[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 26447-26453]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



             THE IMPORTANCE OF AN ECONOMIC STIMULUS PACKAGE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I will not take 60 minutes in order to lay 
out my argument for the importance of a stimulus package, but I did 
want to take a few minutes in order to explain to the Members of this 
body and to the people of the Nation that the attacks on September 11 
were also an attack on our economy. It hit our economy hard.
  According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, they do a report, and 
they found that the U.S. economy constricted in the third quarter after 
that attack by .4 percent. That is the biggest constriction of economic 
output in more than a decade. In addition to that, household 
consumption grew hardly at all and business investment plummeted as a 
consequence, and most of the data before the September 11 attacks and 
the fourth quarter could prove to be quite a challenge for the United 
States unless preventive and decisive action is taken now by this body 
of Congress.
  Congress needs to pass legislation to stimulate the U.S. economy, and 
it needs to address the issue of providing needed help for those 
displaced workers who have frankly lost their jobs as a result of this 
economic contraction. How many Americans have lost their jobs? The 
latest estimate was 800,000. Eight hundred thousand Americans have lost 
their jobs since President Bush called for an economic stimulus 
package, and we heeded that call on the House of Representatives side.
  We passed an economic stimulus bill quickly over to the Senate in 
order to promote job creation, in order to help displaced workers, and 
since that time, the other body has failed to act.

                              {time}  2015

  According to the Council of Economic Advisers, the bipartisan 
framework that we are trying to push for the stimulus bill would save 
300,000 American jobs that otherwise would be lost. For months 
important legislation, however, over in the Senate has been stalled. It 
has been delayed. It has been sidetracked. The holidays are upon us 
now; time is running out. A majority of the Senate, frankly, is on 
record saying that they support the President's bipartisan framework 
for job creation and displaced worker assistance, but it is time for 
the Senate leadership to act.
  There have been some new concessions last week from the White House, 
and I think that indicates that President Bush is willing to go a long 
way in compromising with the Senate, and the reason he is willing to do 
that I believe is because he wants to help our economy. In the 
meantime, what is the Senate leadership doing?
  There on the other side of this building we see a push for simply 
more and more spending. Earlier this week the President proposed to 
break through the logjam over the economic stimulus bill. Key elements 
of the bipartisan framework proposed by the President include the 
following: tax cuts for low- and middle-income workers; providing tax 
rebate payment of up to $600 to low-income families struggling to make 
ends meet; lowering the 27 percent tax rate to 25 percent because that 
would provide 36 million hard-working American taxpayers with tax 
relief, and that would create more economic activity.
  Lowering the 27 percent tax rate, as a matter of fact, would provide 
relief to 10 million small business owners, and that would help in 
business expansion. Allowing all businesses to immediately deduct 30 
percent of the cost of new investments for 3 years, in other words, 
speeding up that depreciation that businesses are able to take if they 
buy new equipment, well, that significantly reduces the cost of new 
business investment. It creates a climate where businesses go out and 
purchase new equipment. So particularly in capital-intensive sectors 
such as in manufacturing and in telecommunications, this provision is 
very important.
  So we have in that bill a lot of provisions that would create 
economic activity, would create jobs. At the same time, the bill has 
relief for displaced workers. It provides an additional 13 weeks of 
unemployment assistance to workers who have been laid off since the 
recession began last March.
  These extended benefits would be financed completely by the Federal 
Government, and the Federal Government basically would turn over to the 
States $4 billion in Federal aid to expand benefits to additional 
displaced workers such as part-time workers, and it would provide $3 
billion in national emergency grants. Because they would go through an 
existing program, these funds would be available immediately to help 
workers. It would be done in a matter of weeks, if we could get the 
Senate leadership to move this bill.
  Helping unemployed workers keep their health insurance by providing 
an innovative new tax credit up to $3,500 a year would also be helpful. 
Workers would be able to keep their health insurance regardless of 
whether or not they have COBRA under the bill. And the bill would be 
speeding relief to workers by cutting red tape. Unlike some proposals 
considered by the Senate, the President's framework does

[[Page 26448]]

