[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 26453-26457]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



               AMERICA NEEDS BIPARTISAN STIMULUS PACKAGE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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, let me say that I do plan initially to 
respond to some of the comments that were made by my Republican 
colleagues about the potential stimulus bill that I gather we may see 
on the House Floor as early as tomorrow. Regardless of the substance of 
the stimulus package that the Republican leadership may bring up 
tomorrow, I think the bottom line is, and everyone needs to know, that 
it is going nowhere. They are fully aware of the fact that it is going 
nowhere. I think what we are going to see tomorrow, and I think it is 
very unfortunate, is basically a replay of what happened a couple of 
months ago when, in the aftermath of September 11 and the World Trade 
Center and Pentagon tragedies, there was an effort in the few weeks 
afterwards, because of the realization of the impact on the economy and 
because the recession was only, if you will, accelerated by the events 
on September 11, there was a recognition that we needed to do a 
stimulus package to get the economy going again, and that the only way 
to achieve that, given that we have a divided government, one body 
Democrat, one body Republican majority, that we needed to work across 
party lines and to bring the House and the Senate together.
  So there was sort of understanding that we would all sit down and 
work on a stimulus package together, Democrats and Republicans 
together, Senate and House together, as well as with the President.

                              {time}  2115

  But unfortunately, very quickly that dissolved because the House 
Republican leadership wanted to pass their own version of a stimulus 
package and was not willing to work with the

[[Page 26454]]

