[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 234-240]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              THE ECONOMY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to follow up to some extent 
on the comments made by my Republican colleague from Colorado. I know 
he mentioned that today the House passed a Republican-sponsored bill 
that would provide an additional 13 weeks of extended unemployment 
benefits to workers who had exhausted their benefits. But I have to say 
that this proposal did not go far enough. We know that the economy is 
in a significant downturn, there are many people who have exhausted 
their unemployment benefits, who would not be able to continue to 
receive benefits under the Republican proposal, and also the Republican 
proposal is for a relatively short period of time, 13 weeks, as opposed 
to the 26 weeks that had been proposed by the Democrats.
  Basically what they agreed to today, the Republicans, was to pass a 
bill that would provide 13 weeks of extended unemployment benefits in 
every State during the first 5 months of 2003. However, even now the 
Republicans still refuse to provide any additional assistance to the 1 
million workers who exhausted their 13 weeks of extended benefits last 
year but who remain unemployed.
  During the last recession in the early 1990s, these workers were 
provided 26 weeks of benefits; but this time they only received 13 
weeks. Furthermore, there is $25 billion in the Federal unemployment 
trust funds, more than enough to both continue the extended benefits 
program this year and help exhaustees from the last year. Unemployment 
compensation goes to the

[[Page 235]]

