Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind my Democratic colleagues of what we can accomplish when we stand up and fight for what we believe in. Last week our Republican colleagues were calling a tax cut for hard- working police officers and kindergarten teachers welfare. But Democrats stood tall and fought hard for tax relief for all Americans who work for a living, who pay taxes, even though they may not make a lot of money. Today, this House will vote on a tax bill that includes a $500 tax credit for all of America's working families. This bill also provides a $1,500 HOPE scholarship to make college more affordable for middle- class families, and $24 billion for children's health care, the single largest investment in health care since 1965. All of these priorities the Democrats in the last several weeks have fought and stood tall on and have won. The Democrats said, in fact, that what they did not want to do was to provide tax breaks for the richest and the wealthiest in this country. It is middle class families who have won the benefit of the Democrats' hard work in these last several weeks.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, for the last several months Democrats have been urging budget negotiators to include important Democratic priorities in this budget bill; to include $24 billion for kids' health care, to include $35 billion in education tax credits, and to provide the child tax credit for all of America's families who work and who pay taxes. Meanwhile, our Republican colleagues have been fighting for huge tax breaks for the richest individuals and corporations in this country and calling tax breaks for hardworking low income families welfare, including some of the families that they have brought up here this morning. Only a few days ago they were saying that those folks were on welfare. Well, I am proud to stand here today and say that by standing up for Democratic priorities, tax cuts for working families, tuition credits for college, health care for uninsured children in this country, that in fact those Democratic priorities have prevailed. The long and the short of it is the hardworking middle income families of this country have benefitted from this tax package.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. DeLAURO. It does not. As a matter of fact, in our Committee on Appropriations process, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), asked that the INS be reimbursed the money that they have had to put out to do this, and the answer came back from the committee as a no, that we would not reimburse them for doing that. So out of the INS budget there is that money, in addition to the $300,000 that has already been spent.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to set the record straight here. Bob Dornan, a former Member of the House of Representatives, no longer a Member of this body, a private citizen, if you will, he has been given the power to subpoena. That is unheard of. It is unprecedented. He has used this authority to truly harass his political enemies, forcing them to spend thousands and thousands of dollars. That is a terrific point. I think it is important for people to know he has no standing and no jurisdiction as a Member of this body.

Ms. DeLAURO. The gentlewoman is absolutely right, there is no explanation for the direction that this investigation has taken. I have a high regard for the gentleman, but the fact of the matter is that we are 9 months into an investigation. We have spent $300,000, $150,000 of the INS's money, going well beyond the 46th District, calling into question hundreds of thousands of Latino, Hispanic names, done nowhere else in this country. Unprecedented. And providing powers to an ordinary average citizen who lost an election. People win and lose elections every single year, and when we lose, it is tough, but what we have to do is to get over it. And there is a responsibility on the part of the leadership, whether they chair a subcommittee, whether they serve as Speaker, majority leader, or whatever position they serve in this body, to look at these events and say enough is enough. We had an election process. We have a certified number, after a recount, bipartisan officials who, quite frankly, those officials have done their job. They took a look at this, they counted every ballot, and they said the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, represents the 46th District. And this body, in response to a former member who says that he lost for some reason, has given him subpoena powers, and that is truly outrageous that this has happened. Again, unprecedented in the history of this institution. This is a noble institution. My colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Capps] said only 11,500 people have served in this body. These elections are sacred. The people's vote is sacred.