[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 27]
[House]
[Pages 36245-36255]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1445
                  TAX INCREASE PREVENTION ACT OF 2007

  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in 
the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 3996) to amend the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for 
other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:

       Senate amendment:
       Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

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

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 55(d) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exemption amount) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``($62,550 in the case of taxable years 
     beginning in 2006)'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting 
     ``($66,250 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2007)'', 
     and
       (2) by striking ``($42,500 in the case of taxable years 
     beginning in 2006)'' in subparagraph (B) and inserting 
     ``($44,350 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2007)''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2006.

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

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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is an extraordinary time for those of us in the Congress, 
because a constitutional change is taking place that never was 
expected, and that is where the minority in the Senate can actually 
dictate to the House of Representatives exactly what they will and what 
they won't do. And so the whole question of whether or not the fiscal 
responsibility of supporting revenues for this bill is even going to be 
considered is something that we cannot expect the Senate ever to 
respond to because they need 60 votes in order to fulfill their Senate 
responsibility.
  So what do we have on the floor today? We have the principle that 
most Republicans as well as Democrats have agreed to in the past, and 
that is that the time has come for us to be fiscally responsible.
  Now, when the Congressional Budget Office has an item in this budget 
and it is called the alternative minimum tax and they put in that 
budget a receipt of $50 billion, it means to me and should mean to 
others that if you are going to delete that provision, you are deleting 
the $50 billion. And in order for the books to be balanced, as any 
family, any corporation, and I hope most intelligent and motivated 
countries, you raise the revenue to pay for it.
  So this is not happening. The President says you don't have to pay 
for it. Go to the Japanese, go to the Chinese, borrow. And why should 
you pay? Let your children and your grandchildren pay for this tax 
relief that was never but never expected that it would hit these 
middle-class people.
  Now, what are our options? We could stick to our fiscal guns. We 
could say the right thing to do is not to pass a bill that is not paid 
for. We could say that the taxpayers are not really entitled to the 
benefits of waiving the PAYGO rules. Or, we could say, why hold 23 
million taxpayers hostage because of the irresponsibility of the 
minority in not being willing to pay for this, no matter how many 
alternatives we give them?
  Well, we choose to say, protect the taxpayer. Forget the loopholes, 
forget the revenue losses, forget the indebtedness, at least for now, 
because we don't want those hardworking people, most of them 
hardworking couples with children and with deductions, to wake up in 
the morning and find there is a feud between the House and the Senate 
and the Republicans and the Democrats that would cause them to carry 
this burden. And the President says, remove it and don't pay for it.
  Well, we come out on the side of the taxpayers, and we just hope that 
we can pass this suspension, get on with the protection, and then, in a 
responsible way, maybe the Republicans and Democrats in the House and 
Senate can deal with this in a more permanent way next year.
  Madam Speaker, I hope that those that are listening come to the floor 
on this historic occasion as we hope that we can reverse the thinking 
in the House and the Senate in pay-fors.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I compliment the majority on bringing this bill to the 
floor today to stop the alternative minimum tax from creeping further 
into middle-income familites.
  The effect of this legislation that we are considering today will 
basically freeze the AMT where it is. In other words, under the 2006 
tax year, there were 4 million taxpayers that had to pay their taxes 
under the alternative minimum tax. This legislation will ensure that 
only those 4 million taxpayers, basically, will be paying taxes under 
the AMT and not an additional 23 million or so taxpayers at an average 
of about $2,000 per taxpayer. This is good news for those taxpayers. It 
is good news for the economy. At a time when many economists are 
worried about our economy going into a recession, now would be the 
wrong time for this Congress to endorse a tax increase, which is what 
would have happened had we done nothing.
  So I compliment the majority in bringing this bill forward today and 
allowing the House an up-or-down vote on freezing the alternative 
minimum tax where it is.
  Madam Speaker, anyone who has listened to the debate on this issue 
during the House's two previous considerations of an Alternative 
Minimum Tax ``patch'' for 2007 knows that this debate is about much 
more than just the alternative tax structure created in 1969. As has 
been repeatedly said by Members on both sides of the aisle, the 
Alternative Minimum Tax is a flawed tax, a mistake, unfair, and ripe 
for repeal.
  I am pleased today that Congress is again limiting its impact, for 
the 7th year in a row, to only 4 million taxpayers. But, far more 
important than enacting the patch or preventing the reach of the 
shortcomings of the Alternative Minimum Tax, is the victory we have 
achieved today over a flawed fiscal policy.
  The bill before us today is titled the ``Tax Increase Prevention Act 
of 2007.'' It is properly named, as its enactment will prevent 21 
million taxpayers from an average tax increase of $2,000 this year. 
But, this tax increase prevention pales in comparison to the tax 
increase that all federal income taxpayers, well over 100 million 
Americans, will face under the next President.
  The debate over the past several months has been a warm-up act, a 
pre-game show,

[[Page 36246]]