families who must spend it very quickly, meaning it acts as an economic 
stimulus. Economists have estimated that each dollar of unemployment 
benefits leads to $2.15 in economic growth.
  I mention this because I think that to some extent people are going 
to read now that the Republicans passed this bill and say, that is 
great, we are going to have some more extended weeks of unemployment 
benefits, but the fact of the matter is a lot of people will not 
receive the benefits who really need it and it is for a relatively 
short period of time. The Democrats have said, of course, that we would 
go 26 weeks, to the end of June, and we would include all of those who 
have exhausted their benefits, the 1 million or so from last year who 
would get an additional 13 weeks under the Democratic proposal.
  The other thing, though, that was very upsetting to me today was not 
only that we did not go far enough in terms of unemployment benefits in 
what we finally passed here in the House but also even as President 
Bush announced his economic stimulus plan, which I do not think is an 
economic stimulus plan at all and I will go into that a little bit, it 
was announced as part of it that the effect on the deficit over the 
next 10 years would be about 674, $675 billion.
  We know that we are already back into a serious deficit problem this 
year, about $150 billion. After having several years under President 
Clinton when we actually had a surplus, now we are back into a deficit 
situation. And what President Bush proposes in his economic package 
will cost a tremendous amount of money and not necessarily put anybody 
back to work, not create the very stimulus that he claims to be talking 
about. But an important part of that is that it is going to put us so 
much further into debt, to the tune of something like $674 billion.
  But what did I hear? Instead of reacting the way the Democrats said 
and saying let us have a real economic stimulus plan that actually does 
something and does not cost that much because the Democrats are at just 
a little over $100 billion, what we are hearing from the Republican 
side of the aisle is that this economic plan of the President's is not 
big enough, is not going to put us enough in deficit. In fact, we have 
the majority leader, the Republican majority leader, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay) saying that he wants to boost the size of the Bush 
tax cut package. He is actually quoted in Congress Daily saying today 
that the Republicans, the House Republicans would move quickly to pass 
most of President Bush's 10-year $674 billion tax cut proposal, and 
they would likely increase the total size of the package. This is a 
quote: ``The House will pass a bill that will have all the tax relief 
that is in the President's bill and probably more,'' Mr. DeLay said, 
adding, ``I see the President's package as a floor, not a ceiling.''
  Obviously, what the gentleman from Texas is trying to do is 
counteract the statements being made by the Democrats that the 
President's plan is not only ineffective as a stimulus but is also 
going to put us seriously into debt by suggesting, ``Oh, don't worry 
about that, I'll come up with an even bigger one.'' It is scary to 
think what the Republicans are thinking about in the House. They seem 
to be just perfectly willing to rubber-stamp whatever the President 
does and then go even further in terms of putting us into debt and 
doing something that is not going to be very effective for the American 
people.
  Why do I say it is not effective? Why do I say the President's plan 
that was announced yesterday is not effective as a stimulus package, 
that it is not going to do anything to put people back to work, that it 
is not going to do anything to improve the economy? If you look at it, 
the centerpiece of the President's plan is the complete elimination of 
all taxes on stock dividends. If you think about it, not only is that 
primarily going to benefit the wealthy instead of putting back money 
into the hands of the average American, but what guarantee is it that 
if you give this windfall essentially to people who have dividends, 
stock dividends, that they are going to invest it back in the economy 
and create jobs? We have no guarantee that the stock market is going to 
go up because of it. We have no guarantee that whatever savings are 
made are going to be reinvested in new means of production or creating 
new jobs. This is just speculation. And to say that the centerpiece of 
your plan is such a speculative proposal and to put us into debt so 
much more over the next 10 years is just, I think, totally 
irresponsible.
  According to a preliminary estimate by the nonpartisan Tax Policy 
Center, 45 percent of the benefits of the entire Bush proposal will go 
to the top 5 percent of taxpayers who have an average income of 
$350,000. In fact, those making over $1 million will see an average tax 
break of $88,000, more than 100 times the tax cut for the vast majority 
of taxpayers making less than $75,000. Let me also add, when I talk 
about this budget deficit that is going to be increased by 6 to $700 
billion under the Bush plan, keep in mind that the President also said 
when he announced his proposal that he also wanted to make the tax cuts 
of last year permanent, which would probably double the amount of 
deficit. You could probably double that 6 to $700 billion figure and go 
up to, say, 1.4, $1.5 trillion, not to count the debt service that you 
would have on that. By the time it is all said and done, the thing that 
the President proposed or said he wanted to do yesterday not only in 
this initial so-called stimulus plan but also long term in terms of 
making the tax cuts permanent that were put into law last year, we 
would probably be talking about a $2 trillion deficit. We are going to 
go back to the worst of times that we have ever seen in terms of 
deficit. The consequence to the economy will be dismal. The impact in 
terms of creating even more of a downward trend on the economy from 
that kind of budget deficit is really incredible.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk a little bit about the Democratic 
alternative, and basically the Democratic alternative is radically 
different from what President Bush has proposed because it is based on 
certain very sound principles. First of all, it says that any economic 
stimulus plan should be front-loaded and fast-acting. The benefits have 
to accrue to the American people this year, in 2003. It has got to 
create jobs. It has got to put money in their pockets. It has to put 
money back to the States so that they can bail themselves out of some 
of the deficit problems that they have. It should also avoid 
mushrooming the deficit in the long term. The Democratic proposal 
basically is targeted towards 2003 and over the 10-year period would 
only create an additional deficit of about $100 billion.
  I think you could make a legitimate argument that the economy would 
grow enough to make up for that $100 billion because it is front-loaded 
and fast-acting. It would also boost consumer demand and investment 
because it would say that some money is going to go directly into 
consumers' pockets and some money is going to be given back to small 
businesses so that they can invest here and would be forced to invest 
here rather than take their stock dividends overseas or put them in 
some other country.
  Also the Democratic plan would help States through their fiscal 
straits. We know that so many States, my home State of New Jersey we 
estimate maybe a 4, $5 billion deficit that has to be overcome. Let the 
Federal Government help out a little bit with that. And also we are 
investing in infrastructure primarily by funding homeland defense, 
airport security, security for other infrastructure around the country.
  But I think the most important thing, and I do not want to keep 
repeating myself, is the fact that under the Democratic proposal we are 
basically doing something that makes a difference now in this next 
year. I should say in this year, 2003.
  Let me just briefly run through what the Democrats are proposing. We 
have a middle-class tax cut that basically gives a refundable tax cut. 
It is 10 percent of your taxes up to about $600 for a couple, 
structured to include those who pay payroll taxes. Basically it is 
going to be structured in a way that

[[Page 236]]

you get a rebate of up to $300 for an individual or up to $600 for a 
couple. We have business tax incentives to encourage investment so that 
the investment has to be here in the United States, this year. And we 
have assistance to the States including money for infrastructure and 
also to help States defray the cost of Medicaid, which is a big part of 
the reason why so many of them are in a deficit situation. And I 
mentioned the unemployment compensation benefits would be much more 
extensive than what the Republicans proposed today and passed today.
  I just wanted to say a little bit, a little commentary by some of the 
media. The media in the editorials that I have read have essentially 
panned the Republican proposal and said that the Democratic proposal 
would be much better and really make a difference in terms of economic 
growth. I just wanted to read some excerpts, if I could, just from two 
New York Times editorials and op-eds that were in the paper yesterday. 
This one is by Paul Krugman, it was in yesterday's paper, just to give 
you some highlights of it. He is talking about a sensible plan: ``A 
sensible economic stimulus plan would provide immediate, large-scale 
aid to beleaguered State governments, which have been burdened with 
expensive homeland security mandates even as their revenues have 
plunged. Given our long-run budget problem, any tax relief would be 
temporary and go largely to low- and middle-income families.

