[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 63 (Thursday, April 19, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H3594-H3600]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ESTIMATED TAX PAYMENT SAFE HARBOR ADJUSTMENT
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 317,
I call up the bill, (H.R. 1906) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to adjust the estimated tax payment safe harbor based on income
for the preceding year in the case of individuals with adjusted gross
income greater than $5 million, and ask for its immediate consideration
in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1906
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF ESTIMATED TAX PAYMENT SAFE HARBOR
FOR INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS WITH ADJUSTED GROSS
INCOME GREATER THAN $5 MILLION.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (C) of section 6654(d)(1) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to limitation on
use of preceding year's tax) is amended by redesignating
clauses (ii) and (iii) as clauses (iii) and (iv),
respectively, and by inserting after clause (i) the following
new clause:
``(ii) Individual adjusted gross income greater than
$5,000,000.--If the adjusted gross income shown on the return
of the individual for such preceding taxable year exceeds
$5,000,000, clause (i) shall be applied by substituting
`110.1' for `110' in the last row of the table therein.''.
(b) Separate Returns.--Clause (iii) of section
6654(d)(1)(C) of such Code, as redesignated by subsection
(a), is amended by inserting ``and clause (ii) shall be
applied by substituting `$2,500,000' for `$5,000,000' ''
before the period at the end.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 317, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. English) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I
may consume.
I rise in support of H.R. 1906. No one, but no one will pay more
taxes under the bill. It merely ensures that multi-millionaires don't
add to our tax gap.
The bill changes in a very minor way estimated tax payments made by
wealthy individuals with incomes of more than $5 million a year. It
makes a technical timing change to tax payments made by these
individuals. They do not pay more taxes. H.R. 1906 is critical to the
pay-as-you-go pledge of this Congress.
I am pleased to have supported H.R. 1905, the District of Columbia
House Voting Rights Act of 2007. For 207 years, Washington, D.C.
residents have paid Federal taxes, and for 207 years they have had not
a voting representative in the United States Congress.
The right to vote is precious. It is sacred. It is the cornerstone of
our democracy.
Americans sacrificed everything for this right. They were harassed,
beaten, jailed and even killed for the right to vote.
Not so long ago, many of my friends, many of my colleagues lost their
lives. There are many more faceless, nameless heroes who suffered and
sacrificed for this basic right.
How can we preach this principle around the world and not practice it
here in our Nation's Capital? It is the foundation of our democracy.
So I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1906.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering legislation that, in my
view, represents the first brick in a Chinese wall of tax increases.
Generating revenue by assuming that Americans with more than $5
million in income will increase their annual withholding by one-tenth
of 1 percent simply makes a mockery of PAYGO.
The majority is exploiting a statistical quirk in the way that the
Joint Tax Committee does its revenue estimates, and will have
accountants, not normally known for their high spirits and good humor,
roaring with laughter all over the country.
Perhaps, in the aggregate, there are enough people in America making
more than $5 million who will pay an extra $2,000 in estimated taxes to
raise revenues as much as anticipated, but this seems more likely to be
an instance where the Joint Tax Committee's scoring rules and common
sense have dramatically parted ways.
If the Judiciary Committee thinks the companion bill to create a new
Member from Utah and add voting rights to a Member from the District of
Columbia is such a good idea, surely they could have found some program
within their jurisdiction to trim by an offsetting amount. And they
didn't find a user fee in their jurisdiction to increase by just a few
dollars.
In fact, despite the fact the Democratic majority created a budget
that includes more than $2 trillion in spending, they could not even
trim $3 million from that total to pay for this rather modest
initiative. To put this in perspective, the majority could have offset
this bill by reducing entitlement spending by just two ten-thousandths
of a percent.
By not going down that route, this bill confirms what we have all
suspected: the Tax Code is going to be the ATM machine that pays for
all of the new majority's fondest initiatives. The bill today may be
cheap in total dollar terms, but we will not be so lucky the next time
around.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, in my view, H.R. 1906 represents what will be
the first of a series of bizarre revenue raisers, Rube Goldberg
devices, and tax gimmicks to be trotted out to pay, first for small
things, and then pay for the demands of the majority's budget, which
includes the largest tax increase in American history, nearly $4
billion over 5 years.
