[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 78 (Thursday, June 7, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1054]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page E1054]]
    CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1836, ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF 
                       RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. CHET EDWARDS

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                          Friday, May 25, 2001

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to vote for this tax cut. It 
would be a politically easy vote. I could tell my constituents in 
Central Texas, including President Bush and my own family, that this 
bill would reduce their taxes.
  However, I believe we have a moral obligation to our children and 
grandchildren to pay down our $5.6 trillion national debt. I believe we 
have a moral obligation to provide a strong national defense and to 
support our servicemen and women, 60% of whom live in housing that does 
not even meet modest Department of Defense standards. I believe we have 
a moral obligation to provide a better education for all children and 
to protect Social Security and Medicare for our seniors.
  In my opinion, this tax bill puts those key national priorities and 
moral obligations at risk.
  This tax bill is a riverboat gamble. It is part of a ten-year budget 
built on a foundation of optimistic assumptions at best and false 
assumptions at worst. This budget assumes uninterrupted national growth 
for 10 years, with little or no consideration for the impact of 
economic recessions, regional wars or natural disasters. If this 
budget's national growth projections are off by only four-tenths of one 
percent, then a trillion dollars of the so-called surplus disappears, 
and with it our dream of paying off the national debt.
  I have asked my constituents whether they would bet their own 
family's financial future based upon the assumption that a government 
economist's 10-year economic forecast would be perfectly accurate. 
Their answer is ``no''. If families would not bet their own futures on 
such an unrealistic assumption, then Congress has no right to risk the 
American family's future on that assumption.
  This bill leaves little or no room to fund priorities that this 
Administration says it supports, including a stronger national defense, 
real pay raises for our servicemen and women, a national missile 
defense, new investments in better schools and a prescription drug 
benefit for seniors on Medicare. Who knows what unexpected needs might 
develop over the next decade?
  One little known fact is that the so-called $5.6 trillion surplus is 
not real--it is a hoped for surplus. Even worse, 70% of the hoped for 
surplus does not materialize until seven to ten years from now.
  What is real is our $5.6 trillion national debt, which cost American 
taxpayers $223 billion in interest payments last year. That, on 
average, is approximately $800 in taxes for every man, woman and child 
in America.
  Paying off the national debt would provide huge benefits for American 
families. Lower interest rates on homes, cars and credit cards would, 
in effect, be a significant tax cut. In addition, reduced interest on 
the national debt could result in reduced taxes for all Americans.
  The final tax bill was put together late at night and voted on early 
the next morning without Members of Congress having time to review the 
bill or its cost. What can one say about a bill that repeals estate 
taxes nine years from now, but then repeals the repeal twelve months 
later? To call that an estate tax ``repeal'' borders on false 
advertising.
  This bill is full of gimmicks to try to hide its true cost. Repealing 
all of its tax benefits at the end of the ninth year of a ten-year bill 
is a blatant way to try to hide this bill's real cost. Further, should 
those tax cuts be continued in year ten, the cost of this bill triples 
in the second ten years. Unfortunately, that is exactly when baby 
boomers start retiring and putting tremendous demands on the Social 
Security and Medicare systems. Thus, this bill truly puts Social 
Security and Medicare at risk for today's and tomorrow's seniors.
  I will never forget what my predecessor, Congressman Marvin Leath, 
told me before his recent death. He said that his greatest regret 
during his 12 years in Congress was his vote for the 1981 tax bill, 
which he felt exploded the national debt. That bill promised lower 
taxes, increased defense spending and balanced budgets. Former OMB 
budget director David Stockman, a key architect of the 1981 tax bill, 
later wrote of it, ``I knew we were on the precipice of triple-digit 
deficits, a national debt in the trillions, and destructive and 
profound dislocations throughout the . . . American economy.''
  Twenty years later, the 2001 tax bill promises lower taxes, increased 
defense spending and balanced budgets. Unfortunately, I believe the 
results will be the same as 20 years ago--deficit spending, a larger 
national debt, and higher interest rates.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope I was wrong. I hope our economy has another 
decade of growth without recession or serious slowdown. I hope we have 
no natural disasters or wars. I hope Congress will show strong 
discipline in cutting spending. I hope we can protect our family 
farmers without disaster payments. I hope energy price spikes won't 
slow down our economy. I hope all of these things occur, but I am 
certainly not willing to put at risk our children and grandchildren's 
future based on such hopes becoming certainties.
  Cutting taxes by over a trillion dollars may be politically popular, 
but by voting ``no'' on this bill and voting ``yes'' for paying down 
our $5.6 trillion national debt, I believe I can look my own children 
in the eye and say, ``I did what I believed was right for our country 
and its future.''

                          ____________________