Democrats in the House or with the other body. A bill was passed very 
narrowly, I think it passed by one or two votes here in the House, and 
of course it was never taken up in the other body. There was no meeting 
of the minds and no effort to try to come to any kind of accommodation 
across party lines.
  I would suggest, having been here, I guess, 12 years, that anything 
like that, where one party which is in the majority tries to simply 
shove down their throats, if you will, a bill that the other party 
cannot stomach because they think it is the wrong way to go, is doomed 
to failure.
  Every one of my colleagues who spoke on the other side of the aisle 
just in the last hour knows very well that if all they do tomorrow is 
bring up another Republican leadership bill that has not been 
negotiated with the Democrats, which this one has not been, then the 
end result is failure. The end result is that that bill will go 
nowhere, no stimulus package will pass; and we will go home within the 
next few days having accomplished nothing for the American people.
  The very fact that they are even talking about this bill means that 
my Republican colleagues in the Republican leadership have basically 
decided that they do not care to pass a stimulus package. So when they 
suggest that they are going to try to help the unemployed, that they 
are going to provide health benefits, that they are going to do things 
for corporate America that are going to help create jobs, the very fact 
that they are bringing a bill to the floor that was not negotiated on a 
bipartisan basis means that those things will never happen; and it is 
very unfortunate.
  It is also very unfortunate that they keep talking about passing 
another bill when the first one was doomed to failure; and the second 
one will be, as well, because it is really nothing more than a hoax on 
the American people. The American people will not see a stimulus 
package. The best thing they could do would be to go back and sit down 
and talk to the Democrats in the other body, in the Senate, and try to 
come to some sort of accommodation, rather than just bashing and 
bashing and hammering as this goes on.
  I want to talk a little bit about why the Democrats feel that this 
Republican stimulus package is really nothing different from the 
previous one and will not help, even if it did pass, to stimulate the 
economy.
  Understand, on the one hand I am saying tonight that this bill that 
they are going to bring up tomorrow, if it is brought up, cannot pass; 
so it is hopeless from the beginning, cannot pass both houses and be 
signed into law. But even if it did pass, it would not do anything to 
stimulate the economy. That is what we are really trying to do here, 
stimulate the economy on a short-term basis to have the recession be 
over.
  I wanted to talk a little bit about the Democratic alternative to the 
original Republican bill to give my colleagues the flavor, if you will, 
of what the Democrats would like to see and why the Democratic 
alternative would serve the purpose of helping displaced workers get 
unemployment compensation, get health benefits, and stimulate the 
economy.
  The original House bill that I was talking about, the original 
Republican bill that was doomed to failure, passed the House on October 
24, almost 2 months ago. It passed strictly on party lines, 216 to 214. 
This is the Republican stimulus package. What it called for, and this 
one, as well, that they intend to bring up tomorrow calls for, is 
essentially tax cuts for big businesses and the wealthy.
  Now, how do we get the economy going again if all we do is give big 
tax breaks to big corporations and wealthy people? They do not have any 
obligation, wealthy persons do not have any obligation to spend that 
money. They may just put it in the bank. They may put it in stocks or 
do something else. They are not immediately going to spend the money, 
which is what is needed to stimulate the economy.
  The way the economy is stimulated is when people have to spend money 
because they have to buy food or have to pay their rent or whatever 
they have to do. Generally speaking, our middle-class people or even 
poor people, they go out and spend money, they shop, and the economy 
gets going again.
  This notion that we are just going to give these big tax breaks to 
big corporations, again, that has no stimulative effect. They do not 
necessarily have to take that money and invest it in new equipment or 
in new jobs or new production of any sort. I would venture to say that 
many of them probably would not.
  So the whole premise of the Republican proposal, which is essentially 
tax cuts for big businesses and the wealthy, really does not help 
anything. It does not help stimulate the economy, and it certainly does 
not help with those workers who have been displaced and are looking for 
a job.
  The Democratic alternative that we have proposed back in October and 
that we still have been pushing for today by contrast would provide 
workers with extended unemployment benefits, health coverage, and tax 
breaks for low- and moderate-income Americans.
  If I could use my home State, I could say that I have some 
statistics, if you will, from the U.S. Department of Labor with regard 
to New Jersey. They say that an estimated 361,942, and I guess it is 
not really an estimate but it is an exact figure, New Jersey residents 
will apply for unemployment benefits over the next year, and almost 
half of those, 166,493, will see those benefits expire during that same 
period.
  Nationally, half of the unemployed people do not currently qualify 
for unemployment benefits, and the vast majority cannot afford health 
coverage under our current system.
  Let me get a little more specific about what the Democrats have been 
talking about. In terms of unemployment compensation, 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 States' 
requirements for unemployment insurance, in other words, part-time 
workers, would receive 56 weeks of federally financed unemployment 
insurance. Members can see how that would make a difference for a lot 
of people.
  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 benefits would 
last for a maximum of 18 months.
  Now, the Democrats keep talking about the Federal Government paying 
these costs, because we have to understand that State governments are 
strapped. Many of them face deficits. They are not in a position to be 
able to pay for these things, which is why the Federal Government is 
proposing to do it.
  The Democrats also have rebate checks for low- and moderate-income 
workers who did not qualify for the rebate checks issued earlier this 
year under President Bush's tax cut.
  Now, I maintain that President Bush's tax cut from maybe 6 months ago 
is the major reason why we are now in a deficit situation, and I do not 
believe that accelerating those tax cuts is really going to make a 
difference in terms of stimulating the economy. That is essentially 
what the Republican leadership is proposing.
  Under the Democratic proposal, these low- and moderate-income workers 
who did not qualify for the rebate checks issued earlier this year 
under President Bush's tax cut would receive a one-time payment of up 
to $300 for single people and $600 for married couples.
  There are many other aspects of the Democratic proposal, but I just 
wanted to key into the fact that rather than giving these big corporate 
tax breaks and tax breaks to the wealthy, we are trying to put some 
money into the hands of low- and moderate-income people who will go out 
and spend the money and stimulate the economy; the same with the 
unemployment compensation, and the same with the