It also demonstrates that the majority's PAYGO promise that new
entitlement spending could be offset with entitlement spending cuts is
hollow and cynical. If they can't even find $3 million of entitlement
savings for this bill, can we expect them to pay for their new programs
with anything other than a significant tax increase ultimately on the
middle class?
This makes even traditional budget gimmicks, like putting routine
spending into an emergency spending bill, or bypassing the budget
resolution by using ``advanced appropriations'' look pristine by
comparison.
[[Page H3595]]
The process for this bill's consideration is flawed, deeply and
fundamentally. It did not go through the Committee on Ways and Means.
This is another example of the new majority ignoring their own promises
for regular order.
The procedure, Mr. Speaker, for considering the broader issue of
expanding the House of Representatives itself is deeply flawed. The
example being set today that you can split a bill into separate
elements so as to limit what amendments and motions will be germane is
the triumph of form over substance.
The proposal before us only adds more complexity to the Tax Code. And
think about this: if you thought filling out your taxes wasn't tough
enough, our friends on the other side of the aisle are raising the
level of difficulty to complicate the code and increase the risk that
an inadvertent error will have the IRS demanding interest on your
underpayment.
At least it is better than the last version of this proposal, which
generated an even more ludicrous $3 million by raising the safe harbor
amount for people with incomes over $150,000 by just three one-
thousandths of a percent.
Mr. Speaker, this is a flawed bill. It is a silly exercise. And I
think it is appropriate that we vote it down.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I simply want to rise to say that the bill that just passed, which I
actually supported because I think it was the right thing to do
constitutionally, and just good government, it violated PAYGO for 2
hours. So what we have here is a too-cute-by-half PAYGO fix. And it is
my hope that when the majority brings new bills to the floor that the
bills themselves will be fixed with respect to PAYGO.
This rule tactic that is being deployed, I think, denied the minority
rights to have the kinds of motions to recommit that the minority
traditionally has been given.
But more importantly, this really is a violation of PAYGO. It is
fixed now because it was broken just a minute ago. It is a half-hearted
attempt for the majority to submit to their own rules. The PAYGO
principle of pay-as-you-go ought to apply every minute, every second,
every hour. If you believe in it, don't make it just apply for 2 hours
and then bring it back an hour later just because you want to deny the
minority an ability to have an effective motion to recommit.
I would be happy to yield to the leader.
Mr. HOYER. I appreciate my friend's comment. Aren't you the party
that said that taxes were going to be cut up until 2010 and then
because of the rules they will go back into effect?
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, may I reclaim my time? And
instead allow the leader on his own time to pose those sorts of
questions.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I think the gentleman mentioned something
about sunsetting taxes. If my memory serves me, having served on the
Ways and Means at the time that bill was written, all tax bills which
originate in the Ways and Means Committee in the House were permanent.
It was the Democrat Party in the Senate that made it temporary, that
put in, because of a cloture vote, put the temporary nature of the tax
cuts in. The tax cuts sunset in 2012 because of the Byrd rule and
because we did not have sufficient numbers of the Democrat Party at the
time vote for cloture so that we could make these tax cuts permanent.
Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield?
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, it is my time
and I will allow the gentleman from Wisconsin to yield to the leader on
the leader's time.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
General Leave
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to give
Members 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the
bill, H.R. 1906.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana, Congressman Hill.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the
distinguished majority leader.
Mr. Leader, the minority side has been talking about PAYGO rules and
that somehow we have violated them. They sound very convincing. And as
you know, the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition are also strong
supporters of the PAYGO rule, as are all members of our Democratic
Caucus. This pay-as-you-go rule was an important step in restoring
fiscal discipline in Congress. The Members of the Blue Dog Coalition
believe it is important that the House comply with this rule.
Can you explain how this bill complies with PAYGO and specifically,
for the benefit of the Members on both sides, I ask, will the PAYGO
rule that we established in January be fulfilled when the House
completes action on the District of Columbia Voting Rights Act?
Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield.
Mr. HILL. I will yield.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his question. It is an important
question. And the answer to that question is, absolutely. And I am glad
that we have this opportunity to clear up any confusion. I want to
assure the gentleman, and all Members of the House, that the District
of Columbia Voting Rights Act will not violate PAYGO, period. The House
just voted to approve the D.C. Voting Rights Act of 2007. We have now
proceeded to consideration of H.R. 1906, which amends provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code regarding estimated taxes to pay for all costs
attendant within the D.C. House Voting Rights Act.
