[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 190 (Wednesday, December 12, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H15327-H15334]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4351, AMT RELIEF ACT OF 2007
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 861 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 861
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
4351) to amend the Internal Revenue Code to provide
individuals temporary relief from the alternative minimum
tax, and for other purposes. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions of
the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion
to recommit.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 4351 pursuant to this
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the
bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for
debate only.
General Leave
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on
House Resolution 861.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. CARDOZA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, House Resolution 861 provides for consideration of
H.R. 4351, the Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2007, under a
closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order
against consideration of the bill except for clause 9 and clause 10 of
rule XXI. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Madam Speaker, the Democratic philosophy is simple: We believe in
pay-as-you-go. In other words, we believe that you should live within
your financial means. Every family that makes these choices around the
kitchen table every month in order to live within its budget
understands that simple fact of life. The Federal Government used to
understand this, too. In fact, the Clinton administration and the
Democratic Congress worked with Republicans on a bipartisan basis and
turned decades of exploding budget deficits into 4 straight years of
budget surpluses through the use of pay-as-you-go or PAYGO rules in
this House.
The use of PAYGO through the 1990s and early 2000s helped lead us to
the first Federal budget surpluses in over 30 years at that time, and
we saw record economic growth during that period which resulted in the
addition of 22 million American jobs. And in that time, America
actually began to pay down the national debt to foreign nations.
Despite the proven success of PAYGO, President Bush and the Republican
Congress abandoned the PAYGO rules in the year 2002, allowing it to
expire with no interest in reinstating it.
According to the Bush administration's own numbers, President Bush's
policies are on track to increase the Federal debt by over $4 trillion
by the year 2008.
It took, Madam Speaker, 41 Presidents combined to accumulate the
total of $4 trillion in debt. This means that the debt America incurred
over the first 200 plus years of our Nation will be doubled in only 8
years under the Bush administration.
Worse, Madam Speaker, about 80 cents of every dollar of new debt
since the year 2001 has been financed by foreign investors, including
foreign governments, especially China. This has resulted in 50 percent
of our Nation's debt now being owned by the following countries: China,
Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.
At the start of the 110th Congress, Democrats provided real choices
and a new direction for America. We made good on our commitment to
PAYGO and did what 6 years of Republican Congresses before us refused
to do: We restored PAYGO rules to make sure that we do not spend more
money than we have.
Once again, the Democratic leadership brings to the floor H.R. 4351,
the Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2007, that provides millions
of middle-class families with tax cuts to help grow our economy without
increasing our national debt. H.R. 4351 prevents 23 million families
from being hit by the AMT, and it helps 12 million children by
expanding their child tax credit.
The Republicans will surely say that this bill raises taxes, but that
is far from the truth. Let me set the record straight right from the
beginning. This bill closes tax loopholes that allows a privileged few
on Wall Street to pay a lower tax rate on their income than other
hardworking Americans, such as school teachers, police officers,
firefighters, and our Nation's veterans. This bill stops hedge fund
managers from making hundreds of millions of dollars by using offshore
tax havens to avoid paying income tax while other middle-class families
play by the rules and pay their fair share.
It also prevents multinational companies from shifting their income
to offshore entities and from creating sham corporations in tax-
friendly jurisdictions to avoid Federal taxation. We would all love not
to have to pay our taxes. Why should we allow these big corporations to
go offshore to avoid paying their fair share?
It seems only fair that if hardworking American middle-class families
play by the rules and pay their fair share that the wealthy and huge
multinational corporations that are gaming the system should pay their
fair share as well.
Madam Speaker, this Congress has made great strides to get our fiscal
house in order. If we want to continue down the path towards fiscal
sanity, we must make sure that every piece of legislation that we
consider, including this bill, fixing the AMT, complies with the PAYGO
rules. The Blue Dogs and the House Democratic leadership are standing
strong behind our commitment to fiscal responsibility through PAYGO. I
would like to thank Speaker Pelosi, Leader Hoyer and Chairman Rangel
for their unwavering commitment to sticking with the PAYGO rules. I
would also like to reiterate to the other body that our leadership is
committed to abiding by the PAYGO rules and not considering any AMT
bill on the House floor that is not fully paid for.
Madam Speaker, the $9.1 trillion debt that our country has
irresponsibly racked up, nearly half of which has happened in the last
6 years, must be paid back, and it will be paid back by our children
and our grandchildren if not by us. We need to adhere to the old adage
that we should provide a better
[[Page H15328]]
life for our children than the ones that we found ourselves. Quite
simply, we should be investing in our children's future and not
borrowing from it.
I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make the
right choice today, to stand by PAYGO today, to stand by PAYGO
tomorrow, and support this commonsense legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend
from California (Mr. Cardoza) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes,
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, this rule provides for
consideration of a tax bill that would raise taxes permanently to give
1 year's worth of tax relief. Let me repeat that, Madam Speaker. This
rule provides for consideration of a tax bill that would raise taxes
permanently to give 1 year's worth of tax relief.