the ``undercard,'' for the debate over the fiscal fork in the road the 
country will come to in 2010. On one side, clearly demonstrated by the 
initial vote on H.R. 3996, and the vote on H.R. 4351 last week, are 
those who believe the federal government needs more tax revenue. On the 
other side, mostly this side of the aisle, are those who believe the 
federal government already collects enough taxes from its people.
  I hope this philosophical difference is understood as we move forward 
with debate on tax legislation next year, prepare for a great national 
debate during the 2008 elections, and engage during the 111th Congress 
over the largest tax increase in the history of civilization.
  In those debates, proponents of the ``paygo'' rules that were 
successfully cast aside earlier today will cloak their arguments in 
terms of fiscal responsibility. They'll argue in moral absolutes and in 
righteous terms that the House's paygo system is sound budget policy. I 
beg to differ. Taken to its logical end, it is a recipe for economic 
disaster.
  Over the past few months, the goal of the proponents of ``paygo 
philosophy'' has been simple--to increase taxes. If we had not been 
successful in defeating their efforts here, consider where the debate 
would go next. The next Congress and the next President will be 
debating a tax increase on married couples, a tax increase on families 
with children, a tax increase on death, a tax increase on investment, 
and a tax increase on savings. Every current federal income taxpayer, 
and even millions of Americans who currently pay no federal income 
taxes, faces a substantial tax Increase.
  Let's be clear, the goal of paygo's advocates is to succeed in 
allowing all those taxes to increase, or to find other tax increases to 
replace them. At the end of the day, if you believe the federal 
government needs trillions more in tax revenue, you should oppose this 
bill, you should recommit yourself to ``paygo,'' and you should be 
utterly disappointed that the House overwhelmingly rejected it today. 
As for me, I hope that Members will vote to support this legislation, 
and bury ``paygo'' in the graveyard of failed economic philosophies.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a member of the committee.
  Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, this is truly a sad day for the institution 
of Congress in this administration when we have a minority number of 
Members in both the House and the Senate that are more interested in 
protecting a handful of hedge fund managers' ability to move millions 
of dollars offshore without paying their fair share of taxes and in 
order to protect the financial security of our children and 
grandchildren by paying for this AMT relief bill.
  Make no mistake, everyone is in agreement that we want to stop the 
AMT from affecting 20-plus million Americans next year. The difference 
is our party wants to pay for it; they don't.
  We have had the fastest and largest accumulation of national debt 
under Republican rule in the last 6 years, and they're saying that's 
not enough.
  We are almost completely dependent on borrowing money from China to 
finance our deficit, and they're saying that's not enough.
  The fastest growing area of spending in the Federal budget is 
interest payments on the national debt, and they're saying that's not 
enough. Let's pile on some more and let's leave this mortgage, this 
legacy of debt for our children to handle. I think that is a disgrace.
  Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, to paraphrase the last speaker for the 
majority, it is his party that wants a tax increase. It is our party 
that does not want a tax increase. It is that simple.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of 
the committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, let's just say what we're doing 
here. What this bill does is it prevents a tax increase. Now, we have 
different philosophies and we have different ideas on how to keep 
America moving forward between Republicans and Democrats, the minority 
and the majority.
  What the majority is doing right here is they are waiving their own 
budget rules. They came in promising a new pay-as-you-go system, and 
here they go, as soon as the going gets tough, waive PAYGO.
  I find it interesting that never during the course of this debate 
this year did the majority ever propose to reduce spending to offset 
this. They only proposed raising taxes. But here we are on the eve of 
the end of the year, preventing 19 million additional taxpayers from 
paying this tax increase.
  Let's look at where we were at the beginning of this year.
  Speaker Pelosi: ``After years of historic deficits, this new Congress 
will commit itself to a higher standard: pay as you go.''
  The majority leader, and I think he will be consistent and vote 
against this particular bill: ``Our budget strictly adheres to the pay-
as-you-go budget rules that were reinstated in January by the new 
majority.''
  Our distinguished chairman of the committee: ``You've got to offset 
those tax cuts.'' So on and so forth.
  Well, here we are and we are going to pass this by waiving PAYGO.
  Now let me make it very clear, I disagree with the majority's PAYGO. 
The majority's PAYGO says let's just keep raising taxes. Well, two 
wrongs don't make a right.
  This tax was never meant to be. This is a new tax increase on top of 
the Tax Code. It was never intended in the first place. This ought to 
be repealed, period. So I don't agree with this notion that this tax 
increase ought to just be replaced with some other tax increase, and 
that's the majority's position. They want the revenue from the 
alternative minimum tax, they just don't want to raise it through that 
tax so they have a different tax increase. That is bad economic policy.
  At a time when economists are telling us we might be headed for a 
recession, at a time when they are saying a slowdown is on the horizon, 
the last thing the American people and the economy need is a tax 
increase. That's why this is an important bill. We have big tax 
increases on the horizon.
  The distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee is 
proposing an enormous tax increase, $3.5 trillion. They are proposing 
to get rid of all of those tax cuts that got us out of recession in 
2003 in the first place, and they are proposing not to repeal the AMT 
but to replace it with even higher taxes on workers and small 
businesses. That is the wrong economic recipe for America. The right 
one is keep taxes where they are and control spending.
  Mr. RANGEL. I am glad that the last speaker is so young and vibrant 
that he may be able to share with the President his views. It was never 
intended that this tax would hit the people. That's why for 7 years the 
President never did anything to remove it. He never expected it to hit 
the people. That's why every year except this year he put it in the 
budget and expected the $50 billion. No one ever expected this to 
exist. That's why the Congressional Budget Office says we should be 
getting $50 billion. This argument is so persuasive, I can't wait to 
get home to explain it to my creditors.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our 
majority leader, and thank him so much for the work he has done for the 
majority and, therefore, for the Congress and our country.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman.
  What an ironic argument my friend from Wisconsin makes. We said we 
were going to have a PAYGO rule. We have voted consistently for PAYGO.
  We have paid for that which we have bought with 80 percent cuts and 
20 percent increases in revenues.
  What an ironic argument he makes that somehow now we are not 
following that because nobody on this floor believes that 19 or 23 
million, take your pick, Americans are going to get a tax cut on which 
President Bush has relied in every budget he has sent to us except the 
year of that particular budget. But the revenues have always been 
relied upon in his budget numbers. You didn't change it. You were in 
charge for 6 years.
  Ironic, because the only reason we have to do this tonight in this 
fashion and not ask the wealthiest in America,

[[Page 36247]]

I don't mean people making $10 million, I don't mean people making $100 
million a year, but people making $500 million a year, don't have to 
pay their fair share. That is what this is about. That is what we have 
been forced to on this day on this floor and in the other body. Because 
what is happening is what traditionally happens, the wealthiest and 
most powerful in America are protected on this floor from paying their 
fair share.
  This is not about class warfare. This is about once again saying to 
the middle class, We are not here to protect you. We are here to 
protect the wealthiest in America from paying their fair share, which 
is what PAYGO is all about.
  My young friend says that the economy is in trouble. The Democrats 
have not been able to pass one thing in the last 7 years to impact this 
economy. Not one. It is all on your watch, I say to my friends; all 
your watch.
  And you told us in 2001 and 2003 if we passed your economic program 
and continue to follow that the economy would grow and expand, and now 
you say it is contracting and in trouble. I agree, it is. Why? Because 
your economic program is a failed program that took us from $5.6 
trillion of surplus, four budget surplus years in a row, and has taken 
us deeply into debt and deficit. And yes, facing recession in the eye 
because your economic program is a failed policy.
  And I am angry about it. Why am I angry about it? Because I have a 
great granddaughter who is 13 months old. I have a granddaughter who is 
5 years of age, just starting kindergarten. And I have another 
granddaughter who is 21. She has a daughter, and I am worried about 
continuing to pursue this path of debt piled on debt, piled on debt, 
piled on debt.
  The only reason this bill is not paid for is because Republicans, in 
lockstep almost, in both bodies, have precluded us from paying for 
this, which everybody wants to do, and that is to relieve the tax 
burden on those who are confronted with a tax that everybody agrees was 
not meant for them. It was meant for the wealthy.
  So who is being protected by this? The wealthy, whom this tax was 
intended to hit.
  So when you get up here and tell me nobody intended the tax to hit, 
that is correct. But the people you are protecting are the people it 
was specifically intended to impact, to pay their fair share, not to 
run offshore and avoid taxes, not to have their taxes computed at 15 
percent while all of us pay 35 percent. That's what this is about.
  Ladies and gentlemen of this House, what we do tonight I will not 
support if we do it. I have a lot of people who live in my district who 
will be confronted with the alternative minimum tax. I don't want them 
confronted by the alternative minimum tax. But if we are going to 
continue to buy, if we are going to do what we will do later tonight, 
part of the $196.4 billion that you're spending of the legacy of those 
children that I just mentioned of mine, which you are not going to pay 
for, and you said this enterprise will cost $60 billion.
  This administration has been a failed administration economically and 
a failed administration fiscally. But you continue to pursue these 
policies, and we are forced today to recognize that we don't have the 
votes to pursue the pay-as-you-go principle that we adopted in a 
bipartisan fashion in 1990, we reaffirmed with many of you voting for 
it in 2007, and which you abandoned in 2001. And deep deficits and now 
economic recession facing us is the result.
  I don't urge my colleagues to vote for this bill as I usually do when 
we bring something to the floor. This is on suspension not because we 
believe, in my opinion, many of us, that this is good policy, but 
because we are faced with two stark alternatives: A President who will 
veto paying for things that we buy, a President who will veto this bill 
if it is paid for, responsible fiscal policy; and a Senate that will 
not vote with us and, frankly, House Republicans who won't vote for 
this. But we can pass it here, as we did twice. Twice we have passed 
this fix, and we have paid for it.
  This is a sad day for America. It is a sad day for my three 
grandchildren and my great granddaughter, 13 months of age, on whom we 
will pile an additional $80 billion of debt with this vote tonight if 
it passes. So $50-some-odd billion and then the interest to follow, she 
will have to pay that.
  We ought to pay our bills. We talk about personal responsibility. We 
ought to have the personal responsibility in this generation to pay for 
what we buy. I regret this day and this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I believe that every single Member of this body--on 
both sides of the aisle--agrees that we must protect middle-income 
Americans from the Alternative Minimum Tax, the parallel tax system 
enacted in 1969 to ensure that wealthy Americans pay their fair share.
  The question that divides us is this:
  Will we enact a fiscally responsible 1-year patch to the AMT that 
prevents 23 million Americans from paying more in Federal income taxes 
under the AMT than they otherwise would pay under our standard tax 
system?
  Or, will we take the easy route, the politically expedient route, the 
fiscally irresponsible route, and enact an unpaid-for, 1-year patch 
that tacks another $50 billion--yes, $50 billion--onto the deficit and 
debt, and immorally forces our children and grandchildren to pay our 
bills?
  For months, Democrats on both sides of Capitol Hill have fought to do 
the right thing--to enact a fiscally responsible AMT patch that is paid 
for by, among other things, closing a tax loophole that permits many of 
the wealthiest people in our Nation from denominating their income as 
``capital gains,'' and thereby allowing them to pay the 15-percent 
capital gains tax rate rather than the higher marginal income tax rate.
  Time after time after time, House and Senate Republicans rejected our 
``pay-fors,'' and demanded that we take the fiscally irresponsible 
route--and enact an AMT patch that adds $50 billion to the national 
debt.
  Madam Speaker, there is no small irony in the fact that the President 
and his Republican allies in Congress have fought all year long to 
prevent Democrats from adding $23 billion in funding for domestic 
priorities while they have no compunction about voting to add $50 
billion to the deficit and debt.
  No small irony. Only gross irresponsibility.
  Let no one be mistaken: The Republican position on the AMT is part 
and parcel of an almost theological belief in supply-side economics 
that is demonstrably false.
  The Minority Leader, Mr. Boehner, recently stated: ``Tax relief pays 
for itself.''
  And, the President himself has stated: ``You cut taxes, and the tax 
revenues increase.''
  The facts, however, show otherwise:
  In the last 7 years, the Republican party's economic policies have 
erased a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion, instigated 
record budget deficits, and added more than $3.4 trillion to the 
national debt.
  As my good friend, Congressman Tanner of Tennessee, recently pointed 
out: Since President Bush took office, the gross national debt has 
increased by $1.37 billion per day; $57 million per hour; and $948,907 
per minute.
  This, of course, is the record of a President and Republicans in 
Congress who pretend that they are ``fiscally responsible.''
  And today, they don't bat an eye at adding another $50 billion to the 
debt.
  Madam Speaker, our Nation is on a perilous course.
  Just listen to our non-partisan Comptroller General, David Walker, 
who stated last year: ``Continuing on this unsustainable fiscal path 
will gradually erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard 
of living, and ultimately our national security.''
  Democrats recognize the danger of continuing on this unsustainable 
fiscal path--and in one of our first acts back in the majority, we 
reinstated the Pay-As-You-Go budget rules that Republicans formerly 
supported and which are credited with restoring fiscal discipline in 
the 1990s.
  Today, we will protect 23 million middle-income Americans from 
bearing the brunt of the dreaded AMT--a tax they should not pay, a tax 
that must be permanently reformed.
  And we should also be passing a fiscally responsible AMT patch that 
is revenue-neutral--a position supported by the President in his 
budgets.
  However, it is regrettable and, yes, shameful that we will not be 
doing so because the President and his allies in Congress have insisted 
on political expedience and fiscal irresponsibility.
  Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I wish you would urge the previous

