[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4372-4378]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 4297, TAX RELIEF EXTENSION 
                       RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2005

  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Rangel moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4297 be instructed--
       (1) to insist on the provisions of section 106 of the 
     Senate amendment (relating to extension and increase in 
     minimum tax relief to individuals),
       (2) to recede from the provisions of the House bill that 
     extend the lower tax rate on dividends and capital gains that 
     would otherwise terminate at the close of 2008, and
       (3) to the maximum extent possible within the scope of 
     conference, to insist on a conference report which will 
     neither increase the Federal budget deficit nor increase the 
     amount of the debt subject to the public debt limit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and a member opposed each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, it is of great importance that we 
undertake changes to the tax law with a real understanding of the 
current budget crisis facing our Nation.
  It is simply irresponsible to contemplate tax cuts that are skewed to 
the very richest in our country when Americans are facing the largest 
deficit we have ever seen.

[[Page 4373]]

  The Congressional Budget Office projects a Federal deficit of 
approximately $337 billion for this fiscal year alone. That number does 
not reflect the approximately $181 billion that has been borrowed from 
the Social Security trust funds to pay for government programs.
  Unmasked, the true deficit, counting what is being pulled out of the 
trust funds, is well over half a trillion dollars for this year alone. 
The administration has cited the large deficit as an excuse for massive 
reductions in education and health programs, and that is for the 
Nation's least well-off.
  Pursuing additional tax breaks for the super-wealthy would further 
jeopardize the remaining safety net for children, the disabled, and 
other vulnerable individuals in the future.
  Just 2 weeks ago, Republicans in Congress voted to increase the 
Nation's public debt limit again. Where did the money go? One need only 
connect the dots to see where the Republicans' priorities lie.
  Madam Speaker, this administration and congressional leaders have hit 
bottom. It is irresponsible and it is immoral to direct current deficit 
spending to tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthiest 1 
percent of the country; yet this is the trajectory that has been 
pursued by many of the Republican conferees.
  Further, these Republican conferees would be willing to mortgage the 
cost of this gift to the wealthiest taxpayers on the back of every man, 
woman and child in this country, and it is evident that most of the 
Republicans have these misplaced priorities.
  Beyond the sheer irresponsibility of enacting these skewed tax cuts, 
the Republican leadership has underscored its stubborn and steadfast 
commitment to cutting taxes on investment income and handing the bill 
to middle-class families that are more and more falling prey to the 
growing reach of the alternative minimum tax.
  Madam Speaker, I think it is very important that we take stock in 
what is going on here and what the ramifications are of any law coming 
out of this conference. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle to return to our values and return to a commitment to fiscal 
responsibility.
  Madam Speaker, my motion today would instruct the conferees on the 
tax cut reconciliation bill to focus the relief offered in the 
conference agreement on helping almost 17 million Americans to avoid 
painful and cumbersome tax increases by extending relief from the 
sprawling reach of the AMT. Without this relief, American families 
could see an increase in taxes as large as $3,640. This relief is 
certainly a priority that this Congress can and should not ignore.
  My motion would also instruct the conferees to exclude from the 
conference report provisions to extend the tax cuts on the capital gain 
and dividend incomes in 2009 and 2010. These reduced rates do not 
expire for another 2 years. There is plenty of time to extend those 
benefits in the future if it is determined to be appropriate and 
affordable.
  It seems misguided at the very least to allow the extension of this 
very skewed tax cut to take priority over tax relief that is vital to 
17 million Americans.
