[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 195 (Wednesday, December 19, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H16889-H16899]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1445
TAX INCREASE PREVENTION ACT OF 2007
Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in
the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 3996) to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for
other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:
Senate amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Tax Increase Prevention Act
of 2007''
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF INCREASED ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX
EXEMPTION AMOUNT.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 55(d) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exemption amount)
is amended--
(1) by striking ``($62,550 in the case of taxable years
beginning in 2006)'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting
``($66,250 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2007)'',
and
(2) by striking ``($42,500 in the case of taxable years
beginning in 2006)'' in subparagraph (B) and inserting
``($44,350 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2007)''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2006.
SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF FOR
NONREFUNDABLE PERSONAL CREDITS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 26(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rule for
taxable years 2000 through 2006) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or 2006'' and inserting ``2006, or
2007'', and
(2) by striking ``2006'' in the heading thereof and
inserting ``2007''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2006.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
[[Page H16890]]
New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is an extraordinary time for those of us in the Congress,
because a constitutional change is taking place that never was
expected, and that is where the minority in the Senate can actually
dictate to the House of Representatives exactly what they will and what
they won't do. And so the whole question of whether or not the fiscal
responsibility of supporting revenues for this bill is even going to be
considered is something that we cannot expect the Senate ever to
respond to because they need 60 votes in order to fulfill their Senate
responsibility.
So what do we have on the floor today? We have the principle that
most Republicans as well as Democrats have agreed to in the past, and
that is that the time has come for us to be fiscally responsible.
Now, when the Congressional Budget Office has an item in this budget
and it is called the alternative minimum tax and they put in that
budget a receipt of $50 billion, it means to me and should mean to
others that if you are going to delete that provision, you are deleting
the $50 billion. And in order for the books to be balanced, as any
family, any corporation, and I hope most intelligent and motivated
countries, you raise the revenue to pay for it.
So this is not happening. The President says you don't have to pay
for it. Go to the Japanese, go to the Chinese, borrow. And why should
you pay? Let your children and your grandchildren pay for this tax
relief that was never but never expected that it would hit these
middle-class people.
Now, what are our options? We could stick to our fiscal guns. We
could say the right thing to do is not to pass a bill that is not paid
for. We could say that the taxpayers are not really entitled to the
benefits of waiving the PAYGO rules. Or, we could say, why hold 23
million taxpayers hostage because of the irresponsibility of the
minority in not being willing to pay for this, no matter how many
alternatives we give them?
Well, we choose to say, protect the taxpayer. Forget the loopholes,
forget the revenue losses, forget the indebtedness, at least for now,
because we don't want those hardworking people, most of them
hardworking couples with children and with deductions, to wake up in
the morning and find there is a feud between the House and the Senate
and the Republicans and the Democrats that would cause them to carry
this burden. And the President says, remove it and don't pay for it.
Well, we come out on the side of the taxpayers, and we just hope that
we can pass this suspension, get on with the protection, and then, in a
responsible way, maybe the Republicans and Democrats in the House and
Senate can deal with this in a more permanent way next year.
Madam Speaker, I hope that those that are listening come to the floor
on this historic occasion as we hope that we can reverse the thinking
in the House and the Senate in pay-fors.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1500
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. McCRERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I compliment the majority on bringing
this bill to the floor today to stop the alternative minimum tax from
creeping further into middle-income families.
The effect of this legislation that we are considering today will
basically freeze the AMT where it is. In other words, under the 2006
tax year, there were 4 million taxpayers that had to pay their taxes
under the alternative minimum tax. This legislation will ensure that
only those 4 million taxpayers, basically, will be paying taxes under
the AMT and not an additional 23 million or so taxpayers at an average
of about $2,000 per taxpayer. This is good news for those taxpayers. It
is good news for the economy. At a time when many economists are
worried about our economy going into a recession, now would be the
wrong time for this Congress to endorse a tax increase, which is what
would have happened had we done nothing.
So I compliment the majority in bringing this bill forward today and
allowing the House an up-or-down vote on freezing the alternative
minimum tax where it is.
Madam Speaker, anyone who has listened to the debate on this issue
during the House's two previous considerations of an Alternative
Minimum Tax ``patch'' for 2007 knows that this debate is about much
more than just the alternative tax structure created in 1969. As has
been repeatedly said by Members on both sides of the aisle, the
Alternative Minimum Tax is a flawed tax, a mistake, unfair, and ripe
for repeal.
I am pleased today that Congress is again limiting its impact, for
the 7th year in a row, to only 4 million taxpayers. But, far more
important than enacting the patch or preventing the reach of the
shortcomings of the Alternative Minimum Tax, is the victory we have
achieved today over a flawed fiscal policy.
The bill before us today is titled the ``Tax Increase Prevention Act
of 2007.'' It is properly named, as its enactment will prevent 21
million taxpayers from an average tax increase of $2,000 this year.
But, this tax increase prevention pales in comparison to the tax
increase that all federal income taxpayers, well over 100 million
Americans, will face under the next President.
The debate over the past several months has been a warm-up act, a
pre-game show, the ``undercard,'' for the debate over the fiscal fork
in the road the country will come to in 2010. On one side, clearly
demonstrated by the initial vote on H.R. 3996, and the vote on H.R.
4351 last week, are those who believe the federal government needs more
tax revenue. On the other side, mostly this side of the aisle, are
those who believe the federal government already collects enough taxes
from its people.
I hope this philosophical difference is understood as we move forward
with debate on tax legislation next year, prepare for a great national
debate during the 2008 elections, and engage during the 111th Congress
over the largest tax increase in the history of civilization.
In those debates, proponents of the ``paygo'' rules that were
successfully cast aside earlier today will cloak their arguments in
terms of fiscal responsibility. They'll argue in moral absolutes and in
righteous terms that the House's paygo system is sound budget policy. I
beg to differ. Taken to its logical end, it is a recipe for economic
disaster.
Over the past few months, the goal of the proponents of ``paygo
philosophy'' has been simple--to increase taxes. If we had not been
successful in defeating their efforts here, consider where the debate
would go next. The next Congress and the next President will be
debating a tax increase on married couples, a tax increase on families
with children, a tax increase on death, a tax increase on investment,
and a tax increase on savings. Every current federal income taxpayer,
and even millions of Americans who currently pay no federal income
taxes, faces a substantial tax Increase.
Let's be clear, the goal of paygo's advocates is to succeed in
allowing all those taxes to increase, or to find other tax increases to
replace them. At the end of the day, if you believe the federal
government needs trillions more in tax revenue, you should oppose this
bill, you should recommit yourself to ``paygo,'' and you should be
utterly disappointed that the House overwhelmingly rejected it today.
As for me, I hope that Members will vote to support this legislation,
and bury ``paygo'' in the graveyard of failed economic philosophies.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a member of the committee.
Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, this is truly a sad day for the institution
of Congress in this administration when we have a minority number of
Members in both the House and the Senate that are more interested in
protecting a handful of hedge fund managers' ability to move millions
of dollars offshore without paying their fair share of taxes and in
order to protect the financial security of our children and
grandchildren by paying for this AMT relief bill.
Make no mistake, everyone is in agreement that we want to stop the
AMT from affecting 20-plus million Americans next year. The difference
is our party wants to pay for it; they don't.
We have had the fastest and largest accumulation of national debt
under Republican rule in the last 6 years, and they're saying that's
not enough.
[[Page H16891]]
We are almost completely dependent on borrowing money from China to
finance our deficit, and they're saying that's not enough.
The fastest growing area of spending in the Federal budget is
interest payments on the national debt, and they're saying that's not
enough. Let's pile on some more and let's leave this mortgage, this
legacy of debt for our children to handle. I think that is a disgrace.
