[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Pages 27904-27909]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                  THE HOUSE ECONOMIC STIMULUS PACKAGE

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, when people become doctors they take the 
Hippocratic oath which, among other things, instructs them to ``First, 
do no harm.''
  Maybe our Nation's leaders in Washington need to take a similar oath 
if they intend to operate on the economy.
  Sadly, our friends in the Republican Party are steadfast in their 
insistence that we enact legislation that would harm our economy. Their 
plan takes more than $200 billion out of Social Security and uses it 
mostly for tax breaks for wealthy individuals and profitable 
corporations. It will do little to stimulate the economy, and even less 
for the millions of newly unemployed Americans. Their plan will not 
make the recession better, but it will make the deficit worse. This 
impasse is regrettable--and it was completely avoidable.
  Immediately after September 11, it became clear that the attacks 
dealt our economy--which already was slowing--a devastating blow. We 
all agreed--Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate--that America 
needed an economic recovery plan. And Congress had a responsibility to 
pass such a plan.
  We asked the best financial thinkers in the country, economic 
leaders, such as Chairman Greenspan and Secretary Rubin: What should 
such a package contain?
  Their advice led to the development of a set of bipartisan principles 
for an economic recovery plan. Those principles were endorsed by the 
chairmen and ranking members of the Budget Committees in both the House 
and the Senate.
  Rather than work together to develop a plan based on those 
principles, Republicans in the House chose to withdraw from bipartisan 
negotiations and pass their own highly partisan economic plan.
  The experts we consulted told us that the problem with the economy 
right now is that corporations have too much capacity and that 
consumers have too little cash. That is it in a nutshell: Corporations 
have too much capacity; consumers have too little cash. So we developed 
a plan to address those problems.
  The plan we put together included tax cuts for businesses that invest 
and create jobs in the near future. It had tax rebates for people who 
were left out of the first round and unemployment and health benefits 
for workers who have lost their jobs in this recession and as a result 
of the September 11 attacks.
  Our plan did what economists say needs to be done--no more, no less. 
And it met the bipartisan standards agreed to by the budget leaders in 
both Houses.
  Early this morning the House passed a far different plan. Their plan 
speeds up the tax cuts Congress passed last summer--months before the 
terrorist attacks. Their tax cuts give most of the benefits to the 
wealthiest individuals, and they will get those tax cuts not just next 
year, but the year after that, and the year after that, and the year 
after that. That is the first part of their plan.
  The second part of the House Republican plan is to take the biggest 
corporations in America and give them billions of dollars in new tax 
breaks. Some profitable corporations would get permission not to pay 
taxes at all.
  Under their plan, companies such as Enron would get hundreds of 
millions of taxpayer's money. Republicans are not proposing to do that 
for police officers, for firefighters, for postal workers. They are not 
proposing it for hard-pressed, hard-working families. Maybe it would 
help if they did, but they are not.
  They are proposing it for the biggest corporations in America, with 
no strings attached. The corporations do not need to create a single 
job to get this gift. They can lay off workers and still not have to 
pay a dime in taxes under the Republican plan. That kind of plan does 
not help the economy, and it does not help workers.
  Since September 11, nearly a million American workers have lost their 
jobs. Eight and a half million Americans are now out of work.
  Often, the biggest worry when Americans lose their jobs is how to pay 
for their health care. The average cost of keeping health care coverage 
is half of the average monthly unemployment check, half of a family's 
total monthly income. That is why only 20 percent of workers who are 
eligible for COBRA coverage purchase it. Most simply cannot afford it.
  The plan passed by the House provides an inadequate tax credit for 
individuals to buy health care, and it leaves many of them at the whim 
of the private insurance market.
  Under their plan, health insurance will remain out of reach for 
millions of laid-off workers. The credit would require a parent to 
spend, on average, a quarter of their unemployment check for COBRA 
coverage. For most individuals not eligible for COBRA, the price tag 
would be even higher.
  One million displaced workers--part-time workers and recent hires--do 
not even qualify for assistance under the plan.
  Survivors of victims of September 11 do not qualify for assistance 
under their plan. Employees, whose hours have been reduced and who have 
lost their health care as a result, do not qualify for their plan.
  Their individual tax credit discriminates against older and sicker 
workers. An insurer can refuse to cover a sick worker, can charge 
exorbitant prices based on age and health, and can refuse to provide 
coverage for such basic needs as pregnancy, prescription drugs, or 
mental health.
  All the worst practices of the insurance industry are fair game in 
their bill. What is worse, it would actually discourage laid-off 
workers from taking a new job. Under the plan passed by the House, the 
moment an individual goes back into the workforce, they lose their 
eligibility for the insurance premium tax credit.
