[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 14 (Wednesday, February 8, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H185-H192]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 4297, TAX RELIEF EXTENSION 
                       RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2005

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table 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, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the 
Senate amendment, and request a conference with the Senate thereon.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.


        Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Neal of Massachusetts

  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct 
conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Neal of Massachusetts moves that the managers on the 
     part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes 
     of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 
     4297 be instructed as follows:
       (1) The House conferees shall agree to the provisions of 
     section 106 of the Senate amendment (relating to extension 
     and increase in minimum tax relief to individuals).
       (2) The House conferees shall recede from the provisions of 
     the House bill that extend the lower tax rate on dividends 
     and capital gains that would otherwise terminate at the close 
     of 2008.
       (3) To the maximum extent possible within the scope of 
     conference, the House conferees shall insist on a conference 
     report that would not increase the Federal deficit for any 
     year.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) and the gentlemen from 
California (Mr. Thomas) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we all know that perhaps more 
important than anything else we do here, we set and we establish 
priorities. Our motion to instruct sets forth the priorities that I 
believe should be followed in the conference on this legislation.
  The priorities of the Republican majority are clear: Large tax cuts 
that disproportionately benefit the wealthiest in our society, while 
slashing initiatives that protect the most vulnerable in our society. 
Even in normal times, these priorities would be wrong, but these are 
not normal times.
  America is currently involved in two wars, one in Iraq and one in 
Afghanistan. These are the first wars in our country's history where 
only those in the military and the poor are being asked to sacrifice.
  Hurricane Katrina forced America to see poverty and its consequences. 
And let me compliment former President Jimmy Carter for his remarks 
yesterday at Mrs. King's funeral when he spoke of that very issue.

                              {time}  1715

  The administration has converted surpluses into an enormous budget 
deficit, but has done nothing to prepare programs like Social Security 
and Medicare for the future other than to threaten privatization. The 
most significant fiscal turnaround in the history of America has 
occurred on the watch of the Republican majority here in the Congress.
  What I think is interesting, and I say this with great confidence, 
during these past few years we have almost doubled defense spending, we 
are fighting two wars, we have created a Department of Homeland 
Security, we have witnessed the national principle

[[Page H186]]

play out during Hurricane Katrina, and we have done all of this with 
six tax cuts. There is not anybody who is watching at home tonight in 
America who could run their personal lives on that basis. They could 
never hope to balance the ledger of trying to raise a family if they 
attempted to copy the model utilized by this Congress.
  Our motion to instruct sets forth different priorities. First, it 
instructs the House conferees to follow the Senate bill and extend 
alternative minimum tax relief. Now, I must say that during my time as 
being one of the leaders here, it even was acknowledged by one of my 
friends on the other side, in the area of alternative minimum tax, that 
seldom have I had any issue in my time where I spoke of an issue more 
earnestly, received more congratulations from Members of both parties, 
and seen less extensive action than in the area of alternative minimum 
tax. This should be one of our first priorities. Without an extension 
of this relief, over 17 million Americans will face a tax increase in 
2006, and the size of that tax increase could be as large as $3,640. 
Many middle-income families, largely married couples with children, 
simply are going to face higher taxes. That should be the priorities 
that we entertain.
  Second, our motion to instruct would require the House conferees to 
drop any extension of the tax benefits for dividend and capital gains. 
Those benefits do not terminate until the end of 2008, so there is time 
to extend these benefits in the future if it is to be determined that 
they are appropriate as we seek balance in the ledger. Almost half of 
those benefits would be enjoyed by the wealthiest one-fifth of one 
percent of individuals, or better understood as individuals with annual 
incomes over $1 million.
  Third, our motion requires the House conferees to develop a 
conference report with the view to not further increasing the Federal 
deficit. The administration projects a Federal deficit of over $400 
billion for this fiscal year.
  By the way, we have been told for the last 5 years that those numbers 
were going to come down substantially. The administration is proposing 
large deductions in education and health programs using the large 
deficit as an excuse, the very deficit they have created by their 
actions. Many of us on both sides of the aisle will oppose those 
misguided spending reductions. And once we get to the real battle here 
in the coming year over Medicare and Medicaid, my suspicion is that 
they will see all the action that Social Security saw in the past year. 
Further tax cuts for the superwealthy would jeopardize the remaining 
safety net for our children, for the disabled, and for other vulnerable 
individuals in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would have an open conference where 
the views of all parties might be expressed. After all, that ought to 
be one of the cornerstones of our democracy.
  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 have to say this is one of the oddest motions to 
instruct that I have seen in my multiple decades in the House for 
basically one reason: just a few short days ago the House passed by a 
vote of 234 to 197, a tax reconciliation package which extended the 
dividend reductions and the capital gains reductions. On the same day, 
the House passed, outside of reconciliation, the alternative minimum 
tax assistance that the gentleman has pleaded for by a vote of 414 
Members of the House of Representatives, I believe, to 9 in opposition. 
That was the substantive action of the House on the floor.
  This motion to instruct, which is nonbinding, requests that the House 
completely reverse itself from the vote we had just a few days ago, and 
that is, we do not include dividends in capital gains in tax 
reconciliation, but we include the alternative minimum tax which was 
voted outside of reconciliation. And I guess I would just ask my 
Members whether or not it is more important to hang on to the 
substantive action of the House or the symbolic gesture on the part of 
the Democrats. That is not the only strange thing about this motion to 
instruct.
  You heard my colleague from Massachusetts and you will soon hear from 
other Members of very large urban States asking for tax relief for the 
very richest Americans. After all, by definition, the alternative 
minimum tax is not applied to the lowest. It is not applied to the 10 
percent bracket. It is not applied to the 15 percent bracket. It is 
applied to the richest among us. And although it is refreshing, it is 
just ironic that we are going to have Democrats going to the floor 
pleading to relieve the wealthiest among us from an alternative tax 
burden. And to do that, they want to deny, the number 17 million was 
mentioned, as those who were affected by this. That is everyone who has 
even a dollar affected, as opposed to 14 million who would get total 
relief on the basis of this if it were substantive, which it is not.
  But what my colleague fails to recognize, or chooses not to mention, 
is that with the reduction for dividends and capital gains, we also 
provide for significant tax relief in the investment aspect of dividend 
in capital gains for those in the 10 and 15 percent bracket going to 
zero before it expires. On capital gains that benefits 14 million 
alone; on the dividends, that benefits 27 million Americans.
  They want to take those people who want to invest, who are in the 10 
and 15 percent bracket, and deny them the opportunity to bootstrap 
themselves so they can give the richest among us a little bit of relief 
because large States that have high State income taxes and high State 
sales tax want to live off the rest of the Federal taxpayers in getting 
relief from alternative minimum tax.
  And let me say about the gentleman's example about how we do not seem 
to be able to figure out how individuals can live if they followed the 
Federal example of tax cuts, it is very simple. The alternative minimum 
tax that they ask for in terms of relief are dollars to the richest 
among us who will spend, who will spend it on consumption. You get a 
one-time benefit on consumption. In that example, there is no question 
that American families could never survive tax cut after tax cut if all 
you did with the money was feed consumption. But what the history of 
the investment of dividends and capital gains meant is that people were 
able to invest money going to jobs and to productivity which has given 
us a bonus back.
  And if the individual family took that money and invested it, that is 
the smartest thing, deferring current gratification for future reward. 
That is exactly what we are doing with the dividends and capital gains. 
So I am a little startled that my colleagues are bewildered, the 
difference between a consumption-insisting tax or an investment 
insisting tax. One consumes, the other one grows. That is why we are 
able to continue to see the economy improve as we continue to cut 
taxes. It depends on which taxes you cut, where you cut them, and how 
you cut them.
  What my colleagues are asking for in this motion to instruct is to 
give more money to rich people to spend and deny those people even in 
the 10 and 15 percent tax bracket a chance to invest and grow wealth. 
One is the American way. I do not know what the other one is.
  So all I would tell my colleagues is, please, we acted substantively. 
We passed tax reconciliation. I know this motion is not binding, but 
please make sure you understand what you are doing. You would be 
reversing investment in favor of consumption. If you come from a rich 
urban State, it probably makes sense to you. If you are from the rest 
of America, it certainly does not.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the chairman said that this is one of the oddest motions 
to instruct that he has come across, but let me say I think that 
everybody would agree the most peculiar moment we have had in the last 
few years was the prescription drug bill. If you want to talk about a 
peculiarity that will be with all of us forever and how that was done 
at 4 o'clock in the morning, now that is peculiar. That is odd. What we 
are offering here is a sensible solution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, my friend, Mr. Thomas, the chairman of the 
awesome and powerful Ways and

