[Pages H2453-H2466]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4297, TAX INCREASE PREVENTION AND
RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2005

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 805, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4297) to provide for
reconciliation pursuant to section 201(b) of the concurrent resolution
on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 805, the
conference report is considered read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
May 9, 2006, at page H2209).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas)
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House is finally able to take up
the conference report. The last time the House visited the
Reconciliation Act of 2005 was in December of last year. The minority
was very much concerned about dealing with the alternative minimum tax
problem facing millions of American taxpayers.
We were also concerned, primarily on this side of the aisle, with
making sure that the economy continued its robust growth. I am very
pleased to announce today that there should be near unanimous support
on the other side of the aisle for this reconciliation agreement.
When we offered the alternative minimum tax outside of
reconciliation, we got 414 votes for providing that alternative minimum
tax relief outside of reconciliation.
Subsequent to the House passing the reconciliation measure, my
friends on the other side of the aisle offered, not once but twice,
motions to instruct to require the conference to place in the
reconciliation measure alternative minimum tax repeal.
It is my pleasure to announce today that the wishes of my friends on
the other side of the aisle have been granted. The alternative minimum
tax, in the most comprehensive way ever offered, is part of this
package; because it is so comprehensive, that more than 15 million
Americans will not pay the alternative minimum tax once this bill
becomes law in 2006, and that, in addition, more than 2 million
taxpayers will not have any liability because of this bill. Because of
its comprehensive nature, this is the only opportunity for Members of
the House to vote to provide alternative minimum tax relief to
taxpayers.

{time} 1630

And so I look forward to having my colleagues join me since we have
provided in the reconciliation package what they have voted for and
have asked for.
I am also pleased to announce to my friends on both side of the aisle
that this measure also contains a provision which extends one of the
primary stimulus factors in the economy, and that is the ability to pay
only a 15 percent tax on dividends for investing in the economy and 15
percent on capital gains for taking a risk opportunity in the economy.
I will say for those items that were in both the House and the Senate
bills that are not part of this package, we are working on an
additional important tax relief package which will provide that
opportunity. And I know my colleagues on the other sides of the aisle,
especially those who represent the States that will see the greatest
relief under the alternative minimum tax, those Members who represent
the States of California, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, they will be pleased to note that a ``yes''
vote on this reconciliation measure provides the tax relief and, I
might underscore, the only opportunity for tax relief on the
alternative minimum tax measure.
I might say in the reverse, that if a Member does not vote for this
measure, they are, in essence, then voting to raise taxes on more than
15 million Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, well, the Republicans are coming. The Republicans are
coming. The Republicans are coming with relief for the alternative
minimum tax. It is the same way they were coming to give our older
people prescription

[[Page H2454]]

drugs. Work through the maze, and at the end of it we will give you a
penalty. The Republicans are coming in order to balance the budget, but
we just have to borrow more money from China and around the world.
Just how gullible do you think that the American people can be? I can
imagine now in November my colleagues, Republicans, running around with
a sign, ``I am from the Republican Congress. I am here to help you.''
You cannot believe it. If you want the alternative minimum tax the
way they are offering it, wherever the conference was, you have to
swallow with that a tax bill, a tax cut bill that costs over $40
billion. And this only would help a fraction of 1 percent of the
wealthiest Americans in the world.
So if you want equity and fair play, which they refuse to give in the
House for the alternative minimum tax, all you have to do is hold your
nose and let them continue to give the tax cut to their rich friends
and then tell you this is the last chance that the train of equity is
coming through your neighborhood.
Well, it is not the last time, because we have a motion to recommit
to tell the conferees to take care of those 81 million people that are
caught up in this tax hookup which they should not be and to drop the
rest of it and to let you try to do something with the deficit.
So let's focus not on the fact that this is the last train in town to
help, but Democrats are on the way to really help by knocking off the
tax cuts that no one is asking for except the administration and K
Street, and concentrate on what we are here for.
And so it just seems to me that you should not frighten people to
join some HMO and hold back their drugs and you should not frighten
people that you are not going to get relief from the alternative
minimum tax unless you buy the whole package, which is an additional
$50 billion of unfair, undeserved tax cuts for the wealthy.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to make a slight correction on a factual
basis. The gentleman from New York knows full well, in the
reconciliation package the single largest item is the alternative
minimum tax relief.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Hayworth), a member of the committee.
(Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague from California, the
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, for this time and as always,
I listened with interest to my good friend from New York, and I think
it illustrates some very real differences.
Tax relief should not be partisan. And part of what we actually do
here in the people's House is practice the art of the possible. And so
before this House today we have much-needed tax relief.
The alternative minimum tax, or AMT, has become Uncle Sam's ATM. Too
much, too often have we seen the Federal Government reach into the
pockets of middle-income taxpayers, and with this legislation today, we
put a stop to using the AMT as Uncle Sam's ATM. That is something that
the American people want to see.
And there is other thoughtful tax relief here because, in stark
contrast to the bleak picture painted by my friends on the other side
of the aisle, we understand that there is no reason to penalize people
who succeed. By extending the 15 percent rate on dividend and capital
gains taxes through 2010 and extending the increased small business
expensing through 2009, we are not punishing people for succeeding.
That is vital.
Is it important to Wall Street? Yeah, Mr. Speaker, it is important to
Wall Street. But it is important to Main Street and it is important to
your street, Mr. Speaker, every street in this Union, every
neighborhood, because it helps to generate wealth and investment and
that is what we are about here.
I ask the House to adopt this legislation.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Stark), a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee
and a hardworking member.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the distinguished
gentleman from New York for yielding me time.
This $70 billion sham defrauds the working class to line the pockets
of the super-wealthy friends of the Republican Party. Taxpayers with
incomes of over $10 million will have received on average $500,000 from
the Republican capital gains and dividend cuts, and hardworking
Americans making under $50,000 have average tax savings of $10;
$500,000 if you are rich; $10 if you are just getting along.
Capital gains and dividend tax breaks benefit the rich, not the
working class. Here is a chart that indicates how this money is
distributed: $20 to the average middle-income household, $42,000 to
those making over a million bucks.
You can see here we have taken care, the Republicans have taken care,
of Members of Congress, they gave us $1,388, at least for those who are
only working in the public trough. Not bad.
But this bill wastes $70 billion on millionaires that could be used
to improve people's lives. With that $70 billion, $39 billion in
unnecessary cuts to Medicaid which hurts the health care of children,
disabled and the poor could be restored. We could fund the President's
great bragging rights to the No Child Left Behind with $9 billion and
provide health insurance for every child in this country for $20
billion, and there might even be a few bucks left over to decrease the
deficit.
So you have here, amidst all the cute rhetoric on the other side,
voodoo economics at its most ridiculous and radical extreme and moral
reprehensibility that gives $100,000 to millionaires, but takes health
care away from families earning less than $16,000 a year. Vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Republican tax
reconciliation conference report. I'd like to say it was an honor to
sit on the conference committee, but this backroom deal was cut without
any input from House Democratic conferees. The predictable result is a
Republican agreement that benefits millionaires at the expense of
working families.
You don't have to dig far into this bill to realize it helps the rich
get richer, while doing little for hard working American families. The
extended dividends and cap gains tax breaks didn't even expire until
2008, but Republicans wanted to reward their rich campaign donors
before the November elections. As a result, people making over $10
million get an average capital gains and dividends tax breaks of about
$500,000 a year. These cuts give families making under $50,000 a
whopping $10 tax cut. It is clear where the Republican priorities lie.
Some will say that other tax cuts in this bill help the working
class. The facts don't support that argument. Families struggling to
get by on less than $20,000 a year get only $2 in average tax breaks
from this bill. Average middle income households only get $20. Where
could all these tax cuts go? The answer is simple, those making over
$1.6 million--the top 0.1 percent of all taxpayers--get $82,000 a year
in tax breaks from President Bush and their Republican friends in
Congress.
In sum, this tax reconciliation bill is a $70 billion boondoggle for
America's wealthiest taxpayers. Wouldn't it make a little more sense to
spend this money to help people in need? We could easily eliminate the
entire $39 billion in cuts Republicans made last fall to programs like
Medicaid, student loans and food stamps. That would leave us $31
billion to fully fund Bush's No Child Left Behind education plan and
provide every child in the country with health insurance. There might
even be some money left over to help decrease the budget deficit mess
Bush has gotten us in.
It is clear this bill benefits the rich at the expense of the working
class, but that isn't the whole story. Just as Bush lied about weapons
of mass destruction to lead us into the quagmire in Iraq, Congressional
Republicans are lying about the true cost of this legislation. This
bill pays for the tax cuts for the wealthy by actually raising some
taxes in the short-term. Many of the so-called ``revenue raisers'' in
the bill will actually end up being huge tax breaks in future years.
One specific provision allows people to cash out traditional IRAs and
convert them into Roth IRAs. This raises revenue in the first few
years, but will cost up to $1 billion dollars a year starting in 2013.
Who benefits most from this future tax break? You guessed it . . .
families making over $150,000 a year.
Regardless of what some may say, tax cuts for the wealthy do not
generate economic

