America's Small Business Tax Relief Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Levin for yielding to me.
I want to speak specifically to what the previous gentleman has just
stated. I had not intended to speak because I am going to offer the
motion to recommit on our side, but the gentleman appeared in his
commentary to belittle the notion of procedure.

Procedure in this institution is sacrosanct based upon the rules that
we adopt in the earliest moments of the new Congress. I was struck by
the notion that we should just cast aside and denigrate procedure. That
is how the institution operates, based upon procedure, established
precedent, and settled law.

To suggest that somehow we could just offend procedure, we remind
ourselves of what has happened to this institution during the last two
decades when virtually all the Members on both sides got elected by
running against the institution. They could never step away from the
campaign rhetoric to get on with actual governance of the institution.
Procedure in this institution means that we adhere to a prescribed set
of rules and orders and, yes, goodwill.

Now, again, I had not even intended to get up and talk about this
issue, arcane as it might seem, but it underlies the whole notion of a
representative democracy and a duly elected legislative institution.
Procedure, the basic tenet of which is, oftentimes: Shall the
institution simply concur with a motion to proceed? That is the
antecedent of the term, ``procedure.'' That is how the body works.

Today, fundamentally what is being proposed here and what we object
to in no small measure is the violation of the whole notion of
procedure.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill in its current form.
I would remind my colleagues that this amendment to the bill will not
kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will
immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

Now, I must tell you that I, having served on the Ways and Means
Committee for a long time, think that we should label tax reform as
``Chairman Ryan's tax reform by ambiguity.''

I can't figure this out. We have a set of final decisions that are
putting ours in front of the discussion and the debate. Mr. Ryan stands
and says: You are supposed to stick to your principles; you are
supposed to stick to your beliefs; you don't need bipartisanship. And
the majority leader addressed the House 10 minutes before, blaming the
President because he sticks to his beliefs and he sticks to his
principles and he adheres to some basic policy tenets.

Well, this is Friday the 13th. What an appropriate way to discuss tax
reform. But I have figured out what the problem is. They, on the
Republican side, are now afraid of doing tax reform. They must be
afraid of what they see as the luck that might come to the Democratic
Party based on tax reform.

Let me say this today, right now. Every Democrat in this institution
favors 179 and favors expensing for small businesses. If anything, we
would extend the principle beyond its current form so that we might
include even more individuals.

But like garlic to the vampire, the permanent unpaid-for extension of
these tax bills harms bipartisan tax reform because it goes out of its
way to violate not just procedure, but something that is elusive and
hard to put our arms around in this institution, and it is called the
principle of goodwill--which, by the way, used to exist, particularly
on the Ways and Means Committee. It was the hardest committee to get
on. There was deep thinking that you had to adhere to at virtually
every tax measure. People spent careers trying to get on and, once they
got on, spent careers trying to perfect legislation that might come to
the aid of the American family. But not in this instance.

I heard my friend, Mr. Tiberi--and he is my friend--say a few moments
ago, he addressed the issue of the framework. Democrats do not object
to the framework that David Camp used--or as Mr. Tiberi called him,
Saint David Camp--to do fundamental tax reform. We strongly endorse the
principle offered by Chairman Camp of framework and procedure. He
included Democrats right through the whole discussion. And then when it
failed--and incidentally, as I told you it would. When it failed, Mr.
Camp said: Well, we have to do the extenders.

So there is a bit of amnesia at work here today. They were in charge
when we had to do the extenders in, what we might call in New England
with Super Bowl champions, the 2-minute warning. That is precisely what
happened. We had to do this at the very end after the referee came in
and said: If we don't get this done quickly--and, by the way, another
group that they disdain, the IRS, because the IRS said, for the 2-
minute warning, what? They simply said to us: You will not be able to
prepare tax reforms for April if we do not get this done right now. So
succumbing to what had been a very good framework, we had to do tax
extenders because the Republican Party rejected David Camp's tax reform
proposal.

Now, our proposal here is essentially the same. And Mr. Tiberi is
correct when he says everybody here favors 179. What we object to is
you are going to borrow the money to end up paying for it because you
violate the principles that in one moment you adhere to and in the next
moment you relinquish.

We might think, on this side, tomorrow is Valentine's Day. There
could have been some goodwill established here today. There could have
been some common ground as we go forward on tax reform.

I saw how Mr. Rostenkowski did it when I joined the committee; I saw
how Mr. Rangel did it. And do you know what? I saw how Mr. Archer and
Mr. Camp did it. They were institutionalists by nature. They would not
have done what is being done today. All four of those individuals would
have said: Well, first of all, to make it work and to make it great, it
has to be bipartisan in nature as you relate to tax reform.

When you hear about tax reform in '86, one of the things that comes
to mind immediately is the fact that it was done with President Ronald
Reagan and Speaker Thomas O'Neill.

Let me say something, Mr. Speaker. As upset as I am today by the
manner in which this is being offered, I want to say to our Republican
colleagues, Happy Valentine's Day.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source