[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9484-9501]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PERMANENT EXTENSION OF 10-PERCENT INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATE BRACKET

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 637, 
I call up the bill (H.R. 4275) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 to permanently extend the 10-percent individual income tax rate 
bracket, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 637, the bill 
is considered as having been read for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 4275 is as follows:

                               H.R. 4275

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF 10-PERCENT INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATE 
                   BRACKET.

       (a) In General.--Clause (i) of section 1(i)(1)(B) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to the initial 
     bracket amount) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(i) $14,000 in the case of subsection (a),''.
       (b) Inflation Adjustment Beginning in 2004.--Section 
     1(i)(1)(C) of such Code (relating to inflation adjustment) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(C) Inflation adjustment.--In prescribing the tables 
     under subsection (f) which apply with respect to taxable 
     years beginning in calendar years after 2003--
       ``(i) the cost-of-living adjustment used in making 
     adjustments to the initial bracket amount shall be determined 
     under subsection (f)(3) by substituting `2002' for `1992' in 
     subparagraph (B) thereof, and
       ``(ii) such adjustment shall not apply to the amount 
     referred to in subparagraph (B)(iii).

     If any amount after adjustment under the preceding sentence 
     is not a multiple of $50, such amount shall be rounded to the 
     next lowest multiple of $50.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2003.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SUNSET.

       Title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
     Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall not apply to--
       (1) paragraph (1) of section 1(i) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986, and
       (2) the amendments made by paragraphs (1) and (7) of 
     section 101(c) of such Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, it shall 
be in order to consider the amendment printed in House Report 108-483, 
if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), or his 
designee, which shall be considered read and shall be debatable for 1 
hour, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 30 minutes of debate on the bill.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today the House can make the 10-percent bracket 
permanent for working Americans by passing this legislation, H.R. 4275. 
The 10-percent bracket was created in the Economic Growth and Tax 
Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. It has provided substantial tax 
relief for low-income workers by taxing the first $14,000 of married 
couples and $7,000 for singles at a 10-percent rate instead of a 15-
percent rate. This tax relief was accelerated last year in last year's 
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. H.R. 4275 would make 
this tax relief permanent.
  If Congress fails to act to pass this legislation, Americans will see 
their taxes increase starting next year. Without action, the size of 
the 10-percent bracket will automatically shrink next year, so that 
more income will be taxed at a higher rate. In fact, the 10-percent 
bracket will vanish altogether after the year 2010 unless we act today 
to make it permanent.

                              {time}  1100

  If H.R. 4275 is not enacted, 73 million tax filers will see a tax 
increase starting next year. The effect will be particularly acute 
after 2010 when 123 million tax filers will see an average annual tax 
increase of $500.
  It is worth noting that more than 20 million of these returns are 
low-income taxpayers and families who have all of

[[Page 9485]]

their income taxed at this lower 10 percent rate. The public deserves a 
solid, dependable Tax Code that provides incentives and lets working 
people keep their money for their own needs. The 10 percent bracket 
provides such an incentive, one we can and should make permanent by 
passing this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important that people know what taxes they are 
going to face in the future. By having all of these uncertainties in 
the Tax Code, not knowing whether you are going to be in the 10 percent 
bracket next year, the 15 tax percent bracket next year, it makes it 
difficult to budget for the future.
  We are talking about the taxpayers who can least afford to have a big 
tax increase going from 10 percent to 15 percent on their incomes next 
year, let alone not having the knowledge of knowing whether or not this 
is going to happen. It is very important, Mr. Speaker, that families 
know what lies ahead, that businesses know what lies ahead, and let us 
all remember that two-thirds of businesses in America file their taxes 
as if they were individuals, not as corporations, but as pass-through 
entities where they file on the individual rate. Making sure that small 
businesses, which produce 70 percent of the jobs we have in this 
country and low-income taxpayers know what lies ahead in the Tax Code 
is very important to make sure that we sustain the economic recovery we 
are now engaged in.
  Mr. Speaker, largely because of the tax cuts that this bill enacted, 
largely because of the full implementation of the tax rate reductions 
that occurred just this last July, our economy has taken off. Just 
since last August, this economy, by the most conservative estimate, has 
produced 1.1 million jobs. In fact, since January 1 of this year, this 
economy, by this most conservative payroll estimate, has produced 
881,000 jobs. This is no longer a jobless recovery; this is a recovery 
that is producing good jobs.
  Even the manufacturing sector, which is so near and dear to my heart 
because it is such a big issue in Wisconsin, is producing jobs. The 
reason we are producing jobs in this economy is because people get to 
keep more of their own money to spend as they see fit. Businesses are 
reinvesting, rehiring people. The economy is working, and we cannot 
snuff out this economic recovery by yanking out the tax relief that was 
so instrumental in getting us onto the path of growth that we are on 
today. That is why I urge passage of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, for the managing of the time on this side 
of the aisle.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have before us another proposal which in this case I 
think every single Member of Congress would like to step up to the 
plate and say we need to do something like this. We have a tax system 
where oftentimes folks who work very hard, those who are striving and 
obtaining middle-class status, sometimes find they are paying more 
taxes than people earning 10, 20, 100 times what they are. That seems 
very unfair, and it is very unfair.
  When we have a tax proposal which actually reduces taxes by starting 
at the bottom, by taking the lowest tax rate and giving a tax break 
there, you guarantee giving a tax cut to everyone, not just those who 
are very wealthy, but those who are middle income and those who are of 
modest income. If you start at the bottom tax bracket, everyone will 
fall into that bracket, whether rich or poor.
  So when we look at this particular proposal we have before us, H.R. 
4275, from the onset we want to say, let us do something like this 
because it helps all of America. And so we should be able to say let us 
do this because it helps all of America. The difficulty is while we 
should do something like this, this bill, H.R. 4275, does not help all 
of America.
  What is worse is if I can tell Members that those who are not helped 
are those in the middle of America, Members would be most surprised. 
Members would think perhaps it does not help everyone because we avoid 
giving the very wealthy, who got tremendous tax relief from previous 
tax bills that the President proposed, it would be unfair to pile on 
top of the more than $130,000 in tax cuts they have received in the 
last couple of years even additional sums; but that is not the case.
  The folks who are losing here, and there are millions who would lose, 
are folks who make between $50,000 and $100,000. In other words, the 
one-fifth of America that most of us consider middle class is the group 
of Americans that are going to suffer, millions of them. Within the 
next 5 or so years, some 33 millions of those households that earn 
between $55,000 and $100,000 are the households that are not going to 
get to benefit from this particular tax cut proposal. As unfair as that 
sounds, that is the reality.
  There are ways to cure it, and on this side of the aisle there will 
be a substitute proposal presented which ensures that every single 
taxpaying family, including those between $50,000 and $100,000 would 
qualify for the tax reduction in this particular proposal. It is a 
simple amendment, it just needs to be paid for; and we have come up 
with a way to pay for it which is not just fair but fiscally 
responsible.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a proposal here that on its face can be sold to 
the American public, but in reality and in its implementation, not only 
is it unfair because it leaves out a good portion of middle America, at 
the same time it does nothing to cure what is going to haunt the rest 
of America for many, many years, and that is this growing deficit that 
we have in our Federal budget.
  This year we are being told we will have a budget deficit exceeding 
perhaps $400 billion. That is more than $1,000 for every man, woman, 
and child in this country. Think of it as a birth tax. Any child born 
today automatically is born with that family owing the Federal 
Government as a result of President Bush's budget for this year over 
$1,000 to the Federal Government, just on bearing that child.
  This proposal, which will cost billions of dollars, and as I said, it 
has no legitimate purpose behind it to help reduce the taxes for all 
Americans, if we do the right thing, is not bad because you are 
reducing taxes on one end, but if you are just raising them somewhere 
else, you are not getting much of a benefit. We will have an 
opportunity to get into this later.
  I applaud the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) for his efforts to 
try to move this forward. I would hope at the end of the day we realize 
we have not just an opportunity to reduce taxes for all Americans, but 
we have a way to do it so that the implementation really will reach all 
Americans, not just some; and we will do it in a fiscally responsible 
way by paying for the costs of this, rather than add to the costs of 
the national debt and the growing Federal deficit that we have today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just mention very briefly, the gentleman who just 
spoke is from California, and the taxpayers just in the State of 
California who are now only paying that 10 percent bracket, there are 
2,605,960 taxpayers in the State of California alone who would 
experience a huge tax increase relative to their tax burden next year 
if this legislation is not passed. In fact, there are over 12 million 
taxpayers in California alone that would experience higher taxes next 
year if this does not pass.
  So each of us represents people who are struggling to make ends meet 
who are at the bottom rung of the economic ladder who are staying just 
afloat and paying taxes at that 10 percent bracket who are making 
$16,000 or less as a couple. Those are the people that we want

[[Page 9486]]

to help, and we want them to get on the upper trajectory of prosperity. 
The last thing we want to do is hit them with a big tax increase. If we 
fail to pass this bill, that is exactly what will happen.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with some of what the gentleman just 
said, but the gentleman has to read the whole book to understand, not 
just look at certain chapters in the book. What the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) has excluded from his reading of the book is that 
we have something approaching 13 million households in America today, 
today, that by the time they file their taxes for next year will not 
qualify for the benefits in this proposal. That is 13 million, and that 
is because of the AMT, the alternative minimum tax.
  Remember back in the 1970s, early 1980s when we heard stories of the 
multibillion dollar corporations, the multimillionaires who at the end 
of the day when they filed their taxes would pay zero in taxes where 
the average American was having to give Uncle Sam some money?
  Well, there was a law passed to make sure that everyone, not just 
middle class, but even the super rich and megawealthy corporations paid 
some taxes. That was the alternative minimum tax legislation. But we 
have seen incomes creep up some, we have seen inflation creep up some; 
and as a result, the alternative minimum tax has seen more people creep 
up into its brackets and now qualify to have to pay taxes under the 
alternative minimum tax.
  There are 13 million households who next year when paying their taxes 
will not benefit from this proposal because they will fall under the 
AMT. And by 2010, in 5\1/2\ years, we will have 33 million households 
that will have crept up into the AMT world. Therefore, while they may 
get a tax break under this proposal at first, when they have to switch 
over to do their calculation for their taxes under the AMT, they will 
get nothing. This bill does nothing to cure that. The Democratic 
substitute does.
  We do not think it is fair to sell this as a tax cut for everyone 
when, indeed, middle-class America is the one that is losing out the 
most, and all at the expense of growing the size of the national debt. 
Let us be fiscally responsible and let us be fair. We have a way to do 
that. We would hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would 
join in that effort.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, on May 5, 2004, the House voted 333-89 to extend the 
exemption amounts for the AMT, to index them for inflation; and I think 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) voted for the AMT relief 
bill. We passed the bill, making sure that we can go study the problem 
and figure out how to comprehensively fix it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions), a member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for not only 
ensuring the success of this bill but also properly arguing the merits 
of the 10-Percent Tax Bracket Permanent Extension bill, H.R. 4275. 
Today we are on the floor to talk about part of what is a vision that 
our President has and the Republican Party has for taxpayers in this 
country. Before the year 2000, from 1986 to 2000, there was a 15 
percent tax bracket, the lowest tax bracket for Americans in this 
country.
  President Bush challenged this Congress to do something better, to do 
better for the middle class in this country and those wage earners in 
the bottom tax brackets. I believe we responded in kind with the tax 
cuts that we provided this President that he asked this Congress to do. 
I think we did the right thing.
  The fact of the matter is that under our own rules and regulations of 
getting bills done, including working with the other body, we could not 
make this permanent.