[[Page H2455]]

growth, jobs or increased wages. The only people that win under the
Republican reconciliation plan are the millionaires who receive all the
tax breaks. It is immoral to give a millionaire an extra $100,000 while
we're taking Medicaid benefits away from a family of three making under
$15,750.
I urge all my colleagues to stand up for the working class and vote
against these irresponsible and immoral tax breaks for the rich.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
What the gentleman just quoted was indeed on the front page of The
Washington Post today and it comes from the Tax Policy Center. Of
course, what he did not bother to do is tell you other material that
has come from the very same Tax Policy Center.
Because in 2001 we took millions of people off of the tax rolls, and
so for the first time many people making $10,000 to $20,000 do not pay
any taxes. And what the Tax Policy Center said was, the top 50 percent
pay 97 percent of all Federal income taxes.
We are good, but when we remove people from the tax rolls who do not
pay any taxes, how would they expect to get money back? That is, of
course, the other side of the story, and it comes from the very same
center that the gentleman just quoted.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Herger), a valued member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the tax relief
before us. Of the major provisions of the tax reconciliation, two
particularly stand out as encouraging economic expansion and continued
job creation: the 2-year extension of the current 5 percent capital
gains and dividend rates and the continuation of section 179 expensing
limits.
I have long supported enhanced small business expensing through
legislation, and I am pleased this provision was included in the final
bill. Studies show that a majority of small firms benefit from
expensing, helping to speed up cost recovery on new investment,
contributing to small business growth. Since small businesses provide
roughly two-thirds of new job creation in the United States, such
growth translates into new jobs for Americans.
I have also heard from northern California seniors about the
importance of capital gains and dividends to their retirement income,
and they are not alone. Future tax rates on investment earnings affect
the decisions that families and businesses make today. Extending the
lower rates for capital gains and dividends provides tax certainty,
helping to boost investment. For proof, we need look no further than
today's Dow Jones Industrial Average, again reaching historic highs.
According to a Wall Street Journal piece from a few days ago, capital
gains tax Federal receipts rose 79 percent after the new rates went
into effect in 2003; dividend tax receipts rose 35 percent. This is
further evidence that the lower rates actually produce increased
revenues.
Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone's support.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said the Wall Street Journal says we are
doing well. The Main Street Journal says people are going into
bankruptcy. They are losing their pensions; they are losing their
health insurance. It depends on what paper you read.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Levin), an outstanding member of the Ways and Means Committee.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, two quick comments.
Mr. Thomas, when you say that the people taken off the rolls a few
years ago do not pay any taxes--you did, twice you said that.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on my time?
Mr. LEVIN. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. THOMAS. If, in fact, I said taxes, I obviously meant income
taxes, and I appreciate the gentleman's bringing that point to me. And
I would like the record corrected to say, they do not pay income taxes.
Mr. LEVIN. Okay. I hope in the future Republicans who keep on saying
they do not pay taxes will not say that anymore.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on my time?
Mr. LEVIN. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. THOMAS. I do appreciate having you around making sure that
everyone understands that what we did in 2001 was take millions of
people off of the income tax rolls.
Mr. LEVIN. Right, and they continue to pay all kinds of taxes, and
indeed they are paying taxes compared to what very wealthy people are
not overall paying.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on my time?
Mr. LEVIN. Let me just finish.
Look, another point, we have voted, we Democrats, two or three times
on the AMT. We voted two or three times. You are Johnnie-Come-Latelys.
So now what you say is, vote for a bill that has that in it, but has
these provisions on dividend and capital gains.
As Mr. Stark said, essentially you are bringing a tax bill here that
has caviar for the very wealthy and mostly crumbs for most everybody
else. That is what you are doing, and the chart shows it: a household,
50- to 75,000, $110; a household from $500,000 to $1 million, $5,500;
and more than $1 million, $41,000.

{time} 1645

I read in an editorial a few days ago in the Post, ``While the income
of the families in the middle fifth of society has grown 12 percent
since 1980, the income of the top 10 percent has grown 67 percent, and
the income of the top 1 percent has more than doubled. In short, the
rich have grown a whole lot richer.''
So what you are doing here is giving this immense tax break to a
relatively few very wealthy people, and you are combining it tomorrow
with a budget bill, according to your own language, and I quote, ``the
debt limit will be increased from $8.965 trillion to $9.618 trillion in
an increase of $653 billion'' under your proposal.
So you are saying give the very wealthy, making $1 million or more,
45 percent of this tax bill, while you are increasing tomorrow the
national debt by over $653 billion.
If your great tax policies have brought such great economic growth,
why is the debt limit being raised $653 billion?
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, how is the time distributed at this point?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). The gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas) has 20 minutes remaining, and the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Rangel) has 24 minutes remaining.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a senior member, hardworking member, in the Ways
and Means Committee.
(Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me speak on behalf of our children and
our grandchildren.
Mr. Levin pointed out our national debt, the actual debt now is $8.3
trillion, $28,000 per person in this country. What we have is a birth
tax, and we are adding to that birth tax.
This bill, as advertised, adds another $70 billion or $69 billion to
the debt, but when you look at it, it is much higher because we are
using gimmicks again. We remove the income ceiling on Roth IRAs, and we
count that as a revenue gain of $6 billion when we know, in fact, it
will lose revenue for the Treasury to the tune of $1.3 trillion a year.
So we are using gimmicks and we are going deeper and deeper into
debt. We are doing this for what? Why do we not have offsets?
You look at the extension of dividend exclusion, the dividend
exclusion does not end until 2008. Why do we not work out a program to
pay for these extensions?
We tell our students they have got to pay more for their college
education, and that we are not going to provide the relief because we
do not have the money.
We tell our veterans we cannot provide the health care that we
promised them because we do not have the money in the budget; but the
tax cuts, that do not expire until 2008, we can put in this bill,
knowing full well it is going to add to the deficit of the Nation.
Where is fiscal responsibility? Why are we not looking after our
children

[[Page H2456]]

and grandchildren? Why are we adding more debt to what they are going
to have to pay? We could have a responsible bill that deals with the
alternative minimum tax, that deals with selective inequity that we
have in the Tax Code, and we could pay for every dime of that tax cut,
as we should, so we do not add to the deficit of the Nation.
In the last 5 years, we have accumulated more debt held by foreign
countries of U.S. debt than in the first 225-year history of America.
It is a matter of national security that we pay our bills.
This bill moves in the wrong direction. I urge my colleagues to
reject it.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
his superb work in conference. I rise on behalf of this conference
report because I stand here today on behalf of the next generation.
We have heard some rhetoric on the other side, but the fact remains,
the next generation needs new jobs. The next generation needs economic
growth, and it is fairly clear, contrary to the rhetoric on the other
side, economic growth helps the working class. It is the key to social
justice, and ultimately, it is the solution to our deficit.
We need to leave in place the current tax policies that are working,
that have been so successful in creating the fastest growth in 20
years, 138,000 jobs created last month, 18 consecutive quarters of
growth averaging 3.2 percent. Our trading partners for the most part
cannot match that. We are doing it because we have put in place clear
growth incentives, including the right rate on capital gains and the
right tax treatment of dividends.
The other side wants to repeal those reforms. The other side wants,
as usual, to raise taxes. The other side wants to talk about revenues
that, if these tax rates went up, probably would not be realized. There
is an absurdity to the tax policy as advocated on the other side that
schedules a capital gains hike, that schedules a phase-out of the
proper tax treatment of dividends, and puts in place all sorts of
distortions that ultimately will reduce the effectiveness of the
market.
What we need to do is continue our commitment to economic growth and
send a clear message to national markets that we are going to continue
the tax treatments, the tax policies, that have yielded these economic
benefits.
Let us pass this legislation. Let us extend for 2 more years the tax
treatment of capital gains. Let us continue our commitment to economic
growth.
May I add, as I was listening to the comments of the speaker from
Michigan, he was mentioning the other taxes that people pay, other than
the income tax; and he should have noted that those are their Social
Security and Medicare contributions. For the most part, those taxes are
a process of earning benefits.
It is fairly clear that the Republican majority has taken thousands
of families off of the Federal income tax rolls to their permanent
benefit.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I do not know what kind of water they drink on the other side of the
aisle, but back where I come from, you get a check that tells you how
much you have earned and how much is deducted, and what is deducted is
a tax and what you take home is net. So you can call it payroll, you
can call it income tax, but a tax is a tax is a tax.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the State of
Washington (Mr. McDermott), an outstanding member of the Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the Republican rubber-stamp Congress is
in session. Republicans are going to rubber stamp the last act of the
budget. The first act was in December when the Republicans took from
the poor, the disadvantaged and the foster kids, the people on food
stamps and students trying to get a student loan.
The Republicans emptied one Christmas stocking, but they thought it
would be unseemly to immediately give it to the rich right in front of
the poor. So they waited and they waited and they waited, and finally,
today, they think the people have forgotten and gone to sleep. So they
are going to give it to the rich.
The party of 1 percent is going to get a reward. The millionaires are
going to get a windfall for which they did nothing except attend fund-
raisers. Every millionaire will get a windfall of $41,000. The average
American makes exactly that during a year. He will get $16.
Millionaires, $41,000; ordinary people, $16.
Those are real numbers, no matter what they say, and that means it is
reward the rich, ignore the poor. That is the Republican rubber stamp
of the President's views on the world.
They say it will increase savings. The savings rate in this country
is zero. In fact, it is less than zero. Ninety-nine percent of the
people in this country are not better off, only the 1 percent who get
the rubber stamp today; and the rest of America is forced to choose
between filling the gas tank and putting food in the refrigerator.
Now, they all brought their rubber stamps today, but what they have
not told you, and I will enter into the Record at this point the
article from The Washington Post from May 9.

