[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 25]
[House]
[Pages 34052-34067]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         AMT RELIEF ACT OF 2007

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 861, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 4351) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
provide individuals temporary relief from the alternative minimum tax, 
and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 4351

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, ETC.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``AMT Relief 
     Act of 2007''.
       (b) Reference.--Except as otherwise expressly provided, 
     whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in 
     terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other 
     provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a 
     section or other provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986.
       (c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title, etc.

                     TITLE I--INDIVIDUAL TAX RELIEF

Sec. 101. Extension of alternative minimum tax relief for nonrefundable 
              personal credits.
Sec. 102. Extension of increased alternative minimum tax exemption 
              amount.
Sec. 103. Increase of AMT refundable credit amount for individuals with 
              long-term unused credits for prior year minimum tax 
              liability, etc.
Sec. 104. Refundable child credit.

                      TITLE II--REVENUE PROVISIONS

    Subtitle A--Nonqualified Deferred Compensation From Certain Tax 
                          Indifferent Parties

Sec. 201. Nonqualified deferred compensation from certain tax 
              indifferent parties.

        Subtitle B--Codification of Economic Substance Doctrine

Sec. 211. Codification of economic substance doctrine.
Sec. 212. Penalties for underpayments.

                      Subtitle C--Other Provisions

Sec. 221. Delay in application of worldwide allocation of interest.
Sec. 222. Modification of penalty for failure to file partnership 
              returns.
Sec. 223. Penalty for failure to file S corporation returns.
Sec. 224. Increase in minimum penalty on failure to file a return of 
              tax.
Sec. 225. Time for payment of corporate estimated taxes.

                     TITLE I--INDIVIDUAL TAX RELIEF

     SEC. 101. EXTENSION OF ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF FOR 
                   NONREFUNDABLE PERSONAL CREDITS.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 26(a) (relating 
     to special rule for taxable years 2000 through 2006) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``or 2006'' and inserting ``2006, or 
     2007'', and
       (2) by striking ``2006'' in the heading thereof and 
     inserting ``2007''.
       (b)  Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2006.

     SEC. 102. EXTENSION OF INCREASED ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX 
                   EXEMPTION AMOUNT.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 55(d) (relating 
     to exemption amount) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``($62,550 in the case of taxable years 
     beginning in 2006)'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting 
     ``($66,250 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2007)'', 
     and
       (2) by striking ``($42,500 in the case of taxable years 
     beginning in 2006)'' in subparagraph (B) and inserting 
     ``($44,350 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2007)''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2006.

     SEC. 103. INCREASE OF AMT REFUNDABLE CREDIT AMOUNT FOR 
                   INDIVIDUALS WITH LONG-TERM UNUSED CREDITS FOR 
                   PRIOR YEAR MINIMUM TAX LIABILITY, ETC.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 53(e) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(2) AMT refundable credit amount.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1), the term `AMT refundable credit amount' means, 
     with respect to any taxable year, the amount (not in excess 
     of the long-term unused minimum tax credit for such taxable 
     year) equal to the greater of--
       ``(A) 50 percent of the long-term unused minimum tax credit 
     for such taxable year, or
       ``(B) the amount (if any) of the AMT refundable credit 
     amount determined under this paragraph for the taxpayer's 
     preceding taxable year.''.
       (b) Treatment of Certain Underpayments, Interest, and 
     Penalties Attributable to the Treatment of Incentive Stock 
     Options.--Section 53 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(f) Treatment of Certain Underpayments, Interest, and 
     Penalties Attributable to the Treatment of Incentive Stock 
     Options.--
       ``(1) Abatement.--Any underpayment of tax outstanding on 
     the date of the enactment of this subsection which is 
     attributable to the application of section 56(b)(3) for any 
     taxable year ending before January 1, 2007 (and any interest 
     or penalty with respect to such underpayment which is 
     outstanding on such date of enactment), is hereby abated. No 
     credit shall be allowed under this section with respect to 
     any amount abated under this paragraph.
       ``(2) Increase in credit for certain interest and penalties 
     already paid.--Any interest or penalty paid before the date 
     of the enactment of this subsection which would (but for such 
     payment) have been abated under paragraph (1) shall be 
     treated for purposes of this section as an amount of adjusted 
     net minimum tax imposed for the taxable year of the 
     underpayment to which such interest or penalty relates.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2006.
       (2) Abatement.--Section 53(f)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986, as added by subsection (b), shall take effect 
     on the date of the enactment of this Act.

[[Page 34053]]



     SEC. 104. REFUNDABLE CHILD CREDIT.

       (a) Modification of Threshold Amount.--Clause (i) of 
     section 24(d)(1)(B) is amended by inserting ``($8,500 in the 
     case of taxable years beginning in 2008)'' after ``$10,000''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2007.

                      TITLE II--REVENUE PROVISIONS

    Subtitle A--Nonqualified Deferred Compensation From Certain Tax 
                          Indifferent Parties

     SEC. 201. NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION FROM CERTAIN TAX 
                   INDIFFERENT PARTIES.

       (a) In General.--Subpart B of part II of subchapter E of 
     chapter 1 (relating to taxable year for which items of gross 
     income included) is amended by inserting after section 457 
     the following new section:

     ``SEC. 457A. NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION FROM CERTAIN 
                   TAX INDIFFERENT PARTIES.

       ``(a) In General.--Any compensation which is deferred under 
     a nonqualified deferred compensation plan of a nonqualified 
     entity shall be taken into account for purposes of this 
     chapter when there is no substantial risk of forfeiture of 
     the rights to such compensation.
       ``(b) Nonqualified Entity.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term `nonqualified entity' means--
       ``(1) any foreign corporation unless substantially all of 
     its income is--
       ``(A) effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or 
     business in the United States, or
       ``(B) subject to a comprehensive foreign income tax, and
       ``(2) any partnership unless substantially all of its 
     income is allocated to persons other than--
       ``(A) foreign persons with respect to whom such income is 
     not subject to a comprehensive foreign income tax, and
       ``(B) organizations which are exempt from tax under this 
     title.
       ``(c) Ascertainability of Amounts of Compensation.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the amount of any compensation is not 
     ascertainable at the time that such compensation is otherwise 
     to be taken into account under subsection (a)--
       ``(A) such amount shall be so taken into account when 
     ascertainable, and
       ``(B) the tax imposed under this chapter for the taxable 
     year in which such compensation is taken into account under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be increased by the sum of--
       ``(i) the amount of interest determined under paragraph 
     (2), and
       ``(ii) an amount equal to 20 percent of the amount of such 
     compensation.
       ``(2) Interest.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(B)(i), the 
     interest determined under this paragraph for any taxable year 
     is the amount of interest at the underpayment rate under 
     section 6621 plus 1 percentage point on the underpayments 
     that would have occurred had the deferred compensation been 
     includible in gross income for the taxable year in which 
     first deferred or, if later, the first taxable year in which 
     such deferred compensation is not subject to a substantial 
     risk of forfeiture.
       ``(d) Other Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of 
     this section--
       ``(1) Substantial risk of forfeiture.--
       ``(A) In general.--The rights of a person to compensation 
     shall be treated as subject to a substantial risk of 
     forfeiture only if such person's rights to such compensation 
     are conditioned upon the future performance of substantial 
     services by any individual.
       ``(B) Exception for compensation based on gain recognized 
     on an investment asset.--
       ``(i) In general.--To the extent provided in regulations 
     prescribed by the Secretary, if compensation is determined 
     solely by reference to the amount of gain recognized on the 
     disposition of an investment asset, such compensation shall 
     be treated as subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture 
     until the date of such disposition.
       ``(ii) Investment asset.--For purposes of clause (i), the 
     term `investment asset' means any single asset (other than an 
     investment fund or similar entity)--

       ``(I) acquired directly by an investment fund or similar 
     entity,
       ``(II) with respect to which such entity does not (nor does 
     any person related to such entity) participate in the active 
     management of such asset (or if such asset is an interest in 
     an entity, in the active management of the activities of such 
     entity), and
       ``(III) substantially all of any gain on the disposition of 
     which (other than such deferred compensation) is allocated to 
     investors in such entity.

       ``(iii) Coordination with special rule for short-term 
     deferrals of compensation.--Paragraph (3)(B) shall not apply 
     to any compensation to which clause (i) applies.
       ``(2) Comprehensive foreign income tax.--The term 
     `comprehensive foreign income tax' means, with respect to any 
     foreign person, the income tax of a foreign country if--
       ``(A) such person is eligible for the benefits of a 
     comprehensive income tax treaty between such foreign country 
     and the United States, or
       ``(B) such person demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 
     Secretary that such foreign country has a comprehensive 
     income tax.

     Such term shall not include any tax unless such tax includes 
     rules for the deductibility of deferred compensation which 
     are similar to the rules of this title.
       ``(3) Nonqualified deferred compensation plan.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `nonqualified deferred 
     compensation plan' has the meaning given such term under 
     section 409A(d), except that such term shall include any plan 
     that provides a right to compensation based on the 
     appreciation in value of a specified number of equity units 
     of the service recipient.
       ``(B) Exception for short-term deferrals.--Compensation 
     shall not be treated as deferred for purposes of this section 
     if the service provider receives payment of such compensation 
     not later than 12 months after the end of the taxable year of 
     the service recipient during which the right to the payment 
     of such compensation is no longer subject to a substantial 
     risk of forfeiture.
       ``(4) Exception for certain compensation with respect to 
     effectively connected income.--In the case a foreign 
     corporation with income which is taxable under section 882, 
     this section shall not apply to compensation which, had such 
     compensation had been paid in cash on the date that such 
     compensation ceased to be subject to a substantial risk of 
     forfeiture, would have been deductible by such foreign 
     corporation against such income.
       ``(5) Application of rules.--Rules similar to the rules of 
     paragraphs (5) and (6) of section 409A(d) shall apply.
       ``(e) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out 
     the purposes of this section, including regulations 
     disregarding a substantial risk of forfeiture in cases where 
     necessary to carry out the purposes of this section.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 26(b)(2) is amended by 
     striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (S), by striking 
     the period at the end of subparagraph (T) and inserting ``, 
     and'', and by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(U) section 457A(c)(1)(B) (relating to ascertainability 
     of amounts of compensation).''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections of subpart B 
     of part II of subchapter E of chapter 1 is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 457 the 
     following new item:

``Sec. 457A. Nonqualified deferred compensation from certain tax 
              indifferent parties.''.