[[Page H187]]

Means Committee, has normally presented brilliant arguments, many of 
those I have opposed; but I have really never seen such creative 
thinking as he has done on the alternative minimum tax. I would hope 
the whole world, and that is at least those in New York and around the 
country, will hear who he is describing as the richest people in the 
world. I mean, coming from California there may be some distorted 
thinking about incomes, but from all of the statistics, they say that 
over half of the people are between the incomes of 100 and $200,000, 
they would be getting the relief.
  And then if we were talking about, I do not want to start a class war 
because I do not want to offend any on the other side, but over 50 
percent of the relief under the interest in the capital gains would go 
to people above a million dollars.
  And so I do not think we would call the 100 to $200,000, certainly as 
it relates to the Nation, that is high income, but it certainly does 
not compare to the recipients of those in the categories that will 
receive capital gains and corporate dividends.
  But more importantly, I beseech Mr. Thomas to deal with the question 
of equity. When we are trying to help somebody in terms of taxes or to 
take away some benefits from somebody, it may be done in the back room, 
but ultimately the public will know which group are the beneficiaries.
  Now, there is no way that you can contradict that nobody in this 
Congress or the Ways and Means Committee or the Finance Committee ever 
thought that the people that we were going after to make certain that 
they paid a minimum tax would find themselves being pushed in the 
category where they would be paying out thousands of dollars in taxes 
which we never intended for them to have, they just got pushed into 
this by inflation. We owe them more than new people that would benefit, 
some kind of relief.
  Now, this whole idea that we did it outside of reconciliation means 
that you did not do it at all. We know that when the House and the 
Senate conferees go to conference, that is when Democrats are invited 
to go but whether we are there or not, that we try to find out what is 
the best in both of the bills.