[From washingtonpost.com, May 9, 2006]

Another Possible Bump to the Debt Ceiling

(By Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray)

A $2.7 trillion budget plan pending before the House would
raise the federal debt ceiling to nearly $10 trillion, less
than two months after Congress last raised the federal
government's borrowing limit.
The provision--buried on page 121 of the 151-page budget
blueprint--serves as a backdrop to congressional action this
week. House leaders hope to try once again to pass a budget
plan for fiscal 2007, a month after a revolt by House
Republican moderates and Appropriations Committee members
forced leaders to pull the plan.
Leaders also hope to pass a package of tax-cut extensions
that would cost the Treasury $70 billion over the next five
years. They would then turn Thursday to a $513 billion
defense policy bill that would block President Bush's request
to raise health-care fees and co-payments for service members
and their families.
In recent days, Congress has received some good news on the
budget front. A surge of tax revenues this spring, sparked by
economic growth, prompted the Congressional Budget Office
last Thursday to revise its 2006 deficit forecast from around
$370 billion to as low as $300 billion. But the federal debt
keeps climbing because of continued deficit spending and the
government's insatiable borrowing from the Social Security
trust fund. With passage of the budget, the House will have
raised the federal borrowing limit by an additional $653
billion, to $9.62 trillion. It would be the fifth debt-
ceiling increase in recent years, after boosts of $450
billion in 2002, a record $984 billion in 2003, $800 billion
in 2004 and $653 billion in March. When Bush took office, the
statutory borrowing limit stood at $5.95 trillion.
Democrats will harp on those statistics not only in the
budget debate but also when the House takes up tax
legislation expected to finally emerge from House-Senate
negotiations today. The legislation would extend for two
years the deep cuts to tax rates on dividends and capital
gains that Congress approved in 2003. It would also slow for
one year the expansion of the alternative minimum tax, a
parallel income tax system designed to hit affluent but
increasingly pinching the middle class.
Although the debate will be rancorous, the tax measure is
expected to pass by a comfortable margin. The budget vote
will be closer. House leaders had to pull the budget plan
from the floor in April, after moderate Republicans balked at
planned cuts to health and education programs and
appropriators objected to limits on home district pet
projects--known as earmarks--and a provision that would
limit emergency spending for natural disasters to about
$14 3 billion a year.
Appropriators have come on board, Appropriations Committee
spokesman John Scofield said. GOP leaders and committee
chairman Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) tried to win moderate support
last week by cutting $4 billion from the president's defense
spending request and adding that money to labor, health and
education programs. But some moderates are still holding out.
``I expect they do not have the votes right now,'' said
Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), a leader of the balking
moderates. ``Could they get the votes by the end of the week?
I'd give it a 50-50 chance.''

GOP HEALTH-CARE REDUX

It's ``health week'' in the Senate, but don't expect any
big policy cures. Republicans are seeking to pass legislation
that would restrict malpractice awards and encourage
insurance pools among small businesses. The three bills are
GOP perennials that in the past have met with staunch
opposition by Democrats and interest groups. Given the high
stakes of the midterm election year, the prospects this week
don't look any brighter. Two of the bills, both aimed at
limiting medical malpractice jury awards, stalled in the
Senate last night after failing

[[Page H2457]]

to gain enough votes to overcome Democratic-led procedural
hurdles.
The first measure, sponsored by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.),
would allow up to $750,000 for non-economic damages and
unlimited economic damages. A patient could recover up to
$250,000 from a health-care provider and up to two health-
care institutions each for a total of $750,000. The bill also
would guarantee timely resolution of claims by mandating that
health-care lawsuits are filed within three years of the date
of injury, establish standards for expert witnesses and limit
attorneys' fees. The second measure would target lawsuits
against obstetric and gynecological providers and was
sponsored by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), whose wife won
$175,000 in damages in a malpractice case against a
chiropractor. Democrats mocked the bills as a gimmick
designed to rally conservative voters and appease doctors and
insurance companies. ``This is not a serious attempt,'' said
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.).
The third bill up this week, offered by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-
Wyo.), would allow business and trade association to band
their members together and offer group health coverage on a
national or regional basis. Opponents warn that it would set
the ``barest of bare bones standards for benefits,'' as one
Democratic press release put it, undercutting requirements to
cover cancer screening, well-baby care, immunization, access
to specialists and other services.

They are going to raise the debt limit as the icing on this cake.
They are still giving it away faster than it is coming in.
So when they bring the budget out here, if they ever have the guts to
bring a budget out here, we are 7 months into a new year and you have
no budget, they are going to raise the debt limit. So watch them. Just
remember, this is the rubber stamp and the President's view.
Vote ``no.''
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I heard my colleague say a tax is a tax is a tax. Everyone knows a
consumption tax buys you a fish for a day; an investment buys a fishing
pole and bait, and you eat for a lifetime.
A tax is not a tax is not a tax. Capital gains, dividends are a
fishing pole and bait. The kind of taxes they go for is a fish.
Eat for a day or eat for a lifetime. Our taxes provide a lifetime of
benefits.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez), a valued member of the Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee and
applaud him for bringing this legislation to the floor. It has made a
difference in real American lives and the folks that we all represent.
I want to talk about one of those, Mr. Speaker. Her name is Linda
Jones. Linda Jones operates two rental facilities in Westminster,
Colorado, called Area Rent-Alls, just little equipment rentals like we
have in all of our neighborhoods back in our districts.
She utilized section 179 expensing that is so much a part of this
legislation that we are bringing in today, and in 2003, she bought
$57,000 worth of new equipment. Somebody had to manufacture that
equipment. Somebody had to retail that equipment. Somebody had to
deliver it to a store. That is jobs.
From that, she saved $7,360 in expense. She applied that $7,360 to
the health care costs for her employees. Health care costs were very
much on the rise; she used the tax savings to benefit her workers in
her shop.
The next year, she bought $64,000 of additional equipment and used
the savings for the same thing, to buy down the increase in health care
costs that she experienced on behalf of her employees.
Here is what she says: ``The availability of section 179 motivates me
to continue to grow my business and is a key component within my
business plan. My goal is to build my rental businesses of two more
rental stores into one new location. The goal is achievable in a more
reasonable time frame only because of the availability of section 179.
It is a vital part of my planning for the future and ensuring a bright
and profitable future for my rental business and my employees.''
It works for real, live Americans. It creates jobs and makes those
with jobs lives much better and more secure.
I thank the chairman again.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the conscience of the Congress,
from the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, there is a time when a politician
must put politics aside. There is a time when we must stand up and meet
our moral obligation as servants of the people.
Millions of Americans are struggling today. They work hard. They are
just trying to make ends meet. They are trying to make a way out of no
way, and they are looking to Congress for a little bit of light, a
little bit of hope after a hard day's work.
They do not want a handout; they just want a fair shake. But with
this tax bill, we have abandoned our responsibility to the people who
elected us.

{time} 1700

We have shut the door in their faces. We have told them there is no
room in the inn.
In this bill, you cut off the orphaned, the old, the poor, the weak,
and the sick. In this bill, you cut Medicaid, Medicare, veterans
benefits and housing programs all in the name of financial discipline.
Then how can we in good conscience pass a tax bill that helps the
rich get richer and drives millions of our citizens into financial
despair? We are asking the poor and the middle class to sacrifice.
Shouldn't the rich sacrifice, too?
Where is the mercy, where is the compassion, where is the fairness?
Our tax policy should be fair.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is it right to have a tax bill that saves
hardworking American families only $10 a year while millionaires save
thousands and thousands? With $10 you cannot even fill a tank full of
gas. You can't pay the light bill. You can't put food on the table or
clothes on your children's backs.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is not right. It is not fair. It is not just.
It demonstrates shameful disregard for the people of this Nation. As a
Nation and as a people and as a Congress, we must do better and we can
do better. I ask my colleagues to vote against this tax bill.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Weller), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is all about jobs. Two
years ago, almost 3 years ago in 2003, this Congress worked with the
President. We lowered taxes for Americans. We lowered taxes for small
business. We knew it was time to encourage investment and creation of
jobs. Frankly, it worked. Over 5 million new jobs were created.
Unemployment today is at 4.7 percent, lower than the average of the
1970s, lower than the average of the 1980s, and lower than the average
of the 1990s. This economy is growing.
My friends on the other side of the aisle say now is a good time to
raise taxes. We should cut off that policy that was helping families
and small business. So the question is who benefits when we put the
breaks on the alternative minimum tax and cut capital gains and cut
dividends? Small business does, 25 million small businesses; 28 million
families benefit on average by reduction of almost $990 under 2006 tax
returns. And 8.5 million of those beneficiaries are seniors who are
going to be able to keep $1,144 on average. Think about that.
If the Democrats succeed in raising taxes, 28 million families will
see an average increase on their taxes of $990 this year, thanks to the
Democrats' efforts to increase taxes. This policy has worked in
creating jobs. This policy has worked to help regular people keep more
of what they earn. While Democrats want to raise taxes, let us help
working families and let us help small businesses by continuing to keep
their tax burden lower than what the Democrats want. I urge an ``aye''
vote.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), an outstanding member of the Ways and Means
Committee.
(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arizona
said earlier we ought not to penalize success. What they are asking you
to do today is to subsidize that success on the backs of working
Americans. We are stuck in this situation because of what they did at
the end of last year. Their own Members said their cuts

