Brad Sherman

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to add my voice to that of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) in calling for human rights in Myanma, also known as Burma. Mr. Speaker, with Senator Lieberman's recent notoriety, the country has learned a few words of Yiddish. And one of the more interesting words is the world chutzpah, best defined as the kind of extreme galling nerve as when someone who has killed their parents asks for mercy because, after all, they are an orphan. Mr. Speaker, there is something that calls for even more chutzpah than the Menendez brothers asking for a commutation of their sentence because of their status as orphans, and that is when our Republican colleagues come to this floor and accuse the Democrats of waging class warfare when they will bring before this House tomorrow an override of the President's wise veto of the estate tax repeal. They will try to ram through this House a bill that provides $50 billion in tax cuts once it is fully effective. Not one penny, not one penny, for the home health care worker. Not one penny for the fast-food employee. Not one penny for the janitor. Fifty billion dollars and not one penny for those struggling to get by. All of it for the richest 1\1/2\ percent of Americans, most of it for the 3,000 richest families in America. And they will have the chutzpah to come here and say that they want to imperil this economic expansion for the benefits of those lucky few and accuse us of waging class warfare. Mr. Speaker, I represent a district that is not envious. I do not represent class envy. Malibu is the second richest city in my district. My constituents, more than most others, do pay the estate tax. But they have sent me here to Washington to fight for fiscal responsibility, for Social Security, for Medicare with prescription drug coverage, and for Federal aid to education and to the environment. They did not send me here to ask for $50 billion, all of it, all of it for the wealthiest 1\1/2\ percent of Americans. This estate tax does not affect any family or will not affect any family with $2 million or less to leave to their children. But it will affect the as of yet unborn Bill Gates, Jr. Mr. Speaker, I think that it is important that our children and grandchildren inherit a government that is debt free rather than a few families are able to inherit millions or even billions of dollars that are tax free. Mr. Speaker, this $50 billion of tax relief aimed at those with the most will imperil Social Security, Medicare, and prescription drug coverage; imperil our ability to pay off the national debt, maintain fiscal responsibility and continue our unprecedented economic growth. There are two other bad aspects of this bill that have not been discussed on this floor. First, in order to keep the cost down to only $50 billion, the authors of this bill, which should have been vetoed, actually increase the tax of many widows, increase the income tax of widows by denying them a step up in basis for their income tax returns. And, second, this estate tax repeal will cost America's hospitals, universities, and charities billions of dollars. They will come here asking for our help, but with $50 billion a year less in Federal revenue, we will not be able to help them. This is the unspoken secret. The universities and their development officers will not tell us about it because they do not want to bite the hand that feeds them. But major charitable gifts to universities will bite the dust if we uphold this veto. Do not vote to override the veto.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) for their hard work on this bill. American farmers and agricultural institutions have long been the backbone of our foreign aid programs. The productivity of our farms have helped feed starving people around the world, and it was American research and technology developed in our land grant universities which fueled the green revolution that have helped a famine-prone India become self-sufficient in food. Title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act, the Famine Prevention and Freedom From Hunger Act, was enacted in 1975 to increase world food production and identify solutions to food and nutrition problems in developing countries. However, the agricultural sectors have experienced growth and innovation since that law was enacted. H.R. 4002 addresses that problem by updating Title XII. These changes will result in better partnerships with the Agency for International Development, improved service to and assistance to poor countries, and greater trade and research benefits to the United States. Specifically, this bill broadens the scope of agricultural assistance to reflect a more modern industry and expands the ability of participants to be eligible to participate in Title XII programs so that the valuable resources of our universities will be better utilized. This bill also encourages NGOs, that is to say nongovernmental organizations, to work with universities. The legislation will also help our agriculture here in the United States. Title XII as currently written is designed to focus on agricultural research. H.R. 4002 is designed to enhance extension and other outreach activities of Title XII and help bring lessons learned through those agricultural programs in developing countries to farms here in the United States. Finally, the bill helps American farmers and others of the agricultural community to increase their markets. Developing countries are the fastest growing markets for U.S. farm products and helping strengthen agriculture in developing countries will ultimately benefit U.S. farmers. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4002. Madam Speaker, at this point I include in the Record the remarks of the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. This bill sends the right message. It is a bill brought to this House's attention by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who represent the portion of California that is immediately adjacent to Mexico. This resolution puts Congress on record in favor of ensuring that U.S. citizens traveling in Mexico have access without delay to emergency medical services. This is of particular importance to all of us in California and along the U.S.