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to add, sometimes people think that we stand here and on some of these issues that it is our view, it is our opinion. I said earlier today that the gentleman who lost this race, Bob Dornan, who is an ordinary citizen today, has been given tremendous power by being able to subpoena people. It is just not hearsay on my part about what he is willing to do, quite frankly, what kind of inaccuracies that he is engaged in. I think it is important that it be part of the record to note that his claims are proven time and time again to be baseless and to be without merit. In April, the Los Angeles Times wrote, and I quote, that a close review of Dornan's contentions shows them to be overstated and riddled with inaccuracies. So you have someone who is out there being bestowed with this tremendous power who is saying and doing, quite frankly, whatever he wants to do; and in trying to contravene what the people, the people of the 46th District of California said and they stated. And Loretta Sanchez is trying to represent them in this body and is doing a good job of representing them every single day with having to concern herself first and foremost with the job that she was elected to do. People put their trust and their faith in us when we come to this body. She is trying to carry out their wishes, what their interests are for themselves and for their families, as I said, doing a good job of that effort; and at the same time having to struggle with a whole lot of potentially and, as it is listed here in the Los Angeles Times and others, some baseless statements of fact and being forced to have to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to be able to counteract legal fees. The fact of the matter is, it is enough. In Italian there is a saying which is ``basta,'' enough. We have looked at this. There has been a certification. Let us allow the gentlewoman from the 46th District to continue to do the work on behalf of her constituents.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say, I think my colleague is right. My colleagues who have spoken are right. I think there is an important point. First of all, the point the gentleman brought out was that there are several people who had more narrowly determined races on whom nothing is being challenged. No list of ethnic names are being addressed and none are being requested. I think what is important to note, and the gentleman talked about it, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), was certified the winner of this election. It was by a Republican registrar of voters, and a Republican secretary of State. That was after, which is even a second piece of this, which is because we had some other races that in fact were more narrowly defined, but there was a recount of every single ballot, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), was determined and certified the winner by 979 votes. So I think that is what the point is. When we look at this issue, what we need to wonder about is is this a politically motivated attempt to steal an election? Is it, by virtue of the requests that have been made from the Immigration and Naturalization Service about the thousands and thousands of Hispanic names to be reviewed, is it anti-Hispanic? And third, given what we know, again, about the certification and other races that were not looked into, that the nature of the hearings, are they not in fact a waste of taxpayers' dollars?

Ms. DeLAURO. I think the gentleman is right. I think that the more one takes a look at this, the more one hears about what names are being requested and how many and in what volume. And I think my colleague, the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lucille Roybal-Allard, has said they have gone well beyond the 46th District. This is Orange County, and people who in no way are engaged or involved in this particular election, and that it speaks volumes, I think, about what the nature and what the tendencies are. And that is wrong. It really is. It is wrong and it is divisive in this country. We have a difficult enough time with people coming together and wanting people to be together. We have a bona fide, certified election in the 46th District of California, and we ought to acknowledge that and not put people's ethnicity at the center of what our electoral process is all about. That really is wrong. It takes us back years and years and years. That is not forward looking, it is backward looking in this country.

Ms. DeLAURO. I will be happy to tell my colleagues. First, we have spent 9 months at this effort and over $300,000 in taxpayers' funds investigating this election.

Ms. DeLAURO. If the gentleman would yield, and to be specific, a program that a number of us came down here to support and through actually shaming the other side we added money to the WIC program, Women, Infants and Children. We are talking about cereal, formula and healthy food for women, infants and children, and we were told that there was not enough money to do this. In fact, what we have done with the INS is to say they have to do this; they have to spend the money for this, in addition to $300,000 as a cost, when there are so many needs. My colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Capps], said we spent a long time coming to a conclusion on a balanced budget agreement and trying to look at how we can be fiscally responsible. So in fact we do have other motivation which underlies this issue, and quite frankly, I think when this sees the light of day, the American public, the way they saw what we ought to be doing was the right thing with the Women, Infants and children program, will understand what is going on with this program. And I think that we ought to continue the debate and the dialogue so that, in fact, the public knows all about this.

