[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 138 (Saturday, October 28, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H11474-H11475]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         WHAT WE DO IN WASHINGTON DOES MATTER AND MATTERS A LOT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, there is a great fiscal debate going on in 
this country and I felt I would use these 5 minutes to address some of 
the key points in that debate.
  The governor from Texas has come up with a novel and dangerous 
argument, and that is that fiscal responsibility does not matter; that 
what goes on in Washington has had nothing to do with the prosperity 
that we currently enjoy.
  Now I can understand why someone running against Washington would 
want to say that what we have done here over the last 8 years has 
nothing to do with the prosperity enjoyed in this country and the 
prosperity we hope to enjoy in the future, but that argument, however 
politically appealing, is a dangerous one, because once one argues that 
what goes on in Washington has nothing to do with the economy of the 
country then one grants a license to Democrats and Republicans to be 
fiscally irresponsible.

[[Page H11475]]

  The fact is that what we do in Washington does matter, and matters a 
lot.

                              {time}  1400

  True, the lion's share of the credit belongs to hard-working men and 
women around this country who, through industry and innovation, have 
built this economy. But our people were hard-working in the late 1980s 
and the early 1990s, and yet we suffered with high unemployment in an 
unsuccessful economy, because we had huge deficits. It is the fiscal 
responsibility that the President has brought to our Federal Government 
that has added the one additional element which, with the hard work of 
the American people, has led to our prosperity.
  The second fallacy that we have heard from the Governor of Texas is 
his statement over and over again that his plan will provide tax relief 
to all Americans who pay taxes. The facts are otherwise.
  Mr. Speaker, some 15 million Americans pay Federal FICA tax that is 
pulled out of their wages every time, every paycheck; and yet they will 
receive no, no tax relief under Governor Bush's proposal. Those 15 
million Americans who pay FICA taxes to the Federal Government, but do 
not owe income tax because they are earning the minimum wage, because 
they are not earning very much, because they are trying to support a 
family on incomes of $15,000 and $20,000 a year, these low-income 
taxpayers get nothing from the Governor of Texas. Yet, he does provide 
43 percent of his tax benefit to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.
  This leads me to the third fallacy, and that is his statement that he 
will provide only $223 billion, only $223 billion to the richest 1 
percent of Americans. The problem here is fuzzy fiscal figures, because 
that $223 billion leaves out the effect of the repeal of the estate 
tax. The Governor will often talk about how he wants to eliminate the 
estate tax, but will leave out from his budget the fiscal effect of 
that repeal. The estate tax will be bringing in $50 billion a year, 
$500 billion over 10 years, and so the governor's tax reduction for 
those in the wealthiest 1 percent is not $223 billion over 10 years, 
but over $700 billion over 10 years.
  That is why it is true when we point out that the governor would 
provide more tax relief to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans than 
everything he proposes to spend to improve our health care system, 
strengthen Medicare, strengthen our military, and improve education 
combined.
  Mr. Speaker, the choice is clear. On one hand, we can have fiscal 
responsibility, economic expansion, reduction and eventual elimination 
of the national debt, and moderate tax cuts for working families, all 
combined with important investments in education, Medicare, military 
preparedness, and our health care system. On the other hand, we could 
choose to provide $700 billion of tax relief over the next 10 years to 
the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the choice before America could never be more 
stark.

                          ____________________