                              {time}  1730

  So it would seem to me that the only thing that we truly have that 
was passed by both the House and the Senate was relief for the 
alternative minimum tax. True, the Republican-controlled House did not 
put in any reconciliation, but those who were invited to go to 
conference would at least know that the Senate had it in their 
reconciliation bill and the House overwhelmingly passed it.
  So it would seem to me, in equity and fairness, if you are talking 
about the intent of the House and the Senate, since they never included 
in their reconciliation bill the concept of the tax relief being given 
to capital gains and to corporate dividends, that in good conscience 
you could come back to the House and report that you followed the 
instructions.
  It just seems to me, Mr. Chairman of the full committee, that you 
already knew that you were not going to give relief to the AMT; and 
now, instead of saying that we are sorry that we never responded to an 
equitable need, we never intended to throw these people into this 
category, instead of that, you have made them the richest people in the 
world.
  Well, it is getting close to the election; and since the economy is 
doing so well, we will stick by that. If Republicans say they are the 
richest people in the world, Democrats would support that you said it.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We actually could solve a lot of our problems if we would tax all the 
people in the world. Clearly, what I said was the people in the United 
States. Those of us among us.
  I cannot speak for the gentleman in terms of how he casts votes. I 
know he was on the losing side when we voted to extend the dividends 
and capital gains relief in the tax reconciliation package that just a 
few days ago passed the House with 239 votes. My vote in insisting for 
alternative minimum tax outside of reconciliation was an honest vote, 
and I intend to help those people.
  Reconciliation is a process that is used by the Senate, not by the 
House. In terms of the number of votes necessary to pass legislation, 
the House always passes legislation by a majority vote, and it is 
always permanent. What we did with the minimum alternative tax vote, 
which with the help of the gentleman from New York passed by 414 votes, 
is exactly the same thing as far as the House is concerned that we did 
with the dividends and cap gains under tax reconciliation.
  It is the Senate that utilizes reconciliation to pass measures by 
only 51 votes, albeit not permanently, for only a decade; and it is the 
Senate that needs 60 votes to make things permanent. So far as the 
institution of the House and the rules of the House and the votes that 
were cast, both on tax reconciliation and on the alternative minimum 
tax vote, the effective result of the House vote is absolutely the 
same.
  All I am pointing out about the strangeness of this motion to 
instruct is that it is a request for the House to reverse itself, 
albeit nonbinding, from the very vote that we took, and that is that 
the gentleman from New York and others who were on the losing side on 
the vote for tax reconciliation want to be on the winning side by 
offering a motion to instruct. I guess it is okay. I will trade 
substance for appearance any day of the week. But Members need to know 
what they are voting on, and what they are voting on is to reverse 
themselves from the substantive decision they made earlier. I have 
never seen a motion to instruct that completely flips the legislation 
that had been presented. That is what I meant by strangeness.
  And the argument that the gentleman from New York has just made in 
terms of the comparisons kind of equals that level as well. It is 
pretty simple. The economy is moving because we are investing in the 
economy through the reduction of tax on dividends and capital gains. If 
you were to give money to people, although the consumer helps, you 
simply do not get the benefit. And the people who make the most money, 
who are subject to the alternative minimum tax, deserve help. They do 
not deserve help in reconciliation, which the Senate needs to be able 
to make law.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. English), a valuable member of the committee.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I thank the chairman for yielding me 
this time; and I will say one thing, Mr. Speaker, and I think the 
gentleman from Massachusetts had it right when he said this is about 
priorities. This motion is definitely about priorities, and it is about 
maintaining or not maintaining the current economic policies that make 
it a priority to encourage economic growth and encourage job creation.
  In 2005, we created 2 million jobs in our country, and since 2003 our 
GDP has seen its fastest growth rate in 20 years, averaging a robust 
4.4 percent per quarter. That growth is attributable at least in part 
to the competitive rates that we have set on capital gains and 
dividends, the seed corn of our economy. And it is precisely here that 
their instruction proposes to impose a tax increase, a tax increase on 
the most dynamic sector of the economy and on the most sensitive part 
of our Tax Code.
  They do not say tax increase. They couch it in terms of withholding 
or withdrawing a tax cut. But in fact the markets for years have now 
taken into account a tax rate on capital gains and a tax treatment of 
dividends which encourages economic growth. They want to raise taxes.
  At a time when our economy is facing pressure from globalization and 
facing pressure from high energy costs, now is not the time to be 
raising taxes on dividends. Now is not the time to be raising taxes on 
capital gains. I realize they desperately want to spend more money and 
they desperately want to raise taxes, but we cannot permit that to 
happen.
  If we are serious about maintaining America's economic growth rate, 
if we are serious about maintaining a competitive position in the 
world, it is essential that we send the right message and that we look 
to make permanent the current rates on capital gains and

[[Page H188]]