[[Page 36248]]

speaker, the majority leader, not to give up on his desire for fiscal 
responsibility.

                              {time}  1515

  All is not lost because of this bill. There are many of us on this 
side of the aisle who want to work with him and others to plot a 
fiscally responsible path for the United States Government. That would 
include entitlement reform, spending savings, as well as tax reform. So 
I hope he doesn't give up, and I hope he will work with us in the 
future to achieve that.
  At this time, Madam Speaker, I would recognize the distinguished 
gentleman from New York, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. 
Reynolds for 2\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, we're talking about the young age of my 
colleague and fellow seat mate in Ways and Means. I'm a little older, 
so I heard the President when he said, There they go again. Ronald 
Reagan. I heard him, and it kind of reminded me today as the liberals 
of this great body and the Blue Dogs of this great body come down and 
rant and rave over the fact, while they run the House, we're going to 
have the will of the House, and the will of the House is to fix the AMT 
for a 1-year patch, just like we've done in the past. Not an unusual 
fix.
  The last time I introduced this legislation, in 2005, 414-4 voted to 
support that bill. As a matter of fact, I looked and there were 33 Blue 
Dogs, some of which will speak today, that voted for my bill. And I 
promise you it didn't raise taxes. It just simply provided a 1-year 
patch for 2006 to give relief to the middle-class taxpayers that never 
were supposed to be caught up with this thing since it was created in 
1969.
  And so when we look at this today, we've got a blame game from 
everybody saying, hey, it's the Republicans in the Senate, it's the 
Republicans here, the Republican President.
  The Democrats run the House. We're here right before the holiday, and 
this is the best bill you've got and we're going to pass it. We're 
going to pass it just like I knew when I put it in in February, that 
all of the talk, all of the hope, all of the desire to change comes 
down to the fact we couldn't do it.
  And it gets me down to three words, deny, deceive and delay. Deny 
that you would raise taxes. You've already outlined how you're going to 
raise taxes. Deceive, you promised the American people you'd fix this 
permanently. And we're here today, at this late hour, doing a patch.
  And then we look at delay. For 11 months, we have delayed this to 
where we could have fixed it so that the American taxpayer would at 
least have the forms when the 2007 tax bill comes home.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this legislation.
  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I have two requests. One, that Dr. 
McDermott, one of our most expert legislators, who is trained as a 
psychiatrist, be given the opportunity to try to bring some 
reasonableness to the last speaker's remarks for 1 minute.
  And also, that I be allowed to yield the balance of my time to the 
chairman, Richard Neal, of the Select Committee on Revenues, who had 
the responsibility of guiding us through the alternative minimum tax.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, the best way is to recite a 
poem, maybe to lower the temper in here.

     `Twas the night before Christmas,
     When all through the House,
     Every tax lawyer was stirring,
     Even the hedge fund's spouse.
     The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,
     In hopes that AMT relief soon would be there.
     The children were nestled all snug in their beds
     While visions of health care and surplus danced in their 
           heads.
     The Speaker with gavel and Bush with his pen,
     And Republican Visa cards on the mend,
     Blue Dogs, debt and dollar in decline,
     Our fiscal sanity all on the line,
     ``Away with PAYGO'' the Republicans cheer,
     Sack the children with debt, year after year.
     Our majority too slim to beat a veto,
     The luster of debt is all the minority know.
     When what to my dismayed eyes should appear,
     The upcoming election year.
     New Hampshire is close and the caucuses near,
     It won't be long before the voters make clear.
     We only have 397 more days of this administration.

  Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from California, the ranking member of the 
Trade Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Herger.
  Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, the alternative minimum tax was never 
meant to reach down and ensnare middle-class taxpayers. It does so 
because it was never indexed for inflation. The AMT was created in 1969 
to capture 155 of the wealthiest taxpayers in America. If we don't pass 
this legislation today, it will increase taxes on not 155, but 23 
million mostly middle-income families this year. A clean AMT patch is 
the right policy for taxpayers. There are no new taxes in this bill to 
comply with the so-called PAYGO tax increase budgeting. PAYGO can't 
control spending, and it really only makes tax relief virtually 
impossible. So I'm pleased that we're not falling for the PAYGO trap on 
this temporary patch.
  No new taxes also means that we're not dipping into the economy for 
revenue. This is good, since we're facing rough economic waters due to 
the mortgage situation. Although I'm concerned our delay in passing 
this patch could result in added waiting time for tax returns from the 
IRS, this inconvenience is minor compared to the alternative, tens of 
billions in new taxes to offset temporary tax relief.
  I strongly support House passage of this clean AMT patch and urge an 
``aye'' vote.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time 
remains on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 12\1/2\ 
minutes. The gentleman from Louisiana has 11\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I yield myself 1 minute, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from New York, said the 
Republicans are blamed for this and the Republicans are blamed for 
that, and the Republicans are blamed for this. Let's make it clear. 
They ought to be blamed for this. It is the Republicans in the Senate, 
it's the Republicans in the House, and it's the Republican at the White 
House that have caused this moment. They want to borrow the money. They 
talk about finding common ground. The easiest loophole to close that I 
have been part of in the last 19 years is the one that we've offered on 
this floor for wealthy hedge fund managers who hide money on the island 
nations to avoid taxes. We're asking them to pay for a middle-class tax 
cut for 23 million people.
  Let me repeat: The Republicans in the House, the Republicans in the 
Senate, and the Republican at the White House, they have all opposed 
that measure. That's why we're here today at this moment to get this 
done.
  It has been their intransigence and their unyielding position on 
insisting that this money be borrowed when the minority has had its day 
in this House of Representatives. That's why we're here, and that ought 
to be eminently clear to the people that are watching today.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman giving 
Republicans total credit for stopping a $50 billion tax increase, but 
he's really way too humble. This bill wouldn't be on the floor today 
were it not for the consent of the majority.
  At this time I would yield 2 minutes to the distinguished minority 
whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, the truth is that this $50 billion that 
we're now prohibiting being collected from 23 million new American 
families next year isn't our money. It's their money. It's not money 
that we have this year. Now, it's money that we said at the first of 
this year we never want to collect from these families, but then we

