[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 7]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 10277-10278]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



     CONFERENCE REPORT ON HR. 1836, ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF 
                       RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MAX SANDLIN

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                          Friday, May 25, 2001

  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, today, Congress will approve a significant 
tax relief package, outlining a fiscal path that promises lower taxes 
but creates a less certain budget picture. I believe Americans need tax 
relief, and I will support this tax cut bill because it is the best we 
can produce at this time. In many crucial respects, however, the 
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act is flawed. In some cases, promised 
tax benefits are delayed for several years, while additional valuable 
tax credits for education and inducements for personal savings expire 
only a few years after enactment. Politics, however, is built on 
principled compromise between different policy positions and, in voting 
in favor of this bill, I will not let the friend of the perfect be the 
enemy of the good.
  The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act provides significant tax 
relief for millions of Americans by correcting the marriage penalty and 
eliminating the estate tax. I support eliminating the estate tax and 
correcting the marriage penalty. The burden imposed on working families 
and some family businesses by these two taxes far outweighs the 
moderate revenue generated for the federal government. Although this 
bill addresses both of these items, the tax relief is either incomplete 
or delayed over an unreasonable length of time.
  I favor an immediate fix to the marriage penalty--a penalty that 
causes half of all married couples to pay an average of $1,100 in 
federal income tax--by doubling the standard deduction for married 
couples effective 2002. As an original cosponsor of legislation to 
eliminate this penalty, I have met with many married couples throughout 
my district who, as a result of committing to marriage, pay a higher 
percentage of federal income tax. Unfortunately, the Economic Growth 
and Tax Relief Act delays full implementation until 2005, putting off 
much needed relief for millions of families. Bipartisan majorities on 
several occasions have supported an immediate repeal, correcting this 
costly quirk in the federal tax code.
  A key priority I have championed since my first campaign for Congress 
is the elimination of the federal estate tax. One of the first bills I 
introduced as a Member of Congress was legislation to repeal the 
federal estate tax. Taxing a small business or family farmer after the 
owner has passed is the ultimate disincentive to small business and to 
a family's dream to pass down a business, profession, or craft to 
future generations. On three separate occasions over the past two 
years, the House of Representatives approved legislation to completely 
repeal the estate tax. During each vote, I stood with those who believe 
the government should not tax a life's hard work. Today, I again join 
my colleagues in pursuing the elimination of this tax.
  Although bipartisan majorities support the elimination of the estate 
tax, I am frustrated with the delaying tactics and extended timelines 
contained in the final bill. As part of a series of tricks to hide the 
true cost of the tax cut, Republican negotiators have stretched estate 
tax repeal over the next decade. In fact, complete repeal will not take 
effect until after 2011, outside the ten-year budget framework and thus 
removed from our budget agreement and congressional rules. This clever 
trick unfairly postpones complete relief and disregards our budget 
plan--a document that is a road-map to fiscal integrity. My own bill 
would immediately repeal the estate tax, a much preferable approach to 
implementing an incremental, decade-long reduction that does not 
provide full relief until 2011. Fiscal truth telling is paramount to 
maintaining the trust of the American voter. By backloading several 
popular tax measures, Congress risks a return to deficit spending and 
an erosion of public confidence in the budget process.
  Throughout the tax debate, I have stood with a coalition of fiscally 
responsible Democrats--the Blue Dog Coalition--emphasizing a 
responsible budget plan that retires the debt, strengthens Social 
Security and Medicare, addresses our common priorities and provides 
meaningful tax relief. The Blue Dog Coalition demands fiscal honesty 
and a candid assessment of the projected long-range federal budget 
surplus, which is at the root of our efforts to pass significant tax 
relief. Earlier this year, the House rushed through a tax plan prior to 
establishing clear guidelines to reduce our $5 trillion national debt. 
I opposed this approach.

[[Page 10278]]

It is fiscally irresponsible to cut revenues before identifying 
important priorities in defense, education, healthcare, and setting a 
glide path toward debt reduction. As part of the budget process, the 
Blue Dog Coalition advocated for a fair and realistic budget plan 
before passing tax legislation. The tax package and budget plan, 
although not perfect, does provide a roadmap for reducing taxes and 
contains a commitment to fund important priorities.
  Although I support today's historic vote to lower taxes, I remain 
concerned that Congress has not put in place a mechanism to ensure that 
we do not return to deficit spending. A group of moderate Senate 
Members proposed the inclusion of a trigger provision, triggering each 
stage of the tax cut on successful debt payments with actual surplus 
funds. I support this common sense, fiscally responsible approach to 
lowering taxes because the 10-year $5.6 trillion projected budget 
surplus is built on unrealistic spending assumptions and economic 
growth rates. These projections have been wrong over and over again. In 
fact, over the last five years these projections were off the mark by 
an average of $58 billion a year. We do have a budget surplus this 
year--and a large projected 10-year surplus--but we also carry a 
crushing $5 trillion national debt racked up over 35 years of deficit 
spending. Tying future tax cuts to budget surpluses would act as an 
insurance policy making certain that Congress does not backslide and 
return to an era of fiscal irresponsibility.
  This bill provides tax relief for millions of Americans. Phasing out 
the marriage penalty, increasing the child tax credit, and expanding 
the earned income tax credit are three provisions within this bill that 
especially benefit working families. I am glad both sides agreed to 
include these beneficial cuts. I have outlined my concerns where 
Congress could have worked to craft a better bill. Phasing in 
significant portions of this plan next year and creating a mechanism 
guaranteeing that tax cuts do not occur at the expense of deficits are 
a few of my concerns. Although these reservations give me pause in 
enacting this tax plan, I believe that on balance, this bill will 
reduce taxes on American families, encourage savings, and give 
Americans greater control over their financial future.

                          ____________________