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, to paraphrase the last speaker for the
majority, it is his party that wants a tax increase. It is our party
that does not want a tax increase. It is that simple.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of
the committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, let's just say what we're doing
here. What this bill does is it prevents a tax increase. Now, we have
different philosophies and we have different ideas on how to keep
America moving forward between Republicans and Democrats, the minority
and the majority.
What the majority is doing right here is they are waiving their own
budget rules. They came in promising a new pay-as-you-go system, and
here they go, as soon as the going gets tough, waive PAYGO.
I find it interesting that never during the course of this debate
this year did the majority ever propose to reduce spending to offset
this. They only proposed raising taxes. But here we are on the eve of
the end of the year, preventing 19 million additional taxpayers from
paying this tax increase.
Let's look at where we were at the beginning of this year.
Speaker Pelosi: ``After years of historic deficits, this new Congress
will commit itself to a higher standard: pay as you go.''
The majority leader, and I think he will be consistent and vote
against this particular bill: ``Our budget strictly adheres to the pay-
as-you-go budget rules that were reinstated in January by the new
majority.''
Our distinguished chairman of the committee: ``You've got to offset
those tax cuts.'' So on and so forth.
Well, here we are and we are going to pass this by waiving PAYGO.
Now let me make it very clear, I disagree with the majority's PAYGO.
The majority's PAYGO says let's just keep raising taxes. Well, two
wrongs don't make a right.
This tax was never meant to be. This is a new tax increase on top of
the Tax Code. It was never intended in the first place. This ought to
be repealed, period. So I don't agree with this notion that this tax
increase ought to just be replaced with some other tax increase, and
that's the majority's position. They want the revenue from the
alternative minimum tax, they just don't want to raise it through that
tax so they have a different tax increase. That is bad economic policy.
At a time when economists are telling us we might be headed for a
recession, at a time when they are saying a slowdown is on the horizon,
the last thing the American people and the economy need is a tax
increase. That's why this is an important bill. We have big tax
increases on the horizon.
The distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee is
proposing an enormous tax increase, $3.5 trillion. They are proposing
to get rid of all of those tax cuts that got us out of recession in
2003 in the first place, and they are proposing not to repeal the AMT
but to replace it with even higher taxes on workers and small
businesses. That is the wrong economic recipe for America. The right
one is keep taxes where they are and control spending.
Mr. RANGEL. I am glad that the last speaker is so young and vibrant
that he may be able to share with the President his views. It was never
intended that this tax would hit the people. That's why for 7 years the
President never did anything to remove it. He never expected it to hit
the people. That's why every year except this year he put it in the
budget and expected the $50 billion. No one ever expected this to
exist. That's why the Congressional Budget Office says we should be
getting $50 billion. This argument is so persuasive, I can't wait to
get home to explain it to my creditors.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our
majority leader, and thank him so much for the work he has done for the
majority and, therefore, for the Congress and our country.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman.
What an ironic argument my friend from Wisconsin makes. We said we
were going to have a PAYGO rule. We have voted consistently for PAYGO.
We have paid for that which we have bought with 80 percent cuts and
20 percent increases in revenues.
What an ironic argument he makes that somehow now we are not
following that because nobody on this floor believes that 19 or 23
million, take your pick, Americans are going to get a tax cut on which
President Bush has relied in every budget he has sent to us except the
year of that particular budget. But the revenues have always been
relied upon in his budget numbers. You didn't change it. You were in
charge for 6 years.
Ironic, because the only reason we have to do this tonight in this
fashion and not ask the wealthiest in America, I don't mean people
making $10 million, I don't mean people making $100 million a year, but
people making $500 million a year, don't have to pay their fair share.
That is what this is about. That is what we have been forced to on this
day on this floor and in the other body. Because what is happening is
what traditionally happens, the wealthiest and most powerful in America
are protected on this floor from paying their fair share.
This is not about class warfare. This is about once again saying to
the middle class, We are not here to protect you. We are here to
protect the wealthiest in America from paying their fair share, which
is what PAYGO is all about.
My young friend says that the economy is in trouble. The Democrats
have not been able to pass one thing in the last 7 years to impact this
economy. Not one. It is all on your watch, I say to my friends; all
your watch.
And you told us in 2001 and 2003 if we passed your economic program
and continue to follow that the economy would grow and expand, and now
you say it is contracting and in trouble. I agree, it is. Why? Because
your economic program is a failed program that took us from $5.6
trillion of surplus, four budget surplus years in a row, and has taken
us deeply into debt and deficit. And yes, facing recession in the eye
because your economic program is a failed policy.
And I am angry about it. Why am I angry about it? Because I have a
great granddaughter who is 13 months old. I have a granddaughter who is
5 years of age, just starting kindergarten. And I have another
granddaughter who is 21. She has a daughter, and I am worried about
continuing to pursue this path of debt piled on debt, piled on debt,
piled on debt.
The only reason this bill is not paid for is because Republicans, in
lockstep almost, in both bodies, have precluded us from paying for
this, which everybody wants to do, and that is to relieve the tax
burden on those who are confronted with a tax that everybody agrees was
not meant for them. It was meant for the wealthy.
So who is being protected by this? The wealthy, whom this tax was
intended to hit.
So when you get up here and tell me nobody intended the tax to hit,
that is correct. But the people you are protecting are the people it
was specifically intended to impact, to pay their fair share, not to
run offshore and avoid taxes, not to have their taxes computed at 15
percent while all of us pay 35 percent. That's what this is about.
Ladies and gentlemen of this House, what we do tonight I will not
support if we do it. I have a lot of people who live in my district who
will be confronted with the alternative minimum tax. I don't want them
confronted by the alternative minimum tax. But if we are going to
continue to buy, if we are going to do what we will do later tonight,
part of the $196.4 billion that you're spending of the legacy of those
children that I just mentioned of mine, which you are not going to pay
for, and you said this enterprise will cost $60 billion.
This administration has been a failed administration economically and
a failed administration fiscally. But you continue to pursue these
policies, and we are forced today to recognize that
[[Page H16892]]
we don't have the votes to pursue the pay-as-you-go principle that we
adopted in a bipartisan fashion in 1990, we reaffirmed with many of you
voting for it in 2007, and which you abandoned in 2001. And deep
deficits and now economic recession facing us is the result.
I don't urge my colleagues to vote for this bill as I usually do when
we bring something to the floor. This is on suspension not because we
believe, in my opinion, many of us, that this is good policy, but
because we are faced with two stark alternatives: A President who will
veto paying for things that we buy, a President who will veto this bill
if it is paid for, responsible fiscal policy; and a Senate that will
not vote with us and, frankly, House Republicans who won't vote for
this. But we can pass it here, as we did twice. Twice we have passed
this fix, and we have paid for it.
This is a sad day for America. It is a sad day for my three
grandchildren and my great granddaughter, 13 months of age, on whom we
will pile an additional $80 billion of debt with this vote tonight if
it passes. So $50-some-odd billion and then the interest to follow, she
will have to pay that.
We ought to pay our bills. We talk about personal responsibility. We
ought to have the personal responsibility in this generation to pay for
what we buy. I regret this day and this bill.
Madam Speaker, I believe that every single Member of this body--on
both sides of the aisle--agrees that we must protect middle-income
Americans from the Alternative Minimum Tax, the parallel tax system
enacted in 1969 to ensure that wealthy Americans pay their fair share.
The question that divides us is this:
Will we enact a fiscally responsible 1-year patch to the AMT that
prevents 23 million Americans from paying more in Federal income taxes
under the AMT than they otherwise would pay under our standard tax
system?
Or, will we take the easy route, the politically expedient route, the
fiscally irresponsible route, and enact an unpaid-for, 1-year patch
that tacks another $50 billion--yes, $50 billion--onto the deficit and
debt, and immorally forces our children and grandchildren to pay our
bills?