[[Page 36249]]

decided we immediately wanted to go right ahead and spend it.
  That's the real fallacy here. Whether the White House makes that 
mistake or the legislature makes that mistake, we have no right to this 
money.
  As my good friend from Massachusetts said, Republicans oppose raising 
taxes. Now, because of that, our friends on the other side kept putting 
this issue off, and because of that, when it comes time for Americans 
who aren't impacted by the alternative minimum tax at all to get a 
refund, their refund is going to be slowed up. This should have been 
done 6 months ago. But we are getting it done today. We need to move 
forward in a way that doesn't let this continue to be a pattern.
  This tax was put in place in 1969. Unfortunately, it's still 
affecting the same families that were affected in 1969. But no 
modification for inflation. No forward thinking.
  It was made worse in 1993. Republicans in the House, and some 
Democrats, voted to repeal this tax in 1999. And that's the best 
answer.
  We need to get on to how we eliminate this unfair tax. It doesn't do 
what it's supposed to do. And we have no claim on this money. Acting 
like we do, spending it in advance, waiting till the last minute to do 
anything to protect these families was bad management. But we are 
getting the job done today of protecting these families.
  Madam Speaker, I'm glad we're doing that.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, we're debating theology 
here today, as opposed to reality.
  With that, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Michigan, a 
member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Levin, for 1 minute.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, it's interesting to listen to the minority. 
They don't defend this tax loophole. No one has gotten up and said 
people who should pay their taxes aren't paying those taxes and so it's 
okay. That's really what you're saying. You're saying it's a tax 
increase when you go after people who should be paying their taxes. 
It's absurd. It's carrying a political label to an absurd level, and 
unbelievable.
  I suppose if we give more money for the collection of taxes for 
people who owe them who don't move offshore, that's also a tax 
increase?
  You're hiding behind a label. What you're doing is saying, once 
again, when there's a hole of debt, dig it deeper.
  This has become the theater of the absurd.
  Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member of the 
Health Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Camp.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, they say it's better to be a day 
late than a dollar short. In this case, however, the majority party is 
over a month late, costing taxpayers $75 billion.
  As I listened to some of the previous speakers on the other side, 
just because they can't deliver on their promises, somehow it's our 
fault. But by postponing action on legislation to exempt 23 million 
Americans from paying the alternative minimum tax, the majority party 
has caused taxpayers, both those affected by the AMT and those who are 
not, to have their refund checks significantly delayed.
  When Republicans were the majority party during the last Congress, we 
got our work done and fixed the AMT exemption amounts in May. As a 
result, no taxpayer funds were delayed. No additional taxpayers were 
forced to pay the AMT last year.
  This year, under their majority, 23 million Americans will be subject 
to the AMT. Last year under a Republican majority, 4 million Americans 
would have paid the tax.
  The sad part is 23 million Americans should not have to pay the AMT.

                              {time}  1530

  They could have been shielded if the Democratic-controlled Congress 
was able to finish its work on time.
  The Senate has already passed a 1-year AMT fix that did not include 
tax increases. They passed this legislation almost 2 weeks ago, and 
instead of immediately taking up this bill, the House Democrats have 
insisted the legislation include billions of dollars of permanent tax 
increases just to maintain current tax law and tax rates.
  I'm glad the majority party in the House has finally seen the light 
of day.
  And despite being much more than a day late and far worse than a 
dollar short, I'm pleased the House is finally getting around to 
passing this critical legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support 
the bill before us.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 
minute to my classmate, my friend and a champion of the taxpayer, a 
member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Tanner from Tennessee.
  Mr. TANNER. Madam Speaker, as slow as I talk, I'll talk fast.
  No political leadership in the history of this country has done what 
these people have done at the White House and here in the Congress in 
the last 6 years. When they say they oppose raising taxes, let me tell 
you, they have placed the largest adjustable rate mortgage on the 
American people in the history of humankind.
  Just in the last 72 months this country has borrowed more money in a 
shorter period of time than ever in its history. We're presently 
borrowing from foreigners a little over $20 million an hour.
  When in the name of all that is holy are you going to stop? We are 
trying to pay our bill and you won't let us. The Republicans in the 
Senate won't let us.
  When you place a $50 billion debt on every man, woman and child in 
this country to protect less than 10,000 people who are exploiting a 
tax loophole, and this is exactly what's happening here, when in the 
name of all that's holy are you going to quit? When China forecloses 
us?


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), the distinguished 
ranking member of the Select Revenue Measure Subcommittee.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I'll keep my remarks 
brief and submit the bulk of my remarks for the Record where they 
contain economic analysis and no theology, so they may be out of place 
in this floor debate.
  It's been fascinating to listen to the lecture that we've heard about 
failure. The failure that is on display here is the failure of this 
majority to fix the AMT as they promised or even to patch it in a 
timely fashion.
  We are voting today on a bill that we should have voted on 4 to 6 
months ago and easily could have, and the blame here, if there is to be 
any blame, is on the other side for having passed a budget that was 
built on quicksand, that was balanced based on revenues from applying 
the AMT to 23 million mainly middle-class families. And every one of 
them that voted for it voted to do it.
  They took PAYGO and they made a burlesque of it. What they have been 
doing up until this point is trying frantically to hold the AMT crisis 
that they created as a hostage in order to drive higher taxes. They've 
been using the AMT issue as a locomotive for a tax increase that is 
unnecessary and is inappropriate, particularly if, as the majority 
leader feels, the economy might be slowing down.
  They have been single-minded in their approach to try to drive higher 
taxes. Today, we have an opportunity to protect the taxpayers without a 
tax increase. Let's take it.
  Madam Speaker, since coming to Congress, I have been a vocal champion 
for repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT is a horribly 
inefficient parallel tax system that was never intended to impact those 
it is, or soon will ensnare.
  This Congress, like so many before it, I have introduced legislation 
to repeal the AMT.
  In recent years, Congress has turned to enacting temporary relief--or 
a patch--to keep the AMT from reaching more and more taxpayers in the 
middle class. This is necessary because the AMT was never indexed for 
inflation.
  This fact, in conjunction with the Democrats' distortion of pay-as-
you-go budgeting has placed us in the situation we face today.

[[Page 36250]]