The AMT was enacted in 1969 to prevent a small number of wealthy
taxpayers from using, at that time, legitimate deductions and credits
to avoid paying taxes altogether. Back then, the tax affected only 155
people, the super-rich. The AMT was never adjusted to match inflation.
Therefore, the AMT is affecting more and more taxpayers today. Without
fixing the AMT problem, millions of taxpayers will be hit by the AMT,
costing the average taxpayer about $2,000.
When Republicans gained control of the Congress, we passed
legislation to protect American taxpayers from the unintended
consequences of the bracket creep of AMT. Unfortunately, this measure
was vetoed by President Clinton. So here we are again today trying to
temporarily protect taxpayers from the AMT.
The longer we wait to fix the AMT, the longer it will take for the
IRS to make the necessary changes in the tax forms and to process tax
returns under the changes in the law. That is for this tax year. As of
right now, the Democrat majority's failure to pass an AMT fix will
force the IRS to delay processing tax refunds until mid-March at the
earliest. This is likely to delay returns for over 20 million taxpayers
who currently would be subjected to the AMT but who, with the patch,
would not have to pay the AMT. This comes out, Madam Speaker, to about
a $75 billion interest-free loan to the Federal Government from the
taxpayer and paid for by the taxpayer.
I support fixing the AMT trap, but it is a tax that was never
intended to occur. It is going to affect millions of Americans. But the
Democrat leaders in the House are making it nearly impossible to help
these Americans. Let's just pass a bill to eliminate the tax. Stop
using this tax relief bill to raise taxes by over $50 billion.
Just as disappointing as the tax increases included in the bill is
tax relief that is not included in this bill, and I am talking about a
particular loophole in the tax law. I am dismayed that an extension of
the sales tax deduction is not in this bill, the sales tax deduction
for those States that do not have a State income tax. It is a matter of
fairness. The AMT fix is for 1 year. I think it is only a matter of
fairness to extend the sales tax deduction for those States who don't
have a State income tax for 1 year.
I attempted to offer an amendment in the Rules Committee last night,
to allow me to offer an amendment to close this loophole or adjust this
loophole on the floor today to extend the sales tax deduction again to
those States that don't have State income taxes.
{time} 1115
It was defeated unfortunately on a party-line vote of 2-8 with every
Democrat voting to block allowing this amendment to be made in order,
including two Members from Florida, which is one of the eight States
affected by this legislation.
But there is another way, Madam Speaker, and the House will vote
today on extending the sales tax deduction so it doesn't expire at the
end of the year. If you are from Washington, Florida, Texas, Tennessee,
Nevada, Wyoming, South Dakota and Alaska, join me in voting ``no'' on
the previous question.
I will then amend the rule so we can vote to extend the deduction and
modify this loophole that I was talking about and ensure that our
constituents in States that do not have a State income tax are treated
fairly.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time
remains on either side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 22\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2\1/4\
minutes to Mr. Costa from California, who has been a champion of the
PAYGO rules and fiscal responsibility since the day he walked into
these hallowed Halls.
Mr. COSTA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cardoza) for yielding me this time to speak in support of this rule.
What we are really talking about this morning is do we choose the
easy road of least resistance to provide tax relief with the
alternative minimum tax or do we choose the more difficult road that
requires fiscal discipline, that requires us to be honest with the
American taxpayers as to how we are plotting our fiscal priorities for
our Nation today, tomorrow and for future generations.
We are debating the Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2007. It is
important tax relief for millions of Americans. I support this
legislation as it stands now. It is actually the second time in recent
months that the House will send a paid-for alternative minimum tax
relief to the Senate. It is important that we do this.
According to Secretary Paulson and the Department of the Treasury,
unless we fix the AMT, 25 million taxpayers will be subject to it in
2007. That is 21 million more Americans than in 2006.
However, it is important, I believe, and I think many of those in the
Blue Dog Caucus feel as well, that we pay as we go, that we provide the
PAYGO provision that has been in every measure that has passed this
House since January of this year.
PAYGO was implemented by the Democratic Congress actually back in
1990. It was signed into law by the elder President George Bush, and it
was part of the rules of the Congress for 11 years. It was a tool that
we put in place to rein in deficits that the Federal Government had
experienced since the early 1970s.
This Congress pledged to reenact that pledge to the American people,
to bring our House back in fiscal order. We have kept that promise
since January of this year. Every single bill that we have voted on has
complied with the PAYGO rule.
It is important that we note that our current debt is $9 trillion.
Enough is enough. Much of that debt is owed by foreign nations. We can
pass today the Alternative Minimum Tax Act by not borrowing money from
China because of this PAYGO provision. I want to thank the leadership
of this House for sticking with PAYGO. I urge my colleagues to vote for
this measure, the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from
California for his eloquent comments and say I agree with him
wholeheartedly.
Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of the Committee
on Ways and Means.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I listen to my friend from Washington
repeating the same lame line from the talking points of my Republican
friends.
They knew this was coming. Yes, President Clinton vetoed a flawed tax
measure back in the previous administration. What have they been doing
for the last 6 years when they controlled everything?
They decided not to deal with the alternative minimum tax. They made
a cynical decision to cut taxes for those who are the most fortunate in
this country and be able to use this money in the budget calculations
to be able to justify these massive tax reductions. They spent this
money and they count on spending this money for years to come. It is in
President Bush's budget.
[[Page H15329]]
We reject that cynical effort. We implored them time and time again
when they were having their tax reductions to deal with the alternative
minimum tax, this fiscal tsunami that is going to sweep away middle and
upper middle-income Americans. They refused. They bet on the other
side.
Now we are coming forward not with a tax increase but with a tax
adjustment. The Federal Government will get the same amount of money;
it is who are you going to benefit. We are going to save 23 million
Americans from paying the alternative minimum tax, making some
reasonable tax adjustments and not putting the cost of this patch on
the credit card of our children.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
I appreciate my friend from Oregon making his remarks. I am glad he
acknowledges that President Clinton vetoed the permanent tax relief
from the AMT. Let me make my points, and then I will be happy to yield.
Ever since that time, I might point out to my colleague, there has
been a 1-year fix. We know that issue is coming. We know that this
issue is coming and it needs to be resolved. It hasn't been resolved,
and we know that it won't be resolved by raising taxes on other people.
I know my friends on the other side of the aisle can say no, these
are adjustments. If they are adjustments, I hope they will acknowledge
with me that what I am trying to do on the previous question is to make
an adjustment for those States, for the people in States that don't
have a State sales tax, to make that adjustment so they can have
fairness across the board of being able to deduct sales tax from their
Federal income tax. I will be making that motion, Madam Speaker, on the
previous question.
I am happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman.
I appreciate we are sort of finalizing history here, and I appreciate
your referring to that past.
But is it not true that for the last 6 years when you were in
control, you made a decision to have other tax cuts that were financed
in part by the assumption that we are going to collect this AMT?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. No. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is
not correct on that, because in all of the budgets that we put
together, there was never a provision that said that this income was
something that we would use.
That is, by the way, in your budget. You do it with a mechanism
called the reserve fund which says you have to offset.
But I will say this, and I will talk about economic policy and tax
policy. Because of the tax policies we have put in place with the tax
cuts in 2001 and 2003, we have seen an extraordinarily strong economy
in this country. I think that is pretty hard to refute, and so I just
want to point that out to my friend.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all Members to address
their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. My good friend from Washington talked past the point.
Those budgets assumed the alternative minimum tax. President Bush's
budget assumes the alternative minimum tax. And I want to make clear
that this is something that we are simply not going to do. We do not
want to continue their practice of assuming this tax to be able to
finance other priorities.
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cooper), a former cochair of the Blue Dog Coalition and
a great Member of this House who is committed to fiscal responsibility.
Mr. COOPER. Madam Speaker, there is no reason to make this debate
more complicated than it is. It all revolves around a very simple but
vitally important principle: whether the United States Government pays
its bills. We think that it should. The principle is called PAYGO, pay-
as-you-go. I am thankful that 31 Blue Dogs have signed a letter that
said they will not vote for anything that means the free lunch
mentality of the past. I am thankful that so many of our progressive
friends across the caucus have similarly strong feelings. And I am
thankful that our Democratic leadership has put in PAYGO, what Alan
Greenspan said was the single most important domestic reform we can
take.
Let's stand for fiscal responsibility in this House. America must pay
its bills.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), the Chair of the Blue
Dog Coalition and someone for the last 11 years who has fought hard on
this particular issue to bring fiscal sanity back to our country.
Mr. BOYD of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cardoza) for leading this debate.
Let's be very clear. I think it is well understood by the country,
the fiscal recklessness of the period, the 6-year period from January
2001 to January 2007, a recklessness which included record spending
levels at the same time revenues were being reduced to a level that
created record deficits during that period of time which are going to
have a serious negative effect on the future of this country, the
economy, the kind of life that our children and grandchildren will see
if we don't get under control this recklessness that has been
demonstrated over the last 6 years since the 2000 Presidential
election.
Madam Speaker, you have to fix those problems by, first of all,
believing in some principles. And the principle that we believe in is
if you are going to have a program, you ought to be able to pay for it.
We all understand the serious consequences of the AMT and we want to
fix it, but many of us believe if you are going to fix it, you are
going to do it in a revenue-neutral way. That is the difference between
this leadership and the previous 6 years' leadership, which says just
damn the port, torpedoes, full steam ahead; tax cuts and increased
spending, it doesn't make any difference, as long as everybody is happy
at the moment. Our children and grandchildren are the ones who are
going to pay that bill in the end.