                              {time}  1115

  We are here today to say to the American public, to say to taxpayers, 
we need to make this permanent. This is about making the 10 percent tax 
bracket permanent so that we do not have a tax increase to the 15 
percent. The people who will gain and benefit most from this wonderful 
action will be those people who are brand new, starting up in their 
lives, perhaps, men and women who have a big dream. Perhaps they have 
just come to this country. Perhaps they are young people who are 
starting their families. We need to make sure that we do not overtax 
them.
  That is why the gentleman from Wisconsin is on the floor today. That 
is why the gentleman from Wisconsin, representing the Committee on Ways 
and Means and their great chairman, the gentleman from California, are 
on the floor today, to say we think this message that our President, 
George W. Bush began, that this Congress has agreed with, that the 
American people needs, that the Republican Party is here asking for 
again, is important. It is important that we have permanent extension, 
that we say we are not going to fight this battle again, that those 
taxpayers deserve a low tax rate. They need to pay in their fair share, 
and we believe that fair share should be 10 percent.
  I believe in what we are doing. I would ask for all my colleagues to 
support H.R. 4275.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to 
something my friend from Wisconsin mentioned, that last week we passed 
legislation from this House that would take care of the Alternative 
Minimum Tax problem. Again, that is one chapter in another book. What 
he does not mention is the other chapters in the book say that that was 
relief for 1 year. So all those millions of Americans, the 13 million 
Americans of the 100 million Americans who are Tax filers would for 1 
year, if that legislation takes effect, be saved. But in 2006, 2007, 
2008, it jumps right back up.
  What the gentleman does not say is that the reason we are in this fix 
to begin with is because the other side of the aisle, as is proposed in 
these bills, is not willing to put forth a permanent reduction right 
away because of the cost. So we are coming back every year doing this 
piecemeal because it seems to cost less, and the American public does 
not realize what the ultimate cost of this is. But you can only fool 
the American public so long.
  Let us do things right, be fiscally responsible, and do it fairly. We 
do not mind doing it. Let us just be fiscally responsible and fair 
about it instead of cloaking this behind some device and some 
statement.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. McDermott), a member of the committee.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, let us be honest about what is going on 
out here today. It is Thursday. We are going home. They have got a 
fund-raiser tonight. The Republicans wanted to hang around for that. We 
have got to have something to put in the Saturday news that will kind 
of blot out what is happening in Iraq. So let us get this tax bill out 
here. We load up the cannon and we will get the rubber-stamp Congress 
in here and they will go bam-bam, and whatever the President says. You 
know, I think if the President said, I want the Republicans to come and 
stand on their head in the aisles, they would be down here in droves. 
This Congress is not thinking.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for printing in the Congressional Record an 
article entitled ``All Quiet on the House Side'' from the Washington 
Post of May 11. That article goes on to lay out what this Congress has 
not done. Thirty-five of our people were killed in Iraq last week. Many 
more were injured. People have seen these pictures of abuse. They have 
been looking at it all. And what did the House do? Well, we named some 
post offices. That seemed pretty important. Last week, the Nation 
learned that the Federal debt reached an all-time high of $7.13 
trillion. What did we do? Well, we said they could use the Capitol 
grounds to have the soapbox derby. That was a very important way we 
responded to that. Yesterday the Bush Department of Commerce announced 
that our trade deficit and the

[[Page 9487]]

amount of money that this Nation borrows from foreigners to pay for our 
imports, from the Chinese to the Saudis, hit an all-time high. We are 
in the debt of the Chinese and the Saudis. Just do not ever forget 
that, because that is what we are doing. You are paying your taxes so 
we can pay interest on debt that we borrowed from the Saudis and the 
Chinese.
  If you read some of the books around town, the President is probably 
going to call the Prince of Saudi Arabia and ask him to produce some 
more oil so we can lower the price. That is, if you believe Bob 
Woodward's book. Secondly, the majority leader has dismissed the idea 
of any kind of investigation. And, third, despite the record-high 
budget and trade deficit, they come out here asking for more tax cuts 
that will disproportionately help the wealthy.
  When this passes today, there will be 225 Republicans or 300 
Republicans, or whatever, I do not know how many, they will all be out 
here going home with their press release under their arm saying, I 
helped you. What they do not tell people is what this means in terms of 
long-term debt. They are going to say, well, but this is for the middle 
class. The amount of money that goes to the middle class is less than 
goes to the people on the top of the pyramid. This is not a tax cut for 
the middle class. It is really a tax cut for the people on the top, and 
there was no way to exclude the middle class so they had to get a few 
of the drippings off the edge of the table.
  My colleagues remember that story about Lazarus the beggar who was 
sitting on the floor, waiting for some crumbs to fall off the table. 
That is the middle class of this country according to this President. 
He ought to read that story about Lazarus. There is a real message 
there that I think gets lost in this whole process.
  In today's clips, you will also find a quote from our chairman, 
excuse me, our ranking member for the moment, who said, ``We don't want 
our grandkids to pay higher taxes tomorrow to pay for our tax cuts 
today. So all we are saying is don't take credit for extending the tax 
cuts on the one hand while you're breaking your promise to balance the 
budget for your children.''
  Nobody looking at what is going on in the world today could possibly 
say you know where you are going. You made these tax cuts in the first 
place when you were going downhill 100 miles an hour and you said, oh, 
if we cut the taxes, it will be all better. The proof is going to be in 
the pudding on election day. The fact is that on election day, you are 
going to find out whether all your hot air that you have blown into the 
economy really turns out to be real or not.
  In February, you created 21,000 jobs. We have got to remember that it 
takes 250,000 jobs every month to keep up with the increase in 
population in this country. If you do not create 250,000 jobs, you are 
not even keeping up with the problem. They created 21,000 jobs. All 
government jobs, by the way. Not a single private sector. Then they 
came to March. This was their big winner, 308,000 jobs. Well, that is 
about keeping up. Then the next month they came up with 280-something 
thousand and, my goodness, they kept up one more month. But they have 
done nothing about the 2.25 million jobs that they lost over the last 3 
years. They have also produced the highest long-term unemployment rate 
since the Second World War and they want to make another tax cut today.
  There is an old country saying that some of the people probably know 
about: When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing is, stop 
digging. The Republicans believe that the faster you dig, the better 
you are going to get out of the hole. We had to dig you out in 1993 
under Mr. Clinton. We dug you out and you just went back to get your 
shovel and start digging a hole again. Please stop digging.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following article from the Washington 
Post:

                [From the Washington Post, May 11, 2004]

                      All Quiet On the House Side


                  democrats say gop is evading debate

                         (By Charles Babington)

       The week of April 26 was eventful and troubling for the 
     nation, yet curiously brief and serene for the House of 
     Representatives. Thirty-five U.S. servicemen were killed in 
     Iraq. CBS aired shocking photos of Americans abusing 
     prisoners near Baghdad. The federal debt reached an all-time 
     high, more than $7.13 trillion.
       In the House, meanwhile, members returned to Washington on 
     Tuesday of that week for three quick, unanimous votes at 
     nightfall. They renamed a post office in Rhode Island, 
     honored the founder of the Lions Clubs, and supported ``the 
     goals and ideals of Financial Literacy Month.''
       The next day, Wednesday, was a bit busier. After naming a 
     Miami courthouse for a dead judge, House members debated how 
     to extend the popular repeal of the tax code's ``marriage 
     penalty.'' The only real issue was whether to pass the 
     Democratic or Republican version. The GOP plan prevailed, 323 
     to 95.
       After two days and one night of desultory activity--roughly 
     their average workweek this year--House members packed up and 
     rushed home to their districts. Despite the burgeoning 
     scandal over U.S. treatment of Iraqi prisoners and persistent 
     concerns about the economy and the deficit, the House has 
     been keeping bankers' hours.
       The House's lean schedule is no accident. GOP leaders who 
     set the agenda and floor schedule say they achieved most of 
     their top priorities last year--including enactment of a 
     Medicare prescription drug bill and the third round of 
     President Bush's tax cuts--and are content to rest on their 
     laurels through the election. While other House priorities 
     are stuck in the Senate, House Republicans believe they have 
     the best of all worlds: They can take credit for the enacted 
     legislation and blame Senate Democrats for bottling up the 
     rest of their agenda.
       ``Last year we sent a lot of legislation to the Senate, and 
     we don't want to overload them,'' House Majority Leader Tom 
     DeLay (R-Tex) told reporters last week. ``They're already 
     overloaded. . . . We need to be here passing good 
     legislation, doing the people's work and not doing a bunch of 
     make-work.''
       House Democrats see a more cynical motive. The GOP 
     majority, they say, wants a complacent Congress that will 
     raise few questions about the Bush administration, despite 
     the international uproar over the prison abuse scandal in 
     Iraq and recent damaging revelations about Bush's decision to 
     go to war.
       ``Given all the issues and problems the country faces, it's 
     scandalous that we're only coming in to work three days a 
     week, and even then most of the time we're renaming post 
     offices,'' said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). ``This is a 
     deliberate effort to keep Congress out of town, keep us from 
     asking questions.''
       House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) noted that 
     senators held three committee hearings on the prison abuses 
     before House leaders summoned Defense Secretary Donald H. 
     Rumsfeld to the Armed Services Committee last Friday--a day 
     that the Senate was meeting but the House was not. DeLay 
     dismissed the idea of a full-fledged congressional 
     investigation, which he likened to ``saying we need an 
     investigation every time there's police brutality on the 
     street.''
       Pelosi complained: ``Americans are out of work. Our troops 
     are in danger in Iraq. Our reputation is in shreds throughout 
     the world. And we're leaving early afternoon on Thursday.''
       She also said, ``The House of Representatives has 
     demonstrated that it is nothing more than a rubber stamp for 
     the administration.''
       Stephen Hess, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, 
     contends that the House's anemic work schedule is symptomatic 
     of the larger problem of political gridlock. He said 
     lawmakers are ``probably realistic in saying, `We're not 
     spending much time here because we know that nothing would 
     get done.''' He added, however, that ``if they stuck around 
     and talked to each other, maybe they could figure something 
     out.''
       Last week's House action was typical in many ways. It 
     featured bitterly partisan arguments over the Iraq war, in 
     the House chamber and in dueling news conferences. But the 
     main bills approved were a resolution condemning the prison 
     abuses and a long-expected one-year extension of a provision 
     to protect millions of Americans from the alternative minimum 
     tax--a temporary measure that postpones difficult decisions 
     about a major looming problem.
       The week of April 19 was similar. The House held three 
     votes Tuesday night, all unanimous and all renaming post 
     offices. On Wednesday, members quickly passed five bills 
     without debate, under ``suspension'' rules. The one drawing 
     the most opposition--14 nay votes--endorsed research and 
     development into ``green chemistry.''
       Thursday was that week's busiest day, as Republicans and 
     Democrats vigorously debated a ``continuity of government'' 
     bill, meant to ensure that Congress could function if many 
     lawmakers perished in a terrorist attack. The measure, which 
     passed 306 to 97, would require states to hold special 
     elections within 45 days if at least 100 House members were 
     killed. As usual, members had Monday, Friday and most of 
     Tuesday free of Washington-based duties.

[[Page 9488]]

       Meanwhile, the U.S. military campaign in Iraq had one of 
     its bloodiest weeks ever. Shells killed 22 Iraqi prisoners 
     near Baghdad one day, and suicide bomb blasts killed 68 
     people in Basra--many of them children--the next. Violence in 
     the besieged city of Fallujah continued, and 14 U.S. 
     servicemen were killed during the week.
       The week before that, the House was in recess, as it plans 
     to be the week of May 24, the week of June 28, the six weeks 
     starting July 26, and all of October, November and December.
       John Feehery, spokesman for Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-
     Ill.), defended the House's accomplishments and pace. ``Last 
     year we sent a lot of things over to the Senate, and they're 
     sitting in Tom Daschle's back pocket,'' he said, referring to 
     the Senate minority leader, from South Dakota. Those bills 
     include tort reform to curb medical malpractice suits, energy 
     legislation, and welfare reauthorization.
       This year, Feehery said, ``we've passed a lean budget'' for 
     fiscal 2005. ``We're working very hard to keep the 
     president's tax cuts in place. We're monitoring the situation 
     in Iraq'' and will appropriate extra funds as needed. House 
     committees, he said, ``have done a lot of oversight on the 
     Iraq war,'' primarily aimed at seeing that money is well 
     spent.
       The House does not need showy inquiries in front of cameras 
     to fulfill its watchdog obligations, Feehery said. ``Our 
     oversight is not politically motivated, which probably 
     frustrates the Democrats,'' he said. ``It's motivated by 
     better governance.''
       Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), a top adviser in the Clinton 
     White House, is unconvinced.
       ``We can name post offices,'' Emanuel said, ``or we can ask 
     the hard questions about the direction of our nation.''