       (d) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply 
     to amounts deferred which are attributable to services 
     performed after December 31, 2007.
       (2) Application to existing deferrals.--In the case of any 
     amount deferred to which the amendments made by this section 
     do not apply solely by reason of the fact that the amount is 
     attributable to services performed before January 1, 2008, to 
     the extent such amount is not includible in gross income in a 
     taxable year beginning before 2017, such amounts shall be 
     includible in gross income in the later of--
       (A) the last taxable year beginning before 2017, or
       (B) the taxable year in which there is no substantial risk 
     of forfeiture of the rights to such compensation (determined 
     in the same manner as determined for purposes of section 457A 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by this 
     section).
       (3) Accelerated payments.--No later than 60 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue 
     guidance providing a limited period of time during which a 
     nonqualified deferred compensation arrangement attributable 
     to services performed on or before December 31, 2007, may, 
     without violating the requirements of section 409A(a) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, be amended to conform the date 
     of distribution to the date the amounts are required to be 
     included in income.
       (4) Certain back-to-back arrangements.--If the taxpayer is 
     also a service recipient and maintains one or more 
     nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements for its 
     service providers under which any amount is attributable to 
     services performed on or before December 31, 2007, the 
     guidance issued under paragraph (3) shall permit such 
     arrangements to be amended to conform the dates of 
     distribution under such arrangement to the date amounts are 
     required to be included in the income of such taxpayer under 
     this subsection.
       (5) Accelerated payment not treated as material 
     modification.--Any amendment to a nonqualified deferred 
     compensation arrangement made pursuant to paragraph (3) or 
     (4) shall not be treated as a material modification of the 
     arrangement for purposes of section 409A of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.

        Subtitle B--Codification of Economic Substance Doctrine

     SEC. 211. CODIFICATION OF ECONOMIC SUBSTANCE DOCTRINE.

       (a) In General.--Section 7701 is amended by redesignating 
     subsection (p) as subsection (q) and by inserting after 
     subsection (o) the following new subsection:

[[Page 34054]]

       ``(p) Clarification of Economic Substance Doctrine.--
       ``(1) Application of doctrine.--In the case of any 
     transaction to which the economic substance doctrine is 
     relevant, such transaction shall be treated as having 
     economic substance only if--
       ``(A) the transaction changes in a meaningful way (apart 
     from Federal income tax effects) the taxpayer's economic 
     position, and
       ``(B) the taxpayer has a substantial purpose (apart from 
     Federal income tax effects) for entering into such 
     transaction.
       ``(2) Special rule where taxpayer relies on profit 
     potential.--
       ``(A) In general.--The potential for profit of a 
     transaction shall be taken into account in determining 
     whether the requirements of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 
     paragraph (1) are met with respect to the transaction only if 
     the present value of the reasonably expected pre-tax profit 
     from the transaction is substantial in relation to the 
     present value of the expected net tax benefits that would be 
     allowed if the transaction were respected.
       ``(B) Treatment of fees and foreign taxes.--Fees and other 
     transaction expenses and foreign taxes shall be taken into 
     account as expenses in determining pre-tax profit under 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(3) State and local tax benefits.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1), any State or local income tax effect which is 
     related to a Federal income tax effect shall be treated in 
     the same manner as a Federal income tax effect.
       ``(4) Financial accounting benefits.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1)(B), achieving a financial accounting benefit 
     shall not be taken into account as a purpose for entering 
     into a transaction if such transaction results in a Federal 
     income tax benefit.
       ``(5) Definitions and special rules.--For purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) Economic substance doctrine.--The term `economic 
     substance doctrine' means the common law doctrine under which 
     tax benefits under subtitle A with respect to a transaction 
     are not allowable if the transaction does not have economic 
     substance or lacks a business purpose.
       ``(B) Exception for personal transactions of individuals.--
     In the case of an individual, paragraph (1) shall apply only 
     to transactions entered into in connection with a trade or 
     business or an activity engaged in for the production of 
     income.
       ``(C) Other common law doctrines not affected.--Except as 
     specifically provided in this subsection, the provisions of 
     this subsection shall not be construed as altering or 
     supplanting any other rule of law, and the requirements of 
     this subsection shall be construed as being in addition to 
     any such other rule of law.
       ``(D) Determination of application of doctrine not 
     affected.--The determination of whether the economic 
     substance doctrine is relevant to a transaction shall be made 
     in the same manner as if this subsection had never been 
     enacted.
       ``(6) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out 
     the purposes of this subsection. Such regulations may include 
     exemptions from the application of this subsection.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to transactions entered into after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 212. PENALTIES FOR UNDERPAYMENTS.

       (a) Penalty for Underpayments Attributable to Transactions 
     Lacking Economic Substance.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 6662 is amended 
     by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Any disallowance of claimed tax benefits by reason of 
     a transaction lacking economic substance (within the meaning 
     of section 7701(p)) or failing to meet the requirements of 
     any similar rule of law.''.
       (2) Increased penalty for nondisclosed transactions.--
     Section 6662 is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(i) Increase in Penalty in Case of Nondisclosed 
     Noneconomic Substance Transactions.--
       ``(1) In general.--To the extent that a portion of the 
     underpayment to which this section applies is attributable to 
     one or more nondisclosed noneconomic substance transactions, 
     subsection (a) shall be applied with respect to such portion 
     by substituting `40 percent' for `20 percent'.
       ``(2) Nondisclosed noneconomic substance transactions.--For 
     purposes of this subsection, the term `nondisclosed 
     noneconomic substance transaction' means any portion of a 
     transaction described in subsection (b)(6) with respect to 
     which the relevant facts affecting the tax treatment are not 
     adequately disclosed in the return nor in a statement 
     attached to the return.
       ``(3) Special rule for amended returns.--Except as provided 
     in regulations, in no event shall any amendment or supplement 
     to a return of tax be taken into account for purposes of this 
     subsection if the amendment or supplement is filed after the 
     earlier of the date the taxpayer is first contacted by the 
     Secretary regarding the examination of the return or such 
     other date as is specified by the Secretary.''.
       (3) Conforming amendment.--Subparagraph (B) of section 
     6662A(e)(2) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``section 6662(h)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (h) or (i) of section 6662'', and
       (B) by striking ``gross valuation misstatement penalty'' in 
     the heading and inserting ``certain increased underpayment 
     penalties''.
       (b) Reasonable Cause Exception Not Applicable to 
     Noneconomic Substance Transactions, Tax Shelters, and Certain 
     Large Corporations.--Subsection (c) of section 6664 is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 
     (3) and (4), respectively,
       (2) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' in paragraph (4), as so 
     redesignated, and inserting ``paragraph (3)'', and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) Exception for noneconomic substance transactions, tax 
     shelters, and certain large corporations.--Paragraph (1) 
     shall not apply--
       ``(A) to any portion of an underpayment which is 
     attributable to one or more tax shelters (as defined in 
     section 6662(d)(2)(C)) or transactions described in section 
     6662(b)(6), and
       ``(B) to any taxpayer if such taxpayer is a specified large 
     corporation (as defined in section 6662(d)(2)(D)(ii)).''.
       (c) Application of Penalty for Erroneous Claim for Refund 
     or Credit to Noneconomic Substance Transactions.--Section 
     6676 is amended by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection 
     (d) and inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Noneconomic Substance Transactions Treated as Lacking 
     Reasonable Basis.--For purposes of this section, any 
     excessive amount which is attributable to any transaction 
     described in section 6662(b)(6) shall not be treated as 
     having a reasonable basis.''.
       (d) Special Understatement Reduction Rule for Certain Large 
     Corporations.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (2) of section 6662(d) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Special reduction rule for certain large 
     corporations.--
       ``(i) In general.--In the case of any specified large 
     corporation--

       ``(I) subparagraph (B) shall not apply, and
       ``(II) the amount of the understatement under subparagraph 
     (A) shall be reduced by that portion of the understatement 
     which is attributable to any item with respect to which the 
     taxpayer has a reasonable belief that the tax treatment of 
     such item by the taxpayer is more likely than not the proper 
     tax treatment of such item.

       ``(ii) Specified large corporation.--

       ``(I) In general.--For purposes of this subparagraph, the 
     term `specified large corporation' means any corporation with 
     gross receipts in excess of $100,000,000 for the taxable year 
     involved.
       ``(II) Aggregation rule.--All persons treated as a single 
     employer under section 52(a) shall be treated as one person 
     for purposes of subclause (I).''.

       (2) Conforming amendment.--Subparagraph (C) of section 
     6662(d)(2) is amended by striking ``Subparagraph (B)'' and 
     inserting ``Subparagraphs (B) and (D)(i)(II)''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

                      Subtitle C--Other Provisions

     SEC. 221. DELAY IN APPLICATION OF WORLDWIDE ALLOCATION OF 
                   INTEREST.

       (a) In General.--Paragraphs (5)(D) and (6) of section 
     864(f) are each amended by striking ``December 31, 2008'' and 
     inserting ``December 31, 2017''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2008.

     SEC. 222. MODIFICATION OF PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO FILE 
                   PARTNERSHIP RETURNS.

       (a) Extension of Time Limitation.--Subsection (a) of 
     section 6698 (relating to general rule) is amended by 
     striking ``5 months'' and inserting ``12 months''.
       (b) Increase in Penalty Amount.--Paragraph (1) of section 
     6698(b) is amended by striking ``$50'' and inserting 
     ``$100''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to returns required to be filed after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 223. PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO FILE S CORPORATION RETURNS.

       (a) In General.--Part I of subchapter B of chapter 68 
     (relating to assessable penalties) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 6699A. FAILURE TO FILE S CORPORATION RETURN.

       ``(a) General Rule.--In addition to the penalty imposed by 
     section 7203 (relating to willful failure to file return, 
     supply information, or pay tax), if any S corporation 
     required to file a return under section 6037 for any taxable 
     year--
       ``(1) fails to file such return at the time prescribed 
     therefor (determined with regard to any extension of time for 
     filing), or
       ``(2) files a return which fails to show the information 
     required under section 6037,

     such S corporation shall be liable for a penalty determined 
     under subsection (b) for

[[Page 34055]]

     each month (or fraction thereof) during which such failure 
     continues (but not to exceed 12 months), unless it is shown 
     that such failure is due to reasonable cause.
       ``(b) Amount Per Month.--For purposes of subsection (a), 
     the amount determined under this subsection for any month is 
     the product of--
       ``(1) $100, multiplied by
       ``(2) the number of persons who were shareholders in the S 
     corporation during any part of the taxable year.
       ``(c) Assessment of Penalty.--The penalty imposed by 
     subsection (a) shall be assessed against the S corporation.
       ``(d) Deficiency Procedures Not to Apply.--Subchapter B of 
     chapter 63 (relating to deficiency procedures for income, 
     estate, gift, and certain excise taxes) shall not apply in 
     respect of the assessment or collection of any penalty 
     imposed by subsection (a).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part I 
     of subchapter B of chapter 68 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 6699A. Failure to file S corporation return.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to returns required to be filed after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 224. INCREASE IN MINIMUM PENALTY ON FAILURE TO FILE A 
                   RETURN OF TAX.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 6651 is amended 
     by striking ``$100'' in the last sentence and inserting 
     ``$150''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to returns the due date for the filing of which 
     (including extensions) is after December 31, 2007.

     SEC. 225. TIME FOR PAYMENT OF CORPORATE ESTIMATED TAXES.

