Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4297) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(b) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman picked a heck of a time to lose his voice here now.

I am terribly sorry. I will take it up then when we have the opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get technical about this. I just want to set the record straight, and that is that we all agree that the alternative minimum tax is an unfair tax on people because it was not planned by the Ways and Means Committee and by the Congress. So, of course, we thought yesterday and we think today that these people, who through inflation were thrown into this category, should be protected. And that is why we were so disappointed that the Republicans, by party line, rejected the Democrats when we were doing the bill in the committee from not being included in the reconciliation bill.

Now, we all know that the bill that we passed yesterday on the suspension calendar is not protected like this $56 billion is protected today. As a matter of fact, people should know that it may appear to be a technicality, but the only way that this alternative minimum release bill that we passed yesterday in the suspension calendar is that not one of the 100 Senators over there objects. We need the consent of every Senator to provide the AMT bill with protection. That is not so. If the Republicans were so concerned about these people who got caught into this trap in getting the alternative minimum tax treatment, it would be placed in the reconciliation bill.

So I do not think you ought to bring up things when the facts are against you. It is true that you have decided that those people who want relief on capital gains taxes and corporate dividends, even though they do not get hit until 2009, that you are prepared to have the people who get by the AMT this year or next year, rather, in their tax burden to get hit at the expense of those people that are much richer and much smaller in number.

So I really think that in this holiday season, we are doing enough damage without distorting the truth. You have had your priorities in terms of protecting the AMT people or protecting the group that is going to be allegedly protected today, even though they do not need any, not today, not next year, and not the year after.

So those are the facts, and I thank the gentlewoman from New York for affording us the opportunity to at least, in this holiday season, whether we like the bill or not, let truth prevail.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to join with the Republicans to send this holiday message to millions of Americans that will be affected by this bill, especially to the fraction of 1 percent that would be the beneficiaries of a substantial reduction in capital gains and corporate dividends. It is true, while this only represents 20 to 25 percent of the bill, it should be made abundantly clear that these benefits would not be effective until sometime in 2009 and 2010.

Now, I am here on the floor to try to get people to understand that this tax cut for the rich is really to grow the economy, and I want to make it clear to those people who have lost their jobs and not counted among the unemployed, those that are looking at automobile plants closing and airlines going bankrupt, that basically the economy is good, and it is good because the President told us so. And if they do not think that we are moving forward fast enough, then they ought to really listen to the President as he shares with us the great economic recovery that has happened in Iraq, and if they are just a little patient, things will get better here in the United States.

Now, we all know that whenever we give this type of tax cut that there is going to be a tremendous revenue loss, and in the last few days, that revenue loss has been something like $100 billion. But fear not, because we are not charging all of this to the deficit. It is true that as the deficit increases more than history ever expected under this administration, that soon 40 percent of the tax revenues that we get will be going just to pay the interest on this outstanding debt, and that is why our Republican friends believe that we just cannot expand the deficit, that we have to cut spending.

Now, they have looked all over to the to decide where to do the cutting. And in this holiday season, I just want to join them in letting people know where these cuts are going to take place. But I do not want people to worry about it because the President says that the economy is booming and the Republicans here say that the tax cuts for

the rich is for economic growth. So how can one be against that formula?

First of all, if one is a mother trying to raise her children and she got support from the local and State government to go after the father, or whatever the case may be, to get that money to take care of her and her family, not to worry, that this is going to be cut and she will not be able to get the money because under this bill, whether people know it or not, it is for economic growth.

Say you are considering using food stamps for your Christmas meal. You find out that the food stamps are going to be cut. Not to worry, because soon there will be economic growth.

Maybe you are just a student trying to get a student loan, and you really think that you should get some help from your government because, after all, we want you to be productive and make a contribution to society. Not to worry, these tax cuts are for economic growth.

What I do not understand, with all of the opportunity that we have had to take care of economic growth, why do we wait until this time of the season and target the least among us in order to do the budget cuts?

It is not as though we do not have $2 or $3 billion in terms of expenses in Iraq, which if you did not know lately, you should know that victory is in sight and we are winning that too. So we do not want you to lose confidence in all of government. If you find out that this bill rewards the richest of the people in the United States whose income is not going to be adversely affected, or their tax is adversely affected for 3 or 4 years, but we have to do something to target the poor today, then you have to have some trust in the Republicans, because they say we have got to have victory in war, we have got to grow the economy, and this is the best thing that ever happened to you.

Now, the Democrats are not just saying vote ``no.'' We will have an opportunity for Members to vote ``yes.'' And unlike the Republicans, we thought enough of the alternative minimum tax to include it in reconciliation. What does that mean? It means it is protected when it gets over to the other side, so we did not have to depend on 100 Senators sitting down and not objecting. It is in our bill. All of the good things that can come out of a bill, we have included, including relief for those people that have State taxes.