For months, Democrats on both sides of Capitol Hill have fought to do
the right thing--to enact a fiscally responsible AMT patch that is paid
for by, among other things, closing a tax loophole that permits many of
the wealthiest people in our Nation from denominating their income as
``capital gains,'' and thereby allowing them to pay the 15-percent
capital gains tax rate rather than the higher marginal income tax rate.
Time after time after time, House and Senate Republicans rejected our
``pay-fors,'' and demanded that we take the fiscally irresponsible
route--and enact an AMT patch that adds $50 billion to the national
debt.
Madam Speaker, there is no small irony in the fact that the President
and his Republican allies in Congress have fought all year long to
prevent Democrats from adding $23 billion in funding for domestic
priorities while they have no compunction about voting to add $50
billion to the deficit and debt.
No small irony. Only gross irresponsibility.
Let no one be mistaken: The Republican position on the AMT is part
and parcel of an almost theological belief in supply-side economics
that is demonstrably false.
The Minority Leader, Mr. Boehner, recently stated: ``Tax relief pays
for itself.''
And, the President himself has stated: ``You cut taxes, and the tax
revenues increase.''
The facts, however, show otherwise:
In the last 7 years, the Republican party's economic policies have
erased a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion, instigated
record budget deficits, and added more than $3.4 trillion to the
national debt.
As my good friend, Congressman Tanner of Tennessee, recently pointed
out: Since President Bush took office, the gross national debt has
increased by $1.37 billion per day; $57 million per hour; and $948,907
per minute.
This, of course, is the record of a President and Republicans in
Congress who pretend that they are ``fiscally responsible.''
And today, they don't bat an eye at adding another $50 billion to the
debt.
Madam Speaker, our Nation is on a perilous course.
Just listen to our non-partisan Comptroller General, David Walker,
who stated last year: ``Continuing on this unsustainable fiscal path
will gradually erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard
of living, and ultimately our national security.''
Democrats recognize the danger of continuing on this unsustainable
fiscal path--and in one of our first acts back in the majority, we
reinstated the Pay-As-You-Go budget rules that Republicans formerly
supported and which are credited with restoring fiscal discipline in
the 1990s.
Today, we will protect 23 million middle-income Americans from
bearing the brunt of the dreaded AMT--a tax they should not pay, a tax
that must be permanently reformed.
And we should also be passing a fiscally responsible AMT patch that
is revenue-neutral--a position supported by the President in his
budgets.
However, it is regrettable and, yes, shameful that we will not be
doing so because the President and his allies in Congress have insisted
on political expedience and fiscal irresponsibility.
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I wish you would urge the previous
speaker, the majority leader, not to give up on his desire for fiscal
responsibility.
{time} 1515
All is not lost because of this bill. There are many of us on this
side of the aisle who want to work with him and others to plot a
fiscally responsible path for the United States Government. That would
include entitlement reform, spending savings, as well as tax reform. So
I hope he doesn't give up, and I hope he will work with us in the
future to achieve that.
At this time, Madam Speaker, I would recognize the distinguished
gentleman from New York, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr.
Reynolds for 2\1/4\ minutes.
(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, we're talking about the young age of my
colleague and fellow seat mate in Ways and Means. I'm a little older,
so I heard the President when he said, There they go again. Ronald
Reagan. I heard him, and it kind of reminded me today as the liberals
of this great body and the Blue Dogs of this great body come down and
rant and rave over the fact, while they run the House, we're going to
have the will of the House, and the will of the House is to fix the AMT
for a 1-year patch, just like we've done in the past. Not an unusual
fix.
The last time I introduced this legislation, in 2005, 414-4 voted to
support that bill. As a matter of fact, I looked and there were 33 Blue
Dogs, some of which will speak today, that voted for my bill. And I
promise you it didn't raise taxes. It just simply provided a 1-year
patch for 2006 to give relief to the middle-class taxpayers that never
were supposed to be caught up with this thing since it was created in
1969.
And so when we look at this today, we've got a blame game from
everybody saying, hey, it's the Republicans in the Senate, it's the
Republicans here, the Republican President.
The Democrats run the House. We're here right before the holiday, and
this is the best bill you've got and we're going to pass it. We're
going to pass it just like I knew when I put it in in February, that
all of the talk, all of the hope, all of the desire to change comes
down to the fact we couldn't do it.
And it gets me down to three words, deny, deceive and delay. Deny
that you would raise taxes. You've already outlined how you're going to
raise taxes. Deceive, you promised the American people you'd fix this
permanently. And we're here today, at this late hour, doing a patch.
And then we look at delay. For 11 months, we have delayed this to
where we could have fixed it so that the American taxpayer would at
least have the forms when the 2007 tax bill comes home.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this legislation.
Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I have two requests. One, that Dr.
McDermott, one of our most expert legislators, who is trained as a
psychiatrist, be given the opportunity to try to bring some
reasonableness to the last speaker's remarks for 1 minute.
And also, that I be allowed to yield the balance of my time to the
chairman, Richard Neal, of the Select Committee on Revenues, who had
the responsibility of guiding us through the alternative minimum tax.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Massachusetts will control the time.
There was no objection.
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, the best way is to recite a
[[Page H16893]]
poem, maybe to lower the temper in here.
`Twas the night before Christmas,
When all through the House,
Every tax lawyer was stirring,
Even the hedge fund's spouse.
The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,
In hopes that AMT relief soon would be there.
The children were nestled all snug in their beds
While visions of health care and surplus danced in their
heads.
The Speaker with gavel and Bush with his pen,
And Republican Visa cards on the mend,
Blue Dogs, debt and dollar in decline,
Our fiscal sanity all on the line,
``Away with PAYGO'' the Republicans cheer,
Sack the children with debt, year after year.
Our majority too slim to beat a veto,
The luster of debt is all the minority know.
When what to my dismayed eyes should appear,
The upcoming election year.
New Hampshire is close and the caucuses near,
It won't be long before the voters make clear.
We only have 397 more days of this administration.
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from California, the ranking member of the
Trade Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Herger.
Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, the alternative minimum tax was never
meant to reach down and ensnare middle-class taxpayers. It does so
because it was never indexed for inflation. The AMT was created in 1969
to capture 155 of the wealthiest taxpayers in America. If we don't pass
this legislation today, it will increase taxes on not 155, but 23
million mostly middle-income families this year. A clean AMT patch is
the right policy for taxpayers. There are no new taxes in this bill to
comply with the so-called PAYGO tax increase budgeting. PAYGO can't
control spending, and it really only makes tax relief virtually
impossible. So I'm pleased that we're not falling for the PAYGO trap on
this temporary patch.
No new taxes also means that we're not dipping into the economy for
revenue. This is good, since we're facing rough economic waters due to
the mortgage situation. Although I'm concerned our delay in passing
this patch could result in added waiting time for tax returns from the
IRS, this inconvenience is minor compared to the alternative, tens of
billions in new taxes to offset temporary tax relief.
I strongly support House passage of this clean AMT patch and urge an
``aye'' vote.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time
remains on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 12\1/2\
minutes. The gentleman from Louisiana has 11\1/4\ minutes.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I yield myself 1 minute, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from New York, said the
Republicans are blamed for this and the Republicans are blamed for
that, and the Republicans are blamed for this. Let's make it clear.
They ought to be blamed for this. It is the Republicans in the Senate,
it's the Republicans in the House, and it's the Republican at the White
House that have caused this moment. They want to borrow the money. They
talk about finding common ground. The easiest loophole to close that I
have been part of in the last 19 years is the one that we've offered on
this floor for wealthy hedge fund managers who hide money on the island
nations to avoid taxes. We're asking them to pay for a middle-class tax
cut for 23 million people.
Let me repeat: The Republicans in the House, the Republicans in the
Senate, and the Republican at the White House, they have all opposed
that measure. That's why we're here today at this moment to get this
done.
