[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 7]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 9941-9942]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



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

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. JAMES R. LANGEVIN

                            of rhode island

                    in the house of representatives

                          Friday, May 25, 2001

  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my strong opposition to 
the conference

[[Page 9942]]

report on H.R. 1836, the Economic Growth and Tax Reconciliation Act, 
because it fails to reflect the priorities of my constituents.
  This tax cut has been sold to the American public as a cure for an 
astonishingly wide variety of ills, from a possible recession to 
spiraling energy prices. The unfortunate truth, however, is that this 
package offers nothing to guard against an economic downturn in the 
near term. Instead, it provides a series of back-loaded tax cuts, 
overwhelmingly skewed to the wealthiest Americans, while jeopardizing 
our ability to fund other priorities.
  Equally worrisome is the fact that this legislation creates the very 
real possibility of a return to deficit spending should the projected 
surpluses fail to materialize. Just this week, in fact, the 
Congressional Budget Office has made a significant downward adjustment 
in this year's surplus estimates, virtually wiping out the 
``contingency fund'' that has already been promised to a variety of 
needs, including increased military requirements and a prescription 
drug benefit. We are kidding ourselves and our constituents if we 
believe that this is not a sign of worse news to come.
  To fit this 10-year tax cut under a $1.35 trillion budget ceiling, 
the conferees have provided for the entire package to sunset at the end 
of 2010. While this ridiculous gimmick allows the tax cuts to meet 
budget restrictions on paper, in reality, the agreement will 
substantially exceed these targets when all of the costs are factored 
in. In the meantime, we are left with an increasingly complex tax code 
whose provisions are phased in and then repealed largely at random, 
making it difficult for taxpayers to understand, and impossible for 
them to rely upon as they plan for their families' futures.
  In addition, the agreement leaves out major provisions whose 
enactment is widely viewed as inevitable, such as extension of the 
research and experimentation credit and measures to address serious 
problems with the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). By sunsetting the tax 
cuts before the end of the eleven-year budget period and simply 
omitting foreseeable costs, the conferees have distorted the final cost 
of the tax cut and used the ``extra'' money to throw even more last-
minute provisions into the final package.
  Currently, 1.5 million taxpayers are subjected to the AMT. Under this 
conference agreement, over 30 million more would be subject to the AMT 
by 2010. That is double the number of taxpayers who would be affected 
by this provision under current law. Consequently, these tax cuts will 
in effect increase tax liability for many households and may result in 
even greater income disparities in the future.
  Some 30 percent of American taxpayers--roughly 51 million people--
will not receive the full amount of the tax rebate included in the 
conference report. I am strongly in favor of providing immediate tax 
relief to hard-working families, but this legislation will leave out 
many of those families who need short-term relief most urgently. In so 
doing, the rebate will also fail to jump start a flagging economy, as 
the Administration continues to claim it will do.
  For example, sixty-two percent of those taxpayers who make less than 
$44,000 a year will get less than the full rebate amounts, with 42 
percent of these taxpayers receiving nothing at all. In Rhode Island, 
44 percent of taxpayers--over 123,000 individuals--making less than 
$40,000 a year will receive no rebate. Although these taxpayers may not 
have the highest income tax liabilities, they incur a 
disproportionately high payroll tax liability, which is not figured 
into the rebates.
  I am also frustrated with the conferees' decision gradually phase out 
the estate tax--culminating in its repeal for only one year before the 
bill sunsets and the estate tax is again in full effect--instead of 
providing an immediate and permanent increase in the exemption, which 
would protect the vast majority of families, small businesses and 
family farms from estate tax liability. The provision contained in this 
agreement would allow the wealthiest two percent of our population to 
pass wealth to their heirs without taxation, while hard-working 
families would continue to be taxed on every dollar earned. It would 
also have a devastating impact on charities, foundations, universities 
and other philanthropic organizations.
  Additionally, I am disappointed that the conferees have failed to 
provide immediate marriage tax relief for couples. The agreement before 
us does not even begin to address the marriage penalty until 2005, and 
relief will not be fully phased in until 2009. Married couples who have 
been contacting my office seeking relief from this unintended 
consequence of our tax code will surely be disappointed when they 
realize that their wait will continue for at least four more years.
  This tax package will cause enormous revenue losses and threaten our 
ability to address national priorities like extending the solvency of 
Social Security and Medicare, reducing our national debt, implementing 
a prescription drug benefit for seniors and improving education and 
health care for all. Furthermore, the agreement will jeopardize 
resources and programs that are absolutely vital to our nation's small 
businesses, workforce, environmental protection, energy efficiency and 
housing needs. We should use our current prosperity to enhance those 
federal programs relied upon by some of the most vulnerable members of 
our society.
  Without a doubt, American taxpayers deserve a substantial tax cut. 
But they also deserve a strengthened Social Security system, a Medicare 
program that covers prescription drugs, a military that is equipped to 
protect our nation, a quality health care system that is affordable and 
accessible to every family, and a world-class educational system that 
prepares our children for the 21st century. These needs are great and 
they must not be ignored. They will require additional spending by the 
federal government, but this tax cut leaves room for no such 
investment. I urge my colleagues to reject this ill-advised tax cut, 
which will jeopardize our future fiscal security, while doing nothing 
to address immediate economic needs.

                          ____________________