[[Page 26455]]

health benefits. Even providing health insurance and extended COBRA and 
Medicaid stimulates the economy because that money is now being spent 
on health care.
  Mr. Speaker, I always worry when I am on the floor of the House and I 
do these Special Orders that someone is going to say, he is just giving 
the Democratic line, and that is what all the Democrats are saying, but 
why should I believe it?
  I would like to back up what I am saying, contrasting what the 
Democrats are proposing to do versus the Republicans with some of the 
editorial comments that we have been getting from some of the leading 
newspapers around the country. This one is particularly appropriate. 
This is from the Los Angeles Times, and it is in today's paper.
  Just to give some highlights of what this editorial says, and this is 
an editorial, as I say, from today's Los Angeles Times, it talks about 
some of the Republican tax breaks that are proposed not in the previous 
Republican bill that passed the House, but the one that my colleagues 
are talking about possibly bringing up tomorrow. So we are talking 
about the current bill, not the previous bill.
  What this editorial says in the Los Angeles Times, it first of all 
talks about the retroactive corporate tax cuts. The Republican 
leadership has been pushing not only these big corporate tax cuts, but 
making them retroactive, so that the companies would get tax money 
back, money back from taxes they paid years ago.
  Well, it says in the editorial, and I quote: ``House GOP leaders such 
as Dick Armey seem giddy thinking about the pleasure that corporations 
would have upon receiving a refund of what they paid under the 
`alternative minimum tax' over the last 15 years.'' They are now 
getting refunds for taxes paid over 15 years.
  ``The proposal would hand out millions to corporations such as 
General Motors and Ford for doing nothing. Even Enron, which recently 
went broke after deceiving investors and workers, could conceivably get 
this windfall. Whopping corporate tax deductions.''
  Now, the other thing, of course, the Republicans are saying is that 
they want to accelerate the drop in income tax rates for higher-income 
people.
  ``Some Republicans hope to make the season bright,'' and they are 
talking about the Christmas season in the editorial, ``by cutting the 
27 percent rate to 25 percent in 2002. But this gift would benefit the 
top one-fourth of taxpayers and cost $54 billion in lost revenue over 
10 years. Where's the stimulus in giving a break to upper-income folks 
who are unlikely to use it to buy extra groceries?''
  Further on the editorial says, and I think some of my colleagues even 
mentioned this on the other side in the last hour, ``A 30 percent 3-
year tax write-off on new equipment. The Bush administration wants to 
include this, although multiyear tax cuts have little immediate 
stimulus effect.''
  Of course, we would like to see some kind of tax break for new 
equipment, but we are talking about 3 years. Yet I heard some of my 
colleagues on the other side talk about how they want this to be 
immediate. How is it immediate with a 3-year write-off on new 
equipment?
  The last thing the editorial says, it talks about ``A Trojan horse 2-
year voucher-credit health care plan. The White House is offering a 
scheme that would give displaced workers a temporary tax credit for 
health care. But what Representative William M. Thomas (R-
Bakersfield),'' the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, ``and 
other congressional Republicans really want is to use the voucher idea 
as a wedge in replacing current employer-paid health care with a free 
market approach similar to the use of vouchers for education.''
  So what are we seeing here? We are seeing some of my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle, some of the Republicans, not just trying 
to extend COBRA or provide Medicaid for those displaced workers, which 
is the easiest thing to do and what the Democrats want, but some sort 
of tax credit or voucher.
  Most of the people who are now out of work will not even be able to 
use that tax credit. It is not going to get them health insurance; but 
it is a sort of voucher, if you will, that has the potential of getting 
people out or actually hurting the current system, where most employees 
get their health insurance through their employer and switching to some 
sort of free market system, which I do not think is going to work and 
is probably only going to line the pockets of some insurance company.
  I hate to be so dramatic about it, but this is what we are facing. 
Again, one could argue that there is no point in even talking about any 
of this anyway, because they have no intention of passing anything. 
They are just going to pass it in the House, and it will die in the 
other body. I can talk here all night about how bad this proposal is, 
only because I want to counteract all the things that were said by my 
colleagues an hour before.
  But I go back to what I originally said, that their real intention is 
to do nothing, because everyone knows that this bill is going nowhere.
  Let me just talk a little bit about another aspect of the Republican 
proposal which is so different than the Democrats that is very scary, 
that is, that it is not paid for.
  Now, we know that we are in a deficit situation now. In the 8 years 
under the Democratic President, and I know people say we certainly have 
to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt because he has been 
doing such a great job in dealing with the war, and actually very 
successful in going against terrorism and the al Qaeda network. I am 
very happy about all that.
  But when it comes to these domestic issues, it is very scary what is 
really happening. Because of the Republican tax cut that took place 
about 6 months ago, we are now in a deficit, which has been aggravated 
by what happened on September 11 because of the recession and because 
of what comes from the recession, which is less income to the Federal 
Government.
  The least that the Republicans could do when they put forth a 
stimulus package is come up with a plan that is short term and that is 
paid for, or if it is not paid for immediately, makes a way to pay for 
it fairly quickly over the next few years so we do not deepen the 
deficit, because we do not want to continue to have a deficit 
situation. It is a huge drag on the economy and could prolong the 
recession, rather than stimulating the economy.