Ms. DeLAURO. If the gentlewoman would yield, I would say, look, it is difficult to lose. Anyone who has run for public office understands that it is hard to lose. But when you have lost, and when there has been a recount of every single vote and there has been a certification of the election, quite frankly, after months and months of deliberation, 9 months, $300,000 in cost, there is a point in time where you have to say, ``I have lost this election. I don't feel good about it, maybe I can come back again as part of the process, but I have lost this election.'' It really is a part of the leadership of this institution to take in hand their friend, Bob Dornan, and say enough is enough. This is concluded. We have checked it, we have rechecked it, we have asked our questions, and we too are sorry that you lost, and we will have to pick up another day and maybe go out and try to win that district back again, but we have lost for the time being. Let us get on and let the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez, get on with her work.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] was certified the winner of the 1996 congressional election in California's 46th Congressional District by a Republican registrar of voters and the Republican secretary of State by 979 votes after a recount of every ballot. I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. The Republican leadership has spent 9 months and $300,000 investigating the election of our colleague, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez], and it is now time for this to stop. This is clearly a partisan attempt to steal an election that the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] won fair and square. I am sorry to break it to my Republican colleagues, but Bob Dornan lost the election and, yes, he even lost to a Democratic Hispanic woman. The Republicans have also given Bob Dornan, an average citizen, not a Member of the House of Representatives, the power to subpoena. He has used this authority to harass his political enemies by forcing them to spend thousands of dollars in legal bills to comply with his subpoena. Republicans are using taxpayer funds to finance a partisan political investigation. They are using race baiting tactics to scare new citizens from exercising their constitutional right to vote. It is time to bring an end to this investigation. Let the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] do what she is doing very well in representing the people of California's 46th district. Let us get back to the business of the American people, let us call off this witch hunt on a partisan political basis, and finally, let us just stop wasting taxpayers' dollars.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, let me try to place this debate and discussion in some context. The fact of the matter is that in the last session of the Congress, the Republican majority did not appropriate enough money for the WIC Program, Women, Infants and Children Program. They were forced, and in fact we helped to force them, to increase those dollars at the end of the process so that women, infants, and children would not be thrown off of the program. In fact, in several States that process has started. But the Democrats forced that debate in order for there to be an increase in funding in the WIC Program, what my colleague from Wisconsin is trying to do, because once again the Republican majority is shortchanging the WIC program and we will find ourselves in the same position where we will look at approximately 55,000 people, women, infants and children, who will not be able to avail themselves of the program. My colleague from Wisconsin is trying to avoid that situation and in fact restore money so that we will not have to take women, infants and children off of this program. This program, we find, is a cost-effective one. It saves us dollars in other programs. It is a wise investment. What the Obey amendment is suggesting is that what we take the money from is the increase in the insurance rates to those who offer crop insurance to farmers. This does not decrease the amount of dollars to farm subsidies. I understand the problem of small farmers, or I try to do that. The fact of the matter is that the insurance agents are the ones who are benefiting from this effort. I trust the fact that we are trying to bring down the number, but we are talking today about 24 percent of premium. This is a hefty amount of premium. This should not go to the insurance agents but to women, infants and children.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, this is a debate about saving lives. The deadly effects of tobacco cannot be denied, each year more than 400,000 Americans die of smoking-related illnesses. Each year the Federal Government pays and picks up the tab for many of these health care expenses. Yet our Government provides, pays for, subsidized crop insurance to tobacco growers, $34 million in taxpayers' dollars. Other crops such as broccoli and cucumbers are not covered by crop insurance. Why tobacco? Some of my colleagues who oppose this amendment will talk about its impact on farmers. It is not that we are not sympathetic to small farmers. But what about the families whose loved ones die due to deadly smoking habits? What about fathers, mothers, grandparents who are among the 400,000 who die each year due to tobacco habits? We are working at cross-purposes when we give tobacco subsidies with one hand and then we must spend health and education dollars to counteract tobacco's effects with the other. We have a clear and convincing evidence of tobacco's deadly impact. I urge my colleagues to support the Lowey amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not