And I want to thank Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the majority leader,
Steny Hoyer, for standing tall with us on this principle of PAYGO and
this particular vote on the AMT as we send another AMT, paid-for AMT to
the Senate. It is a very critical time in the future of this country
and how we are going to handle our fiscal responsibility.
Again, I want to thank our leader, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cardoza) and the Speaker of the House.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), a member of the
Rules Committee.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pasco,
Washington.
Madam Speaker, we are sitting here watching our good friends on the
other side talk about all this great work that they have done, how
fiscal responsibility is so important and all these problems with the
country, and yet we are sitting here in the middle of December with 10
out of the 11 spending bills not even done because the Democrat
majority is interested in spending record levels of money, more and
more and more money and talking about tax increases, taxes that
continue and keep going.
{time} 1130
And yet they want to stand up and eat both sides of that cake and
talk about fiscal responsibility and how Nancy Pelosi, as our Speaker,
has done such a great job.
Well, Madam Speaker, I would like to encourage my friends to go home
maybe on a weekend sometime and talk to people and find out how well
we're doing. How well we're doing is not yet well understood by the
American people because we're up here and can't even get our work done,
and yet we're up here crowing, trying to take credit for all this great
work that has been done, and none of it is passed, not even a
negotiation with the President and the White House. No negotiation;
bills that show up, 1,700 pages worth of
[[Page H15330]]
a bill last week that we were given 20 minutes before the Rules
Committee went in.
We find out all sorts of earmarks, billions of dollars worth of
earmarks, and then we have people that come down here and start crowing
about fiscal responsibility. That's malarkey. That is ridiculous. We're
trying to get our work done, and we're over here standing up acting
like we've just won the race.
The American people know the difference. The Republican Party is here
to say we're going to try and get our work done, and we're here to show
up and to try and do that work. We're waiting for those other 10 out of
the 11 bills to come to the floor. We're waiting to be able to see
those bills so that we can know what's in the bills. And then one side
stands up and talks about fiscal responsibility. Absolutely ridiculous.
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, the gentleman who just spoke talks about
malarkey. I would say that his side of the aisle should know about
malarkey after they raised the Federal deficit over $4 trillion in the
last 6 years.
I would now like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Harman), a member of the Blue Dog Coalition and an absolute
fighter on behalf of fiscal responsibility in this House.
Ms. HARMAN. Madam Speaker, as the only grandmother Blue Dog, I rise
in support of this rule and the underlying bill. I strongly support AMT
relief for 55,000 taxpayers in my congressional district, and 23
million Americans nationwide. But there is a right way and a wrong way
to do it. Simply providing relief to this generation while raising
taxes on future generations is the wrong way.
Put another way, the $50 billion price tag for this AMT vote can
either be paid for responsibly, or we can send the bill to our children
and grandchildren.
In my seven terms in Congress, I have always supported fiscal
responsibility and have made scores of votes that are faithful to that
principle. Among them was a career-risking vote in 1993 for the Clinton
budget; my vote in 1994 to cut $100 billion from Federal spending; my
vote in 1997 for a balanced budget; my vote against the Bush tax
package which provided unnecessary relief for the top tax brackets; and
now these AMT votes.
Madam Speaker, I dedicate my vote today to my first grandchild, Lucy,
and to her brother and cousin, who will be born early next year.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, how much time remains on
each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 21
minutes. The gentleman from California has 14\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield as
much time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the
Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier from California.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I just don't get it. I just can't figure
this thing out. Under the Democrats' logic, they're saying that we have
to increase taxes to avoid a tax increase. We have to increase taxes to
avoid a tax increase. That's what the fiscally responsible thing is for
us to do.
Madam Speaker, last Saturday morning I had the privilege of riding in
the Glendora Christmas parade. Glendora, California, beautiful, ``pride
of the foothills'' they call this city. As I arrived, I happened to run
into a guy called Marshall Mouw, who is a former city council member in
that great city. He worked for the U.S. Postal Service for many years.
The first thing he said when he looked at me is, what are you going to
do to make sure that we're not victimized by the alternative minimum
tax? And I told him, we have tried time and time again to do at least
what's called a 1-year patch, a 1-year patch, which would ensure that
23 million Americans aren't going to be saddled with this unfair tax.
And personally, I would like to flat out repeal completely the
alternative minimum tax.
Now, let's remember what the alternative minimum tax is. Back in
1969, the Democratic Congress found that there were 155 Americans who
were millionaires, and they weren't paying their fair share of taxes.
They, of course, were doing things legally. They had all kinds of
investments. They were creating jobs. But they weren't paying their
fair share of taxes, so-called. And so the alternative minimum tax was
put into place to go after those 155 Americans who many believed were
cheating somehow and not paying their fair share.