  Say a recently laid-off worker has a sick spouse; if he wants to go 
back to work, he can't because his new job may not offer health 
insurance for his wife. He would have to choose between freeing himself 
from unemployment and losing health care his wife needs.
  That is their plan for health care. It gives workers insufficient 
help, and it discourages responsibility in the process.
  On jobless benefits, Republicans say their plan extends jobless 
benefits for all laid-off workers. But it doesn't. More than half of 
America's laid-off workers held part-time jobs over recent hires. They 
paid into the unemployment system, but the House plan leaves them out.
  A week ago, the whole world paused to remember the victims of 
September 11, but the House-passed plan forgets the economic victims of 
those attacks, and that is wrong.
  Three days after September 11, we passed a $15 billion airline 
bailout package. Democrats tried to include help for laid-off workers 
in that plan. We were told: Now is not the time. There will be another 
chance soon. We are going to consider airline security. We can help 
workers then.
  Reluctantly, we agreed to wait. We tried to include our package of 
help for workers on airline security. Again, Republican colleagues 
filibustered. Again, they said: This is not the time. We still need to 
pass an economic stimulus package. We will help workers then.
  We took them at their word. We included jobless and health benefits 
for laid-off workers in our economic recovery plan. But instead of 
joining us, Republicans voted to kill our proposal. They said that 
helping workers is not an emergency. We have waited. We have 
compromised.
  At Republican insistence, we dropped the measures to strengthen 
America's homeland security from our plan, even

[[Page 27905]]

though we believe such measures are essential to restoring confidence 
in our safety and our economy. We said: We are willing to support 
larger tax cuts to let businesses write off more of their investment 
costs.
  We also made a significant concession on health care. We believe the 
best approach is to provide laid-off workers with a direct subsidy to 
help pay for COBRA premiums. But in the name of compromise, we said we 
would be willing to move toward the Republican approach again and 
again. We are willing to adopt an employer tax credit as long as it 
will work and as long as it will pay 75 percent of health care costs. 
We even said we will discuss additional tax cuts, such as the Domenici 
payroll tax holiday, the charitable choice legislation, and others, as 
long as Republicans agreed to help workers. We made concession after 
concession after concession to try to get an agreement both sides could 
support and the President could sign.
  We have been willing to compromise on every part of this plan. The 
only issue we couldn't compromise on was our fundamental principle: We 
could not support a plan that does not adequately protect workers or 
help our economy.
  By insisting once again on a bloated package of tax cuts that lack 
real help for workers, the bill that passed in the House indicates that 
perhaps Republicans were never serious about achieving a negotiated 
compromise in the first place.
  Instead of political theatrics, instead of writing another bill with 
no chance of passing the Senate, instead of finger pointing and casting 
blame, we need to come together and pass a real economic recovery plan. 
We need to pass a bill that helps the economy, helps workers, and meets 
the standards that we all agreed to at the beginning of this process. 
At the very least, we need a bill that first does no harm.
  We may have missed our opportunity to get it done this year. If that 
is the case, it is regrettable. But we will again try. We will do all 
that we can to get it done early next year, as we should.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it has been over three months since the 
terrorist atrocities of September 11. Since that day, the Nation's 
workers have been among the Nation's most respected heroes. They have 
come together in the face of new challenges, risking their lives in the 
rescue and recovery efforts, and in too many cases, losing their lives. 
Our hearts are heavy with those losses.
  Our Nation's workers have come together, and the American people 
strongly support our efforts to give them the support and assistance 
they deserve. But our Republican colleagues in Congress have stalled 
our efforts to help these heroic workers. Senator Daschle proposed an 
effective and balanced plan to stimulate the faltering economy. It had 
a majority of support in the Senate.
  The provisions had the support of the nation's most preeminent 
economists, including nine Nobel prize laureates. But our Republican 
colleagues refused to even debate it. They said it wasn't an 
``emergency.''
  Listen to what the economists say. They say the House Republican 
proposal ``will do little to assist a near term recovery and is likely 
to undermine growth in the economy.'' But also listen to what our 
values say, that we cannot abandon our fellow citizens in their time of 
need. If there is any lesson from the tragedy of September 11, it is 
this: that we are one American community, and the backbone of that 
community comes from average Americans.
  Millions of members of that community are hurting today because they 
lost their jobs. Yet, our Republican friends repeatedly say no to the 
very actions that would help these families and strengthen our economy 
at the same time.
  Democrats tried to negotiate in good faith, but Republicans have been 
unwilling to support any recovery package unless it contains tens of 
billions of dollars for new tax breaks for wealthy individuals and 
corporations that will jeopardize the nation's long-term fiscal health 
and threaten Social Security and Medicare. We cannot let Republicans 
hold laid-off workers hostage to these irresponsible and costly tax 
breaks.