the current tax treatment of dividends that are so important a part of 
our competitive position.
  I am surprised to see the other side coming forward with such a naked 
and clear attempt to raise taxes. But be that as it may, I think the 
time has come for us to reaffirm our message and to send a clear 
message to the markets that we are prepared to maintain current 
policies to encourage economic growth and to maintain the strong points 
of our current economic policy.
  I call on my colleagues to turn down this instruction and do so 
decisively.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, there were 22 million jobs 
created during the Clinton years.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, at the end of last year we 
came to the floor, as was pointed out, to vote on the tax 
reconciliation bill. That bill extended tax cuts that did not expire 
for years, and it ignored tax relief that was expiring within days, 
relief from the alternative minimum tax, or the AMT.
  Now, just this past Monday, the President released his annual budget; 
and it was, with apologies to Yogi Berra, deja vu all over again. He 
called on Congress to make permanent $1.4 trillion in tax cuts. Some of 
those do not expire for years to come. And he called on Congress to 
make permanent relief from the AMT only through fundamental reforms of 
the Tax Code. Unfortunately, his budget did not call for fundamental 
tax reform.
  So that is the naked tax increase that was alluded to. If it is not 
fixed, this creates 17 million new taxpayers, a tax on 17 million new 
people.
  If our friends on the other side of the aisle tell us, as they do 
often enough, that the budget is a document outlining the priorities of 
the President, then we can only deduct that paying down the debt is not 
a priority of this administration; that managing our money so that we 
no longer have to mortgage our future to countries like Japan and China 
is not a priority of this administration; and permanent AMT relief for 
working and middle-class families is just not a priority of this 
administration.
  Mr. Speaker, these are priorities for everyday Americans and for 
those of us on the Democratic side of the aisle. I urge my colleagues 
to support this motion to instruct which reflects the priorities of 
Americans and calls upon the conferees to provide immediate and 
fiscally responsible relief from the alternative minimum tax, which is 
going to tax 17 million new people.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  If it is going to tax 17 million new people, why do they call it the 
alternative minimum tax? These people are already being taxed. It is an 
alternative way to tax them and was actually put in place when my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle were in the majority.
  The gentleman from Napa Valley, in pleading for some of the richest 
Americans to get some relief from an alternative system of taxation 
they put in place when they were a majority and could have dealt with 
it, literally wants to take money from the 10 and 15 percent bracket, 
people who are trying to invest and grow a nest egg so that they can 
have a piece of America like the people in Napa Valley.
  The people in the 10 and 15 percent bracket for the first time 
actually can figure out a way to invest in America, to grow a nest egg, 
and to see the ability to have a better tomorrow. But they want to take 
the money from these people and ease taxes on those people in the upper 
tax brackets who have now triggered the alternative minimum tax.
  I said I am in favor of helping relieve the alternative minimum tax, 
but the plan we have proposed is not trading one for the other. It is 
not denying the 10 and 15 percent bracket a piece of America. We passed 
assistance to the alternative minimum tax. It was outside of tax 
reconciliation. What they want to do is shove that nest egg-building 
approach out of tax reconciliation and move the alternative minimum tax 
in its place. That is what we are opposed to.
  We are not opposed to assisting the alternative minimum tax. We are 
opposed to denying the 10 and 15 percent bracket a chance to invest in 
America at the lowest possible cost. That is what this is about.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding to 
me; and I just want to point out that I represent seven counties, and I 
have people that are going to get caught in this AMT tax just like you 
do and just like every one of our colleagues across the country.
  This was a tax, as you point out, to make sure people did not get out 
of their tax liability. But it was never indexed; and now it has crept 
up to catch all those good, hardworking people in the middle. And, Mr. 
Chairman, you know that our State pays 25 percent of the AMT that comes 
to the Federal Government.
  Mr. THOMAS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and his 
party had every opportunity when they were in the majority to index 
that. And in fact they had every opportunity to remove the credits and 
deductions which allowed those people not to pay any taxes. Instead, 
they took the easy way out of offering an alternative minimum, and you 
have gotten bitten.
  I find it is ironic that the people in New York, New York City, and 
other areas are now asking relief for very wealthy people. I do not 
have a problem with that. We passed 414-4 relief for that on the floor. 
At the same time, within tax reconciliation, a structure which assists 
the Senate, we placed our highest priority, investment to creating nest 
eggs for the 10 and 15 percent brackets. That is where we decided to 
place our priorities. Your attempt here is to reverse that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the chairman of the Select Revenue Committee 
of the Ways and Means Committee.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  I rise in opposition to this motion to instruct. This motion is 
really based on a flawed rationale and flawed thinking. They are saying 
that we drop the 2-year extension on reduced rates for capital gains 
and dividends, somehow thinking that is going to help the deficit. 
First of all, that would be a tax increase on all those investors. As 
we have seen with employee stock ownership and employee-owned companies 
on the rise, stock ownership on the rise, more Americans participating 
in the stock market and investments than ever before, more than half, 
this would be a huge problem and tax increase for them.
  Not only that, as we have seen when President Clinton was President 
in 1997 and signed a reduction in capital gains rates from 28 to 20 
percent, we saw that then increased revenue to the government because 
of the economic growth that came out of that increased investment. We 
have seen the same with our recent capital gains and dividend 
reductions.
  For example, the Congressional Budget Office says that receipts to 
the government have not declined, but have increased significantly by 
45 percent, and that is by reducing the capital gain rates from 20 to 
15 percent because not only did that double the realization of gains, 
and one reason was there was a higher return on investment as that tax 
declined, but also there was this unlocking effect where investors 
could sell their assets and move into other investments that then grew 
more rapidly. So we had this growth and dynamic aspect of the economy 
that took over that is so critical.
  The CBO also found that tax collections from what they call 
nonwithheld tax receipts also jumped dramatically by 32 percent. We 
have seen dividend payouts from American companies virtually triple as 
a result of this reduction. So we have seen that this is tremendous 
benefit for the American people as their investments grow and they 
become more well off, and this is all income levels. Anybody who is 
part of an employee-owned company can participate, anybody can 
participate in the market, it is not just the high-income people, and 
we have seen lower and lower income levels participating in

[[Page H189]]