  And finally, my motion instructs conferees to not increase the 
burdens on our children and grandchildren in the future by insisting on 
a conference report that does not increase budget deficit, and does not 
decrease the public debt limit.
  The increase passed 2 weeks ago was the fourth such increase in the 
public debt limit during the Bush administration. The President's own 
budget envisions the debt rising to $11.5 trillion by 2011.
  For too long misguided Republican policies have funded a series of 
lopsided tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans by jacking up the 
debt, a burden that our children and grandchildren must bear. It is 
simply unfair to mortgage these policies on the backs of future 
taxpayers.
  Even in normal times the Republican fiscal policies would be 
shocking, but these are not normal times. We are facing a war in Iraq. 
We have enormous deficits. We have done nothing to ensure the solvency 
of Social Security and Medicare programs.
  Madam Speaker, I urge Members to support my motion to instruct the 
conferees that perhaps we can work together to get the wheels back on 
this fiscal wagon.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to transfer the balance of my 
time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a member of the 
Ways and Means Committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). Is there objection 
to the request of the gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, despite all of the respect that 
I have for the ranking member, I have to oppose the motion to instruct.
  If looked at at face value, this motion to instruct adds to the 
deficit. Despite all of the tax increases in the Senate version, there 
are not enough tax increases to cover the cost of this motion to 
instruct.
  Let me just say the motion to instruct seeks to include AMT relief in 
reconciliation, even though we have already in the House passed AMT 
relief. The House voted 414-4 to move the alternative minimum tax 
outside of reconciliation.
  AMT relief cannot be passed within reconciliation without raising 
taxes or, as I said, violating the budget. Some AMT relief for middle-
income taxpayers is inside, included in reconciliation. The bill does 
have a provision that allows families who claim personal tax credits 
targeted to lower- and middle-income families to use those credits to 
offset their AMT liability. The House extends both forms of AMT relief 
without raising taxes as the Senate did.
  And let me just say, this motion to instruct excludes our effort to 
extend the lower rates on capital gains and dividends, which provides 
broad-based tax relief. The motion to instruct seeks to deny that 
broad-based tax relief by refusing to extend the lower rates on capital 
gains and dividends.
  The AMT extension, which my friends on the other side are so in favor 
of, benefits a targeted class of people in a few States. Lower rates on 
capital gains and dividends benefits a much broader group of taxpayers. 
According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the extension of the 2001 
AMT provision affects only 14 million taxpayers. In contrast, capital 
gains are reported by more than 26 million taxpayers and dividends are 
earned by more than 35 million taxpayers. Many of these taxpayers would 
be adversely affected when lower rates expire in 2009.
  Also, Joint Committee data shows that in 2005 95 percent of taxpayers 
hit by the AMT had incomes above $100,000. The AMT affected less than 5 
percent of taxpayers with incomes below $100,000, only one-tenth of a 
percent had incomes below $50,000.
  In contrast, nearly 60 percent of the taxpayers with incomes less 
than $100,000 had income from capital gains and dividends. One in five 
taxpayers with capital gains, and one in four taxpayers with dividends 
have incomes below $50,000.
  Let me also just say that H.R. 4297 is within the current budget 
constraints. The congressionally approved budget allows for up to $70 
billion in reconciliation tax relief, and H.R. 4297 complies with the 
budget.
  The motion to instruct seems to indicate that my friends on the other 
side want no action on the tax reconciliation bill. They do nothing 
about the expiring provisions which would lapse, including several 
items many of my friends on the other side have talked about, including 
the R&D tax credit, Work Opportunity Tax Credit, and Qualified Zone 
Academy Bonds.
  Also the motion implies that the conferees should accept tax 
increases proposed by the Senate. That would lead to raising taxes in a 
number of ways, which have drawn bipartisan concern.