It has been their intransigence and their unyielding position on
insisting that this money be borrowed when the minority has had its day
in this House of Representatives. That's why we're here, and that ought
to be eminently clear to the people that are watching today.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman giving
Republicans total credit for stopping a $50 billion tax increase, but
he's really way too humble. This bill wouldn't be on the floor today
were it not for the consent of the majority.
At this time I would yield 2 minutes to the distinguished minority
whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, the truth is that this $50 billion that
we're now prohibiting being collected from 23 million new American
families next year isn't our money. It's their money. It's not money
that we have this year. Now, it's money that we said at the first of
this year we never want to collect from these families, but then we
decided we immediately wanted to go right ahead and spend it.
That's the real fallacy here. Whether the White House makes that
mistake or the legislature makes that mistake, we have no right to this
money.
As my good friend from Massachusetts said, Republicans oppose raising
taxes. Now, because of that, our friends on the other side kept putting
this issue off, and because of that, when it comes time for Americans
who aren't impacted by the alternative minimum tax at all to get a
refund, their refund is going to be slowed up. This should have been
done 6 months ago. But we are getting it done today. We need to move
forward in a way that doesn't let this continue to be a pattern.
This tax was put in place in 1969. Unfortunately, it's still
affecting the same families that were affected in 1969. But no
modification for inflation. No forward thinking.
It was made worse in 1993. Republicans in the House, and some
Democrats, voted to repeal this tax in 1999. And that's the best
answer.
We need to get on to how we eliminate this unfair tax. It doesn't do
what it's supposed to do. And we have no claim on this money. Acting
like we do, spending it in advance, waiting till the last minute to do
anything to protect these families was bad management. But we are
getting the job done today of protecting these families.
Madam Speaker, I'm glad we're doing that.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, we're debating theology
here today, as opposed to reality.
With that, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Michigan, a
member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Levin, for 1 minute.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, it's interesting to listen to the minority.
They don't defend this tax loophole. No one has gotten up and said
people who should pay their taxes aren't paying those taxes and so it's
okay. That's really what you're saying. You're saying it's a tax
increase when you go after people who should be paying their taxes.
It's absurd. It's carrying a political label to an absurd level, and
unbelievable.
I suppose if we give more money for the collection of taxes for
people who owe them who don't move offshore, that's also a tax
increase?
You're hiding behind a label. What you're doing is saying, once
again, when there's a hole of debt, dig it deeper.
This has become the theater of the absurd.
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member of the
Health Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Camp.
Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, they say it's better to be a day
late than a dollar short. In this case, however, the majority party is
over a month late, costing taxpayers $75 billion.
As I listened to some of the previous speakers on the other side,
just because they can't deliver on their promises, somehow it's our
fault. But by postponing action on legislation to exempt 23 million
Americans from paying the alternative minimum tax, the majority party
has caused taxpayers, both those affected by the AMT and those who are
not, to have their refund checks significantly delayed.
When Republicans were the majority party during the last Congress, we
got our work done and fixed the AMT exemption amounts in May. As a
result, no taxpayer funds were delayed. No additional taxpayers were
forced to pay the AMT last year.
This year, under their majority, 23 million Americans will be subject
to the AMT. Last year under a Republican
[[Page H16894]]
majority, 4 million Americans would have paid the tax.
The sad part is 23 million Americans should not have to pay the AMT.
{time} 1530
They could have been shielded if the Democratic-controlled Congress
was able to finish its work on time.
The Senate has already passed a 1-year AMT fix that did not include
tax increases. They passed this legislation almost 2 weeks ago, and
instead of immediately taking up this bill, the House Democrats have
insisted the legislation include billions of dollars of permanent tax
increases just to maintain current tax law and tax rates.
I'm glad the majority party in the House has finally seen the light
of day.
And despite being much more than a day late and far worse than a
dollar short, I'm pleased the House is finally getting around to
passing this critical legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support
the bill before us.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 1
minute to my classmate, my friend and a champion of the taxpayer, a
member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Tanner from Tennessee.
Mr. TANNER. Madam Speaker, as slow as I talk, I'll talk fast.
No political leadership in the history of this country has done what
these people have done at the White House and here in the Congress in
the last 6 years. When they say they oppose raising taxes, let me tell
you, they have placed the largest adjustable rate mortgage on the
American people in the history of humankind.
Just in the last 72 months this country has borrowed more money in a
shorter period of time than ever in its history. We're presently
borrowing from foreigners a little over $20 million an hour.
When in the name of all that is holy are you going to stop? We are
trying to pay our bill and you won't let us. The Republicans in the
Senate won't let us.
When you place a $50 billion debt on every man, woman and child in
this country to protect less than 10,000 people who are exploiting a
tax loophole, and this is exactly what's happening here, when in the
name of all that's holy are you going to quit? When China forecloses
us?
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), the distinguished
ranking member of the Select Revenue Measure Subcommittee.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I'll keep my remarks
brief and submit the bulk of my remarks for the Record where they
contain economic analysis and no theology, so they may be out of place
in this floor debate.
It's been fascinating to listen to the lecture that we've heard about
failure. The failure that is on display here is the failure of this
majority to fix the AMT as they promised or even to patch it in a
timely fashion.
We are voting today on a bill that we should have voted on 4 to 6
months ago and easily could have, and the blame here, if there is to be
any blame, is on the other side for having passed a budget that was
built on quicksand, that was balanced based on revenues from applying
the AMT to 23 million mainly middle-class families. And every one of
them that voted for it voted to do it.
They took PAYGO and they made a burlesque of it. What they have been
doing up until this point is trying frantically to hold the AMT crisis
that they created as a hostage in order to drive higher taxes. They've
been using the AMT issue as a locomotive for a tax increase that is
unnecessary and is inappropriate, particularly if, as the majority
leader feels, the economy might be slowing down.
They have been single-minded in their approach to try to drive higher
taxes. Today, we have an opportunity to protect the taxpayers without a
tax increase. Let's take it.
Madam Speaker, since coming to Congress, I have been a vocal champion
for repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT is a horribly
inefficient parallel tax system that was never intended to impact those
it is, or soon will ensnare.
This Congress, like so many before it, I have introduced legislation
to repeal the AMT.
In recent years, Congress has turned to enacting temporary relief--or
a patch--to keep the AMT from reaching more and more taxpayers in the
middle class. This is necessary because the AMT was never indexed for
inflation.
This fact, in conjunction with the Democrats' distortion of pay-as-
you-go budgeting has placed us in the situation we face today.
While I think it is fair to say that most people believe the AMT was
a mistake and it should be addressed, the debate is over how it should
be addressed and if, in fact, other taxpayers should pay more taxes in
order to keep the AMT at bay.
In other words, does it make sense for the rule of the House to
require Congress to find revenue through real tax increases in order to
stop a tax increase from happening?
The Democratic majority says yes. I say that this premise is utterly
absurd.
Only in Washington could some green-eye-shade type conjure up the
idea that it is necessary to raise taxes on one group of Americans in
order to prevent another group of Americans from paying more taxes.
Instead of focusing our energy on who should pay more taxes, as this
majority has done, Congress should be focused on what kind of pro-
growth, pro-innovation and pro-job tax policies to enact.
Sadly, Madam Speaker, this majority has failed in this regard, even
at a time the economy is beginning to show signs of softening.
Even on the more narrow issue of ensuring 21 million new taxpayers
aren't subject to the AMT next year, the majority has barely received a
passing grade.
This is the latest in the year Congress has dealt with an AMT patch--
ever. Well, in this instance, tardiness as a severe consequence.
The Internal Revenue Service has said that the delay in enacting an
AMT patch this year will result in massive confusion for taxpayers and
lengthy delays for those expecting refunds this year.