  Republicans have also refused to agree to a proposal to provide real 
health insurance to the victims of this terrorist attack and the 
current economic downturn. Instead, they offer only inadequate plans 
that leave workers with sky-high premiums for meager health benefits, 
and that leave behind the survivors of September 11 and many other of 
our most vulnerable workers.
  The Democratic economic recovery proposal puts money in the hands of 
the people who will spend it immediately.
  We strengthen unemployment insurance, and guarantee affordable health 
care to laid-off workers on the front lines of the economic battle. 
These workers deserve no less.
  Every day that we fail to pass a stimulus package, we fail to help 
more laid-off workers. The unemployment rate is now 5.7 percent, a 33 
percent increase since the recession began. Over 8 million Americans 
will start the year out of work, through no fault of their own. 
Millions of Americans are left with no paycheck and no golden 
parachute. We cannot accept a plan that fails these workers.
  Health premiums can cost nearly $600 a month for a family--most of an 
unemployment check. That is why only about one in five laid-off workers 
today continue their coverage, even if they are eligible. Our plan 
covers 75 percent of the health care premium for those who are eligible 
to continue their coverage, but can't afford the cost.
  Some workers are not eligible for any continuing health plan. Our 
plan also allows states to cover these vulnerable workers. Taken 
together, our plan ensures that men and women who lose their jobs don't 
have to worry about losing their health insurance as well.
  Our plan also provides fiscal relief to the States, which face 
serious budget shortfalls, yet must meet yearly balanced budget 
requirements. We increase Medicaid payments, so that States don't have 
to cut back on coverage, just as more workers need help. The head of 
the Republican Governors' Association, Governor John Engler, said 
without this plan, a stimulus package is ``robbing Peter to pay Paul, 
because States will have to cut critical services, stifling the 
positive effect of any stimulus measures enacted at the federal 
level.''
  Our Democratic plan assures 13 weeks of extended unemployment 
benefits for laid-off workers.
  The current recession is already 9 months old, and the two million 
workers who have run out of unemployment insurance benefits should not 
have to continue to wait for our help.
  Our plan also makes part-time and low-wage workers eligible for 
unemployment benefits. In 1975, on average, 75 percent of unemployed 
workers received unemployment benefits. Last year, the figure was only 
38 percent. Expanding coverage to include part-time and low-wage 
workers will benefit more than 600,000 more of those who have been 
laid-off, and it will also provide additional economic stimulus.
  In addition, our plan supplements the current meager level of 
unemployment benefits, which do not replace enough lost wages to keep 
workers out of poverty.
  In 2000, the national average unemployment benefit only replaced 33 
percent of workers' lost income, a steep drop from the 46 percent of 
workers' wages replaced by jobless benefits during the recessions of 
the 1970's and 1980's.
  During an economic crisis, unemployed workers have few opportunities 
to rejoin a declining workforce. They depend on unemployment benefits 
to live. Adding $150 a month to unemployment benefits will stimulate 
the economy and help these laid-off workers support their families 
while they look for a new job.
  While Democrats have been negotiating an economic recovery package in 
good faith, the House Republicans pulled the rug out from under those 
negotiations. They walked away from the negotiating table, made harsh 
personal

[[Page 27906]]

attacks against our Democratic leader, and brought a separate 
Republican bill, largely a repackaging of the previous bill--back to 
the House floor.
  The latest GOP plan is not an effort to stimulate the economy or help 
workers. It is a Republican game of political hot potato, to avoid 
blame. They do not deserve credit for a misguided plan that does 
nothing for the economy and nothing for workers.
  The latest House Republican bill fails the economy. It fails the 
states, which are struggling to balance their budgets. It fails the 
millions of workers who have been laid off through no fault of their 
own and are struggling to keep a roof over their families' heads and 
food on their tables.
  What it will do is blow a deep hole in our economy, estimated at $250 
billion, adding to deficits already expected next year. All of it will 
have to come from the Social Security Trust Fund.
  Our Republican colleagues are more concerned about helping wealthy 
corporations and individuals than about stimulating the economy or 
assisting laid-off workers. The new House Republican bill continues to 
gut the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax. They refuse to offer any 
true help for workers, but wealthy corporations will receive a promise 
that they won't have to pay any income tax in future years.
  The Republican bill also provides new tax reductions for wealthy 
individuals. Only the top quarter of American families will receive any 
benefit from these rate reductions and only the top 4.4 percent will 
receive the full benefit.