       The percentage under subparagraph (B) of section 401(1) of 
     the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 in 
     effect on the date of the enactment of this Act is increased 
     by 52.5 percentage points.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 861, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. McCrery) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, after my speaking, I ask unanimous consent 
that the balance of my time be controlled by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), and that he be allowed to assign it to 
speakers on behalf of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am so proud to have the opportunity to say once again that 
fulfilling our constitutional responsibility, the Ways and Means 
Committee has reported out a bill to provide relief to upward of some 
25 million people from being hit by a $50 billion tax increase, which 
it was never thought could happen to these people.

                              {time}  1700

  By the same token, almost separate and apart from this, we have an 
opportunity to close a very unfair provision that we find in our Tax 
Code, that certainly no one has come to me to defend, which prevents a 
handful of people from having unlimited funds being shipped overseas 
under deferred compensation and escaping liability. It is just plain 
wrong if we were talking about this by itself. But we are not doing 
that. We are talking about bringing something together that I don't see 
how anyone can be opposed.
  So let's talk about the things that we all agree on. Nobody, 
Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, believes that these 
taxpayers should be hit by a tax that we didn't intend.
  Two, no one has the guts to defend the offshore deferred 
compensation. You may have some feelings about it because of a couple 
of friends, but we know it's indecent and immoral.
  So what is the problem? We raise the money and we hope that, through 
this and others, we will be able to pay for the loss of revenue that is 
enacted by the patch. That is the $50 billion. I wish that I could 
yield all of our time to the Republicans to explain once again, as 
eloquent as my dear friend Mr. McCrery is, as to why this is not 
borrowing.
  Mr. Dreier yesterday in the Rules Committee says it's not borrowing 
because we never intended for this to happen. Well, if it works for you 
guys, I'm going to try it when I get home with my creditors and say, 
hey, it wasn't meant for me to be broke and so it's not borrowing; just 
ignore it.
  But it doesn't work that way on pencil and paper. Either you have got 
to cut programs by $50 billion, raise the revenue by $50 billion, or 
mumble for $50 billion. Enough of the mumbling. Can't we unite on this, 
and at least let them know in the Senate that the House of 
Representatives is the House of the People, that we believe in what 
we're doing? And let's remember this; that we know the President, when 
he is closing things that he wants to be closed on to raise revenue, 
it's not a tax increase. He and Secretary Paulson call it, what, a 
loophole closing. That's all we're trying to do in paying for this.
  And so, remember, the President won't be with you in November, but I 
will be, trying to help all of us to understand that we did the best we 
could for the Congress and for the country. So we are giving the other 
body another opportunity. Hopefully this time they will not be 
irresponsible but they will join with us in doing two things: Reform 
the system for a provision that only benefits a handful of people at 
the expense of the United States Treasurer; and, two, prevent this 
burden from falling on 25 million innocent, hardworking American 
people.
  At this time I would like to yield the balance of my time to Chairman 
Richard Neal.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts will control the balance of the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
might consume.
  I rise in support of the AMT Relief Act of 2007. We are here again in 
an effort to protect 23 million American taxpayers from higher taxes on 
April 15. Almost 19 million of those taxpayers have never paid AMT 
before, and some indeed have not even heard of AMT. With this bill, we 
can ensure that it stays that way.
  My district alone will see an increase from 7,300 families hit by AMT 
to 67,000 people hit by AMT. We have individuals across this country, 
including Maggie Rauh from my district who is a CPA and who testified 
that her family income is at $75,000. She takes the standard deduction. 
They have three children. She is going to pay AMT. That family trip to 
Disneyland next year is on hold.
  Joel Campbell of Loudoun County, Virginia told the committee that his 
family had to choose between saving more for retirement or paying for 
college. Higher taxes because of AMT are forcing middle- and upper 
middle-income families to make these difficult choices.
  So we all agree that AMT should not be affecting these working 
families, but we cannot agree on how to do it. And that is the point: 
Everybody agrees that it has got to be fixed. The Republicans propose 
to borrow $50 billion; we intend to proceed with paying for this issue. 
When I hear the argument that we should forget about it because it was 
never intended to hit middle-income people, as Mr. Rangel noted, I 
would like to try that on my creditors.
  The Republicans believe that we should not offset this tax increase 
for middle-income people. Indeed, the President's budgets for the last 
few years have all counted on this revenue, and he projects next year 
precisely the same thing.
  We made a pledge earlier this year to the American taxpayer that we 
would do no harm to the Federal budget. So if we lower tax revenues, we 
have to make up for that loss and not add to the deficit. That PAYGO 
pledge is difficult and painful, but most sensible.
  The bill that we bring before the House today is a smaller package 
than before. The expiring provisions and the carried interest revenue 
raisers are gone. In the face of opposition to our offsets, we cannot 
retain this package because of the expiring tax provisions. It is my 
hope that we can turn to these provisions again in the near future and 
perhaps, if necessary, make them retroactive, indeed.

[[Page 34056]]

  This bill provides that offshore hedge fund managers not enjoy 
unlimited deferral from any taxation on their compensation. We have all 
seen the news reports of these hedge fund people deferring hundreds of 
millions of dollars in compensation offshore because of a tax loophole. 
This bill closes that loophole, and it gives tax relief to 23 million 
families.
  The bill also provides that a corporate tax shelter abuser be subject 
to new rules requiring economic substance in transactions. Let me 
interpret. It has to be for real. By cracking down on tax shelter 
abusers, we are able to provide tax relief to the families of 13 
million children in minimum wage households who get little or no 
refundable child tax credits.
  The bill is simple. The bill is straightforward. Despite some 
opposition, we are going to persevere in our path to responsible tax 
cuts. Ecclesiastes teaches us that the race is not always to the swift 
nor the battle to the strong. That does not affect our conviction here 
that we intend to persevere on the right path. We stand by our pledge 
to the American taxpayer and hope to convince others to join our battle 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the bill before us today, 
just as I did the last time this bill was on the floor. It is not 
exactly the same, but basically it is a bill that would patch, so to 
speak, the AMT, and then increase other taxes to the same amount as the 
baseline says the patch costs.
  Let me make one thing clear. Republicans are for patching the AMT, a 
1-year patch on the AMT. We are for, in other words, freezing the AMT 
in place just as it is today or just as it was for the last tax year. 
Where we differ with the majority, at least so far, is over the 
question of whether we need to, quote, pay for the patch by raising 
other taxes. We have had this debate before on this floor. We know 
where this debate is headed.
  The President's budget, by the way, includes a 1-year patch on the 
AMT without a pay-for. So that should be made clear to everyone, and 
that is what we have been proposing for quite some time. That is what 
the Senate passed by a rather large vote very recently. In fact, 88-5 I 
believe was the vote that the Senate passed a 1-year patch without tax 
increases. I applaud that action of the Senate. It does what the 
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and I as the ranking member of 
the Ways and Means Committee, and the chairman and ranking member of 
the Senate Finance Committee wrote in a letter to the President several 
weeks ago saying that we promised to pass a 1-year patch on the AMT in 
a manner that the President would sign. The Senate bill represents that 
promise. This President has said he will sign that bill. The President 
has said he won't sign the bill that is before us today. In fact, the 
distinguished majority leader of the Senate is so intent on not paying 
for the AMT that he is refusing to send the bill to the House right now 
so as not to give the majority here another opportunity to load it up 
with doomed tax increases. Yet our friends on the majority are once 
again pulling on their helmets and fastening their chin straps, ready 
to run into the brick wall of using tax hikes to prevent other tax 
increases. The whole thing would be comical if the implications were 
not so serious.
  In recent weeks, the Treasury Secretary, the Acting Commissioner of 
the IRS, and the chairman of the IRS oversight board have all written 
to Congress to urge prompt action on the AMT and warned that continued 
delay on the patch will result in delayed refunds, confusion, and 
higher costs to the Treasury. In a recent letter, Secretary Paulson 
cautioned that ``enactment of a patch in mid to late December could 
delay issuance of approximately $75 billion in refunds to taxpayers who 
are likely to file their returns before March 31, 2008. Millions of 
taxpayers filing returns after that date may also have their refunds 
delayed.'' Well, here we are now in mid-December and, unfortunately, 
the majority in the House continues to play a dangerous game of chicken 
with the American taxpayer and the clock is winding down.
  When the House debated H.R. 3996 last month, Republicans argued 
against applying PAYGO to the AMT patch. We pointed out that if 
Congress has to increase taxes to prevent a tax increase, then the 
majority's baseline has baked in trillions of dollars of tax increases 
over the next decade as the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts reach their current 
expiration dates at the end of 2010.
  The majority's logic seems to go like this: To prevent a tax 
increase, we must enact a tax increase. Either way it's a tax increase, 
unless you do as we're suggesting, which is to prevent the tax increase 
by just patching and freezing the AMT in place as we did last year and 
the year before.
  The House Democrats' version of PAYGO forces Congress to decide 
whether we will let those tax increases take place or replace them with 
other tax hikes. But no matter how Congress chooses to raise taxes, if 
we follow that, we will face the largest tax increase in American 
history both in nominal and real terms. Moreover, in many ways PAYGO 
has shown itself to be a farce.
  In January, when the new majority instituted PAYGO, the Congressional 
Budget Office estimated that revenues in fiscal year 2007 would total 
$2.542 trillion. Actual revenues for 2007 turned out to be $26 billion 
higher than that. Does the majority plan to return these excess 
receipts to the taxpayer? No. It's just soaked up by more spending.
  Similarly, in January of 2007, the CBO estimated that revenues in 
fiscal year 2008 would be $2.72 trillion but recently revised that 
figure upwards by just over $50 billion, almost exactly the same amount 
that this ``AMT'' costs. Does the majority plan to return this money to 
the taxpayers, or maybe even credit that against the higher revenues 
envisioned by the baseline? No. How about crediting it to the AMT 
patch? No. They are going to pay for it all over again.