And perhaps most disappointing of all is that when you dig deeper,
the misguided banner of paygo which the majority holds up today is
nothing more than a feeble attempt to mask their true intention with
the AMT all along: to hold 23 million taxpayers hostage as they
implement a protracted effort to permanently raise taxes in exchange
for temporary tax relief.
They may say today that they are issuing an ``IOU'' to taxpayers that
they intend to ``pay for'' this bill to prevent a tax increase. But, no
American is fooled by these reindeer games. They know that all that
means is that the House Democrats have just made a reservation to come
to your house and raise your taxes.
I'm particularly pleased Republicans were able to call the majority
out on this folly today in the name of the American taxpayer and
economy. But, we must also insist that the majority's reservation is
never honored.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I'd like at this time to
yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of
the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, two-thirds of the benefit of this tax cut
will go to families who earn $100,000 a year or more. Now, I support
giving them the tax break, but I don't support borrowing $50 billion to
do it.
Our Republican colleagues say today that, well, you don't have to
borrow the money. Why don't you just cut spending? Well, that's the
very question that we asked President Bush's representative when he
came in front of our committee, and he stood there and he kind of
scratched his head and said, I can't think of any spending cuts, nor
have these Republicans offered a single spending cut to finance this
$50 billion tax cut.
No, their approach is their old borrow-and-spend approach that
they've used for the last 7 years. The debt goes up; the dollar goes
down. We have the specter on the horizon of both inflation and
recession, and they follow the same old broken policy.
I believe that they are holding taxpayers across this country hostage
to force the Congress to borrow more money for yet another tax break.
It does not make good economic sense, nor is it equitable.
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana has 6 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 8\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. McCRERY. In that case, I will let the majority go.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, with that, I'd like to
yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz), a
valued
[[Page H16895]]
member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Neal for his leadership
on this bill and rise today to support tax relief for hardworking
American families.
Our action today will protect 23 million Americans from unexpectedly
having to pay the AMT for the first time this year.
We in the Democratic majority are committed to enacting fiscally
responsible tax relief, but the President and the obstructionist
Republicans have made it clear that to them adding to the national debt
matters not at all.
Under their watch, the national debt has nearly doubled. Rather than
making tough decisions, they have opted time and again to push the cost
of government on to future generations.
Congressional Republicans repeatedly and stubbornly resisted our
efforts to ensure that we protect 23 million Americans from the AMT and
do so without adding to the national debt.
The Democratic Congress is committed to our pledge of fiscal
responsibility. We will work to ensure the tax relief we pass today
will not add to the national debt.
I vote for this AMT tax relief to give 60,000 hardworking American
families in my district the tax relief they deserve, and I pledge to
work to make sure we don't pass on the cost to future generations.
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished
member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, let's check the facts. The facts
are the only reason we're here today is because the Democrat Congress
created this alternative tax. The only reason we're here today is
because a Democrat President, Bill Clinton, vetoed the repeal of this
alternative tax. That's why we're here today.
As for being fiscally responsible, let's check the facts for just
this year alone. For years, Democrats have said it is irresponsible not
to pay for this war; it's irresponsible to borrow for this war. This
year, they have spent, with our support, billions of dollars for this
war and didn't pay for a dime.
The majority leader stood on this floor and said it was fiscally
irresponsible to raise the debt limit; yet they did it in the first 60
days in their own budget.
This year they have used multiple pay-fors, the same pay-fors, more
than 20 times on different bills; just this week, the same pay-for on
two different bills within 24 hours. That's like using your house for
collateral over and over and over for different loans, which is called
fraud, and they've even used budget gimmicks by directing our own
budget office to assume there will be no terrorist attacks for the next
5 years so they can avoid their own PAYGO rules.
PAYGO, the way it is working this year is a sham. A sham. Being
lectured on fiscal irresponsibility by this Democratic Congress is like
being lectured on parenting by Britney Spears; it makes no sense at
all.
What we need to do is sit down together and find a way to cut this
budget.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, let me clear up what the
gentleman said as the Democrat he quoted previously. They have decided
to borrow the money for Iraq, almost all $800 billion of it on the
Republican side, $800 billion.
Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to a leader in the Blue
Dog Coalition, a friend, and on this issue in particular I think a
voice of great reason, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).
(Mr. BOYD of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BOYD of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend Mr. Neal for
yielding.
And let's be clear that the passage of this suspension of the rules
abandons our commitment to fiscal responsibility and waives the PAYGO
rules that were put in place by this Democratic majority back in
January. And the blame lays squarely at the feet, Madam Speaker, of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle and those in the United
States Senate who, at the behest of the President, have blocked all
attempts for this Congress to responsibly pay, responsibly pay for an
AMT fix.
It is a sad, sad day, Madam Speaker, and it's a strong testament to
how far we have gotten off track as a United States Government.
The Republicans are expected to vote almost unanimously for the rule
that waives PAYGO. It is abundantly clear that they have chosen to
abandon fiscal responsibility.
Madam Speaker, the Blue Dogs are standing firm on PAYGO, and in the
coming year we will continue to fight for what's right, for a Congress
that pays its bills and for strict adherence to the PAYGO rules.
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I was in my office and I heard the distinguished majority leader talk
about personal responsibility and how we've got to get this deficit and
this debt under control.
Personal responsibility begins with personal responsibility. There's
an article that ran a couple of weeks in the Washington Post that
mentioned one Member, who shall remain nameless, tucked in $96 million
worth of pet projects into next year's Federal budget, almost all of
which is in today's bill that we will deal with.
Included in that was an earmark for a group called InTune. When asked
what they would do with the grant, they said it might be music camps,
it might be lessons, it might be how to be a DJ, it might be how to
create a television show. The last earmark that this group got was
spent on lesson plans for funk music.
This is not personal responsibility. Were there not earmarks in this
bill, we would likely have a continuing resolution that would fund at
last year's levels, and we could start to get a grip on this debt and
deficit that we have.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, there isn't an economist in
this town who would argue that the reason that the Federal deficit and
debt has exploded is because of earmarks.
With that, I'd like to introduce the gentleman from Arkansas, a
leader in the Blue Dog Coalition and a champion on the AMT issue, the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) for 1 minute.
Mr. ROSS. Madam Speaker, this Democratic House has voted twice in a
fiscally responsible manner to provide this tax relief which I voted
for. Unfortunately, Senate and House Republicans have sadly chosen to
side with protecting tax cheats and their offshore accounts instead of
siding with 23 million working families and providing them with the tax
relief they deserve.
Abandoning our commitment to the fiscal responsibility and passing an
AMT bill that is not paid for leaves our children to foot the bill to
the tune of some $80 billion.
It is morally wrong to continue to borrow money from China and to rob
the Social Security trust fund to fund our domestic needs here at home.
This vote today will do just that, a vote forced on us by Senate
Republicans.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this Republican tax increase
on our children, grandchildren and future generations.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. When a Member makes a motion to suspend the
rules pursuant to clause 1 of rule XIV, is clause 10 of rule XXI, the
PAYGO rule, suspended and thereby waived?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion to suspend waives all rules.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Does the motion to suspend waive the PAYGO
rule as well, then?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion to suspend waives all rules.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Including PAYGO?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All rules.
{time} 1545
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
[[Page H16896]]
Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, Republicans have come to the floor
this afternoon to prevent a huge Democrat tax increase from taking
place on millions of working families across America.
Democrats have come to the floor to pay for their tax increase with
yet another tax increase.
Now, Madam Speaker, they call it the PAYGO rule. It fits nicely on a
bumper sticker. Now, supposedly it means if you increase spending here
or you have tax relief there, somehow you pay for it. But when I look
at the budget, I see that Medicare has grown by almost 9 percent. They
didn't pay for that. It was exempt. I saw Medicaid grow almost 8
percent. That was exempt from their PAYGO rule. Social Security
increased 5\1/2\ percent. That was exempt from their PAYGO rule.
