  2115

  It will get our economy rolling again, and it will impact people, the 
people that work, the people that are unemployed, the people that need 
to buy groceries, people that need to buy clothes for their children 
and medicine. And a package that passes should strengthen the economy 
by investing in America's workers and small businesses and not by 
passing massive tax breaks for wealthy corporations. They may need a 
tax break, but they do not need to be first in line. They have already 
been first in line once. They do not need to line up again.
  I have got people in my district who have been unemployed and their 
benefits are running out and it is now moving toward Christmas-time. 
The thing we ought to be doing is what we did in our Democratic package 
by extending unemployment benefits for those who do not have a job. 
Help them across these tough times so they can find a job.
  Let me make sure that all my colleagues understand, and I think they 
agree with me, or most of them do at this point, that we support the 
President 100 percent in his battle against terrorism. Because it is 
all of our battle. It is a battle that we have to win. And he needs our 
support, and he has it. And I think all Americans, Democrats, 
Republicans, Independents, Liberals and Conservatives, are together on 
this behind our Commander-in-Chief on this effort against terrorism.
  But on the economy, that is a different matter. Because I believe the 
House Republican leadership was absolutely wrong to ram through this 
House a special interest tax break and calling it a stimulus package.
  It really was not a stimulus package. It did not help the people that 
need help. That is how you stimulate the economy. You help people that 
will spend money.
  It is amazing to me in January and February and every time since then 
we have said to the American consumer, get out and spend money. Buy 
things at Christmas.

[[Page 23073]]