                              {time}  1715

  As Monday's Wall Street Journal editorial points out, ``PAYGO has 
been nothing but a confidence game from the very start. PAYGO doesn't 
apply to domestic discretionary spending. It doesn't restrain spending 
increases under current law in entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid. 
Its main goals are to make tax cutting all but impossible while letting 
Democrats pretend to favor fiscal discipline. The 2003 tax cuts expire 
in 2010 and PAYGO will make them all but impossible to extend.''
  The President and the Senate have made clear that they do not intend 
to raise taxes to prevent a tax increase. The bill we are considering 
today only further delays final resolution of this issue, increasing 
cost to the treasury and increasing confusion for taxpayers and the 
IRS. I urge defeat of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, let me clarify what the 
gentleman just said. He came the same day that I did. He is one of the 
better Members to serve here, and I personally and professionally am 
going to miss him.
  Let me clear up what he just said. He said let's borrow the money to 
pay for this issue. We are saying let's pay the bill now.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I would like to introduce the Speaker of the 
House of Representatives for a long 1 minute.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman, Mr. 
Neal, chairman of the subcommittee for yielding and also for his great 
leadership on issues that regard strengthening the middle class and 
growing the middle class in our country.
  I also want to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Neal when he 
extended his compliments to Mr. McCrery. He is a wonderful Member of 
Congress, and I am sorry to hear of his announced retirement. He will 
be missed here.
  I listened attentively to Mr. McCrery's comments and want to

[[Page 34057]]

speak to them because I think they pose the question that this House 
has to decide upon this evening very clearly. Mr. Rangel and Mr. Neal 
have given us the opportunity here tonight to send a clear message to 
the American people that the leverage in this country has changed to 
the middle class now instead of protecting the assets of the top 1 
percent in our country.
  Mr. McCrery says to give a tax cut, to prevent a tax increase we are 
going to increase taxes. Hello? He said, Hello? Hello, Mr. McCrery; 
yes, we are going to give tax relief to 23 million Americans, 23 
million Americans, and approximately 5,000 to 10,000 Americans will be 
paying the tab. And they will be paying the tab because this 
legislation closes a loophole. We are closing a loophole.
  These hedge fund CEOs who have taken their profits offshore to avoid 
taxes, this is called tax evasion, and this loophole closes that. So 
yes, tax relief for 23 million families, 10,000 or fewer people paying 
the price.
  What is the alternative? As Mr. Neal mentioned, to borrow. Happily, 
my colleagues, for those of you who may not know, I got my seventh 
grandchild this weekend. And as it is with grandchildren, you always 
think of the world in which they will live and what we are doing, the 
fiscal soundness, in the country in which they will live.
  So what we are saying to this newborn baby, we have a choice here 
tonight. We can either close the loophole of tax evasion for the 
wealthiest people in America in order to give tax relief to 23 million 
families in America, 5,000 to 10,000 get an increase, 23 million get 
tax relief, or we can say to the little baby and all little babies born 
across America and all their children, you are going to pay the tab 
because this money will be borrowed, probably from a foreign 
government, possibly from China, $50 billion. Fifty billion dollars. 
Put that on your tab, little baby, because you are going to be paying 
that price for a long time.
  So it is either the American taxpayer, future generations, suffering 
if we go the Republican route, or it will be fairness, fairness, a new 
principle in tax policy in our country. The choice is clear. We choose 
tax relief for 23 million families with 10,000 or fewer people paying 
the tab. The wealthiest people, producing billions of dollars, billions 
of dollars once their loopholes are closed in order to foot the bill or 
passing this on to our children.
  I wonder if our colleagues would be willing, when we talk about AMT, 
the alternative minimum tax and paying for it, or any other issue when 
we try to pay for it, if they would be interested when they suggest 
that we not pay for it, if they would be willing in the same vote to 
vote to increase the debt ceiling, because that is exactly what you are 
proposing. Let us not pay for this. Let us increase the national debt 
in order to give comfort to people who are evading their taxes by going 
offshore to the tune of billions of dollars.
  So I think what the Ways and Means Committee has done is masterful. 
It is a mystery to me why it isn't bipartisan, and I hope that the 
bright light that we can shine on it tonight of fairness will encourage 
the Senate to support this legislation.
  Not to pay for the AMT middle-class tax relief is really a hoax on 
the American people. I know that in the course of the debate my 
colleagues will make that clear. I thank you.
  We have had many proud days in this Congress, when we passed SCHIP, 
the health insurance for 10 million American children, when we passed 
many pieces of legislation that related to our children, their health 
and education and the economic security of their families, the 
environment in which they live, a world at peace in which they can 
survive, but none of them has been as proud a day for me as when the 
Democrats stood tall for the middle class giving them tax relief, 
having it paid for so that those little children do not have to inherit 
the debt.
  Once again, let's make this the children's Congress and vote for this 
important legislation.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the ranking member of the Trade 
Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, this bill is the wrong policy for tax-paying 
families. PAYGO budgeting has put Congress in a straitjacket even on 
this temporary fix to the alternative minimum tax which was never 
intended to ensnare 23 million middle-income workers.
  In reality, PAYGO fails to rein in out-of-control spending and 
results in permanent tax increases making tax relief next to 
impossible.
  The other body agrees, going so far as to call this nonoffset AMT 
patch the ``Tax Increase Prevention Act.'' Insisting on PAYGO brings us 
down the path of massive tax increases over the next decade. We need to 
stop this PAYGO charade and pass AMT relief without burdensome new 
taxes on the American people.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, there are only two ways to 
respond: Either you borrow the money or you ask people who are hiding 
money in offshore accounts to pay for it, and that is what we are 
doing. People who are hiding money in island communities are being 
asked to give tax relief to 23 million people.
  And with that, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), 
the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee of Ways and Means.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening, as I hope everybody 
has, and I think the comments from the minority are the height of 
fiscal irresponsibility and fiscal irrationality. Both.
  You simply say because it was unintended. But no, in 2002 and 2001 
when you passed the tax bill, you knew that the AMT was going to take 
away some of the effect. You knew that. You've known all along that 
this was coming down the track. And essentially what you said was 
borrow, borrow, borrow.
  And now you are carrying that to a ridiculous extreme by saying don't 
act and pay for it by closing a loophole that gives people in our 
country who try to escape taxation by going overseas, don't act. That's 
irrational as well as irresponsible.
  So what we are saying to the Senate is we are giving you another 
chance. It has been blocked in the Senate by the Republican minority 
and by the President of the United States. We have to act on the AMT. 
You have to act at long last responsibly, and so do Senate Republicans 
and so does the President of the United States of America.
  Vote for this bill.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the ranking member of the Health 
Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the bill we are debating today 
appears to be an exercise in futility. Not only has the President said 
he will veto it, but it has virtually no chance of passing the Senate. 
So why has a bill been brought to the floor that virtually is going 
nowhere?
  Instead of this bill, the House should be voting on the bill the 
Senate passed last week. I wouldn't call it Senate blockage. It passed 
88-5. The Senate prevents 23 million Americans from being hit by the 
onerous alternative minimum tax and does it without permanently 
increasing taxes. The bill before us includes $50 billion in tax 
increases. That is $50 billion in taxes the American public was never 
intended to pay and should never pay.
  Last May when the Republicans were in the majority, we passed 
legislation to prevent the AMT from hitting middle-income taxpayers. We 
finished our work early and responsibly so the IRS had time to 
reprogram its computers and print accurate tax forms which prevented 
unnecessary confusion for taxpayers.
  But here we are in December and the Democrats still have not finished 
their work on the temporary AMT patch. Unfortunately, because of their 
inaction, millions of taxpayer refunds will be delayed for months. 
Unfortunately, because of their actions here today, those refunds will 
be further delayed.
  The IRS has warned the majority party that failure to act will result 
in

[[Page 34058]]

$75 billion in refunds being delayed for taxpayers who file their 
returns before March 31 of next year. Millions more will be delayed to 
taxpayers filing after that date. Rather than take up the Senate bill 
which the President has signaled his intent to sign, the majority party 
in the House is wasting time by bringing up a bill that includes 
unacceptable tax increases. People are already paying high enough 
taxes. They are already paying enough in taxes. I urge my colleagues to 
vote against H.R. 4351.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we cannot predicate our 
actions in the House of Representatives on the basis of what the 
President might or might not do. Article I of the Constitution mentions 
Congress as the first branch of government for good reason, to keep a 
check on the executive, not vice versa.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, today Americans believe that our Nation's leaders have 
forgotten the middle class. They believe that Big Business gets 
whatever it wants any time it wants it in Washington, DC, and they feel 
that way because what they see is that the top Americans in income have 
seen their incomes skyrocket. Meanwhile, most Americans have seen their 
wages stagnate for the last 5 years.
  Americans have watched as 3 million manufacturing jobs have left this 
country, and today, outsourcing to China and India threaten millions 
more. We see pensions and health insurance becoming too expensive for 
too many Americans to afford. We have seen the costs double for those 
pensions and that health insurance over the last 5 years, and we have 
seen gasoline prices triple.

                              {time}  1730

  What we need is an economy that works for everyone and makes America 
stronger. So what we propose in this bill is to show the American 
people that we do hear them.
  This bill is responsive. It provides tax relief to 23 million middle-
class families, and it helps 12 million children by expanding the child 
tax credit. And this bill is responsible because, rather than just 
borrow the money to provide the tax relief, we pay for it up front. And 
the Speaker already said it. We're giving it to tens of millions of 
people, the tax relief, and only asking thousands to pay for that.
  This is responsible because we will not add to the already big $9 
trillion debt. We won't add to the fact that today alone, $2 billion 
will have been spent by this country in deficit spending. Each and 
every American in this country, including the child that is born today, 
begins a birth tax now of a $29,000 bill because of the size of the 
debt.
  We want to do this responsibly. This is a different day in this 
Congress. We told America we would change direction, because we want to 
be responsible and help all Americans, but be responsible and pay for 
what we do.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin, a member of the Ways and Means 
Committee, Mr. Ryan.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Let me put this in context. Mr. Speaker, the 
distinguished Speaker of the House came to the floor and said, we're 
providing tax relief for people. No, we're not. This isn't tax relief. 
What this bill attempts to do is prevent a tax increase, so nobody is 
seeing their taxes lowered under this bill. That's point number one.
  But point number two is this is a new precedent that is being 
established here. What is this new precedent? This tax, the alternative 
minimum tax, is a mistake. It was never intended to be. Everybody 
acknowledges that. It was designed to get 155 really rich people in 
1969, to make them pay taxes. It was never designed to tax 23 million 
people in the middle class this year. So we agree in Congress this 
shouldn't exist. Let's get rid of it. In all preceding Congresses we've 
said, let's not get new people caught up into this trap, and just be 
done with it.
  The new precedent that is occurring here today is, the majority says, 
while we may not like this tax itself, we want that money. We may not 
like this way of taxing it, but we sure want this money coming into the 
Federal Government. And that's the new precedent that is occurring 
today which is an endorsement of this tax increase, a endorsement in 
acceptance, a wanting of this new and higher tax revenue.
  What does that do? That brings us to a whole new size of government. 
What we have had in the last 40 years is the Federal Government has 
taxed the U.S. economy at 18.3 percent. That's the 40-year average. 
That's how much Washington takes out of the U.S. economy.
  With this tax in place, with this new alternative minimum tax, that 
takes us up to an unprecedented level of government spending and taxing 
to 24 percent. What the majority is doing is putting us on this path of 
ever higher levels of taxation, even higher than during World War II. 
Why are they doing this? To spend more money.
  There is a difference in philosophy here, Mr. Speaker. There's a 
basic philosophical difference. My good friend, who's a good man from 
Massachusetts will say, well, they're just borrowing to do this. We 
say, let's address entitlements. Let's focus on spending and keep taxes 
low.
  They say, we don't want this tax but we want this money so we're 
going to raise some other permanent tax to get it into the government.
  Here's the difference. Our priority is the taxpayer comes first, 
government second. Their priority is government comes first, the 
taxpayer is second. The government's in the front of the line. The 
taxpayer gets stuck with the tab.
  We're saying the American families are taxed enough. They're paying 
enough in taxes. Because, you know what, we've got to watch it. We've 
got to make sure that we're competitive in the 21st century. We've got 
to make sure that we can keep jobs in America. And if we put ourselves 
on this path of unprecedented levels of taxation, we will lose our 
greatness in this century. We will sever that legacy of giving the next 
generation a higher standard of living, and we will be unable to 
compete with the likes of China and India if we buy into this notion of 
ever higher taxes. That's why we should oppose this bill.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, what my friend, Mr. Ryan, 
just said, he's really a good guy here. He simply said that our 
priority was a bit confused. Our priority is clear. Cut taxes for 23 
million Americans and close an offshore account.
  With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. After having run the national debt up sky high, these 
Republicans clamor for another loan. ``Just give us another $50 billion 
for one more tax cut.'' And we Democrats are saying ``No, your debt 
addiction must stop today. You're way over your credit limit.''
  The Republican borrow-and-spend approach that we've had for the last 
7 years may be easy politics, but it's mighty hard on an economy where 
the dollar keeps falling so that it's worth even less today than a 
Canadian looney.
  In this bill, one way that we stop this Republican credit card 
borrowing spree is by adopting much of the Abusive Tax Shelter Shutdown 
Act, which I first introduced in June 1999. It combats tax shelters by 
denying a deduction for transactions that lack what is called 
``economic substance.'' What that means is no more tax evasion by 
corporations that rely on what one professor described as ``deals done 
by very smart people that, absent tax considerations, would be very 
stupid.'' And it is very stupid to allow them to continue doing that.
  When the corporate tax dodgers are made to pay their fair share, as 
this bill does today, everybody else who plays by the rules can pay 
less. And that's what this bill does. We stop corporate tax evasion; we 
stop corporate tax dodgers from shifting the tax burden to middle-class 
families, ensuring today both tax fairness and fiscal responsibility.