  While I think it is fair to say that most people believe the AMT was 
a mistake and it should be addressed, the debate is over how it should 
be addressed and if, in fact, other taxpayers should pay more taxes in 
order to keep the AMT at bay.
  In other words, does it make sense for the rule of the House to 
require Congress to find revenue through real tax increases in order to 
stop a tax increase from happening?
  The Democratic majority says yes. I say that this premise is utterly 
absurd.
  Only in Washington could some green-eye-shade type conjure up the 
idea that it is necessary to raise taxes on one group of Americans in 
order to prevent another group of Americans from paying more taxes.
  Instead of focusing our energy on who should pay more taxes, as this 
majority has done, Congress should be focused on what kind of pro-
growth, pro-innovation and pro-job tax policies to enact.
  Sadly, Madam Speaker, this majority has failed in this regard, even 
at a time the economy is beginning to show signs of softening.
  Even on the more narrow issue of ensuring 21 million new taxpayers 
aren't subject to the AMT next year, the majority has barely received a 
passing grade.
  This is the latest in the year Congress has dealt with an AMT patch--
ever. Well, in this instance, tardiness as a severe consequence.
  The Internal Revenue Service has said that the delay in enacting an 
AMT patch this year will result in massive confusion for taxpayers and 
lengthy delays for those expecting refunds this year.
  And perhaps most disappointing of all is that when you dig deeper, 
the misguided banner of paygo which the majority holds up today is 
nothing more than a feeble attempt to mask their true intention with 
the AMT all along: to hold 23 million taxpayers hostage as they 
implement a protracted effort to permanently raise taxes in exchange 
for temporary tax relief.
  They may say today that they are issuing an ``IOU'' to taxpayers that 
they intend to ``pay for'' this bill to prevent a tax increase. But, no 
American is fooled by these reindeer games. They know that all that 
means is that the House Democrats have just made a reservation to come 
to your house and raise your taxes.
  I'm particularly pleased Republicans were able to call the majority 
out on this folly today in the name of the American taxpayer and 
economy. But, we must also insist that the majority's reservation is 
never honored.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I'd like at this time to 
yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of 
the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, two-thirds of the benefit of this tax cut 
will go to families who earn $100,000 a year or more. Now, I support 
giving them the tax break, but I don't support borrowing $50 billion to 
do it.
  Our Republican colleagues say today that, well, you don't have to 
borrow the money. Why don't you just cut spending? Well, that's the 
very question that we asked President Bush's representative when he 
came in front of our committee, and he stood there and he kind of 
scratched his head and said, I can't think of any spending cuts, nor 
have these Republicans offered a single spending cut to finance this 
$50 billion tax cut.
  No, their approach is their old borrow-and-spend approach that 
they've used for the last 7 years. The debt goes up; the dollar goes 
down. We have the specter on the horizon of both inflation and 
recession, and they follow the same old broken policy.
  I believe that they are holding taxpayers across this country hostage 
to force the Congress to borrow more money for yet another tax break. 
It does not make good economic sense, nor is it equitable.
  Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana has 6 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 8\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McCRERY. In that case, I will let the majority go.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, with that, I'd like to 
yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz), a 
valued member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Neal for his leadership 
on this bill and rise today to support tax relief for hardworking 
American families.
  Our action today will protect 23 million Americans from unexpectedly 
having to pay the AMT for the first time this year.
  We in the Democratic majority are committed to enacting fiscally 
responsible tax relief, but the President and the obstructionist 
Republicans have made it clear that to them adding to the national debt 
matters not at all.
  Under their watch, the national debt has nearly doubled. Rather than 
making tough decisions, they have opted time and again to push the cost 
of government on to future generations.
  Congressional Republicans repeatedly and stubbornly resisted our 
efforts to ensure that we protect 23 million Americans from the AMT and 
do so without adding to the national debt.
  The Democratic Congress is committed to our pledge of fiscal 
responsibility. We will work to ensure the tax relief we pass today 
will not add to the national debt.
  I vote for this AMT tax relief to give 60,000 hardworking American 
families in my district the tax relief they deserve, and I pledge to 
work to make sure we don't pass on the cost to future generations.
  Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished 
member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, let's check the facts. The facts 
are the only reason we're here today is because the Democrat Congress 
created this alternative tax. The only reason we're here today is 
because a Democrat President, Bill Clinton, vetoed the repeal of this 
alternative tax. That's why we're here today.
  As for being fiscally responsible, let's check the facts for just 
this year alone. For years, Democrats have said it is irresponsible not 
to pay for this war; it's irresponsible to borrow for this war. This 
year, they have spent, with our support, billions of dollars for this 
war and didn't pay for a dime.
  The majority leader stood on this floor and said it was fiscally 
irresponsible to raise the debt limit; yet they did it in the first 60 
days in their own budget.
  This year they have used multiple pay-fors, the same pay-fors, more 
than 20 times on different bills; just this week, the same pay-for on 
two different bills within 24 hours. That's like using your house for 
collateral over and over and over for different loans, which is called 
fraud, and they've even used budget gimmicks by directing our own 
budget office to assume there will be no terrorist attacks for the next 
5 years so they can avoid their own PAYGO rules.
  PAYGO, the way it is working this year is a sham. A sham. Being 
lectured on fiscal irresponsibility by this Democratic Congress is like 
being lectured on parenting by Britney Spears; it makes no sense at 
all.
  What we need to do is sit down together and find a way to cut this 
budget.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, let me clear up what the 
gentleman said as the Democrat he quoted previously. They have decided 
to borrow the money for Iraq, almost all $800 billion of it on the 
Republican side, $800 billion.
  Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to a leader in the Blue 
Dog Coalition, a friend, and on this issue in particular I think a 
voice of great reason, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).
  Mr. BOYD of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend Mr. Neal for 
yielding.
  And let's be clear that the passage of this suspension of the rules 
abandons our commitment to fiscal responsibility and waives the PAYGO 
rules that were put in place by this Democratic majority back in 
January. And the blame lays squarely at the feet, Madam Speaker, of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle and those in the United 
States Senate who, at the behest of the President, have blocked all 
attempts for this Congress to responsibly pay, responsibly pay for an 
AMT fix.
  It is a sad, sad day, Madam Speaker, and it's a strong testament to 
how far

[[Page 36251]]

we have gotten off track as a United States Government.
  The Republicans are expected to vote almost unanimously for the rule 
that waives PAYGO. It is abundantly clear that they have chosen to 
abandon fiscal responsibility.
  Madam Speaker, the Blue Dogs are standing firm on PAYGO, and in the 
coming year we will continue to fight for what's right, for a Congress 
that pays its bills and for strict adherence to the PAYGO rules.
  Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I was in my office and I heard the distinguished majority leader talk 
about personal responsibility and how we've got to get this deficit and 
this debt under control.
  Personal responsibility begins with personal responsibility. There's 
an article that ran a couple of weeks in the Washington Post that 
mentioned one Member, who shall remain nameless, tucked in $96 million 
worth of pet projects into next year's Federal budget, almost all of 
which is in today's bill that we will deal with.
  Included in that was an earmark for a group called InTune. When asked 
what they would do with the grant, they said it might be music camps, 
it might be lessons, it might be how to be a DJ, it might be how to 
create a television show. The last earmark that this group got was 
spent on lesson plans for funk music.
  This is not personal responsibility. Were there not earmarks in this 
bill, we would likely have a continuing resolution that would fund at 
last year's levels, and we could start to get a grip on this debt and 
deficit that we have.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, there isn't an economist in 
this town who would argue that the reason that the Federal deficit and 
debt has exploded is because of earmarks.
  With that, I'd like to introduce the gentleman from Arkansas, a 
leader in the Blue Dog Coalition and a champion on the AMT issue, the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) for 1 minute.
  Mr. ROSS. Madam Speaker, this Democratic House has voted twice in a 
fiscally responsible manner to provide this tax relief which I voted 
for. Unfortunately, Senate and House Republicans have sadly chosen to 
side with protecting tax cheats and their offshore accounts instead of 
siding with 23 million working families and providing them with the tax 
relief they deserve.
  Abandoning our commitment to the fiscal responsibility and passing an 
AMT bill that is not paid for leaves our children to foot the bill to 
the tune of some $80 billion.
  It is morally wrong to continue to borrow money from China and to rob 
the Social Security trust fund to fund our domestic needs here at home. 
This vote today will do just that, a vote forced on us by Senate 
Republicans.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this Republican tax increase 
on our children, grandchildren and future generations.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. When a Member makes a motion to suspend the 
rules pursuant to clause 1 of rule XIV, is clause 10 of rule XXI, the 
PAYGO rule, suspended and thereby waived?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion to suspend waives all rules.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Does the motion to suspend waive the PAYGO 
rule as well, then?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion to suspend waives all rules.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Including PAYGO?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All rules.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, Republicans have come to the floor 
this afternoon to prevent a huge Democrat tax increase from taking 
place on millions of working families across America.
  Democrats have come to the floor to pay for their tax increase with 
yet another tax increase.
  Now, Madam Speaker, they call it the PAYGO rule. It fits nicely on a 
bumper sticker. Now, supposedly it means if you increase spending here 
or you have tax relief there, somehow you pay for it. But when I look 
at the budget, I see that Medicare has grown by almost 9 percent. They 
didn't pay for that. It was exempt. I saw Medicaid grow almost 8 
percent. That was exempt from their PAYGO rule. Social Security 
increased 5\1/2\ percent. That was exempt from their PAYGO rule. 
Discretionary spending, 38 percent of the budget, well, PAYGO doesn't 
apply to that, either. And now they bring a 1-year AMT delay bill 
that's also exempt from their PAYGO rule.
  This proves that the Democrats' PAYGO rule has gone from a fig leaf 
to no leaf. Let's reject it.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I would like to at this 
time yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from South Dakota, a leader in 
the Blue Dog Coalition (Ms. Herseth Sandlin).
  Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I thank the gentleman, the distinguished 
chairman, for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, throughout the year the House has made great strides 
and has made tough choices, beginning the difficult work of getting the 
Nation's fiscal house in order. The Blue Dog Coalition has worked 
closely with our colleagues to draft fiscally responsible legislation 
that complied with PAYGO rules that the new majority put in place at 
the beginning of this Congress, rules the minority rejected for the 
past 6 years.
  I commend the Speaker and the majority leader for their firm 
commitment to fiscal discipline. Under their leadership and that of the 
Ways and Means Committee, this House voted twice to provide AMT relief 
for 23 million families without burdening future generations with more 
debt.
  Madam Speaker, there can be no mistake as to why the House is faced 
today with effectively waiving PAYGO for AMT relief: The bad habits of 
my colleagues in the minority who would continue to use borrowed money 
to provide the relief, thereby raising taxes in the form of interest 
payments, and the obstructionism and the lack of fiscal responsibility 
of the minority in the U.S. Senate. They would prefer to protect those 
who evade taxes even when the cost of that protection is to further 
mortgage the future of our children and grandchildren.
  For these reasons and others, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
the Senate amendment on behalf of the children in our lives and the 
children in our districts.
  Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, who has been a 
leader on this issue from day one, and his leadership on AMT, I think, 
has brought about a reformed opinion here on how it ought to be 
handled, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, at the end of this day, notwithstanding 
the philosophical arguments that we have exchanged on this floor and 
whatever they do in the other body, the American people and taxpayers 
are going to ask the question, Did this Congress deliberately allow a 
$50 billion tax burden to fall on their shoulders? And we have to be in 
the position to say we have a long way to go in getting our tax reform 
straight. But it would be just so totally unfair for people to say that 
because of our differences of opinion that on this close to Christmas 
Day, we have blessed them with billions of dollars of a tax burden that 
they should not have.
  It was the Congress that allowed this to go forward in 1969 without 
fixing it for indexing. And I hope it will be this Congress that would 
say that we remove this burden.
  I do really hope that even though this President has only 1 year left 
in