Discretionary spending, 38 percent of the budget, well, PAYGO doesn't
apply to that, either. And now they bring a 1-year AMT delay bill
that's also exempt from their PAYGO rule.
This proves that the Democrats' PAYGO rule has gone from a fig leaf
to no leaf. Let's reject it.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I would like to at this
time yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from South Dakota, a leader in
the Blue Dog Coalition (Ms. Herseth Sandlin).
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I thank the gentleman, the distinguished
chairman, for yielding.
Madam Speaker, throughout the year the House has made great strides
and has made tough choices, beginning the difficult work of getting the
Nation's fiscal house in order. The Blue Dog Coalition has worked
closely with our colleagues to draft fiscally responsible legislation
that complied with PAYGO rules that the new majority put in place at
the beginning of this Congress, rules the minority rejected for the
past 6 years.
I commend the Speaker and the majority leader for their firm
commitment to fiscal discipline. Under their leadership and that of the
Ways and Means Committee, this House voted twice to provide AMT relief
for 23 million families without burdening future generations with more
debt.
Madam Speaker, there can be no mistake as to why the House is faced
today with effectively waiving PAYGO for AMT relief: the bad habits of
my colleagues in the minority who would continue to use borrowed money
to provide the relief, thereby raising taxes in the form of interest
payments, and the obstructionism and the lack of fiscal responsibility
of the minority in the U.S. Senate. They would prefer to protect those
who evade taxes even when the cost of that protection is to further
mortgage the future of our children and grandchildren.
For these reasons and others, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on
the Senate amendment on behalf of the children in our lives and the
children in our districts.
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, who has been a
leader on this issue from day one, and his leadership on AMT, I think,
has brought about a reformed opinion here on how it ought to be
handled, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, at the end of this day, notwithstanding
the philosophical arguments that we have exchanged on this floor and
whatever they do in the other body, the American people and taxpayers
are going to ask the question, Did this Congress deliberately allow a
$50 billion tax burden to fall on their shoulders? And we have to be in
the position to say we have a long way to go in getting our tax reform
straight. But it would be just so totally unfair for people to say that
because of our differences of opinion that on this close to Christmas
Day, we have blessed them with billions of dollars of a tax burden that
they should not have.
It was the Congress that allowed this to go forward in 1969 without
fixing it for indexing. And I hope it will be this Congress that would
say that we remove this burden.
I do really hope that even though this President has only 1 year left
in his term of office that somewhere, maybe the Treasury Secretary,
maybe the Republican leadership, that they might come forward with any
plan or some plan to remove the alternative minimum tax. And even
though we know it's going to cost over $800 billion or maybe $1
trillion, I just hope that maybe next year that it's not smoke and
mirrors and we didn't intend to tax in the first place, but we either
cut programs or raise the revenue but, for God's sake, not only do the
right thing for our taxpayers that are out there today wondering what
we are going to do, but for those taxpayers that decades from now after
many of us have gone, they'll ask the question, Why did you burden us
with this load? Why did you have us to have to pay this indebtedness to
Japan, to China? And why didn't you do the right thing?
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Virginia, a member of the Ways and Means
Committee (Mr. Cantor).
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I think what we are hearing across the country today
is a collective sigh of relief on the part of tens of millions of
American families who now will not be subjected to an over $3,000 tax
increase this year. This is real relief for real people and real
families to compensate for a flagging economy and the soaring cost of
living.
Yet with the economic anxiety gripping this country, it is just
astounding to me that it took so long to bring a clean AMT bill to the
floor. As the majority's concession makes clear, this was the wrong
time to raise taxes on the American people. The government never
intended to collect the AMT revenue from the 21 million American
families who this year would have fallen under the AMT net.
So the horror stories that we continue to hear all year long about
increasing the deficit was thus only smoke and mirrors for a desire to
raise taxes. And thank goodness we are here today because passage of
this bill is vindication for those of us who refuse to cave in to tax-
and-spend onslaught, and it is my only wish that this day had come
sooner.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time, and I might inquire at this time as to how the minority intends
to proceed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I have one speaker remaining and I will
yield to him, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr.
Campbell), the entire 1 minute.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I support this bill today, which is going to leave
taxes alone.
And understand that's all it's going to do. It is not cutting taxes
on anyone. It's just leaving them where they are.
But yet to do this, the majority Democrats are going to violate their
own vaunted PAYGO rule. And I would argue that PAYGO was just a sham to
begin with. I mean, you can add $40 million more than last year to the
budget. You can add $10 billion more here, $20 billion more there, and
you don't have to pay for that. But to leave somebody's taxes alone,
somehow you in theory were going to pay for it. But today that's a sham
that, even as a sham, the Democrats haven't been able to keep. It goes
from a sham to a double sham.
The lesson here is clear: You can balance budgets by holding down
spending, and that's what we ought to do.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 2\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I'm here in reluctant
support of this legislation. In this process of governing, you
oftentimes reach a difficult intersection. Sometimes you do not have
the luxury of either supporting a bill you like or opposing a bill that
you don't like. Sometimes you have to support a bill that you do not
like simply because it has to be done. And that is the crossroads at
which we find ourselves today.
We have sent to the Senate what was possibly the easiest of offsets:
closing a loophole so that wealthy hedge fund managers cannot hide
money in offshore accounts. But the Senate minority joined by the
President and a group
[[Page H16897]]
here in the House of Representatives have rejected on theological
grounds any provision that raises revenue.
Some 160,000 troops are in Iraq, 26,000 in Afghanistan, and at some
point we're going to have to pay for these wars. We are borrowing $2
billion every 7 days to fund the war in Iraq, and that's a bill our
children and grandchildren will have to pay. And yet, and yet, we
cannot ask the hedge fund managers to stop hiding money in offshore
accounts. That's what this debate is about and has been. They are
hiding money, scheming to avoid taxes in offshore accounts.
I support this bill in front of us today. We need to protect 23
million working families from being hit by higher taxes via the
alternative minimum tax. But without fiscal responsibility here, and
we've abandoned it when it comes to the alternative minimum tax and
closing down an offshore tax haven, we have little choice.
Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of the resolution.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, I rise today with great
disappointment that the intransigence of the President and the minority
in the Senate has presented us with only bad options to fix the AMT. If
we do nothing, this bad tax is going to affect families it was never
supposed to affect. The bill forces us to choose between saddling
middle class families in New Mexico with additional tax burdens under
the AMT and saddling our grandchildren with debt because of the fiscal
irresponsibility of past Congresses.
Twice this year the House has done right by middle class families,
fixing the AMT and paying for the fix by closing two different tax
loopholes that allow some of the wealthiest in the Nation avoid income
taxes. The minority in the Senate, unfortunately, spurred by the
President whom they continue to follow in lock-step, blocked both of
those commonsense efforts because they don't represent the middle
class.
So we find ourselves in the predicament we face today. I do not
believe that middle class families in my state should be penalized for
the poor choices and fiscal irresponsibility of the minority in the
Senate and the stubbornness of the President, and I reluctantly support
this bill.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I will vote for this bill--as I
did for a similar measure last month--because of the urgent need to
protect middle-income families from a massive tax increase that will
hit them if we do not act to adjust the Alternative Minimum Tax, or
AMT.
But I do so with some reluctance, because unlike the versions of the
legislation previously passed by the House, this version reflects the
inability of the Senate to bring itself to make the legislation
fiscally responsible.
As changed by the Senate, this bill does not even attempt to offset
the costs of changing the AMT.
I still think that should not be our first choice, because for too
long the Bush Administration and its allies in Congress have followed
that course--their view, in the words of Vice President Cheney, has
been that ``deficits don't matter.''
I disagree. I think deficits do matter, because they result in one of
the worst taxes--the ``debt tax,'' the big national debt that must be
repaid, with interest, by future generations. I think to ignore that is
irresponsible and falls short of the standard to which we, as trustees
for future generations, should hold ourselves.