{time} 1500
While those costs are de minimis, essentially about $1.6 million out
of $27 trillion if there is no escalation in government revenues,
notwithstanding that, we wanted to adhere to the PAYGO rule, as the
gentleman from Indiana has stated and for which he has fought so hard
and been a leader on. The rule provides that the text of H.R. 1906 will
be incorporated into the D.C. Voting Rights Act when H.R. 1906 is
passed; in other words, every Member who voted for the rule voted to
honor PAYGO.
The Congressional Budget Office and the Budget Committee have
certified that when the text of H.R. 1906 is incorporated into the bill
and the bill is engrossed, the bill will comply with the PAYGO rule.
The rule further provides that if either bill fails to pass, both bills
will be tabled. In other words, if the bill providing the offset to
ensure compliance with PAYGO is not added to the bill, the D.C. bill
would be rejected.
This process guarantees that two important things will happen, first,
that an unmitigated injustice, the denial of voting for the citizens of
the District of Columbia, is considered on its merits and remedied; and
secondly, that we abide by our commitment to PAYGO.
Again I state, the gentleman from Indiana has been an extraordinarily
consistent and strong leader on behalf of that premise.
The House, in conclusion, will not send a bill that does not comply
with the PAYGO rule as a result of the rule. And I commend those who
voted for the rule to be consistent with our PAYGO pledge.
I thank the gentleman for his question.
Mr. HILL. Thank you, Mr. Leader. Let me try to put it in perspective,
then. If I am in southern Indiana and I am driving from New Albany to
Seymour, the direct route is on I-65, but if I go to Bloomington to
Seymour, it is a longer route, but I still get to Seymour.
Mr. HOYER. You still get to the promised land.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia may state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, we have just heard the majority
leader
[[Page H3596]]
say that if either 1905 or 1906 fails, then they shall both be tabled.
Mr. Speaker, can you tell me, this House having passed H.R. 1905, how
is it possible to have a bill that has already passed the House, is no
longer on the floor, no longer the business of the House, tabled with
subsequent action on another bill?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. House Resolution 317 so provides.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have a further inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia may state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, can you tell me where in the House
rules it provides anything that allows for the tabling of a House bill,
once passed, when there has been intervening business in the meantime?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The provision is contained in House
Resolution 317.
Point of Order
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his point of order.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the Chair and state
that the rule under which we are operating right now is in violation of
House rules because there is no provision in the House rules that
states that you may table a bill after it has already been dispensed
with by the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman asking for a point of order
or a parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am asking for a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the gentleman is raising a point of
order, would he please restate his point of order.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that we are
now operating in violation of the rules of the House because the rule
that we have adopted has no rule of the House that allows for tabling
of a bill once it has passed the House and intervening business has
occurred.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. House Resolution 317 has already been
adopted by the House and not liable to any point of order.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it would be my privilege
now to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California
(Mr. Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania for yielding.
The reason we have this bill and the reason we are having this debate
is because the D.C. voting bill, which just passed this House, costs
$2.5 million. So in order to have it be neutral, there needs to be $2.5
million found.
Now, what this bill proposes to do is what I would argue is basically
a tax gimmick because no one's final tax, no one's ultimate tax pay,
will be changed as a result of this bill. What it, in fact, does is
change how quickly some people must pay their tax. So they will have to
pay it a little earlier. They won't pay any different amount over a
year. They will simply pay it a little earlier. But that is what this
bill does.
But what was the alternative? Well, normally you would think that if
you were interested in fiscal responsibility, if you were interested in
keeping budgets balanced over time, that if you are going to spend $2.5
million extra, you would save $2.5 million somewhere else. That is what
people at home do. That is what everyday, average American citizens do.
If they are going to spend a little more money on something, they spend
a little less money on something else.
Let's talk about what you would need to have done. If the Democratic
majority had wished to reduce spending, and reduce the growth in
spending is all you would actually have to do, but if they had wished
to reduce the growth in spending in order to offset this $2.5 million,
we are talking about 0.0002 percent. That is the reduction in growth,
not even a cut, but the reduction in growth of spending. That is all
you would have to do to offset the $2.5 million in this bill. And then
we wouldn't even be talking about taxes and tax gimmicks and all that.
Point zero zero zero 2 percent.
I ask you, if you can't find 0.0002 percent to reduce growth, not
even to reduce entitlement spending, but to reduce growth of
entitlement spending, where and when will you ever deal with the
entitlement tidal wave that we have coming? By 2037 the entitlements
will eat up 100 percent of the Federal budget as we currently know it.