[[Page 36252]]

his term of office that somewhere, maybe the Treasury Secretary, maybe 
the Republican leadership, that they might come forward with any plan 
or some plan to remove the alternative minimum tax. And even though we 
know it's going to cost over $800 billion or maybe $1 trillion, I just 
hope that maybe next year that it's not smoke and mirrors and we didn't 
intend to tax in the first place, but we either cut programs or raise 
the revenue but, for God's sake, not only do the right thing for our 
taxpayers that are out there today wondering what we are going to do, 
but for those taxpayers that decades from now after many of us have 
gone, they'll ask the question, Why did you burden us with this load? 
Why did you have us to have to pay this indebtedness to Japan, to 
China? And why didn't you do the right thing?
  Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia, a member of the Ways and Means 
Committee (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I think what we are hearing across the country today 
is a collective sigh of relief on the part of tens of millions of 
American families who now will not be subjected to an over $3,000 tax 
increase this year. This is real relief for real people and real 
families to compensate for a flagging economy and the soaring cost of 
living.
  Yet with the economic anxiety gripping this country, it is just 
astounding to me that it took so long to bring a clean AMT bill to the 
floor. As the majority's concession makes clear, this was the wrong 
time to raise taxes on the American people. The government never 
intended to collect the AMT revenue from the 21 million American 
families who this year would have fallen under the AMT net.
  So the horror stories that we continue to hear all year long about 
increasing the deficit was thus only smoke and mirrors for a desire to 
raise taxes. And thank goodness we are here today because passage of 
this bill is vindication for those of us who refuse to cave in to tax-
and-spend onslaught, and it is my only wish that this day had come 
sooner.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time, and I might inquire at this time as to how the minority intends 
to proceed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I have one speaker remaining and I will 
yield to him, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. 
Campbell), the entire 1 minute.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I support this bill today, which is going to leave 
taxes alone.
  And understand that's all it's going to do. It is not cutting taxes 
on anyone. It's just leaving them where they are.
  But yet to do this, the majority Democrats are going to violate their 
own vaunted PAYGO rule. And I would argue that PAYGO was just a sham to 
begin with. I mean, you can add $40 million more than last year to the 
budget. You can add $10 billion more here, $20 billion more there, and 
you don't have to pay for that. But to leave somebody's taxes alone, 
somehow you in theory were going to pay for it. But today that's a sham 
that, even as a sham, the Democrats haven't been able to keep. It goes 
from a sham to a double sham.
  The lesson here is clear: You can balance budgets by holding down 
spending, and that's what we ought to do.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I'm here in reluctant 
support of this legislation. In this process of governing, you 
oftentimes reach a difficult intersection. Sometimes you do not have 
the luxury of either supporting a bill you like or opposing a bill that 
you don't like. Sometimes you have to support a bill that you do not 
like simply because it has to be done. And that is the crossroads at 
which we find ourselves today.
  We have sent to the Senate what was possibly the easiest of offsets: 
Closing a loophole so that wealthy hedge fund managers cannot hide 
money in offshore accounts. But the Senate minority joined by the 
President and a group here in the House of Representatives have 
rejected on theological grounds any provision that raises revenue.
  Some 160,000 troops are in Iraq, 26,000 in Afghanistan, and at some 
point we're going to have to pay for these wars. We are borrowing $2 
billion every 7 days to fund the war in Iraq, and that's a bill our 
children and grandchildren will have to pay. And yet, and yet, we 
cannot ask the hedge fund managers to stop hiding money in offshore 
accounts. That's what this debate is about and has been. They are 
hiding money, scheming to avoid taxes in offshore accounts.
  I support this bill in front of us today. We need to protect 23 
million working families from being hit by higher taxes via the 
alternative minimum tax. But without fiscal responsibility here, and 
we've abandoned it when it comes to the alternative minimum tax and 
closing down an offshore tax haven, we have little choice.
  Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of the resolution.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, I rise today with great 
disappointment that the intransigence of the President and the minority 
in the Senate has presented us with only bad options to fix the AMT. If 
we do nothing, this bad tax is going to affect families it was never 
supposed to affect. The bill forces us to choose between saddling 
middle class families in New Mexico with additional tax burdens under 
the AMT and saddling our grandchildren with debt because of the fiscal 
irresponsibility of past Congresses.
  Twice this year the House has done right by middle class families, 
fixing the AMT and paying for the fix by closing two different tax 
loopholes that allow some of the wealthiest in the Nation avoid income 
taxes. The minority in the Senate, unfortunately, spurred by the 
President whom they continue to follow in lock-step, blocked both of 
those commonsense efforts because they don't represent the middle 
class.
  So we find ourselves in the predicament we face today. I do not 
believe that middle class families in my state should be penalized for 
the poor choices and fiscal irresponsibility of the minority in the 
Senate and the stubbornness of the President, and I reluctantly support 
this bill.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I will vote for this bill--as I 
did for a similar measure last month--because of the urgent need to 
protect middle-income families from a massive tax increase that will 
hit them if we do not act to adjust the Alternative Minimum Tax, or 
AMT.
  But I do so with some reluctance, because unlike the versions of the 
legislation previously passed by the House, this version reflects the 
inability of the Senate to bring itself to make the legislation 
fiscally responsible.
  As changed by the Senate, this bill does not even attempt to offset 
the costs of changing the AMT.
  I still think that should not be our first choice, because for too 
long the Bush Administration and its allies in Congress have followed 
that course--their view, in the words of Vice President Cheney, has 
been that ``deficits don't matter.''
  I disagree. I think deficits do matter, because they result in one of 
the worst taxes--the ``debt tax,'' the big national debt that must be 
repaid, with interest, by future generations. I think to ignore that is 
irresponsible and falls short of the standard to which we, as trustees 
for future generations, should hold ourselves.
  But, as of today we are left with no choice except to vote to protect 
middle-class taxpayers, or to insist on making them pay the price for 
the stubbornness of others.
  So, I will vote for this bill today, without enthusiasm but with 
determination to continue working for greater fiscal responsibility 
when the House reconvenes next year.
  Mr. COSTA. Madam Speaker, I rise to urge the House to defeat the rule 
as well as the AMT fix bill.
  Legislation before us violates the promises we made to American 
people in January. We knew in January that complying with PAYGO would 
not be easy, but up until today, we've fulfilled our commitment.
  In passing this legislation, we are merely again borrowing from China 
to pay for a short-term fix that needs a long-term solution. This 
administration has run up $5.6 trillion in debt over the last 6 years 
of irresponsible fiscal policy. How much debt passed on to our children 
is enough? Enough is enough.