the stock market over times because of these changes.
  So I think it is critical that we not approve this motion to 
instruct, that we reject it for the reasons that to create economic 
growth, increase prosperity and give every American a shot at the 
American dream, we must extend the reduction in capital gains and 
dividends.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) and ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from Michigan control the remainder of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, as we stand out here and argue this sort 
of arcane piece of tax policy here today, the chairman tells us we are 
better off than we ever were before. Anybody who has looked at where 
the national debt is knows that is not true. Whatever this tax policy 
they are pushing is about, it is driving us deeper and deeper into 
debt.
  In addition, today the President presents a budget to us that says 
nothing about the war and what it is costing. It is probably going to 
cost us a trillion dollars by the time it is all done, if we ever get 
out of it, stagnant wages in this country, and 500,000 more people in 
poverty.
  Now the chairman says we want to have everybody have a shot at the 
American dream. Well, let me tell you something, this is a shot like a 
shot at the moon for most of them with a shotgun. It is not going to 
come anywhere near it. We do not want any more tax holidays for the 
rich.
  The fact that you are trying to get rid of the AMT by letting it 
drift down further and further and further into the tax-paying people 
in this country is very obvious. You want there to be an uprising that 
says let us get rid of the AMT. You know why it was put there. You said 
yourself. They put the AMT because there were rich people in this 
country paying nothing. We could have kept it at that level, but in 
2001 you decided we have got to balance the budget. Let us not do 
anything about the AMT. We told you over and over and over again in the 
Ways and Means Committee that is what you were doing. And yet you now 
say, oh, well, it is somebody else's problem.
  You are driving this country over the edge. You think you are sending 
a market message. You are sending a message to the market with the kind 
of debt this country is in. If you take the credit card debt and the 
amount people have borrowed against their homes to keep up their level 
of income, you have a country seriously in debt. Now you say we do not 
care who has to figure their taxes twice, we will let it go down to 
$50,000, $60,000, whatever the number is going to be. That is of no 
consequence to you at all because you are dedicated to only one group 
in this society, and that is the people on the top.
  This whole construction that you put together over the last 4 years, 
and I welcome you back to the well, I think you might have a couple of 
things to say to me, but bringing this tax bill to where we are today 
was a deliberate attack on the middle class. That reconciliation bill 
that the President signed took away the money that people would use to 
educate their children. You gave the banks big breaks so they could 
take more out of the hides of the kids. This is a good motion, and it 
ought to be adopted.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I note that the House voted 414-4 to move the alternative minimum tax 
outside of reconciliation to pass alternative minimum tax relief. I was 
sincere in my vote. I would just inquire whether those on the other 
side of the aisle who voted for this bill were sincere in their votes.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  A budget is indeed about choices about picking winners and losers. 
And there is a certain consistency in the approach that we have seen in 
this Republican Congress.
  Each year this administration targets the same losers and rewards the 
same winners. Each year it offers more tax breaks for those at the top, 
the wealthiest few, and it insists that the deficits that are thereby 
created be paid for in part by cutting aid to working families, to 
students and to our seniors. Each year it sacrifices long-term fiscal 
responsibility at the altar of short-term political gratification, 
escalating the national debt to subsidize private fortunes.
  The administration's budget does not just crunch numbers, however, it 
crunches people.
  Only last week the same folks that are here today demanding more and 
more tax breaks for those at the very top were here saying they had 
billions in what they called ``savings'' to help finance these tax 
cuts. But if you were a family caring for an abused and neglected 
child, that savings meant no support.
  If you were a single mom relying on Federal child support enforcement 
to get a deadbeat dad to pay their monthly child support payments, it 
meant no child support.
  For many a student relying on Federal student financial assistance, 
it meant an inability to get aid to go to school. And the health cuts, 
the same burdens imposed on the most vulnerable.
  This Republican-controlled Congress continues to make these cuts to 
the vulnerable while offering high tax cuts for million-dollar-a-year-
income folks. Extending these tax breaks today will put over $32,000 in 
the hands of people who earn a million dollars or more every year. 
While true that some of the 64 percent of families who earn less than 
$50,000 a year will get a tax cut, too, it will amount to only about 
$11 a year. So it is the difference between giving a new car to some of 
the privileged few and a car wash to the 64 percent.
  The difference that they propose today is the difference between 
tuition at some fancy private school to the few, but only a pack of 
pencils to the many. It is the difference between a down payment on 
another vacation villa for the wealthy and some Lincoln logs or Legos 
for most everyone else.
  At the very moment we are now debating this, the Office of Management 
and Budget is over here at the Capitol whacking away again at what they 
claim are unnecessary programs. But there are more programs that they 
propose to eliminate or significantly reduce in the Education 
Department than in any other department in the Federal government. Such 
unfortunate actions by the Republicans create another kind of deficit, 
an ``opportunity deficit,'' where young people and some not so young 
are not able to obtain the resources needed to achieve their full, God-
given potential.
  I think it is wrong to add to that opportunity deficit in our 
communities, just as it is wrong to build a national deficit that those 
future generations will be asked to pay. There is no balance in the 
budget these folks are offering to us today, and there is no equity 
either. It ought to be rejected.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to correct, if I may, the 
chairman's assertions. He has suggested that the Senate's relief is 
more focused at the rich, and that is not true. It is true that both 
the House and the Senate would give about 90 percent of their benefits 
to the top 20 percent, but at the very high end, the difference is 
amazing. More than half of the House's capital gain and dividend tax 
cut goes to the best 1 percent of taxpayers, and that 1 percent, those 
people earning more than $1.2 million a year would receive an average 
reduction of $26,500 apiece. That is where half of the Republican House 
bill goes.
  The Senate's bill, on the other hand, would give the AMT relief, 
would give that same 1 percent merely 2.5 percent of their AMT relief, 
or an average of $600 apiece.
  The other thing that is missing, and I do not suppose it is untrue to 
say

[[Page H190]]