What has happened? Well, due to bracket creep, we now see 23 million
Americans. I would like to describe this, Madam Speaker, as unintended
consequences. It's one of the things that we often don't think about in
this institution when we try to pass sweeping legislation, well-
intentioned but sweeping legislation. And that's one of the reasons
that the framers of our Constitution, James Madison especially, wanted
the process of law-making to be very, very hard; very, very difficult.
I see my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations here, Mr. Obey, and I will say that it's very clear that
Madison's vision, I guess, is working now, when you look at how hard it
is for us to get our work done, how hard it is for us to get through
this appropriations process. I'm very, very relieved that many of the
things that this new majority would like to put through, which I
believe in many ways undermine what the American people want, like
putting into place a massive tax increase to avoid a tax increase,
can't happen, and they're not going to happen.
As the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways
and Means, Mr. McCrery, said yesterday, all we need to do is take the
last debate that we had on AMT, paste that thing in, and then we'll see
exactly what happens.
We know that our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol are not
going to accept this. And so what we need to do if we in fact are going
to ensure that the American people are going to get that much needed
relief from the alternative minimum tax, it's very important for us to
do everything that we can to try and come to an agreement as quickly as
possible. We know what that agreement is. We know what we're going to
agree to. We're going to agree to what we've done in the past, a 1-year
patch to ensure that these 23 million Americans don't get this massive
tax increase.
Madam Speaker, as I listened to my colleague, I was just told by one
of our staff members that they've been talking about how horrible the
last 6 years have been, how awful the last 6 years have been. I would
like to remind our colleagues of the fact that we got a report 2 weeks
ago of the third quarter gross domestic product growth rate that we've
had in this country. It's 4.9 percent. I would like to remind our
colleagues who continue to wring their hands over the deficit, yes, I'd
like to see the deficit lower, but as a percentage of our gross
domestic product, the deficit today is $81 billion lower than had been
projected in February of this year, putting it at $164 billion.
Now, people don't often think about the fact that the United States
of America has a $13.3 trillion economy, clearly the strongest, most
dynamic economy that the world has ever known.
Do we have problems? Of course we do. I mentioned at the outset one
of the communities I represent in Southern California, the subprime
issue is something with which we're trying to contend and to work
through. If you look at the value of the currency, if you look at lots
of other issues out there, we do have problems. But this notion of
claiming that the last 6 years have been a living hell for all
Americans is preposterous.
What we need to do is we need to make sure that we do everything that
we possibly can to rein in wasteful Federal spending, make sure that we
pursue opportunities to open up markets around the world for U.S.
workers to be able to export into those markets, and we need to make
sure that we continue cutting taxes so that we can see the kind of
economic growth that we've been enjoying in the past. That's why it's
silly for us to be sitting around wasting our time, wasting our time
doing exactly what we did last week on this so-called alternative
minimum tax when we know exactly what is going to happen here.
[[Page H15331]]
At the end of the day, we're going to have, Madam Speaker, a 1-year
patch to ensure that 23 million Americans don't face a massive tax
increase. Let's reject this crazy notion that we've got before us and
move ahead with what we know can be agreed to in a bipartisan way.
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the distinguished chairman of
the Appropriations Committee, and an absolute champion on this issue,
Mr. Obey.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I would just like to respond briefly to some
of the assertions made a few minutes ago under which the Clinton
administration was attacked for supposedly not correcting the
alternative minimum tax problem.
I want to read from the administration's statement when the President
vetoed the budget reconciliation bill, which contained the so-called
AMT fix. The President pointed out at the time that in addition to
supposedly dealing with the alternative minimum tax, that that bill
would have cut Medicare by $270 billion, it would have cut Federal
Medicaid payments to States by $163 billion, it would have virtually
eliminated the direct student loan program, it would have provided huge
tax cuts, over 47 percent of the benefits would have gone to the top 12
percent of earners in the country. I think that's enough said.
If you want to understand why the Clinton administration vetoed the
bill, it was not because they were against an alternative minimum tax
fix. In fact, the President specifically supported it in his comments.
What he objected to was using the alternative minimum tax proposal as a
Trojan horse to bring in huge gifts for the most well off people in
this society paid for by huge funding cuts for those in our society who
were the most vulnerable. The President didn't apologize for his action
at the time, and we shouldn't, either. It was the right thing to do.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself 2 minutes, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the previous
speaker, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He has always
been one that believes that this House ought to do their work, and he
has worked extraordinarily hard to make sure that this House does their
work on the appropriation process.
But I find it ironic that in the gentleman's remarks talking about
what happened with a bill that President Clinton vetoed is because, at
least the inference is there's a lot of extraneous stuff on that bill.
My goodness, how history repeats itself, because here we are in the
closing days of the first session of this 110th Congress, and what are
we contemplating? There are so many rumors around here about an omnibus
bill. And we know what omnibus bills are. There are so many things that
are stuck in there to extract votes, generally they come out after the
fact, embarrasses the institution, and yet we seem to be going down
exactly the same path.
