[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 127 (Wednesday, September 19, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H6099-H6101]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BUFFETT RULE ACT OF 2012
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 6410) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for
taxpayers making donations with their returns of income tax to the
Federal Government to pay down the public debt.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 6410
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Buffett Rule Act of 2012''.
SEC. 2. DONATION TO PAY DOWN NATIONAL DEBT.
(a) In General.--Subchapter A of chapter 61 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the
following new part:
``PART IX--DONATIONS TO PAY DOWN NATIONAL DEBT
``Sec. 6097. Donation to pay down national debt.
``SEC. 6097. DONATION TO PAY DOWN NATIONAL DEBT.
``(a) General Rule.--Every taxpayer who makes a return of
the tax imposed by subtitle A for any taxable year may donate
an amount (not less than $1), in addition to any payment of
tax for such taxable year, which shall be deposited in the
general fund of the Treasury.
``(b) Manner and Time of Designation.--Any donation under
subsection (a) for any taxable year--
``(1) shall be made at the time of filing the return of the
tax imposed by subtitle A for such taxable year and in such
manner as the Secretary may by regulation prescribe, except
that--
``(A) the designation for such donation shall be either on
the first page of the return or on the page bearing the
taxpayer's signature, and
``(B) the designation shall be by a box added to the
return, and the text beside the box shall provide:
``By checking here, I signify that in addition to my tax
liability (if any), I would like to donate the included
payment to be used exclusively for the purpose of paying down
the national debt.'', and
``(2) shall be accompanied by a payment of the amount so
designated.
``(c) Treatment of Amounts Donated.--For purposes of this
title, the amount donated by any taxpayer under subsection
(a) shall be treated as a contribution made by such taxpayer
to the United States on the last date prescribed for filing
the return of tax imposed by subtitle A (determined without
regard to extensions) or, if later, the date the return is
filed.
``(d) Transfers to Account to Reduce Public Debt.--The
Secretary shall, from time to time, transfer to the special
account established by section 3113(d) of title 31, United
States Code, amounts equal to the amounts donated under this
section.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of parts for subchapter
A of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``Part IX. Donations to Pay Down National Debt.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to returns for taxable years ending after
December 31, 2011.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Camp) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
General Leave
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to
include extraneous material on the subject of the bill under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6410, a bill to provide
a simple way for individuals to voluntarily donate funds to pay down
the national debt. Under current law, you can contribute to debt
reduction, but like all things with the IRS, it isn't easy. If you dig
deep into the 189 pages of instructions that accompany the 1040, you'll
find, on page 88, the following:
Do not add your gift to reduce debt held by the public to
any tax you may owe.
To contribute to deficit reduction, one must send a separate check or
money order to the Bureau of Public Debt, or they can go online at the
Web site and use a credit card. Warren Buffett, who says he wants to
pay more in taxes to pay down our debt, can't actually do so when
filing his taxes.
H.R. 6410, however, gives Mr. Buffett and generous Americans like him
a simple, easy way to help pay down our debt. This legislation adds to
appropriate tax forms a box with the captions, and I am quoting:
By checking here, I signify that in addition to my tax
liability (if any), I would like to donate the included
payment to be used exclusively for the purpose of paying down
the national debt.
The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that H.R. 6410 reduces the
public debt by $135 million over 10 years. It makes it easy for those
who want to donate money to the Treasury for debt reduction to
voluntarily do so without raising taxes on entrepreneurs and job
creators. If Warren Buffett wants to give, then H.R. 6410 allows him to
give to his heart's content, and the payments will go directly to an
account at the Treasury dedicated exclusively to debt reduction.
Mr. Speaker, it's not enough to speak in political platitudes about
what we can do to reduce our debt. Now you can put your money where
your mouth is. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join
me in passing this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Well, there's nothing wrong with this bill except the label. If there
were a fine, I would say, for House legislative mislabeling, House
Republicans would have a very large fine to pay. This bill has
nothing--zero--to do with the Buffett rule. It has everything to do
with the absolute refusal of Americans to face the basic issue. The
present tax laws give an inordinate tax break to the very wealthy. The
Buffett rule is provided and proposed by President Obama and
congressional Democrats.