  It is kind of hard to buy things if you do not have any money, and 
you cannot borrow it if you do not have a job. That is basic economics.
  The American people do not need assurances that these tax cuts will 
get the economy back on its feet. What they really need is a job.
  I have got people in my district who want to work. They just want a 
place to go to work. They want to provide for their families and keep 
their homes in order, pay their bills. They do not need pats on the 
back and rhetoric about the strength and spirit of the American worker. 
They need a job. That is all they want, a place to work.
  I say to my colleagues, praise does not pay the bills, and you cannot 
cash encouragement. We need a package that will produce real results 
for those affected by this economic downturn. That is how we are going 
to shorten the cycle and get this economy going again. Congress must 
take effective action of passing legislation that will help our economy 
grow and create jobs. You do that by helping the people who work.
  We can start by funding some common-sense ideas. They are very 
simple, and there have been a number of editorials in some of the major 
papers in the country. We have got ready to go construction projects. 
We are going to spend the money over the next several years. Why not 
speed them up and put thousands of people to work? We could build 
airports and do airport security, things we need to do for terrorism, 
put the security in place faster, put people to work.
  There is a lot of infrastructure that needs to be put in place. We 
have got thousands of children across this country, thousands in my 
home State. We could be spending some of the money on school 
construction. That would put a lot of people to work and improve the 
quality of education, and it would say to our communities what is most 
important to them is that we are planning for the future and not 
looking to the past.
  Because we have a lot of communities, my community, the gentleman's, 
everybody in this body that is seeing any kind of growth that is facing 
this job problem, and I certainly have fought for school construction. 
I know my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), has. 
He has talked about it many times.
  I remember when I was State superintendent, I fought the issue, and I 
am still doing it. I have seen more school principals talk to me as I 
have been in schools, and I go about every week. They tell me how 
vulnerable they feel they are on security with children outside in 
trailers separated from the main building. When it rains, they get wet. 
When it is cold, they have to put on a jacket to go inside to the 
bathroom, the library, et cetera. We could do something about it. Why 
not do something like that?
  In my State alone there are over 5,600 trailers in use. That is an 
increase of 16.4 percent in just the last 5 years. Now, granted we are 
a fast-growing State, as many others are, but we also have some very 
poor States.
  A full 10 percent of the students in North Carolina go to school in a 
trailer. I would not make that point if we were not doing our part. But 
we have counties that pass bond issues, large bond issues. I know of 
one county that just passed one by 70-some percent, the second bond 
issue they have passed in less than 5 years, and they still cannot 
catch up because they are growing so fast.
  Rather than give huge tax breaks to huge corporations, I think the 
stimulus package ought to focus on putting people back to work, getting 
children out of trailers and back in classrooms and in secure areas 
where they ought to be.
  We have a bipartisan school construction bill in this House committee 
with more than enough Members on it to pass it. Why cannot we get it to 
the floor? The leadership knows it will pass. They just will not let it 
come to the floor to pass. The American people need to know that the 
majority of the Members of this United States House will pass it, if we 
can get the leadership to put it on the calendar. They will not put it 
on the calendar.
  That is the kind of economic stimulus we need. It not only provides 
jobs but it will provide opportunities in the future, and it will make 
a difference in America by funding these kinds of worthy projects like 
these and others.
  Like we say in North Carolina, we can kill two birds with one stone. 
We can improve education, security at airports, bridges, roads, a 
multitude of other things that are out there that we are going to do, 
but we have to jump-start the economy and put people back to work. 
These are high-paying, high-quality jobs that will return tax dollars 
not only to the Federal Treasury but to local and State treasuries and 
improve the quality of life across this country.
  I also believe that an economic stimulus package should address the 
needs, as I said earlier, of these people who have lost their jobs 
through nothing they have done wrong. They have gone to work every day. 
They have put in a good day's work. They come home. They contribute in 
the community. They are members of booster clubs, PTAs, and they go to 
their churches and fire departments and rescue squads. And not only 
have they lost their jobs, but, as a result of it, they have lost their 
health insurance and the children have lost health insurance.
  Why is that so important? Because when that happens they do not get 
the physicals. They do not get the health insurance. Some of them may 
not even be able to get the emergency care they need. And if they do 
get it they go to the emergency room, and all of us pay if they cannot 
afford to pay.
  A great number of people who have lost their insurance, they lost it 
when they were laid off. In some cases, it was extended for a period of 
time. Others lost it as soon as they were laid off.
  The recovery bill that the House, the Democratic piece of it that we 
put forward that obviously did not pass because we did not have the 
votes, would cover health insurance costs for a portion of those 
workers and pay a piece of it when they went back to work. The one that 
did pass, that the majority passed through, would cover very few. It 
just will not get the job done.
  I think one of the scariest things that can happen to a young family 
is to have children or have a health care problem and know that if they 
get sick you have no assurance of any kind of quality health care and, 
in some cases, no health care because they do not have the insurance in 
case of an emergency.
  And I can state, having been superintendent of schools for the State 
of North Carolina, one can tell very quickly those children who come 
from homes who could not have health care benefits because they will 
not have the kind of quality care they need, and we see the results in 
the classroom. Many of these families, as I said, have small children. 
They certainly need that help.
  It is clear to me that we can and should and must do that, and I 
trust that the other body will send us a stimulus package with some of 
those pieces in it that is fair to all of those people in this country.
  I also believe we should increase the level, as I said earlier, of 
unemployment benefits for those who have lost their jobs, because it 
has not been increased since the 1980s. And certainly the cost of 
living has gone up, the cost of buying food. Probably the only thing we 
have seen go down lately is gasoline prices, and they will probably go 
back up.
  But the truth is, if one is unemployed and does not have the 
resources, one really does need something of a crutch to get to the 
next job until the economy turns around, and this will help.
  Since the last recession, which is now almost a decade ago at the 
beginning of the 1990s, unemployment benefits have not kept up with the 
cost of living. And there are a lot of folks who are recognizing that 
now, who find themselves for the first time, in some cases, in their 
career, unemployed, without the resources to meet basic needs. As a 
result, workers are hit awful hard when they lose their jobs, 
especially those who have not been there before and may not have saved 
the money to meet even the basic needs.