[[Page 4374]]

  So for these reasons, I oppose the motion to instruct.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Madam Speaker, the difficulty in this debate is that we are talking 
about one tax cut versus another tax cut. But what the American people 
should understand is that in one case, the tax cut would benefit 
principally the most rich in America, the 1 percent richest Americans.
  And in the other case, the tax cut would benefit principally middle-
class Americans, some 17 million Americans who would otherwise fall 
within the grasp of the alternative minimum tax.
  This side of the aisle is saying, if we are going to do tax relief, 
let us target it towards those who need it most, and that is middle-
class America. About 17 million Americans are going to fall prey to the 
alternative minimum tax if we do not do something this year and into 
the future as well. And every year there will be more and more 
Americans who creep up into the AMT unless we do a permanent fix.
  The bill that is now being considered in conference would not take 
care of this problem and certainly not long term. Instead it focuses 
most of its money on the wealthiest Americans in this Nation. To what 
degree? Well, the average dividend and capital tax gains cut that would 
be received by a majority of Americans in this country are those folks 
with annual incomes below $40,000; and you are talking about 55 percent 
of American households below $40,000 in income.
  How much would they receive in the capital gains and dividend tax 
cuts? About $7 this year. That would be their share of all of those 
billions of dollars of tax cuts. If you make $40,000 or less, get 
ready, you are going to get $7 back for the year, maybe enough for a 
couple of gallons of gas.
  If you happen to be in the one-fifth of 1 percent richest Americans 
in this country, how much would you get back this year? On average 
about $32,0000. That represents about 45 percent of the entire tax cuts 
that would go to one-fifth of 1 percent.
  Let me make sure it is clear so that no one thinks that I am making a 
mistake here. One-fifth of 1 percent would get 45 percent of the 
benefits of the dividend and capital gains tax cuts. It translates into 
about $32,000 per one of those households that makes over $1 million.
  So that is to say this: sure, if you are supporting the capital gains 
and dividends tax cuts, you can say it goes to millions of Americans, 
but you are only giving them half the truth, because what you are not 
telling millions of Americans is that their share is $7 for the year, 
whereas the very wealthy in America will get $32,000 each.
  What are our priorities? A lot of us believe that 17 million middle-
class Americans should get definite relief from the AMT, the 
alternative minimum tax, before we go towards relieving the tax burdens 
on the wealthiest of Americans.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, you know, the question is straightforward. 
Why would anybody favor a tax cut, about half of which goes to people 
making $1 million a year over preventing a tax increase for 17 million 
Americans, most of whom are middle class? Why would anybody do this?
  Well, my friend from Michigan (Mr. Camp) says that it is broad-based, 
the capital gains and dividend provision, more so than AMT. But most of 
that broad base receives very little, while a small minority of that 
broad base receives very much. So the broad base is really poor 
rhetoric.
  I guess the second answer is, we will do it later, the AMT. We will 
do it later. I wish you would get up and tell us how you pay for that 
right here and now, right here and now.
  I will yield to you if you want to say.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. We have paid for our entire reconciliation.
  Mr. LEVIN. How would you pay for AMT?
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. If the gentleman would let me finish, we have 
paid for our reconciliation bill, or extending our tax relief, in our 
budget. It is paid for in our budget. We take care of the middle-class 
AMT problem in our reconciliation bill.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. LEVIN. So you are claiming that it would all be paid for through 
reconciliation?
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Well, we provide for middle class taxpayers, 
AMT problems in reconciliation. This house voted 414 to 4 to move the 
entire AMT issue outside of reconciliation.
  Mr. LEVIN. But you don't take care of the basic issue that we 
referred to here, and the answer is that you will pay for it by more 
deficit. That is what you are going to do.
  The President's budget already projects a national debt of $11.5 
trillion, it is hard to say that, $11.5 trillion. You are going to make 
things worse and worse and worse. Your fiscal irresponsibility sees no 
bounds. You come here today defending a tax cut years away from now, 
half of which more or less goes to people making $1 million, when 17 
million people face this year a tax increase. You have blinders on. I 
think everybody who votes against this motion can expect this to be 
brought up these coming months as well as on the floor today.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, My friend from Michigan said, why would anyone want a 
tax cut? I will tell you why. The American economy, after tax relief in 
2001 and 2003, is the envy of the industrialized world. Our 
unemployment rate is lower than that of Canada, France, Germany, Italy 
and the United Kingdom. Productivity is booming. The average annual 
growth rate of output per worker since 2001 is 3.1 percent, the best 
since the 1960s.
  Prices are stable. Inflation measured by the price index for personal 
consumption expenditures grew at a low 2.9 percent in 2005. Americans 
are working. The unemployment rate is at 4.8 percent, almost a 5-year 
lull, while initial unemployment claims are near the lowest point since 
1999.
  Nest eggs are growing. Average home prices rose 13 percent in 2005, a 
huge increase for the 69 percent of Americans who own their homes. 
Consumers are confident. Consumer spending rose 9 percent in January, 
the largest increase in 12 months. Americans are richer. Aftertax 
income is up 5.4 percent in the last 12 months, and the economy is 
stronger. Real domestic product growth has averaged 3.2 percent in 
2005. That is why Americans want tax cuts.
  The motion to instruct assumes the tax increases that the Senate has 
passed, which the House has rejected. Now, those tax increases aren't 
enough to cover the cost of this motion to instruct, so I urge Members 
to oppose that motion to instruct.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, let me thank my friend from California for 
yielding me this time.
  Let me respond to Mr. Camp and invite him to visit communities in my 
State that talk with working families, where you see median income in 
America has not increased. Families in my State are concerned with how 
they are going to make their budget, how they are going to deal with 
increased costs of energy, because we don't have an energy policy, how 
we are going to deal with the increased cost of health care that is 
being put on their back because we have failed to deal with the health 
care crisis in this country, how they are going to deal with the cost 
of education. Your budget took away some of their funds from the 
Federal Government to help finance their costs of higher education and 
how they are going to be able to afford college education for their 
children.
  In short, they are falling behind. They are falling behind every 
month