I appreciate the gentleman for acknowledging that President Clinton
did veto a permanent repeal of the AMT, which was simply the point that
I made in the outset of my remarks.
But I would just say, Madam Speaker, it seems to me we're going, that
there will be a speech maybe later on this week, probably next week,
about everything put into one package. And maybe we should take my
friend from Wisconsin's remarks and just repeat them again, because
history does repeat itself.
With that, I will reserve my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to inquire how
much time either side has remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 12\1/2\
minutes. The gentleman from Washington has 13 minutes.
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to my friend, the gentlelady from Connecticut, Ms. Rosa
DeLauro.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
rule we are considering and the bill, the AMT relief bill.
Last month, this Congress stepped up. We passed responsible
legislation providing millions of hardworking middle-class families
with the tax cuts they need and they deserve. And we're back today,
working once again to protect over 23 million middle-class families
from the encroaching alternative minimum tax.
In my home State, Connecticut, failing to act on the AMT would mean
new taxes on 358,842 households, including almost 67,000 in my
district. This is must-pass legislation for our families and for our
changing economy.
I commend Chairman Rangel for leading the way for providing relief in
a way that allows us to get our fiscal house in order by sticking to
the PAYGO rules that this Congress adopted.
{time} 1145
This legislation also includes a long overdue expansion of the child
tax credit. Last year, because of the way the laws were written, 7
million children, most of them infants and toddlers, in working
families across the country remained ineligible for even a partial
credit.
This year we do better. We return to the original intent of the child
tax credit. By lowering the earnings threshold to $8,500, we will
capture additional millions of children who will be eligible for the
tax credit, and the families of 10 million others will receive larger
refunds.
With this bill, we have an opportunity to help these kids. I urge my
colleagues to vote for this rule and to pass this legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, you know, we've had probably
close to 1,100 votes this session. We've been here since January. In
fact, January we had more work scheduled than I've seen in a long, long
time because January is usually a light month. But we had all those
votes, and here we are with just a few days left in this session and we
haven't done a darn thing.
In my opinion, the accomplishments of this Congress under the
Democrat leadership has been a big zero. The appropriation bills that
the President wanted to sign and get through this process have not been
given to him, and now you're going to come up with an omnibus spending
bill right here at the end with a lot of pork in it that nobody knows
what's in it, and you're going to present that to the American people
as a job well done.
Well, it is not a job well done. That omnibus spending bill, if it
has all that pork in it that we've heard of, the President's likely to
veto, and then we're going to have to come back with a continuing
resolution to get us through the end of the year into the middle of
January.
So I'd just like to say to my colleagues, whom I respect a great
deal, the promises that you made at the beginning of the year when you
took charge of this House have not been met. We have not gotten
anything done of substance, and we're going to leave here with an
omnibus spending bill that may or may not be vetoed, and the American
people are going to wonder what in the world's in that bill.
So I'd just like to say to my colleagues, I'd like to say a job well
done, but I can't. It's been a total zero this year.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will again remind Members to
address their comments to the Chair.
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I have the distinct honor to yield 1
minute to a member of the Rules Committee and a member of the Blue Dog
Coalition, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).
Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, I stand today in strong support of this rule, a rule
that supports a very important bill, a fix for the AMT, that does it in
a way that is fiscally responsible, which is extremely important.
When I look at the things that this House has done this year, things
like appropriating money so that student loans are increased, Pell
Grants are increased so that our children who go to college leave
college with less debt, less saddled for the future; when I think of
the sacrifices that parents make so that they can help their children
through college, so that when
[[Page H15332]]
their children finish college they're not saddled with debt; those are
the kind of considerations that we need to take into consideration
today in fixing the AMT so that we don't saddle our children with
incredible debt in the future, that we fix the AMT and we do it in a
responsible way.
So I am proud to support this rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I reserve my time, Madam Speaker.
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas, a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Budget
Committee, a distinguished member of this body, Mr. Doggett.
Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Responsible, pay-as-you-go government is a significant part of the
new direction to which this Congress committed our country last
January. Now is hardly the time to abandon that important commitment.
For 7 years, spend-and-borrow Republicans have seldom met a problem
in this country that they didn't address by borrowing more money and
incurring more public debt. Now, when America faces a credit crunch,
they say ``get more credit.'' They insist on borrowing even more money
to finance another tax cut.
Admittedly, under Republican rule, the AMT, the Alternative Minimum
Tax, turned into the ``Aggressive Middle-income Tax.'' Republicans were
so busy treating the Federal Treasury like an ATM to finance tax cuts
for the wealthy few that they largely forgot about the need to
permanently fix the AMT affecting the middle class.
We need that permanent fix that President Bush continues to refuse to
support, but correcting and reducing the AMT can be accomplished in a
fiscally responsible manner. We Democrats understand that discipline is
required for fiscal responsibility. You simply cannot make a mountain
of debt disappear, say, the way they erased the CIA torture video.