telling us about is the $22 billion windfall they are providing to the richest corporations in this Nation, the Exxons, the Boeings, where they would phase out in some instances the tax obligations of the richest corporations in the United States; yes, Mr. Speaker, zero, some of these corporations would pay zero in tax dollars, while hardworking middle-income American families would have to continue to pay their taxes, and these folks would get away with it. Mr. Speaker, let me just tell the Members that they have come up with a new tax plan which is in the papers this morning, that proved that they have not changed their spots at all. This proposal combines the worst policies of the House and Senate tax bills. Do not take my word for it, let me quote from an editorial in this morning's Washington Post. I quote: The tax provisions remain the worst aspect of the GOP legislation. They are tilted hugely toward the very rich, and in the long run, would be a far larger drain on the Treasury than their authors acknowledge. This latest budget proposal makes Republican priorities clear, clear as a bell: Huge tax breaks for the richest individuals and corporations in the United States.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, talk about little shame or no shame, I rise today to remind my Republican colleagues including the last speaker and others this morning of a promise that they made to the American people just a few short years ago; do they remember? The Contract With America, item No. 5 of that contract promised a $500 per child credit to all, all of America's families who work and who pay taxes. Now my Republican colleagues want to deny the child tax credit to millions of families who earn less than $30,000 a year. These parents are carpenters, dental assistants, rookie police officers, kindergarten teachers, but the Republicans call them welfare recipients. These are working parents. They are not on welfare. They work hard every single day and they pay taxes, usually more in payroll taxes than in income taxes, and more in payroll taxes, I would imagine, than the wealthiest one 1 or 2 percent that our Republican colleagues would like to reward. Democrats believe these are the parents who deserve the tax relief. Remember, my friends, the contract that you signed.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule which unfairly curtails debate in the House of Representatives. I have worked hard on the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies and at the full Committee on Appropriations to make a strong case for strong measures to curb smoking amongst our children. This is about saving lives. That is what the Meehan amendment is all about. I am disturbed that we are not going to be able to have a full and open debate about this issue in the people's House. The American people deserve to have a debate on the Meehan amendment, a debate about whether or not to back efforts to prevent our kids from using tobacco or, in fact, to provide more money and more commissions to crop insurance agents that is needed. This is wrong. Our current system clearly is not working to keep cigarettes and chewing tobacco out of the hands of children. Selling tobacco products to minors is illegal in 50 States. Nonetheless, 13 studies showed that children can buy tobacco 67 percent of the time in this country. Three thousand young people under the age of 18 will begin to smoke each day; a third of them will die. They will join the ranks of the 400,000 people who die each year from tobacco related illnesses. Passing the Meehan amendment, fully funding the anti-tobacco program outlined by the FDA, will ensure that the FDA can enforce laws against tobacco sales to minors, also to conduct the needed outreach and education efforts. This has got to be a priority for all of us. I urge my colleagues to adopt the Meehan amendment, let us provide the $34 million to prevent young people from starting to smoke.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that this does not reduce crop insurance but it reduces crop insurance commissions. Let us be clear about that. I rise in strong support of the Obey amendment to increase funding for the Women, Infants, and Children Program, a program which provides nutrition assistance to pregnant women and to young children. Last year the congressional majority went after the school lunch program; earlier this year it was the milk and cereal for women and infants. If my colleagues recall, it was not long ago this year that the Congress debated the merits of the WIC Program during the disaster relief bill. Threats of reduction in the program. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. These reductions in the WIC Program, I might add, were met with an outcry across the country and, in fact, in a number of places we already saw people who were being thrown off of the program, women and children who were being let go from the program. But I will say that Congress rightly responded by providing the dollars that WIC needed to continue helping to provide nutritious food to women who are expecting children, to infants, and to young children. Fact is, is that our experience with the WIC Program shows that it is a wise investment. Each dollar invested in WIC saves more than $3 in other Government spending on programs such as Medicaid. It is a wise investment in the health and development of our youngest children, and each day we learn more and more about the critical elements of early childhood development. So supporting WIC helps kids get off on the right foot. For years we have been steadily progressing toward the goal of providing nutrition assistance to 7.5 million people through the WIC Program. At