not require State legislation or State matching funds to provide 
coverage. So as a consequence of that, the assistance gets rapidly to 
those who need it most. Investment and consumption must be 
reinvigorated through these types of actions to provide some tax 
relief; and it is not through indiscriminate government spending 
increases, as some of the Senate leadership have been pushing for, that 
we will find a way to provide the economic stimulus for the economy.
  As President Bush noted, the best way to stimulate demand is to give 
people some money so they can spend it. So let us start putting more 
money back into the taxpayers' wallets. I would make the observation 
that this House of Representatives has done its job, and that the other 
body should do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), 
who has joined me here today in order to try to call attention for the 
need for the stimulus bill to be passed out of the Senate, and for us 
to reach an agreement and to get that agreement to the President's desk 
soon.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I point out that I am wearing my Christmas coat. 
Actually, it is not completely Christmas, it is a Georgia Young Farmers 
coat. I know the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) has been very 
sensitive on many agrarian trade issues. This is being worn tonight 
because it is Christmas time; and traditionally Congress adjourns in 
October. In fact, it is always a goal of mine to try to get home by 
October 31 so I can go trick or treating with my children.
  But I am wearing this red jacket because it is Christmas and we are 
in Washington, D.C. Members have to ask why are we here? Is it because 
of the war? Truly, the situation in Afghanistan following the September 
11 tragedy has been a major part of our fall agenda. The other thing is 
while the President and Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense and 
the armed services have all been leading the way in Afghanistan 
fighting the war, it appears that the people in the opposition party, 
the loyal opposition to President Bush, have been busy undermining his 
domestic agenda: the energy package; the Patients' Bill of Rights; and 
of course the economic jobs creation stimulus package. That has not 
been able to move, and here we are practically Christmas Eve still 
pushing for President Bush's agenda.
  I believe with a war going on that the President of the United States 
is entitled to move his agenda. This stimulus package, which will 
create jobs, allows American people to hold on to more of their money. 
It is an absurd thing that in Washington, D.C., college-educated people 
actually think that they can spend the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars 
better than the taxpayer who earned the dollar can.
  I think about some of the laid-off workers. If they did have their 
job, they would be going out buying Christmas presents. They would be 
buying bicycles and clothes and bedspreads and pillows. I went to K-
mart with my children this past weekend, and I want to say if Members 
want to expand your shopping list, go shopping at K-mart with a 13- and 
an 11-year-old. It takes 3 hours to walk down one row of the toy 
section.
  That is what consumers do with their money. They decide what they are 
going to spend their money on. On the other hand, if you take that 
money away from the consumer, what happens is 435 Members of Congress, 
100 Members of the Senate, decide where they should spend your money. 
It ends up with a bigger government. Switzerland, France, and Japan 
have had recessionary problems. Japan, for example, has had 
recessionary problems for 12 years. Japan's approach to the economic 
stimulus package was expand government, spend more money.
  Ireland, on the other hand, took the opposite approach. They went 
back to macroeconomics 101 and said wait a minute. We probably do not 
know how to spend the money of all of the millions of people who live 
in this great country. Let us give it back to them and let them decide 
where the money can be best spent and the jobs created. As a result, 
Ireland was in recession the least amount of time of any European 
country. And today, it has gone from one of the weakest economic 
countries to one of the strongest.
  Meanwhile, Japan 12 years of recession; France, Switzerland, mediocre 
recoveries, nonexistent recoveries. And yet the Democratic Party wants 
to follow the model of Japan, putting us in recession for more months 
and more unemployment.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is saying 
in those economies overseas where the government actually focused on 
expanding the private sector, rather than expanding government, the 
public sector, that in those economies, unlike France where socialism 
was tried as a way to get out of the economic problems, and the 
unemployment went up, up, up, that where the focus is on incentives to 
encourage investment in the private sector, and the creation of new 
businesses there, that those economies recovered most rapidly when they 
were in economic downturn?
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, absolutely. History shows this over and 
over. Government helps the most when the government does not take the 
money away, but leaves the money with the bread winner and says you 
spend that money.
  My 16-year-old son works at the Piggly-Wiggly making a paycheck. He 
will buy gasoline for his truck and CDs. And tonight he is taking his 
girlfriend out to supper. It is their 1-year anniversary. He is going 
to take her out to a nice restaurant. When he does that, what is going 
to happen is the chef is going to have a job. The waitress is going to 
have a job. The owner is going to have a job. The cashier is going to 
have a job because John Kingston is going to be joined by hundreds of 
other Savannah, Georgians going to that restaurant. And because he has 
money in his pocket, he is able to do that.
  If we say, instead of taking out 20 to 30 percent of your taxes, we 
want 40 percent because Senator Daschle and the Democratic Party knows 
how to spend your money better than you, he is not going to go out. The 
Democrats are going to spend it their way, not the way of the American 
consumer.
  Mr. Speaker, did these Members take economics? Most are college 
educated, but did they miss economics? We see it over and over again.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman is probably right, 
history does record when there are incentives for job creation in the 
private sector, that is when real jobs are created.
  One of the provisions in the House bill that we passed over to the 
Senate was one that would allow when small business entrepreneurs buy 
new equipment, to take your example, the restaurateur, if he expands 
and puts in a new broiler, he would be able to deduct that expenditure 
more rapidly. He could depreciate that over 3 years. So as a 
consequence, there is an added incentive in this bill for business to 
go out and purchase equipment. That helps create more jobs in the 
manufacturing sector.
  We have been joined by the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson); 
and I yield to her, as well, so she can bring some attention to the 
issue that we are focused on tonight, which is what we can do to help 
move this stimulus bill and try to get it on the President's desk, and 
why it is important to get the economy moving.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. KINGSTON. Before the gentleman from California yields to the 
gentlewoman, I just want to point out, I am disappointed that she did 
not wear her Christmas wardrobe. But do not worry, if the other body, 
led by the Democrats, has its way, there will be plenty of other 
opportunities for her to wear her Christmas wardrobe, because there 
will be a lot more opportunities to be up here and try to get them to 
actually do something.
  Mrs. WILSON. I thank the gentleman from Georgia and also the 
gentleman from California for inviting me here. I have to say to the 
gentleman from Georgia that in New Mexico we have a