  The House bill also maintains a 30 percent bonus depreciation over 
the next 3 years, even though nobody believes the recession will last 3 
years. With no incentive for immediate action, companies will not 
invest, now when the economy is weak. Instead, they will get windfalls 
in later years.
  At the same time, states will suffer revenue losses for the full 3 
years of this proposal, on top of the $35 to $50 billion budget 
deficits they are already facing.
  The Republican bill drains money from States, but it provides little 
fiscal relief. Since states must balance their budgets even in 
recessions, the Republican plans will force still-larger budget cuts. 
These losses in revenue will almost certainly result in deep cuts for 
Medicaid, education, and other vital State and local services.
  The Republican bill clearly shortchanges workers. It does little to 
provide unemployment benefits or affordable health care for laid-off 
workers.
  Perhaps the best and purest form of economic stimulus is to increase 
unemployment benefits for families, because they are sure to spend it 
quickly.
  Yet, the unemployment insurance provisions in the bill passed by the 
House do not accomplish nearly enough. The bill leaves out hundreds of 
thousands of low-wage and part-time workers who have paid into the 
unemployment fund, but are not eligible for benefits under it.
  The Republican plan fails to raise the meager level of benefits, 
which currently replace half or less of an individual's lost wages. A 
few weeks ago, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee proposed 
temporarily suspending income taxes on UI benefits as a way of raising 
these meager benefits. That step would be slower and less inclusive 
than a benefit increase, but at least it acknowledged that we need to 
raise benefit levels. However, even that tax suspension has been 
dropped from the latest Republican bill. Instead, that bill provides 
funding for unemployment insurance that will most likely be used for 
employer tax cuts, and to boost trust fund reserves instead of worker 
benefits.
  The Republican health proposals are also an empty promise to millions 
of Americans. Their plan leaves out hundreds of thousands of unemployed 
workers. It excludes the survivors of the September 11 attack. It 
excludes low-wage and part-time workers. Even for those are eligible, 
it provides an inadequate subsidy that most workers can't afford to 
use.
  The Republican plan leaves deserving Americans who are not eligible 
for COBRA to the flawed individual insurance market which charges 
thousands of dollars for inadequate benefits. Their plan does not 
prevent HMOs and insurers from discriminating against sick and older 
workers, or from charging unlimited premiums.
  In these difficult economic times, it is wrong to ignore the needs of 
working families. It is wrong to repeatedly help our Nation's most 
prosperous firms, while ignoring the needs of millions of workers.
  It is wrong to tell workers, who have been laid off that they don't 
deserve unemployment benefits. It is wrong to tell hard-working men and 
women that the price they must pay for the terrorist attack is to go 
without the health care they need and deserve. It is wrong to offer 
only an empty promise with unlimited premiums. It is wrong to enact a 
stimulus plan that says yes to the greedy and no to the needy.
  It is time to end the suffering of the millions of families who have 
lost jobs and health insurance in this economic downturn. It is time 
for Congress and the President to listen to the voices of working 
families, instead of powerful special interests.
  Over the past 3 months, Congress has acted to help affected 
industries receive the assistance that they need. Businesses have also 
received stimulus after stimulus from the Federal Reserve which has cut 
interest rates 11 times. But business clearly has excess capacity 
today. Providing more benefits to business is not what will help this 
country recover most effectively.
  Economic recovery will come best and quickest helping unemployed 
workers pay for their groceries, their mortgage and their health costs. 
We reject the Republican proposals, because we cannot accept a plan 
that fails so many millions of workers. We owe it to all the Americans 
who have lost their jobs to provide the support they need and deserve, 
and to provide it now.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, at the beginning of this year we passed a 
series of tax cuts. This was a strong action in favor of hardworking 
Americans. With the recent slowdown in the economy, we must again act, 
and act quickly, for the American worker. Historically, Congress has 
failed to act quick enough to provide economic relief when it is 
needed. Let us not repeat this error. It is imperative that we now take 
this opportunity to act in unison to provide the American people with 
the assistance they deserve.
  Several economic stimulus packages have been proposed. The House has 
recently passed a stimulus package that I feel will give the economy a 
much needed boost and provide dislocated workers with the temporary 
assistance they require. I, as well as many of my colleagues, have some 
reservations about certain items contained in this package. But for the 
sake of the economy and the American worker we must take quick and 
decisive action now. Overall, this stimulus package is a positive and 
much-needed step in the right direction.
  We must provide aid to dislocated workers. In times of a slow 
economy, many hardworking Americans are forced from their jobs through 
no fault of their own. It is of the utmost importance that we provide 
the support these hardworking Americans deserve. This package provides 
around 20 billion dollars in aid to these displaced workers, which 
includes a measure that will provide a 13 week extension to 
unemployment benefits, supporting American individuals and families in 
their time of financial hardship. This also provides support to 
Medicaid. This assistance is a temporary and much needed helping hand 
to those whose families and way of life are currently threatened by the 
recent economic downturn.