[[Page H2458]]

were too draconian and hurt too many families, but it allowed them to
manipulate the rules so that we find ourselves back here today.
Let us talk about who gets what when this debate concludes. The
average American family is going to get $20 with the Republican tax
cut. By the way, this is the sixth and seventh tax cut while we are
fighting two wars. Where is your conscience when they do not have body
armor, they do not have the equipment they need in Iraq where they
serve us so honorably while you cut taxes for Wall Street at the
expense of Main Street?
Let us talk about that $42,000 that millionaires are going to get
with the Republican tax cut and what it means. Think about what you
could do with that for student aid, which they trimmed last year; as
they cut Medicare, what you could do with that $42,000. They are giving
it back to the investors, and where I live $42,000 is annual income for
thousands of families. They are giving it back to millionaires with
their tax cuts. And $42,000 is what we pay an enlisted soldier with 3
years of experience, and they are giving the $42,000 back to
millionaires.
$42,000 as they cut Medicaid, $42,000 as they argue that it is okay
to trim Medicare. It is $20 for those of you who go to work every day
in America. You know what that means with this administration and this
Congress, that is 6 gallons of gasoline. Where does it all end with
their tax cuts?
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a very valued member of the Ways and Means
Committee.
Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to
speak in favor of H.R. 4297, the Tax Increase Prevention and
Reconciliation Act. The title is exactly what this bill will do.
It is important for us to complete our work on this legislation today
so we can keep our economy growing in the positive direction that it
has been moving in since we cut taxes. Interesting enough, though,
those opposed will also oppose reductions in our spending, making it
very difficult to make sense in making their argument. They want to
increase spending, and somehow I guess that means we are going to have
to increase taxes. The results say we need to keep taxes low.
First, the extension of the enhanced expensing for small business
will continue to provide incentives for small businesses to expand and
create more jobs.
Second, extending the lower rates on capital gains and dividends for
2 more years will free up additional capital that fuels the economic
growth that we have experienced over the last 3 years.
The American economy has rebounded strongly over the past 3 years
with an average growth rate of 3.9 percent. In the first quarter of
this year, the growth rate is nearly 5 percent. This growth has
translated into job creation, with over 5 million jobs created since
August of 2003, and reducing the national unemployment rate to 4.7
percent.
Where I live in western Pennsylvania, we are always the last to see
the economic growth, until recently. Recent articles in the Pittsburgh
Post Gazette and our Democrat State Department of Labor have admitted
that Pittsburghers are finding jobs. A Labor Department analyst,
Michele Heister, called the latest trend encouraging, and we are
showing signs of recovery.
The truth is we need to keep taxes low. The truth is we need to keep
money in the hands of entrepreneurs who are the job creators. The truth
is the policy that those on the other side of the aisle advocate will
kill our economy and cause job loss. I encourage my colleagues to
support the good, sound economic policy in this legislation.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our outstanding minority whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the first plank of the Contract With America
was fiscal responsibility. No political promise has ever been so broken
as that one.
Mr. Speaker, this blatantly unfair and grossly irresponsible
legislation represents the last gasp of the Republican Party's failed
economic policies which have only caused greater disparity in America
and driven our Nation into the fiscal ditch over the last 5\1/2\ years.
Today, our Republican friends are desperate to pass this conference
report because they realize after November the party is over. Make no
mistake, Mr. and Mrs. America, about what this legislation means to
you. According to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy
Center, if you are among the 0.02 of households making $1 million a
year, you get a tax cut of $42,000. If you are struggling to make ends
meet, earning between $10,000-$20,000, you get $2 a year. If you are
firmly in the middle with household incomes between $75,000-$100,000,
you get about $400 a year, or $4.75 per week, enough to purchase about
3 gallons of gasoline.
Yesterday Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine stated, ``The
preponderance of these revenues will go to upper income people, people
who make a million dollars or more. It is a question of priorities.''
Priorities, indeed.
Four months ago congressional Republicans slashed $39 billion from
student loans, Medicaid and Medicare and child support enforcement. And
today, 5.4 million more Americans live in poverty than when President
Bush took office, and 6 million more are without health insurance. Real
median household incomes are down $1,670, and still, Republicans want
to give millionaires a new Lexus.
This conference report is a continuation of 5\1/2\ years of the most
irresponsible fiscal policies in the history of our country. I urge my
colleagues to vote against this legislation. Stand up for our country,
stand up for our children, stand up for our grandchildren. Vote ``no.''
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), a senior member of the Ways and
Means Committee.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I think what we are seeing here is a basic
difference between the two political parties.
Ten years ago almost to the date I stood in this well, as well as
Members from the other side of the aisle coming to this floor to speak,
and the subject at that time was welfare reform. And what split us at
that time, what split us was because the Republicans had faith in the
human spirit. We heard time after time, speaker after speaker came to
that podium right over there to my right and said women and children
were going to be sleeping on grates. The reason is you had no faith in
the human spirit. You had no faith that those that were poor wanted to
do better.
As a result, we created jobs. We created many, many jobs. Now you are
showing that same skepticism with regard to what is going to happen if
you let people keep more of their own money.
Nearly 60 percent of those who are going to benefit by the capital
gains rate being at 15 percent and also the dividend, tax on dividends
at 15 percent, almost 60 percent earn incomes under $100,000. And what
are these people doing, what is happening? They are reinvesting it in
American business because they believe in the capitalistic system. It
is working. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the entire
world. The rate of 4.7 percent is lower than it was throughout the
1970s, 1980s and 1990s.
When I first came to Congress 26 years ago, we thought between 5 and
6 percent was a target for full employment. We have shattered that
myth. Now it is 4.7. Why? Because we have faith in the system of
capitalism which we embrace through this bill. People will reinvest
their money. Where does it go? It creates jobs.
The gentleman from Georgia was talking about putting clothes on the
backs of the children. Yes, is there any prouder way to do it than
through a job? A real job? We have created a tremendous number of jobs
through the tax rates that we have put in place.
This is a fair bill. This is a bill that is going to benefit all
Americans. It will raise all ships.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett), a hardworking member of the Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, some folks really do get all of the breaks,
and I am not talking about winning the lottery. The lobbyists are
winning. The

[[Page H2459]]

very wealthiest few in this country continue to hit the jackpot with
their Republican friends controlling Washington.
The tax breaks in this bill will ensure that the ever-growing gap
between the rich and the poor in America continues growing.

{time} 1715

And our deficit will keep growing, also, imposing a greater and
greater burden on our children and on our grandchildren.
The Republicans say that further tax breaks are a necessity, and I
guess they are right. With gas prices skyrocketing, the occupation of
Iraq showing no end and poll numbers nosediving, more tax breaks for
the wealthiest few are what Republican supporters view as a political
necessity.
They are right. It is a jobs bill. It is their jobs that it is a bill
about. They will pay any price with your children and grandchildren's
tax dollars to cling to power up here.
The administration can't capture Osama Bin Laden. It can't meet the
prescription needs of our seniors. It can't agree on what to do about
immigrants. About the only issue around on which they can reach any
agreement is more tax breaks for the privileged few.
Yes, President Clinton did sign an end to welfare as we know it, but
corporate welfare has never had a better friend than this Republican
caucus. Never mind that they have to borrow money from all to give tax
breaks to a few. Never mind that this is the first time in recorded
history that a country has embarked on a war by saying to some people,
you must die for your country, and to others, you must stuff your
pocket with more tax breaks. Some shared sacrifice.
A ``no'' vote today is a vote for fiscal responsibility. It is a vote
for long-term stability over short-term gimmicks. A ``no'' vote is a
step forward in freeing our children from the burdens of today's
Republican excesses.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Our Republican friends have talked a lot about jobs. Under
the Clinton administration, we created 216,000 jobs per month. Under
the Bush plan we have created 21,000, on average, per month.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to engage in a
colloquy with the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the deduction of
State and local sales taxes is extremely important to my constituents
and those in States that do not have an income tax.
Do you expect to present a bill to extend this crucial deduction
soon?
Mr. THOMAS. I will tell my colleague that in my opening remarks I
indicated that there were provisions that passed both the House and the
Senate in the reconciliation packages that are not part of this bill.
We are working currently on this next bill. Clearly, the State and
local tax deduction will be a part of it, and we will move it to the
floor as soon as possible.
Mr. RANGEL. Yeah, that next bill will probably be $100 billion.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota
(Mr. Pomeroy), an outstanding member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, the majority Members have said this is all
about jobs. No, it's not. It's all about debt.
Let me tell you something that you are not going to hear from a
single proponent for this tax cut. The passage of it is going to
necessitate raising the borrowing limit for our country yet another
time because we are spiraling into further red ink under their reckless
fiscal policy.
Look at the record. June 2002, they raised the debt. May 2003, they
raised the debt. November 2004, they raised the debt. March of this
year, they raised the debt. And do you know what we have now
discovered? In their budget documents that will be presented on this
floor this week or next, they are going to raise the debt again. They
just raised it in March, now they are going to raise it again.
The record of this President will be that 42 Presidents left this
country with a debt of $5.6 trillion, and under the watch of President
George W. Bush, that debt will double.
This could not be happening at a worse time. Seventy-eight million
Americans are going to retire next decade. The draw on Social Security
and Medicare will begin. And yet we are saddling those that will follow
in our country with this staggering debt even while we have the
entitlement obligations to meet.
This feeding frenzy of more tax cuts, deeper fiscal imbalance, more
borrowing, yet another borrowing, has got to stop. We are leaving our
children with a legacy of debt they will never get out of.
Do you know any family whose approach to retirement is to blow
everything they have got, expecting fully that the children are going
to take care of their debts, pay their medical bills, give them income
to live on in retirement? Of course not. Families take care of their
children. This Congress is selling our children short by saddling them
with unending debt.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, just today one leading national newspaper
reported the Federal revenue has gone up 11.2 percent in the first 7
months of this fiscal year over last year, three times the rate of
inflation. The tax cuts enacted under Chairman Thomas' leadership have
strengthened the economy so much that not only has Federal revenue gone
way up, but growth was 4.8 percent the first quarter, and unemployment
is at a very low 4.7 percent.
Now, as to the deficit and the debt that some on the other side have
mentioned, they are too high. But those on the other side attack us
continually for not spending enough on every program out there. Well,
you can't have it both ways. You can't continually enact big increases
in spending and lower the debt at the same time.
But the best way, the best thing we can do is to keep lowering taxes
so we can keep improving our economy. And I commend Chairman Thomas and
his staff, and I thank the gentleman for giving me this time.
And I rise in strong support and urge support for this conference
report.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Mrs. Jones), who makes outstanding contributions to the Ways and
Means Committee.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for the
opportunity to be heard.
I was sitting in my chair over there, and people kept complimenting
me today about this scarf that is about Save the Children. And I
started thinking, you know, when I was a little girl we used to play
this game called ``What Time Is It, Mr. Wolf'' And Mr. Wolf would say,
``1:00.''
And we would go on and you say, ``Well, what time is it, Mr. Wolf?''
And he would say, ``2:00.''
And then next was, ``Well, what time is it, Mr. Wolf?'' And then he
would say, ``It's time to eat you up.''
And that is what I am thinking about with this legislation. What time
is it?
It ought to be time for our children to know that we would expend
money to improve opportunities for education.
It ought to be time for us to take money and tell seniors you don't
have to sign up on May 15; you sign up when you get ready, but we are
going to ensure you that you have a prescription drug benefit.
It ought to be time to tell children across the country that we are
going to extend deductions for classroom expenses for teachers.
It ought to be time that we would extend deduction of tuition and
related expenses for students.
It ought to be time that we tell companies that we are going to
provide them an R&D, or research and development, tax credit.
It ought to be time for us to tell working families that we are going
to cover the AMT and remove it from the situation.
But, instead, when we ask, ``What time is it, Mr. Wolf?'' his
response is that we are going to make sure that the top 1 percent get a
tax deduction.
And one of my colleagues said, ``You ought to have faith in the human
spirit.'' When I say, ``What time is it, Mr. Wolf?'' I am afraid that
there is no human spirit left out here, because if