the very least, we need to hold the line and continue helping 7.4 million women and children as WIC now does. The funding level in this bill threatens to backtrack on WIC, help fewer people who depend on it. It includes unrealistic assumptions that could end up costing our kids plenty. It is important to note that WIC is funded at $180 million below what the President's request is. The Obey amendment will address the danger that women and children who need help will be left without healthy food. The Obey amendment will add $23.7 million, enough to provide WIC benefits for 45,000 people, and the amendment prevents knocking off the 55,000 people off of the WIC Program. The Obey amendment offsets this amount by reducing the $36 million in excessive payments to crop insurance agents contained in the bill. One more time: It is crop insurance commissions and not crop insurance. The Secretary of Agriculture said the insurance agents do not need this extra money. The GAO has revealed that the taxpayer money is used for outrageous, unreasonable expenses, such as sky boxes at athletic events, country club membership fees, and corporate aircraft. This does not hurt farmers. The choice before us is to fund efforts to provide healthy food to pregnant women, to young children; or to pay insurance agents to buy sky boxes and to join country clubs. I urge my colleagues, really, to make the choice that is right; to deal with our values and priorities in this country. Let us help those who need the funds, women, infants, and children, and I urge my colleagues to support the Obey amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], for yielding me this time and for her hard and diligent work on the bill. I also want to commend the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] for listening to Members and for working hard to craft a good bill and for his work in bringing the bill to the floor today. This bill does fund a number of important priorities, but I still have a number of concerns about it. I am particularly concerned about the prevalence of tobacco use amongst young people. I appreciate that the chairman worked with me and other members of the subcommittee to provide $24 million for the FDA initiative to block youth access to tobacco. This is a good start toward the $34 million that was requested by the administration to stop kids from taking up smoking and becoming addicted. We need to bring that level up to $34 million. Three thousand youngsters start to smoke every day. One-third of them will die. We need to put an enforcement mechanism in place that curtails underage smoking. I am also pleased that the bill provides funding for the President's food safety initiative, for the WIC Program, which provides essential nutrition assistance for pregnant women and young children, and for agricultural research. I am dismayed, however, by a number of provisions and, in particular, by changes that were made at the full committee level. The full committee chose to recognize one specific construction project when, by agreement, numerous other worthy projects at sites around the country were left out of the bill and report. This is unfair to other members of the committee and to other Members of this House. I am concerned that the full committee added funds above what the Secretary of Agriculture deemed sufficient for payments to crop insurance agents, even though the General Accounting Office has revealed that taxpayer dollars are being used for outrageous and unreasonable expenses, such as skyboxes at athletic events, country club membership fees, and corporate aircraft. We should not be providing extra dollars in this area. The full committee could establish a dangerous precedent by its actions to eliminate two positions in the Department of Agriculture simply because a Member of the Congress is unhappy about the actions of an entirely different administrator. While I do have a number of concerns, I again would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their efforts and express my thanks to the staff.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, yesterday Speaker Gingrich stood in the well of this House and he invited, as my colleagues just did, the American people to visit the House Republican web site, calculate their estimated tax savings under the Republican plan. So I thought let us see how the average working taxpaying mother with two kids would fare under the Republican plan. So I entered in an income of approximately $25,000. I received an error message saying that they could not calculate her savings. Perhaps that is because this family would get a big fat zero, no tax break at all under the Republican tax plan. Then I entered in the data for someone making $1 million a year, half of that in capital gains. The Republican calculator had no problem figuring out their tax break, $40,000. That is right, a millionaire gets $40,000 back, and the average working taxpaying mother gets nothing, gets zero. The Washington Post editorial this morning hit it right on the nose, and I quote: ``The Republicans have written a tax bill tilted heavily toward the better off.'' If anything, this was an understatement. The Post labels their editorial, and I quote again, ``Tax Trash,'' which perfectly describes the Republican tax bill. In fact, there are so many bad things in this bill it is hard to know where to begin. But let me tell you the story of three young people which drives home the point of how unfair this Republican tax proposal really is. Today I received a visit from three students: Anthony Dugdale, Scott Saul and Lori Brooks. They are all graduate students at Yale University in my hometown of New Haven. These young people took the train