                              {time}  2215

  ``Yesterday House Democrats released a plan right out of the 
textbook: aid to States and the jobless, rebates to everyone. But the 
centerpiece of the administration's proposal'' by contrast ``is the 
permanent elimination of taxes on dividends.
  ``So instead of a temporary measure, we get a permanent tax cut. The 
price tag of the overall plan is a whopping $600 billion; yet less than 
$100 billion will arrive in the first year. The Democratic plan, with 
an overall price tag of only $136 billion actually provides more short-
term stimulus.
  ``And instead of helping the needy, the Bush plan is almost 
ludicrously tilted towards the very, very well off. If you have stocks 
in a 401(k), your dividends are already tax sheltered; this proposal 
gives big breaks only to people who have lots of stock outside their 
retirement accounts. More than half the benefits will go to people 
making more than $200,000 per year.''
  I could go on and on but I think the point is well made. The 
Democratic proposal is a real stimulus package. It does not increase 
the deficit in a significant way. It gives money back to the average 
American. It is primarily skewed to help the average guy. The 
Republican proposal is primarily for the rich. It does not do anything 
short term, and it leads to an even greater deficit, worse than the one 
that we have right now. But the House Republicans are going to say they 
are going to push this and Mr. DeLay has already said that he wants to 
do an even bigger one; so we will just have to continue the fight.
  At this time I see the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) is 
here, and I have probably spoken long enough and I would like to yield 
time to her on the same subject.
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone) for yielding.
  This month marks the beginning of the third year of the Bush 
recession, and I would like to say that even if the Clinton 
administration is being blamed, it is on this administration's watch 
that these things are occurring. Across the Nation workers continue to 
lose their jobs on this watch. Nationwide 800,000 laid-off workers lost 
their benefits on December 28, and I appreciate the 13-week expansion 
that was signed today, but I think 26 weeks would have been more 
likely, more acceptable, and make a better difference.
  In my own State, the State of California, our budget deficit has 
mushroomed to 35 billion, with a ``b,'' dollars, while unemployment has 
risen by 6.5 percent, and that is only those that can be counted who 
are still in the system. Many have dropped out of the system, do not 
even report for unemployment, do not even report seeking jobs. They are 
just out there on the streets. So I am sure in my district this number 
would be higher.
  As millions of people are out of work and the economy continues in a 
weak and jobless recovery at its best, it is important to have a strong 
and immediate economic program that will put money in the hands of 
consumers now. I am sorry to say that this administration has been more 
consumed with initiating a war than it has been with initiating a 
domestic economic policy that will benefit this country and make it 
stronger in defending against those who would attack us.
  Earlier this week the President announced his plan to deal with this 
slow economy. Why were we not talking about it last year? Why did we 
have to go through the Christmas holidays with parents wondering if 
they could afford to buy gifts for their children? Are parents 
wondering if they can keep shelter, keep a roof over their heads? We 
knew the economy had slowed, but it was just this week that finally the 
administration awakened. This was the President's chance to ask 
Congress for real job-creating plans, to immediately address the 
economic problems faced by that working class ordinary Americans. 
Instead, the President chose to stick with more of the same tax schemes 
that he tried last year.
  I wonder if anyone noticed except me that in September a year ago 
when the tax cut plan was passed that we saw more bankruptcies, 
corporate misconduct was revealed, and we were in a mess. We saw the 
jobless rate grow. Now, if the tax cut was meant to stimulate 
investments in business, it had the opposite effect, and I would be 
truly concerned if I were the administration why there were so many 
bankruptcies when we gave a tax break to corporate America. What 
happened? I think I know. All we need to do is watch any program that 
deals with wealth and the wealthy in this country. We will see that 
they are building larger homes in exotic places, 3,800 square foot 
homes for these executives of these companies that have gone bankrupt, 
larger yachts, are buying more business but not employing more people. 
Some of the biggest corporations cut staff, pare down. Somebody ought 
to explain that. These policies were skewed to favor these same wealthy 
Americans, and to think that we have a homeland security proposal that 
allows a lot of these business owners to escape paying their fair taxes 
and run to other exotic places to hide their companies I think is un-
American. His plan will blow an even bigger hole in the budget and 
threaten economic growth, and only 15 percent of the Bush package will 
take effect this year, meaning that most of the economic impact of the 
program would not be felt until 2004 and thereafter. The centerpiece of 
the plan, the complete elimination of taxes on stock dividends, and 
think for a second, many of the people I represent do not know what a 
stock dividend is. Investing dollars? Are we kidding? They are trying 
to pay their rent. They are trying to pay their house notes. They are 
trying to send their children to college if they can even get through 
elementary, middle school, and high school. They are trying to keep 
their families together. So they are not the ones that are going to 
feel any benefit from the elimination of these taxes. And they say it 
will benefit the seniors. Certainly I think today when you get 50 years 
old you can claim being a senior, and certainly the guys and gals who 
have made the big money are in their 60's and they can sit back with 
all this money flowing in because they do not have taxes to pay. It 
certainly will benefit them, but it certainly will not get to the 
people that really make up the core of America. So it primarily 
benefits this elite class, the wealthy, instead of putting money in the 
hands of the hard-working Americans who keep this country going.
  According to preliminary estimates of the Nonpartisan Tax Policy 
Center, 45 percent of the benefits of the entire Bush proposal would 
go, and now get this, do not take my word for it, check it out 
yourself, but the benefit will go to the top 5 percent of taxpayers who 
have an average income of $350,000. In