-Mexico border. Our citizens travel to Mexico; and when they are involved in an automobile accident, they encounter the Mexican law that requires the posting of a bond, a bond which ordinary automobile insurance does not provide for. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join in this resolution and to support the negotiation with Mexico of a system for at least dealing with those American motorists who are insured and need help on an emergency basis. I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 232. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be added to H. Con. Res. 232 as a cosponsor, and also as a cosponsor of the three other pieces of legislation that will follow this, S. Con. Res. 81, H.R. 4002 and H.R. 4919, the Security Assistance Act.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and commend the chairman of the Committee on International Relations (Mr. Gilman); the chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, my colleague here, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter); and the ranking Democratic members, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for their strong support. The subject of this resolution is Rabiya Kadeer, who is well-known as a Uighur businesswoman and known throughout China as ``the millionaire woman of Xinjiang.'' She is also a philanthropist of many programs designed to improve the lives of Uighur women and children. Her work led to her election as a member of a nationwide advisory body of the Chinese government from 1993 through 1997, and as a delegate to the United Nations Women's Conference in 1995. She has helped many Uighur women start businesses, and she has established English language classes for Uighur teenagers, several of whom she has sent to the United States for schooling. Rabiya Kadeer's husband, who is of Uighur descent, fled to the United States in 1996, and she was stripped of her government position when she refused to criticize him. Kadeer was arrested last year on her way to meet with congressional staff members, charged with providing information to foreigners, and sentenced to 8 years in prison. As my colleague from Nebraska pointed out, these charges were without merit. Unfortunately, it appears that Kadeer's real crime is that her husband now works for Radio Free Asia and he has been critical of the policies of the PRC toward Uighurs in Xinjiang. This situation is all the more troubling because Kadeer has five children and three sisters living in the United States in addition to her husband. This resolution before the House today calls on the Chinese to release Rabiya Kadeer, as well as her son, and secretary, arrested at the same time, and allow them to come to the United States. It is with regret that I note that this House passed a provision giving the People's Republic of China most favored nation status on a permanent basis, so the Chinese are free to ignore this resolution, without the slightest risk of losing a single penny of trade benefits with the United States, where they enjoy the largest trade surplus and one of the most lopsided trading relationships that one can imagine. So although I doubt this resolution will have much effect, given the fact that we have cut ourselves off from any way of really pressuring the Chinese government, it is the least we could do. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support Senate Concurrent Resolution 81. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4919, in order to assist the committee. This bill is an annual authorization for certain activities related to the U.S. assistance for national defense of our friends and allies overseas. The bill authorizes the President to transfer obsolete U.S. ships to friendly countries either through grants or sale/lease arrangements to support their legitimate defense needs. These ships have reached or exceeded their service life and would cost considerable amount for the U.S. to refurbish them or scrap them. Transferring most of these ships will serve our foreign policy interests. The bill authorized transfer of obsolete U.S. defense equipment and other articles to the stockpiles of South Korea and Israel. These transfers directly support the U.S. plans for the defense of Korea as well as increasing the capacity and readiness of the South Korean and Israeli forces to defend themselves. Madam Speaker, I believe the bill was quite well summarized by the gentleman from Nebraska. I should point out that I will personally have some concerns with title II of the bill, in particular subsection D of section 201 of the act, which as I may have mentioned is part of title II. But to facilitate the work of this House and of the committee, I stand in support of H.R. 4919. Madam Speaker, seeing no requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, these remarks will be titled, No Justice, No Caviar. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida. We should not do business with Iran until they respect human rights. No justice, no caviar. On July 1, ten of the 13 Jews held on espionage charges in the southern Iranian city of Shiraz were convicted and sentenced to jail terms from four to 13 years. The men had been arrested in March 1999 and the ten ultimately convicted had languished in prison since that time awaiting trial, which finally began last April. While the death penalty--a distinct possibility in Iran for ``espionage''--was thankfully averted, the conservative Judiciary in Iran still felt it was necessary to take 89 years in total away from the lives of these innocent men. And let there be no doubt that ``the ten''--as well as the two Muslim accomplices--are innocent. The trial was a joke of the first order. The judge served not merely as a neutral arbiter of the law, but also as the prosecution. There was no jury; the judge/prosecutor, known affectionately by fellow conservatives as ``the Butcher,'' also made the determination of guilt. The proceedings were held in private--no one except the Butcher, the defendants, and their lawyers know what happened in that courtroom. For varying reasons, none of them are talking. Every few days or so during the heat of the trial two more defendants would be paraded before waiting television cameras to ``confess,'' but their confessions were virtually devoid of detail. Stalin at least would have gotten his defendants to confess to some details to back up the official state story. Last March our government decided to relax its embargo on Iranian fruits, nuts, caviar and rugs. The rationale for this move was that there are ``moderate'' forces in Iran aligned with President Khatemi who need to be bolstered in their fight against the conservative mullahs. History and recent experience with Iran strongly argue against this policy. The US needs to take the lead in using our political and economic clout to help win the release of these men. Only then can we rally other governments to make continued favorable business and investment arrangements contingent on this basic human rights issue. Only when Iran sees the impact to its bottom line will it understand the need to release these shopkeepers, clerks and religious men to go home to their families. We should not accept Iranian goods until the Iranian's respect human rights. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and to support human rights in Iran.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings). (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, I am presenting this amendment on behalf of myself and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). This entire bill is woefully underfunded. We should be adding several billions to this bill, perhaps many billions to this bill. But within the scope of the bill as presented, all we can do is move money from one part of the bill to another. That is an important task, because there are parts of this bill that are more in need of funding than others. As explained by the speeches for the last hour, the most important part of this bill is the funding for AIDS. With some 34 million people in Africa, with over 10 million people in South Asia and Southeast Asia stricken with HIV, we need to do more, not just the $202 million provided in the bill, not just the $242 million which will be available if the Pelosi-Lee amendment is passed, but we need to do all we can. This amendment will increase the amount for AIDS by an additional $10 million. That is still not even $10 for every infected person in the continent of Africa, let alone less than $5 for each infected person on the face of the earth. The question is not why is it important to provide more funds to combat AIDS, but where do we get those funds? This bill, this amendment takes those funds from the allocation from the World Bank and more particularly from IDA. Now, IDA is a good program of the World Bank, but it is not as important as dealing with AIDS. Just as important, those of us who are concerned with promoting foreign aid in this country have to make sure that the foreign aid we appropriate is consistent with American values. Last month, the World Bank loaned $231 million to Iran, while ignoring the fact that Iran would jail 10 Jewish citizens just because of their religion, hence a desire, a need to transfer $10 million. Not only that, but I talked to the President of the World Bank today who was unable to assure me that the funds appropriated in this bill would not be lent to Sudan, Afghanistan. The funds provided to IDA in this bill can be lent to any corrupt government anywhere in the world. That is why it is better to spend the money through American agencies fighting AIDS.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to point out that the World Bank does do some good, but it also does substantial harm when it loans American money to Iran at this time and when it is possible that it would loan American money to Sudan or Afghanistan at this time. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, as so many speakers before me have said, it is a shame that we are not providing more. Thirty-four million people in Africa with HIV, and even if we pass this amendment, that is less than $10 per infected person, less than $10 per person who will probably lose their lives. After we consider this amendment, I will call up an amendment that will add another $10 million to this program, and shame on me that that amendment is not larger. We should be doing a lot more. This is a national security problem for not only Africa but for the entire world. This is a continent with 34 million infected people, most of whom do not know that they are infected, that figure comes only from estimation, so they could end up infecting others. This is not just a problem in Africa, this is a likely disease that will mutate and spread to various places around the world. We should do more.