[[Page 26449]]

State question. Our State question is red or green? My answer is 
usually green. For those of you who do not come from the West, we will 
explain that later. It is certainly not that color red, Mr. Speaker.
  I think we are going to do something here in the House tomorrow that 
is very important for this country. The House passed on October 24 an 
economic stimulus bill, which was a good bill. I did not support 
everything in it, but we decided we were going to move things forward 
because we needed to help people keep the jobs they have, create new 
jobs, and help the families of those who are unemployed through no 
fault of their own during this slowdown to make it over the hump with 
unemployment insurance and health care.
  Tomorrow, the House, without any further action from the Senate, will 
probably pass another economic stimulus bill to say, you know, we are 
determined to do this. We are going to make another huge effort to do 
this in the House and leave it up to Senator Daschle to decide whether 
or not he is going to move forward. We will give him a great bill that 
no American, when they look at it in any reasonable way, could object 
to. I think they have come up over the last couple of days here with a 
really good bill. There is a rebate portion of this bill for low-income 
folks who did not owe taxes last year.
  When we had all the rebates last summer, there were some folks who 
did not pay taxes so they did not get a rebate. If you are a single 
person, you get a $300 rebate; if you are a head of household, you get 
a $500 rebate; if you are a couple, you get a $600 rebate, even if you 
did not pay any taxes at all. That will put money in the pockets of 
working Americans and those who are trying to make ends meet and will 
help to stimulate the economy. That would have an immediate stimulative 
effect on the economy from consumers of almost $14 billion over the 
next couple of months.
  Individual income taxes. Most Americans are middle class, between 
$27,000 a year up to $60,000 a year. We know we are going to reduce the 
income tax bracket there. We are going to come down to 25 percent. We 
have already passed that legislation. It is going to phase in in 2006. 
Let us do it earlier. Let us get money in the pockets of taxpayers 
starting the 1st of January, with that first check, so we want to 
accelerate that. That will have an immediate, about $12.8 billion 
stimulative effect in that first year, next year.


  A lot of people have lost money in their IRAs. They have lost money 
in their investment accounts. We need to expand the capital loss 
provisions, so that they can write off more of those losses. Right now 
it is limited to $3,000. It needs to be expanded to $5,000 so the pain 
of that loss in the stock market can somehow at least be written off a 
little bit on taxes. There are some very important things in there for 
individuals, for low-income and medium-income families, to have an 
immediate stimulative effect on the economy.
  Then we move into business. I think there are some great things in 
this proposal that we are going to pass here tomorrow with respect to 
American business, particularly small business. Let us face it, that is 
where the jobs come from. That is where three out of every four jobs in 
the last decade have come from. We want to get small business back out 
there saying, hey, let's buy that capital equipment, let's get the new 
cement mixer, let's get the new computers for the office and let's do 
it now.
  In this proposal that we are going to pass tomorrow, it says, okay, 
if you go out and buy new equipment, you get to expense that, 30 
percent in the first year, then you depreciate the rest of it, if you 
buy equipment in the next 36 months. So it says, get out there and do 
it now. As a small businessperson, I was in a small business when we 
bought computers for the whole office one year. That was a big cost.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentlewoman will yield, I want to talk about 
that because I think that really shows the difference between the 
Republican approach that puts people first or the Democrat approach 
that puts government first. Because what the government program as 
being pushed by the Senate would do is they would go into that, say, 
concrete business and say, ``We're going to buy you new trucks.'' Well, 
the owner of that might say, ``We don't need new trucks. We need some 
new computers. We might need a new office building. We may need some 
new employees. We may need some of the tools that are related to it. 
It's my money. I tell you what, why don't y'all stay in Washington and 
let me decide where to put it. Don't take my money away from me and 
then tell me you know how to spend my money.''
  It is exactly as the gentlewoman said. As a small businessperson, one 
year you needed computers, but that does not mean you needed them every 
single year. The next year you probably had another need. But you could 
only make that decision in New Mexico, not in Washington, D.C. It is 
just such a fundamental difference between the Republican/Bush package 
and the liberal pro-government package being advocated by the other 
body.
  Mrs. WILSON. One of the great things about it is if you are a small 
businessperson and you buy all those new computers, when you do your 
taxes at the end of the year, you cannot write them all down as an 
expense. So you end up paying taxes on money you do not have in your 
bank account because you just bought all those new computers. When I 
was in small business, you could only say that $10,000 of that was an 
expense this year when you are doing that whole income and expenses. 
What we would do is say, hey, up to $35,000, write it off as an 
expense, and if you buy a new piece of equipment for your business, 30 
percent of it off the top onto your expense line this year. That will 
really encourage the investment to create jobs.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Brown of South Carolina). The Chair 
would remind Members not to characterize actions of the Senate or its 
Members.
  Mrs. WILSON. So I think this bill that we are coming up with has the 
components we need: Encouraging capital investment, particularly in 
small business. It has real tax relief and encourages and restores 
confidence among consumers to get out there and go to Wal-Mart, finish 
out their Christmas shopping, and it has unemployment insurance 
extenders and tax credits to cover health insurance for people who have 
lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Our proposal on that, I 
think, is a much stronger proposal than anything that has been put 
forward elsewhere. This is a very good package for stimulating the 
economy. I am glad we are going to pass it through this House.
  Mr. ROYCE. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Hayworth) for his observations on the need to get this economy 
moving again and what we should do to take decisive action and get it 
to the President's desk.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from California. It is good to be 
here on the floor of the People's House with my neighbor from New 
Mexico and my festively decorated friend from Georgia.
  Mindful of the admonition of our good friend from South Carolina, the 
Speaker pro tem this evening, let me try to set this up perhaps in the 
abstract. But before I do, let me amplify a point made by my good 
friend from New Mexico. Let me salute the efforts of the chairman of 
the Committee on Ways and Means who, in a good faith effort, has really 
worked to find common ground and some form of agreement. But especially 
since the rhetoric in this town is filled with talk of compassion for 
those who are out of work, Mr. Speaker, as we note in the wake of 
September 11, at least three-quarters of a million people in the 
workforce, perhaps now the number exceeds 1 million people in the 
workforce, are now without jobs that they had prior to the attacks on 
September 11, I believe we should especially emphasize the ground-
breaking work done this weekend by the chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means to expand the opportunity for health insurance for those 
who find themselves out of work.