[[Page 237]]

fact, those making over a million dollars will see an average tax break 
of $88,000-plus, more than a hundred times the tax cut for the vast 
majority of taxpayers making less than $75,000. Do not take my figures. 
Do the math. Be analytical in your thinking. Look at the President's 
proposal and see who fits the description of the provisions in it.
  As the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded last year, 
tax cuts that are targeted towards lower income households are likely 
to generate more stimulus dollar for dollar of revenue loss, that is, 
be more cost effective and have more bang for the buck, than those 
concentrated among higher income households. This is because higher 
income families are less likely to put that money back into the economy 
by spending it. So by targeting their tax cuts on the wealthy, the Bush 
administration has undermined its stimulus effect. Look what happened 
with the last tax cut.
  Furthermore, the Bush plan would worsen the current budget deficits. 
Anybody concerned about deficits today? I remember several years ago 
they were. But the Bush plan would worsen the current budget deficits 
that have ballooned since the Bush administration took over. Check it 
out. The Bush plan would increase the deficit by nearly $700 billion 
over 10 years, and I do not think there is any argument over that. We 
are dealing with concrete numbers. Not only does this threaten key 
investments like Social Security and Medicare, this growth in deficits 
would promote higher interest rates and threaten to worsen the economy 
instead of spurring economic growth. Where is the concern of current 
Republicans? And I remember under the Newt Gingrich era, they were very 
concerned about deficit. Maybe it is amnesia.
  Democrats have put forth an alternative stimulus plan, one that 
delivers a real immediate boost for our economy. The House Democratic 
alternative, economic stimulus package, is fast acting, fair, and 
fiscally responsible. Does anyone care about fiscal responsibility, or 
is it smoke and mirrors? It focuses on jump-starting the economy now 
and quickly moving the United States to a long-term growth agenda. It 
does not deceive people. It does not make people buy this fluff and try 
to feel good about it when it is not real. Our package is.
  The Democratic economic stimulus plan aimed at those who need it most 
avoids increasing the deficit and helps States that are deeply 
suffering through this recession. Not only California but across this 
country, States are suffering. We ought to have the governors in here 
to debate these proposals. The Democratic plan will immediately target 
$18 billion to extend unemployment benefits for laid-off workers who 
have already exhausted their claims and in addition provide more needed 
relief to cash strap States and localities. The Democratic plan also 
provides immediate tax relief for small businesses to generate 
investment and jobs. It allocates additional funds for transportation, 
homeland security, healthcare, and extends unemployment benefits for 
workers whose insurance has run out and who have been unable to find 
jobs. The plan also puts money in the hands of consumers who drive the 
economy by giving a $300 tax rebate to every working American and also 
$600 for couples. Unlike the Republican tax plan which favors the 
wealthy by providing tax cuts on stock dividends and does little to 
grow the economy, the Democrats' stimulus package focuses tax cuts on 
lower and middle class taxpayers and actually will cost less than 
Republican plan.