In addition to reducing the deficit by $46 billion, it would address
a significant inequity in the Code that allows a quarter of taxpayers
earning more than a million a year to pay a lower tax rate than
millions of middle class families. One of those taxpayers is the
Republican Presidential nominee, Governor Mitt Romney, who paid an
effective tax rate lower than 15 percent in 2010 and refuses to let the
American public see his tax returns for any earlier years.
Indeed, the so-called tax reform legislation from Republicans would
do just the opposite: provide massive tax cuts for the very wealthy,
doubling down on the Bush tax cuts that have added billions to the
deficit and contributed to growing income inequality.
What's more, their idea of tax reform is to heap new taxes on the
backs of middle- and lower-income families to pay for all of this. A
recent report found that the so-called tax reform outlined in the Ryan
budget would give those making over a million dollars a year an
additional average tax cut of $331,000, while those making less than
$200,000 would see a tax increase of $4,500.
Taxpayers can do exactly what is provided in this bill if they want
to donate some of their taxes on the income they have to deficit
reduction.
[[Page H6100]]
Republicans, who will recess in 2 days for 2 months with an
incredible amount of unfinished business, not the least of which is the
extension of the middle class tax cuts and the looming fiscal cliff, we
need hard work, not chicanery.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
{time} 1630
Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding and for
bringing this legislation to the floor.
The Buffett Rule Act that we're debating now will set up a process
where citizens all across the country, rich, poor, whatever their
income level, if they feel that they haven't paid enough money into the
Federal Treasury, then they can just check off a box and submit the
amount of money that they want to pay in addition to what the normal
tax liability is, and the assurance will be that that money will be
used specifically to pay down the national debt, which, of course, just
a few weeks ago, broke the $16 trillion mark under President Obama.
I think if you look at the Buffett Rule Act that we bring forward and
contrast that with President Obama's proposed Buffett rule that he's
talked about, what the President's talked about is actually raising
taxes on the very small business owners that we need in our country to
help create jobs to help get our economy going back again. In fact,
even President Obama himself acknowledged that if you raise taxes on
anybody in a bad economy, it will make the economy even worse.
And make no mistake about it, we are living right now in a bad
economy, in many cases because of the President's policies, because of
the so many tax increases that this President has already imposed. Just
in ObamaCare alone, President Obama has imposed more than 20 new taxes
on middle class families. Many of them haven't kicked in and they don't
kick in until after the election, conveniently, but those taxes are on
the books, and it's going to make it even harder for American families
who are struggling to get by in a tough economy.
And so what's the President's latest answer in his version of the
Buffett rule? It's to raise another $30-plus billion on the backs of
our small business owners. By his own admission, that would make the
economy even worse. And I think most people recognize the President
would just use that money to go and spend even more money on a
government that's already too big.
So the question is: Do we set up a process under President Obama's
approach where he would raise taxes on small business earners, further
hurting the economy, just so that he can have more money to spend in
Washington, where there's already too much wasteful spending, or do we
have a process like we establish here in this bill, the Buffett Rule
Act, which says that if somebody truly does not feel they're paying
enough in taxes, then they can simply check a box and there will be a
format that they can lay out however much they want to spend more and
that money will be used not to grow the size of the Federal Government
but to reduce the national debt?
Again, it's a very clear contrast in approaches. If you look at the
record that we've seen so far, the tax-and-spend approach under
President Obama, it hasn't worked. We've had more than 8 percent
employment literally since the President took office. And it's only
gotten worse, to the point where millions of Americans have just given
up looking for work. And the President's answer is to keep raising more
taxes and spending more money and borrowing it from China because we
don't have it.
We need a better approach. We need to address the mushrooming deficit
that broke the $16 trillion mark. And if people like Warren Buffett and
others like him feel they're not sending enough to Washington, let them
put their money where their mouth is. Give them that action by giving
them this check box, but knowing that if they do send in more money,
it's not going to be used to keep growing a bloated Federal Government
and spending money we don't have. It's going to be used to finally
start paying down this national debt that's out of control and that's a
burden to the opportunities of today's workers and the unemployed who
are looking for jobs, but also to future generations--to our children
and grandchildren who the big spenders in Washington are borrowing that
money from and sending the bill to our children. They've got to stop
doing it.
We've got to stop the way things are going now and get the economy
back on track. And you don't do it by raising taxes. Again, President
Obama even acknowledged that, even though his proposal is to raise
taxes on our small business owners. You do it instead this way, by
saying if you really feel like you want to send in more money to
Washington, use it to pay down the national debt so we can finally get
control over spending here.