  When we have taken care of these dislocated workers, we must look 
forward to what lies beyond the realm of short-term relief. History has 
shown us time and time again that overall economic growth is one of 
long term planning. Here we have the opportunity to provide the economy 
with a short and long term boost via a 10 year investment stimulus 
package. This would provide almost $160 billion worth of support, 
through the year 2011, to small businesses and taxpayers. This package 
calls for increased tax cuts for individuals, $60 billion of tax relief 
in Fiscal Year 2002 and $112 billion over the next

[[Page 27907]]

10 years. This package will provide health care tax credits so that 
displaced workers and their families do not go without medical 
coverage. Furthermore, this package provides increases in investment 
opportunities and net operating loss flexibility for small businesses.
  This package, aptly named Economic Stimulus and Aid to Dislocated 
Workers, is a good start. In the future, we will need to return to 
these issues. We will need to provide more incentives for long term 
economic growth and development. But our immediate action on this 
package is crucial. We must act now, we must pass this stimulus bill 
before Christmas, because this is what the American people need and 
deserve. I have commended my colleagues on the passage of the education 
school reform bill; a bill that leaves no child behind. We must now 
ensure that American families, workers, and the temporarily unemployed 
are not left behind. The President proposed an economic security 
package in October. Now I stand before you in December and tell you 
that the American people can wait no longer. We must support our 
economy and our unemployed workers now. I humbly ask my fellow 
Senators: Put aside your differences and vote in unison for the 
economy, for hardworking displaced Americans, and for the American 
family.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, at a time when so many Americans are out of 
work, with out Nation at war and with, appropriately, calls for 
national unity, I regret to say I have to come to the floor to address 
what I feel is the ultimate breakdown on unity. Rather than delivering 
a responsible stimulus package that is targeted and temporary, my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been working overtime to 
turn a legitimate policy debate into a personal exercise in 
demonization. They have worked hard to turn a battle of ideas into a 
battle of name calling. And their focus has been our leader Tom 
Daschle. They have called him obstructionist--partisan--divisive--and 
worse.
  Now let me make clear for the record, I'm not worried about Tom 
Daschle. He's tough and resilient like the South Dakota prairie. He 
won't buckle, he won't shrink from their charges, and Tom Daschle knows 
that truth wins out in the end. He knows that what a different wartime 
leader, Abraham Lincoln, said is still true: ``If the end brings me out 
all right, what is said against me won't amount to anything. If the end 
brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no 
difference.'' By that measure, Tom Daschle will do just fine. But let's 
be honest. This really isn't about Tom Daschle. It's about a Republican 
Party that knows their agenda won't stand up to the light of day and so 
they need to make the debate about something else.
  Can't pass drilling in an Arctic Refuge on its merits? Then do it 
because you're patriotic. Can't do that? Attach it to a ban on human 
cloning. Have that cynical effort rejected almost unanimously, then 
just blame the Democratic Leader. Can't ram backloaded, retroactive 
corporate tax giveaways through Congress while ignoring workers? Well, 
that must be because Tom Daschle is a partisan. Better to demonize the 
Democratic leader than acknowledge that your stimulus bill is 
unacceptable because it won't stimulate the economy. Better to attack 
Tom Daschle than admit that your bill is an insult to the working, 
everyday Americans who've been honored in words countless times since 
September 11th but insulted by the first so-called stimulus bill that 
the Republican House passed by one vote. Then, Senate Republicans 
prevented a vote on a balanced package put together by the Fiance 
Committee.
  Now, the House is set to vote on a supposed ``bipartisan 
compromise''--``bipartisan'' because it may likely get 51 or 52 votes 
here in the Senate. But it is not a stimulus bill. It's a tax cut bill 
that will spend $211 billion over the next five years, with more than 
half of that cost coming after 2002, when the administration believes 
that the economy will have already recovered. A ``bipartisan'' bill is 
not one that barely gets enough votes for passage. A bipartisan bill is 
one like the education bill we passed yesterday, which received 87 
votes. We were statesmen when we passed--almost unanimously--an 
emergency spending bill, a use-of-force resolution, a counterterrorism 
bill, an airline industry bailout, and an airport security bill that 
will make the skies safer for millions of Americans. But in a Senate as 
closely divided as this one, to call a bill ``bipartisan'' that gets 
two or three Democrats to vote for it is laughable.
  There are still other ways in which statesmanship can be exercised. 