                              {time}  2230

  In addition, the Democratic plan will spur the economy by providing 
funding for homeland security. Let us make America secure on the real 
side that targets rebuilding our Nation's long-neglected 
infrastructure. Most importantly, the Democratic plan is fiscally 
responsive and fair. It provides the proper amount of targeted economic 
stimulus and, at the same time, will not impact the budget deficit.
  So in closing, I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this 
opportunity to discuss the two plans and to give some real numbers and 
real figures. I represent one of those States that is sorely in need of 
help. But of the $35 billion deficit, that is with a ``B,'' we cannot 
cut enough and we cannot raise enough taxes to fill in that gap. We 
need to put America back to work. We need to put Californians back to 
work. We need to generate real jobs.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
California for her remarks. Obviously, she really set forth the 
differences between what the Democrats are trying to do with our 
economic stimulus plan versus the President and the Republicans' plans, 
which I do not think, and the gentlewoman agrees, that the President's 
and the Republican plan is really going to make a difference for the 
economy. It is just sort of a way of getting more tax cuts, more of the 
same, primarily to the wealthy and to corporate interests. It is almost 
like they are using the need for a stimulus plan as an excuse to 
basically continue the same old policies of more and more tax cuts for 
the wealthy, which have failed.
  One of the things that bothers me a great deal, and the gentlewoman 
hit upon it, is the fact that we still hear, although we do not hear it 
so much, but for a while we were hearing the Republicans say, oh, this 
recession really started under President Clinton, as if somehow the 
Democrats brought about the recession. The gentlewoman and I know, and 
the facts show, that we had the greatest, or one of the greatest, I 
think probably the greatest economic growth in the 10 years from 1991 
to the end of President Clinton's term in 2001 or the very beginning of 
2001, the greatest economic expansion the country has ever seen. All of 
a sudden, in March of 2001, 3 months into President Bush's term, we 
start to see the economic downturn.
  I had actually mentioned the other night, and this is from the 
National Bureau of Economic Research Business Cycle Dating Committee, 
and maybe it is sort of a minor point, but I only mention it because I 
see our Republican colleagues saying the opposite. And in this 
research, it says, ``In November 2001, the Committee determined that a 
peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. in March of 2001. A peak 
marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The 
determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the 
expansion that began in March of 1991 ended in March 2001 and a 
recession began in March of 2001.''
  The recession began, as the gentlewoman said, under President Bush's 
watch. Regardless of that, it has gotten worse. It gets worse every 
day. I have to say that I am very concerned that if we put in place 
this Republican economic plan and we continue the same-old-same-old 
policies of more tax cuts for the wealthy, that we are probably going 
to be in a worse situation in a few months than we even are today. I do 
not want to see that happen, but it is very possible.
  The other thing that really galls me too, and the gentlewoman brought 
it up, and the gentlewoman remembers and I remember it even more 
because I have been here longer is how the Republicans, before they 
took the majority here in the House under Gingrich, used to get on this 
floor and rail and rail and rail almost every night about the deficit 
and how the deficit was getting worse and getting worse all the time. 
There was one guy I remember, do I not know if he is still here, I do 
not think he is, who used to have one of the pages bring this sort of 
clock, digital clock that literally extended almost the entire length 
of this podium where I am standing, and every night he would come here 
and do a 1-minute or a 5-minute, and he would see the clock number 
going up with the higher and higher deficit. That was the centerpiece. 
The whole theme of the Republicans at the time was how terrible this 
deficit is.
  What happened? How come all of a sudden we do not see the guy with 
the clock anymore? I think he may have left Congress. But we do not see 
anybody on the Republican side coming down here. In fact, the other day 
the President said we should not worry

[[Page 238]]