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to 
respond. There is a lot to respond to there, though. I do not know if I 
have enough time to respond to all of what my friend from Washington 
just said. I think that it would be good to have a little economic 
refresher course here for some of the Members of Congress.
  I just want to point out a couple of things. Number one, the soapbox 
derby resolution was brought by the minority whip from the other side. 
But, number two, I think the Member from Washington ignored a lot of 
good things we just did in the last week here in Congress. Today we 
have the association health plans bill on the floor, helping small 
businesses, individuals, pool together to buy their health insurance in 
collective nationwide buying pools to get down the cost of health 
insurance. Yesterday we passed the FSA rollover to help bring down the 
cost of health insurance and we passed medical liability reform to help 
bring down the cost of health insurance.
  So this Congress is obviously performing. I think he may have glossed 
over a lot of the accomplishments. In fact, we have 87 very important, 
substantive bills sitting over on the doorstep of the other body 
waiting for action because we have outproduced and outperformed the 
other body on legislation.
  One final point is the unemployment rate that we are experiencing in 
America today is lower than the average unemployment rate of the 
nineties, the eighties, and the seventies; 1.1 million jobs have been 
created, good jobs, not all good jobs but many good jobs since August. 
This economy is pulling out of the recession it had experienced a year 
ago. This economy is producing jobs. We still, yes, have a way to go; 
but the point of the story is when you take a look at the fact that 
just this year, in the last 10 months since last July, we have had 
lower tax rates in America. Because of that, we actually have more 
revenues coming into the Federal Government.
  But to make the point clear, last year where we had higher tax rates 
on the American taxpayer, we brought in less money to the Federal 
Government. This year with lower tax rates, where we have more economic 
activity, more people keeping what they earn and a lower tax rate, we 
are actually bringing in more revenue to the Federal Government. We 
believe the way to fixing our problems is jobs and by giving people a 
chance to upgrade their life-styles and get jobs in the economy, we 
will have more tax revenue, rather than increasing taxes and increasing 
spending. That is not our philosophy.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Shaw).
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I took particular interest in listening to the gentleman from 
Washington when he said how the Democrats in 1993 dug us out of a hole. 
I would have to remind the gentleman that his party was running the 
Congress for decades before that. There is not one dollar that this 
government spends that is not directly appropriated or approved by this 
House, right here, where revenue and spending bills must start and end. 
So I would suggest that he take a lesson in constitutional law and 
check his history when he starts doing this.
  Then he says how they claim to have dug us out, with the largest tax 
increase in history. That is the way we balanced the budget. That is a 
fact of history. I think we should certainly take notice of that. As 
the gentleman from Wisconsin correctly pointed out, these tax decreases 
that we have on the books right now, one of which we are talking about 
sunsetting now, that we want to erase the sunset on, has been the 
economic stimulus that has been the engine that has led to this great 
recovery. We were headed towards perhaps what would have been a very 
deep recession and if it were not for the Bush tax cuts, we would have 
bottomed out and still be struggling at the bottom of the hole that he 
is referring to.
  What have the tax decreases done? These tax cuts have given economic 
stimulus that has increased employment in this country. The 
unemployment rate has dropped tremendously, far beyond the 
expectations, I think, of either political party. What has done this? 
Economic growth has done this. To raise taxes or allow them to go up is 
trying to say that a store that is charging too much for goods is going 
to get more revenue by increasing the cost of its products. That does 
not happen. You slow down sales. When we increase taxes, or allow them 
to increase, economic growth is stifled. Unemployment goes up, economic 
growth is slowed, and this is a fact of life. What we need to do is to 
be sure that we do not go back to the lower rate at the 15 percent 
level, that we get rid of the sunset provision and provide that this 10 
percent bracket is going to remain in effect.
  This is tremendously important. It affects so many millions of 
taxpayers in my own State of Florida and it has a great economic effect 
in all the congressional districts. I urge the passage of this 
resolution.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Becerra) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, before I speak specifically to the issue here, let me 
offer an opinion just briefly based upon what the gentleman from 
Florida just said. We have got to pay for this war in Iraq. There ought 
to be some truth to what we do here. After this election, regardless of 
who is selected as the next President, it is going to cost another $100 
billion at least. That will be pushed off until after the election. So 
last year it was $60 billion. Earlier this year it was $87 billion. Now 
as part of the rollout, it is $25 billion. We all know that number is 
too low. $1 billion a week for Iraq and now more than $1 billion a 
month for Afghanistan. 135,000 troops in Iraq. They need equipment. We 
are going to have to increase that base at some point.
  The answer here is this: we are going to fight two wars with three 
tax cuts, and the markets are reflecting it. I appreciate the analogy 
that was drawn by the gentleman about raising prices, but we are 
engaged in two wars across the ocean. The Republican Party in American 
history used to take fiscal prudence as the cornerstone of their 
existence. Today they take the position that we can cut taxes time and 
again because at some point we are not going to have to pay.
  We are going to have to pay for these two wars, and rather than 
taking the response that we have in this institution week after week of 
just simply saying we are going to have another tax cut, there ought to 
be some truth to what it is that we attempt to do here.

[[Page 9489]]

  In addition, it is an honor to be on the Committee on Ways and Means 
in this institution. It is really an honor. Why can these bills not 
come to the committee to be vetted the way they are supposed to be? Why 
are these bills brought to the floor around one of the prestigious 
committees in the Congress? I ask the appropriators who are watching in 
their offices now what they would do if legislation was brought to the 
floor that had not been vetted in their subcommittees or that had not 
been brought to the floor and discussed in the full committee before 
being brought to the floor in this institution for a vote. They would 
reject it. They would be up in arms.
  In addition, the other phenomenon that we have witnessed here, Mr. 
Speaker, which is equally troubling, is that Members who do not even 
belong to the committee are now brought to the floor for this 
instantaneous solution to help them through the election cycle. That is 
not the way that committee is supposed to be run. The people on both 
sides are well regarded by other Members of this institution, and yet 
we move right around the process.
  The substitute bills that have been offered by the Democratic 
minority in this House have been fiscally responsible. We would ask 
that these opportunities be put in place for us to discuss these bills 
in the committee where they are supposed to be discussed. That is what 
the Committee on Ways and Means does. And yet they are brought to the 
floor so that we can get ourselves through the next election cycle. It 
is an ill considered way to bring legislation to this floor, but most 
importantly, given the financial realities of Iraq and Afghanistan, it 
is irresponsible to do what we are doing now week after week.
  I would remind people even with this legislation that is on the floor 
today, very simply, one third of the people through the clawback 
provisions of the Alternative Minimum Tax will not see any tax relief 
despite what they are saying today. We have got to deal with that 
alternative minimum tax issue; and the tax cuts they put in place week 
after week now, without a lot of thought incidentally, do not speak to 
the heart of the issue of Alternative Minimum Tax. It costs $600 
billion to fix. Let us fix that and give middle-income taxpayers the 
relief that they need.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
from Wisconsin for yielding me this time.
  We are going to do something good today. One of the speakers earlier 
said the House had not been doing anything. We are going to do 
something today.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of H.R. 4275, which 
preserves the 10 percent tax bracket. The tax cuts proposed by 
President Bush and passed in the Congress in 2001 created a new tax 
bracket at a low 10 percent rate to help lower the burden on working 
Americans. Because of this tax relief, the first $14,000 of taxable 
income is now taxed at 10 percent instead of 15 percent, a significant 
savings to the American worker.
  If Congress fails to act, the 10 percent bracket will shrink by 
$2,000 next year and will completely disappear by 2011, resulting in 22 
million low-income workers being pushed to a higher tax bracket, and 73 
million working people paying higher taxes as early as next year.
  The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that H.R. 4275 will provide 
$218 billion in tax relief over 10 years and will save the average 
taxpayer more than $2,400 during the next decade.
  Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is very simple. If Congress fails to 
pass this legislation today, we are raising taxes on low-income, hard-
working people. That just does not make common sense. I know in South 
Carolina they know that they can spend their money better than we can. 
Let us give them back their money. Let us allow them to spend it. And I 
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 4275.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is about one thing, allowing hard-
working Americans to keep more of what they earn. It is not 
complicated. As the previous speaker noted, this bill provides a lower 
rate on the first $7,000 on taxable income for single filers and the 
first $14,000 earned by joint filers. That affects nearly every 
American. It is an enormous benefit to low- and middle-income 
taxpayers. In my State alone, the 10 percent bracket has helped over 
one million people.
  In this institution, Mr. Speaker, we hear time and time again about 
how we need to provide tax relief for all Americans, not just the 
wealthiest; for all working families, not just corporate CEOs. This is 
it. This is our chance. By passing this bill, we will help keep lower 
taxes for millions of working families, families who are saving for 
school, families who are looking to buy a home, families who are 
planning for their retirement, families who are looking just to make 
ends meet. Today we give them a chance. We work to lift their lives. We 
work to allow them to keep more of what they earn. We allow them a 
greater chance at the American dream. That is what it is all about. So 
when we hear the other side say time and time again that the Republican 
Party is only concerned about the wealthiest, today is the test. Today 
is the chance that we have to help all working Americans, all working 
families. We allow them to keep more of what they earn. Let us see who 
stands up for hard-working families, and let us see who does not.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me 
this time, who is truly a leader in this House on the issue of tax 
relief for hard-working Americans.
  We are talking taxes today and this week. And because the Republicans 
are the majority here, we are talking tax relief, not tax increases; 
and the taxpayers need to be thinking about that. If the Democrats were 
running the show, we would be talking tax and spend and higher taxes. 
Republicans believe that the taxpayers ought to be keeping more of 
those hard-earned dollars. And we face a lot of opposition to that here 
in Washington. Too many times we have got liberals who would rather 
spend their money for them, and then they want to take the credit for 
it. It was President Bush and the Republican Congress who enacted 
historic tax relief that is fueling tremendous job growth in this 
country. We have created over 1 million jobs since last August; and 
there were a lot of naysayers that said it will never happen, it will 
never happen. One million jobs since August.
  H.R. 4275 is a critical piece of legislation for 24 million lower-
income Americans. If we do not pass this, their taxes are going to 
increase by 50 percent. We do not believe government is why America is 
strong. We think it is because of the people. It is Americans that make 
this country great, Americans that are making economic choices for 
themselves and their families, not having a government program taking 
away their checkbook. That is the Republican philosophy. We have led on 
this issue, and we are continuing to work to lower personal income tax 
brackets.
  Time and again the American people are choosing to send Republicans 
to Washington because they want tax relief. I have said it in the past. 
Democrats only talk about tax relief in election years. Republicans 
talk about tax relief every year.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\3/4\ minutes to the 
esteemed gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), a high-ranking member of 
the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, in 2001 we passed the first Bush tax cut, which I am 
proud to say created the new 10 percent tax bracket. Before this 
legislation was

[[Page 9490]]

passed, the lowest tax rate was 15 percent; and without immediate 
legislative action, 73 million hard-working American taxpayers, 
including 22 million low-income taxpayers, will see their taxes 
increase next year. In 2004 the 10 percent rate applies to the first 
$7,000 of tax-paying citizens' taxable income for single taxpayers and 
$14,000 for joint filers. However, beginning in 2005 through 2007, the 
10 percent tax rate will shrink and apply only to the first $6,000 in 
taxable income for single filers and $12,000 for joint filers. In 2011 
the 10 percent bracket will disappear all together. We cannot allow any 
of this to happen.
  The legislation before us today maintains the size of the 10 percent 
bracket at $7,000 for singles and $14,000 for married couples. H.R. 
4275 also makes permanent the 10 percent tax bracket and indexes the 
income limits for inflation. Once enacted, it will save the average 
American taxpayer more than $2,400 over the next 10 years. Who will 
benefit from this? 73 million American taxpayers, including 22 million 
low-income taxpayers, small business owners and their employees, hard-
working Americans who through no fault of their own are about to be hit 
with a tax increase.
  Mr. Speaker, a vote against this legislation is a vote to increase 
taxes on those who can least afford it.
  I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for his leadership 
role in ensuring that this does not occur, and I urge my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to support this legislation, the passage of 
which will be of great benefit to our citizens.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4275 because I 
know how important this bill is to our recovering economy to nearly 73 
million of America's hard-working families. This Congress must act now 
to extend and to make permanent the 10 percent tax bracket.
  Last year, the President signed the Jobs and Growth Tax Act into law. 
Our ailing economy needed bold and decisive action; and this plan was 
precisely that, the right recipe at the right time. Since the law went 
into effect last June, the economy has expanded at an average quarterly 
rate of 5.5 percent.
  This bill accelerated the reduction of individual tax rates and 
allowed for the expansion of the 10 percent bracket, which grows the 
paychecks of all Americans. An increase in disposable income, or simply 
put, more money in the pockets of all Americans, has contributed to a 
growth in consumer spending. This is critical to my district in South 
Carolina because it helps tourists from all over America visit our 
coastal areas and spend money to enjoy our attractions and Southern 
hospitality. And this is happening all over America.
  Benefits of the Jobs and Growth Tax Act are long term as well. In 
addition to the short-term boost from the passage of this bill, making 
all of the tax cuts permanent will lead to a significant increase in 
investments, job creation, and wages paid to workers. In fact, more 
than 1.1 million jobs have been created nationwide since last August. 
For all of these reasons, I cannot overestimate how important it is for 
Congress to permanently provide the tax relief that the 10 percent 
bracket affords.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for taking the lead 
on this critical piece of legislature and the House leadership for 
continuing to make permanent tax relief a priority for this Congress. 
With the economy finally starting to rebound, now is not the time to 
raise taxes on the American people. I am proud that we have made great 
progress in this area, but I realize we have much work left to do.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 4275 and to continue to 
fight for hard-working American taxpayers.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said before, there is the kernel of a very good 
idea in this legislation, and I believe that both sides have tried to 
extract the good idea from the proposal before us today. The difficulty 
is, as you ask any farmer, it takes time and it takes money and it 
takes a lot of sweat to have anything grow.
  No one in America should believe that we can pass legislation that 
will cost more than $200 billion and not have it take some sweat and 
some cost for America. Money does not grow on trees. There is a cost 
involved. It is a worthwhile idea, because this is a tax cut that 
everyone can agree to, because it starts from the bottom and everyone 
would get it, if you corrected the AMT, which, unfortunately, this 
legislation does not do.
  So while there is the kernel of a good idea, it is destroyed by the 
reluctance or the unwillingness to do what is right, and that is to 
take care of the 33 million Americans by 2010, in 5\1/2\ years, who 
will fall into the Alternative Minimum Tax and will see any savings 
from this particular tax cut washed out when they have to file their 
taxes using the Alternative Minimum Tax.
  Secondly, when you are facing mounting deficits, the largest this 
country has ever seen, and you are starting to now see the consequences 
of it, you have to reflect back on the term used in the late 90s, early 
2000, when we talked about this ``irrational exuberance'' of the stock 
market, where you kept seeing the stock market just rise and rise and 
rise, and people could not make sense of it. But everyone kept buying 
and buying and buying, because that is where we were headed.
  All of a sudden the floor dropped out from under us, and people paid 
the price. Talk to the employees from Enron, who saw their company go 
bankrupt and saw their entire pension savings washed away not only 
because of Enron's corruption, but because of the drop in the stock 
market.
  That irrational exuberance is now driving much of what we have seen 
on the floor this year. A quick example: this year alone in this House 
we have passed out, and I will say to all of America, I did not vote 
for these measures, not because I did not want to, but because I did 
not think it would be fiscally responsible, we passed marriage penalty 
tax relief, a kernel of a good idea, unpaid for, over $100 billion; the 
extension that my colleague from Wisconsin mentioned of AMT relief for 
1 year only that will cost close to $18 billion to make sure those 
Americans don't fall into the AMT. Good, but only 1 year.
  Three, a flexible spending plan that was on the floor yesterday for 
debate, which is, again, a good idea, to allow Americans who have 
health care costs to be able to have a pot of money that they can 
extend over to the next year if they did not use it up. A great idea. 
Cost, close to $10 billion, unpaid for.
  Extension of the 10 percent tax bracket that we are debating today, 
about $220 billion, unpaid for.
  The child tax credit extension done a few weeks back, again a good 
idea for families that have children. $161 billion, unpaid for.
  Total, more than $500 billion this year alone in unpaid-for tax cuts, 
most of which have a good idea behind them. To add to the $400 billion-
plus deficit for this year alone, which adds to, as you heard my 
colleague from Massachusetts mention earlier, the more than $3 trillion 
debt that the Nation owes as a whole.
  Irrational exuberance? Take a look at today's paper, business 
section: ``U.S. trade deficit grows unchecked. $47 billion gap in the 
month of March.''
  We are on track to have a more than $500 billion trade deficit with 
other countries. We are going to owe, at the end of this year, just for 
this year, to foreign interests, more than $500 billion. What they are 
going to do with those securities they get, that promissory note from 
us in its place, we do not know. If they dump it all of a sudden, we 
are in real trouble.
  What else should we know? Gasoline prices. Gasoline prices a year ago 
were 50 cents less per gallon. If you are the average American, that 
means it has added about $50 a month in your gasoline bill. That is 
about $600 a year more