[[Page 26450]]

  The choice we have is this, and it applies to what my friend from 
Georgia said earlier: Are we only going to use a government framework 
to reach some of the people out of work? Or are we willing to expand 
the universe through refundable credits in advance for the purchase of 
health insurance, whether you are self-employed or working for a small 
business? I appreciate the gentlewoman pointing out that three out of 
every four jobs comes from small business.
  Mr. Speaker, it leads me to believe we, perhaps, ought to change the 
name from small business to essential business, because that is where 
most of the jobs are here in America. And, yes, also be mindful of 
those about whom we read in the paper who may be employed by larger 
corporations where the layoffs in magnitude seem to be great, but to 
have the versatility to apply to everyone so that they may, in fact, 
purchase health insurance and to make the Tax Code work for them so 
that they can go into the marketplace, not dependent on a corporation 
or a larger business with 50 or more employees that must adhere to the 
COBRA policy, noble in its intent, though restrictive on the number of 
people it can cover, what we will pass on the floor of this House 
tomorrow will expand insurance benefits for the very people that many 
in this town, some of them located on this Hill, say they want to help. 
That opportunity will come tomorrow.
  I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, mindful of your admonition, I am 
somewhat perplexed, and let me take this in the abstract. When two 
groups come together to negotiate in good faith and reach a compromise, 
typically they follow time-honored traditions. Typically those involved 
in the negotiations are those with the power of, let us say, for 
instance, speaking hypothetically, committee chair, and with other 
members of leadership, and this is any organization, Mr. Speaker, I am 
not confining my comments to the legislative process in the United 
States, but typically there is a small group that works to try to 
achieve common ground. How, to use a term that seems to be very 
relevant, used by some on this Hill, how disappointing it is to see 
some add a new level, where they say, oh, no, before there can be 
meaningful policy changes, it must be approved by a supermajority of 
like-minded individuals.
  Again speaking in the abstract, not referring to the other body but 
speaking in the abstract, when you set up that type of limitation, you 
set up, in essence, a small group of people who can serve as 
obstructionists.
  The question is this: Are we willing to move forward to help the 
people always mentioned who are out there hurting, Mr. Speaker? Or will 
we see the temptation to succumb to machinations and politics supersede 
the public good? That is the choice every elected official must make 
and that is the choice the American people must make, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. ROYCE. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I listened to the 
very eloquent, passionate peroration of my friend from Arizona. I want 
to put this in perspective.
  What he is saying, and I know he did not serve in the Arizona 
legislature, but had he served in the legislature of Arizona and he 
were a House member and then the Senate of the legislature of Arizona, 
he is saying what would happen is the House would set up a conference 
committee and the Senate would bargain in bad faith, and every time you 
would go together, there was always this kind of gentlemen's agreement 
that you would not need a supermajority, say, 60 votes in the Senate, 
you would only need 51 if there were 100 members of the Arizona Senate.
  So what he is saying is if the Arizona House works real hard and 
passes a plethora of legislation, such as an energy bill or a health 
care bill or an economic stimulus bill and then the Senate of Arizona 
does not pass that, then they get stuck in this session forever.
  Mr. ROYCE. Reclaiming my time, there are some additional pieces of 
legislation that I think all of the Members of this body have an 
interest in that have passed over to the Senate that we would like to 
see the Senate take up. We are near the end of the year. I just think 
besides the stimulus bill, besides the energy bill, I should take a 
moment and mention the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act, the Made In 
America Information Act, the Maritime Policy Improvement Act, the 
Veterans Hospital Emergency Repair Act. We hope the Senate will take 
that up soon. The Small Business Interest Checking Act. Many of these 
bills passed out of the House in March and April of this year. We would 
like to see the Senate, before adjournment at the end of this year, 
pass out these bills. The Foster Care Promotion Act. The Small Business 
Liability Protection Act.
  I think I speak for many of us here when we say we think this is very 
important, especially in this environment we find ourselves in today.