about the deficit; it is no big deal. We will grow out of it. We should 
expect it. We are going to have this problem. It is just some kind of 
regular business cycle or something. It was ridiculous. I just 
appreciate the gentlewoman's comments.
  The other thing that the gentlewoman mentioned that I think was so 
important is this sort of notion of shared sacrifice or caring about 
the future generations in a time of war, and I think that is what the 
gentlewoman said, and she may want to dwell on it a little more, that 
in a time of war, the idea was that we sacrificed. We have a war 
against terrorism, we may have a war against Iraq, who knows, in the 
next few weeks or months. So why in the middle of all this are we 
getting this tax cut plan that primarily helps wealthy individuals and 
corporate interests? Why are they not paying their share, if you will, 
of the cost of this war? Why is there not a shared sacrifice? Why does 
it always have to be on the backs of the little guy, the average guy? 
It never used to be that way. It seems to me to be an opportunity for 
the President to get up and say, we have a potential war, we are in a 
war against terrorists, essentially, and it is costing us more money. I 
really do not understand the whole philosophy. It really baffles the 
mind.
  There was an article, there was an op-ed in The Washington Post 
actually today that essentially made that point. It was an analysis by 
Jonathan Weisman, and it is entitled, ``War's Cost May Dwarf Stimulus 
Effect.'' Essentially what he said in this opinion page is that we 
really should not be dealing with any kind of major tax cuts or any 
kind of a plan that causes a major deficit problem, because we might 
have a tremendous expense from the war with Iraq, and that the impact 
of that would create such a large deficit and have such a downward 
effect on the economy that this is not the time to be playing with a 
huge tax package, with a huge long-term tax package that has the 
potential for greater debt, and we should only be doing something, 
essentially, I mean, to counteract that; we should only be doing 
something like the Democrats are proposing which is quick, which is one 
year and does not have any major impact on the deficit.
  Mr. Speaker, I promised to yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Pryce) for procedural matters.


    Election of Members to Certain Standing Committees of the House

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Republican 
Conference, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 24) and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 24

       Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are 
     hereby, elected chairmen of the following standing 
     committees:
       Committee on Agriculture: Mr. Goodlatte of Virginia.
       Committee on Appropriations: Mr. Young of Florida.
       Committee on Armed Services: Mr. Hunter of California.
       Committee on the Budget: Mr. Nussle of Iowa.
       Committee on Education and the Workforce: Mr. Boehner of 
     Ohio.
       Committee on Energy and Commerce: Mr. Tauzin of Louisiana.
       Committee on Financial Services: Mr. Oxley of Ohio.
       Committee on Government Reform: Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia.
       Committee on House Administration: Mr. Ney of Ohio.
       Committee on International Relations: Mr. Hyde of Illinois.
       Committee on the Judiciary: Mr. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin.
       Committee on Resources: Mr. Pombo of California.
       Committee on Science: Mr. Boehlert of New York.
       Committee on Small Business: Mr. Manzullo of Illinois.
       Committee on Standards of Official Conduct: Mr. Hefley of 
     Colorado.
       Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: Mr. Young 
     of Alaska.
       Committee on Veterans' Affairs: Mr. Chris Smith of New 
     Jersey.
       Committee on Ways and Means: Mr. Thomas of California.

  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


      Composition of Members of the Permanent Select Committee on 
                              Intelligence

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, 
notwithstanding the requirement of clause 11(a)(1) of Rule X, the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence be composed of not more than 
20 Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner, of whom not more 
than 11 be from the same party.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.


      Appointment of Members to the Permanent Select Committee on 
                              Intelligence

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, and pursuant to clause 11 
of rule XX and clause 11 of rule I, the Chair announces the Speaker's 
appointment of the following Members of the House to the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence:
  Mr. Goss, Florida, Chairman,
  Mr. Bereuter, Nebraska,
  Mr. Boehlert, New York,
  Mr. Gibbons, Nevada,
  Mr. LaHood, Illinois,
  Mr. Cunningham, California,
  Mr. Hoekstra, Michigan,
  Mr. Burr, North Carolina,
  Mr. Everett, Alabama,
  Ms. Harman, California,
  Mr. Hastings, Florida,
  Mr. Reyes, Texas,
  Mr. Boswell, Iowa,
  Mr. Peterson, Minnesota,
  Mr. Cramer, Alabama,
  Ms. Eshoo, California,
  Mr. Holt, New Jersey,
  Mr. Ruppersberger, Maryland.
  There was no objection.


         Appointment of Member to the Joint Economic Committee

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, and pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 
1024(a), the Chair announces the Speaker's appointment of the following 
Member of the House to the Joint Economic Committee:
  Mr. Saxton, New Jersey.