                              {time}  2130

  Well, the problem with the Republican bill and, again, I am talking 
about the one they plan to bring to the floor tomorrow, is that it is 
pretty much paid for out of Medicare. It either increases the national 
debt or it is paid for out of Medicare and Social Security.
  So what you have is it is either going to increase the debt or it is 
going to take money from the Medicare and Social Security trust fund. 
And it is almost the same thing as increasing the debt, because we know 
that those trust funds are at some point in the next 20, 30 years going 
to run out of money, and we have been talking about trying to find ways 
of making Medicare and Social Security solvent over the long term. All 
the Republican leadership is going to do with this bill is increase the 
Federal debt and aggravate the solvency problem for Medicare and Social 
Security by taking the money away from there.
  The cost of the Republican stimulus package, again, the one that is 
coming up tomorrow, would approach $200 billion over the next 10 years 
when you take into account debt service cost. Even without enactment of 
the stimulus bill, the government will be in overall deficit throughout 
the entire first term of President Bush. And with the enactment of this 
new stimulus bill, the government will continue to raid the Social 
Security and Medicare trust funds for the foreseeable future long after 
the current recession is estimated to end.
  The Democrats, of course, have said that that is not acceptable. If 
you are going to do a stimulus package which

[[Page 26456]]

is going to have a short term impact on the economy, then do not give 
us a long term impact on the economy by increasing the debt or making 
the solvency problem for Social Security and Medicare even worse.
  I wanted to talk a little bit about this health tax credit aspect of 
the Republican bill that is likely to come up tomorrow because, again, 
I think it is a very scary thing. I have always said over and over 
again, let us not let ideology get in the way of doing something 
practical to help the American people. The stimulus bill should be 
that. It should be nothing more than a practical bipartisan effort to 
do something to restore the economy in the short run. And to try to 
load it up with some sort of ideological voucher system for health care 
that would break the traditional health care system primarily financed 
through employers is basically grafting some sort of right wing 
Republican ideology on a stimulus package in a way that is totally 
wrong given what we are trying to accomplish here.
  I do not know if I can get into all the details of it tonight, but I 
want to just explain a little bit about what this health care tax 
credit that the Republicans are proposing would actually do. What they 
are doing is creating an individual tax credit for use in purchasing 
either COBRA or individual market health insurance policies. So unlike 
the Democrats, they are not just going to pay for your COBRA benefits 
and put you or make you eligible for Medicaid with Federal funds. They 
are giving you some sort of credit for voucher, if you will, that you 
can use to help pay for COBRA or go out into the individual market and 
try to buy health insurance policy.
  Now, anybody who has ever tried to go out into the individual market 
and try to find a policy knows that it is a horrendous situation. The 
costs are incredible. The tax credit is not going to help you. Unless 
you are going to buy some basically rotten policy that is going to give 
you very little coverage, and then what you will have is the government 
money through the tax credit being used to give people a policy that 
essentially is not really very helpful to them and does not provide 
them the kind of benefit package that would be useful to them, if they 
can even find it.
  Again, I would say, Mr. Speaker, they are not even going to find this 
policy, but if they did it would be a lousy policy. Now, just to give 
you some research, the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office did some 
research and they indicated that few people would actually benefit from 
this Republican health care tax credit. According to the CBO, up to 9 
million displaced workers would receive relief under the Democratic 
plan; 5.1 million would be covered by COBRA, about 80 percent, and up 
to 3.8 million under Medicaid. But the same estimate shows that of the 
Republican style tax credit, only 3.35 million individuals would be 
eligible for this benefit, less than a majority.
  So when my Republican colleagues in the last hour said we are going 
to provide all this health care coverage, not only do we have the 
danger of this breaking the system, the traditional system and this 
voucher, but it is not even going to provide coverage to the majority 
of the people that would need it and who are unemployed.
  I just cannot believe essentially what they are up to with this 