                              {time}  2045

  There is the 21st Century GI Bill Enhancement Act, which we passed 
out of the House in order to make it easier for our veterans upon 
returning to go to university. We would like to see the Senate take up 
that bill. There is our bill to extend automobile safety programs for 
children, our National Science Education Act that we passed out of this 
body in July. Our bill to make improvements in math and science 
education, we would like to see the Senate schedule that for floor 
action.
  Our Veterans Benefit Act that we passed out of the House of 
Representatives, we passed that out in July as well and there has been 
no Senate floor action. The Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency 
Prevention Act, we passed that out of the floor here in September, and 
still no action by the Senate. There is the Homeless Veterans 
Assistance Act that we passed in October; the Higher Education Relief 
Opportunities for Students Act; the Bioterrorism Enforcement Act. These 
are all bills which we have passed out of the House.
  But today we are specifically focused on the stimulus package, 
because we are concerned about these reports of 800,000 Americans who 
have lost their jobs. We have passed out legislation. The President has 
asked for that legislation to reach his desk.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Of the four of us, I do not think any of us really live here in 
Washington, DC. We live at home and we commute to Washington, DC. Maybe 
that is one of the things that is different for us, is that we have 
friends and neighbors who either have lost their jobs or who are 
worried about losing their jobs.
  Our top priority is to make sure that this recession that we are in, 
this terrorist-induced recession, is as short and as shallow as 
possible. This means we have to get back to growing jobs. We have very 
low-interest rates, but we need to do more. We need to help secure the 
jobs we have; we need to get back to the growth of jobs and make sure 
that people have a new job to go into. The bill we will pass tomorrow 
helps people over the hump.
  I am very impressed by this potential compromise, really, on health 
care. I think it is a real pragmatic approach that covers more people 
than any of the proposals that I have seen thus far. It says if you are 
from a really big employer, and there are not that many in the State of 
New Mexico, but if you are covered by what is called COBRA, you can use 
that credit, it is not even something you have to pay for up front. It 
is like a voucher, to go for what your employer's plan was and to cover 
your health insurance that you had with your former employer.
  If your former employer was not covered by COBRA but did have a small 
health insurance plan, you could use it for that. Or you could take 
that voucher, and it is based on the average amount of the cost of 
health insurance in your area, and you could take it down to Blue Cross 
and Blue Shield if you thought that you could get a better deal there. 
Even for people that do not have employer-sponsored health insurance 
but have been paying it out of their own pocket and have lost their 
jobs, it helps them too.

[[Page 26451]]