[[Page 4375]]

under this administration's economic policies. This motion to instruct 
is pretty simple. It says to the maximum extent possible, within the 
scope of conference, and the conference report not increase the deficit 
or the public debt.
  The families in my congressional district are worried about who is 
going to pay off this debt. They know that the budget deficit this year 
is unsustainable, and they don't want us to have tax cuts primarily for 
the wealthy and ask their children and grandchildren to pick up the 
tab. The deficit this year is projected to be $337 billion. When you 
add in the Social Security money that we are borrowing, that we 
shouldn't be borrowing, of another $181 billion, we have a right to be 
concerned.
  Enough is enough. We are getting the money to pay our bills from 
banks owned by foreign countries that are buying our bonds, not because 
it is a good investment. They are buying our bonds in order to 
manipulate currencies that will send more product into America, taking 
more jobs away from Americans. Enough is enough.
  These tax cuts unpaid for, unpaid for, are hurting our economy, 
hurting our future, and hurting the ability of the typical family in 
America to be able to deal with economic realities. The average family 
won't benefit from these tax cuts, but the average family would benefit 
from fiscal responsibility right here. I urge my colleagues to accept 
this motion, and let us work for the future of America's families.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I would just say that this is 
all provided for in our budget reconciliation.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania 
(Ms. Hart), the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Ms. HART. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. 
I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct. The motion would cause 
serious disruption to the economic growth that this country has 
experienced over the past several years. It would strip from law a key 
factor which resulted in that economic growth. Specifically, the 
gentleman wishes to increase the taxes that have been reduced for 
capital gains and dividends.
  This rate reduction has been widely recognized as a key to that 
economic growth that we have seen over the past several years. Former 
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has repeatedly acknowledged the 
importance of these reduced tax rates in economic growth and 
opportunity.
  Let us look at the real impact these lower rates for dividends and 
capital gains have had on our economy. In the last 10 quarters prior to 
the passage of these rates in 2003, the annual increases in GDP 
averaged just over 1.2 percent and never exceeded 2.9 percent. In the 
10 quarters following that rate reduction, our GDP has averaged an 
increase of over 4 percent.
  Finally, business investment had decreased for the nine consecutive 
quarters prior to this rate deduction and have increased in each 
quarter since that deduction. That business environment means new jobs. 
That is why since 2003 over 4 million jobs have been created and the 
unemployment rate in the United States, yes, has dropped, from 6.1 
percent to 4.8 percent. In addition to the positive economic results I 
have cited, the changes in capital gains rates have begun to have a 
positive impact on the Treasury as well.
  Contrary to the gentleman's assertions in January, the Congressional 
Budget Office released a report stating that capital gains realization 
had boosted Federal revenues and will continue to do so for the next 
several years. Capital gains grew by about 50 percent in 2004, and that 
is more than twice the 23 percent growth the CBO anticipated for the 
last round of budget forecasts.
  Acting CBO Director David Marron said capital gains realization has 
been running higher recently than we originally anticipated. In fact, 
CBO estimated that the capital gains receipts totalled $75 billion in 
2005.
  In fact, the CBO estimated that capital gains receipts total $75 
billion in 2005, the most since 2001. And the biggest annual percentage 
gain since 1997.
  Why would we want to end a policy that is working?
  There are a number of additional important tax provisions like the 
R&D tax credit included in this bill that need to be extended and it is 
time for us to complete our work.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I have some information that the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania will 
be very interested in hearing. The capital gains rate, the dividend tax 
rate that she effuses about, well, they are secure in present law for 
2006, for 2007, for 2008. And so the issue before the body is not at 
all whether this relief will continue as clearly implied. I can only 
believe that the speech she just gave is based on a profound 
misunderstanding of what we are talking about relative to these rates.
  These rates are in present law through 2008 so no one is talking 
about these rates going away. What we are talking about is priorities. 
First things first. And first is we have got to do something about this 
alternative minimum tax. There will be people meeting their accountants 
this afternoon all across the country with April 15 coming closer, and 
they are going to have worked through their entire schedule, their 
deductions, their itemizations, and their accountant is going to tell 
them none of this matters because you fell under the alternative 
minimum tax. You are going to owe the Federal Government a higher 
income tax bill than you ever imagined. And as bad as this is this 
year, it is going to be worse next year and the year after that.
  So in sharp contrast to this capital gains business that is not even 
before us until 2009, these alternative minimum tax rates are hitting 
now, and they are hitting at ever lower ranks of income coming fully 
into the middle class, and that is why on a first-needs-first basis we 
need to put this priority to the floor, and that is exactly what our 
motion does.
  Now, our motion does something else. It says that we ought to take 
the savings from taking this fix they put in the outyears for 2009 and 
2010 and put that to reducing the deficit now.
  This afternoon is a very interesting litany of happy talk from the 
other side about this great economy, and it reminds me of that great 
commercial. This fellow, he is so self-content. He says, I have got a 
great car. I have got a great house. And then in a sober moment, he 
looks at the camera, and he says, I am in debt to my eyeballs. That is 
exactly the state of this country.
  This is the same crowd that is presiding over the deepest deficit in 
the history of the country, and that is saying something because it was 
also record in 2003, 2004 and 2005. This is the crowd that passed the 
bill that increased the debt so that we can now borrow close to $9 
trillion. These economy happy times they are talking about, they are 
paid for fair and square all right. They are paid for on debt that we 
are passing on to our children.
  It is wrong, and I urge your support of the motion to instruct.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), a distinguished member of the 
Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee, on which I am proud to serve on the Ways and Means 
Committee, for yielding me time.
  Madam Speaker, as the lead sponsor of the House Middle Class AMT 
Relief bill, I rise in opposition to the Democratic motion to instruct 
offered by my home State colleague, Mr. Rangel.
  Madam Speaker, the Democratic motion presents a false choice between 
extending the lower rates on capital gains and dividends and the need 
to extend middle-class AMT relief. In my view, both of these are 
important priorities, and we need to address each of them at the 
earliest possible opportunity.
  With regard to AMT, many in this Chamber will recall the House passed