[[Page 9491]]

in gasoline this year you will be paying.
  On top of everything I have said before, the $400 billion-plus 
deficit for this year, that adds more than $1,000 for every man, woman 
and child. I will call it the birth tax. The $50 a month that you pay, 
call it a $600 birth tax, because if you have a child, let us put the 
debt on that child for the gasoline; and on top of that, there is $500 
billion more that this House just passed, and, by the way, the Senate 
has not done it, because they know better, that would be added.
  Before you know it, you have got to conclude that this is irrational 
exuberance. Let us get real. Great ideas. Every single time these 
proposals have come up, the Democratic alternative has said okay, good 
ideas; but let us pay for them where we can. Where we cannot, let us 
pare them down, because we cannot continue to sell the American public 
a bill of goods.
  Someone will pay for this. Good ideas. We would all love to be there. 
If we had real discussions in committee, we could have hashed this out 
and come up with a bipartisan bill. But we bypass the committee 
process. Again, America does not know that. We are coming to the floor 
without having discussed this in committee. That is okay. That is the 
way it is going to work. We will live with that. But do not let the 
American public believe you can do this stuff and pluck it off trees 
and pay for it.
  Let us do it the right way. Let us be fiscally responsible. Let us be 
fair. Make sure that those from the President's previous tax cuts of a 
couple of years ago, who received $130,000 in benefits if you were a 
millionaire in tax cuts, pay their fair share. If a guy in Iraq, one of 
our soldiers, a man or woman, can sacrifice a little bit, and probably 
not take advantage of any of these benefits, then certainly those folks 
who are the millionaires, who are taking home the lion's share of all 
of these tax cuts, can sacrifice a bit to help us pay.
  That is what we do. We have a proposal that would say take the one-
fifth of 1 percent wealthiest to help pay for this, for all Americans. 
We think you can do it. Sure, it hits millionaires; but it helps 
middle-class Americans. It is fiscally responsible, fair, and something 
that would get a bipartisan vote that could get signed by the 
President.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going, I guess, to continue to do this in the 
House and not watch the Senate do any of this whatsoever; and we are 
going to end again this year without having given people what they keep 
thinking we are going to give them, and that is what I think damages 
this institution overall as a whole.
  Let us move forward in a bipartisan fashion. We can do it, because 
there is a kernel of a good idea in these proposals. But we can be 
fiscally responsible and fair at the same time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, since we are going into the debate on the substitute, I 
will not take too long to close, although I think some of what the 
gentleman from California just said bears some responding to.
  I think this debate has done a pretty good job of showing those who 
are viewing it the differences, the differences between the two parties 
here on the floor, the differences between the two approaches to fiscal 
responsibility, between two philosophies.
  What you just heard the gentleman from California say is we have 
recklessly cut taxes by $500 billion over the next decade. It is 
important to put that in context.
  Mr. Speaker, this Federal Government will spend about $2.7 trillion 
this year. Off the top of my head, we will be spending, with taxes 
coming in, about $29 trillion over that 10-year period. So we are 
proposing to allow the American taxpayer to keep about $500 billion out 
of that $29 trillion of their money we are about to spend.
  It kind of comes down to this, Mr. Speaker, two points. Number one, 
we believe the best way to get ahold of our fiscal problems, to reduce 
our deficit, is to hold the line on spending and cut spending and grow 
the economy. The budget resolution we brought to the floor just a month 
or so ago was a resolution that froze spending and actually reduced 
spending in critical areas so we can get a handle on our Nation's 
finances. The other side did not vote for that budget agreement.
  We also need to recognize the fact that when you cut taxes, economic 
growth occurs from that. One of the great stories being told right now, 
the success that we see in the data from this new economic recovery 
that is producing all these jobs, is the fact that this year, with the 
lower tax rates we are paying, we are getting more revenues coming in 
to the Federal Government.
  What we see is that when you cut taxes on entrepreneurs, when you cut 
taxes on families, when you cut taxes on investors, they engage in more 
economic activity, they create jobs, and people go from being 
unemployed and collecting unemployment to going and working and paying 
taxes. That is what is happening today. That is a recipe for success.
  We do not want to squelch this economic recovery. We do not want to 
raise taxes on people. We want to keep taxes low, watch our spending 
and reduce spending, and help people get work, so when they go to work 
they can provide for their families, and, yes, pay taxes, so that we 
can get the revenues we need to reduce and eliminate our deficit. That 
is the approach we are advocating.
  What is the other side's approach? What is the substitute they are 
about to bring to the table? More tax increases. Okay, you can cut 
taxes to these people over here on the right hand, but we have to raise 
taxes to these people on the left. Net tax increases.
  It is a fundamental difference in philosophy. Whereas they believe we 
have to keep taxes high and higher, that the emphasis should not be on 
spending, but we should raise more taxes, we believe the emphasis 
should always be on recognizing the fact that the taxes that this 
country collects is not our money, but the money of the American 
person, the man and woman in the marketplace, who is working hard to 
provide for their family, who is creating jobs, who is sweating and 
working every single day. It is their money, not ours.
  So we do not believe philosophically, that is the root of what we 
believe in, that we should just cavalierly take more and more and more 
money out of a person's paycheck, out of their wallet. We believe they 
should keep more of what they earn.
  What is so great about that philosophy is it is also good economic 
policy, and we are seeing that. We are actually getting more revenues 
because of lower taxes. How about that? And the good news is, this can 
be bipartisan. When John Kennedy did this, it worked. When Ronald 
Reagan did this, it worked. This has been done by Republicans and 
Democrats coming together in the past. When Reagan did it, it was 
because of good Democrats working with Jack Kemp and Bill Roth in the 
Congress to reduce tax rates on the American families. What happened? 
Economic growth was encouraged, tax rates went down and revenues went 
up.
  This does work. It is working right now. What we are seeing in this 
debate is a difference in philosophies.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying one thing. If a Member of 
Congress comes to the floor today and votes against this bill, they are 
voting to increase taxes on 23 million low-income workers. They are 
voting to increase taxes on 23 million low-income workers by one-third, 
to raise their taxes by one-third. They are also voting to increase 
taxes on 80 million taxpayers across the country.
  It is a very clear vote. If you vote for this bill, you preserve 
these tax cuts. If you vote against this bill, you are going to raise 
taxes on 23 million low-income earners, the least of whom among us 
should be facing this kind of a tax increase.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, last week, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan 
Greenspan delivered a warning that ``the free lunch has still to be 
invented.'' He was referring to the

[[Page 9492]]