  So this idea of making sure families make it over the hump and 
extending the unemployment insurance, I think this is a really hard 
bill to explain. Why do we not just pass it and get it to the 
President's desk? I think that is what the leadership has decided to 
do. We are going to pass something that is almost impossible to even, 
say, criticize, to give immediate stimulative effect to small business, 
to create more jobs, to restore confidence in the markets and help 
people over the hump and say we have done the best we can. We have a 
great bill here. Let us get this to the President to help Americans.
  Mr. ROYCE. Reclaiming my time, I would like to yield to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) for his observations.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I think it is interesting that one of the emerging 
national leaders is a Democrat Senator named Zell Miller. I am very 
proud that we have that kind of leadership from Georgia, because in 
Georgia you always try to, when I was a member of the legislature, 
House member, you always tried to put Georgia first, and you believed 
that the person on the other side of the table, Democrat or Republican, 
felt the same way; that, yes, you want to get in your partisan licks 
and make your party look a little better than the other party, but at 
the end of the day, it was Georgia that mattered.
  When I came up here, I was shocked to see that there were people who 
would actually put party above policy above country. Now, maybe they 
did not put it that way, but the result is often that way, that party 
gets in the way of what is best for the United States of America.
  As the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) said, because the 
four of us go back home to New Mexico, Georgia, Arizona and California, 
we have friends who have been affected by this recession, real people 
and real faces, who do not have a job anymore.
  To come up here week after week and have a group not want to pass an 
economic recovery jobs creation stimulus package is distressing, 
because you have to wonder, is it not in the best interests of America? 
And maybe you do not like George Bush's approach, but come up with your 
own. Vote on another one.
  We understand. That is why we have two parties. That is why we have 
435 Members over here and 100 over there, because we are supposed to 
have different ideas. But do what is best for the United States of 
America. Give that to the American people as a Christmas present.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California.
  To hear my colleagues express really a point of view that has been 
amplified by our President, to try and change the culture of 
Washington, and people can have different political philosophies, and 
we certainly champion that, and we champion the notion of debate, but 
at this point, on this night in December, in the year 2001, as 
Christmas fast approaches, to know that there are 1 million workers out 
of their jobs because of an economic slowdown that was exacerbated by 
the heinous attacks on our country, to not move to offer economic 
security and hope, is to deprive those people of the very compassion 
that so many claim to champion. It is especially callous at this time 
of year.
  Mr. Speaker, I am fond of the observation Mark Twain offered. 
``History,'' wrote Twain, ``history does not repeat itself, but it 
rhymes.''
  As I read the new biography of Theodore Roosevelt, I am reminded that 
a century ago a body in this institution, one of the two Houses, Mr. 
Speaker, I will leave that up to a guess so that I am not admonished, 
one of the two Houses failed to act. President Theodore Roosevelt 
called that body, what some refer to as the world's most exclusive 
club, back into session.
  Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the President of the United States, 
if for reason of simple inertia and inaction a certain group on this 
Hill fails to act, I would hope the President of the United States 
would call that body into special session the day after Christmas to 
deal with the slowdown and to help Americans who are hurting. Because 
now is the time to move past playing politics. It is time to put people 
ahead of politics.
  We are in a war, we are faced with economic slowdown, and now is the 
time for all Americans, especially those of us vested with the public 
trust, having sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United 
States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, now is the chance for 
our Commander in Chief on the domestic front to signal the seriousness 
of his intentions, should there be continued inertia and inaction from 
whatever quarter on Capitol Hill.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman talked 
about acting expeditiously. I would just like to quote President Bush 
on that issue. He was asked last week, and he said, ``You know, the 
terrorists attacked us, but they did not diminish our spirit, nor did 
they undermine the fundamentals of our economy, and we believe if we 
act expeditiously, that those fundamentals will kick back in and people 
will be able to find work again.''
  The subject we are focused on tonight is taking action expeditiously, 
moving quickly. Our hope is as we again bring a stimulus bill tomorrow 
before this House of Representatives, that the Senate will take action 
as well.
  I am going to yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico.
  Mrs. WILSON. I thank the gentleman from California.
  You know, folks who may be watching this tonight probably sense a 
certain amount of frustration. It is kind of common around here when we 
work so hard and we get legislation passed, and this government was not 
set up to be efficient, but in times of national crisis, we have to set 
some things on the side and find the common ground and move forward on 
things that make sense and that are pragmatic and that are doable and 
do it quickly.
  So we passed one stimulus bill on October 24, and it was a pretty 
good bill. But some people wanted to throw arrows at it, and they could 
not get it through the Senate and so forth.
  So we are going to pass another one. It is going to be one that is 
really hard to criticize in any way. It is going to take care of 
families who are unemployed, put some money back into the economy 
through small business, put money in the pockets of consumers, and two-
thirds of spending in our economy is consumer spending. The Christmas 
season is the biggest time for that.
  So we are going to do a second bill so that maybe, just by motion, we 
can get this down to the President of the United States. Last July and 
August when we passed the last tax relief bill to try to jump-start our 
economy, we knew we were on the edge of a recession. Everyone was 
hoping that that recession would have a soft landing. I think those 
were Greenspan's words. He talked about a soft landing. But we did not 
have a soft landing. What we had was a terrorist attack on our largest 
city and on our Capital that knocked us off our horses. Now we have to 
get back up on our horses and provide some confidence to the American 
people that restoring this economy is a priority of this government, 
that we are going to do everything we can to make this recession short 
and shallow and get back on the path to growth.
  In some ways, the symbolism of what we do is sometimes almost more 
important than the substance of what we do. It is for people to restore 
confidence in their government that we care about this economy, we care 
about them, and we are going to do everything we can, and restore 
confidence in people and the markets.
  Mr. ROYCE. I am going to yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. I wanted to just get back to the Japanese experiment, 
because there seems to be some folks that believe in that government-
knows-best socialism that we see all over the globe; and unfortunately, 
it creeps into many of the philosophies and offices in Washington DC.
  In the period from 1982 to 1991, when the Japanese Government had 
limited