[[Page 4376]]

my stealth tax relief act last year, late in the year, by an 
overwhelming bipartisan vote of 414-4. That legislation would prevent 
the alternative minimum tax from sneaking up on millions of 
unsuspecting middle-class taxpayers by extending the temporary AMT 
relief for another additional year. Together we sent a strong, 
unmistakable signal to our colleagues across the Capitol that extending 
this temporary middle-class AMT relief is a crucial priority that 
cannot be ignored.
  Madam Speaker, we passed the AMT relief as a stand-alone measure 
outside of reconciliation. We did that so we could comply with the 
budget rules of the other body without raising taxes. At the same time, 
we recognized that extending the lower rates for capital gains and 
dividends is important, not just to the ever-growing investor class 
that now includes millions of seniors and other middle-class Americans, 
but to our economy as a whole.
  Thanks in large part to these lower rates on investments, tax 
revenues have been streaming into the Federal Treasury at a record 
pace.

                              {time}  1545

  These lower rates, which are particularly important to the economy of 
my home State of New York, have helped our Nation in keeping this 
economy strong and our domestic job base growing. That is why the House 
tax reconciliation bill included an extension of these lower tax rates 
on investments.
  But what does today's motion to instruct do? Yes, it urges relief 
from the AMT, but it does so by crowding out the other important pro-
growth tax policies that have helped keep our economy strong. Even 
worse, by insisting that we provide AMT relief within the 
reconciliation process, the Democrat motion would force conferees to 
raise taxes somewhere else.
  I would remind my colleagues that AMT was never intended to hit the 
middle class. Protecting middle-class taxpayers against the stealth tax 
should not require a tax hike somewhere else as the price of admission.
  Madam Speaker, I commend Chairman Thomas and the other conferees for 
their ongoing hard work on both of these important issues.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this Democratic motion.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this 
motion to instruct.
  The Republican priorities are backwards. See, the point is that we 
want to help middle-class America. They say they passed an AMT bill 
separate from the reconciliation, but the reality is, by doing that, 
they would push the deficit higher. We want this motion to instruct to 
pass because it will be much like the Senate bill that requires the AMT 
to be reduced.
  Some of the tax cuts that will need to be extended in this conference 
are important to our economy: the R&D tax credit, the Work Opportunity 
Tax Credit, the Welfare-to-Work Tax Credit, the expensing of 
brownfields environmental remediation costs, and the New Markets Tax 
Credit.
  I do not want anybody to think that Democrats do not like capital 
gains and dividends. We want people to have capital gains and 
dividends, and we want them to have a benefit, but right now, we are 
talking about the poor people, the middle-class, working people in this 
country who are not getting the benefit from capital gains and 
dividends.
  I think the number is $7. Let us see, right now, perhaps you could 
buy 2\1/2\ gallons of gas; $7, perhaps you could buy two gallons of 
milk; $7, you cannot buy your baby a pair of shoes; $7, you cannot buy 
a blouse; $7, you cannot put a ham or a steak on the table. Give me a 
break.
  These people, the middle-class, working people of this country, need 
the support that we can give them through this instruction about an 
AMT.
  Now, we want you to know that we want capital gains and dividends to 
be extended. We understand the importance, but we do not have to deal 