[[Page 34059]]


  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining for 
each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana has 17 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Ways 
and Means Committee.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it's sort of hard to listen to 
lectures about fiscal responsibility. For years Democrats have claimed 
that it is time to pay for this war; it's fiscally irresponsible not to 
pay for this war; it ought to be part of the budget. Have they paid for 
the war? No, not a dime.
  For years they said it's irresponsible to raise the debt limit; it's 
all your fault; we cannot raise the debt limit. What did they do the 
first 2 months of this session? Raise the public debt limit.
  For years they've said we need to pay for all our spending, pay for 
all our taxes. So what have they done?
  I have a list of 27 different pay-fors that have been used multiple 
times already in this session. It's like using your home as collateral 
27 different times. In the real world we call that fraud.
  It's unfortunate we are here today. I honestly don't believe when 
Democrats created this tax in the 1960s that they intended ever to 
cover this many middle-class Americans. But it has happened. 
Republicans, to their credit, had killed the AMT in 1999, but President 
Clinton unfortunately vetoed it. Today it has gotten bigger and badder 
and worse than ever. It is appropriate that we move to both freeze and 
then to repeal the alternative minimum tax. But there are real serious 
problems with this bill.
  Paying for a temporary tax of 1 year with a permanent tax is just, 
again, fiscally irresponsible. It is like taking a loan out to pay for 
a cheeseburger.
  This bill ignores the need to continue tax relief for States that 
have State and local sales tax deductions, for college tuition tax 
credits, for research and development tax credits, even for teachers 
who take classroom supplies and pay for them out of their pockets, 
we're not addressing their needs. And those all expire at the end of 
this year.
  Finally, I think it is a mistake to raise taxes in order to prevent a 
tax increase. What we ought to be doing is we ought to be sitting down 
together, Republicans and Democrats, figuring out a way to thoughtfully 
and carefully trim this budget, this big, fat, bloated, obese budget up 
here so we don't increase taxes. Before Washington asks families to 
tighten their belt, we ought to sit down and tighten our belt first.
  This is a bad bill, a fiscally irresponsible bill, and I urge 
opposition.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I need to quickly correct the 
record. In 1969 when the alternative minimum tax was put in place, it 
was not a Democratic scheme. The vote was 389-2 in this House of 
Representatives.
  With that, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Neal, I want to thank you and Chairman 
Rangel for your leadership on this extremely important bill.
  There are several points I would like to make. First of all, my good 
friends, my Republicans on the other side of the aisle, it must be 
clear. There's no question about it. What the Republicans want to do is 
borrow the money to pay for this tax from China, from Japan, and have 
our children and grandchildren pay for it. But they don't want to just 
stop there. They also want to protect those wealthy 1 percent who are 
using tax loopholes to hide their money away from taxation in offshore 
accounts. That is what our Republican colleagues want to do.
  We, on the Democratic side, want to look at this in the responsible 
way, as the American people expect. We have to provide tax relief for 
23 million American families. How to do that is most assuredly to pay 
for it. And we're doing it by closing these offshore loopholes.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia, a respected member of the Ways and Means 
Committee, Mr. Cantor.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, just as she did this evening, on November 9 
of this year, Speaker Pelosi stood on the floor of this House and told 
the American people that the middle class was long overdue for tax 
relief. She said that an AMT bill had to be about tax fairness, fiscal 
responsibility and keeping America competitive.
  Yet, once again, Mr. Speaker, the current attempt at patching the AMT 
rings hollow. As the ranking member indicated, we know where this 
debate is going; and, frankly, we know where this bill is going: 
nowhere. This attempt, just as others that have failed, illustrates to 
me the disconnect between this majority in this House and the American 
people. In fact, it echoes what's been going on in this House over the 
last several weeks, if not months. Here we are a week and a half before 
Christmas and we've not finished the work that the American people sent 
us here to do.
  But, in fact, it is the disconnect between the majority leadership 
and middle-class American families that troubles me most. If you look 
at what's going on out there, families are worried about the flagging 
economy which has fueled alarming levels of anxiety. In spite of a weak 
dollar, skyrocketing gas prices, falling home values, and other 
mounting concerns, the Democrat majority in this House refuses to 
accept the reality of a $2,000 plus tax hike facing millions of middle-
class families.
  Let's get to work. Let's realize that this bill isn't going anywhere.
  The House majority refuses to cut taxes or sustain expiring growth, 
pro-growth tax cuts without first raising other taxes. Their dogged 
adherence to this policy as it applies to AMT puts them at odds with 
the American people.
  The overwhelmingly bipartisan Senate bill, as has been said, rightly 
abandoned the misguided idea of raising taxes to cut taxes just so 
Washington can spend more. In this tax fight the stakes for everyday 
families are high, and the potential consequences are severe.
  Mr. Speaker, just 4 weeks ago Speaker Pelosi stood here and promised 
the middle class tax fairness and fiscal responsibility. In light of 
this attempt, I wonder why we can't just come together, stop the 
political games, and support real tax relief for 23 million American 
families.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, without this bill passing, 
there are 74,000 people in Mr. Cantor's district that will pay 
alternative minimum tax next year.
  With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, today we're debating 
legislation that will provide middle-class families with tax relief 
from the AMT tax, 23 million taxpayers. We'll pass this legislation, 
offering AMT relief to middle-class families without increasing the 
Federal deficit.
  My good friend from Wisconsin said earlier that this sets a new 
precedent. Yes, it does. We're going to be paying for this tax relief. 
That is precedent setting. To do otherwise would be an abdication of 
our responsibilities, both as legislators, and as stewards of our 
Nation's finances.
  This administration has presided over 7 years of fiscal 
mismanagement. Spending has skyrocketed. Entitlements have expanded. 
Taxes have been cut without any regard to the bottom line.

                              {time}  1745

  As a result, our budgets haven't balanced, our surpluses turned into 
deficits, our national debt exploded, and our borrowing from other 
countries more than doubled.
  If there was ever a time when fiscal discipline was necessary, it's 
today.
  From day one, this Democratic majority has pledged our commitment to 
budget enforcement. One of our first acts as a new majority was to 
implement PAYGO rules. The position of this House and this majority has 
not

[[Page 34060]]

changed. Congress must pay as we go, and we pay for this tax relief 
today by closing loopholes which allows tax avoidance for wealthy folks 
who move their money offshore, and we take what we gain from closing 
that loophole and in turn we pay for middle-class tax relief. Twenty-
three million people will be hit with a tax increase if we don't pass 
this.
  This legislation provides responsible tax relief. It does not 
increase the deficit and it deserves our vote.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, several of the speakers on the majority 
side have said that this bill provides tax relief for 23 million 
middle-class taxpayers. That is simply not correct, at least not in the 
common sense of that term.
  If you ask somebody on the street, a taxpayer, if you pay the same 
amount in taxes this year as you paid last year, is that tax relief? 
No. They're paying the same in taxes. That's all this bill does. 
Doesn't give them any relief. If you ask that person on the street, if 
you pay more in taxes this year than you paid last year, is that a tax 
increase? Yes. We're trying to prevent 23 million taxpayers from 
getting a tax increase. We're not giving them tax relief. We're 
preventing a tax increase.
  So why on Earth, to prevent that tax increase, should we increase 
taxes on somebody else? It just doesn't make sense, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, to further elucidate that point and 
others, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
he makes a very important point. As hard as I look at this bill, I 
can't find any tax relief in it. People who somehow think that by 
preventing a massive tax increase on the American people, that that's 
tantamount to relief, they need to talk to the schoolteacher in 
Mesquite, Texas. They need to talk to the rancher in Murchison, Texas.
  Again, if you make the same amount of money next year that you made 
last year and you're paying the same amount of taxes, where's the tax 
relief?
  This bill is misnamed. The AMT is misnamed. It ought to be called the 
alternative massive tax increase because it's a massive tax increase on 
the American people of $55.7 billion. The only thing that's alternative 
about it is who has the great honor and pleasure of paying for this 
tax.
  Now, I've heard many speakers on the other side of the aisle come and 
say, well, we pay for it. Well, that will certainly come as a great 
relief to the teachers and the ranchers and the small business people 
of the 5th District of Texas to know that you're not going to increase 
their taxes because somehow you've paid for it.
  You haven't paid for anything. You've put a massive tax increase on 
the American people, and in this particular case, you are putting it on 
investment. You're putting it on small businesses. You're putting it on 
the capital of capitalism, and you are threatening the paychecks of the 
American people.
  Now, I've heard many people come here to the floor and say, well, we 
have to be fiscally responsible; this needs to be revenue neutral. 
Well, I agree with my friends on the other side of the aisle. It does 
need to be revenue neutral. It ought to be revenue neutral to the 
taxpayer, not the Federal Government. That's the revenue neutrality 
that we should attempt to achieve here.
  I heard my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, say, well, we 
have to pay this or there's going to be this tax increase. Well, 
there's another alternative. There's several alternatives. One's the 
Taxpayer Choice Act, which would get rid of the AMT once and for all.
  There's a clear choice before us. Who's going to get the $55.7 
billion, Federal Government bureaucrats or American families? We vote 
for the American family.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I like Mr. 
McCrery is because I think he's one of the smartest guys that serves 
here in this institution, and let me just say this.
  I agree with what he said. If you stop 23 million people from getting 
a tax increase, that is tax relief. There are 33,000 people tonight in 
Mr. Hensarling's district that are going to pay alternative minimum tax 
if we don't pass this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This has been a very curious discussion, and statements made have no 
relation whatsoever to either reality or to history.
  We just heard the pay-for in this bill described as a massive tax 
increase that will affect teachers in Texas. This bill goes after hedge 
fund managers, parking income in Bermuda bank accounts, exploiting tax 
loopholes and not paying what they owe.
  The alternative is to do what the minority is suggesting, and that is 
just to borrow the money, borrow the money and let the kids worry about 
how they're going to pay it back in their day. Well, at least we have 
agreement we need to address the alternative minimum tax, but let me 
tell you why we're worried about borrowing the money.
  Since President Bush took office, the gross national debt has 
increased nearly $3.5 trillion. At that rate of borrowing, do you know 
something? We will borrow an additional $57 million in the course of 
this debate. It is truly astounding the red ink that they've run this 
country into, and all we hear from them today is more borrowing, 
please.
  You know, they had a chance during their tenure here to fix the 
alternative minimum tax. They say we shouldn't have to pay for it 
because it was never intended to act this way. Well, they had 7 years 
to fix this alternative minimum tax, and instead, you know what they 
did? They counted the revenue that was projected to come in on the 
alternative minimum tax to justify those tax cuts, those budget-busting 
tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 that have put us in this deficit ditch 
that we find ourselves in.
  It's time for fiscal responsibility. Pass this bill. Pay for AMT 
relief.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, some of the Members of the majority who seem to be so 
sincere about not borrowing any more money are the same people that are 
voting for appropriations bills that exceed what we spent last year 
plus inflation. So they don't seem to be worried about borrowing more 
money to spend on goodness knows what. And they're not suggesting yet 
that we just wipe out all the deficit and thereby prevent any more 
borrowing by raising taxes totally to do away with the deficit. So 
we're just talking about a degree of adding to the debt, little here, 
little there. If we do it by spending, it's okay. If we let a tax 
increase take place to get the deficit down, that's okay.
  Well, I think that pretty well defines one of the differences between 
the two parties in this House. We don't want to increase taxes to 
balance the budget. We'd rather reduce spending. We'd rather hold the 
line on spending, nondefense discretionary at least and nonhomeland 
security discretionary. We don't want to solve the deficit by 
increasing taxes; whereas, the majority is content to raise spending to 
increase the debt, and then the only way they want to address the debt 
is to increase taxes.
  That's a pretty clear demarcation, Mr. Speaker, of the philosophies 
of the two parties, and it's become quite apparent as this year has 
progressed.
  Fortunately, the majority, which was then the minority, voted with us 
the last time we had a freestanding AMT patch, with no pay-for. The 
now-majority who was there then voted overwhelming with us to do 
exactly what we're suggesting we now do and what the other body has 
already passed.
  Mr. Speaker, that's the clear resolution of this problem. I beg the 
majority, let's don't delay this anymore. Don't cost the taxpayers 
anymore. Don't make the IRS send another set of forms to the printer. 
Don't delay the refunds of millions, maybe as many as