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, since I came to Congress, I have been fighting to eliminate the marriage penalty. But we need to do it in a way that eliminates the marriage penalty's impact on the AMT. We need to do it in a way that provides the earned income tax credit for low- income married couples. We need real marriage penalty relief. In fact, the Democratic substitute does more for those who deserve and need real marriage penalty relief than does the more expensive Republican plan. It is more generous, the Democratic substitute is, to those who pay a marriage penalty, and somewhat less generous to those who are getting a marriage bonus, actually paying less taxes because they are a married couple. I want to reduce taxes on married couples now. The Democratic substitute has one tremendous advantage over the Republican bill. It will be signed into law. It is real legislation. In contrast, the Republican bill is a good press release for some. They know it will never be signed into law. It will never save a single married couple a single penny. What we need to do is pass the Democratic substitute now. Then we can come back in September. By then, hopefully, that estate tax repeal bill will have been killed; and we will know at that point that we can afford to provide an additional increment of tax cuts to married couples while at the same time protecting Social Security and Medicare, paying down the debt, and providing a real prescription drug benefit for our seniors. I hope the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) would join me in voting for the motion to recommit to protect the 92,571 seniors in his district that urgently need real pharmaceutical coverage. These seniors deserve his help. Join with us, not in providing those seniors with some phony plan that invites them to pay an arm and a leg for a phony Medigap policy. Join with us in providing the seniors of the gentleman's district and mine with real pharmaceutical drug efforts.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, as you may know, I have an amendment at the desk. I rise to explain why I will not be offering that amendment. Mr. Chairman, that amendment deals with the provisions of this bill which provide funds for the inspection and facilitation of agricultural imports, particularly those from the Islamic Republic of Iran. In March of this year the administration lifted our ban on imports from Iran as to four products, three of them agricultural products; and I believe that lifting this ban may have been the result of undue optimism, or at least premature optimism. The rhetoric in Tehran has improved, but the actions of the Iranian government have not. A year and a half ago, 13 Jews were arrested in the southern Iranian city of Shiraz. They have been subjected to show trials. Ten have been convicted. The average sentence is 9 years. Some of the sentences go up to 13 years. That is why, Mr. Chairman, I drafted an amendment that would say that those three agricultural imports cannot come into this country, or at least none of our taxpayer dollars could be used for the necessary inspection. But just as I believe the lifting of the ban on those imports may have reflected premature optimism, I do not want to be guilty of premature pessimism. It is quite possible, I think, that the Iranian president or their appellate court system will in the next few weeks vacate those verdicts, or at least release the prisoners. So I think it is best that I not offer this amendment, especially because this amendment, if adopted, would lock us into a particular position for an entire fiscal year; and it would deny the use of those funds to facilitate imports from Iran for the entire fiscal year. Instead, I think it better that I will join with others in introducing legislation that will provide for a ban on all Iranian exports to the United States, agricultural and non-agricultural, until such time as the President of the U.S. is able to certify that the Iranian government has made substantial improvements in the treatment of its religious minorities. Mr. Chairman, the charges against the 13 jailed in Shiraz were absurd, since no Jew in Iran is allowed to come anywhere near anything of military or security significance. Mr. Chairman, the trials were reminiscent of those of Joseph Stalin, show trials with forced confessions, no evidence and very little specificity to the charges; and the verdicts were harsh, 10 convictions subjecting the defendants to a total of 89 years in prison. Many governments around the world have said that these trials are the yardstick by which Iran must be judged as to whether it has made improvements in human rights and whether it has made improvements in treating its religious minorities. Clearly, Iran has not yet improved its behavior, even as there has been hopeful rhetoric. Mr. Chairman, I believe that we should adopt the slogan ``no justice, no caviar.'' We should certainly not allow the import of caviar, pistachios, dried fruit, or carpets into this country until justice is achieved. Not only is a ban on the imports to the United States from Iran helpful in that it applies some pressure economically to Iran, it is also the strongest way that we can signal our position and puts us in a stronger position to deal with other countries: Germany, where the Iranian foreign minister is visiting today; Japan, which, unfortunately, is funding hydroelectric facilities in Iran; and the World Bank, which, unfortunately, approved, but did not yet disburse, a loan of $231 million. So, Mr. Chairman, my hope is that this amendment will turn out to be unnecessary; that the authorities in Iran will reverse the decision of the trial court, or at least pardon the defendants. If that does not occur, then we will be in the position to move with a separate bill that will allow more flexibility and a greater scope than is allowed in an amendment to an appropriations bill. A separate bill will apply to non-agricultural goods, as well as agricultural goods, and provide the flexibility of a presidential certification. In addition, I would hope that if a month from now these obscenely harsh verdicts are not reversed, that the conference committee will see fit to add my amendment to this Agricultural Appropriations bill before it comes back to this House. So that explains, why, Mr. Chairman, I will not be offering my amendment.