So you have a couple of choices. You can either reduce the growth in
entitlement spending over time so we don't have that, or you can double
taxes. Well, if you can't find today 0.0002 percent to reduce the
growth in spending, I would have to presume, and I think people would
have to presume, Mr. Speaker, that the doubling of taxes eventually is
where you want to go.
Now, we already saw a budget where you have had the largest tax
increase in American history included in the budget, and now we can see
why. You can't even find this amount of reduction in spending.
I oppose the D.C. voting bill because I think it is not right and not
constitutional. But I oppose this bill as well because if we are ever
going to control this budget and we are not going to control it on the
backs of the average working American person, then tinkering with the
Tax Code to find $2.5 million is not the way to do it. The way to do it
is to go find 0.0002 percent of the growth and reduce that amount.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Mississippi.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I won't need 3 minutes. I
just want to applaud the conversion of my Republican colleagues.
Six years ago the Nation was breaking even on an annual basis. They
came to town with a new President and in the span of 3 years added $3
trillion to the national debt, never once explaining any remorse, never
once saying, we're going to turn this around.
So I am really pleased to see the conversion, and I want to applaud
you for it. I just wish it had happened 6 years ago.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for
me to yield 5 minutes to a gentleman who brings marvelous expertise to
any tax debate, who is entitled to wear a green eye shade if he
chooses, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding the
time.
It is interesting, and our good colleague has left, but I would
wonder why we constantly talk about history from 6 years ago that
eliminates the conversation about 9/11, the recession that we went
into, and an awful lot of things that had an impact on the financial
circumstances or guesses at the financial circumstances over these
intervening 10 or 12 years that seem to get lost whenever it is
convenient.
What I would like to speak to, though, is the mechanics of what is
happening right here. This is a PAYGO fix and is intended to ``pay
for'' the additional expenses for adding an additional Representative
to this body. I disagree with that. It is unconstitutional from a
straight reading, but that is not our issue. How do we pay for that?
The folks back home understand the term ``PAYGO'' as if they want to
pay for something, they have choices. They can borrow the money, which
we have collectively done an awful lot of, or they can earn more money
or they can cut spending in an area to pay for whatever the new
expenditure is.
This bill takes the first route. This is simply a cash flow issue.
This does not actually raise the money that the Federal Government gets
to keep to pay for these additional expenses. This bill simply looks at
a very unsympathetic group of taxpayers out there, folks who are
blessed to make over $5 million in AGI each year, and says, we are
going to borrow the money from you to pay for this.
And so our friends on the other side of the aisle have a very
twisted, in my view, definition of PAYGO which involves simply
borrowing money, whether it is to pay for your American Express bill
off of this month's Visa or to sign up for a new Visa to pay the old
Visa card. This bill doesn't pay for these added Federal expenses. It
simply finances it through a borrowing from taxpayers who make more
than $5 million in adjusted gross income.
So we many times come to this floor with less than straightforward
conversations about what we are doing. This is one of those times. This
is not a PAYGO fix. This is simply a cash
[[Page H3597]]
flow, borrowing the money from a certain number of taxpayers, because
the bill does not raise anyone's tax. It does increase the amount of
advanced payment that taxpayers have to make each year, depending on
what their tax scheme is. But their ultimate tax bill is decided by the
code that is in existence right now and will not be changed.
So as the other side, Mr. Speaker, brags on this bill as being their
answer to the additional spending under the D.C. voting bill, it is not
right. This simply borrows the money from some other group and does not
pay for it.
So I would oppose this bill. It does not honor the traditional
definition of PAYGO that we are all familiar with, and I would urge my
colleagues to vote against it.
{time} 1515
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding.
I thank the gentleman from Georgia for leading this debate. Truly,
you are the man to lead this debate on this great civil rights bill
that the House is about to give after 206 years. I thank you for coming
forward to do so.
I want to praise and offer my gratitude to Democratic leaders for
reconciling the important principle of fiscal responsibility, PAYGO as
we call it, with the basic principle of voting rights, forsaking
neither. H.R. 1906 is particularly appropriate, especially when you
consider that D.C. residents have always paid taxes, notwithstanding
that the 16th amendment says that only States shall pay taxes.