Statesmanship can be resisting bad ideas that take advantage of 
national emotion to do unacceptable special interest favors for a 
favored political constituency. That, regrettably, is what the 
Republican stimulus bill is all about, although they will tell you it 
is for workers. But they do nothing to expand unemployment insurance to 
the many thousands of laid-off workers who are not currently eligible 
for benefits, and their ideas for health care simply will not work. And 
so we find ourselves divided--not because Tom Daschle is an 
obstructionist, but because a decades-old partisan agenda which was on 
its last legs before September 11th has been revived under the guise of 
economic security. Average Americans are being denied unemployment 
insurance and health care because Republicans want to hold out for more 
for those who are doing fine as it is. So we have an impasse--we are 
fighting for everyone to be treated fairly--they're fighting to reward 
those already rewarded with no guarantee it will be spent or invested 
in a way that has any immediate stimulative impact on an economy that 
needs it. No wonder they'd rather just attack Tom Daschle--it is easier 
than dealing in the truth and moving this economy forward and helping 
America's workers.
  It doesn't need to be this way. In early October, three weeks after 
the terrorist attacks, Democrats and Republicans in the House and 
Senate agreed to a list of bipartisan principles for stimulus. These 
included the belief that the package should be temporary, help those 
most vulnerable, impact the economy quickly, be broad-based, and 
include out-year offsets. The Republican leader of the Ways and Means 
Committee in the House abandoned those bipartisan negotiations in order 
to push through his own partisan package by one vote. It is his 
truculence, and the insistence of the Republicans that we reduce the 
corporate Alternative Minimum Tax and cut individual tax rates even 
more than we did in June, that have led directly to the situation we 
find ourselves in today.
  Mr. President, 700,000 Americans lost their jobs in October and 
November alone. The unemployment rate is not at 5.7 percent. The 
country is at war, we have an economy in negative growth, and we are on 
the verge of returning to an era of deficits after finally putting our 
fiscal house in order. We should not be passing large, permanent tax 
cuts unless we can be certain that the cuts will have a stimulative 
impact. The tax cuts proposed by most Republicans would not have that 
effect, since most of the costs occur after 2002. Again, this is not a 
stimulus bill--it is a $200 billion tax cut disguised as a stimulus 
bill. I still hope that the Senate can work to develop a bipartisan 
agreement, and I commend my leader for his continued efforts. We owe it 
to working Americans everywhere to pass a responsible bill. We know 
that a real stimulus bill should contain some tax relief for 
businesses, provided that it will help spur new investment or address 
temporary cashflow concerns. We know that we should provide some 
temporary tax relief to those families who are likely to spend the 
money, thus helping generate some additional demand. We know that we 
need to help unemployed workers make ends meet, and make sure that they 
don't lose their health insurance as a result of the ripple effects 
from the terrorist attacks of September 11th.
  And we know that we need to temporarily offset some of the impact of 
the current downturn on the states, by increasing the federal Medicaid 
matching rate, or FMAP. Let's be clear: Laid-off workers cannot 
contribute to economic recovery. The answer is not to sit back

[[Page 27908]]

and wait for economic benefits to trickle down to workers already 
thrown off the job. Instead we must invest in health care, unemployment 
insurance, and worker retraining to help put money in their pockets and 
bring dislocated workers back into the economic mainstream of this 
country. We need to do that even if we can't agree on how to boost the 
economy through tax cuts. That's why I introduced the Putting Americans 
First Act, to take these worker protections out of the stimulus debate 
and provide a guarantee of immediate relief for those who have been 
hurt by the economic recession. The legislation would empower the 
states to expand unemployment compensation and health insurance 
coverage and provide help to states in which welfare caseloads are 
sharply increasing.
  Common sense and common decency tells us now is not the time for a 
corporate grab-bag of tax cuts, or for revisiting a debate about future 
marginal tax rates--particularly when these rate cuts would do nothing 
for more than three-quarters of the population. It is incumbent upon us 
to act in the best interests of our country as a whole, not in the 
interests of a select few. All Americans want to see this economy get 
moving again, and no Americans want to see this country begin a new 
chapter in our history where we hold back health insurance and 
unemployment benefits in tough times because Democrats won't agree to 
further permanent tax cuts.
  Let's put things straight and meet the objectives of the American 
people and not the objectives of an ideological minority, and let's 
stop demonizing those who disagree with us. We owe the American people 
better than what they have been given at one of the most important 
times in our Nation's history, and it's time the Congress delivered.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, there is no question that we are now 
in the middle of a recession. Even before the terrorist attacks 3 
months ago, economic growth had slowed dramatically and unemployment 
was rising. Since September 11, the number of payroll jobs has declined 
by an average of 314,000 per month, unemployment has increased by an 
average of 392,000 per month, and consumer confidence is at its lowest 
level in 7 years.