[[Page 23074]]

  People simply cannot survive off unemployment benefits these days. 
Unemployment insurance never was meant to take care of all of the 
needs. It was meant to take care of basics while a person was looking 
and getting back to work when jobs are available. And I believe that is 
an essential component of any economic package. It ought to have it in 
there. It ought to be a part of it, and we ought to get that done.
  We are now almost to Christmas. We have been here all year, all year, 
and it still is not done. We have a long agenda of things yet to be 
done.
  And there is another piece that we ought to deal with, and I trust 
any kind of final package that passes will be in it, is if we are going 
to have tax rebates, we ought to extend it to those who did not get it 
last time. And I am convinced those folks who, incidentally, who paid 
taxes, they pay them in in FICA and other taxes, they just did not pay 
enough in to meet the threshold to get the 300 or 600. But they will 
spend every penny of that money on those kind of necessary benefits, 
not a new car, but things like food and clothing and the utility bills, 
things they really need money for.
  That is how you stimulate the economy. When you get money, you spend 
it. You do not stash it away. They will put it back in those luxury 
items that all of us think about, as I said, in food, clothing, 
medicine, heat and shelter. That is the kind of stimulus package we 
need that will make a difference.
  A number of experts such as former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin 
and even Chairman Greenspan have said, any kind of package we pass 
ought to be for the short term. It ought not be long term. It ought to 
be no more than 18 months at the most, 2 years at the outside. Simply 
because if you add it in longer than that, what do you do? You build 
inflation into the system. The last thing we need at a time when we 
really are trying to jump-start an economy, we are not trying to run it 
over the cliff. That is the difference. You just want to give it a 
jump-start.
  I think it is very simple that Congress has the power and in my view 
has a major obligation. This is something we could and should do to 
take these actions on behalf of the American people. Because it is not 
just the people who are unemployed that are hurting. They are just 
hurting a whole lot more than others. There are a lot of small business 
people who are hurting, also. And, yes, large corporations, many of 
them are, too, because they are not moving goods at the level they 
were.
  You do it when you have the unemployment level for the majority of 
people working, and we need to help get it back together. I think the 
House Republican leadership has a real choice, and I trust they will 
take the right road. They can lead, follow or get out of the way and 
let somebody else provide the leadership to get the job done.
  It is so important now at a time when I think the economy is where it 
can move forward and move very quickly if we did the right things. But 
if we do the wrong things, if we do the wrong things, and I pray we do 
not, we could find ourselves facing the same kind of problems that we 
faced in the early 1990s, 1991, 1992, with huge deficits as far as the 
eye could see, and it took almost 10 years to turn it into a surplus.
  There are those who are now saying we could very well be facing 
deficits all over again, and I think the leadership in this body needs 
to make sure we pass us a stimulus package that is responsible, that is 
focused, that is short term, that gets people back to work but does not 
break the bank. It has to be paid for. It has to be paid for, and I 
think it should. And it is important that we help those who did not get 
help last time. This should be a stimulus package, not another tax 
package.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. PALLONE. First of all, I want to thank the gentleman for what he 
said. I think he laid out very well why we need a stimulus package, 
because of the recession, that is now actually ongoing for over 6 
months based on these experts and what they said this past Monday, and 
also pointing out why the Democratic alternative, or something like it, 
is the way to go.
  A couple of things the gentleman mentioned I just want to dwell on a 
little bit. The biggest problem with the Republican proposal is it is 
not really a stimulus package at all, but just a continuation of the 
tax breaks that were not included in the Bush tax proposal that was 
passed earlier this year. And as the gentleman says, most of what is in 
the Republican bill are permanent tax breaks, so it is not only not 
designed as a temporary measure, but it is something that will have a 
long-term impact on the budget and, as a result, more likely to result 
in significant deficits down the road.
  That is not what we should be doing now. First of all, most of the 
money goes to big corporations who do not necessarily have to bring it 
back into the economy. But even more so it is permanent tax breaks that 
could lead again to the situation we faced 10 years ago.
  A lot of people do not understand this. Even now I find a lot of my 
constituents saying, when we talk about the deficits, well, why is that 
meaningful? But I really believe the deficit spending was a major 
problem in the economic decline that we had before this last 10 years. 
And the fact that President Clinton in particular was so successful in 
turning that around and making a surplus was a major reason why we had 
the sustained economic recovery for so long.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. If the gentleman will yield to one other point, and he 
brought it to my attention when making his last point. The Federal 
Government, or any government entity for that matter, but by and large 
the Federal Government because they can go into the equity market and 
get any amount of money they need to get by just driving the rates up, 
and of course that happened and was happening in the 1980s and into the 
early 1990s. And of course what that did is crowd out private 
opportunities to get in unless they are willing to pay higher and 
higher interest rates. And we have seen lower interest rates in the 
1990s with tremendous economic growth that literally most of the 
economists did not understand originally because of what was happening.
  But one other point on the proposed tax bill, and I really call it a 
tax bill because of what it was on the alternative minimum tax and 
others that went all the way back to 1985. My State of North Carolina, 
and 24 other States, find themselves this year in tough economic times 
because of the downturn. They are facing tough budget situations.
  Mr. PALLONE. New Jersey as well.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. New Jersey as well, and most States. But in that 
package, quietly hidden, when you repeal some of the pieces they wanted 
to repeal in it, my State gets hit with something like $170 million or 
$180 million the first year, almost $200 million dollars, when the 
General Assembly has been in the longest session in history struggling 
with one of the biggest deficits, almost a billion dollars in the State 
budget, struggling with how to work that balance of making major cuts 
without cutting all the services, and ultimately, in the end, 
struggling with how they would balance cuts with additional revenues to 
get there. And that kind of hit would tip them right back over the edge 
again and we would see major cuts in education and other vital 
services.
  I do not think anyone intentionally did it; I believe they just do 
not understand. We have to do a better job so they will understand it 
and will not make those kinds of mistakes. Because not only will we be 
in trouble at the Federal level, but I think we stand on the verge of 
pushing a lot of States into deep trouble. I trust my colleagues in the 
majority will understand that and back away from that kind of mistake 
because I think we are getting ready to run right over the cliff.
  Mr. PALLONE. I agree with my colleague. What we have discussed 
tonight is not that easily explained. We just elected a new governor, a 
Democrat in New Jersey, we are very proud of Jim McGreevey, who will be 
sworn in in January. But the first day after he was elected, and he has 
not even taken office, he realized it was very possible