things are missing, you cannot find weapons of mass destruction, did we 
lie about the war, I do not know, but to look at the fact that the 
Senate has paid for a good bit of their relief, and if we look at the 
subsequent 5 years, it is true in the first 5 years the House bill 
loses $56 billion, and the Senate loses $57 billion, but that is only 
the tip of the iceberg because in the second 5 years the Senate bill 
picks up $20 billion because it has not recklessly given away revenue 
through reduction of capital gains and dividend income. The House, on 
the other hand, in the second 5 years loses another $30 billion. So 
while the grand total in 10 years for the Senate is only $37 billion, 
less than it is in 5 years, it is $80 billion for the House bill over 
10 years, a difference of $43 billion.
  Come on, folks, that $43 billion would pay for the education and 
health care and housing and rebuilding from Hurricane Katrina, and a 
whole host of things that the Republicans tend to ignore because the 
rich people that the Republicans represent already have that. They are 
turning their backs on the children and the middle class by 
capriciously and recklessly giving away our Federal revenues to the 
very richest in this country, and that is obscene.
  Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank Leader Pelosi for appointing 
me to this conference committee, and I rise in support of this motion 
to instruct.
  I strongly believe tax cuts are unnecessary, irresponsible, and 
morally reprehensible at the present time. If allowed in the room, as 
Democrats rarely are these days, I will work hard on the conference 
committee to make sure that any tax cuts adopted be targeted to the 
middle-class rather than to millionaires.
  I will argue for fiscal responsibility. I will insist with my 
colleagues in the Senate that the tax reconciliation bill protect 
middle-class families from the Alternative Minimum Tax. I will work to 
strike the extension of capital gains and dividend tax cuts that 
benefit the wealthy few at the expense of the hard working many.
  In short, I will fight for Americans the President in his budget left 
behind.
  The President in the document released Monday clearly illustrates the 
course he prefers for tax reconciliation--more tax cuts for the wealthy 
at the expense of vital domestic programs on which many Americans 
depend.
  The President wants to cut Medicare by more than $100 billion, 
eliminate Social Security benefits for many older children whose 
parents have died, and severely cut state funding for child care. His 
proposal to expand Health Savings Accounts takes direct aim at the more 
than 160 million workers and their families who have job-based health 
coverage.
  These cuts aren't necessary. Neither are the $21 billion in 
extensions of capital gains and dividend tax breaks for the top 1 
percent of Americans put forth by Republicans in the House in their 
ill-conceived tax reconciliation bill.
  A vote against this motion to instruct is a vote against working 
families and in favor of millionaires. Voters won't forget that in 
November.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this motion to instruct.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would just say for the Record, the will of the House by a vast 
majority extended both kinds of AMT relief we have been discussing 
today without raising taxes as the Senate did.
  I just want to say that one in five taxpayers, or 20 percent with 
capital gains, and one in four taxpayers, 25 percent of the taxpayers 
with dividends, have incomes below $50,000, so this clearly is an 
opportunity for Americans to begin to become part of the American dream 
by investing and growing that income. To not extend the tax relief 
would be to raise taxes, which would be the wrong thing to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Brady), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there is actually bipartisan support 
for reducing taxes in the AMT on American families. If I could go back 
in time and stop that Congress from ever creating it, I would have 
because the principle of it has always been so wrong. The principle was 
our Tax Code is so complex, it is so full of loopholes that it really 
is not fair anymore. So rather than fix the problem, let us just create 
a second type of tax, make people create second books, second type of 
accounts and then try to catch them another way.
  It was a terrible principle to begin with; and because it was not put 
in place, it was put in place for the wrong reasons, in the wrong way 
and now affecting more and more of our American taxpayers who should 
never have to fool with this.
  The question today is, how do we do it? Do we do it as proposed in 
this issue, to raise taxes to pay for it? Or as Chairman Camp has said, 
this House has voted overwhelmingly to provide tax relief to these 
families the right way, by just exempting them and not raising their 
taxes to pay for it. That is exactly the right way to do it.
  And another, I think, bad side effect of this proposal that we are 
debating today is that we take away the tax savings on capital gains 
and dividends. That is very important to America's seniors, very 
important to seniors in Texas. And what I especially appreciate is that 
since this Republican Congress lowered taxes on dividends and capital 
gains, more and more people, especially seniors, are investing for 
their retirement, and more companies are not just promoting their stock 
value. They are actually returning money to dividends to our investors, 
to our neighbors. And so they are not just saying we have got a great 
company. They are actually showing it, showing us the money through 
dividend relief.
  That is very important in a time where you just saw last week that 
America has a negative savings rate, a negative. We are going in the 
hole more and more each year, American families are. We ought to 
encourage savings. We ought to encourage dividends. We ought to 
encourage investment, and we ought not raise their taxes in order to 
provide relief from AMT. And I respectfully oppose this and urge us to 
work in a bipartisan measure to do this the right way.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. One thing I agree with the previous 
speaker on, that the American people are going more in the hole; and 
when they feel what is happening to student aid and cutbacks in 
scholarship money because of the Republican majority, they are going to 
know what being in the hole is really about.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this issue was put so squarely, and I think 
clearly, in the answer of Secretary Snow when he testified in the 
Senate. He was asked why the White House had put a higher priority on 
the investment tax breaks than relief from an alternative minimum tax. 
His answer, and I quote, ``because lower taxes on dividends and capital 
gains more broadly benefit taxpayers than AMT relief.'' That is the 
position of the administration. So what they are saying is that tax 
relief dividends and capital gains, we are talking now about 2009 and 
2010, not this year, next year or the year thereafter, that that is 
more important when over 50 percent of the benefit goes to people 
making a million dollars a year, that is more important than the impact 
of the AMT not in 2009, 2010, but this year, on 19 million taxpayers. 
That is really the issue.
  Now, we hear all kinds of arguments. Mr. Thomas kind of says, well, 
those AMT people are kind of wealthy people. A lot of them are not, 
nowhere near the million bucks made by the people who are the 53 
percent who gain in 2009 and 2010.
  And then, well, it said, okay. More taxpayers receive capital gains 
in dividend reduction, that is true, most of them are in lower middle 
income brackets, but most of the money goes to people making a million 
bucks a year. That has never been challenged.
  Well, then the answer is, Mr. Camp, we are going to do both. Tell us 
how you are going to do both. Tell us. Stand up now and tell us. How 
are you going to pay for both?
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Well, because your whole assumption is based on 
the flawed principle that if we reduce investment taxes, revenues to 
the government decline.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I take back my time.

[[Page H191]]