scheme. If you think about it, as Members of Congress we are getting an 
incredibly good health care coverage policy that is paid for by the 
Federal Government. The very Republican leaders who are talking about 
this voucher for health insurance, 75 percent of their health care 
coverage as Members of Congress is provided to them at taxpayers' 
expense.
  The other thing that I think we are going to see here is that this 
kind of coverage that they are talking about that you might be able to 
get at individual market, a lot of it is probably going to go to HMO's. 
Because without a guaranteed minimum benefit package, which is what 
should be provided to make sure we get a decent health care plan, I 
think most of the people are going to end up with some kind of an HMO 
which limits what doctors they can get, limits what coverage they can 
get.
  Again, I can talk all night about this and I do not know in some ways 
what the point is, because as much as I am trying to contrast the 
Republican plan with the Democratic proposals, I really want to stress 
over and over again, Mr. Speaker, that the fact that they are bringing 
up tomorrow a Republican plan without input from the Democrats and 
without input from the Senate, essentially means that we will have not 
planned. Their proposal is due to failure.
  I do not want to go into this any more because I hopefully have made 
the point, but what I would say to my colleagues is, regardless of 
whether you like what the Democrats propose or you like what the 
Republicans propose, the most important thing is to have the 
negotiations and sit down and try to come up with an accommodation and 
do not come here on the floor of the House and blame the other body and 
say, oh, the other body, the Senate better take this up because if they 
do not, the blame falls on them.
  Well, clearly, if you put something together that is not done in a 
bipartisan basis, it is going nowhere. And I am not going to sit here 
and accept the notion that somehow this Senate is going to be blamed 
because they do not pass this Republican package. This is not a 
Republican package that is aimed to accomplish anything. It is just 
being done for some sort of publicity stunt.
  Mr. Speaker, with that I would like to end my discussion tonight or 
my response if you will to my Republican colleagues on the economic 
stimulus package. I probably will be back again, hopefully not. 
Hopefully we will pass something. But we will probably be back again 
talking about that another time, tomorrow or the next day as we 
progress here in these last few days before the holidays.


            Evidence of Terrorism by Pakistani-Based Groups

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I did want to take 5 minutes of my time 
this evening to talk about a totally different issue, and that is my 
concern over what is happening and what has been happening in India 
with the terrorist attacks that have been taking place in India and, 
most notably, with the attack on the Indian parliament that took place 
last week.
  I mention this because in the effort to fight the war against 
terrorism, President Bush has made it clear many times that this is a 
battle with many fronts. It has a homeland security element. It has an 
overseas element. And of course it is primarily been manifested 
overseas in the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. 
But we know that al Qaeda has cells in a lot of different countries and 
we know that a lot of these terrorists groups are linked. And so the 
President has made clear this is not a battle that will be limited to 
Afghanistan or that is going to be limited to this year. It is going to 
go on for many years and it is going to manifest itself in many ways.
  But one of the disappointing aspects of it all from my perspective is 
that I have watched Pakistan help the United States in a significant 
way in the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, and against al Qaeda 
in Afghanistan; yet at the same time I see that same Pakistani 
government continuing its effort to back terrorists who inflict pain 
and death and injury on Indian citizens, particularly in Kashmir. But 
even more so, of course, now it has actually gotten to the stage where 
attacks were made on the parliament, the symbol of Indian democracy.
  My point tonight, and I have said it many times, is that if Pakistan, 
like any country, really wants to be sincere in fighting the war 
against terrorists, they cannot limit it to Afghanistan. They have to 
also not support terrorist activities against India or any other 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned last Thursday, we learned about a 
horrific terrorist attack on the parliament of India in New Delhi. 
Reports indicate that the terrorist attackers died during the attack 
but, unfortunately, eight people, including guards and workers, were 
killed and at least 17 people were injured at the hands of the suicide