Mayor Adrian Fenty and Council Chair Vincent Gray yesterday led a
march in the wind and the rain on Emancipation Day because 145 years
ago Lincoln freed the slaves in the District of Columbia 9 months ahead
of the slaves elsewhere. My grandfather, Richard Holmes, was one of
those slaves. His son, Richard, entered the D.C. Fire Department in
1902. And his son, Coleman, my father, like his forefathers and like
me, have never had a vote in this city.
I am particularly grateful, and I wanted this time especially to
thank the 22 Republicans who voted for the bill today, preserving the
great tradition of the party of Lincoln for equal rights.
The Constitution was written by men who risked everything for the
principle of representation. We should be especially mindful today,
perhaps, to dedicate this bill to other men who have risked everything
in times of war. 80-year-old retired Wesley Brown, the first black
graduate of the Naval Academy and a resident of the District of
Columbia, who went to the same high school that I attended, served in
three wars, and retired from the Navy as lieutenant commander, but
never has had the right to vote. His remarkable life story is
chronicled in the book ``Breaking the Color Barrier: The U.S. Naval
Academy's First Black Midshipman and the Struggle for Racial
Equality.''
Bringing the matter forward, some young men in the District of
Columbia are returning from Iraq, and I leave you with a few of their
words. I quote Marcus Gray, who spent a year in Iraq in the 299th
Engineering Company, who said, ``My father served in the 104th Airborne
in Vietnam, and I am proud to follow him by serving my country in the
same manner. I could be called again this year, but being called to
active duty is what every soldier in the Reserves should expect to
happen.
``We also expect equal treatment, and the Army tries hard to see that
all soldiers are treated equally. However, I want equal treatment at
home as well. I want the same voting representation as other soldiers,
and as the Iraqi people have now because of our service.''
Emory Kosh, who works in my office in the House: ``I was proud to
serve my country as a volunteer soldier. However, I am not prepared to
sit as an employee of the House of Representatives while every Member
answers the bell except my Congresswoman.''
Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to give D.C. residents on the
battlefield and in the city itself the vote they have earned over and
over again. Most of those who have paid the dearest price will never
see the benefit. Those in the Vietnam War, the District had more
casualties than 10 States; in the Korean War, more casualties than
eight States; in World War II, more casualties than four States; and in
World War I, more casualties than three States.
In their name, and in good conscience, I ask that the House today
finally give the residents of the District of Columbia the vote they
have fought for now for 206 years.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to just
briefly yield myself 15 seconds to thank the last speaker for her
eloquence and her marvelous remarks and to say that I am very proud to
stand with her today as one of the 22 who voted for the preceding bill.
I am very proud of the fact that at a time when we are debating the
needs of democracy all over the world that we have taken the time in
the House to move forward to correct an anomaly in our own
representation and create an opportunity for the gentlelady who has for
many years so well represented the District of Columbia to have an
opportunity fully and legally to vote on the floor, representing her
people.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to now yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I, too, want to add my congratulations and my commendation to the
Delegate from the District of Columbia. As I mentioned early during the
day, I think this has been a good debate and an interesting and a
productive debate, and I commend her for the work that she has done on
behalf of her constituents.
I also want to state for the record once again that I strongly
support the enfranchisement of the citizens of the District of
Columbia. However, I believe that it ought to be done in a legal and a
constitutional way. I think there is a way to do that, and we have
talked about that. I do not believe that the bill that has just passed
the House, 1905, in fact is a constitutional bill, and I think that
that will play out over a period of time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to comment about where we are right now in terms
of the activity and the rules of the House of Representatives. We are
further delving into Orwellian democracy. I say that because the
majority party has been champions of saying one thing and then doing
completely the opposite. We have been told that this would be the most
open, honest and fair Congress. In fact, we weren't told it, the
leadership of the other party has promised the American people that
this would be the most open and honest Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that this has, in many ways, been
the most oppressive Congress because of the majority party's actions,
most oppressive Congress ever. You say, well, how can I arrive at that
conclusion? Well, the way that the rules have been used and the ways
that the rules have been changed draw one, I think objectively, to that
conclusion because the rules that have been changed especially on this
bill, on this issue, have disenfranchised completely anybody in the
minority. And you say, well, how is that? Well, the rule that was
adopted and the rule under which we are acting and the rule upon which
I asked the Speaker multiple parliamentary inquiries states that if
either H.R. 1905 or H.R. 1906 fails, then the other bill is tabled,
failed based upon recommital vote.