with it now. It is not up till 2008. Right now, AMT, you can ask 
anybody on the street, I get letters and calls from my constituents, 
help me with the AMT. Most people right now cannot even get a dividend 
or a capital gains because they are in such financial straits that they 
are unable to handle it.
  I will also tell you, I heard one of my colleagues talk about how 
many jobs have been created. You know how they determine how many jobs 
have been created? By looking at how many people have been back to the 
unemployment bureau to determine how many jobs have been created. The 
problem with that concept is, there are a lot of my constituents who 
have stood in line and stood in line looking for a job, cannot get a 
job.
  The jobs that have been created are nothing like the jobs that we 
have lost. In Ohio, we have lost some 200,000 jobs since 2001. In the 
city of Cleveland, we have lost 60,000 jobs since 2001. These were jobs 
that were paying $20-some; the jobs they have been replaced with are 
$5.25-an-hour jobs where they do not get health care and they cannot 
raise a family on $5.25.
  All we are asking in this instruction is for fairness for working-
class folks. Take it back where everybody gets a benefit.
  In that drug bill, we gave a benefit to the drug companies. In other 
bills, we did a benefit to the folks who are supposed to be helping us 
in Iraq and they are walking off with the money.
  Take care of the people in America. Pass this bill.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Our legislation does provide AMT relief for middle-income taxpayers 
inside of reconciliation.
  Again, I go back to why would anyone want a tax cut? Obviously, 
lowering tax rates on capital gains and dividends helps contribute to 
the long-run economic growth and expansion of this country.
  Sixty percent of the people who realize capital gains have incomes 
below $100,000. Twenty-five percent of the people with dividend income 
have incomes below $50,000. Capital gains tax receipts have been 
increasing since the 2003 tax cut, and over the past year 2 million 
jobs were created, and the unemployment rate is at its lowest level 
since July of 2001 at 4.8 percent.
  Congress must continue to encourage investment and economic growth 
and, also, Congress must encourage Americans to plan for the long term. 
A 3-year tax provision does not allow for long-term financial planning, 
particularly for the 70 million baby boomers that are going into 
retirement in the near future.
  So, again, I would urge Members to oppose this motion to instruct.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  What the gentleman from Michigan does not mention is that the fix 
they have in their legislation takes care of $2 billion worth of a $35 
billion hole for alternative minimum tax. That is not a fix for most 
middle-class Americans.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to 
instruct conferees.
  President Kennedy once said, ``To govern is to choose,'' and this 
Congress made a choice. They cut child health care, 6 million children. 
They cut college tuition, the largest cut in the history of the 
country, $12 billion. They cut child nutrition programs, child support 
collection, child care, all to provide a tax cut for the wealthy.
  The Republican Congress gives a whole new meaning to women and 
children first. They cut all those investments in our children, all to 
give a tax cut to the very few who are being very fortunate. And I 
believe those very few are as patriotic as every other American; they 
know we have critical needs and investments we have to make here in 
America.
  Six million children losing their health care and a few getting a 
capital gains tax cut is not the choice President Kennedy thought about 
when he said, ``To govern is to choose.'' Cutting

[[Page 4377]]