[[Page 34061]]

50 million taxpayers. That wouldn't be right for our inaction.
  So let's get this off the floor. I don't have any more speakers. 
Let's vote, get this done, and then we can get on to really solving the 
problem.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
clarifying the issue of why we should borrow the money. With that, I 
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I understand after what the gentleman 
just said that he would like to stop debate and move on because, with 
all due respect, that's turning it on its head.
  He's right. When they were in charge, they did offer up a fix that 
President Clinton mercifully vetoed because if it had been in place in 
1999, their proposal would have required almost $800 billion more in 
deficit spending. But when they were entirely in charge for the last 6 
years, they ignored this all together. In fact, they have used every 
dime that was projected by CBO to fuel their massive spending 
increases.
  Go back and look at the record. Your record for increased spending 
has been far above the rate of inflation, far above the Clinton 
administration. It embarrassed your fiscal conservatives. Even Mr. Ryan 
on the Budget Committee kind of gets embarrassed about your performance 
for the last 6 years.
  That's why you have increased in the Bush----


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman 
will address his remarks to the Chair. The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the admonition.
  That's why we've had a $3.4 billion increase in the national debt in 
the first six years of the Bush administration as opposed to a surplus, 
budget surplus from the Clinton administration, which I think the 
majority leader will be talking about.
  This is not a tax increase. The Federal Government will collect 
exactly the same taxation over the next 10 years under our proposal as 
under the Bush budget proposal right now. The difference is they're 
spending 23 million taxpayers' alternative minimum tax for the next 10 
years. That's how they deal with the budget. We stop that.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Oregon 
bringing up the fact that President Clinton vetoed the repeal of the 
AMT back in 1999 when we were in the majority. We did indeed repeal the 
AMT, only to have that vetoed by President Clinton.
  However, the gentleman went on to say that for the last few years we 
did nothing and accepted all the revenues. That's simply not the case. 
We put a patch on the AMT every year, just like we're proposing to do 
this year. The President's budget does not assume the revenues from the 
AMT increase in this fiscal year. His budget proposes a 1-year patch 
with no pay-for.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCRERY. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Doesn't the Bush administration budget assume the CBO 
numbers that include the alternative minimum tax for the next 10 years?
  Mr. McCRERY. Not for the year 2007, which is the object of the 
legislation before us.
  Reclaiming my time, yes, this legislation deals with tax year 2007. 
If we do nothing, the AMT goes into effect for tax year 2007. The 
President's budget says for tax year 2007 there should be a patch, a 
freeze on the AMT so that it doesn't affect additional taxpayers, and 
he does not call for the revenues in his budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to how 
much time remains on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) 
has 6\1/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
McCrery) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from New Jersey, who has been a longtime advocate of 
repealing the AMT, Mr. Pascrell.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I'm glad we had that last exchange because 
that's the heart of the issue. It's disingenuous. It's almost bordering 
on hypocritical because from 2008 to 2017 the administration, the same 
administration that got us into this mess, assumes the revenue that we 
will be accepting from AMT every year. This is disingenuous. Tell the 
American people what the whole story is, not just half the story.
  What we want to do, Democrats, we want to prevent millions of working 
families, 100,000 in my own district, from seeing their taxes increase 
substantially. We're talking $3,000, $4,000. We're not talking chicken 
feed here. It pays for the lost revenue by stopping hedge fund managers 
and corporate CEOs from escaping income taxes by using offshore tax 
havens.
  I can only conclude from what I have heard this evening that the 
minority wants to protect tax evaders. That's what you want to do. Tell 
the American people straight up what you want to do. You don't want to 
protect the fireman, the police officer, the doctor, the lawyer. You 
want to protect that small group of people, you heard the Speaker talk 
about it, 5,000 to 10,000 people. That's what this protection scheme of 
yours is all about.
  Most Americans think what we're trying to do is fair and decent and 
reasonable because it is. But in the warped reality of Washington, 
there are Members of Congress who believe otherwise. There are actually 
Members who would rather see working families bear the burden of tax 
hikes than even a minor adjustment in the Tax Code to ensure that the 
richest among us pay their fair share. This is what this is all about. 
Fairness. You kicked the can down the street further. It's our children 
and our grandchildren that will have the burden.
  Speak up tonight in one voice. You have an opportunity. The barometer 
is not Wall Street; it's Main Street.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Israel). Members are reminded to address 
their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman on the Ways and Means Committee who just spoke claimed 
that I was being disingenuous. I'm sorry if my remarks were interpreted 
as being disingenuous. I don't mean to be. I was simply trying to stick 
to the substance of the legislation before us, which deals with the AMT 
as it applies to tax year 2007. And with respect to that tax year, the 
President's budget simply does not, as has been suggested by some 
Members on the other side, assume revenues from an increase in the AMT. 
It simply doesn't.
  Now, the gentleman is correct, and I would love to debate this at the 
appropriate time, but the gentleman from New Jersey is certainly 
correct that from 2008 to 2017, the President's budget does, indeed, 
assume revenues from an increase in the AMT. However, the President's 
budget also assumes making permanent the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. So 
you have to weigh all that together, and when you do, you get a fairly 
level percent of GDP, around 18.5 percent of GDP, coming into the 
government in the form of revenues. Under the majority's PAYGO rules, 
if continued to be applied, and I hope they're not, we would see 
revenues as a percent of GDP rise by 2017 to 20.1 percent of GDP. So 
there's a big difference between the PAYGO rules of the majority and 
what the President has proposed.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to 
yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the AMT 
Relief Act, a bill that's going to provide tax relief to millions of 
middle-income Americans.

[[Page 34062]]