[[Page 36253]]

  PAYGO was to be one of the most important reforms we pledged, and 
today we are now becoming part of that problem by adding to the already 
$30,000 in federal debt for every man, woman and child in our country.
  For decades, Republicans have preached the gospel of fiscal 
discipline and balanced budgets. When and how has that notion gotten 
lost? We should stay here until New Year's if we have to in order to 
find a way to offset the less revenue that will be going to the 
Treasury.
  I support fixing the AMT problem, both in the short run and long 
term, but the issue is whether we are responsible or irresponsible 
legislators.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) was 
originally enacted in 1969 to ensure that the wealthiest Americans paid 
at least some income taxes--like everybody else. Before the AMT, the 
richest Americans could unfairly dodge their taxes by using deductions 
to sidestep their social obligations. However, what began at the end of 
the Johnson administration as an attempt to guarantee that the top few 
hundred Americans pay their fair share of taxes--has not been indexed 
for inflation and as a result has slowly morphed into a middle-class 
tax hike.
  More families in Central New Jersey are affected by the AMT than 
anywhere else in the country. Currently 33,292 of my constituents are 
hit by the AMT and this number will increase to 121,503 if we do not 
take action today.
  Madam Speaker, I believe that this bill should have been paid for. I 
voted twice now for appropriate offsets to ensure that we keep our 
promise to the American people that we will not continue to spend money 
that this Congress does not have. We can not continue to borrow money 
from China and other countries in order to pay for the choices we make 
today. It is our children and grandchildren that will be forced to pay 
this debt around the world. Unfortunately President Bush and the 
Republicans in the Senate refuse to worry about the costs of this bill 
and the effect it will have on the next generation. I will continue to 
support my colleagues in making sure increase in spending or cuts in 
taxes are paid for and that next year we find an offset so that we do 
not pass this debt to the future generations.
  However, with the prospect of having an additional 88,211 of my 
constituents pay the AMT, I believe we must move today to enact an AMT 
fix. We cannot make the middle class pay for the failures of the 
administration. I urge all my colleagues to support this important tax 
reform that will help middle class families from unfair tax burden.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Temporary 
Tax Relief Act (H.R. 3996), which will provide tax relief for hard-
working, middle-class Americans. However, while I strongly support 
shielding these taxpayers from the Alternative Minimum Tax, I am deeply 
disappointed that our efforts to pay for this fix now, rather than 
charging it to future generations, have been blocked.
  Congress first enacted the alternative minimum tax (AMT) in 1969 to 
ensure that 155 wealthy taxpayers paid their fair share of the federal 
income tax. But because the tax was not indexed for inflation, it has 
since become outdated and unfair. Without a fix, this year over 23 
million Americans--and 75,000 Rhode Islanders--would be forced to pay 
nearly $2,000 in additional taxes to which they were never intended to 
be subjected. Today's bill will provide a one-year patch to prevent 
these middle-class Americans from being caught in the ever widening-net 
of the AMT.
  While everyone agrees that AMT relief must be passed swiftly, I am 
concerned with the circumstances under which this bill is being 
considered. Just two months ago the House of Representatives passed a 
fiscally responsible measure that fully complied with pay-as-you-go 
(PAYGO) rules. In fact, I was proud to vote twice for legislation that 
provided for the necessary AMT relief and was fully paid for. 
Unfortunately, Republican obstructionism has forced us to consider a 
measure that will add $50 billion to the national debt. Fixing the AMT 
is important, and taxpayers should not suffer the consequences of 
political games. What saddens me is that there was an easy way to 
accomplish this goal without adding to the deficit, and we chose to 
ignore it.
  I am also disappointed that this measure provides only temporary 
relief rather than presenting a long-term sustainable solution. We must 
develop a more permanent and fiscally responsible solution to the AMT, 
as it will continue to affect an increasing number of taxpayers in 
future years.
  I would like to thank Chairman Rangel for his leadership in bringing 
this measure to the floor, and for his valiant efforts to follow a more 
fiscally responsible course. I am hopeful that as we continue to debate 
national tax policy, we will develop permanent solution to the AMT 
issue which does not place the burden of paying for it on our future 
generations.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, today I am voting 
against H.R. 3996, a bill adjusting the Alternative Minimum Tax. While 
the bill helps some middle class families, it does so at the expense of 
expanding our national debt and burdening the next generation with the 
cost of paying for it. I voted for the original version of this bill 
that came before the House earlier this fall because it was fiscally 
responsible. It brought relief to middle class families in a budget-
neutral way by closing tax loopholes for hedge fund managers and 
corporate CEOs who shield their income off-shore. Unfortunately, the 
Senate stripped out the provisions that would replace the revenue lost 
through this AMT adjustment, so I cannot in good conscience support it.
  The AMT was originally enacted to ensure that high income taxpayers 
pay at least a minimum amount of federal taxes. It prevents individuals 
from taking unfair advantage of the various preferences and incentives 
under the regular income tax and reducing their income tax liability 
below what we as a society consider an appropriate tax contribution 
given their wealth. The reckless tax policies advanced by President 
Bush during the past 6 years further complicated the way the AMT is 
applied. As a result, it will affect around 20 million families next 
year, many of whom the AMT was not originally intended to reach.
  Reforming the AMT is warranted, and that's why I voted for this bill 
when it was paid for. Now we have a $50 billion give-away that's not 
paid for. Instead, it will increase our national debt, a debt financed 
by China and other nations. And the next generation--our children and 
grandchildren--will be stuck paying China back instead of investing in 
America. That's wrong. I believe that we must adhere to the pay-as-you-
go rules that this House adopted at the beginning of the year. Just as 
a family has to balance its checkbook, the federal government must do 
the same. A federal government that is not fiscally sound cannot make 
the necessary investments we need in education, health care, housing, 
defense, homeland security, and other national priorities.
  Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise to express my concerns 
with H.R. 3996, the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2007. Today, the 
American people were offered a false choice--tax families today or tax 
their children in the future.
  This year the House of Representatives has twice passed alternative 
minimum tax relief bills intended to provide more than 23 million 
American's with tax relief. These two previous pieces of legislation 
were fiscally responsible. By closing tax loopholes, the House of 
Representatives sought to ensure that we did not pass the cost of this 
temporary fix along to our children and grandchildren.
  Let me be clear. With passage of this bill tonight, President Bush 
and the Republicans have decided to mortgage our children's future and 
add to the national debt.
  I will reluctantly vote for this legislation because without an AMT 
fix, more than 46,500 people in the 16th Congressional District of 
Florida will be burdened with a tax increase. These are hardworking 
families already struggling with skyrocketing property taxes, 
staggering homeowners insurance premiums, rising mortgage payments and 
out of control gas prices. These are seniors already forced to choose 
between purchasing life saving medications and putting food on the 
table. Simply stated, my constituents do not need the burden of an 
additional tax increase.
  In closing, I call upon the House of Representatives to return to 
fiscal responsibility and Pay As You Go rules. Like many of my fellow 
Blue Dog colleagues, I believe we have a moral obligation not to pass 
our debt along to future generations.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3996, Tax 
Increase Prevention Act of 2007 and urge my colleagues to join me in 
voting for its passage.
  This bill provides tax relief for millions of Americans by raising 
the exemption amounts on the Alternative Minimum Tax, and ensuring that 
no new taxpayers would be subject to this higher rate. H.R. 3996 would 
prevent a tax increase on 21 million taxpayers when they file their 
2007 tax returns. The Alternative Minimum Tax was originally enacted to 
prevent only the very wealthiest of Americans from avoiding income tax 
payment. However, over the years its reach has grown to affect more and 
more middle income taxpayers, and estimates show that as many as 30 
million taxpayers would be ensnared by this higher tax rate by 2010. 
This bill will spare over 15,000 people in my district alone, from 
paying the Alternative Minimum Tax. As a part-time farmer