Americans for Tax Reform,
Washington, DC, October 5, 2011.
Hon. Steve Scalise,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Scalise: On behalf of Americans for Tax
Reform, I am pleased to support your new legislation, the
``Buffett Rule Act of 2011.'' This bill would instruct the
IRS to provide a prominent, convenient checkbox line on 1040
forms to allow those so inclined to pay extra income tax.
Famously, Warren Buffett complained that his average
effective tax rate was too low compared to his secretary.
This is probably not true given the fact that Mr. Buffett has
failed to release his own tax return for verification, and
considering the average effective tax rate of his secretary
is quite low based on her purported income. Nonetheless, Mr.
Buffett should be able to voluntarily pay extra income taxes
if he feels the need to--without imposing broad, job-killing
tax hikes on our nation's small employers.
These ``tax me more'' lines have been particularly-
effective in flushing out the serious from the posturing on
the state level. States that have a ``tax me more'' line
repeatedly report almost no additional voluntary
contributions to state tax coffers. This is despite the fact
that there is no shortage of people who have already earned
(or inherited) their wealth who want to see taxes raised on
those still pursuing the American dream. In short, the
limousine liberal set doesn't put their money where their
mouth is.
Taxpayers are calling Mr. Buffett's bluff with this
legislation. It's his move.
Sincerely,
Grover Norquist.
Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the ranking
member on the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van
Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague, Mr. Levin.
I was just listening to the previous speaker. The issue is not
whether we reduce our long-term deficits. We've got to do that. The
question is: How? And every bipartisan group that has looked at this
issue has said in order to do this in a smart and credible way, we have
to make some additional tough cuts in reforms. But we also need to
raise additional revenue. And if we don't raise any more revenue, it
means that everybody else is going to get hit even harder. Seniors on
Medicare will have to pay more through the voucher plan than our
Republican colleagues have proposed. Kids' education grants and loans
will be cut. Our investment in infrastructure will be cut.
So what we've said is, Let's take that balanced approach to reducing
the deficit and that folks who have done very well should contribute a
little bit more toward helping our Nation in that way. Our Republican
colleagues have said, No, no, no, no, we're not going to ask people
like Warren Buffett or Mitt Romney or very wealthy people to pay one
more penny--not one--toward reducing our deficit.
And, Mr. Speaker, I've got to say it's astounding that our Republican
colleagues would bring this bill to the floor of this House any day,
but especially today. There is apparently no embarrassment factor about
the fact that just yesterday this tape surfaced with Mitt Romney
talking about the fact that 47 million Americans are not paying enough
Federal taxes, that they're somehow not taking personal responsibility.
You might as well name this piece of legislation: Give Mitt Romney
Another Big Tax Break. Because as the gentleman from Michigan pointed
out, the real Buffett rule says to people like Warren Buffett and
people like Mitt Romney and to people who have done very well: We need
you to contribute a little bit more toward deficit reduction, just like
you were doing when President Clinton was President. Just go back to
paying the same rate as when President Clinton was President.
[[Page H6101]]
And, by the way, President Obama has called upon this Congress to
immediately extend tax relief to 98 percent of the American people and
97 percent of all businesses that do business pass-throughs. What our
Republican colleagues want to do is to say to Bain Capital and some of
the Fortune 100 companies: You don't have to pay any more to reduce our
deficit. And they use the language of small business as a cover for
that.
Now let's look at who was among those 47 percent of Americans that
Governor Romney was talking about yesterday. Seniors who paid into
Medicare, who paid into Social Security, who don't have any Federal
income tax liability. They're being under-taxed, apparently, or they're
not taking personal responsibility. How about our soldiers? We decided
that soldiers should not be taxed on their combat pay.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the gentleman.
Soldiers who are fighting in Afghanistan, we decided that they
shouldn't have to pay taxes on their combat pay. Apparently, Mitt
Romney wants them to have to pay taxes on that money where they're not
taking personal responsibility. Millions of other Americans are working
hard every day to make ends meet. They may be making $25,000, have two
kids. And you're right, we have standard deductions and we have
personal exemptions so that people making $25,000 a year don't get hit
really hard with income tax. And yet those individuals are paying an
effective tax rate more than Mitt Romney.