  If this legislation is not passed, more than 128,000 Nevada taxpayers 
will see their taxes increase by the AMT. This includes more than 
30,000 people in my district who were never intended to pay this tax, 
and they elected me to make sure that they don't.
  Now, I believe the alternative minimum tax should be eliminated, but 
until it is, this bill provides the necessary temporary solution to 
protect 23 million Americans who would be hit cruelly by an increase in 
the AMT in 2007.
  This bill also ensures that more working parents will be able to 
benefit from a refundable child tax credit. Currently, some of the 
families who would benefit the most from the $1,000 refundable credit 
actually make too little to qualify. This bill lowers the income 
barrier, allowing all eligible families earning more than $8,500 to 
benefit.
  It's also important to note that the tax relief in this bill is fully 
paid for and will not add a single dollar to the national debt. That's 
fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 
minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. I want to thank Chairman Neal for his leadership on 
this issue and for his dedication to tax relief for middle-income 
Americans.
  Why are we again talking about the AMT? We are here because 
Republicans have made it clear that they prefer political expediency 
over fiscal responsibility. They have decided that it is fine to pile 
debt onto the shoulders of future generations. They say so what if we 
add $50 billion next year to our national debt? So what if we add $1 
trillion to our national debt over 10 years?
  My Republican colleagues have said there is no need to pay for AMT 
relief because this tax was never intended to hit these people. Did 
they forget that in 2001 the Republican Congress knew that the first 
round of Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would be paid partly by pushing 
24 million middle-income American taxpayers into the AMT in 2007? Did 
they forget that for the past 6 years their budgets anticipated tax 
revenues from these middle-income taxpayers to mask their failed fiscal 
policies of the last 6 years?
  No, they didn't forget. They just didn't want to act responsibly. We 
will not act so recklessly. We will provide tax relief and we will pay 
for it.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for 1 minute.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, there are a few key numbers to remember 
today: 25 million, the number of American families who will be hit by 
the AMT this year without any action; $2,000, the minimum increase in 
income taxes for those 25 million Americans hit by the AMT; $9 
trillion, our national debt today; $30,000, the share of the national 
debt by every man, woman, and child in America due to the reckless 
fiscal policies of President Bush; $0, the cost of this Democratic tax 
cut to the American public as Democrats are weaning this country off 
credit card-onomics; four, the number of votes so far this year on 
legislation to fix the AMT in 2007; zero, the number of votes 
Republicans in the House have taken to provide tax relief to those 25 
million Americans.
  The game is up. The American people are watching. Either we are going 
to stand together today to provide 25 million middle-class Americans a 
tax cut while not adding to the share of the deficit owned by our 
children and grandchildren, or we can stick with the failed policy of 
the past and continue to stall and do nothing.
  The choice is easy. America can no longer live off credit card-
onomics. We need to manage our House like we expect our constituents to 
manage their homes. Support this bill. It is tax relief without tax 
recklessness.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of 
making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
legislation, which will provide relief to over 100,000 of my 
constituents.
  This week, the House will once again restate our commitment to fiscal 
responsibility and pass legislation to provide millions of middle-class 
families with tax cuts to grow our economy without increasing the 
national debt.
  The AMT Relief Act contains must-pass provisions that will provide 
$50 billion in immediate tax relief for working families by preventing 
23 million middle class families from paying higher taxes this April.
  Without this legislation, these 23 million families will be subjected 
to the alternative minimum tax, including almost 111,000 of my 
constituents.
  When the AMT was enacted, it was meant to ensure the wealthiest among 
us paid their fair share of a tax that was never designed to hit the 
pocketbooks of middle-class families.
  While this is only a temporary fix, I want to be clear that I hope we 
can move forward in the near future to provide a long-term solution to 
this problem.
  I am proud that Chairman Rangel and Speaker Pelosi have brought this 
fix to the floor today while still adhering to the pay-as-you-go 
promise this Democratic controlled Congress has promised the American 
people.
  Their leadership have truly brought our country in a new direction.
  On the other hand, President Bush has threatened to veto and Senate 
Republicans voted against the earlier House-passed AMT bill because it 
adhered to our pay-as-you-go promise.
  The stubborn fiscal irresponsibility of President Bush and Senate 
Republicans has delayed getting middle-class tax relief approved in a 
timely fashion and resulted in the Senate passing AMT relief 
legislation that is not paid for--passing debt instead of prosperity 
onto our children and grandchildren.
  We are trying every possible alternative to adhere to pay-as-you-go 
budget rules--reversing the years of failed Republican policies that 
have mortgaged our grandchildren's future with additional foreign-owned 
debt--giving the Senate one more chance to do the right thing.
  While fixing the AMT is of outmost importance, we cannot afford to 
mortgage our children's and grandchildren's future to pay for this tax 
relief.
  Our country is currently burdened with over $9 trillion of national 
debt, with each American's share at nearly $30,000.
  We simply cannot afford to keep adding to this.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democrats in Congress are providing common sense tax 
relief for middle-class American families, and we are doing it in a 
fiscally responsible way.
  I urge this bill's adoption.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I would like to call upon at this time the 
majority leader of the House of Representatives, my friend, Mr. Hoyer, 
to close the debate on our side.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  I want to say at the outset that I am pleased that Mr. McCrery is on 
the floor. There will be other times to say this, but Mr. McCrery is 
one of the respected Members of this House. I think he serves us well 
as ranking member of the Ways and Means. I know he'd rather be chairman 
of the Ways and Means, but we like him as ranking member. He has 
indicated he is not going to be with us in the next Congress. That's 
regrettable because he is one of the good Members of this Congress, and 
I want to say that to my friend.
  Now, let me talk about the question at hand. Mr. Speaker, we debate 
here in the House, and many Americans have the opportunity to see this 
debate. This debate is a relatively simple debate. It's not just about 
the alternative minimum tax or the consequences of not putting a so-
called patch, and nobody in America knows what that means but simply it 
means saying that the alternative minimum tax won't affect 25 or so 
million people in America. None of us on either side of the aisle want 
that to happen. The issue is not whether or not any of us feel that 
ought to happen. It is do you pay for it? Do you provide for the 
revenue fix that will be necessary if we cut that revenue?
  Let me say to my friend from Louisiana, he has said a number of times 
on this floor that the President didn't count the revenue for this year 
from the AMT. He didn't provide the money to pay for it. He simply 
didn't anticipate the revenue. What he did not say, however, is that 
the President did anticipate the revenue for the next 9

[[Page 34063]]

years. Furthermore, the President anticipated in 2006 that we would 
have the revenue generated by the AMT in the year we're going to so-
called fix, so that the administration sent us a budget counting on 
this revenue that we are about to say we won't receive.
  So I tell my friend from Louisiana, it is somewhat misleading, I 
think, not intentionally, I understand, to say that the President 
didn't rely on the revenue for this budget. That's true. He relied on 
it last year and the year before that and the year before that and the 
year before that and the year before that and in 2001. And he relied on 
it, I tell my friend, to offset your tax cuts because, as you recall, 
in your 2003 tax cut, part of the revenue that was anticipated was this 
revenue that the gentleman says he does not want to collect and that 
the President is not relying on for 2007. He's accurate but in a very 
narrow sense, because the President has relied upon it every other 
year.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McCRERY. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman likewise is 
accurate in his remarks, very cleverly so.
  Mr. HOYER. Is that a compliment or not?
  Mr. McCRERY. Yes, sir, it is. But the fact is the most recent budget 
submitted by the President for this taxable year, 2007, does not, in 
fact, assume the revenues from an increase in the AMT.
  Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is 
absolutely correct and that's my point. But in previous years the 
President has told us in his budget this revenue would be available, 
and he has relied on that to offset what would otherwise be larger 
deficits either as a result of tax cuts or of spending. He has relied 
on this money.
  So what we are saying on this side of the aisle is let's pay for the 
revenue that the President anticipated if we're not going to take it, 
and none of us want to take the revenue that is generated by the 
alternative minimum tax in this fiscal year.

                              {time}  1815

  So, ladies and gentlemen, if we don't pay for it, what do we do? 
Because the President relied upon it in previous budgets, and, frankly, 
the Congress did as well on both sides of the aisle. If that revenue 
does not come in and we don't pay for it, there is only one thing to 
do: borrow. And this administration has borrowed more money from 
foreigners than any administration in history all together. From 
Washington to Clinton, all together they didn't borrow as much money as 
this President has borrowed from foreign governments and put our 
country at risk. We're saying let's stop that. And in the 1990s, ladies 
and gentlemen of this House, we said let's stop that. Who's ``we''? 
President Bush, the Democratic House and the Democratic Senate said 
let's stop that, and we adopted PAYGO. And in 1997 we had another 
agreement, and a Democratic President and a Republican Congress said 
let's continue that policy because we believe it's a good policy.
  And just a few years ago, the former chairman of the Budget 
Committee, Jim Nussle, who is now the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget, said PAYGO is a policy that has worked, and we 
ought to pursue it. But as my friend knows, in 2001, we simply 
abandoned PAYGO. Why did we abandon PAYGO? Because demonstratively it 
had worked. For the previous 4 years we had, for the first time in the 
lifetime of anybody in this House of Representatives, had 4 budget 
years in a row that produced a surplus. Four. Why? Because we had a 
PAYGO in place. Why? Because when we wanted to take actions, we had to 
have the consequences of our actions and tell the American public it 
was not a free lunch. We would have to pay for it.
  That's simply what this bill does. It pursues the policy of fiscal 
responsibility. It abandons the policy of fiscal irresponsibility and 
the pretense that there is a free lunch that we have been pursuing for 
the last 7 years and incurred that $1.6 trillion, give or take $100 
billion, in the last 7 years.
  Ladies and gentlemen of this House, no one wants to have a tax 
increase for these 25 million people. It was never intended. But some 
of my Republican colleagues say we didn't intend this, so we ought not 
to pay for it. That's like saying I didn't intend to run the stop sign 
and have an accident, and therefore, we don't have to pay for the 
consequences. We have relied on this money, the President has relied on 
this money. But we're saying we're not going to collect it, but we will 
responsibly pay for it.
  In closing, let me say that Charlie Rangel likes to quote Russell 
Long, who said, ``Don't tax me. Don't tax thee. Tax the man behind the 
tree.'' Unfortunately, ladies and gentlemen of the House, the policies 
that we pursue are not taxing me and not taxing thee, but taxing the 
children and the grandchildren behind the tree.
  It takes courage to pay for things. The largest expansion in 
entitlement programs in the last 25 years was done with hardly any 
Democratic votes and all Republican votes, and it wasn't paid for. We 
were told that it was within the budget. It wasn't. It wasn't paid for. 
Our children and grandchildren will pay that bill.
  Have the courage, the wisdom, and the good common sense to adopt this 
legislation, and urge our colleagues in the other body to share that 
courage, to share that common sense to morally step up to the plate and 
have this generation pay for what it buys. Pass this important bill and 
pay for it.


                             General Leave

  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent 
that all Members have 5 days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that once again 
we have a responsible solution to the alternative minimum tax from a 
broad, policy-oriented perspective.
  The alternative minimum tax is a critical issue for the American 
middle class taxpayer who does not get to take advantage of 
sophisticated tax planning and legal loopholes in the tax code. It is 
time that we addressed this issue once and for all to relieve the 
American taxpayer from the agony of dealing with the AMT. A permanent 
fix is what we really need, but today we have to plug the dike once 
again.
  It is particularly ironic that a tax that was meant for 155 wealthy 
individuals has become the bane of existence for millions of American 
taxpayers. Indeed the AMT has become a menace. Over seven thousand 
hardworking Ohioans in my district had the grim task of filing a return 
with AMT implications in the 2005 tax year. Those are families with 
children, healthcare costs, unemployment issues, housing costs and the 
other money matters with which American taxpayers must cope. Tax relief 
is due.
  As I mentioned after the introduction of H.R. 2834, we must continue 
to laud the efforts of American capitalists and the strides that they 
make in enhancing and creating liquidity in our capital markets, and 
helping our economy grow into the dynamic force that it is today. I am 
also aware of the critical role that offshore hedge funds play in asset 
management. But we must also have responsible budget offsets.
  The tenets of sound tax policy begin with the notions of equity, 
efficiency and simplicity. Relying on that traditional framework I am 
sure that we have come to a rational consensus that will ensure 21 
million Americans will not be hit with the AMT.
  ``Taxes are what we pay to live in civilized society,'' but dealing 
with the AMT has become a bit uncivil.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address H.R. 4351, the Alternative 
Minimum Tax Relief Act.
  Mr. Speaker, the original idea behind the alternative minimum tax, 
AMT, was to prevent people with very high incomes from using special 
tax benefits to pay little or no income tax. The AMT's reach, however, 
has expanded beyond just the wealthy to threaten millions in the middle 
class. And when the AMT applies, its costs are often substantial.
  One reason for the AMT's expansion is that, unlike the regular income 
tax system, the AMT is not indexed for inflation. Another reason is 
that individual income tax cuts enacted since 2001 have provided higher 
credits and deductions and lowered tax rates, thereby leading to more 
taxpayers owing tax under the AMT.