[[Page H2460]]

there was human spirit in the House of Representatives, we would not
even be debating this issue today.
What time is it, Mr. Wolf?
Well, today we are going to deal with some tax reductions, and when
we ask, Well, why not the AMT for a longer period of time? Oh, we are
going to do that in the next tax bill. And the appearance they want to
give to the world is that each month we are going to do a tax bill
reduction.
Instead of ``What time is it, Mr. Wolf?'' I am going to take care of
the children.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Camp) for a revision and extension remark.
(Mr. CAMP of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the Tax
Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act.
By approving this Conference Report, the House of Representatives is
sending another strong signal to American taxpayers that Republicans
want to lock in tax relief and continue the economic recovery. The U.S.
economy has grown for 18 consecutive quarters and the unemployment rate
is at 4.7 percent--a rate lower than the average of the 1960s, 1970s,
1980s, and 1990s. Workers are taking home more money with paychecks
growing at 4.1 percent in the last 12 months, the fastest pace since
1998.
Despite high gas prices, disposable income has increased, business
investment continues to advance, retail sales are up and consumer
confidence is rising. Interestingly too, the U.S. unemployment rate is
lower than that of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and the United
Kingdom. Congress must continue to pursue tax policies that are
responsible for this outstanding economic activity. In my view, the tax
cuts the Republicans have passed since 2001 are largely responsible for
this economic expansion.
This bill could not have come at a better time. Extending the 15
percent rate on capital gains and dividends to 2010 is important to do
today. Investors want assurances that their money will not be subject
to large tax increases only a few years from now. By extending cap
gains and dividend relief Congress is sending a strong signal to the
markets that economic growth will continue into the next decade. For
taxpayers, market growth means businesses will continue to spend and
create jobs.
The Conference Report also shields millions of taxpayers from the
onerous AMT, provides small businesses with enhanced expensing limits,
and contains international tax provisions that aim to increase the
competitiveness of U.S. firms. The Conference Report accomplishes all
this while staying within our current budget limits.
The House should pass this measure now and protect millions of
Americans from unfair tax increases.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the
chairman for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. It is a
monumental task, and I want to congratulate him on its completion.
I rise in support of the Tax Relief Extension and Reconciliation Act
of 2005. And there is no question that today is a great day for
American families, and despite how much Republican policies translate
into a stronger economy, what we hear today from our friends on the
other side of the aisle is continued talk of the tired language of tax
and spend and their insistence on engaging in class warfare.
But let's take a look at the facts: 5.4 million jobs have been
created since the enactment of these rate cuts; unemployment is at $4.7
percent. These cuts have spurred spectacular economic growth. And as
far as the assertion that we are aggravating the debt limit, the facts
are, revenues are up 14 percent this year and receipts this year have
far outstripped the growth in outlays.
And what about those, and who are they, that benefit from these rate
cuts? Sixty percent of American families who benefit from these cuts
make under $100,000 a year. So clearly, the assertion that there is
some type of unfairness or a class-based argument is simply absurd.
Wage payers and wage earners alike have benefited from these rate cuts.
And I would like to respond to one of the speakers on the other side
who says, how dare Americans want to stuff their pockets with tax cuts.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, whose money is it anyway? It is the
taxpayers' money. It is their money that goes into their pockets.
We must act now, Mr. Speaker. We must not leave American families in
limbo wondering whether their taxes will go up. Delaying the extension
of these cuts only serves to punish taxpayers who count on us to
provide certainty in fiscal policy and to respect the temptation to
engage in class warfare.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), an outstanding, valued member of our Ways and
Means Committee.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, it's deja vu all over again. Another
windfall for the wealthy while everybody else gets to work for a
living. By my count, this Congress has now financed three wars with
four tax cuts. How else do you get $300 billion in annual deficits, $3
trillion in new debt accumulated in just 4 years and a budget that
raises the debt ceiling to $10 trillion?
Middle-class families care about gas prices. They care about the war
in Iraq that has now cost $450 billion. Health care costs are up 58
percent. College tuition, 38 percent. The median income in this country
has dropped 2.3 percent.
So what's the number one priority for the Republican Congress? None
of the above. The top 1 percent, whose average income is $5.3 million,
will save an average of $82,000 under this bill. Those who make $1
million or more will get $42,000 in tax cuts. But the middle-class
families, who work hard and play by the rules in this country, will get
$20. That is the epitome of the wrong-headed priorities and fiscal
insanity.
But there is more. This Congress has come up with yet another tax
shelter for the wealthy when it comes to savings. The Wall Street
Journal last week, here is their headline, ``Wealthier Taxpayers to
Gain.'' If you make a six-figure income, your retirement prospects may
be getting a boost, while for 55 percent of the country, all they have
is Social Security. But for the wealthiest people in this country, we
are giving them a boost to help save, while other people have no
retirement savings.
It is coming up to Mothers Day. Sometimes I wonder what your mother
thinks you are doing here on the floor. People working, people dying in
Iraq fighting for this country. And what do we do? We have three wars,
one in Afghanistan, one in Iraq, good men and women of our country
fighting. And we are going to give another tax cut to the wealthiest 1
percent.
Mr. Speaker, the defining characteristic of this Congress is its
shameless devotion to the special interests. Instead of working to
extend the middle-class AMT relief for another year, for more than just
1 year, they also snuck in a provision to exempt certain overseas
income for active financing to businesses to the tune of $5 billion.
What did we not do? Extension of key middle-class tax incentives for
higher education, for hiring welfare recipients and for offsetting
aggressive State and local sales taxes, not to mention the research and
development, R&D, tax credit that is so critical for our innovation,
our technology and manufacturing.
Mr. Speaker, to govern is to choose. And leadership is about
priorities. This Congress has made the wrong choice. It is time for a
new direction, a new set of priorities.

{time} 1730

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Reynolds), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I had prepared remarks talking about the
fact that so many people said we couldn't, absolutely couldn't do a
middle class tax break for 2006 on AMT. We absolutely couldn't put that
withholding the tax rates for 2 more years on capital gains and on
dividends, and some might have even forgotten that expensing for small
business section 179 allows an extension of the opportunity to have an
additional 2 years of expensing of $100,000 on small business.
So when I listened to my colleague from the other side of the aisle
put

[[Page H2461]]