  In response to their pessimistic mood and uncertainty about the 
future, consumers stayed away from shopping centers and retail sales 
fell by 2.4 percent in September, the largest one-month drop since 
1987. In Arkansas, more than three-fourths of employers indicate they 
have no plans to expand in the next 6 months, whether by adding jobs, 
making capital investments, or seeking new business opportunities. On 
October 5, the President publicly urged Congress to send him an 
economic stimulus package that encourages consumer spending, promotes 
business investment, and helps dislocated workers.
  The House of Representatives has now twice passed economic stimulus 
legislation. I ask you, Mr. President, how many more Americans have to 
lose their jobs? How many more businesses have to file for bankruptcy? 
How many more families do we have to see turned away from their own 
doctor's office because their medical insurance has run out before we 
put petty politics aside and do something to help those that so badly 
need our help.
  I have received hundreds of letters, e-mails, faxes, and phone calls 
from people all over my home State of Arkansas, as I'm sure have all of 
my colleagues, from people who need our help and need it now. Take for 
example an e-mail I recently received from a constituent in West 
Memphis who wrote:

       I am one of the 450,000 Americans who were laid off before 
     the September 11th attack, and I am going to need extended 
     unemployment benefits.
       My plant in Forrest City is in the process of closing. My 
     last day was July 27. Since then, I have spent several hours 
     a day trying to find another job. Things are tough right now. 
     Plus, I have another problem--I am a few years away from 
     retirement. I'm too young to retire but too old to get 
     another job. I know that age discrimination is against the 
     law (wink, wink), but the truth is that not even the 
     government will hire a sixty year old.
       In a couple of months, my $300 a week unemployment will run 
     out. When that happens, I will have to dip into my retirement 
     funds--if there's anything left by then--to pay the bills. An 
     extension of benefits will help some, and would be 
     appreciated. What I want more than government help, however, 
     is a job.
       If your staff knows of agencies, websites, etc., which 
     specialize in senior jobseekers' need, I would appreciate 
     knowing about them. I have a lifetime of knowledge and 
     experience to offer a company, and I have kept up with the 
     latest philosophies of manufacturing, as well. There are just 
     more people than jobs right now.
       This is NOT how and when I expected to retire!
       Best Wishes--Mike

  Some simply write and say: ``Please, I urge you help get an economic 
recovery bill passed now.''
  While each person has their own individual story to tell about the 
effects this recession is having on them, they are all saying the same 
thing: We need help now! We don't have time for you to play politics 
with this one. People's lives and livelihoods are at stake.
  One of, quite possible, the only good things to come out of the 
horrific terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11th is that we 
saw, even if for a limited time, real bipartisanship occur here on 
Capitol Hill. Well guess what . . . the American people saw 
bipartisanship in action and now expect it, and deserve it, every day. 
Bipartisanship was once a word that was only spoken by those in 
political office. It is now being used by nearly every person that 
contacts me. We need to listen to these people and do what they sent us 
here to do. We need to work together today, not a month from now, and 
send to the President an economic stimulus package before we go home 
for the year.
  A constituent of mine recently wrote me and said: ``Please quit 
bickering and pass an economic stimulus package. Senators, it seems 
that the `ball is in your court'. Thank you, and God Bless America.'' I 
think he summed it up rather nicely.
  Mr. President, the ball is in our court, and we need to do something 
with it. We need to pass an economic stimulus package today.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to express my serious 
disappointment that we could not reach agreement on a stimulus package 
that would both help America's workers and encourage immediate business 
investment to strengthen our economy. I intend to keep fighting for 
real help for the workers who have lost their jobs and need health care 
coverage until they get the assistance they need.
  I think an economic recovery package is still important work to do. 
Had my Republican counterparts been willing to stay at the negotiating 
table and keep talking, I would not have left my post until we reached 
agreement. As a conferee on this unique Leadership Conference, I am 
especially disappointed that our work was abandoned by the Republican 
Leadership.
  Unfortunately, the House Leadership chose to walk out on the tough 
work of negotiation and move a partisan bill that includes numerous, 
multiyear tax cuts for corporations and for the wealthiest Americans. 
The House bill would do little to actually stimulate our economy and 
would not provide real health care coverage for workers in need of 
meaningful assistance to retain their health insurance.
  Moreover, from what I can learn of the legislation which passed just 
hours ago, it will have significant costs after 2002, as much as $67 
billion. That means substantial deficit spending to finance corporate 
tax relief and additional tax cuts for the top 25 percent of all 
taxpayers. Nearly 80 percent of West Virginia taxpayers would not get a 
dime from the tax rate changes proposed by the House Republicans, and 
to add insult to injury, their payroll taxes would pay for the 
corporate tax breaks. I cannot support raiding billions of dollars from 
the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds.