[[Page 34064]]

  Last year, 4.2 million Americans were affected by the AMT. The Joint 
Committee on Taxation estimates that, if Congress does not act, 23 
million taxpayers will be affected this year. That will include over 
54,000 families in my district--many of whom do not have very high 
income, and do not receive many special tax benefits. We need to 
protect these Americans from the AMT.
  Further, according to the New York City Independent Budget Office, 
the percentage of New York City taxpayers currently hit by the AMT far 
exceeds the comparable national estimate: 6.7 percent versus 4.0 
percent.
  The bill before us today provides a much needed 1-year patch for the 
AMT. It is a necessary step in the right direction on this issue; and 
we completely pay for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4351.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4351, 
legislation that will provide critical tax relief to millions of middle 
class Americans. I support the Democratic majority's commitment to 
passing sensible legislation that will provide a solution to the 
looming Alternative Minimum Tax crisis. I am disappointed that 
President Bush and the Republican minority are opposing our efforts to 
pass this legislation. If this bill is not passed by the Senate and 
signed by the President, more than 60,000 families which I have the 
honor of representing here in the House will be required to pay the AMT 
when filing their 2007 return--an increase of almost 1000 percent since 
2005.
  I also support the Democratic majority's continuing commitment to 
responsible fiscal policies. The relief provided in this bill is paid 
for by closing tax loopholes that allow hedge fund managers and 
corporate CEOs to use offshore tax havens as unlimited retirement 
accounts. That the President and his party would side with a few of the 
wealthiest individuals over millions of middle class American families 
speaks volumes about their misplaced priorities.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this bill--as I 
did for a similar measure last month--because of the urgent need to 
protect middle-income families from a massive tax increase that will 
hit them if we do not act to adjust the Alternative Minimum Tax, or 
AMT.
  The bill is not quite the same as H.R. 3996, which I voted for and 
which the House passed on November 9th. But it resembles that bill--and 
differs from the version passed by the Senate--in one very important 
respect: it is fiscally responsible.
  The Senate has voted for a bill that does not even attempt to offset 
the costs of changing the AMT.
  I think that should not be our first choice, because for too long the 
Bush Administration and its allies in Congress have followed that 
course--their view, in the words of Vice President Cheney, has been 
that ``deficits don't matter.''
  I disagree. I think deficits do matter, because they result in one of 
the worst taxes--the ``debt tax,'' the big national debt that must be 
repaid, with interest, by future generations. I think to ignore that is 
irresponsible and falls short of the standard to which we, as trustees 
for future generations, should hold ourselves.
  So, I think that the House pass this bill and give the Senate a 
second chance to reach that standard.
  It may be that our colleagues at the other end of the Capitol will 
not take advantage of that opportunity, and it may be that in the end 
the urgency of protecting middle-income families from the AMT will take 
priority over correcting the mistaken policies of the last 7 years.
  But at least for today, we should not give up hope that better 
judgment will prevail and so we should vote for this bill as it stands.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the AMT 
Relief Act of 2007, which will provide middle class tax relief to over 
23 million hard-working families who would otherwise be hit by the 
Alternative Minimum Tax next year.
  For six years, the White House and the Republican congressional 
leadership failed to dismantle the Alternative Minimum Tax. As a result 
of their inaction, a huge middle class tax increase is now hanging over 
the heads of millions of unsuspecting Americans. This Republican tax 
tsunami will come crashing down on middle America next year if we fail 
to take action today.
  On the Republicans' watch, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans got 
over half the benefit of the Bush tax cuts--while the Nation's debt 
soared past $9 trillion. Make no mistake: There are consequences to 
this kind of borrow and spend mentality. Every year, each taxpayer must 
pay a $3,300 ``debt tax'' just to cover the cost of financing the debt. 
This legislation takes a different approach. Rather than digging 
ourselves deeper into debt, this bill pays for our actions today by 
closing a loophole in current law that permits a minuscule number of 
hedge fund managers to defer billions of dollars in compensation in 
offshore accounts.
  To those who say Congress should not pay its bills, this legislation 
says ``there is another choice.'' We can provide fiscally responsible 
tax relief without running up the national debt. We can take 
responsibility for our expenses today, without placing the burden of 
our choices on future generations.
  I urge my colleagues to make the right choice. Let's pass fiscally 
responsible AMT relief and give our citizens the government they 
deserve.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of extending 
Alternative Minimum Tax relief to millions of American taxpayers. 
Congress never intended for the AMT to hit so many people. The Senate 
has already passed a clean bill to provide a one-year AMT patch for the 
2007 tax year. I urge my colleagues in the House to do the same and 
pass AMT relief for the nearly 20 million new taxpayers who will 
otherwise be subjected to this tax increase if Congress fails to act.
  While I rise in strong support of extending AMT relief, I rise in 
opposition to the AMT bill being considered on the House floor today. 
H.R. 4351 would not just provide a one-year AMT patch; it would also 
permanently raise billions of dollars in new taxes on other citizens. 
Rather than provide a stand-alone patch or offset the costs by reducing 
federal spending, the Democrat leadership solution is to pay for the 
AMT fix by raising taxes on other taxpayers.
  Instead of debating a bill that will never be signed into law, we 
should be working together in a bipartisan way to take actions similar 
to what the Senate has done. Because of the ineffectiveness of Democrat 
leadership decisions, millions of American taxpayers will either be 
forced to pay an average of $2,000 more or have their tax refunds 
delayed next year. A delay in tax refunds could have been avoided by 
earlier congressional action, and we must act swiftly to ensure the tax 
increase does not become a reality for millions of American families.
  The AMT tax was created nearly 40 years ago to ensure a small number 
of very wealthy taxpayers would pay a fair portion of taxes. Because 
the AMT was not indexed for inflation, millions of Americans are now 
being threatened by the higher AMT tax, which effectively takes back 
tax cuts enacted in 2001, 2003 and 2004 for those taxpayers.
  The Federal Government should be finding ways to lower the burden on 
American taxpayers. Instead, H.R. 4351 would permanently raise taxes. 
This proposal to address the government's shortsightedness to index the 
AMT for inflation should be soundly rejected in favor of a permanent 
AMT fix or a patch that does not raise taxes on others.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against H.R. 4351 so we can 
begin consideration of a real solution that we can send to the 
President for his signature. Providing a one-year AMT fix is the least 
we can do as an alternative to a permanent solution. The time for 
partisan tax-shifting games has concluded. Let's put the American 
people first and defeat this massive tax increase bill.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 861, the bill is considered read and the 
previous question is ordered.
  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.


               Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. McCrery

  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. McCRERY. I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. McCrery moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4351 to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Tax Increase Prevention Act 
     of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF INCREASED ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX 
                   EXEMPTION AMOUNT.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 55(d) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exemption amount) 
     is amended--

[[Page 34065]]

       (1) by striking ``($62,550 in the case of taxable years 
     beginning in 2006)'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting 
     ``($66,250 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2007)'', 
     and
       (2) by striking ``($42,500 in the case of taxable years 
     beginning in 2006)'' in subparagraph (B) and inserting 
     ``($44,350 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2007)''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2006.

     SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF FOR 
                   NONREFUNDABLE PERSONAL CREDITS.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 26(a) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rule for 
     taxable years 2000 through 2006) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or 2006'' and inserting ``2006, or 
     2007'', and
       (2) by striking ``2006'' in the heading thereof and 
     inserting ``2007''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2006.

  Mr. McCRERY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that 
the motion to recommit violates clause 10 of rule XXI because the 
provisions of the measure have the net effect of increasing the deficit 
over the requisite time period. The cost of 1 year of AMT relief is $50 
billion, and the motion contains no provisions to pay for that relief.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is the intent of clause 
10 of rule XXI to require tax increases to pay for preventing scheduled 
tax increases. That is precisely what we are debating on this point of 
order.
  If the Chair determines that this motion violates rule XXI and the 
House sustains this ruling, then the House is endorsing more than $3 
trillion of tax increases over the next 10 years.
  PAYGO, as a budget enforcement law between 1990 and 2002, as the 
majority leader referred to, required automatic spending reductions 
across the government when budget targets were not met. Rule XXI, 
should it apply to this motion, is a very, very different PAYGO. It 
would prevent any Member from offering an amendment that prevents a tax 
increase without another tax increase. I would understand, and even 
strongly support, an interpretation of rule XXI that had the effect of 
requiring spending reductions to offset increases in spending.
  Further, while I would not necessarily endorse it, I could understand 
a PAYGO interpretation that requires a spending cut or tax increase to 
offset any reduction in current tax rates, or an increase in any 
current tax deductions or credits; but that is not what we're dealing 
with here today, Mr. Speaker. Today, with my motion, we are simply 
maintaining the Federal Government's current take, so to speak, from 
the people.
  Current individual tax rates and policies have largely been in place 
as they are since 2003 and have led to sustained increases in revenue 
to the Federal Government. In fact, the annualized increases over the 
last 3 years have been 14.6 percent, 11.7 percent and 6.7 percent.
  Even if my motion passes and is eventually enacted, we will again see 
increased revenue, it is projected, to the Federal Government next 
year. Those who wish to apply PAYGO to my motion, those who wish to 
object to my motion, are advocating very clearly that they want to lock 
in not only the largest revenue take in history, but also the largest 
tax increase in history. These tax increases will lead the government 
to collect more than 20 percent of GDP from its citizens by the end of 
the decade, and far higher in the years that follow. These tax 
increases will be of such a dramatic magnitude that they threaten to 
bring our economy to its knees and render it uncompetitive in the 
global marketplace.
  The motion I have offered contains no new spending, no new tax cuts. 
Instead, it simply prevents a tax increase. That, I submit, is not what 
rule XXI was designed to prevent. And I urge the speaker to reject the 
point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of 
order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts makes a 
point of order that the amendment proposed in the motion violates 
clause 10 of rule XXI by increasing the deficit.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XXI, the Chair is authoritatively 
guided by estimates from the Committee on the Budget that the net 
effect of the provisions in the amendment affecting revenues would 
increase the deficit for a relevant period.
  Accordingly, the point of order is sustained and the motion is not in 
order.
  Mr. McCRERY. Since that was an awfully quick ruling, Mr. Speaker, I 
most respectfully do appeal the ruling of the Chair because this may be 
the only opportunity we have to veer from this tax increase 
interpretation so that we can clear a bill that the Senate will pass 
and the President will sign.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?


          Motion to Table Offered By Mr. Neal of Massachusetts

  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion to 
appeal.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCRERY. 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.
  Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on 
the motion to table will be followed by a 5-minute vote on the passage 
of the bill, if ordered, and if arising without further debate or 
proceedings in recommittal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225, 
nays 191, not voting 15, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1152]

                               YEAS--225

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall

[[Page 34066]]


     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--191

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Becerra
     Carson
     Cubin
     Ferguson
     Gordon
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Hunter
     Jindal
     Matheson
     Miller, Gary
     Neugebauer
     Paul
     Tancredo
     Wu


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes left in this vote.

                              {time}  1848

  Mrs. BLACKBURN, Ms. GRANGER, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, and Messrs. ROGERS of 
Alabama, PICKERING, HERGER, and EHLERS changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Ms. SCHWARTZ, and Messrs. ROTHMAN, TIERNEY, 
CLYBURN, ORTIZ, and HARE changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  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.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 193, not voting 13, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1153]

                               YEAS--226

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--193

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield

[[Page 34067]]


     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Carson
     Cubin
     Duncan
     Ferguson
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Hunter
     Jindal
     Matheson
     Miller, Gary
     Neugebauer
     Paul
     Tancredo


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes left in this vote.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
is 1 minute left in this vote.

                              {time}  1856

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________