  How are you going to pay for both? The Senate said they could not pay 
for both and that is why they put the AMT in. We voted for AMT relief, 
the 400-some, because we wanted the issue to stay alive and for the 
conference committee to act responsibly, civilly and to have the AMT in 
there. How are you going to pay for both? Tell me how you are going to 
pay for both.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Well, we are certainly not going to raise taxes 
like the Senate did.
  Mr. LEVIN. No, no. Do not tell me what you will not do. Tell me what 
you will do.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Well, because the investment taxes actually 
increase.
  Mr. LEVIN. Tell me. I think the answer is, Mr. Camp, that you do not 
intend to pay for both. What you hope to do is to have some AMT relief, 
later on, unpaid for, in addition to 2009 and 2010 provisions on 
capital gains and the like. You do not have any intention to pay for 
both because you cannot do it. This is a further example of the fiscal 
irresponsibility of the majority in this Congress.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, first let me say, we are certainly 
not going to pay for it by raising taxes as our friends in the Senate 
did by including AMT in reconciliation. And let me just say that we 
have seen since we reduced investment taxes in 2003, we have seen a 
doubling of capital gains realizations, meaning, a huge increase in the 
amount of revenue generated by capital gains sales and a huge 45 
percent increase in tax receipts as a result. This is part of the 
revenue that I hear from the other side.
  And so what happens when investment taxes are reduced is revenues to 
the government increase. That occurred in 1997 when President Clinton 
signed a bill that reduced investment taxes, that occurred in 2003 when 
President Bush signed a bill reducing investment taxes. And so one of 
the things that you have seen from the investment community is that 
even though we have seen dramatic, positive revenues to the government 
as a result of decreasing these taxes, a lot of people in the 
investment community say that if we do not enact an extension, that 
would be a very negative signal for Wall Street.
  Others have said you really will not even see the full potential of 
realization from the effects of lower rates on investment taxes until 
they are perceived to be permanent. And that is from the Congressional 
Budget Office. So the threat of these taxes expiring will affect 
business decisions well before they do expire and personal investment 
decisions. So that is why it is important we act now. So, again, I urge 
Members to reject this motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished chairman arguing the 
other side has voted to raise the debt limit three times. You know, all 
of this new revenue is coming in. You have got to wonder how come we 
have to keep borrowing more because of our deficit and national debt 
getting deeper and deeper and deeper.
  With this motion we say we ought to address first things first. What 
is the threat that American taxpayers will pay higher taxes in 2006 and 
2007?
  Well, millions will pay higher income taxes through application of 
the alternative minimum tax in 2006 and 2007. Under existing law, no 
one, not one American will pay a higher capital gains rate or higher 
corporate dividends rate than they do now. That is established in 
present law. So if we have got a problem with the alternative minimum 
tax and we do not have a problem with the capital gains and corporate 
dividends tax, it seems to me you ought to address the 2006 and 2007 
problem. And it is a big problem. In 2005, 1.1 percent of taxpayers in 
the 75,000 to $100,000 income range paid alternative minimum tax. In 
2006 it will be 30 percent. 30 percent will pay a higher income tax in 
that bracket. Only 7 percent in the 100,000 and up bracket got hit with 
the AMT last year. It will be two-thirds in 2006. Do not increase 
income taxes through AMT. Fix it.
  And so this resolution that they are supporting, the motion to 
recommit that they are opposing, it makes no sense. It places all the 
emphasis on 2008 and 2009. Guess what, Chairman Camp? We can do that 
later. Let us deal with the problem that is right before us, the 
alternative minimum tax income tax increase that faces millions of our 
households.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I would just say briefly that the 
threat of these expiring will have an effect on business and 
individuals from investment decisions well before midnight on December 
31, 2008. So it is important that we act now while we can, because that 
will send a very strong signal that these reductions in investment 
taxes are here to stay, which will continue to encourage the kind of 
investment and growth that has created the job relief that the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), or job creation that the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), mentioned, over 2 million 
jobs. And it is so important that we continue to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me urge my colleagues to support this 
motion and point out that this motion makes it clear that if we work 
together, Democrats and Republicans, that we can get through a 
reconciliation bill that deals with expiring tax provisions that need 
to be dealt with, including the R&D tax credit and other provisions, 
but we need to do this in a financially responsible way. You cannot 
extend all of these tax provisions and fix the alternative minimum tax 
and not worry about the impact it is going to have on the Federal 
deficit. And I think that is a point Mr. Neal and others on this side 
of the aisle have been making. We are talking about trying to reduce 
the Federal deficit. The first thing you do is stop getting greater and 
deeper in debt.
  So last week we cut programs for our students. We cut programs in 
health care. We cut programs for those who are the most vulnerable, and 
we said we were doing it to help reduce the deficit. But, no, we are 
using every dollar of those dollars for tax cuts. That is not what we 
should be doing.
  We have lots of unmet needs, including rebuilding from Katrina and 
dealing with the financing of No Child Left Behind. So we have unmet 
needs. You cannot have these large tax cuts and try to deal with the 
unmet needs without further increasing the Federal deficit, and that is 
what this motion is about. This motion is about, yes, there are areas 
we need to move forward in the Tax Code, and, yes, there are additional 
investments that need to be made; but if we do it in a reasonable 
manner, we can reduce the Federal deficit.
  Without us paying attention to what is in this motion, we are going 
to be digging a deeper hole and making it more difficult for us to get 
out. So I just urge my colleagues to support this motion, but more 
importantly, support action in this body that will bring us together 
and not have extensions of tax cuts that are going to make it more 
difficult for us to balance the budget. Support the motion.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. First let me just say that lowering tax rates on capital gains 
and dividends helps contribute to the long-run economic growth and 
expansion of this country. Sixty percent of the people who realize 
capital gains have incomes below $100,000. Twenty-five percent of the 
people who have dividend income have incomes below $50,000. Capital 
gains tax receipts have been increasing since the 2003 tax cut. More 
companies have been offering dividends since the 2003 tax cut. These 
pro-growth policies are getting America moving again. In the past 12 
months, 2 million jobs were created, and the unemployment rate is at 
its lowest level since July 2001. Do not derail or reverse that growth.
  Second, I would say the House voted 414 to 4 to move the alternative 
minimum tax outside of reconciliation. The House voted in a majority 
vote just a few days ago to include capital gains relief inside of 
reconciliation.