forth the politics of the party of ``no,'' what he failed to say and
what we saw on the weekend talk shows, the Democratic Party stands for
more taxes and bigger government. He was quick to outline the things he
would like to see Federal Government spend, but he didn't tell you it
is going to come from a tax increase.
There is no comparison. If you cannot support this legislation today
to continue middle class tax cuts for the AMT and to help businesses
continue the economy that has the strength that we have seen and
strength for quarter after quarter after quarter, it was a clear
message from the financial markets and Wall Street and businesses
across Main Street U.S.A. today, give us continuity of knowing that we
have the opportunity of having both dividends and capital gains as part
of our planning. More importantly, fit in expenses so we can plan the
small businesses that we can write 100 grand off.
Maybe the Democratic Party has been out of touch with mainstream
businesses across our country because that is a clear message they
asked us to get done. Chairman Thomas and the conferees have completed
that work. I urge passage of this legislation today because it is going
to give a break to middle class America.
Mr. Speaker, as the lead sponsor of the House's middle-class AMT
relief bill--which has been incorporated into the legislation before us
today--I rise in strong support of this conference report.
For months now, we've heard our friends on the other side of the
aisle tell us that we must choose between extending the lower rates on
investments and the need to extend essential middle-class AMT relief.
For months, they've said we can't do both. And for months, the party or
no has offered no solutions and no fresh ideas--just slash and burn
attacks on the Republican majority.
But today, Mr. Speaker, our majority is moving and with our positive
agenda on behalf of America's hardworking taxpayers.
With regard to the AMT, many in this chamber will recall that the
House passed my Stealth Tax Relief Act late last year by an
overwhelming, bipartisan vote of 414 to 4. That legislation would
prevent this stealth tax from sneaking up on millions of unsuspecting
middle-class taxpayers by extending the temporary AMT relief for one
additional year.
I would remind my colleagues that the stealth tax was never intended
to hit the middle class. It was originally enacted in 1969 to prevent a
small percentage of taxpayers with very high incomes from paying little
or no Federal income tax. However, because the AMT was never adjusted
for inflation, it is now threatening more and more middle class
taxpayers each year as they climb the income ladder.
While Congress must certainly continue to work toward a permanent
solution on this critical issue, our immediate task is clear. America's
middle class deserves to have its temporary AMT relief extended, and I
am very pleased that my legislation serves as a centerpiece of today's
conference report.
I am also pleased that the conference agreement includes an extension
of the lower rates for capital gains and dividends. This is an
important priority not just for the ever-growing investor class--which
includes millions of seniors and other middle-class Americans--but for
our economy as a whole.
Thanks in large part to these lower rates on investments, tax
revenues have been streaming into the Federal Treasury at a record
pace. And these lower rates--which are particularly important to the
economy of my home state of New York--have helped keep our Nation's
economy strong and our domestic job base growing.
Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Thomas and the other conferees for
their efforts to ensure that these critical priorities are addressed,
and I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed tax relief with a
strong, bipartisan vote.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, for those who say that we will not have an opportunity
to vote for a fair alternative minimum tax, I would like to share with
you that on the motion to recommit that we give instructions that we
will have an opportunity to do that. Why are the Republicans so excited
about enacting the cuts and interest rates and capital gains taxes for
something that does not expire when 17 million, 18 million people need
help? I don't know, but they want to give this $50 billion tax cut to
people who are not screaming for it.
Where are they going to get the money? They are going to borrow the
money in order to give the tax cuts, so that on our motion to recommit
we set aside these tax cuts for the rich and concentrate on the middle
class. This is really where your vote should be counted. Do you want to
deal where 50 percent of this tax cut is going to the top 1 percent of
the country, or are you really concerned with the alternative minimum
tax that we Democrats have been advocating for the last few years that
these people were not supposed to be caught up in this, and so we don't
want them caught up in this. We don't pay for it, we borrow money to do
it. It is paid for.
It just seems to me that as we talk about the economy booming, that
as we go home, I hope we talk with the people that worked in the
factory. The increase that we have had in job creation, 50 percent of
it has been an expansion in government jobs. I am certain that this is
not what the other side is so proud of. But as you walk the street and
ask the people that work every day that are concerned about their
pensions, concerned about their health care, the Delta pilots on
strike, our automobile industry in jeopardy, why don't you ask these
people about this great economic boom that you are talking about, and
now you got to promise them more.
I am glad that we have come to this time in this session that we can
distinguish between Republicans and Democrats and we can see the
difference between us. I think what you are saying if you give these
enormous tax cuts to the richest people, sooner or later it will leak
down to the people who are working on the jobs.
I can understand how some people do not believe that a Medicare tax
or that a Social Security tax is a tax. You may call it a fish, you may
call it a fishing pole. But when people work every day and they know
what their salary really is and they see what they take home, they
think what is taken out is a tax.
Maybe in November we will see who is right and who is wrong.
Meanwhile, this is an opportunity for America to distinguish do we
borrow money for tax cuts and do we cut those people off that are
relying on Medicaid and Medicare and reduce their services that we are
supposed to give them. I think this is a classic case as we see more
and more poor people becoming poor statistically and more of the rich
people getting rich and more of the middle class people losing that
status, and the people know who they are.
If the old folks really think that they have gotten a fair shake by
the other side, well, then, they can be heard. They have an opportunity
to be heard. But right now what we are talking about is fairness, we
are talking about equity, we are talking about services. Clearly, we
are talking about $70 billion or at least $50 billion of that going to
the richest people that we have in this country.
The AMT should have been handled separately, and we hope that the
motion to recommit will carry, and therefore we would see what honest
Americans really believe as to where the relief is going to be.
The biggest fault that we have probably on our side is that we don't
rub shoulders with the billionaires and millionaires that you are doing
this for. But we do work for the American people. We do know what they
want, and I have not received one letter from people asking me to give
more relief in that upper income tax bracket. I, for one, refuse to
wait for this to leak down and be able to help the middle class people
that made this great republic the great country that it is.
People who work hard every day, not just cutting coupons to make this
country great, people who volunteer to fight this great war, which we
are paying $500 billion a month, these are the people we should be
supporting and not the richest of the rich that make no sacrifice at
all.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, the tax relief that the Republicans have
passed has now helped to create over 5 million new jobs. But if
Democrats succeed with their huge automatic tax increase, you start to
lose those jobs. Let me tell you about a few of them.
Hugh Dublin owns East Texas Right of Way in Tennessee Colony, Texas.
In the past 3 years his company has grown from two full-time employees
and four

[[Page H2462]]

part-timers to adding an additional four employees. Why? Because of tax
relief.
The Democrats now want to raise taxes on Hugh Dublin and his small
business. They want to replace his employees' paychecks with welfare
checks. This is their idea of compassion.
Eddie Alexander owns Triple S Electric in Henderson County, Texas.
For the past 3 years, he worked alone with one part-time helper. Since
the passage of the President's economic growth plan he has had to hire
two more workers just to keep up. But the Democrats now want to raise
taxes on Eddie Alexander in his small business, replacing his
employees' paychecks with welfare checks. This is their idea of
compassion. The Republican idea is more jobs, hope and opportunity.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
The gentleman from Illinois wanted to know why we aren't going to be
voting on the research and development tax credit, on State sales tax
provision, the work opportunity tax credit or the assistance to
teachers for out-of-pocket expenses, money for paying for items in the
classroom. My answer to the gentleman from Illinois is that he should
look forward shortly for an opportunity to vote on that measure. My
hope is, based on the statement, at least the feeling I got out of the
statement that he made, that he would be anxious to vote ``yes'' on
that measure. We will provide him an opportunity to do that.
Gee, I don't know. We had AMT outside of reconciliation, and we got
all kinds of complaints about how it should be inside reconciliation.
We put it inside reconciliation, and we get all kinds of complaints
about the fact that it is inside reconciliation.
Our colleague from Ohio said, what time is it, Mr. Wolf? I will tell
her what time it is. It is time to act. This is the measure that
provides alternative minimum tax to American taxpayers. It is time to
act.
If you vote ``yes,'' you are in favor of that relief. If you vote
``no,'' you are not. What time is it, Mr. Wolf? It is time to quit
wolfing. It is time to vote. A ``yes'' vote provides relief.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to
H.R. 4297. I have long supported responsible tax reform, but this bill
is the opposite of responsible policy. The Republicans in Congress have
once again failed to provide the American people with a fair, common-
sense tax reform bill. Instead, they are trying to promote a bill that
hides its deficiencies behind gimmicks and trickery. But the American
people will not be duped.
North Carolina taxpayers struggle to provide for their families,
educate their children, and still save enough for retirement, without
having the extra burden of high taxes, an intrusive IRS, or a
complicated tax code.
The median household income of the people in North Carolina's Second
Congressional District is about $36,000. If this bill passes, their
savings would be a whole $16--less than half a tank of gas in the
family minivan.
Under this Republican Congress, the national debt per person is
currently $28,000. And this bill would give my constituents $16.
Instead of adopting a bill that would increase the burden on our
children and grandchildren, we need a common-sense solution that would
return fairness to our tax system.
Under Republican rule in Washington, we have witnessed the most
dramatic fiscal reversal in our nation's history. Our budget surpluses
have been wasted, and our nation suffers under ever-growing budget
deficits and increasing federal debt. This debt crisis is the direct
result of the irresponsible tax schemes the Republican Congress have
enacted.
The people of North Carolina's Second District elected me to help
chart a common-sense, prudent course for the country. I pledged to
represent my constituents by paying down the national debt; saving
Social Security and Medicare funds for older Americans, and investing
our country's resources into education, health care and other
initiatives that enable people to improve their lives. H.R. 4297 is
inconsistent with these goals; therefore, I oppose the bill.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, with today's vote on the ``Tax Relief Act of
2005'' (H.R. 4297) conference report, the Congressional Republican
Leadership is planning, once again, to give huge tax cuts to the
wealthiest one percent of Americans, while leaving 99 percent of
Americans with little to no tax relief, a federal government hamstrung
by deficits and a future generation saddled with monstrous debt.
I would like to insert into the record a chart from the Tax Policy
Center that outlines how much Americans would actually save under this
bill. These numbers clearly spell out the priorities of this Republican
Leadership:

HOW MUCH WOULD YOU SAVE UNDER THE PLAN?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average tax
Income, in 2005 dollars savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$10,000-20,000............................................. $2
$20,000-30,000............................................. 9
$30,000-40,000............................................. 16
$40,000-50,000............................................. 46
$50,000-75,000............................................. 110
$75,000-100,000............................................ 403
$100,000-200,000........................................... 1,388
$200,000-500,000........................................... 4,499
$500,000-1 million......................................... 5,562
More than $1 million....................................... 41,977
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCE: Tax Policy Center.