soaring Federal budget deficits that are adding hundreds of billions of 
dollars to our $7 trillion debt. These budget deficits are threatening 
economic growth and increasing interest rates in the short-run, and 
risk the solvency of Social Security and Medicare in the long-run. This 
bill is not a free lunch. In fact, it will cost $218 billion over the 
next 10 years.
  Instead of passing legislation with any degree of fiscal 
responsibility, the Republican leadership is passing the buck, 
trillions of them, onto our children and grandchildren. Middle-class 
tax cuts are important in addressing tax fairness, of which our current 
system is increasingly in dire need of help. The Democratic substitute, 
which I support, provides middle-class tax relief and protects against 
the egregious impact of the Alternative Minimum Tax, without adding to 
the Federal budget deficit and burdening future generations.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I stand against H.R. 4275, 
which would permanently extend the 10-percent individual income tax 
rate bracket. I stand against this measure not because it reduces 
taxes, but because it continues the use of irresponsible fiscal 
policies. A tax that is made permanent today with no clear and 
effective offsets will leave this Nation in trouble for the future.
  Our Nation faces a staggering deficit with record low revenues coming 
in to the Federal Government. These conditions have left significant 
needs for education, health care, fire and police protection, and many 
other services. The deficit this year is expected to exceed last year's 
record deficit by at least $60 billion and to total at least $2 
trillion over the coming decade. America simply cannot afford more 
unpaid-for tax cuts.
  Given this situation, we must act now to protect our Nation's public 
investments and long-term economic future. By failing to offset its 
$218 billion cost, H.R. 4275 would further drain Federal coffers of 
revenue needed to meet our Nation's shared priorities. Moreover, 
increasing already large deficits will undermine long-term economic 
growth and diminish the quality of life for future generations of 
Americans who will face higher interest rates and who will have to bear 
the burden of the debt incurred today.
  At this uncertain time of continuing unknown costs of war in Iraq and 
its aftermath, and with an aging population about to strain Social 
Security and Medicare resources, it is reckless to enact permanent 
unpaid-for tax cuts. Our Nation faces a long-term gap between revenues 
and obligations, and soon Congress and the American people will have to 
make hard decisions about how to meet our competing priorities. Given 
this reality, we should not make permanent changes to the tax code that 
will further reduce revenues for decades to come.
  I want to reiterate that the most disturbing aspect of irresponsible 
fiscal policies are the soaring deficits that will result from these 
policies. This administration has tried to say that deficits don't 
matter; we know that is simply not true. History has proven that 
chronic deficits threaten our economic strength by crowding out private 
investment, driving up interest rates, and slowing economic growth. 
Indeed foreign investment in the United States has dried up because 
foreign investors have no confidence in the Bush economic agenda. This 
Administration's irresponsible budget policies have turned a surplus 
into a large deficit that is choking off growth in the American 
economy.
  President Bush likes to say his policies are geared towards tax cuts 
for all Americans. In fact the average American won't receive a 
substantial tax cut, but will instead be hit with a tax hike in the 
form of an evergrowing deficit. A large deficit means taxpayers have to 
shoulder the costs of paying the interest on this new national debt. 
The end result will be a debt tax on the great majority of Americans. 
This will be a tax on lower- and middle-class Americans; it will be a 
tax on our heroic war veterans; it will be a tax on the elderly and, 
most unfortunately, it will be a tax on our children. The truly sad 
part of these policies is that, while they are bad for America today, 
they are even worse for future generations of American taxpayers.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 4275, the 
reckless Republican bill permanently extending the 10 percent 
individual income tax bracket, and in support of the Democratic 
substitute that provides real, fiscally sound relief for middle-class 
families who deserve it most.
  Expanding and extending the 10 percent tax bracket is a great benefit 
to many low-income Americans. But, let's not forget that this bill also 
benefits the wealthy who get more of their income taxed at a lower rate 
as well.
  Low- and middle-income Americans deserve this tax break. But, the 
Republicans are unwilling to pay for it, leaving a $200 billion hole in 
lost revenue. Even worse, when this proposal is added to the other tax 
bills that have recently passed or are being proposed, the price tag is 
over $500 billion in new debt thrown on the backs of our children and 
grandchildren.
  The Republican plan is also flatly unfair to a lot of taxpayers 
because it refuses to spread benefits out equally. Just last week, the 
Republicans passed a one-year patch for the Alternative Minimum Tax 
(AMT) that helps the wealthy but fails to protect lower-income families 
while driving the country further into debt. Unfortunately, the 
Republicans' bill today does not apply to anyone who pays the AMT, 
which means a full one-third of all taxpayers cannot benefit from this 
tax cut at all. Some deal if you ask me.
  In contrast, the Democratic substitute is fair, fiscally responsible 
and a whole lot better for most American families. Our bill extends the 
10 percent bracket expansion, but it does so while requiring that 
Congress find a responsible way to pay for this change to the tax code 
in order to make it permanent. To finance the immediate costs of this 
change, the substitute requires the wealthiest Americans--those earning 
over $1,000,000 annually--to give back a small portion of the huge Bush 
tax cuts. Finally, the substitute applies this tax cut equally to all 
taxpayers by ensuring even those paying the AMT get the benefits of the 
expanded 10 percent bracket.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the unfair, fiscally 
irresponsible Republican proposal and support the Democratic 
substitute, which provides equal relief for all taxpayers without 
burdening our children and grandchildren with billions of dollars in 
new debt.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support providing tax relief to 
middle-income Americans by extending the 10 percent tax bracket 
expansion that is scheduled to expire next year.
  Without action, the current amount of income subject to the 10 
percent tax bracket will decrease by $1,000 for individual filers and 
$2,000 for couples as required under the 2003 tax cut package. While 
the majority of the 2003 tax proposal that passed the House was 
fiscally irresponsible and designed to benefit only the wealthiest of 
Americans, its provision expanding the 10 percent tax bracket to 
benefit more middle-income taxpayers had bipartisan agreement. The 
legislation before us today and the substitute offered by Congressman 
Tanner will permanently extend the current income levels failing under 
the 10 percent tax bracket.
  As we extend the 10 percent tax bracket expansion, we need to act in 
a fiscally responsible manner. It is unfair to Americans today, and 
especially the next generation, to delude ourselves by thinking the 
record budget deficits facing our Nation, estimated by the White House 
at over $500 billion this year alone, will simply go away.
  As a member of the House Budget Committee, I supported a budget 
resolution that would have extended the 10 percent tax bracket 
expansion while still reducing the deficit. This approach requires 
tough choices, prioritization, and a bipartisan commitment to helping 
working families. With the House-Senate conference committee still 
negotiating the budget resolution for fiscal year 2005, I remain 
hopeful that we will be able to provide Americans continued tax relief 
today without raising the debt burden on our children's generation.
  The substitute offered today by Representative Tanner is a more 
responsible bill that will provide relief to millions of families while 
not increasing the budget deficit. By adding a rate adjustment of 1.9 
percentage points of the tax cuts for households making over $1 
million, the Tanner substitute provides a reasonable offset to benefit 
more American families without burdening our children with added debt 
that they will have to pay off. Further the Tanner substitute also 
completely protects against these tax cuts being taken back by the 
Alternative Minimum Tax, and provides incentive to address mounting 
Federal deficits by making permanency of this tax provision contingent 
on a balanced budget in 2014. This is a superior approach, helps more 
Americans, and ensures most middle income taxpayers will not have to 
worry about a tax increase related to the 10 percent bracket in the 
near future.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important that we act today to ensure average-
income Americans will not unfairly jump into a higher tax bracket in 
2005. However, I believe we can and must provide this relief in a 
fiscally responsible manner that will not burden future generations of 
Americans. Just as it was true last week when we passed legislation 
permanently repealing the marriage penalty tax, our work is far from 
over in helping working families face the challenge of today's economy. 
We must come together in a bipartisan manner to craft a fiscally 
responsible budget resolution.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of this 
amendment today. I agree

[[Page 9493]]

extending the 10 percent tax bracket is necessary and lawmakers should 
pass legislation to make it permanent. Substantively, I agree with 
this.
  I disagree, however, with the impact this bill will have on our 
already dire fiscal reality. We need to have responsible fiscal 
management in this country--beginning with a sound and comprehensive 
budget. All bills that follow should incorporate the same fiscal 
responsibility, whether that bill cuts taxes or authorizes spending.
  This bill has a $218 billion price tag, which will have to be 
borrowed on top of the $280 billion we have already borrowed this year. 
I am extremely concerned about our levels of borrowing, most of which 
comes from foreign governments.
  The Treasury Department states that major foreign holdings of U.S. 
Treasury securities equal $1.6 trillion. Mainland China and Hong Kong 
alone hold $206 billion of U.S. debt. Japan has $607 billion in 
holdings. With China's purchases of U.S. government securities 
exploding by more than 105 percent since January 2001, it is clear that 
foreign investments in the U.S. are financing our budget deficits. That 
means foreign investors, not U.S. residents, will be the beneficiaries 
of the interest paid by us, our children and our grandchildren.
  The Washington Post recently quoted a former official of the People's 
Bank of China as saying, ``The U.S. dollar is now at the mercy of Asian 
governments.'' This is simply wrong and we need to stop it now. If we 
do not, future generations will be burdened with higher taxes and 
greater debt. They will have to pay off the structural deficits and 
interest costs we are accumulating today.
  The only way to stop this now is to stop deficit spending. That is 
why I supported the substitute bill that would have provided tax relief 
that was paid for and did not add to our historical $7.1 trillion 
Federal debt.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 4275, 
which will permanently create a low 10-percent rate to reduce the tax 
burden on 73 million working Americans.
  The fact of the matter is if Congress does not act this year, 
taxpayers will feel the burden of a significant tax increase.
  The creation of the 10-percent tax bracket in 2001 has boosted the 
take-home pay for more than 733,000 working New Jerseyans. This 
legislation puts a halt to expiration of the 10-percent tax bracket and 
more importantly prevents 24 million low-income workers from being 
pushed into a higher tax bracket, and ultimately being forced to pay 
more in taxes.
  In 2001, tax relief legislation passed by Congress and signed into 
law by President Bush created a new tax bracket at a low 10-percent 
rate. Because of this significant tax relief, the $14,000 of taxable 
income for couples and $7,000 for singles tax filers is taxed as 10 
percent instead of 15 percent.
  Without enactment of this legislation, in 2005, the 10-percent 
bracket will shrink by $2,000 for couples and $1,000 for singles and 
will ultimately disappear in 2011.
  That is why I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4275 
and to continue building on our ongoing efforts to provide tax relief 
for all hard working Americans.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). All time for debate on the bill 
has expired.


     Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Tanner

  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Tanner:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF 10-PERCENT INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATE 
                   BRACKET.

       (a) In General.--Clause (i) of section 1(i)(1)(B) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to the initial 
     bracket amount) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(i) $14,000 in the case of subsection (a),''.
       (b) Inflation Adjustment Beginning in 2004.--Section 
     1(i)(1)(C) of such Code (relating to inflation adjustment) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(C) Inflation adjustment.--In prescribing the tables 
     under subsection (f) which apply with respect to taxable 
     years beginning in calendar years after 2003--
       ``(i) the cost-of-living adjustment used in making 
     adjustments to the initial bracket amount shall be determined 
     under subsection (f)(3) by substituting `2002' for `1992' in 
     subparagraph (B) thereof, and
       ``(ii) such adjustment shall not apply to the amount 
     referred to in subparagraph (B)(iii).

     If any amount after adjustment under the preceding sentence 
     is not a multiple of $50, such amount shall be rounded to the 
     next lowest multiple of $50.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2003.
       (d) Repeal of Sunset.--Title IX of the Economic Growth and 
     Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall not apply to--
       (1) paragraph (1) of section 1(i) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986, and
       (2) the amendments made by paragraphs (1) and (7) of 
     section 101(c) of such Act.

     SEC. 2. BENEFITS OF ACT NOT DENIED BY REASON OF ALTERNATIVE 
                   MINIMUM TAX.

       (a) Minimum Tax.--The amount of the minimum tax imposed by 
     section 55 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be 
     determined as if section 1 of this Act had not been enacted.
       (b) Credits.--In applying section 26(a)(1) of such Code, 
     the amount referred to in subparagraph (B) thereof shall be 
     reduced (but not below zero) by the amount of the reduction 
     in the taxpayer's regular tax liability by reason of section 
     1 of this Act.

     SEC. 3. BENEFITS EXTENSION NOT TO INCREASE FEDERAL BUDGET 
                   DEFICIT.

       (a) In General.--Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(j) Additional Tax on High Income Taxpayers.--In the case 
     of taxable years beginning in calendar year 2005, 2006, 2007, 
     2008, 2009, or 2010, the amount determined under subsection 
     (a), (b), (c), or (d), as the case may be, shall be increased 
     by 1.9 percent of so much of adjusted gross income as exceeds 
     $1,000,000 in the case of individuals to whom subsection (a) 
     applies ($500,000 in any other case).''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2004.

     SEC. 4. REQUIREMENT THAT CONGRESS BALANCE BUDGET.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the provisions of section 
     1 of this Act and any other provision of law, title IX of the 
     Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 
     shall take effect in the form as originally enacted unless 
     Congress meets the requirements of subsection (b).
       (b) Requirements.--Congress meets the requirements of this 
     subsection if--
       (1) before September 1, 2010, Congress has enacted 
     comprehensive Federal budget legislation, and
       (2) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
     certifies in September of 2010 that such legislation--
       (A) will result in a balanced Federal budget by fiscal year 
     2014, determined by taking into account the costs of the 
     foregoing provisions of this Act and without taking into 
     account the receipts and disbursements of the Social Security 
     and Medicare Trust Funds, and
       (B) will permit the general fund of the Treasury to repay 
     amounts previously borrowed from the Social Security and 
     Medicare Trust Funds without requiring large foreign central 
     bank purchases.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 637, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) and a Member opposed each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democratic substitute recognizes the good public 
policy behind extending the 10 percent bracket. We believe that. But we 
also believe, unlike the majority, that it is irresponsible to do so by 
borrowing another $218 billion.
  Let me talk a minute about why we say that. I do not believe that 
people in this country know exactly how fast the balance sheet of our 
Nation is deteriorating. I do not believe people in this country have 
focused on or realize what has happened over the last 36 months or so. 
I am going to try to lay that out today in this debate.
  Mr. Speaker, we now owe collectively, all 290 million of us, over $7 
trillion. We have borrowed an additional $280 billion so far this year. 
The majority approach is to borrow another $218 billion today with the 
passage of this bill.
  The gentleman just said if you do not vote for this bill, you are 
going to raise taxes on 23 million people. If you do vote for the bill, 
you are going to raise taxes on 290 million people, because every 
American in this land is responsible for the mortgages that have been 
placed on our country over the last 36 months.

