[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 72 (Wednesday, May 23, 2001)]
[House]
[Page H2657]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         REBUTTING ARGUMENTS OF MOTION TO INSTRUCT ON H.R. 1836

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to use these 5 minutes to rebut 
some of the recent comments of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas), chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  He stood here and he urged that the House not vote for the motion to 
instruct put forward by the Democratic side. His argument was that that 
motion committed this House to provide for alternative minimum tax 
relief, marriage penalty relief, R&D credit extension, and that the 
Democratic tax alternative had not provided for each of those items.
  Let me put it into context. The Democrats came here with an 
alternative that provided only $750 billion. It sounds odd, only $750 
billion, but that is a much smaller sum than the $1.35 trillion that 
the Republican tax bill provides.
  My colleagues can be certain that if we Democrats had thought the 
country could afford a $1.35 trillion tax cut, that we would not have 
left out AMT relief, and we would never come to this floor and give 
with the right hand income tax relief and then take it back with the 
alternative minimum tax, the portions of the Internal Revenue Code that 
do not apply to many Americans today, but will apply under the tax bill 
brought forward by the majority.
  We Democrats would not come with a $1.35 trillion tax cut that left 
out pension reform or left out the R&D tax credit. A number of 
Republicans did not vote for that motion to instruct, but I urge them 
to work behind the scenes to make sure that the conference follows 
those instructions, otherwise that conference will be tempted to put 
virtually all of that $1.35 trillion in tax relief in the hands of the 
wealthiest 1 percent of Americans and to leave out pension reform, to 
leave the IRAs at a mere 2K instead of the $5,000 that should be 
allowed.
  That conference committee will be tempted to leave out marriage 
penalty relief or to leave ordinary working families subject to an 
alternative minimum tax that was never designed to apply to them. That 
conference committee may be tempted to do so because they will believe 
that they can provide $1.35 trillion in tax relief to the very wealthy 
and then come back again with another tax cut bill for the AMT and 
another tax cut bill to extend the R&D tax credit, but beware, the 
Senate may be in other hands very soon.
  We may have a majority leader who says that $1.35 trillion is all the 
tax relief that America can afford. We may have 41 Senators not willing 
to end debate on any bill that expands that tax cut to way beyond what 
is prudent. So the tax bill my colleagues vote for today or tomorrow or 
at the end of this week may be the only tax relief bill you vote for. 
If that bill provides only huge cuts to the very wealthy and does not 
deal with the AMT and the R&D tax credit, does not provide any estate 
tax relief, although I think my colleagues can be pretty sure it will 
in that one area, if that one bill leaves the IRA at a mere 2K, then my 
colleagues' constituents will say we heard about the big tax cut, where 
is ours?
  My colleagues will have to say I did not vote for the Democratic 
motion to instruct, and we ended up with a $1.3 trillion tax cut that 
left you out. I could have done something about it, but I did not 
because I wanted to stick with my party.
  We may only have one tax cut bill this year. We may have only one tax 
cut bill this Congress, and I hope that those on the other side will 
work behind the scenes, will have access to the unipartisan conference 
that is really drawing the tax bill, and will say do not leave these 
critical elements out and do not assume that you can feast on 
appetizers now and eat the meal later.
  The diet only provides for $1.35 trillion in tax cuts, but then the 
gentleman from Kern County went on to make some statements not about 
the motion to recommit but rather about the energy crisis in 
California. And I am sure he will be here tomorrow to explain or 
retract his remarks, but he said that California should not get any 
relief because our wounds are self-inflicted.
  Do not join the California haters, allow California to regulate the 
wholesale price of electricity and do not say that our people should 
suffer on the theory that our wounds are self-inflicted. We will be 
back an hour from now to detail this energy crisis and explain how the 
wounds of California are inflicted upon us by mega-corporations based 
in Texas and the only mistake we made was to trust, to trust those 
companies who are now taking advantage of this situation.

                          ____________________