Appointment of Hon. Mac Thornberry or Hon. Roy Blunt to Act as Speaker 
   Pro Tempore To sign Enrolled Bills and Joint Resolutions Through 
                            January 27, 2003

  The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following 
communication from the Speaker:

                                              The Speaker's Rooms,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                  Washington, DC, January 8, 2003.
       I hereby appoint the Honorable Mac Thornberry or, if not 
     available to perform this duty, the Honorable Roy Blunt to 
     act as Speaker pro tempore to sign enrolled bills and joint 
     resolutions through January 27, 2003.
                                                J. Dennis Hastert,
                          Speaker of the House of Representatives.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the appointment is 
approved.
  There was no objection.


        Providing For An Adjournment Or Recess Of The Two Houses

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent 
resolution (H. Con. Res. 8) and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:

                             H. Con. Res. 8

       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legislative 
     day of Wednesday, January 8, 2003, Thursday, January 9, 2003, 
     or Friday, January 10, 2003, on a motion offered pursuant to 
     this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his 
     designee, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, January 
     27, 2003, or until Members are notified to reassemble 
     pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
     whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses or 
     adjourns on any day from Thursday, January 9, 2003, through 
     Friday, January 24, 2003, on a motion offered pursuant to 
     this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his 
     designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until Members 
     are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this 
     concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
       Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of 
     the Senate, or their respective designees, acting jointly 
     after consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and 
     the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members 
     of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble at 
     such place and time as they may designate whenever, in their 
     opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

  The concurrent resolution was agreed to.

[[Page 239]]

  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


    Conditional Adjournment of The House To Friday, January 10, 2003

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Friday, January 
10, 2003, unless it sooner has received a message from the Senate 
transmitting its concurrence in House Concurrent Resolution 8, in which 
case the House will stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.


  Authorizing Speaker, Majority Leader, and Minority Leader To Accept 
   Resignations and Make Appointments During First Session of 108th 
                                Congress

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during 
the first session of the 108th Congress, the Speaker and majority 
leader and minority leader be authorized to accept resignations and to 
make appointments authorized by law or by the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.


                              The Economy

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) 
has 22 minutes remaining.
  Mr. Speaker, I do intend now to wrap up the evening. I want to thank 
the gentlewoman from California again for coming down here and for the 
remarks that she made. I just wanted to, if I could, just briefly 
summarize or make some of the points that were made in this Washington 
Post opinion by Jonathan Weisman about the cost of the war and the 
impact of the war, because I think that as much as the gentlewoman and 
I are hoping that there is not going to be a war and that somehow we 
manage to peacefully resolve the situation in Iraq, the bottom line is 
it is hovering over us.