[[Page 26457]]

bomber and the other assailants equipped with grenades and guns that 
attacked the Indian parliament.
  India has conducted intense investigations since the attack and has 
obtained evidence that two Pakistani based militant groups, I am not 
sure I can pronounce them, Mr. Speaker, but I will try, Jaish-e-
Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba are responsible for the attack.
  Indian evidence also makes it clear that these groups received 
directives from Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence or ISI. Mr. 
Speaker, this comes as no surprise to anyone who has been following 
these two groups' history of cross-border terrorism in Kashmir, and I 
have confidence that India's evidence is both strong and accurate 
against the two terrorist groups.
  I have criticized and denounced the actions of these groups many 
times on the floor of the House. The most recent incident I have found 
to be appalling was the suicide car bomb attack on the Jammu and 
Kashmir State Assembly on October 1. Jaish-e-Mohammed came forward and 
took credit for that crime which they later revoke, and I have 
encouraged President Bush to add this group to the list of terrorist 
organizations whose financial assets would be frozen. Although this 
group has been placed on the list, Pakistan continues to allow them to 
operate with no financial restrictions.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand that General Musharraf, the President of 
Pakistan, has been willing to help the U.S. in the global fight against 
terrorism, however, it is clear that Pakistan has deep-rooted and 
intricate ties to the Taliban, al Qaeda and, most importantly, the 
terrorist groups operating in Kashmir and now in New Delhi.
  India has requested that General Musharraf eliminate the terrorist 
capabilities of both Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba. This would 
consist of Pakistan shutting down these groups operations, 
discontinuing moral and logistical support, arresting the leaders, and 
once and for all freezing their financial assets.
  I believe that India has every right to make these requests and I 
have requested today in a letter to President Bush that the U.S. make 
the same demand of General Musharraf, to put an end to Pakistan's 
support and tolerance of these terrorist groups.
  Mr. Speaker, the attack on the world's largest democracy and the 
Indian people must be answered with punitive action. The U.S. 
administration must push General Musharraf harder to arrest the leaders 
of Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba. In addition, he must follow 
through and shut down all terrorist camps operating in Pakistan and all 
jihadi schools that indoctrinate terrorism from children. Not only is 
this in the interest of India, it would equally benefit Pakistan as 
well. It has been made clear that terrorist groups operating in 
Pakistan have links to Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda terrorist 
networks. And I believe that efforts to eliminate these terrorist 
groups is also in the best interest of the United States.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I make these comments not because what I think is 
going to hurt Pakistan but by what I think is going to help Pakistan. 
In the same way that General Musharraf has come to the conclusion or 
came to the conclusion after September 11 that aiding the United States 
in the war against the Taliban and against al Qaeda would ultimately be 
helpful to Pakistan because of the terrorist activities that take place 
within Pakistan, I think the same thing is true of these groups that 
operate and get support from Pakistan and attack India.
  In the long run, all of these terrorist groups have to be eradicated 
and Pakistan must deal with the situation and try to suppress the 
terrorism, not only when it is geared towards the United States or 
Afghanistan, but also when it is geared towards Kashmir and India.

                          ____________________