[[Page 9494]]



                              {time}  1200

  Mr. Speaker, it is heartbreaking to see the financial integrity of 
our country compromised like it has been. I would just like to know how 
far we are willing to go to sign the names of these young people that 
are sitting around here on this board today with a green light as a 
mortgage, a further mortgage on our country. I want the people of this 
country to realize that right now we owe collectively, in hard money, 
about $4 trillion. Foreign interests now own 37 percent of that debt. 
Mainland China alone holds over $200 billion. It is now the second 
largest buyer of our debt, exceeded only by the Japanese, who hold over 
$600 billion.
  Secretary Snow was before the Committee on Ways and Means some time 
ago and I asked him the question, how do you characterize interest? He 
said, it is an obligation of this country. It must be paid. It must be 
paid off the top.
  Mr. Speaker, when we are borrowing this kind of money and it is being 
financed by foreign interests, right now, we have awakened to suddenly 
realize that the biggest foreign aid package in this Congress is 
interest checks that we are sending to foreign countries. Not only are 
we doing that, but we are leveraging our country to people who may not 
see eye to eye with us on how the world ought to be.
  Anyway, getting back to Mr. Snow, I asked him, what about interest? 
He said, it has to be paid. It has to be paid off the top. I said, it 
has to be paid first. He said, let me just say this: As a percentage of 
GDP, gross domestic product, this is not out of line historically.
  The problem that he did not tell us is, when it was this far out of 
line before, it was Americans that were buying the bills, notes, and 
bonds. It was not the Saudis, the Japanese, the Chinese. We can go down 
the line. I have the list here.
  How much we owe right now: Japan, $607 billion; China, $145 billion; 
plus Hong Kong, another 60 billion; so over $200 billion. The U.K., 
$137 billion; Taiwan, $50 billion; Germany, $45 billion; OPEC, OPEC, 
$43 billion; Switzerland, $41 billion; Korea, $37 billion; Mexico, $32 
billion; Luxembourg, $26 billion; Canada, $25 billion; Singapore, and 
the list goes on and on.
  This Congress and this administration is hocking our country to 
foreign investors.
  Let me say that again, because I do not think people realize and 
understand what is happening here. Since 2002, the debt ceiling has had 
to be raised $450 billion. In July of 2002, a $980 billion increase the 
last Fourth of July, that is $1.4 trillion so far. Do my colleagues 
know what that means? That means every day since George Bush took 
office, when we have had a one-party government, White House, Senate 
and House, the Republicans have borrowed $1.1 billion a day, every day.
  Now, we, all of us, have to pay interest on that, and anybody who is 
within the sound of my voice under 50 years of age ought to be so 
concerned about this that they would write or call or do something. 
Because we are literally squandering the wealth of this country by not 
paying for tax cuts and increasing spending on the war, and mentioning 
the war, the only people being asked to sacrifice anything right now 
are the men and women in uniform and their families. None of the rest 
of us are being asked to sacrifice anything to defeat the war on 
terrorism. In fact, we are told to take a tax cut if you are my age, 
and if things get bad enough, go shopping. This is the Alice in 
Wonderland that is going on here.
  This bill is a good idea, but it is just a symptom of a far greater 
problem, and that is the breathtaking, breathtaking fiscal 
irresponsibility that is going on here in this town.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
substitute
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Ryan) is recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I want to point out something in the substitute which I am not sure 
has really been brought to the attention or brought to rise here in 
this particular debate, and that is on the fourth page of the 
substitute. I will read starting at line 3: ``Congress meets the 
requirements of this subsection,'' and that it is talking about the 
deduction, ``if before September 1, 2010, Congress has enacted 
comprehensive Federal budget legislation; and, 2, the Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget certifies in September of 2010 that 
such legislation will result in a balanced Federal budget by fiscal 
year 2014, determined by taking into account the cost of the foregoing 
provisions of this Act and without taking into account the receipts and 
disbursements of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds.''
  And then B, ``will permit the general fund of the Treasury to repay 
amounts previously borrowed from Social Security and Medicare Trust 
Funds without requiring large Federal foreign Central Bank purchases.''
  Now, I am not sure exactly what they are getting to on this, but if 
they think that the Congress is going to have to pay back all of the 
money that it has borrowed from Social Security and put cash into that 
particular fund, in other words, by putting cash in the Social Security 
fund in place of the Treasury bills, I do not know where in the world 
they think they are going to get that much money. And they also are 
going to have to change the law regarding Social Security, because 
Social Security is required to pay that cash into the general fund and 
to replace it with Treasury bills, and this particular legislation does 
not change that provision.
  But most of all, and I think the most damaging thing here which this 
Congress should be very jealously protecting, and that is the 
legislative authority under the Constitution given to this particular 
body. If this bill were passed, and if Members vote for this bill, they 
are saying the Office of Management and Budget is going to be the 
crossing guard that is going to prevent legislation going forward 
unless they say it is fine and they can certify that the budget is 
going to be balanced.
  A balanced budget is a good thing, but delegating legislative 
authority to unelected officials, bureaucrats within the Federal 
Government, is a huge mistake, and it is something that we should do in 
a bipartisan way, and that is jealously guard what our responsibility 
is under the Constitution. I do not know of any other place that we 
have delegated such authority.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman certainly makes a point 
that we do not want to delegate to the executive branch. I think the 
gentleman makes a good point: We ought not to delegate.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I should probably 
reclaim my time at this particular point.
  Mr. HOYER. Of course, the gentleman knows something else is coming.
  Mr. SHAW. I know the gentleman is setting me up.
  Mr. HOYER. My good friend knows me well.
  The fact of the matter is we have been debating for some time the way 
we can internally, Congress can control this spending, and reaching 
what the gentleman says is a good thing, a balanced budget. And that, 
of course, is doing what we did all through the 1990s: applying the 
pay-as-you-go provision to both revenues and taxes, which is the 
discipline that this body placed on itself so we did not have to rely 
on the executive branch.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I do not believe that the 
pay-go is looking towards the Office of Management and Budget as having 
to certify things before we do it.
  Mr. HOYER. Absolutely, that is my point. And if the gentleman would 
support pay-as-you-go, perhaps we would not have to look to other ways 
to try to get to balance.

[[Page 9495]]


  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I can see both sides of pay-go, but I cannot 
see both sides of delegating legislative authority to the executive 
branch no matter who controls the executive branch.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 1 
minute.
  The gentleman from Tennessee called it Alice in Wonderland. I, a few 
minutes ago, called it irrational exuberance. And when we look at the 
bottom-line facts, not what projections are, because, by the way, 3 
years ago it was projected that we would have a $5.6 trillion surplus, 
not deficits. When we look at the bottom-line facts, we are in some 
real trouble. Interest rates, which is really the determiner of whether 
or not Americans have more money in their pocket or not, have gone up 
in the last 2 months alone about a point, 1 percentage rate.
  What does that mean? Well, if you have a mortgage of about $200,000, 
30-year rate, fixed, not flexible and not one that goes up and down, 
you are probably going to pay about, on that $200,000 mortgage, you are 
going to pay about $120 more per month now. That means at the end of 
the year, you are some $1,500 more out of pocket, and over the life of 
that 30-year loan, about $43,000. That is the cost of seeing an economy 
that is not fiscally righting.
  Finally, one last point. That same business section page that said, 
``U.S. trade deficit grows unchecked'' has an interesting story at the 
bottom part: ``MCI awards $8.1 million severance.'' A gentleman who 
worked for 7 months for MCI WorldCom, which was in bankruptcy, was paid 
$8.1 million plus $400,000 more for vacation and so forth, severance, 
paid for 7 months work at the same time they are planning to announce 
that they are planning to trim their workforce by 12,000 people. 
Irrational exuberance.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just bring three points up in respect to this 
substitute. Number one, my colleague from Florida sort of outlined the 
convoluted pay-for in this bill which will render this tax cut 
temporary, not permanent, by giving the decision whether or not to keep 
this tax cut permanent to some accountants at the Office of Management 
and Budget, to in 2010 speculate what is going to happen in 2014 to 
make sure that the tax cut becomes permanent. This is another way of 
saying this is a temporary tax cut, meaning they are going to increase 
this 10 percent bracket again.
  The second point I think is important to make, they try to pay for 
their substitute with a tax increase. Now, what they will tell us is it 
is a tax increase on rich people, individuals making over 500 grand, 
couples making over $1 million. What they will not tell us, Mr. 
Speaker, is that half of those filers are small businesses. Half of 
those people are subchapter S corporations, partnerships, small 
businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, small businesses create 70 percent of our jobs. Before 
the tax cuts that just passed last July, in this country we were taxing 
small businesses at a higher tax rate than we taxed the largest 
corporations of America. We finally now are in a fair, level playing 
field where we tax small businesses at the same tax rate that we tax 
large corporations. But they want to undo that.
  They want small businesses, small mom-and-pop businesses who bring in 
revenues of $1 million or more, who maybe have 2 employees, 10 
employees, 50 employees, to pay a higher tax rate than IBM, than Exxon, 
than Global Crossing, or WorldCom. That is wrong. I think that is 
unjust and unfair, yet they want to return to the days of taxing small 
businesses at higher tax rates than large corporations.
  The third point is the way that they structure their Alternative 
Minimum Tax relief. Now, this is an issue where I think and hope we can 
get good bipartisanship support to fix this problem. We hear from both 
sides of the aisle that AMT is a problem and we have to fix it. Just 
last week we passed a bill to make sure that no new people fell into 
the trap of the AMT while we figure out at the Treasury Department and 
here in Congress how to really fix this mess, and I hope that we really 
do have bipartisan support to fix this mess.
  But the way they structure it in this bill means that taxpayers are 
going to have to calculate their taxes three times in order to navigate 
their way out of the Alternative Minimum Tax. The Alternative Minimum 
Tax brings a lot of complexity to the Tax Code for taxpayers. This 
substitute makes it more complex, more difficult to comply with. That 
is not the right direction, so I urge a no vote on this substitute.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), I would like to say as far as the delegation to OMB, that was 
done under pay-go, it is a way of scoring, and if we do not have any 
other, I guess, arguments against the merits of the bill, they bring up 
procedural matters. I understand that.
  I would also like to say, with the rate adjustment that we have in 
our bill, only 165,000 returns out of 32.8 million small business 
returns would be affected. That is less than one-half of 1 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), the minority whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I really could take 30 minutes to try to correct what the 
gentleman from Wisconsin has been saying.
  First of all, he is a very bright young man. I like him. And it is 
your money, he says. Now, that is the mantra, and that mantra I have 
heard for 20-plus years. And, of course, it is your money. And by the 
way, it is my money, too. I pay more taxes effectively than the Vice 
President of the United States, who made almost 10 times as much as I 
make, but I am not poor-mouthing that. And, by the way, the gentleman 
talks about these large corporations. They do not really care what the 
rate is because, as we notice, I say to the gentleman, 60 percent of 
them do not pay any taxes because of their preference items.

                              {time}  1215

  An aside that the Republican majority has made the Tax Code 
extraordinarily more complicated over the last 3\1/2\ years, 
extraordinarily more complicated over the last 3\1/2\ years, let me 
call to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), some facts.
  A, Mr. Armey said you own this town. You have the President, you have 
the Senate, you have the House. Now, I have been here a lot longer than 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  He talks about debt. Under Ronald Reagan, we raised the debt level 17 
times. Under George Bush, the first, in 4 years we raised the debt 
limit 10 times. Under this President, we have raised the debt limit by 
$1.5 trillion over 3 years. Over 8 years, under President Clinton we 
raised the debt limit five times for $1.58 trillion. The difference, 
however, is that under Ronald Reagan and George Bush, the first, we 
added about $2 trillion to the debt. Under this President, we have 
added about $1.5 trillion to the debt, and under Bill Clinton, over 8 
years, less debt and net $79 billion worth of debt, not trillions, net. 
Why? Because for 4 years of the last 4 years of the Clinton 
administration we created surpluses.
  Secondly, the gentleman and all the Republicans talk about it is 
spending that is the problem. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) 
says that spending is the problem. I would like to have the gentleman's 
attention because I know he is going to find these figures very 
edifying and interesting because he talked about spending, that is a 
legitimate issue to raise; and I want to call the gentleman's attention 
to the administration's budget numbers.
  We have it from 1962 to today. Under Ronald Reagan's Presidency, a, 
we spent 22.5 percent of GDP on average,

[[Page 9496]]