Now, what that means is this House has passed H.R. 1905. And normally
what would occur is that that bill would be on its way to the Senate.
But what we are doing now is waiting to see whether 1906 passes, and if
it fails, then 1905 is tabled.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that it is impossible to
construct a rule that passes the smell test or passes the principles of
democracy in this House that allows this House to table a bill after it
has already passed. It is unconscionable.
Many of us have served in State legislatures. We understand the
process of parliamentary procedure. We understand how minorities are
able to affect policy. But when a majority wants to, by the very rule,
squelch the input of the minority completely, it certainly can, based
upon the ruling from the chair. But it is circular logic at best. When
I asked the Speaker how on Earth could that occur, the Speaker replied,
Because of the rule. When I
[[Page H3598]]
asked, how can the rule be consistent with the rules of the House, the
response from the speaker was, Because of the rule.
Mr. Speaker, this is a remarkably oppressive action on the part of
this majority. I urge my colleagues on the majority side to rethink the
processes that they are using to make it such that the minority party
in this Chamber is no longer able to affect policy, which means that 48
to 49 percent of the citizens of this Nation are no longer allowed to
have Representatives that are able to affect policy because of the
rules adopted by this majority party.
It makes me very sad to draw that conclusion based upon the rule that
this House has adopted today. I urge my colleagues to reconsider.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I don't understand it, Mr. Speaker, how my colleague, my friend, my
brother from Georgia can come here and state in an open way that this
is the most oppressive Congress. We have only been in the majority for
4 months, 4 short months, not quite 4 months. You really don't believe
that.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Yes, I will yield to my friend.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Isn't it true that the rule which we are
adopting is unprecedented and has never been adopted in this House?
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Let me say to my friend from Georgia, I think
it was a good and a necessary rule.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I will no longer yield.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank my good friend for yielding.
I don't want to belabor this, but I think it is important for the
American people to understand and appreciate, and I think it is
important for my good friend from Georgia to appreciate, that this rule
that has been adopted is unprecedented. There has never in the history
of the House of Representatives been a rule that has allowed for the
tabling of a bill after it has passed the House. Ever, ever.
I urge my colleagues to look at the rules that they are adopting in
order to squelch minority input.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I do have one other speaker
who has appeared, and one who has made an immense contribution to the
debate on the previous bill. So it is my privilege now to yield 7
minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
(Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I thank my colleague for yielding.
I am going to support the bill at hand because it is the only way we
can implement what we just did.
I want to thank my friends on the other side. I know this is a
complex rule. It is unfortunate we had to go through the machinations
we did to get where we are, but this was a historic vote today as we
propel legislation along the great ark of our Nation's history as the
world's most vibrant experiment in representative democracy.
Two hundred six years ago this month, Thomas Jefferson became the
first President to take his oath in what was called the Federal City
here in Washington. But through the confluence of circumstances and
accident, the great compromise that birthed our Constitution and put
the Nation's Capital here also produced a grotesque injustice we have
so far been unable to right. Today is a time for another great
compromise.
The capital of the free world doesn't provide full voting
representation for residents. In fact, that has been true for too long,
but today we have started the process of correcting an unhappy legacy
left by the first Congresses.
I have discovered over the last 4 years that there are substantial
myths surrounding the founding of Washington, DC, so I want to take a
few minutes today to lay out the facts of how the city became what it
is.
The idea for a Federal district arose out of an incident that took
place in 1783 while the Continental Congress was in session in
Philadelphia. When a crowd of Revolutionary War soldiers who had not
been paid gathered to protest outside the building, the Continental
Congress requested help from the Pennsylvania militia. The State
refused, and the Congress was forced to adjourn and reconvene in New
Jersey.
After that incident, the Framers concluded there was a need for a
Federal district under solely Federal control for the protection of the
Congress and for the territorial integrity of the capital. So the
Framers gave Congress broad authority to create such a Federal district
and broad authority to govern such a place. That is the limit of what
the Framers say about a Federal district in the Constitution, that
there should be one, and that it should be under congressional
authority.
{time} 1530
After ratification of the Constitution, one of the first issues to
face the new Congress was where to place the Federal District. Some
wanted it in New York. Others wanted it in Philadelphia. And others
wanted it near George Washington's home on the Potomac.