As legislators, we have to remember that tax cuts are part of the
larger federal budget picture. We have access to a range of tax and
budget policy tools, and we have to use these tools, along with common
sense, to support and grow all sectors of our national economy.
Today, I tried to reestablish American values and priorities for our
Nation's veterans while addressing some of the most egregious problems
created by the Republican budget and tax policy. During the House
Appropriations Committee debate on the FY07 funding bill for Military
Quality of Life programs and Veterans, I offered an amendment that
would have rolled back part of President Bush's tax cuts for
millionaires. Specifically my amendment would have reduced the tax cut
for taxpayers making over $1 million annually by a mere 4.5%, reducing
their tax cut from $114,172 to $109,025. The savings would have
provided more funding for mental health care and prosthetics devices
for veterans of the Iraq war, increased the number of VA nursing home
beds and added health care coverage for Priority 8 veterans.
Unfortunately, the amendment failed on a party line vote.
The one Middle Class tax issue the Republicans should have addressed,
but didn't, is the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Their ``fix'' is only
for one year. Without a serious, long-term AMT fix, the Administration
and Congressional Republicans are leaving middle and upper middle
income Americans in financial limbo. Democrats want real AMT reform.
Republicans have passed sham AMT reform. We all need to work together
to promote a progressive tax system that Americans deserve.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.
With this bill we are now engaged in the second phase of ``The
Republican ReCONciliation Game.'' That's exactly what it is--a giant
Con Game.
In February, the Con Game began with the Republicans' cutting nearly
$40 billion in benefits for the most vulnerable in our society:
They cut $12 billion from student loan programs to help kids go to
college.
They cut $6.4 billion from Medicare and made elderly beneficiaries
pay higher premiums for their health care.
And they cut $6.9 billion from Medicaid which helps the poorest and
sickest children and families in our country get healthcare.
And then they tried to turn to the second part of the Con Game, where
the Republicans turn over that money that they got from cutting
programs for the poor to the Ways and Means Committee to give all of
that money away to their millionaire friends.
But in February when they tried for the first time to give this money
to millionaires there was a public outcry because people understood
that the Republicans were taking from the poor and giving to the rich.
So the Republicans had to pull the bill and wait for the public to
forget.
So now, three months later, the Republicans are hoping that the
American public has forgotten about all of those cuts they made. They
are hoping the American public won't remember that the Republicans cut
Medicare and Medicaid and student loans in order to give more to their
fat cat friends.
This bill favors the wealthy so dramatically that the average
American family making $40,000-$50,000 a year will get $46, which is
about enough for one tank of gas.
But if you make over a $1 million a year, you will get about $42,000.
That's enough to buy a luxury Hummer 3 and still have $10,000 left over
for the gas!
It is immoral to take medicine away from the poor, elderly and
disabled so that millionaires can buy Hummers.
Vote to reject this con game and vote ``no'' on this shortsighted,
fiscally irresponsible and immoral legislation.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong
opposition to the tax reconciliation conference report, H.R. 4297, that
will cost $70 billion over ten years and provides little to no tax
relief for working American families. With continued job outsourcing,
cuts to pensions, health and retirement benefits, and a deficit crisis,
the American people deserve targeted tax relief, they deserve better
than this bill.
Today is yet another missed opportunity by the Republican-controlled
Congress to provide real tax relief to working families. This tax
package is disingenuous and reckless. For example, for the wealthiest
among us, this bill

[[Page H2463]]

would extend the capital gains and dividends tax cut set to expire in
2008 for an additional 2 years through 2010. While on the other hand,
the bill would only provide a one-year extension in relief for the
Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) that affects an estimated 18.9 million
middle-class taxpayers and already expired in 2005.
Originally intended to ensure the wealthy taxpayers paid their fair
share, the AMT has become a tax on the middle-class. Without
adjustments for inflation like the federal income tax, the AMT targets
a growing number of people each year. Those most affected by the AMT
are taxpayers in states like my home state of Connecticut with high
property taxes, high local and state income taxes, and high sales
taxes. These taxpayers are middle-class families: the engineer at Pratt
& Whitney, the assistant school principal at your child's elementary
school, the real estate agent, the architect, the restaurant general
manager, or the policy underwriter working at any number of the
insurance companies located in Hartford.
What are the priorities of this Republican-controlled House? Consider
this, under the Bush dividends and capital gains tax cut, taxpayers
making more than $10 million a year will receive approximately $500,000
annually in tax savings. ExxonMobil's retiring CEO, Lee Raymond will
receive approximately $2.5 million in tax relief for his stock
investments, while the average American family making less than $50,000
will receive an average of $10 in relief a year, which barely covers
the cost of 3 gallons of gas.
This conference agreement also drops three provisions in the Senate
bill that would have rolled back nearly $5.4 billion over ten years in
unneeded tax breaks and loopholes for the oil industry. Last week, I
offered a motion to instruct house conferees to adopt these provisions
because they reflected the common sense that Americans should not be
getting hit by high prices twice--once at the pump and once again by
seeing their tax dollars given away to an industry enjoying
unprecedented levels of profit. House Republicans, and this conference
agreement, rejected this simple idea in favor on continuing this
Congress' misguided record of subsidizing the bottom line of oil
companies and executives rather than providing real energy relief for
the American people.
I am voting against this tax package because it is another example of
the party of the few ignoring the majority of Americans and taking care
of only the wealthiest taxpayers. I am not opposed to tax cuts. In
fact, I've voted 6 times to expand tax relief and protect middle-class
families from the growing reach of the AMT in the 109th Congress. The
American people deserve better. Instead of helping more Americans help
themselves and ensure that as a country, we move forward together, this
bill will continue the Republican's record in the House to benefit the
wealthiest among us and leave the majority of Americans behind.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this ill-advised,
ill-conceived, poorly calculated, and deeply regressive tax bill for
the same reasons that I rose to oppose the tax cuts of 2001 and the
yearly effort by this Congress to make them permanent every year since
their approval.
I oppose them for a host of reasons. I oppose them because they are
leaving our children and grandchildren with trillions, I say that
again, trillions of dollars of liabilities owned by the Chinese, the
Saudis, the Indians, and the Europeans. We are literally mortgaging the
prosperity of today's children to the fickle nature of our competitors
and rivals.
I oppose them because it has forced our military to go into battle
without proper body armor on our troops--soldiers who largely come from
families that do not benefit from these tax cuts--and without blast
shields on our Humvees.
I oppose them because it shifts the tax burden from those who benefit
the most from the success of America, to those who are desperately
trying to realize their American dream. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the
poorest workers under this legislation will end up with a total tax
savings of two dollars while those who earn $1,000,000 or more will
pocket a generous $42,000.
But this distribution isn't just unfair to the working poor; it is
deeply unjust to the middle class. Families who earn from $75,000 to
$100,000 will only receive a dollar a day of tax relief--not even close
enough to cancel out the higher interest rates on credit cards and
student loans that are resulting because of our persistent budget
deficits.
Finally, I am opposed to this legislation because it excuses this
Congress from the tough decisions that a future Congress and a future
President are going to have to make. We all know that the Alternative
Minimum Tax is going to hit the middle class hard and to fix it will
cost hundreds of billions of dollars. But rather than addressing it, we
are asking the Congress of 2012 to take care of our mess. We know that
the retirement of the Baby Boomers is going to force massive
concessions in our budget, but again, our message is to leave it to
tomorrow. Let someone else clean up our mess.
Well, I hate to say, with this Congress and this President I am not
surprised we are asking someone else to take responsibility for yet
another mess.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the tax reconciliation
bill. Today's tax budget reconciliation bill will give the average
American family an average of $10 per year from the extension of this
tax benefit, or about enough to cover 3 gallons of gas. They will
receive no benefit from the extension until 2009. Despite the popular
GOP rhetoric about the large percentage of Americans that benefit from
the rate reduction, the average American family's share of the total
tax cut is approximately 2 percent.
Taxpayers with annual incomes greater than $10 million will receive
approximately $500,000 in tax reductions per year.
While I do believe we need to create a fix to the Alternative Minimum
Tax problem, today's bill just pushes off the problem by another year.
I have voted numerous times in favor of AMT relief far larger than the
provisions included in the conference report. The conference report has
limited relief that only applies in 2006, but protects dividend and
capital gains benefits through the close of 2010.
We are paying for this $70 billion tax cut by deep cuts of $39
billion over 5 years in programs like Medicaid and child support
enforcement. The other $31 billion will be added to the debt.
Medicare funding was cut by $6.4 billion; the social security index
by $732 million. In New Jersey alone three thousand mothers will be
dropped from the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, which
helps mothers care for their babies before and after birth. Four
hundred children in New Jersey currently attending Head Start will be
cut out of this important childhood education and development program.
More than 3,200 low-income and disabled people will be cut from Section
8 housing vouchers, all in New Jersey alone.
They have also made a college education more expensive. Cuts--more
than $12.76 billion--to federal student financial aid were made by
increasing rates that students pay, charging students more fees on
their loans, and reductions in subsidies to lenders. This is the
largest cut in history in student loans. The result will be nearly $8
billion in new charges that will raise the cost of college loans--
through new fees and higher interest--for millions of American students
and families who borrow to pay for college. For the typical student
borrower, already saddled with $17,500 in debt, these new fees and
higher interest charges could cost up to $5,800. Once again, New Jersey
families were hit--over 125,000 college students in New Jersey will be
affected.
Today's tax bill cuts $70 billion in taxes and the reconciliation
bill cut $39 billion in spending, so how will the other $31 billion be
made up? By adding to our national debt, putting the burden on our
children and grandchildren. According to the Treasury Department, major
foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury securities total $2.18 trillion.
Currently, China is the world's second-largest buyer, exceeded only by
Japan. Furthermore, China's purchases of U.S. government securities
have exploded by more than 211 percent since the beginning of 2001 and
now total $311 billion.
This situation is dangerous because it is a major way that we are
funding the federal government--by selling our debt to the Chinese. In
1980, 17 percent of the federal debt held by the public was in foreign
hands. By 2006, 45 percent of the debt held by the public was owned
overseas. Unfortunately, this trend seems to be increasing rapidly.
During the past year, approximately 90 percent of the debt we have
accumulated has been purchased by foreign banks, individuals and
governments.
The high level of foreign holdings of U.S. securities could have a
debilitating impact on our economy and foreign policy. If China
threatened to sell large volumes of U.S. Treasury securities, it could
easily fuel higher inflation and put pressure on the Federal Reserve to
increase interest rates, putting our economy at risk for a large-scale
recession.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose this tax reconciliation
bill, because we can do better.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 4297,
the Tax Reconciliation Conference Report. This gimmick-laden piece of
legislation will require taxpayers to borrow another $70 billion so
that the wealthiest Americans can keep their taxes low in 2009 and
2010. What kind of priorities favor the wealthy in the future over
working families today? We can ill afford the continued ``tax cut and
spend'' mentality that has marked the House during the last few years.
Without a change in fiscal policy, future generations will be buried
under a mountain of debt created by the Republican Congress.