some years higher, some years a little lower, under Ronald Reagan, 
never below 21 percent. Let me remind my colleagues that not a penny 
was spent in America during Ronald Reagan's term of office without his 
signature, not one. We never overrode a veto. The Democrats never 
imposed spending that the President did not sign off, not once. So we 
understand nondefense discretionary spending was 3.4 percent under 
Ronald Reagan.
  Under George Bush, the first, it was 21.9 percent of GDP. Again, he 
never had a bill veto overridden stopping spending. He signed every 
nickel of that expenditure, 3.3 percent on nondefense discretionary 
spending.
  Under George Bush, the second, we have done 19.85, almost 20 percent, 
and 3.5 percent, Dick Armey, they control this town, 3.5 percent of 
that was on nondefense discretionary spending. I will tell my friend 
from Wisconsin this fact is going to amaze him. We spent less GDP under 
Clinton for 8 years and we spent less on discretionary spending, less 
on discretionary spending, and I heard the gentlewoman from Tennessee 
about an hour ago saying we have created 1 million jobs since last 
August. We created 23 million jobs in 8 years or about 4 million a year 
on average under Bill Clinton.
  So, when we are talking about the facts, we ought to know the facts 
because the facts belie what the gentleman from Wisconsin is proposing. 
That is why we are here, because we believe my colleagues' policy is 
not only fiscally wrong but it is also immoral. My friends on the 
Republican side want to create the impression that they are the only 
ones who support this 10 percent bracket. They are not. We want to make 
it permanent, but we do not want to impose a tax.
  He talked about various people who are going to get tax increases. 
Under their bill, 290 million Americans are going to get a tax 
increase, but guess what. They will not get it immediately. We are 
going to delay it a little bit, not only past the next election but 
maybe past a couple of elections after that. Why? Because interest 
rates are going to go up, taxes are going to go up to pay the interest 
on this debt that my colleagues are creating, over $200 billion of 
additional debt in this bill alone.
  That is all we are saying. We are for this policy. We are for keeping 
this 10 percent bracket. We want to assist those at the bottom rungs in 
our society, build themselves up, grow their families, have a better 
opportunity to pay for the education of their children and their 
mortgage payments and buy their cars and have a better quality of life. 
We want that, but we do not want to give them a bill for it 10 years 
from now that says guess what, you have got a big interest that you 
have got to pay.
  I would urge my colleagues to look at the facts. Look at what we did 
under a piece of legislation passed in 1993, one passed in 1990 and, 
yes, one passed in a bipartisan way in 1997, which led to the creation 
of surpluses.
  Let me close by this, and I do not have as much time as I would like, 
but Chairman Greenspan said just the other day, who is not a Democrat, 
``Our fiscal prospects are, in my judgment, a significant obstacle to 
long-term stability because the budget deficit is not readily subject 
to correction by market forces that stabilize other imbalances. The 
free lunch has still to be invented.''
  Vote for this substitute. My colleagues will vote for the policy and 
responsible fiscal policy at the same time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I will not go through tit for tat on all of that. Only to say that 
now that our Chairman Greenspan was invoked, he also said in that same 
speech that the first thing we should do is make these tax cuts 
permanent because they really help achieve the economic recovery we 
have underway right now.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the majority whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I am pleased to follow my good friend, the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), to the floor to debate this issue. I am 
predicting that when we get to the vote on the bill that the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) has been talking about on the floor today 
that the vote will be overwhelming.
  I heard the word ``immoral'' used as it related to this proposal. I 
did not quite understand that; but however my colleagues want to 
characterize this proposal, in the final vote today, I think that the 
vote will be overwhelming, and we will make this 10 percent bracket a 
permanent part of the Tax Code.
  It is an important addition to the Tax Code. I personally am of the 
view that we make a mistake when we eliminate people totally from tax 
responsibility, and we should look for ways not to eliminate people 
from the tax rolls, but to make that tax burden for all Americans as 
small as we possibly can. It is better you value what you pay for. We 
have all been part of that talking about how we are going to eliminate 
people totally from the tax rolls. This really allows more people to 
pay taxes, but to pay at a lower level.
  When we reach the point in this country when we have more people who 
do not pay taxes than people who do pay taxes, and we are pretty close 
to that number right now, we really begin to change the debate on 
taxing and spending policies because not even a majority are paying 
taxes. I think it is a good idea to have this smaller bracket, to have 
it a permanent part of the introduction of the Tax Code. I would not 
even mind to see if we had a bracket just a little bit smaller than 
this one eventually, and so I do hope we make it permanent there.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, because I understand what the gentleman is 
saying, I think it is important to note that every working person in 
America pays taxes. We call it FICA tax, and 50 percent of Americans 
pay more FICA tax than they do, but we are using, as the gentleman 
knows, part of their taxes because there is a surplus in the Social 
Security account for general expenditures. So in that sense, the 
overwhelming majority of employees are paying.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, people who are working pay into those funds, 
that is a good point; and I am pleased that my friend made it.
  At the same time, it does not minimize my point that those people who 
only pay into the Social Security fund do not have the same stake in 
the income tax system and how it works than people who do not. I am 
glad to see us making it more possible for people to have a smaller tax 
burden at the lower levels of people who pay taxes in the country. I 
think that is a good thing.
  I think the 10 percent bracket and making this 10 percent bracket a 
permanent part of the tax structure is not only what we should do but 
what the House will vote to do today. I would like to see that happen 
on the other side of the building as well, and we will encourage that 
by sending this legislation over.
  The 10 percent bracket in the substitute does have conditions still 
in it and because of those conditions is not as permanent as the 
proposal that we have before us in the main bill. Because of this 10 
percent bracket, if we did away with the 10 percent bracket, 73 million 
working Americans would pay higher taxes next year than they paid this 
year because we would not have the 10 percent bracket available then 
next year. Seventy-three million Americans would pay higher taxes 
because of that.
  Unless the House acts, 22 million lower-income workers would be 
pushed from the 10 percent bracket into the 15 percent bracket. We do 
not want to see that happen.
  This is an important step in the right direction. I urge my 
colleagues not only to defeat the substitute, which does not accept the 
permanency of this important addition to our tax policies, but to vote 
for the bill.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Texas, 
I

[[Page 9497]]

would just like to say it does make it permanent, but there are 
conditions.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm), my friend.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the 
time, and this debate is not about whether we should provide tax relief 
to middle-class families. Every Member of this body supports that 
general principle.
  The debate, though, is whether we should do so with borrowed money on 
top of the $7.1 trillion that we already owe. I personally do not 
believe we should pay for tax cuts by borrowing money against our 
children's future. That is why I support the Tanner substitute, which 
will extend the 10 percent tax bracket without increasing the deficit.
  This debate today is really about PAYGO, and I appreciate the fact 
the majority side does not want to go back to pay-as-you-go. They have 
made that very, very clear; and I am sorry that the majority whip left 
the floor because I was a little disappointed in some of what he was 
saying last week when we had a little change of vote by a few folks on 
the pay-as-you-go, and it was inferred to the majority side, those who 
have been voting with us on pay-as-you-go, that this bill and the same 
one we will vote on in a few minutes or later today on pay-as-you-go 
was different than that that was paid in 1997.
  It is not different, and in fact, today once again the majority will 
make it very clear that they do not wish to go to pay-as-you-go 
government, that they are perfectly willing to borrow any amount of 
money, any amount of money in order to continue to implement their 
economic game plan, which I will submit is not working, and it will 
only take a year or two before it will be proven, when we will see the 
largest tax increases in the history of our country being implemented, 
called the debt tax because we cannot borrow $8 trillion and not have 
somebody pay for it; and 4 percent interest on $8 trillion is $320 
billion, and a 1 percent increase in any 1 year will increase the debt 
tax by $80 billion.
  My colleagues can keep wishing that away and they can keep coming up 
with red herrings like the three reasons why my colleagues should 
oppose this, and my good friend who has been here for the same 25 years 
I have been from Florida brings up OMB. He knows that that is standard 
language that we use, they use, constantly use. It has always been used 
that way.
  Let us assume for just a moment he is right and you will come back 
and say, no, that is not right. I would share with the gentleman 
talking about AMT relief, I believe we can find a way to have 
bipartisan cooperation to fix that. We can have bipartisan agreement on 
how to fix the OMB and delegating our authority from this body.
  What it seems we cannot fix, though, is pay-as-you-go. There seems to 
be some reluctance in this body. It used to be my colleagues voted with 
me on this issue. In fact, it took Democrats to pass it because there 
were not enough Republicans when all of them were voting for pay-as-
you-go to pass anything, and some of us were voting with my colleagues 
or they with us, and we got it done. What was the result? A balanced 
budget for our country, and all of the sudden that balanced budget is 
gone out the window.
  The Tanner substitute says we are not opposed to cutting taxes.

                              {time}  1230

  We are not increasing taxes with this amendment. That is a red 
herring, and folks on this side know better than to stand on this floor 
and say that it is.
  What the underlying bill that everybody is going to vote for 
theoretically, I wish they were not, I wish they would vote for the 
substitute because it is a better bill. It does exactly what we want 
done. The only thing it does not do is borrow another $50 billion. Now, 
I think we have an obligation to ensure that future generations will be 
able to meet our commitments to Social Security and Medicare before we 
lock in reductions on revenue. My friends on the other side do not 
believe that anymore, and that is fine. That is a legitimate political 
position, and you are taking it over and over and over again. Fine. 
Just assume the responsibility for that.
  The Tanner substitute tells the President and the Congress we have to 
start making some tough choices. You bring up a tax cut a week. You 
make these statements, send out these press releases, et cetera. That 
is wonderful. But the baby boomers are out there. They are about to 
begin retiring, reaching age 62 in 2008. And to lock in the lack of 
revenue to cover the obligations for them is not a good decision in my 
book.
  Let me remind everyone, we are fighting a war, a war that has already 
cost us $150 billion and is costing another $4 billion a month, and we 
come to this body and we argue about how much we are going to reduce 
the amount of money that we have available to see that the troops gets 
the material, the protection, the armaments that they need to fight the 
war. We argue about how we are going to reduce that amount of money and 
shortchange them.
  This is an amazing place, Mr. Speaker. Amazing how individuals can 
vote one way 4 or 5 years ago and vote another way today and explain it 
both ways. But that is exactly what the majority, all of the majority 
that were here in 1997, are doing. And by opposing the Tanner 
substitute, you are really opposing pay as you go.
  I urge a vote for the Tanner substitute, and I will be one of those 
opposing borrowing another $50 billion without applying pay as you go.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  What this debate is all about is the financial balance sheet of our 
country. As I said in my opening statement, this bill is just a symptom 
of a far greater problem.
  I really, honestly do not believe the people of this country realize 
when bills like this are passed, unpaid for, all of those green lights 
that go up there are in effect putting a $218 billion, in this case, 
mortgage, another mortgage on our country in all of their names; 
because these Members who are going to vote for it are not going to pay 
it, and I think that is wrong.
  But it goes beyond that. It is now a national security matter, as I 
discussed earlier. When one realizes that 70 percent of the deficit, 
$370 billion deficit last year, was financed by foreign interests, they 
are gaining leverage every day on this country.
  My grandfather told me one time, he said, John, it is easier to 
foreclose a man's house than it is to shoot your way in the front door. 
Now, you think about that. China is not always going to see the world 
the same as we do. Neither are the Japanese. Neither are any of these 
other countries around the world, because they have their own interests 
that they must see to. And when we are depending on foreign interests 
to finance record deficits, we are acting irresponsibly when it comes 
to the national security of this country. I firmly believe that. That 
is number one.
  Number two, again, I do not think people understand that since 
President Bush took office, and we have had virtually a one-party 
government in this country, they have borrowed $1.1 billion every day. 
Now, if one were running a private enterprise like that, the 
stockholders would fire them, or they would be in Chapter 11 
bankruptcy. The only difference is, with government, we can continue to 
borrow on the good faith and credit of the American economy.
  But let me get back to this foreign thing, because I think that 
really is something that people can understand. Did you realize that a 
former official of the People's Bank of China, the country's central 
bank in Beijing, and now an economist in Hong Kong was recently quoted 
in the Washington Post as saying the U.S. dollar is now at the mercy of 
Asian governments? In the London Financial Times I read where Europe is 
incredibly worried about the fiscal irresponsibility of our country.
  I just did some figuring. Just so far this year we have already 
written interest checks of over $100 billion, just in the first 7 
months. That is $14 billion in interest a month this year. Said another 
way, we are spending $475 million a day on interest, every day. Since 
we

[[Page 9498]]