[[Page 26452]]

its size by limiting its spending, it had some of the greatest growth 
in the world. At that time, the average growth of the world economy was 
3.3 percent. The growth of the United States economy during 1982 to 
1991 was 2.9 percent. Japanese led at 4.1 percent. That was in the day 
everybody was bullish on Japan. But a funny thing happened on the road 
to success. Throwing all that which made them successful away, the 
Japanese Government decided that they would increase the size of 
government spending; and in the period from 1992 to the year 2000, the 
Japanese growth rate fell from 4.1 percent to 1 percent.
  During that period of time, the world's economy, the economic growth, 
was about level, 3.4 percent. The United States, which had reduced its 
government spending, was at 3.8 percent. But Japan, because they had a 
government that went on a spending binge and a taxing binge, their 
growth fell.
  Yet we have those in Washington, DC. who cannot learn that lesson. 
They want to go out and create a bigger government as the solution to 
the recession, and that is not going to help us one bit.
  Mr. ROYCE. I am going to yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend from California, and I appreciate the 
insights of my colleagues here tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, just another cautionary note. Sometimes we get caught up 
in the slang of Washington, and we have spoken about this in the 
inevitable legislative and policy shorthand that somehow tends to lose 
what this is about when we talk about an economic stimulus package, as 
if this is some sort of theory that is subjected to a graph and a curve 
and all of the trappings of theoreticians.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. Speaker, I would suggest nothing could be further from that. We 
are talking about real people with real families facing real problems. 
And in the give and take of different ideas, honestly expressed, we are 
gathered on the eve of bringing back to the floor a piece of 
legislation incorporating many ideas from many different sources in the 
truest spirit of compromise and consensus in a groundbreaking way, in 
terms of health care, to expand opportunities for those who find 
themselves without jobs. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is 
economic security and future opportunity. Mindful that people are 
hurting, we understand the need to expand unemployment benefits, but as 
surely as we do that, Mr. Speaker, we also understand this, that I hear 
in the sixth district of Arizona, and I know my colleagues hear in 
California and Georgia and New Mexico, that we hear from across the 
country, when given a choice, the American people appreciate the safety 
net of an unemployment check, but they would much rather have a 
paycheck. And what the gentleman from Georgia refers to is something we 
have seen time and again with presidents of both parties, whether it 
was John F. Kennedy in the outset of the 1960s or Ronald Wilson Reagan 
in the outset of the 1980s: when we reduce the tax burden on the 
American people, whether on Wall Street or on Main Street on our Your 
Street, when we open up opportunities to save, spend, and invest, there 
is growth. There is opportunity. There is hope. And there are paychecks 
and economic prosperity that comes into being for the American people.
  So what we talk about is not some stimulus in almost a Boris Karlof-
like laboratory in a black and white film; it is not an abstraction. It 
is real help for real people and a real opportunity to come together, 
if those who seek to stultify and strangle the process will but step 
away from the cynical games of Washington and put people in front of 
politics.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think we did see that 
the Kennedy tax reduction spurred an economic growth rate of between 4 
and 5 percent. When President Reagan reduced the effective tax rate and 
when Congress reduced that rate in response to his plan, the economic 
growth rate was over 4 percent a year.
  What we are talking about in this bill that the President has put 
forward is a compromise measure that will provide tax rebate payments 
of up to $600 to low-income families who are struggling to make ends 
meet; it would lower the 27 percent tax rate to 25 percent that would 
affect 36 million hard-working taxpayers and give them relief. This 
compromise measure would help small business by allowing them to deduct 
30 percent of the cost of new investments over the next 3 years. That 
would put a lot of money into purchasing new equipment in order to keep 
those jobs in manufacturing going. And then, it provides an additional 
13 weeks of unemployment assistance for workers who have been laid off 
since the recession began, and $4 billion in Federal aid for benefits 
for those who are part-time workers. That goes to the States to help 
them with their program.
  Lastly, it helps unemployed workers keep their health insurance by 
providing an innovative new tax credit worth $3,500 a year, and workers 
would be able to keep their health insurance. As the gentlewoman from 
New Mexico mentioned, whether or not they have COBRA, they would be 
allowed to keep their health insurance with that plan.
  So it is a balanced proposal. It also has some compromises in it in 
order to make certain that it addresses the Alternative Minimum Tax, 
and I think that with that compromise, when we bring it up tomorrow and 
pass that out to the Senate, our hope is that the Senate will act 
quickly.
  Let me yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding to me.
  There are some other good things in this bill that we have not 
mentioned that I know are important to some businesses. The research 
and development tax credit will be extended, and that has been very 
important when we look at creating and investing in new jobs, 
particularly for the next generation of technological innovation. The 
work opportunity tax credit, a wonderful way to get people off of 
welfare and back to work, as well as the welfare to work tax credit. 
All of those are going to be renewed and extended in the bill we are 
going to have on the floor tomorrow.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, if I could ask the gentlewoman, how 
successful have those welfare to work programs that this Congress 
passed, how successful have they been?
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Arizona is 
right. Most of the people that I talk to would much rather have a 
paycheck than an unemployment check or a welfare check. They may need a 
different approach to help them to get back to work in getting the 
training they need and the support for child care and transportation 
and those things, but they are much happier with a job to go to and 
being role models for their families and for their children.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time for a moment, I 
think extending those credits and ensuring that there is participation 
in those programs is so important. We have seen a reduction over the 
last few years of 40 percent in the welfare caseload. Part of that has 
been legislation that has ensured welfare to work, and part of this 
legislation will ensure the cooperation of businesses in assisting in 
that effort.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, sometimes it 
is hard to get one's arms around how much impact we are really talking 
about here. But this bill is designed to have an $86 billion impact in 
the American economy in the first year alone, and $150 billion over 10 
years. So over half of the economic impact is up front, at the front 
end. Actually, over half of the total impact is in things that are 
intended to stimulate the economy, and the other part is to help people 
over the hump. So it gets money in people's pockets. It is going to 
help businesses to encourage them to invest in new equipment and create 
new jobs, grow new jobs, restore confidence in the American economy, 
and comes up with two very unique compromises I think with respect to 
health care and,