  Nearly a million people have lost their jobs in recent months as a 
result of the economic downturn that was exacerbated by the September 
11 terrorist attacks on our Nation. Those families deserve the help 
that the Senate Finance Committee package provided, substantial help to 
pay for

[[Page 27909]]

health insurance that they can count on and a temporary extension and 
improvement of unemployment benefits, which includes improved benefits 
and makes part-time and low wage workers eligible. Unemployed Americans 
deserve access to affordable health care and to unemployment benefits 
as they seek new employment.
  I deeply regret that the House Leadership conferees could not, or I 
should say, would not, accept the Senate's worker package that provides 
immediate, but temporary health care coverage for displaced workers and 
extended and improved unemployment insurance. The House approach on 
health care was inadequate and unworkable. It would not have guaranteed 
health care coverage to a single solitary worker. It failed to include 
needed reforms to the insurance market to make insurance affordable, or 
to ensure that a decent benefit package was available.
  I am deeply frustrated that the Republican conferees wanted to leave 
workers at the mercy of the insurance industry. Under the House bill, 
workers would have had to, on their own, seek affordable coverage on 
the current, failed individual market, armed with limited resources and 
zero leverage. Older and sicker workers would have been left entirely 
out of luck with that kind of approach. I am frustrated that House 
Leaders insisted on promoting their ideology over existing programs 
that could have been used to provide reliable health care coverage to 
workers who need it.
  I believe our economy would benefit from additional stimulus in the 
form of 1-year business incentives and additional individual tax cuts 
for those taxpayers who were left out and did not benefit from the 
rebate checks last summer. I believe we could have come together on a 
package that would have helped workers even as it provided business tax 
cuts like bonus depreciation and expensing for small businesses. We 
could have helped many businesses who are having a hard time in this 
economy by extending the carryback period for net operating losses, 
NOLs. I also firmly believe we could have reached accommodation on the 
issue of AMT relief, if only the House Leadership had been willing to 
accept real health care and unemployment coverage as part of the 
package.
  But the House chose to move forward with a plan that consists 
primarily of tax cuts, not help for the workers who have been promised 
for months, promised by both the President and Congress, that we would 
attend to their needs after the tragedy of September 11. Instead, the 
House bill's cost over both 5 and 10 years is over 90 percent tax cuts. 
Less than half of those tax cuts would come in 2002 because it is a 
back-loaded plan, not the temporary stimulus measure Congress and the 
President had mutually agreed was the goal of a stimulus package. 
Common sense tells us that tax cuts in 2003 don't stimulate the economy 
during our current downturn. There is strong evidence that the House's 
proposed tax cuts to higher income individuals would not stimulate the 
economy in the out years, either, because wealthier individuals tend to 
save rather than spend.
  Finally, the House bill does not sufficiently address the desperate 
financial conditions of the States, or the fact that some of the 
business tax provisions in the bill will actually mean the States lose 
billions in revenue. The House bill, as far as I can estimate, does not 
even offset those costs. States are facing a collective, roughly $50 
billion deficit, and experts believe the House bill will cost States. 
Estimates are that West Virginia alone could lose $35 million in State 
revenues because of policies embedded in the House Republican package. 
That means West Virginia and other States would be more likely to cut 
health care to the poor and other low income programs just when the 
economy makes the programs most essential.
  In sum, workers did not get the help they need or deserve from the 
House Republicans' bill. They did not get the consideration they 
deserve from the House Republican Leadership. And some useful business 
tax incentives, that combined with additional assistance for the 
unemployed, could have effectively stimulated our economy, won't pass 
this year.
  I had hoped we could have put our partisan and ideological 
differences aside to speed relief to workers and our ailing economy. I 
will not give up until we help the people who are waiting to get their 
fair share of Federal assistance, just as other sectors of our economy 
have been provided with Federal aid in this unusual time.
  Today, in an effort to at least provide a short-term extension of 
unemployment benefits to workers on the verge of running out of 
assistance and facing the holidays, the Senate Majority Leader asked 
unanimous consent to take up and pass a 13-week extension of existing 
unemployment benefits. He asked for a one-time, 13-week extension of 
existing benefits, no benefit improvements, no expanded eligibility, 
just a straight, short-term extension.
  The Senate Republican Leader objected to that request, despite the 
fact that we have frequently extended these unemployment benefits in 
the past. That tells you something about why the stimulus conference 
did not produce legislation. American workers are still waiting for the 
help they need.

                          ____________________