As the gentleman from Michigan pointed out, if you combine the
different parts of the payroll tax, they're at 15 percent. Mitt Romney
is at 13 percent. And you know what the Buffett rule would do, the real
one? The real one would say for people like Warren Buffet and Mitt
Romney, they should at least pay 30 percent over $2 million. There's a
phase-in between $1 million and $2 million. That's what the real
Buffett rule does.
And what adds insult to injury is that while Mitt Romney and
Republicans are proposing a tax plan that would give a break for folks
at the very top, the nonpartisan, independent Tax Policy Center says
they want to pay for that by increasing taxes on middle-income
Americans to the effect of about $2,000 a year more for an average
middle class family. Those are people on top of the 47 percent who are
just paying payroll taxes.
So here we have a proposal by our Republican colleagues to provide
big tax breaks to folks at the very top, and they want to come and make
a mockery of the real Buffett rule. The real Buffett rule would
actually generate $47 billion. Is that going to solve our deficit
problem? Of course not. Will it contribute to helping it? Yes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. That would actually raise some money to help reduce
the deficit and ask for some shared responsibility.
This bill is the ``pretty please'' bill. Pretty please, Warren
Buffet, pretty please, Mitt Romney, won't you help contribute a little
bit more toward reducing our deficit?
{time} 1640
I can understand why people like Mitt Romney would love this bill
because it asks nothing more of them at a time when we should be taking
a balanced approach to reducing our deficit.
Just last week, we had a debate here about sequester. Everybody
agreed, Republicans and Democrats, it would be really bad to have these
across-the-board cuts take place. Buzz saw cuts. Our Republican
colleagues and we both talked about the negative impact on defense,
also on the FBI, on border security.
You know what? We had a proposal to pay for part of that to prevent
the sequester with the Buffett rule and some other cuts. Our Republican
colleagues talked about the terrible consequences of the cuts, but they
just don't want to pay for them. They don't want to ask very wealthy
Americans to contribute one more penny.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I advise my colleague that I am prepared to
close.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the remaining time.
You know, as I've heard this debate, I've been thinking. This is
really mislabeled. Why don't we call it the Mitt Romney Rule Act of
2012? He paid the return he indicated less than 15 percent. He earned
many, many, many millions. He knew what the code now says. He could
have sent some of the money that was not taxed to the government. He
could even use a credit card. But he hasn't done that.
This is mislabeled. This has nothing to do with Mr. Buffett.
There's been some reference here to small business. The very
nonpartisan entities indicate that 97 percent of people who are in
small business and beyond have income actually around $250,000 or less.
All this bill does is to indicate what's already in the code. So,
there's nothing wrong with the bill. What is wrong is this frightful
mislabeling to try to cover up a refusal of the Republican Party in
this institution to face up to what is really necessary to be done.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I can understand why my friends on the other side are talking about
everything but the bill before us. And that's because this
administration's record on the deficit is so dismal. We're going on our
fourth year of trillion-dollar deficits. The deficit under their watch
is now $16 trillion.
You know, what we really need to do is grow this economy and create
jobs, and we know that their tax increases that they love so much would
cost us 700,000 jobs. Look at this: 43 months of unemployment of 8
percent. That's why they want to talk about everything but this.
They've said the question is how to reduce the deficit. The fact of
the matter is this bill does reduce the deficit, according to the Joint
Committee on Taxation, by $135 million. Now, they might not think
that's much, but to most Americans, every million dollars counts.
So, I think it's important that we move forward on this, that we grow
our economy, that we grow our economy to create jobs. And we know that
taxes on small businesses that they propose cost us jobs.
So let's pass this bill. It's a step forward. It allows those
Americans--we all hear it as we go around the country--people say,
``I'd like to give more. How do I do it?''
This makes it easier, it makes it straightforward, and actually is
scored as reducing the deficit.
Let's vote to make a step for reducing the deficit. We have bigger
issues we need to deal with. We're going to deal with those. That's why
this committee, Ways and Means, has been focused on tax reform this
year, more than 20 hearings. I hope we can move forward on fundamental
tax reform. Let's vote for this bill. Let's give those Americans who
want to be more generous, who want to check a box and contribute more
specifically to deficit reduction, a very transparent, straightforward,
and easy way to do that.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 6410.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________