David Thomas: “Mr. Speaker, we really do have to decide whether we want to try to make law or score political points. The first motion…”

“Mr. Speaker, we really do have to decide whether we want to try to make law or score political points. The first motion that was offered was obviously a ruse because it would have killed the bill. You then say changing ``forthwith'' to ``promptly'' makes this a serious offer. You need to know that the reason they dropped ``forthwith'' to ``promptly'' and dropped various portions of the bill was to make it germane under the rules. In dropping those portions to make it germane, we have no idea what the revenue consequences of this bill are. There is no score available. I will tell you this, that the old provision was $38 billion in revenue. If anyone knows how the Senate works, it is very simple. The way you get the votes to pass anything is to ask whoever would possibly vote for something, what do they want. It is an additive process. What we have here is the sum and substance of a bill that passed the Senate, which means there is no rationale to anything in the revenue portion. Let me give you one brief example. Turn to page 108 and to raise the revenue that is in this bill, which is not directly applicable to the highway bill in about two-thirds of it, the effective date of the provisions ending on page 108 shall apply to transactions entered into after February 13, 2003. What was good law on February 13 last year, retroactively, will not be good law if you vote for this measure.”