[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 20]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 28018-28019]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          ECONOMIC SECURITY AND WORKER ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. WILLIAM J. COYNE

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, December 19, 2001

  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this second 
deeply flawed economic stimulus bill.
  The measure before us today represents a modest improvement over the 
first stimulus bill, but it is still inadequate. While the bill would 
extend unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks, it does 
nothing to help part-time and low-wage workers.
  And while this version of the Republicans' partisan stimulus bill 
appears to provide more assistance to laid-off workers so that they can 
keep their health insurance, it would, in fact, provide them and their 
families with little help. Serious concerns have been raised about the 
administration of the proposed 60 percent refundable tax credit for 
health insurance premiums, but even if such assistance could be 
smoothly administered, it would in many cases not provide enough help 
to many families--who would still be unable to afford to pay their 
health insurance premiums. Such premiums cost, on average, about $220 a 
month for an individual and $580 a month for a family. Moreover, 
concerns have been raised that enactment of such a credit could 
undermine our

[[Page 28019]]

country's existing system of predominantly employer-provided health 
insurance.
  In addition, the legislation before us still provides an inadequate 
level of funding to States to help them deal with the crisis. The 
National Governors' Association estimates that the combined budget 
shortfall for all 50 States could exceed $50 billion in 2002. Some 
provisions in the bill before us would actually exacerbate the fiscal 
challenge facing many states--the proposal to allow larger tax write-
offs for purchases of new equipment, for example, which has been 
estimated to reduce state revenues by more than $5 billion next year 
alone.
  Finally, this latest bill still allocates much of its ``economic 
stimulus'' to tax cuts for corporations and upper-income households. 
While this Republican stimulus bill would not repeal the corporate 
alternative minimum tax, it would effectively eviscerate it. This 
latest stimulus bill would also speed up the phase-down of marginal tax 
rates for taxpayers in the upper tax brackets--just like the first 
stimulus bill. Moreover, while the argument for these tax cuts is that 
we need to spur additional investment in businesses and factories, this 
argument rings hollow given that businesses are currently struggling to 
eliminate the excess capacity that exists in many industries. I believe 
that the most effective stimulus the federal government can provide at 
this time is to expand demand for goods and services--and that the most 
effective way to expand that demand is to make up some of the lost 
income in households that have been hit by recent lay-offs.
  In short, I believe that, like the first economic stimulus bill 
rammed through the House by the Republican leadership in October, this 
legislation is both unfair and unwise. It does too little to help the 
people who have been laid off and too Much to help the people who are 
well off. Moreover, it does too little to stimulate the economy in the 
coming year and loses too much revenue in subsequent years. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against this poorly crafted legislation.

                          ____________________