                              {time}  2245

  We know that a lot of troops have already been sent over there, that 
a lot of supplies have already been sent there, and that there is a 
real possibility that this could occur in the next few weeks.
  I just wanted to read some sections, if I could, of Mr. Weisman's 
opinion. He said, ``President Bush is plowing ahead with an ambitious 
10-year, $674 billion economic stimulus plan even as U.S. troops pour 
into the Persian Gulf region preparing for war.
  ``The president's determination to push more tax cuts as the nation 
prepares for war has struck some economists as folly, since the 
economic shock of war would likely dwarf the impact of Bush's stimulus 
plan.''
  It says, ``The Cost to the Treasury of a war with Iraq could be as 
low as $100 billion over the next decade or as high as $1.6 trillion.''
  ``If energy prices spike up, it wouldn't take much to offset all of 
this stimulus.'' It goes on to say, ``If the war lasted even 6 to 12 
weeks, stock prices would continue to fall, interest rates would rise 
and economic growth would slow by 1\3/4\ percent.''
  ``The best policy right now is to wait, to see what happens ahead, 
and to plan in the background some contingency plans, just in case we 
have an adverse outcome.'' ``But for the President's critics the timing 
and boldness of the Bush plan presents a target,'' and of course this 
is what we have been saying. ``Whenever the President talks about war, 
he talks about a spirit of shared sacrifice; but for rich people, 
shared sacrifice appears to be accepting tax cuts, and for the poor, it 
seems to be accepting cuts in social spending.''
  Then we have a quote from one of our favorite Members, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Rangel). He says, and I think it is very 
appropriate, and he is, of course, the ranking member on our tax-
writing committee, the Committee on Ways and Means, he says, ``Never in 
a time of war have we reduced the tax burden on the most privileged.'' 
That is basically what is going on here.
  I think if we listen to what Mr. Weisman says, he is basically saying 
that this plan is too ambitious, and it is so long-term and has such an 
impact on the deficit that it is folly, given what we might face in a 
potential war against Iraq.
  If we look at the Democratic plan, it is much smaller. It has only 
just a little over $100 billion impact over 10 years, and it is 
targeted to small businesses so we invest in new proposals, new job 
creation here at home.
  We give a tax rebate, a relatively small one, to consumers, up to 
$600 for a couple, to try to get the economy going quickly. But the 
bottom line is, we do not do anything long-term to have a major impact 
on the deficit, and we are spending a relatively small amount of money 
with a big impact over the short term. So I think that that plan fits 
into the potential if you have a conflict or a war.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to request from the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) if we can do a side-by-side chart on the cost 
of waging war in Iraq. I understand we have several thousand troops 
already over in the Middle East, and possibly the dispute with North 
Korea might require us to commit dollars.
  I would like to see a chart with the cost of war and the cost of 
nationbuilding if we are trying to create a new regime. What is our 
commitment going to be to this new regime that we have called for? I 
can tell the Members from my own experience as the ambassador to the 
Federated States of Micronesia, they were a trust territory until 1986. 
In 1986, we signed a compact of free association with them that was to 
last 15 years. It has cost us $5 billion, and we are getting ready to 
sign on another 20 years.
  Now, I saw taxpayers' dollars go into the ocean. I was there. I knew. 
We had to close down some programs because that money was going into 
people's pockets, and into building homes for the very wealthy and the 
families of the very wealthy. We were not monitoring it.
  I came back here many times saying, give me not only audits but 
oversight and follow-up; get the FBI out here, because our money is 
being taken. I could not get anyone to listen. I left; the problem got 
worse. Ask the current ambassador.
  What is going to happen in Afghanistan in the long run and in Iraq in 
the long run? We talked about the axis of evil, so let us talk about 
Iran, too, and let us talk about North Korea. We did not say that; the 
President stood on this floor and talked about the axis of evil. 
Getting rid of the evil means changing those who are running those 
countries now. What is our obligation as Congress, as the Federal 
Government, and taxpayers? All this has to be taken into consideration 
in terms of the proposed tax cuts.
  If we talk about homeland security, how do we secure our own home if 
we cannot even educate our children, if we cannot even improve our 
infrastructure, if we cannot set out a budget for first responders? In 
my own city of Los Angeles we only have 9,000 police officers, as 
compared to Giuliani's New York with 30,000. We have 2 million people.
  So are we sincere about protecting our homeland? That means not the 
home land, that means America's people. What is our plan for seriously 
doing that? I just wanted to put that out as we go about looking at the 
budget. I think it is very important to be heard. That is why I said 
it.
  Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate it. Mr. Speaker, I think it all goes back 
to the same thing, which is as the Democrats we are talking about a 
short-term 2003 plan that does not spend a lot of money relatively and 
put the government in deficit, and that is specifically directed to 
jumpstart the economy.
  But what the President and the Republicans have proposed does not 
really even address the short-term economic needs in order to turn the 
economy around. It is just a long-range plan to basically provide more 
tax cuts for wealthy people: the stock dividends; the proposal to make 
the tax cuts permanent in another 10 years.

[[Page 240]]

  If we look at that in the context of what the budget needs are, as 
the gentlewoman says, in this war on terrorism both at home or abroad, 
we have to wonder where all this money is going to come from and what 
the consequences are going to be in terms of the deficit.
  Ms. WATSON. We are cutting our revenue base, and we are fighting a 
war over 10,000 miles away that we really do not need to fight, we 
really do not need to fight.
  Mr. PALLONE. I have been hesitating to talk about whether the war is 
just or necessary, but I think the bottom line is if it is going to be 
fought or whether it is going to be fought, we have to think about the 
costs of it. This President's economic plan makes absolutely no sense 
in the context of whether it is a war against Iraq or the other axis of 
evil, or just the war against terrorism and homeland security. It 
really does not.
  Ms. WATSON. Let me say, we are a member of the United Nations. We 
went to the Security Council. They have their inspectors out there. If 
they do not find what they are looking for, it needs to go back to the 
Security Council.
  We are working on an assumption, and North Korea says, we have your 
bomb. The monies that we give them for food and so on, does it really 
get to the people? If it did, why do we have such massive starvation 
over in North Korea? And I do not see why we are treating them any 
differently than we are treating Iraq.
  Where is our commitment? How do we secure the United States? A 
country is only as strong as its people, and we cannot let the general 
public forget that. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. PALLONE. We need to continue. I thank the gentlewoman.

                          ____________________