[[Page 36254]]

and a former small business owner, I know the crucial importance of 
this sector to the economy as a whole. I support tax relief for the 
middle class workers and families who help drive our economy.
  However, I am concerned that this bill does not include an offset and 
is not budget-neutral. I am strongly in favor of providing tax relief 
to millions of Americans, but we need to address this problem in a 
responsible way that maintains the integrity of our budget, and avoids 
adding to the budget deficit and our national debt. As a member of the 
House Budget Committee, I am hopeful that we can address the 
Alternative Minimum Tax issue further when Congress returns in the new 
year.
  Mr. HALL of New York. Madam Speaker, the nineteenth district of New 
York is one of the districts in this country most affected by the AMT. 
Last year over 30,000 families in my district paid AMT. I wish we had 
the support in both the majority, and the minority, that we need to 
advance the major tax reform necessary to prevent the AMT from unfairly 
penalizing thousands of families in the Hudson Valley. The ``patch'' 
legislation that we considered today is the best legislation that we 
can pass at this time to prevent more families from being impacted by 
the AMT, and will ensure that an additional 70,000 families in my 
district alone will not be hit next year by the AMT.
  I am proud that the Democratic Majority in the House of 
Representatives has twice passed a responsible AMT patch; offsetting 
the $50 billion in lost revenue from the AMT by eliminating tax 
loopholes for some of the richest people in the country, who choose to 
use offshore tax havens to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. 
However, neither the President nor his allies in Congress are fiscally 
responsible. They will not accept any legislation that acts responsibly 
by ensuring that the cost of protecting working families from the AMT 
will not be borne by their grandchildren. I believe I was elected to 
Congress last year to help restore fiscal integrity to the Federal 
Government, and I stand by the numerous votes I have cast in support of 
a responsible Pay-Go system.
  Although I am deeply disappointed that we will not be able to pass a 
version of AMT reform with a revenue offset this year. I am unwilling 
to let working families in my district suffer as a result of the 
President and the minority in Congress. That is why, despite its 
obvious inadequacies, I feel that I must support this bill. I am 
disappointed that we were forced to pass this bill by borrowing the 
resources to do so. As Congress continues its work in the future, I am 
committed to working to make sure our government operates within its 
means and respects the principle of fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3996, 
legislation that will provide critical tax relief to millions of middle 
class Americans. I support the Democratic majority's commitment to 
passing sensible legislation that will provide a solution to the 
looming Alternative Minimum Tax crisis. I am disappointed that 
President Bush and the Republican minority have opposed our efforts on 
this matter every step of the way. If this bill is not signed by the 
President, more than 60,000 families which I have the honor of 
representing here in the House will be required to pay the AMT when 
filing their 2007 return--an increase of almost 1000 percent since 
2005.
  I also support the Democratic majority's continuing commitment to 
responsible fiscal policies. Last week when the House passed AMT 
relief, it was paid for by closing tax loopholes that allow hedge fund 
managers and corporate CEOs to use offshore tax havens as unlimited 
retirement accounts. Unfortunately, the President and our Republican 
colleagues in the Senate once again sided with a few of the wealthiest 
individuals over millions of middle class American families. This 
speaks volumes about their misplaced priorities, and we are left with 
an AMT bill that does not meet paygo rules. However, I understand 
Chairman Rangel--for whom I have the utmost respect--has committed to 
finding an offset for this fix next year as he continues to find a 
permanent solution to the AMT crisis.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise to support the importance of 
patching the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) this year. Although it would 
have been my strong preference to pay for the middle class tax relief 
we are providing today, I do not believe we should penalize 23 million 
Americans for the Republican party's fiscal irresponsibility and 
intransigence.
  Throughout this debate, we have demonstrated that it is possible to 
provide important tax relief in a fiscally responsible manner. 
Unfortunately, the White House and an obstructionist minority in the 
other chamber have blocked these efforts. That obstruction is 
regrettable. But it must not be permitted to create an additional 
liability for millions of middle class Americans the AMT was never 
intended to burden.
  Madam Speaker, the hour is late. The need is clear. I urge my 
colleagues' support.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, the Alternative Minimum Tax was not meant 
for middle-income Americans, and here in the House, we, as Democrats, 
have proposed and twice passed legislation that would prevent the AMT 
from coming down on 23 million taxpayers for whom it was never 
intended, without increasing the deficit. That's important to us as 
Democrats, which is why we believe in the Pay-Go principle. Last month, 
we passed a bill showing that you can patch the AMT, comply with Pay-
Go, and not add to the deficit or to the tax burden of middle-income 
Americans.
  We were not the only one proposing such a solution. In February 2006, 
the Director of OMB, Josh Bolten, testified that the Bush 
Administration believed the AMT ``can be corrected in the context of 
overall revenue neutral tax reform.'' In February 2007, OMB Director 
Rob Portman said: ``Our budget assumes that we will have a revenue 
neutral correction to AMT.'' And in March 2007, Hank Paulson told us 
the same.
  But what the Bush administration proposed, they have not supported. 
Their counterparts in Congress voted down in the Senate an AMT fix 
consistent with Pay-Go, and forced the issue before us, an AMT patch 
that works for one year, but adds $50 billion to the deficit.
  We all agree that we must stop the AMT from coming down on 23 million 
middle-income taxpayers. That's why I and most of this House voted 
twice to fix the AMT the right way, the way the Bush administration 
once itself supported, with offsets that kept the fix from worsening 
the deficit.
  As chairman of the Budget Committee, I proposed an alternative idea, 
consistent with Pay-Go. What I proposed was that we postpone 
designation of the offsets necessary to keep this bill deficit-neutral 
until such time as we dealt with extension of expired or expiring tax 
deductions, such as the research and experimentation tax credit. At 
that point, we would require that the offsets for this bill be passed 
before any such deductions, credits, exemptions, or preferences be 
extended.
  This idea won support among many of my caucus, including our 
leadership, but in the end, not enough support to warrant its being 
offered. I regret that it was not, but I would remind everyone that 
this bill only buys one year of absolution. The same issue, the impact 
of the AMT on middle-income taxpayers, will have to be addressed again 
within months as we prepare and implement the budget resolution for 
fiscal year 2009. I hope we take a page from this year's experience and 
fix the AMT the right way next year, without impacting middle-income 
taxpayers, but also without impacting the deficit.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) that the House suspend the rules 
and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 3996.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to 
suspend on H.R. 3996 will be followed by 5-minute votes on the motion 
to suspend on S. 2499 and the motion to suspend on H.R. 4040.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 352, 
nays 64, not voting 17, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1183]

                               YEAS--352

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)

[[Page 36255]]


     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--64

     Andrews
     Baird
     Becerra
     Berry
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Cuellar
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     Doggett
     Emanuel
     Gordon
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Hoyer
     Kanjorski
     Kind
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Matheson
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Obey
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Price (NC)
     Ross
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scott (VA)
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Walz (MN)
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch (VT)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Cubin
     Gilchrest
     Hastings (FL)
     Hooley
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kucinich
     McNulty
     Miller, Gary
     Ortiz
     Pastor
     Paul
     Thompson (CA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Woolsey

                              {time}  1619

  Messrs. BECERRA, GUTIERREZ, BUTTERFIELD, CLYBURN, and WAXMAN, and Ms. 
McCOLLUM of Minnesota changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. KAGEN and Ms. LEE changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and 
the Senate amendment was concurred in.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________