[[Page 23075]]

the State may be in deficit several billion dollars. And if as a result 
of that there have to be cutbacks in services, in jobs, that is only 
going to aggravate the economic situation in the State.
  It is difficult. I explain to my constituents why during the 1990s 
President Clinton was so successful in turning the economy around and 
having a surplus, that the long-term interest rates went down and that 
that was a big factor. Then people will say, yes, but right now the 
Federal Reserve has stepped in and we have short-term interest rates, 
and they keep getting lower and lower. But the long-term interest rates 
continue to rise.
  So as my colleague says, if we are looking to these companies, large 
or small, to make investments in infrastructure and create new jobs, 
they cannot get the capital to do it with those kind of long-term 
interest rates. It is not easy to explain to people, but it is there. 
That is the reality.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. The gentleman's point is well taken, because the 
equity markets are based on the stock market. They understand these 
things. There is a reason why the long-term rates, and I really believe 
this, and the people who follow it will say this, there is a reason why 
they are not coming down. They see what is happening right here in 
Washington, and if the out years of the revenue of the Federal 
Government, the taxes, start to drop off, and expenditures of the 
dollars we have going, at some point we will cross that and the Federal 
Government will be back to borrowing money and it will drive the rates 
back up.
  That is why it is so important that we do smart things. Smart things. 
We can do a combination of probably all of it. I always tell folks, and 
I know some of my colleagues chuckle when they hear me say this, but I 
grew up on a farm in eastern North Carolina, and I always remember 
something people used to say, and that is ``Pigs get fed, hogs get 
slaughtered.'' And when you decide to get too much, you get in trouble.
  If we have a mix of helping, as we talked about earlier, helping 
those who have lost their jobs and giving some money for unemployment 
benefits and health benefits, and then we help business a little bit, 
then all of a sudden the whole economy comes up together. But if we 
weight it too much to one piece, then it tilts over. And we have been 
through that in the past, as my colleague pointed out earlier. We 
recognized in the early 1990s that it had to change and we changed 
that. And then what did we see? We saw people moving into jobs and 
working that had not worked in a long time. We had the lowest 
unemployment we have had in as long as I can remember in this country. 
Virtually full employment.
  Mr. PALLONE. That is true. The other thing the gentleman mentioned 
that I wanted to just mention briefly is that it is a little deceptive 
out there. I know the day after Thanksgiving is the biggest shopping 
day of the year. And my district I would say, certainly if you look at 
it nationwide, is a fairly affluent area; and we saw all the people 
running to the malls, the lines at the malls. And so people will say to 
me, gee, everybody is going shopping; things must be good. But as my 
colleague says, it is only true for the people that have the money.
  I found when I went home for the longer period of time that we had 
last week that there are people who have lost their jobs, there are 
people that are suffering, and those lines getting into the mall do not 
indicate what is really going on out there. I hope that retail sales go 
up, and that that is another reason for the economy to come back. I 
certainly encourage it. But there are a lot of people suffering.
  The one person I mentioned earlier that we had at this press 
conference with the labor leaders in the State that most stuck in my 
mind was this limousine driver. As my colleague knows, I am only about 
50 miles from New York City, and we had a lot of people that died at 
the World Trade Center on September 11. And as a result of what 
happened in terms of transportation as well as the economy, there just 