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address the House on two amendments that will come up in this bill, both dealing with the importation of agricultural and fishery products from the Islamic Republic of Iran. The first will be offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) and myself, and it simply cuts $15,000 from APHIS. That is a small and symbolic amount. It is the minimum amount that we believe would be necessary in order to inspect goods coming from Iran and make sure that they were eligible for importation into the United States. Those goods would include caviar, dried fruit, and nuts. So I hope that the House, without undue time delay, could simply adopt that amendment. I realize, though, that that amendment by itself does not control how the Department of Agriculture spends its money, it simply reduces by $15,000 the amount of money the Department would have. So a second amendment will be offered by myself and perhaps others at the end of the bill, and that amendment would say that no money provided by the Agriculture Appropriations bill can be used to allow for the importation, basically the inspection of these agricultural products coming from Iran. So one amendment saves us an extremely small amount of money, and the other amendment eliminates the need and prohibits the expenditure of that money. We would hope that both these amendments could pass by a voice vote, because we were here late last night, late the night before, and I know how unpopular I am likely to be in asking 400 some of our colleagues to walk across the street to vote, not on one, but on two amendments. Conference Report (H. Rept. 106-710) The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 4425) ``making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes'', having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, and agree to the same with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter stricken and inserted by said amendment, insert:

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, in March of 1999, Iran arrested 13 of its Jewish citizens solely because of their religion. The trial has just concluded, and it was a show trial worthy of Joseph Stalin: no evidence, but confessions, not showing the guilt of the accused, but showing their justified fear. The prosecutor is also the judge, is also the jury. Of course no one is allowed to view the trial. These men have been in prison, most of them, for a year and a half, and it is time for Iran to let them go. The charges against them are ridiculous, because in Iran's discriminatory society no one of the Jewish faith would be allowed near anything of national security significance. So certainly the CIA would not hire from this minority group in any search for spies. The verdict will be issued on Saturday. We in this House must take a stand. The agricultural appropriations bill comes up, and I will have an amendment to deny the use of funds to allow the importation of agricultural products from Iran and, thus, reinstitute the policy of Ronald Reagan to prevent those goods from coming in at this time.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the trials are going on now. The 13 Jews charged with spying for the CIA may hear their verdicts on the 4th of July. This amendment sends a strong message that America is watching. No justice, no caviar. Or at least no caviar imported from Iran. I want to thank the distinguished subcommittee Chair for, as I understand, his willingness to accept the amendment.

Mr. SHERMAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, and in closing, I would hope people would accept these amendments and send a message to Iran.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, what I would also hope is that the government in Iran would give us just verdicts. Now, there cannot be justice for the 13 Jews who have been subjected to show trials over the last several months. They were arrested in March of 1999. Most of them have been in prison since then, all on the ridiculous charge of spying for the United States. In Iran, no Jew is allowed near anything of military significance, so to think that the CIA would turn to this small minority to hire our spies would be to allege a level of negligence to the CIA that not even the Chinese ambassador to Yugoslavia has asserted. Ronald Reagan instituted a ban on the importation of agricultural products from Iran. This amendment, or pair of amendments, would restore that ban. We could then, in the months to come, evaluate the behavior of the Iranian government. And if, later on, the conference committee decided that these provisions were unnecessary, if there was justice for the 13 Jews being tried in southern Iran, we could modify our behavior as the Iranian government modifies its behavior. For now, all we see in southern Iran is injustice and religious persecution. And the correct response of this House at this time is to prohibit the U.S. tax dollars that we control from being used to facilitate the importation of these products to the United States to compete with the products of American agriculture, when, instead, we should send the message to Teheran: no justice, no caviar.

Mr. SHERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we slashed money for education for teachers, for after-school programs, for Head Start. Today, they want to cut $50 billion per year from Federal revenues. Two percent of American families even pay this tax. Three percent of those involve family farms and family businesses, so only 6 out of every 10,000 families fit into the category of having a family farm or family business affected by this tax. The Democratic bill does far more for those family farms and businesses. Immediate relief. A bill that will be signed into law. But only the Republican bill provides the billionaire's tax relief act. Not one penny for those who make $6 an hour or $10, not relief at the democratic level for small businesses, but huge relief for multibillion-dollar fortunes. Furthermore, the Republican bill will slash major endowments for colleges, universities, and conservation programs. Those folks will be here asking for Federal help, and we will not be able to give it to them because we will have cut revenues by $50 billion. The Republican bill even contains a hidden provision which will increase income taxes on widows. There are plenty of reasons, 50 billion reasons, to vote no on the Republican bill and yes on the Democratic substitute.