started this debate a while ago, we have since spent $20 million in the 
last hour on interest. That is $330,000 a minute or $5,550 a second 
that we are spending on interest for which this country gets no health 
care, no education, no military, no anything that will enable private 
enterprise to grow, flourish and create jobs.
  They say, well, you know, if we can just keep cutting taxes, the 
economy is going to grow. Under that theory, if you abolished all 
taxes, the country would be filthy rich. Somebody has to pay at some 
point a minimum level of taxes to buy aircraft carriers, to buy tanks, 
to buy body armor. I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) said 
the free lunch is still being invented, and one cannot continue to 
reduce revenue, increase spending, borrow it all, and not expect to see 
a financial Armageddon down the line. How far down the line, I do not 
know. I know this: It is much closer today than it was when I got here 
16 years ago.
  And I know this: that the Chinese particularly will not continue to 
buy our paper at a relatively low rate of return to hold their yen, 
their currency, artificially low so they can kill us on the trade 
deficit. I know that that will not continue forever. And I know that 
sometime in the future, whether it is OPEC, Asia, or whomever, they are 
not going to view the world the same way we do. And by our actions here 
today, and again this is just a symptom of a far greater problem, by 
our utter refusal to ask Americans to either cut back or to pay for 
what we are getting, we are putting this country in real, clear and 
present danger with this foreign holding business.
  I do not know how else to put it. I must tell you, this is not going 
to go away, and it is going to get worse with every passing day because 
we are now paying interest on interest. There is not a reputable 
economist that I know that does not say that our country is now in a 
structural deficit. This is not cyclical, where we have a recession. We 
are now in a structural deficit. The budget they presented, is $500 
billion in the red this year, and they say, well, we are going to cut 
that in half in 5 years. But they borrow another trillion dollars under 
their game plan, which is the best they can do. At 5 percent, another 
trillion dollars is a tax increase on 290 million people of $50 billion 
a year every year.
  Now, that is just on 1 trillion. They have already run through that, 
and now almost at $1.5 trillion at $1.1 billion a day. This is 
financial madness. And so when my friends complain about spending, the 
Republicans have controlled the House for the last 9\1/2\ years. The 
Democrats have not spent one thin dime. We do not have the votes to 
spend any money. We cannot spend any money, we do not control anything, 
the Committee on Appropriations, nothing. So when my colleagues talk 
about spending, I suggest they look in the mirror. You guys are the 
ones spending all the money. We do not have the votes.
  So I just tell you, Mr. Speaker, our country is engaged in a death 
spiral financially. If we were in an airplane, unless we did something 
different, we are going to hit the ground. We cannot continue to do 
this. This bill may be good intentioned, but this substitute says, 
look, we have to pay for it. We have asked the top .02 percent of the 
people in this country to help us do that. I do not think that is too 
much to ask.
  I had a friend who had an eighth-grade education. He was an old World 
War II guy who went out on his own and he made it big. I asked him one 
time, I said, John, what do you want to do in your life? He said I have 
two goals, two financial goals. I said, what are they? He said, the 
first one is I want to owe the bank $5 million. I said, that is crazy, 
man. He said, no, it is not, because if they will let me have $5 
million, that means they think I have got 10. And he said, the other 
thing I want to do is I want to pay $1 million a year in income tax, 
because that means I made 3. And if this country allowed me, with an 
eighth-grade education to make $3 million a year, you bet I will be 
glad to pay a million for that privilege of living in this great land 
that I have known and I want to leave to my children.
  What we are doing now is doing violence to what that man was willing 
to do coming out of World War II with an eighth-grade education. I just 
beg and implore people to think about this and let us see if we cannot 
work somehow together. I know you are going to mortgage the country for 
another $218 billion in a minute, but surely we can do better than 
this. This is an outrage to the future of this country and it is an 
outrage to those who came before us.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to close.
  Well, where to begin? Well, we have seen a lot of revisionist history 
practiced on the floor today during this debate. I think it is 
important to look at what this country has faced in the last few years.
  What happened to this country? Well, in 2001 the President was sworn 
into office and we were going into a recession. What we found on 
September 11 of 2001 was that we were on the precipice of going into a 
recession. It looked inevitable that we were going to have a recession, 
but maybe we were going to pull out of it. But 9/11 put us into that 
recession.
  We went into a recession where our revenues to this country dive-
bombed. But what happened after that? Then we found some people were 
crooked in the boardrooms of America, and we had corporate scandal 
after corporate scandal after corporate scandal. And what happened? We 
went deeper into recession and our revenues plummeted. Because we saw 
that Americans' faith in the corporations of America, because of the 
Enron scandal, the Global Crossing scandal, and the WorldCom scandal, 
shook the foundation of our enterprise system.
  What happened also at that time? Well, Mr. Speaker, we were engaged 
in war in response to 9/11. We had to spend more money because we had a 
war in Afghanistan, we had a Department of Homeland Security to try to 
make ourselves harder targets to hit, to play better defense in the war 
on terrorism. That costs money. The fundamental and first 
responsibility of the Federal Government is to protect the safety and 
security of the American people. In post 9/11 government, that means we 
had to spend more money on security.
  So, yes, spending went up. Spending went up, I would argue, for a 
very important reason. And, you know what? Revenues went down. They 
went down because we went into a recession, we got deeper into a 
recession with 9/11, and we got still lower revenues and a worse 
recession because of these corporate scandals.
  But the great story in all of this, Mr. Speaker, is the incredible 
resiliency of the American worker, of the American citizen, of the 
American economy. The American economy is rebounding from all of that. 
Most times in America you get hit with one of these calamities, a war, 
an act of terrorism, or a recession, but they happened all at the same 
time in this country. And what is so wonderful about this is how well 
we have responded to it.
  Now, yes, spending went up, the debt obviously went up, and revenues 
went down. But the good story in all of this, Mr. Speaker, is that in 
large part because of the tax cuts that passed, that helped ignite this 
economic recovery, and we are working and growing ourselves out of 
this. Now, we have many problems that clearly need solving. We are 
still involved in a war and we see that on other TV sets every day. We 
still have a lot of people who need work. But it is a wonderful thing 
that more than a million people found work since last August. It is 
even better that about 300,000 people found work last month.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. Speaker, we still have challenges, and that is why we are seeing 
what is coming to the floor this week, all of these pieces of 
legislation to try and get this economy back on its feet, to get people 
their jobs back.
  One of the things we are focusing on just this week and the next 7 
weeks in

[[Page 9499]]

the House of Representatives is to do things to make it so we are more 
competitive in the global economy. We look at what it takes to get jobs 
in this economy. How do we bring the lagging manufacturing sector back 
on its feet? When we look at the problems facing the competitiveness of 
the American company, we look at the problems facing the 
competitiveness of the American worker, taxes, number one; health care 
costs, number two; regulatory costs; litigation costs with lawsuits; 
and energy costs.
  What is this Congress doing? Well, we had a comprehensive energy 
policy brought through the House of Representatives to bring down the 
cost of energy and make us less dependent on foreign sources of energy; 
filibustered in the other body. Regulatory reform, we are bringing a 
whole week's worth of legislation down to the floor in a matter of days 
to work on reducing the cost of regulations. Tort reform, we have 
passed tort reform bill after tort reform bill after tort reform bill. 
Class action reform, medical liability reform, all being filibustered 
in the other body.
  What are we doing about taxes? This is an area where this Congress 
has produced because we have been able to get these bills passed 
through the other body and signed into law by the President. So we see 
this recovery under way.
  One of the areas where this recovery has really rebound is in small 
businesses. As I mentioned earlier, small businesses create 70 percent 
of the jobs we have in America. Small manufacturers in America today 
pay higher taxes than our competitors overseas, especially China and 
India. We have to make our small manufacturers more competitive.
  What this substitute does is it takes away the very policy that is 
igniting this economic recovery. It puts taxes on small businesses. 
More importantly, if we fail to pass this underlying legislation, it 
will put higher taxes on low-income workers. I mentioned earlier that 
over half of all taxpayers hit by the surtax in the Tanner substitute 
are small businesses. I misspoke. Seventy-five percent of all taxpayers 
hit by this surtax report small business income, sole proprietorships, 
partnerships, men and women in America who are putting their own 
capital at risk to start a small business, to hire people and bring 
them back to work. That is the engine of economic growth that is 
fueling this recovery.
  Why on Earth we want to hit these people, the creators of jobs in 
America, with a new high tax to try to pay for a temporary tax cut 
which we are making permanent in the base bill is beyond me.
  Now, it is important that Members note the differences in philosophy 
here. By raising taxes, as a vote against this bill will do, takes the 
pressure off the need to reduce spending. If we always go for the old 
answer of let us just raise taxes, let us allow taxes to go back up, 
raise taxes on small businesses, that will bring in more revenue to the 
government, possibly. Possibly.
  But what it for sure will do is take pressure off the Congress and 
our Federal Government to cut spending. We want to cut spending. I 
think the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) was right when he said 
we could have done a better job over the last 8 to 9 years in cutting 
spending. I very much agree with that. I think we can do a better job; 
but what is also important to say, which was left out, over these 8 or 
9 years, in passing the spending bills we have passed in this Congress, 
they have always done so by defeating higher spending increases that 
have been proposed time after time from the other side of the aisle.
  So, Mr. Speaker, what this is about is ensuring the recovery 
continues, making sure that 23 million low-income Americans and 73 
million taxpayers do not see a big tax increase next year. What this is 
about is making sure that the pressure is put on Congress in the right 
way, not raising taxes, but keeping taxes low and cutting spending. 
That is the emphasis that is placed in this bill. That is what we are 
voting for here.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' against the Tanner tax increase 
substitute and vote ``yes'' for the base bill so that 23 million low-
income Americans can see this tax relief in reality for the rest of 
their lives and so that the rest can make sure they are not going to 
wake up next year with a big tax increase.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disturbed by the 
fact that once again this body is forced to engage in a debate on the 
merits of a truly irresponsible fiscal policy. No doubt that this 
debate will go back and forth between those who will demand tax cuts 
and those who will be against them, but one fact is undisputable, if we 
adopt H.R. 4275 in its original form then our national deficit will 
grown even larger. Maybe the Members on the other side of the aisle can 
live with an enormous national deficit that grows larger by the day, 
but I surely cannot.
  This is why I am in full support of the Rangel Substitute which 
offers a responsible way to extend the 10-percent individual income tax 
rate bracket. Under the Rangel Substitute, these middle-class tax cuts 
actually benefit the middle class. I know it might shock my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle that there could be tax cuts that might 
actually help Americans who are not in the top 1 percent of income 
earners. I'm sure we will hear the argument that the richest of 
Americans need tax cuts because they are the ones who will invest back 
in America, but I have yet to see the logic come to fruition. What I 
see is a deficit that is expected to exceed last year's record deficit 
by at least $60 billion--and to total at least $2 trillion over the 
coming decade--and yet here we are again on the floor of this 
legislative body on the verge of passing even more tax cuts that have 
no offset. H.R. 4275 in its original form will add another $218 billion 
that will have to be paid for by future generations. I'm sure the 
millionaires of today will enjoy their additional tax cuts, I'm sure 
they'll spend their savings wisely, but meanwhile their good fortune is 
coming at the expense of a future generation of Americans, many of whom 
are not even born yet. The good fortune that American millionaires 
enjoy today will be a burden on those yet unborn Americans in the form 
of exponentially higher taxes and higher interest rates. This phantom 
menace that will burden future Americans can truly be called a ``birth 
tax.'' My colleagues from the other side of the aisle can talk for days 
about the unfairness of higher taxes for today's millionaires, but all 
the talking in the world can not change the fact that this 
irresponsible tax policy is most unfair to those Americans who don't 
yet even have a voice to make their opposition known.
  There is no doubt that the proponents of H.R. 4275 will make the 
argument that this legislation will put more money back in the pockets 
of hard working Americans, but the truth is far from their tired 
rhetoric. The truth of H.R. 4275 in its original form is that it 
excludes far more average Americans than it actually helps. This 
proposed legislation denies the tax cut to any household on the 
Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). There will be 33 million households by 
2010 that will be on the AMT, those 33 million households make up one-
third of all taxpayers and they would receive absolutely no benefit 
from this proposal. By 2010, almost half of AMT taxpayers would be 
households in the $50,000 to $100,000 gross income range. Now I ask, 
does this sound like legislation that truly benefits America's middle 
class? Too many average Americans are not seeing a benefit; instead 
they are being fed a steady diet of misinformation and irresponsible 
policies. The Rangel substitute addresses all these loopholes that 
allows so many Americans to fall through the cracks and not receive 
real tax relief.
  The Rangel Substitute is the only legislation currently on the floor 
that offers the full and true version of the 10-percent bracket and it 
does so while still being fiscally responsible. Plain and simple, the 
Rangel Substitute is the only legislation that will actually help 
middle-class Americans as the sponsors of H.R. 4275 purport to do. I am 
certain my colleagues from the other side of the aisle will vote 
against the Rangel Substitute because God forbid that Americans who are 
millionaires might get a few thousand dollars less in tax cuts in order 
to help other Americans who actually need a tax cut. That's where the 
crux of this debate on taxes is, Republicans will talk endlessly on the 
need for tax cuts that benefit the richest Americans and the richest 
businesses, but I can not argue against that more strenuously. Lower 
and middle-class Americans need a tax cut, America's small businesses 
need and deserve a tax cut. The truly sad fact is that we can provide 
this relief to Americans who need it and we can do it without 
handcuffing future generations with a large national deficit, but the 
majority party in this body refuses to accept that solution. The Rangel 
Substitute puts

[[Page 9500]]

money back in the pockets of middle-class Americans by making a minute 
adjustment to the tax rate for households that earn over $1 million a 
year. This rate adjustment leaves these millionaire households with 
annual tax cuts which will still well exceed $100,000 per year. How 
much more money do millionaires need? Meanwhile, lower and middle class 
Americans are struggling to both make a living and have savings for the 
future, maybe to buy a home or to send their children to college. This 
gross inequity in our current tax structure between millionaires and 
average Americans is just appalling. I urge all my colleagues to vote 
for the Rangel Substitute and I appeal to the Members on the other side 
of the aisle, that if you really care for average Americans as you say 
you do, then the only sensible option you have is to vote the Rangel 
Substitute. Extending tax relief for middle-class Americans is an 
admirable goal, but creating irresponsible legislation like H.R. 4275 
is not.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate on the 
amendment has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 637, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill and on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Tanner).
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 190, 
nays 227, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 169]

                               YEAS--190

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--227

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Blunt
     Capito
     Deal (GA)
     DeMint
     Filner
     Goss
     Hulshof
     Israel
     Lewis (GA)
     Majette
     Quinn
     Reyes
     Scott (GA)
     Shadegg
     Tauzin
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1312

  Mr. FARR and Mr. PAYNE changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 169, I was attending to 
official business in my congressional district, and I missed the vote. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 169, Tanner amendment in 
nature of substitute, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage will be followed by a 5-minute vote on the 
motion to instruct conferees on Senate Concurrent Resolution 95.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 344, 
noes 76, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 170]

                               AYES--344

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker

[[Page 9501]]


     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gephardt
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--76

     Abercrombie
     Andrews
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Berry
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Capps
     Carson (IN)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Kanjorski
     Kucinich
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Menendez
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Deal (GA)
     DeMint
     Filner
     Goss
     Hulshof
     Israel
     Lewis (GA)
     Majette
     Quinn
     Reyes
     Scott (GA)
     Shadegg
     Tauzin


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1330

  Ms. WATERS, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Ms. McCARTHY of 
Missouri, and Mr. CUMMINGS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. RUSH and Mr. WELLER changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 170, final passage of H.R. 
4275, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 170, I was attending to 
official business in my congressional district, and I missed the vote. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________