But, as of today we are left with no choice except to vote to protect
middle-class taxpayers, or to insist on making them pay the price for
the stubbornness of others.
So, I will vote for this bill today, without enthusiasm but with
determination to continue working for greater fiscal responsibility
when the House reconvenes next year.
Mr. COSTA. Madam Speaker, I rise to urge the House to defeat the rule
as well as the AMT fix bill.
Legislation before us violates the promises we made to American
people in January. We knew in January that complying with PAYGO would
not be easy, but up until today, we've fulfilled our commitment.
In passing this legislation, we are merely again borrowing from China
to pay for a short-term fix that needs a long-term solution. This
administration has run up $5.6 trillion in debt over the last 6 years
of irresponsible fiscal policy. How much debt passed on to our children
is enough? Enough is enough.
PAYGO was to be one of the most important reforms we pledged, and
today we are now becoming part of that problem by adding to the already
$30,000 in federal debt for every man, woman and child in our country.
For decades, Republicans have preached the gospel of fiscal
discipline and balanced budgets. When and how has that notion gotten
lost? We should stay here until New Year's if we have to in order to
find a way to offset the less revenue that will be going to the
Treasury.
I support fixing the AMT problem, both in the short run and long
term, but the issue is whether we are responsible or irresponsible
legislators.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) was
originally enacted in 1969 to ensure that the wealthiest Americans paid
at least some income taxes--like everybody else. Before the AMT, the
richest Americans could unfairly dodge their taxes by using deductions
to sidestep their social obligations. However, what began at the end of
the Johnson administration as an attempt to guarantee that the top few
hundred Americans pay their fair share of taxes--has not been indexed
for inflation and as a result has slowly morphed into a middle-class
tax hike.
More families in Central New Jersey are affected by the AMT than
anywhere else in the country. Currently 33,292 of my constituents are
hit by the AMT and this number will increase to 121,503 if we do not
take action today.
Madam Speaker, I believe that this bill should have been paid for. I
voted twice now for appropriate offsets to ensure that we keep our
promise to the American people that we will not continue to spend money
that this Congress does not have. We can not continue to borrow money
from China and other countries in order to pay for the choices we make
today. It is our children and grandchildren that will be forced to pay
this debt around the world. Unfortunately President Bush and the
Republicans in the Senate refuse to worry about the costs of this bill
and the effect it will have on the next generation. I will continue to
support my colleagues in making sure increase in spending or cuts in
taxes are paid for and that next year we find an offset so that we do
not pass this debt to the future generations.
However, with the prospect of having an additional 88,211 of my
constituents pay the AMT, I believe we must move today to enact an AMT
fix. We cannot make the middle class pay for the failures of the
administration. I urge all my colleagues to support this important tax
reform that will help middle class families from unfair tax burden.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Temporary
Tax Relief Act (H.R. 3996), which will provide tax relief for hard-
working, middle-class Americans. However, while I strongly support
shielding these taxpayers from the Alternative Minimum Tax, I am deeply
disappointed that our efforts to pay for this fix now, rather than
charging it to future generations, have been blocked.
Congress first enacted the alternative minimum tax (AMT) in 1969 to
ensure that 155 wealthy taxpayers paid their fair share of the federal
income tax. But because the tax was not indexed for inflation, it has
since become outdated and unfair. Without a fix, this year over 23
million Americans--and 75,000 Rhode Islanders--would be forced to pay
nearly $2,000 in additional taxes to which they were never intended to
be subjected. Today's bill will provide a one-year patch to prevent
these middle-class Americans from being caught in the ever widening-net
of the AMT.
While everyone agrees that AMT relief must be passed swiftly, I am
concerned with the circumstances under which this bill is being
considered. Just two months ago the House of Representatives passed a
fiscally responsible measure that fully complied with pay-as-you-go
(PAYGO) rules. In fact, I was proud to vote twice for legislation that
provided for the necessary AMT relief and was fully paid for.
Unfortunately, Republican obstructionism has forced us to consider a
measure that will add $50 billion to the national debt. Fixing the AMT
is important, and taxpayers should not suffer the consequences of
political games. What saddens me is that there was an easy way to
accomplish this goal without adding to the deficit, and we chose to
ignore it.
I am also disappointed that this measure provides only temporary
relief rather than presenting a long-term sustainable solution. We must
develop a more permanent and fiscally responsible solution to the AMT,
as it will continue to affect an increasing number of taxpayers in
future years.
I would like to thank Chairman Rangel for his leadership in bringing
this measure to the floor, and for his valiant efforts to follow a more
fiscally responsible course. I am hopeful that as we continue to debate
national tax policy, we will develop permanent solution to the AMT
issue which does not place the burden of paying for it on our future
generations.
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, today I am voting
against H.R. 3996, a bill adjusting the Alternative Minimum Tax. While
the bill helps some middle class families, it does so at the expense of
expanding our national debt and burdening the next generation with the
cost of paying for it. I voted for the original version of this bill
that came before the House earlier this fall because it was fiscally
responsible. It brought relief to middle class families in a budget-
neutral way by closing tax loopholes for hedge fund
[[Page H16898]]
managers and corporate CEOs who shield their income off-shore.
Unfortunately, the Senate stripped out the provisions that would
replace the revenue lost through this AMT adjustment, so I cannot in
good conscience support it.
The AMT was originally enacted to ensure that high income taxpayers
pay at least a minimum amount of federal taxes. It prevents individuals
from taking unfair advantage of the various preferences and incentives
under the regular income tax and reducing their income tax liability
below what we as a society consider an appropriate tax contribution
given their wealth. The reckless tax policies advanced by President
Bush during the past 6 years further complicated the way the AMT is
applied. As a result, it will affect around 20 million families next
year, many of whom the AMT was not originally intended to reach.
Reforming the AMT is warranted, and that's why I voted for this bill
when it was paid for. Now we have a $50 billion give-away that's not
paid for. Instead, it will increase our national debt, a debt financed
by China and other nations. And the next generation--our children and
grandchildren--will be stuck paying China back instead of investing in
America. That's wrong. I believe that we must adhere to the pay-as-you-
go rules that this House adopted at the beginning of the year. Just as
a family has to balance its checkbook, the federal government must do
the same. A federal government that is not fiscally sound cannot make
the necessary investments we need in education, health care, housing,
defense, homeland security, and other national priorities.
Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise to express my concerns
with H.R. 3996, the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2007. Today, the
American people were offered a false choice--tax families today or tax
their children in the future.
This year the House of Representatives has twice passed alternative
minimum tax relief bills intended to provide more than 23 million
American's with tax relief. These two previous pieces of legislation
were fiscally responsible. By closing tax loopholes, the House of
Representatives sought to ensure that we did not pass the cost of this
temporary fix along to our children and grandchildren.
Let me be clear. With passage of this bill tonight, President Bush
and the Republicans have decided to mortgage our children's future and
add to the national debt.
I will reluctantly vote for this legislation because without an AMT
fix, more than 46,500 people in the 16th Congressional District of
Florida will be burdened with a tax increase. These are hardworking
families already struggling with skyrocketing property taxes,
staggering homeowners insurance premiums, rising mortgage payments and
out of control gas prices. These are seniors already forced to choose
between purchasing life saving medications and putting food on the
table. Simply stated, my constituents do not need the burden of an
additional tax increase.
In closing, I call upon the House of Representatives to return to
fiscal responsibility and Pay As You Go rules. Like many of my fellow
Blue Dog colleagues, I believe we have a moral obligation not to pass
our debt along to future generations.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3996, Tax
Increase Prevention Act of 2007 and urge my colleagues to join me in
voting for its passage.