[[Page H192]]

                              {time}  1815

  This motion to instruct is a clear attempt not to instruct the 
conferees, but to reverse what the will of the House has voted just a 
short time ago.
  I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is okay every once in a while if the Sheriff of 
Nottingham does not win. Addressing the issue of alternative minimum 
tax ought to be the priority here. Speaking to those 19 million 
Americans who are going to get caught in this again is where we ought 
to be.
  Once again, Katrina; two wars; doubling defense spending; the 
creation of Homeland Security; and although the President did not 
mention it the other night, he has planned a trip to Mars for NASA.
  The point is very simple. We cannot continue going down this road of 
shaving revenue all the time for the strongest among us. It always has 
to be more for the powerful, more for the strongest. And on the point 
that was raised by the gentleman from Michigan about job growth, this 
has been, by the 5-year standard, anemic job growth. It is the weakest 
performance in 70 years. Twenty-two million jobs were created during 
the Clinton years.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we have before us a very 
important piece of legislation, H.R. 4297, the ``Tax Relief Extension 
Reconciliation Act.'' It is very important to understand this piece of 
legislation within the big picture the Republicans are painting here. 
Just last week, the Republicans passed a bill called ``The Deficit 
Reduction Act.'' This was a spending cut bill that slashed funding to 
many vital programs my constituents depend on, including Medicaid, 
Medicare, student loans, food stamps, and child support programs. The 
Republicans lectured us on the need to make sacrifices to control the 
national debt. By passing the spending cut bill, the Republicans 
actually asked the poor, the downtrodden, the disabled and the young to 
sacrifice on behalf of the rest of the country.
  Now we are faced with the Tax Reconciliation Act, which will add 
billions, if not trillions, to the deficit over the next 10 years. One 
source estimates that if all of President Bush's expiring tax cuts are 
extended, including the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) relief, it will 
cost this country $3.3 Trillion over the next 10 years.
  Last year, both the House and the Senate passed our respective 
versions of the Tax Reconciliation Bill. The major difference between 
the two bills involves AMT and the low rate on dividends and capital 
gains. The Senate version extends the temporary AMT relief for one 
year, while the House bill extends the 15 percent tax rate for 
dividends and capital gains for 2 years.


                      Capital Gains and Dividends

  The House bill contains language that will further extend the 
contentious capital gains and dividends tax cuts. We shouldn't even 
have to debate this right now, because these tax cuts don't expire 
until 2008. If passed, the capital gains and dividends tax cuts will 
cost almost $51 billion over the next 10 years. These tax cuts will be 
enjoyed by the ultra wealthy, with those earning more than $1 million a 
year saving an average of $32,000 in taxes. According to the Center on 
Budget and Policy Priorities:
  Over half--54 percent--of all capital gains and dividend income flows 
to the 0.2 percent of households with annual incomes over $1 million. 
More than three-quarters--78 percent--of this income goes to those 
households with income over $200,000, which account for about 3 percent 
of all households.
  In contrast, only 11 percent of capital gains and dividend income 
goes to the 86 percent of households with incomes of less than 
$100,000. Only 4 percent of this income flows to the 64 percent of 
households that have income of less than $50,000.


                  Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) Relief

  If the Senate AMT provision is not adopted, over 17 million middle 
class Americans will face a tax increase next year from the Alternative 
Minimum Tax, the AMT. The AMT was enacted over 35 years ago to ensure 
that the richest Americans would pay their fair share of income tax. 
Unfortunately, when the AMT was enacted, Congress neglected to index 
the tax rates to inflation. The AMT has now begun to add an extra 
burden to middle class taxpayers at an alarming rate. I urge the 
conferees to recognize the need for continued AMT relief and include 
that language in the conference report.


                           Katrina Tax Relief

  In the House bill, unbelievably, there are no tax benefits for areas 
affected by last year's devastating hurricanes; Katrina, Rita, and 
Wilma. The Senate version of this bill contains language similar to 
language Congress already passed, providing a few billion dollars over 
the next 2 years. The economy of the gulf coast has been set back 
decades, and it is going to take years to rebuild. Congress should 
provide even more supportive tax laws for the region so that both 
businesses and individuals can get themselves back on their feet. I 
again urge the conferees to include language further providing tax 
relief to the areas affected by last year's hurricanes.


                          Misguided Priorities

  Last month, Republicans in Congress couldn't find the money to spare 
the elderly from Medicaid cuts, to spare the students from loan 
increases, or to spare our children from child care cuts. They can't 
seem to find the money to properly rebuild the gulf coast or get New 
Orleans back on its feet. They are having trouble finding this money 
because they are choosing to extend the dividend and capital gains tax 
cuts for the richest in our country. As such, they are making the 
choice to pass the burden of paying for these tax cuts on to our 
children in the form of a huge deficit.
  This is NOT how we take care of our own in Texas, and this is not how 
we do things in the United States. The Republicans are launching an 
unabashed attack on the American way by ignoring the neediest in our 
country to give tax cuts to the richest.


                         Democratic Substitute

  At the time of the last vote, the Democrats offered an amendment in 
the form of the substitute that is much more fiscally responsible and 
equitable. The Democratic Substitute extended for one year all 
temporary tax provisions that expire at the end of this year, similar 
to the Majority's bill. The major difference, however, is that the 
Democratic substitute addresses the problem of the AMT by eliminating 
all liabilities for middle class individuals. Further, this $45 billion 
provision would be fully offset by rolling back a portion of the tax 
cuts that would otherwise go to those with annual incomes of over $1 
million for joint returns and $500,000 for other returns. I again urge 
the conferees to seek fiscally responsible options and point out that 
there are other options to alleviate tax burden on the middle and lower 
class without lining the pockets of the ultra-wealthy.


                               Conclusion

  Mr. Speaker, the priorities in the Republican bill are misguided. 
Congress should not be providing additional tax breaks for the rich 
less than a month after enacting huge spending cuts aimed at the most 
vulnerable. In the end, this tax bill will either exacerbate our 
already large Federal deficits, or will force even deeper cuts in 
critically important domestic programs. I am strongly opposed to this 
legislation in its current form, and I implore the conferees to seek 
more fiscally responsible options.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will 
be postponed.

                          ____________________