These sectional factions fought a fierce political battle to decide
the matter because they believed they were founding a great city, a new
Rome. They expected this new city to have all the benefits of the great
capitals of Europe. They never once talked about denying that city's
inhabitants the right to vote.
Finally, Jefferson brokered a deal that allowed the city to be placed
on the banks of the Potomac in exchange for Congress paying the
Revolutionary War debt. New York got the debt paid, Philadelphia got
the capital for 10 years. Then, as now, those political decisions were
shaped by the issues of the day.
In 1790, Congress passed the Residence Act in which the right to vote
was given to those residing in the new District. But while the capital
was being established, those living here were permitted to continue to
vote where they had before, in their States, on the Maryland side in
Maryland, on the Virginia side of the District in Virginia.
The seat of government officially moved in 1800. In his final address
to the Sixth Congress, less than a week after it took up residence in
the new Federal District, President John Adams reminded Members, ``It
is with you, gentlemen, to consider whether local powers over the
District of Columbia vested by the Constitution in Congress shall be
immediately exercised.'' That one statement explains the nature of the
debate to follow.
Once again, the issues of the day shaped the actions of Congress. The
political parties couldn't come to an agreement. Imagine that. The
Federalists wanted to ensure a strong central control over the city.
Anti-Federalist Republicans wanted to limit authority and distrusted
all things urban.
With Jefferson and his Republicans preparing to take control of the
Presidency and Congress, a pervasive atmosphere of crisis compelled the
Federalists into action. If a bill was not passed before Jefferson took
over, it would never pass.
Eventually, the Congress passed a stripped-down version of a bill
authored by Virginia Congressman ``Light Horse Harry'' Lee. It simply
stated that the laws of Virginia and Maryland then in effect, having
been superseded in the District, would still apply.
We may never know why this version was passed because no records
survived, but there is absolutely no evidence the Founding Fathers, who
had just put their lives on the line to forge a representative
government, then decided the only way to secure that government was to
deny representation to some of their fellow citizens.
One historian aptly described the process as a ``rushed and
improvised accommodation to political reality, necessitated by the
desperate logic of lame-duck political maneuvering.'' But the inelegant
compromise ultimately adopted left a decidedly undemocratic accident in
its wake. District residents had no votes in Congress.
This wasn't, and is not, merely a quirk of history that affects very
few people. The problem affects the very
[[Page H3599]]
reputation of our entire Nation. Foreign visitors I have met comment
with puzzlement on the lack of voting representation in the Nation's
Capital. I heard it from the mayor of Hong Kong when we were discussing
his relationship with China.
Over the next few weeks and as this moves to the other body, we have
to agree on this principle. So we have taken important action today.
Our very practical Founding Fathers left us a tool in the
Constitution to deal with future problems. The District Clause in the
Constitution, article I, section 8, clause 17, is there for a reason.
Congress reaches its zenith of power in dealing with issues relating to
the District.
Over the years, Congress has exercised its power to treat the
District as a State when necessary, to ensure that the citizens of the
city have substantially the same rights as all other Americans. Surely
Members should resolve any difference of opinion they may have in favor
of our authority to use that plenary power to provide residents with
full voting representation.
Scholars spanning its political and legal spectrum have concluded, as
I do, that Congress has authority through this legislation to provide
voting representation in Congress for local residents. What was done by
statute in 1790, and then undone by statute in 1800, can be redone by
statute today.
This is often called the ``People's House,'' and rightly so. Article
I, section 2, sets forth that ``The House of Representatives shall be
composed of Members chosen every second year by the People of the
several States.''
That same language, ``People of the several States,'' among the
several States, is why the District of Columbia pays Federal taxes,
even though it applies to people of the several States.
The sixth amendment's right to trial by jury, even though it says
that it will be an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the
crime shall be committed, has been applied to the District.
Prohibiting district laws which interfere with interstate commerce
among the several States, Congress has applied that to the District of
Columbia and the courts have upheld it.
Treat the District as a State for purposes of full faith and credit.
That talks about States and the Constitution. But under the District
clause, we have included the District of Columbia.
Grant people who live in the District the ability to sue people.
Diversity of jurisdiction again applies to States, between citizens of
different States under the Constitution, but under the District clause
we have applied that by statute.
This body has taken an historic step today. I want to thank my
colleagues who worked toward this, including my good friend from
Pennsylvania, Mr. English, who supported this. But to continue this, we
need to support the issue at hand, the bill that is currently on the
floor under the PAYGO legislation.