child support collection by $9 billion for a single mom, all the while 
giving a tax cut to the very wealthy, was not the choice President 
Kennedy imagined when he thought about investing in America's future.
  President Kennedy also said, ``Leadership is a question of 
priorities.''
  I want to demystify all these numbers flying around for you. Nineteen 
million American families will get a tax increase if the Republican 
Congress has its way, straight. That is simple. It is not more 
complicated than that, 19 million families.
  Just a few years ago, only 1 million middle-class families were hit 
by the AMT. Today, 19 million. In 4 or 5 years, that number will go up 
to 30 million American families making $100,000 who will be hit by the 
AMT.
  What they have decided to do, rather than deal with that problem 
today, ensuring those middle-class families who work hard and play by 
the rules, rather than get a tax cut, you are going to get a tax 
increase. That simple. No camouflage, no rhetoric will cover it up.
  What they are trying to do is say in 2008 the capital gains/dividend 
tax cut is going to expire; we have got to deal with that today. Yet, 
today, 19 million families are going to be hit by a tax increase, and 
it is time that we need new priorities, a change in direction for 
American middle-class families who are doing right by their children.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I do not have any speakers at 
this time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the motion 
to instruct, and my amendment would merely suggest that at any meeting 
of two or more conferees every conferee should be invited to attend 
that meeting.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The Chair would 
entertain that request only from the proponent of the motion, who 
noticed the form of the motion yesterday and who has not yielded for an 
amendment.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of Mr. Rangel's 
motion to instruct.
  Madam Speaker, it is of some interest that, as a conferee, this 
probably would be the only time I have to express my opinion on the 
conference, as we are usually, as Democrats, not invited to attend and 
discovering where the conferees meet is a conundrum that is not easily 
solved by this side of the aisle.
  But if we were allowed to participate in a democratic fashion, which 
seems to elude my colleagues across the aisle, we would remind our 
conferee colleagues that we are going to add trillions to the national 
debt over the next 5 years as a result of the budget, and to extend tax 
breaks for millionaires, while we are mortgaging our children's future, 
seems to me to be immoral.
  The Republicans voted to increase the debt limit a few weeks ago, and 
now they want to waste that increase on $50 billion in capital gain and 
dividend breaks for people making over $1 million a year. There are not 
many of those in this country, but those who do make over $1 million a 
year will benefit magnificently from this Republican tax bill and not 
many other people.
  It was pointed out that we were given the erroneous assumption that 
they were doing something about the alternative minimum tax. It is 
certainly dealing with less than 10 percent of the alternative minimum 
tax problem. That hardly stands as a solution.
  I urge support for the motion.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has 
18 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) 
has 6\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Rangel 
motion to instruct conferees on the alternative minimum tax. It also 
calls upon this body not to increase the debt and the deficit of this 
country, which is a burden on our children and grandchildren and a 
growing burden.
  The AMT was originally enacted to ensure that the truly rich pay 
their fair share, but now it has a very unintended effect, and it is 
hurting millions in the middle class. Twenty million taxpayers will be 
hit by the AMT this year, 17 million of whom are in the middle class, 
and these are the jobs that are growing this economy. It has jumped 
from 3 million in 2004 to over 20 million this year.
  It is hurting the middle class. It is unfair. It should not be this 
way. Support the Rangel bill.
  There is the deficit. The deficit is out of control. The Republicans 
have raised the debt ceiling four times. It is now over $8 trillion. 
This budget before us proposes to increase the total national debt from 
$8 trillion at the end of the last year to over $11 trillion in 2011. 
That is more than double what it was when this Republican 
administration came into power. This means that each man, woman and 
child in America owes over $30,000, and on the interest alone to the 
national debt, the interest alone will be over $247 billion. That is 50 
percent of the discretionary spending in this country. It is a burden 
we cannot continue to carry.
  I am just warming up on this issue because I am concerned about my 
children.
  This administration is setting records, but they are the wrong kinds 
of records for the future stability of this country. We have a record 
debt, over $8 trillion and galloping forward. We have record deficits. 
We have a record trade deficit, the largest in the history of our 
country.

                              {time}  1600

  Both the debt, the trade deficit, and the deficit have hit 
historically high numbers. And what is truly troubling to me is that 
foreigners are buying our debt. About 80 percent of the deficit is 
financed by foreigners. This is not the right direction.
  Vote for the Rangel motion to instruct.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, again, I find it interesting 
that some of my friends on the other side say that nobody benefits from 
capital gains and dividends when in fact 35 million taxpayers have 
dividend income and 26 million taxpayers realize capital gains. I think 
that shows how little they know about employee ownership in America of 
so many companies where people work.
  So to dismiss out of hand as if no one benefits from these provisions 
is absolutely false, and not to mention the effect of these investment 
tax reductions on our economy and what that means for peoples' 
individual lives and their prosperity.
  I spent some time earlier going through a number of statistics about 
how we have record unemployment, record homeownership, record 
productivity, and so many indicators of strength in our national 
economy that are as a result of the 2003 tax relief.
  Also, the potential tax hike in investment taxes could already 
potentially be weighing on people about to retire, the 70 million baby 
boomers who are about to retire, and could weigh on investors as they 
make their longer-term investment decisions. That is why it is so 
important that we continue the capital gains and dividend tax relief in 
reconciliation; that we don't have a tax hike on investment taxes, 
because that would hurt the economic growth that we have been able to 
achieve in recent years.
  Let me just say that we have been able to do both in our legislation, 
both capital gains and middle-income AMT, and they have been done 
within the budget. The congressionally approved budget by this Congress 
allows up to $70 billion in reconciliation and tax relief. Within our 
budget we do both of them. We may not do it exactly the way the other 
side does, but we accomplish both goals in our legislation.
  Again, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to instruct.