This bill pays for the AMT fix in part by adopting most of the
Abusive Tax Shelter Shutdown Act that I first authored in June of 1999,
but which year after year House Republicans have blocked. Indeed, they
blocked it even after Senate Republicans approved the measure.
Today, we can stop corporate tax dodgers from shifting the tax burden
to middle-class families, ensuring both tax fairness and fiscal
responsibility.
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, how much time do we have available to us?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza)
has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Arizona (Ms. Giffords).
Ms. GIFFORDS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and
to support fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax.
In my southern Arizona district, over 40,000 families are going to be
directly impacted if Congress and our President do not take action.
The AMT was never intended to impact middle-class families. That is
why we must fix this tax and allow families instead to make decisions
about investing into their futures.
This is a critical, critical priority. As a Blue Dog Member, I'm
pleased that this bill also respects what Americans respect, what
Arizonans respect, which is fiscal accountability. And that is why this
bill is offset by closing a tax loophole.
Congress has to play by the same rules that our families in America
play by, balancing budgets and being fiscally responsible. This is a
priority that we're going to continue to push and push and push.
Today, we're standing strong for tax policies that help middle-class
families, the backbone of America, and I urge Members to support the
rule and support fixing the AMT.
Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, a founding member
of the Blue Dog Coalition and absolute champion on the issue of fiscal
responsibility and making sure that this House returns to fiscal
sanity, Mr. Tanner.
(Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TANNER. Madam Speaker, this rule embodies a fundamental principle
of responsible stewardship of this country, and that is to live within
our means and pay our bills.
There are some folks around here who apparently don't believe the
laws of arithmetic apply past the steps of the Capitol or the front
door of the White House. Well, they do. And there's some who've said
deficits don't matter. Well, if that was true, we'd just borrow what we
need to get along and forget about it, not have any Tax Code at all.
Everybody knows that that is ludicrous.
What we have witnessed over the last 72 months is something that has
not occurred in the history of this country since 1776, and that is the
willful and knowing plunge into debt by our continued refusal to pay
our bills.
When they say we can pass the AMT fix and we don't have to pay for it
because it was never intended on these folks, and therefore, it doesn't
exist, if I said that in Tennessee, they would say that fellow's been
in Washington too long; we've got to get him home. That is absurd.
The arguments to justify borrowing more money right now for all
future generations plus us, to me, are the worst of political rhetoric.
Somebody's going to pay this bill. We have asked the CBO, and they
say if we don't pay for it, instead of $50 billion, with the interest
carry, it will be $80 billion. And so it's not unlike a credit card,
and we have a Nation's credit card here.
I think we are looking at warning signs all over the world. When
people begin to talk about the dollar, when the dollar has fallen to
where it is, to when people say maybe the euro is a better alternative
for us right now than the dollar, these are warning signs that this
country cannot and must not continue down this fiscal path.
All of us took an oath to uphold the Constitution against all
enemies, foreign and domestic. I think there's financial vulnerability
that has been created and in a way that has never been done before.
Go to the U.S. Treasury Web site. This administration and this
Congress over the last 6 years, before last year when we started trying
to pay the bills, borrowed more money from foreign sources than all 42
administrations before it put together. That's not a political
argument; that was the numbers. And the more we do, the more the
interest is. We have transferred over $700 billion in interest payments
to people around the world. This year we have removed, basically from
the tax base that we had in the summer of 2001, $131 billion, by CBO's
calculations, every year.
When we don't pay the bills when we pass these measures, when we
don't pay for them, what we are basically doing is enacting a tax on
the American people in the form of interest payments that cannot be
repealed. That is wrong. It is, I think, a violation of our oath of
office to continue to argue that we can pass bills without paying for
them.
I thank Mr. Cardoza and the Rules Committee for bringing another bill
here, and I hope our colleagues here in the House and the Senate will
understand what we're trying to say.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, you know, I find this whole
debate rather perplexing. What the majority party is saying is that in
order to leave people's taxes the same, in order to leave them where
they are now, they have to raise taxes on somebody else. They have to
pay for leaving your taxes alone by raising taxes on somebody else.
Now, that's just warped logic. But let's just accept that warped logic
for a minute and let's say that somehow leaving taxes alone required
being paid for.
What about reducing spending to pay for it? Where in this rule is the
ability to have an amendment to do that? What about reducing spending
instead of raising taxes?
Now, later this week, we are likely to see a gigantic budget bill
that will spend $50 billion more than last year. Where is the pay-for
for that? Now, that's pretty clear. If you spend $50 billion, nearly
$50 billion more than last year, that's a clear increase in spending
for which you would think someone
[[Page H15333]]
would want to pay for it. But instead, here you're going to leave
people's taxes alone, the same as last year, and somehow that's a tax
cut that has to be paid for? The logic is so distorted here, and the
rationale is so distorted.