all night from Connecticut for the express purpose of protesting the fact that in this bill the Republicans actually raised taxes on graduate students in this country, and they brought with them the signatures of 600 other graduate students protesting this provision in the Republican tax plan. These students are rightly outraged that Republicans are planning to reward their hard work as research assistants and teaching assistants by raising their taxes on the grants and the tuition waivers that they receive. These young people, if you heard them speak today, are committed to education, they are committed to working in their community, they are committed to a teaching profession. Under the present tax program a student receiving a $10,000 cash stipend for being a teaching assistant and a $20,000 tuition waiver would only be taxed on a stipend. If the student pays 15 percent of his or her stipend in taxes, $8,500 remains for living expenses. Under the Republican plan, the stipend and tuition waiver will be taxed; that has not happened in the past, leaving the student with only $5500 to live on. This is a $3,000 or a 35 percent cut in the student's net income. Mr. Speaker, these are youngsters from working middle class families trying to make their way and to be able to get a higher education. Calling waivers and grants financial incentives, which is what the Republicans are calling these waivers, this equates these young people with what they are getting in terms of a higher education tax relief with company cars and other perks given to the top corporate executives in this country. In reality, taxing grants and tuition waivers will penalize America's future educators and public servants. I will tell you that these young people and their families are being squeezed in order that my Republican colleagues can provide a tax break to the richest corporations in this country, the Exxons, the Boeings. They would repeal the alternative minimum tax. That is the rate at which the richest corporations pay taxes in this country. They will repeal their tax obligation or scale it back, therefore providing up to $22 billion in a tax break, and they would, in fact, raise the taxes on graduate students in this country. Mr. Speaker, it is unfair, and it is wrong, and it should be defeated. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the Post editorial. Tax Trash The Republicans have written a tax bill tilted heavily toward the better-off. The Democrats, led by the president, have rightly called them on it. No matter that in agreeing to the budget deal earlier this year, they were paving the way for what they now deplore; they have the Republicans on the defensive. The Republicans in turn have adopted a new technique. Rather than argue as they might have done in the past about the virtues of the bill, they engage in distortion. It used to be otherwise on taxes. The question of who would benefit from a bill--who would be the first-order beneficiaries-- would be left to the professionals. They would put together so-called distribution tables according to fairly well- accepted principles. Then the politicians would argue about the fairness of the bill, or lack of it, from an established base. Defenders of a bill such as this might say it was necessary to encourage savings and investment and thereby stimulate economic growth, or that it would have the useful effect of limiting governmental growth in that if the government had fewer revenues it would be less disposed to spend. Or they might make the political argument, faint echoes of which are still heard, that those who were charging unfairness were indulging in the somehow seamy politics of envy and class warfare. All fair enough, but now the argument is in a different place. The people who wrote this bill aren't defending its distributional consequences; they're denying them. The plain facts are that the bill over time would not just mainly benefit the better-off but would cost the government revenues it can't afford; the bill is carefully written in such a way as to make the revenue loss look small at first. Then it soars. It's not just the Treasury (and thereby the administration) that says so, using accepted methods and conventions of analysis. The Congressional Research Service and the vast majority of other analysts do so as well. Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation says otherwise. The JCT was once the great redoubt of integrity in such matters. It has been converted into a political parrot. Everyone understands that this is a backloaded bill. Its short-term effects are not reflective of its likely long-term consequences. It will take 10 years or more for its main provisions to begin to have their full effect. The JCT staff nonetheless persists, at the behest of its masters, in putting out five-year estimates whose principal function is to distort that effect. It violates its own proud tradition in doing so. It uses illusory accounting to make the capital gains and other tax cuts in the bill appear for a time to be tax increases. There is always some gamesmanship surrounding tax bills. Inflated claims are made. One side will tell you that the entire economic future depends on passing a certain provision, and the other will tell you that the same future depends on defeating it. But there used to be a basis of trust underlying the debate as well. You could be confident that at a certain level you were being told the truth about the consequences of a bill. In their trashing of the estimating process in order to justify a tax policy that doesn't deserve to survive, the Republicans have destroyed that trust. That may be the worst consequence of this legislation, which already was awful enough.