[[Page 26453]]

of course, extending unemployment insurance. It is retroactive to 
anybody who has lost their job back to March.
  I remember just after the attacks in September, going back home to 
Albuquerque and talking to people there and I always ask now, I say, 
how are things going, how is business going? They were laying people 
off at the rental car companies. Tourism and travel has been really 
decimated by these attacks. It is not just large airlines. It is the 
hotels and the motels and the rental car companies, all of those folks 
who lost their jobs already, even back to March when, technically, the 
recession started.
  They are going to be eligible for extended unemployment benefits if 
they cannot find a job and we are going to have to accept that in this 
time of a slowdown, it is probably going to be a longer time period 
between the time one gets laid off and when one starts the new job.
  I know the gentleman from Arizona has worked hard on the Committee on 
Ways and Means, as have other Members of this House. The leadership has 
really come up with a very good compromise proposal. I think the House 
just needs to pass it. We need to move on.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I will yield first to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I will just make a quick point. Very 
quickly, picking up on what the gentlewoman from New Mexico said, this 
bill incorporates a variety of different opportunities in what we call 
tax-slaying extensions, taking advantage of opportunities and credits 
already existing in terms of research and development. The gentleman 
mentioned welfare to work and work opportunity tax credit. I would be 
remiss on behalf of my constituency if I did not mention the extension 
for the first Americans, for native Americans, who find themselves, as 
we understand, so often left behind.
  Now, as we seek to revitalize tribal economies and economic 
opportunities there, there are provisions that have been included in 
this bill that are good for Oklahoma, and the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Watkins) has been an unfailing champion on this. We are pleased to 
include that in this bill so that no American is left behind. 
Opportunities are there for all. I thank the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I will yield to gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate, the theme here 
is: would you rather have a paycheck or an unemployment check? Would 
you rather be independent or dependent?
  These tax credits, these investment credits create jobs. Yesterday I 
was with a friend of mine named Kevin Jackson. He owns a company called 
Envirovac. He has about 400 people on his payroll. They go into 
factories and do maintenance. He says every factory that they visit 
right now is flat because they are laying off people in this recession. 
This jobs creation-economic stimulus package will turn it around. 
Again, we are talking about real people and real faces, because we know 
these folks. They would rather be independent than dependent on an 
unemployment check. They want a job.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico 
(Mrs. Wilson) for the balance of the time.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, people are hurting in America. We have lost 
700,000 jobs in this country since September 11. We need to help people 
across to the next job. We need to help keep the jobs that we have and 
help find new jobs in this economy. The way we are going to do it is by 
giving small business the tools they need to invest in creating new 
jobs, restore confidence in capital markets, put money in the pockets 
of consumers immediately, both low-income and middle income Americans, 
and we are also going to help people over the hump with health care and 
unemployment insurance to make sure that those who are hurting can make 
it by. We want this recession to be as short and as shallow as we 
possibly can make it. In the House, we will act.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce) will yield, I know the gentleman's time is about 
to expire, but I did want to say that it is imperative that this House 
acts and, hopefully, the Senate follows as well, to make this recession 
short and shallow, as the gentlewoman from New Mexico said, but also to 
help the unemployed.
  What is really excellent about this new stimulus bill is that for the 
first time, it provides assistance in purchasing health insurance for 
the unemployed. America has never done that before. This is a first. 
Only this bill offers the same assistance to everyone. If one works for 
an employer who provided what is called COBRA benefits, one can use 
their 50 percent benefit, or their 60 percent benefit now, for COBRA 
benefits. But most people work for small employers and small employers 
are not covered by COBRA, so if one works for a small employer and is 
laid off, the old bill and the bill of the other party will not help 
them. This will give them a 60 percent premium subsidy, whether they 
buy their own health insurance, whether their employee is COBRA-covered 
or not. Everyone will be treated the same. All unemployed will get 
help, with health insurance benefits as well as extended unemployment 
benefits. I thank the gentleman for yielding his precious time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) for her good work on this bill, and I thank 
all of my colleagues for participating in this Special Order.

                          ____________________