It is kind of a jurisdictional morass, but I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I must tell you it is a privilege to be on the floor
today to play a role in having passed the last bill which our last
speaker spoke about with great eloquence. It is a real privilege to be
here with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) who certainly has had
a long career of fighting for people's voting rights and civil rights.
It is great to look across the floor and see former Secretary Jack
Kemp, a 20-year veteran of this institution, present here today.
Mr. Speaker, as a matter of principle, I voted for the last bill, and
as a strong supporter of tax simplification and fiscal responsibility,
it is my privilege to vote against the bill that is before us at this
moment, which is a procedural grotesque, a gimmick, a trick, a ploy, a
ruse, and one that I think represents the poorest of possible tax
policies.
I ask my colleagues to vote this bill down and send a clear message
that we don't support this kind of chicanery on the floor of the House
of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this is an historic day. This is a
wonderful day for the people of the District of Columbia.
I first came to Washington, Mr. Speaker, in May of 1961 to go on
something called the Freedom Rides. It was impossible for blacks and
whites to board a Greyhound bus or Trailways bus here in the District
of Columbia, and travel together through Virginia, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, into Mississippi and to New Orleans.
I came back here in 1963 at the age of 23 with Eleanor Holmes Norton,
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, to participate in the
March on Washington. To be here and see Jack Kemp, an old friend,
former colleague, on this day is a great day.
So, Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 1906. And I want to make it
plain and crystal clear that no one, but no one, will pay more taxes
under this bill. It changes in a very minor way estimated tax payments
made by wealthy individuals. This bill does not increase their taxes.
It would affect only 4,000 multimillionaires. It is only a tiny change.
Yes, I am going to say it again: I am pleased to have supported H.R.
1905. Today is the day for Washington, D.C. residents to realize the
dream that so many take for granted. The 200-year wait is over. The
200-year wait is over.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to vote ``yes'' for H.R. 1906.
Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record:
Rules From the 109th That Added Text of House-Passed Bills to
Underlying Bill
H. Res. 151 rule for H.R. 1268, 3/14/05, 7:30 p.m., Making
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY2005--a.k.a.
Iraq/Afghanistan/Tsunami Relief.
Open: waives all points of order against consideration;
waives points of order against bill for clause 2, Rule XXI
except two sections; provides for the text of H.R. 418 as
passed the House to be added to the end of H.R. 1268.
H. Res. 783 rule for H.R. 4975, 4/26/06, 11:20 p.m.,
Lobbying Accountability & Transparency Act of 2006--ethics
reform.
Restrictive: waives all points of order against
consideration; 1 hour general debate controlled by Majority &
Minority Leaders; makes in order Rules Committee 4/21/06
print in Part A of Rules' report and self-executes its
adoption; allows only those amendments printed in Part B of
the Rules' report as specified; waives all points of order
against amendments; after final passage adds text of H.R. 513
as passed the House (527 Reform bill) to H.R. 4975; provides
for consideration of Senate bill (S. 2349) and substitutes
House passed text and calls for conference; waives all points
of order against consideration of Senate bill and against
motion to strike and insert.
H. Res. 1100 & 1099 rules for H.R. 6406 and H.R. 6111, 12/
7/06, 10:30 p.m., To modify temporarily certain rates of duty
and make other technical amendments to the trade laws, to
extend certain trade preference programs, and for other
purposes.
Closed: Consideration in the House; waives all points of
order against consideration; provides that in the engrossment
of H.R. 6111, the text of H.R. 6406 will be added at the end.
(H. Res. 1099) Provides for a motion to concur in the
Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the text of
H.R. 6408 for a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide that the Tax Court may review claims for
equitable innocent spouse relief and to suspend the running
on the period of limitations while such claims are pending--
vehicle for tax extenders and more . . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 317, the bill is considered read and the
previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216,
nays 203, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 232]
YEAS--216
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
[[Page H3600]]
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Platts
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--203
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Capito
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kanjorski
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Space
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--14
Boehner
Cantor
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Fattah
Higgins
Israel
Jones (NC)
Lampson
Millender-McDonald
Rohrabacher
Walsh (NY)
Whitfield
Wicker
{time} 1608
Mr. BERRY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weiner). Pursuant to section 3 of H.
Res. 317, H.R. 1433 is laid on the table and H.R. 1906 is laid on the
table.
____________________