are not as many people using limousines, let us face it. So this guy is 
still working, he is still driving his limousine and working hard, and 
he explained where he is getting his riders from and the whole thing. 
But at the end of the week he was only paying his expenses, which were 
huge between the limousine and the gas and everything. And so he 
continues to work, but he does not have anything to show for it at the 
end of the day.
  Now, how long can somebody continue to do that before they have to 
pack it in? And I only mention it because, obviously, as the gentleman 
says, people want to work. They are not going to give up. He is 
obviously dipping into his savings, because September 11 is how many 
months? It is about 2 months now almost. At some point he will not be 
able to continue because he is not making enough money to continue to 
sustain himself.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. He is a lot like a lot of our farmers. They are 
staying in business, but they are living off their equity. He has his 
limousine service and his equipment is depreciating. But if he does not 
make a profit, pretty soon he will not be able to pay his employees and 
his equipment will wear out.
  We had a meeting in my district, and my colleague, the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price), joined me several weeks ago. I remember 
distinctly we had two unemployed workers with us, really nice ladies. 
One of them worked for Midway Airlines. As a result of September 11, 
they had to shut down. We hope they will get back up, but she lost her 
job immediately. She had two small children. And she says, I want to go 
to work. She said, I need to work; I need the insurance. She had worked 
for something like 6 or 8 years for the company, and all she was asking 
was an opportunity to work. She was not asking for anything else. She 
said, I cannot make it with my two children; I cannot buy insurance. 
That is why it is so important to have it funded at a level when I am 
unemployed so at least I can cover my children.
  Another lady had worked for a textile firm 33 years, and she lost her 
job. She said you cannot imagine how you feel when you back up to the 
door and load up everything you have worked with for over 30 years in 
the back of that truck and carry it home with you and you do not have a 
job. She was not old enough, obviously, to retire on Social Security. 
Seems, as I remember, she was in her late 50s. Had worked all her life.
  Just delightful people who want to work. And I think that is an 
obligation that we have, to help build that bridge for those people who 
really do want to get back in the workforce, who want to participate in 
this economy, want to help America grow. And that is how we build the 
wall against terrorism at home, by helping strengthen our economy and 
giving people a chance to participate in one of the great economic 
successes in the world.
  It really is the American worker, it is the person who is at the door 
of the business, it is the person who helps clean the offices, it is 
the person who works on the production line, who works in the service 
station, any number of places, wherever they may be. They are really 
the heart and soul of the economy in this country. And we in this body, 
in my opinion, not only have a responsibility but we have a moral 
obligation to help them out.
  Mr. PALLONE. I do not think we are going to use our whole hour, but I 
did want to mention where we sort of are, because the gentleman and I 
both mentioned the House bill, the Republican bill, which we do not 
like, and the Democratic alternative.
  There does seem to be some hope in the sense that, and I am looking 
at this news summary from yesterday, or I guess it is from yesterday, 
and it says that in light of Monday's declaration that the economy has 
been in recession since March, the President urged lawmakers to finish 
work on an economic stimulus package by Christmas. So he is out there 
saying that we should try to get together and pass a package. And then 
Senator Daschle, from the other body, called on our Republican 
colleagues to join us and begin discussions on a bipartisan plan for 
economic recovery.