[[Page 4378]]

  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, this motion to instruct is not about a 
debate as to whether we should cut taxes for Americans; this motion to 
instruct talks about how we should cut taxes for Americans. In essence, 
what are our priorities in Congress and in the White House? Should we, 
on the one hand, provide relief for over 17 million middle-class 
American taxpaying households, as we propose; or should we, as the 
other side proposes, provide relief that benefits principally one-fifth 
of 1 percent of the wealthiest Americans in this country?
  Federal budgeting is no different than family budgeting at the end of 
the day. Yet if you look at the actions of this Congress today and over 
the last several years, what this Congress is saying to American 
families is, do as I say not as I do. This year, the Federal Government 
will run a $518 billion deficit. We are running record deficits this 
year. That deficit is portrayed as being $337 billion, only $337 
billion, because this Congress is taking $181 billion out of the Social 
Security trust fund to help cover the massive size of the Federal 
budget deficit.
  The total national debt today stands at over $8 trillion, and 
President Bush, in his budget, admits that we will pay more than $247 
billion next year in interest payments on the Federal debt alone. A 
quarter of $1 trillion to do nothing but pay the interest on the debt.
  There was a joke I heard not too long ago about how you could know if 
2006 would be a challenging year. The top three choices, to let you 
know, are: one, your twin sister forgets to congratulate you on your 
birthday; two, you see a ``60 Minutes'' crew waiting outside your 
office for you; and the number one way you can tell it is going to be a 
challenging year is you file your income tax statement and are 
expecting a refund, and what you get is a bounced check from the 
Federal Government.
  Now, as funny as it may sound, there is some truth in that as we run 
massive deficits and increase the size of the national debt. President 
Bush has borrowed three times the amount that the first 39 Presidents 
in the Nation's first 191 years borrowed in all their time. We are 
spending about $6 billion a month in Iraq, and we are talking about 
cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans. That is something that had 
never been done until this administration cut taxes for the wealthiest 
Americans at a time when we are running massive deficits and have men 
and women sacrificing their lives abroad.
  It is time for us to have some fiscal sense, be responsible and 
recognize what every American family must: that you have got to figure 
out your books before you spend money. And that is what this motion to 
instruct says. Let us have priorities when it comes to tax cuts, let us 
target help towards middle-class America before we give tax cuts to the 
wealthiest Americans. If you have some left over after you help middle-
class America, okay, fine. But don't cut $14 billion out of student 
loans for mostly middle-class families sending their kids to college. 
Don't cut $600 million out of foster care programs for some of our 
neediest children who are being abused. Don't take money out of the 
child enforcement program that helps make sure kids get money from 
their deadbeat dads.
  If you can take care of all those things, fine, let's cut taxes for 
the wealthiest Americans. But today we are running massive deficits and 
we cannot do it. So vote for this motion to instruct. It says our 
priorities are middle-class Americans, and we will do the work the 
right way.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I would like to clarify a 
statement I made on the floor at one point during debate on a motion to 
instruct conferees on H.R. 4297. In quoting the statistics on the 
percentage of taxpayers with capital gain and dividend income that have 
incomes below $100,000; the correct statistic is that nearly 60 percent 
of taxpayers receiving capital gain or dividend income have incomes of 
$100,000 or less. Even though I did correctly state this statistic 
during the debate, the statistic was initially mischaracterized.
  The correct statistic can be derived from a document provided by the 
nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. This document can be found on 
their web site. It is document number JCX-50-05 titled ``Present Law 
and Background Information on Certain Expiring Tax Provisions.'' The 
data on the income distribution of taxpayers who receive capital gain 
and dividend income can be found on pages 6 and 7.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). Without objection, 
the previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ``noes'' appeared to have it.
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________