This bill provides tax relief for millions of Americans by raising
the exemption amounts on the Alternative Minimum Tax, and ensuring that
no new taxpayers would be subject to this higher rate. H.R. 3996 would
prevent a tax increase on 21 million taxpayers when they file their
2007 tax returns. The Alternative Minimum Tax was originally enacted to
prevent only the very wealthiest of Americans from avoiding income tax
payment. However, over the years its reach has grown to affect more and
more middle income taxpayers, and estimates show that as many as 30
million taxpayers would be ensnared by this higher tax rate by 2010.
This bill will spare over 15,000 people in my district alone, from
paying the Alternative Minimum Tax. As a part-time farmer and a former
small business owner, I know the crucial importance of this sector to
the economy as a whole. I support tax relief for the middle class
workers and families who help drive our economy.
However, I am concerned that this bill does not include an offset and
is not budget-neutral. I am strongly in favor of providing tax relief
to millions of Americans, but we need to address this problem in a
responsible way that maintains the integrity of our budget, and avoids
adding to the budget deficit and our national debt. As a member of the
House Budget Committee, I am hopeful that we can address the
Alternative Minimum Tax issue further when Congress returns in the new
year.
Mr. HALL of New York. Madam Speaker, the nineteenth district of New
York is one of the districts in this country most affected by the AMT.
Last year over 30,000 families in my district paid AMT. I wish we had
the support in both the majority, and the minority, that we need to
advance the major tax reform necessary to prevent the AMT from unfairly
penalizing thousands of families in the Hudson Valley. The ``patch''
legislation that we considered today is the best legislation that we
can pass at this time to prevent more families from being impacted by
the AMT, and will ensure that an additional 70,000 families in my
district alone will not be hit next year by the AMT.
I am proud that the Democratic Majority in the House of
Representatives has twice passed a responsible AMT patch; offsetting
the $50 billion in lost revenue from the AMT by eliminating tax
loopholes for some of the richest people in the country, who choose to
use offshore tax havens to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
However, neither the President nor his allies in Congress are fiscally
responsible. They will not accept any legislation that acts responsibly
by ensuring that the cost of protecting working families from the AMT
will not be borne by their grandchildren. I believe I was elected to
Congress last year to help restore fiscal integrity to the Federal
Government, and I stand by the numerous votes I have cast in support of
a responsible Pay-Go system.
Although I am deeply disappointed that we will not be able to pass a
version of AMT reform with a revenue offset this year. I am unwilling
to let working families in my district suffer as a result of the
President and the minority in Congress. That is why, despite its
obvious inadequacies, I feel that I must support this bill. I am
disappointed that we were forced to pass this bill by borrowing the
resources to do so. As Congress continues its work in the future, I am
committed to working to make sure our government operates within its
means and respects the principle of fiscal responsibility.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3996,
legislation that will provide critical tax relief to millions of middle
class Americans. I support the Democratic majority's commitment to
passing sensible legislation that will provide a solution to the
looming Alternative Minimum Tax crisis. I am disappointed that
President Bush and the Republican minority have opposed our efforts on
this matter every step of the way. If this bill is not signed by the
President, more than 60,000 families which I have the honor of
representing here in the House will be required to pay the AMT when
filing their 2007 return--an increase of almost 1000 percent since
2005.
I also support the Democratic majority's continuing commitment to
responsible fiscal policies. Last week when the House passed AMT
relief, it was paid for by closing tax loopholes that allow hedge fund
managers and corporate CEOs to use offshore tax havens as unlimited
retirement accounts. Unfortunately, the President and our Republican
colleagues in the Senate once again sided with a few of the wealthiest
individuals over millions of middle class American families. This
speaks volumes about their misplaced priorities, and we are left with
an AMT bill that does not meet paygo rules. However, I understand
Chairman Rangel--for whom I have the utmost respect--has committed to
finding an offset for this fix next year as he continues to find a
permanent solution to the AMT crisis.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise to support the importance of
patching the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) this year. Although it would
have been my strong preference to pay for the middle class tax relief
we are providing today, I do not believe we should penalize 23 million
Americans for the Republican party's fiscal irresponsibility and
intransigence.
Throughout this debate, we have demonstrated that it is possible to
provide important tax relief in a fiscally responsible manner.
Unfortunately, the White House and an obstructionist minority in the
other chamber have blocked these efforts. That obstruction is
regrettable. But it must not be permitted to create an additional
liability for millions of middle class Americans the AMT was never
intended to burden.
Madam Speaker, the hour is late. The need is clear. I urge my
colleagues' support.
Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, the Alternative Minimum Tax was not meant
for middle-income Americans, and here in the House, we, as Democrats,
have proposed and twice passed legislation that would prevent the AMT
from coming down on 23 million taxpayers for whom it was never
intended, without increasing the deficit. That's important to us as
Democrats, which is why we believe in the Pay-Go principle. Last month,
we passed a bill showing that you can patch the AMT, comply with Pay-
Go, and not add to the deficit or to the tax burden of middle-income
Americans.
We were not the only one proposing such a solution. In February 2006,
the Director of OMB, Josh Bolten, testified that the Bush
Administration believed the AMT ``can be corrected in the context of
overall revenue neutral tax reform.'' In February 2007, OMB Director
Rob Portman said: ``Our budget assumes that
[[Page H16899]]
we will have a revenue neutral correction to AMT.'' And in March 2007,
Hank Paulson told us the same.
But what the Bush administration proposed, they have not supported.
Their counterparts in Congress voted down in the Senate an AMT fix
consistent with Pay-Go, and forced the issue before us, an AMT patch
that works for one year, but adds $50 billion to the deficit.
We all agree that we must stop the AMT from coming down on 23 million
middle-income taxpayers. That's why I and most of this House voted
twice to fix the AMT the right way, the way the Bush administration
once itself supported, with offsets that kept the fix from worsening
the deficit.
As chairman of the Budget Committee, I proposed an alternative idea,
consistent with Pay-Go. What I proposed was that we postpone
designation of the offsets necessary to keep this bill deficit-neutral
until such time as we dealt with extension of expired or expiring tax
deductions, such as the research and experimentation tax credit. At
that point, we would require that the offsets for this bill be passed
before any such deductions, credits, exemptions, or preferences be
extended.
This idea won support among many of my caucus, including our
leadership, but in the end, not enough support to warrant its being
offered. I regret that it was not, but I would remind everyone that
this bill only buys one year of absolution. The same issue, the impact
of the AMT on middle-income taxpayers, will have to be addressed again
within months as we prepare and implement the budget resolution for
fiscal year 2009. I hope we take a page from this year's experience and
fix the AMT the right way next year, without impacting middle-income
taxpayers, but also without impacting the deficit.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) that the House suspend the rules
and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 3996.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to
suspend on H.R. 3996 will be followed by 5-minute votes on the motion
to suspend on S. 2499 and the motion to suspend on H.R. 4040.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 352,
nays 64, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 1183]
YEAS--352
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tauscher
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--64
Andrews
Baird
Becerra
Berry
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Castor
Chandler
Clyburn
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Cuellar
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
Delahunt
Doggett
Emanuel
Gordon
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Harman
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hoyer
Kanjorski
Kind
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Matheson
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy, Patrick
Obey
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Price (NC)
Ross
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Scott (VA)
Sherman
Shuler
Smith (WA)
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor
Walz (MN)
Watt
Waxman
Welch (VT)
NOT VOTING--17
Cubin
Gilchrest
Hastings (FL)
Hooley
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson, E. B.
Kucinich
McNulty
Miller, Gary
Ortiz
Pastor
Paul
Thompson (CA)
Weller
Wexler
Woolsey
{time} 1619
Messrs. BECERRA, GUTIERREZ, BUTTERFIELD, CLYBURN, and WAXMAN, and Ms.
McCOLLUM of Minnesota changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. KAGEN and Ms. LEE changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the Senate amendment was concurred in.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________