[[Page 23076]]

  My understanding is that what happened in the other body, in the 
Senate, and I use that term ``other body'' because that is what we have 
to use, that there really are two conflicting bills and neither one has 
the 60 votes I guess to achieve cloture.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jeff Miller of Florida). The gentleman 
is reminded not to quote individual Senators.
  Mr. PALLONE. They do not have the 60 votes, I guess, to achieve 
cloture; but they have said they are going to try to sit down and work 
something out. Again, we just need to remind everyone that there is 
only maybe 3 weeks or so before the Christmas break; and if we do not 
get together on some kind of bipartisan proposal, we are not going to 
get anything passed.

                              {time}  2145

  I say that because I know there has to be some give and take. But, on 
the other hand, I think unless something like the Democratic proposal 
is the basis for a compromise, we are not going to see anything passed 
because this tax giveaway to the corporate interests that is in the 
House Republican bill, I do not see how that can be a basis for any 
bill that passes the two bodies and goes to the President.
  I do not like to read editorials, but I want to quote a few sections 
of an excellent editorial in yesterday's New York Times because I think 
it explains what needs to be done here in the next few weeks. This was 
in yesterday's New York Times.
  ``Congressional Countdown. Congress has only a few weeks left before 
adjourning for the year. Yet there is still no legislative agreement on 
measures to boost the economy and improve protections against terrorist 
attacks. President Bush needs to break the impasse on both issues, or 
legislators will go home covered with failure.
  ``Ideally, Congress should quickly pass a balanced fiscal stimulus 
bill aiding those who need help most without widening deficits in the 
years ahead.''
  They say, ``Right now there are two competing stimulus bills, and the 
one supported by most senators is by far the better. It would channel 
tax breaks and spending to those most hurt by the economic downturn, 
whereas the bill pushed by House Republicans would cut taxes 
disproportionately for the rich and for big corporations.''
  I yield to the gentleman because it sounds like everything we have 
been saying tonight.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I think it would be inappropriate not to 
make this point tonight. There is a finite amount of money. The 
gentleman has said it, and the editorial has said it, and I mentioned 
it earlier. That is why it has to be paid for. If it is not paid for, 
and people should not misunderstand this, that money is coming out of 
the Social Security Trust Fund if it is not paid. The people who will 
be paying for that disproportionately are the lowest wage earners in 
the country because they are the people that pay into that system and 
they are depending on that. All of us are depending on it for our 
Social Security money down the road. If we take it out now, we know we 
are going to have needs down the road. We know we are going to have 
problems, and that cannot happen.
  It is one thing to have one group over here with a panel talking 
about saving it and putting the money in the stock market and the other 
to spend it in this House. That would be horrible. That would be 
horrible to the American people. We should not do it. Whatever we do, 
we should pay for it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, basically this editorial juxtaposes what 
can be done to achieve a compromise. It says, ``Congress could reach a 
financially responsible compromise if Republicans dropped their worst 
ideas, a speed-up of the tax cuts enacted earlier this year for the 
wealthiest Americans and a separate measure to make it easier for big 
corporations to pay no taxes at all. The final bill could then focus on 
tax breaks, tax refunds and health benefits for the poor and working 
poor, while helping small- and medium-sized businesses with adjustments 
in write-offs for depreciation and expenses.''
  The Democrats are willing to provide tax breaks and help business, 
particularly small- and medium-sized businesses. But the bottom line is 
that this stimulus package at the same time does have to address the 
concerns of displaced workers, the health benefits and the unemployment 
benefits that the gentleman has mentioned. This stalemate does not have 
to continue, but there is not a lot of time. I think it is important, 
as we did tonight, to continue to speak out over the next few days and 
to point out that this is a major issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I was happy before we left that we got the airline 
security bill passed, and I thought that was the number one priority. 
But in light of the recession and what we are seeing out there with the 
economy, this is now the most important priority that we need to 
address in the next few weeks.
  With that, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Etheridge).

                          ____________________