Let's go ahead and spend all this extra money and not pay for it. You
know that if you held the line on spending and didn't increase that
spending this year and you looked at what that did over a 10-year
period, you could almost pay for repealing the alternative minimum tax
completely.
{time} 1200
But, no, that is not what the majority party is doing. That is not
what this rule talks about. That is not what this rule allows. This
rule continues this distorted logic that says that spending more money
is okay and doesn't have to be paid for but leaving people's taxes
alone is not okay.
This rule and this proposal should both lose.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire from the gentleman
from Washington if he has any remaining speakers.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for
time and I am prepared to close if the gentleman from California is
prepared to close.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker on my side and so I
would like to yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let's put this thing in perspective. This Democrat tax
plan essentially allows the State sales tax deduction for those States
that don't have a State income tax to expire.
Residents of States with no income tax deserve to be allowed to
deduct their State sales tax from their Federal income tax bill. To me,
Mr. Speaker, it's a matter of fairness, which is why the Republican
Congress acted in 2004 to restore the State and local sales tax
deduction. This law provided tax fairness to Washingtonians and those
who live in other non-income tax States for the first time in nearly 20
years.
Now, this deduction, Mr. Speaker, expires in just days, at the end of
this year. But this House will have the chance to vote today, Mr.
Speaker, to extend the State sales tax deduction by joining me in
voting ``no'' on the previous question. I will then amend the rule to
allow an amendment to be offered on the underlying bill to extend the
State and local sales tax deduction for 1 year, just for 1 year, as a
matter of fairness.
To all the Members from Washington, Florida, Texas, Tennessee,
Nevada, Wyoming, South Dakota and Alaska, vote ``no'' on the previous
question so that we can give State sales tax deduction fairness for our
constituents. This is a bipartisan issue, and we can achieve an
extension today with a bipartisan vote against the previous question.
Our constituents deserve fair treatment; so let's give this to them.
The underlying bill that this rule makes in order is going to raise
taxes by $50 billion. The very least we can do is to extend the sales
tax deduction out of fairness.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear because there has been a great
deal of discussion on the floor today about PAYGO. I think PAYGO has a
lot of merit. I happen to disagree as it relates to this particular tax
plan in the underlying bill, but there has been a great deal of
discussion about PAYGO. So let me make perfectly clear this previous
question vote does not waive the PAYGO rule. If the previous question
is defeated and my amendment is made in order, the PAYGO rule is not
waived. If a Member then wants to raise, when the issue is on the
floor, a point of order against that amendment, they are perfectly able
to do that. So my amendment does not waive the PAYGO rule.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of
the amendment and extraneous material in the Record prior to the vote
on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Serrano). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have said that this bill
raises taxes, but that's far from the truth. Let me again, as I did in
my opening, set the record straight. This bill closes tax loopholes
that allow a privileged few on Wall Street to pay a lower tax rate on
their income than the average hardworking American does on their
income. That includes school teachers, police officers, firefighters,
our Nation's veterans, and, frankly, even us privileged that are able
to serve here as Members of Congress.
Mr. Speaker, the Republicans need to make a choice today. Are they
going to stand with tax cheats and hedge fund managers, or are they
going to stand with the 23 million hardworking Americans who will be
affected by this policy?
Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives is united in our commitment
to fiscal discipline and ensuring that government lives within its
means. The Democratic Congress pledged to exercise spending restraint
and to stop shouldering our country's needs on the backs of our
children and grandchildren. We strongly urge the other body, Democrats
and Republicans, to have the courage and good sense to keep the promise
they made to the American people to be good stewards of their taxpayer
dollars. We can't pick and choose when we comply with PAYGO rules if we
want to reverse the irresponsible fiscal policy of the Bush
administration and the prior Republican Congresses.
By restoring budget discipline and getting back on the path to budget
surpluses, we ensure America is economically strong and that we are not
beholden to foreign nations such as China, Japan, Iran and Saudi Arabia
whom we are borrowing this money from; that we are protecting our
Social Security and Medicare programs; and that paying down the
national debt is not a burden that we are going to put on the backs of
our children and generations to come.
With this, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a
``yes'' vote on the previous question.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is
as follows:
Amendments to H. Res. 861 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington
(1) In section 1, insert ``and any amendment thereto''
after ``ordered on the bill''.
(2) In section 1. strike ``and (2) one motion to
recommit'', and insert:
``(2) the amendment printed in section 3, if offered by
Representative Hastings of Washington or his designee, which
shall he in order without intervention of an point of order
(except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI) or demand
for division of the question, shall he considered as read,
and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and
(3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions''.
(3) At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 1 is as
follows:
``At the end of the bill add the following new section:
SEC. . DEDUCTION FOR STATE AND LOCAL SALES TAXES.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (I) of section 164(b)(5) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking
``January 1, 2008'' and inserting January 1, 2009''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply, to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.''
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
[[Page H15334]]
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________