[[Page H2464]]

H.R. 4297 includes a 2-year extension of the capital gains and
dividend tax cuts, which are not scheduled to expire until 2008. Nearly
half of these tax cuts will go directly into the pockets of the 1 in
500 taxpayers who earn more than $1 million per year. The contrast is
stark: those who earn between $40,000 and $50,000 will see an average
tax cut of $46, while those earning more than $1 million will save an
average of $42,000 in taxes. More egregiously, those earning over $10
million will receive an average $500,000 tax cut per year.
Regardless of what the Republicans claim, this legislation
disproportionately favors the wealthiest Americans. For taxpayers
earning less than $100,000 per year, only 1 out of 7 benefit from the
dividend tax reduction, and only 1 out of 20 benefit from the capital
gains tax cut.
Under this legislation, an additional 20 million middle class
families will have their taxes raised in 2007 thanks to the Alternative
Minimum Tax (AMT). Congress had an opportunity to exempt the middle
class from this complicated tax that was created to prevent a very
small group of high income families from avoiding income tax
altogether. Unfortunately, H.R. 4297 only offers a band aid to this
massive problem, and more and more middle class families will have
their taxes raised in the future because this Congress chose to cut
taxes for multimillionaires instead.
In addition, I am disappointed that unlike an early version of H.R.
4297, this bill does not include the extension of the Research and
Development Tax Credit, which expired in December. I am a cosponsor of
a bill to make the Research and Development Tax Credit permanent, as it
keeps American companies competitive and provides a strong incentive
for businesses to invest in the future and create jobs.
This year, we have a projected deficit of more than $330 billion. We
will spend billions more in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as rebuilding
the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.
We simply cannot afford all of these emergency expenses while cutting
taxes for the richest Americans.
I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting the conference report
and supporting responsible tax policies that benefit all Americans, not
just the wealthiest.
Mr. Speaker, our Nation's fiscal house is not in order. The tax
portion of the budget reconciliation bill, which we are considering
today, does absolutely nothing to fix that.
Congressional leaders and the President should go back to the drawing
board and create a budget plan that more adequately balances the
interests of the American people. When President George H.W. Bush faced
a similar budget crisis, he had the courage to create a bipartisan
budget summit and to implement needed fiscal constraints. America is
better for it, and I hope that our leaders today will follow that
example.
I have no quarrel with providing a substantial tax cut for middle
class Americans. That is why I have consistently supported legislation
to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, to abolish the federal estate
tax, and to allow persons to contribute more to their retirement
savings. But, like with federal spending allocations, tax cuts must be
paid for in the budget. In this case, they are not.
The budget reconciliation bill contains more tax cuts than spending
cuts and plunges our country deeper into debt. This is fiscally
irresponsible and gives the short shrift to our children and
grandchildren who will be forced to pick up the tab for such out of
control budgeting.
At a time when America is embarking on a prolonged and costly war on
terrorism and is waging a war against insurgents in Iraq, I am
convinced that this bill would make it far more difficult to meet the
defense and homeland security needs of our Nation, while keeping Social
Security and Medicare on sound fiscal footing.
I hope my colleagues will abandon this reckless budgeting style and
embrace a more common sense approach to drafting a budget. Reinstating
the effective pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules, long championed by
conservative House Democrats, that helped create the budget surplus of
the 1990s would be a good place to start.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this conference
report.
As I noted before, this conference report--like the House-passed
bill--is only part of a brew based on the Republican leadership's
budget recipe.
Last year, they put the first ingredients into the mixing bowl in the
form of a bill to cut more than $50 billion over five years from
Medicaid, student loans, and many other programs of great importance to
millions of Americans. Then, with the original version of this bill,
they added a compound of a few good things tainted by such unwholesome
provisions as the premature extension of preferential rates for
dividends and capital gains.
The result was a full-bodied one-two punch that might have been
intoxicating to some but was sure to leave us all with a bad budgetary
headache and stick future generations with paying the tab.
So, when it originally came to the House floor, I voted against it
but held out some hope that a conference with the Senate would result
in a bill that deserved enactment. Unfortunately, that did not occur
and instead we have before us a conference report that perhaps is a
little better than the House-passed bill but shares its basic flaws.
The centerpiece of the conference report, like that of the House-
passed bill, is an extension of the reduced tax rates on capital gains
and dividends, even though those rates are not scheduled to change
until 2008.
This is not only unnecessary, I think it is not good policy--and
neither is letting lapse better tax provisions such as the research and
development tax credit, the education tax deduction to help students go
to college, tax deductions for teacher's classroom expenses, and the
deduction of state and local sales taxes. All of these have been
omitted from the conference report.
It is true that the conference report addresses the need to remove
the threat of alternative minimum tax (AMT) liability from millions of
middle-income American families. But it provides only a one-year
respite.
And, worst of all, enacting the conference report will result in
adding at least another $70 billion onto the deficit, while the long-
term budget costs are masked by a change in the rules for Individual
Retirement Accounts that may increase revenue in the short term but
will greatly worsen the long-term budget picture.
Questionable at any time, that kind of increase in the deficit--
meaning an increase in the national debt--is even worse now, when
America is at war and when President Bush and the Republican Congress
have taken us from paying off our debts to a projected deficit of $3.3
trillion. Over the last 5 years, the Federal Government has had to
borrow more than $1 trillion--much of it from foreign governments--
which is more than the total it borrowed over the preceding two
centuries. This is a sorry record, and this conference report will make
it worse.
So, Mr. Speaker, count me out. I thought the original recipe was
wrong. I did not vote for the original House bill and I cannot vote for
this conference report.
That doesn't mean I am opposed to tax relief. That's why I voted for
the motion to recommit, which would have shielded middle-income
families from the AMT without adding to the deficit. Unfortunately, the
Republican leadership insists on rejecting that in favor of its own
recipe. I fear the result will be half-baked and leave a bitter
aftertaste.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support providing much
needed relief from the alternative minimum tax, but oppose those
provisions providing special tax breaks for the wealthiest. I am
disappointed that important legislation to help the American middle
class is tied to an irresponsible tax giveaway to the wealthiest among
us. The dividends tax break would help only 1 in 7 families making
under $100,000 a year. The capital gains tax break affects only 1 in 20
such families. In a time of massive deficits, we should not be passing
such unnecessary tax cuts. It is unfortunate that an important tax
break--the AMT--is tied into this bill. While I support the AMT fix, I
strongly object to the crass political ploy of attaching it to a tax
break that disproportionately benefits the very wealthiest among us.
The original purpose of the AMT was to ensure that taxpayers with
high incomes would not take advantage of loopholes in the tax code and
pay little or no income tax. However, because the AMT is not adjusted
for inflation, it will penalize middle income families. The IRS calls
this tax the ``Number 1 most serious problem'' facing taxpayers. We
must extend AMT relief to ensure that middle class families do not face
the burden of this complicated and expensive tax. That is why I am
encouraging my colleagues to vote for the Democratic substitute. The
substitute would eliminate AMT liability for individuals whose income
is less than $125,000 and for couples whose income is less than
$250,000. It is simpler, broader relief, and we can pay for it by
restricting tax shelters.
But an extension is only a temporary fix. We must amend the AMT to
accomplish its original purpose rather than unfairly penalize millions
of taxpayers. If we do not make serious changes, the AMT will affect
nearly 35 million taxpayers in 2010. An extension is a good first step,
but we should continue to work on policies to make the tax structure
sensible and fair.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Rangel

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

[[Page H2465]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlemen opposed to the conference
report?
Mr. RANGEL. Yes, in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Rangel moves to recommit the conference report on the
bill (H.R. 4297) to the committee of conference with
instructions to the managers on the part of the House to
report back on or before May 17, 2006, a new conference
report which--
(1) includes the maximum amount of relief for individuals
from the alternative minimum tax permitted within the scope
of conference,
(2) does not include any extension of the lower tax rate on
dividends and capital gains that would otherwise terminate at
the close of 2008, and
(3) to the maximum extent possible within the scope of
conference, will neither increase the Federal budget deficit
nor increase the amount of the debt subject to the public
debt limit.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of the adoption of the conference report.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 190,
nays 239, not voting 4, as follows:

[Roll No. 134]

YEAS--190

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NAYS--239

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--4

Cardoza
Evans
Kennedy (RI)
Smith (WA)

{time} 1808

Messrs. McCOTTER, PEARCE, CASTLE, REYNOLDS, KIRK, BARTON of Texas and
MARCHANT changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. ABERCROMBIE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt). The question is on the
conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 244,
noes 185, not voting 4, as follows:

[Roll No. 135]

AYES--244

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg

[[Page H2466]]

Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--185

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--4

Cardoza
Evans
Kennedy (RI)
Smith (WA)

{time} 1816

Mr. CLEAVER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________