And so, my friends in this holiday season, you may find it very difficult if you are unemployed, if you are concerned about the economy, or the cuts that we have, including Medicaid, which is only a $10 billion cut, but you must trust the majority and the Republicans in this House, because they, like the President of the United States, say the economy is booming. We are going to have victory in the Middle East, and this is going to make it easier for you, if not today, if not tomorrow, then sometime in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say briefly, if the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee is saying that the alternative minimum tax is in the other body's bill, then he must be saying that the tax cuts that we are talking about today are not in the other body's bill.

So it is 3-card Molly. The House Republicans passed both of them, one on the Suspension Calendar that is not protected here, but is protected in the other body; and this bill which provides for relief for the taxes for corporate dividends and capital gains, which is protected in our bill, but is not in their bill.

And so what we are doing is shooting dice to see which one will prevail.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman just one question on my time.

These very important tax cuts or extension of tax cuts you are talking about, could you share with me as simply as possible as to when they expire, what year?

The tax cut that we are talking about is the $20 billion in capital gains and corporate dividends. Does that not expire in 2009?

Don't get rattled.

It is just a simple question. Because there seems to be some degree of urgency in this and unless it is a projected gift, then these things don't expire this year or next year.

Please.

I think the gentleman has answered the question. There is no urgency in this. You just want to give a projected Christmas gift to the very wealthy. So I need some help on this. If I can't get answers from you, I will get someone that can give answers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) to answer some of these important questions, a distinguished and acknowledged expert in this on the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) to give a rhetorical response to the chairman's question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am so glad to hear my friend from Florida talk about the economic growth that we can expect by making certain that the capital gains tax cut and the corporate dividend tax cut do not expire. What bewilders most people is that this does not expire until 2008. Nobody would be adversely affected until 2009, and unless the gentleman does not believe he will be in the majority in the next few years, I do not see why he would have to say that people who are out of work, who are looking for work, who have lost their pension should believe that this tax cut that will continue to 2009 is going to help them.

But maybe the gentleman from Mississippi, who understands that not many of his constituents are going to understand this, might clarify some of the problems we have.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), who really knows what economic growth should be.

Mr. Speaker, I had an old law professor, and he once told me, if you don't have the facts going for you, raise your voice. I never understood it, but I do now.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) to share with us what economic growth means to him under this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), a distinguished Member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, having only one speaker remaining, until the other side reaches that point.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have now come to the conclusion of this debate, and I want my colleagues to know that if you are looking for some of the things that are worthwhile that are in the majority's bill, we have an opportunity in the substitute to take care of it. But if you really believe this is the time for America to give a $20 billion tax cut to these people who will not be affected until 2009, why would they want to give this incentive to less than 5 percent, 1 percent of the richest people that we have in our country, and do it in this Christmas season?

So you have an alternative. You can take care of the wealthy in years ahead, since this does not expire this year, or you can do what they have not done and that is to take care of those people who find themselves subjected to an alternative minimum tax only because the majority has not seen fit to give them relief in a decade. And so as this number has increased, instead of taking care of them in the bill that is before us, they have decided to just send a message over there to tell the Senate if you would like, by unanimous consent, and if no one objects, then you can take care of the AMT problem.

We do not do this as Democrats. We take care of it up front. We take care of the military, we take care of those people from Hurricane Katrina, and we take care of the job credits that are important. We take care of those things that are important in our substitute.

In this holiday season, we really do not believe that you ought to take $10 billion out of health care for the poorest people in this country. We do not

believe that you should, in order to pay for this bill, that you should cut food stamps. We do not believe that students that have been getting help from this great government of ours should be adversely affected to pay for this tax cut.

So we ask you to really consider in this holiday season these families that have kids in foster care, these families that are having their benefits not being received because we are letting them down. You just weigh this and ask, is there any equity involved in this? If you want to give these tax cuts, why do you not wait until the thing expires? Perhaps we will have a new Congress. Perhaps there will be new equity. Perhaps it can be discussed. Perhaps the committee members, Democrats and Republicans, would come together and find out not what is just good for the wealthy, but what is good for the strength of this great Nation of ours.

One of the greatest threats to our national security is poverty. One of the greatest threats to our national security is the inability to get an education. The people who died in Hurricane Katrina did not die because of their color. The hurricane was color blind. But they died because they were poor. Why can we not invest and make certain that all Americans, black and white, Republicans and Democrats, can this holiday season say Congress did the right thing and not the political thing?

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we have a Democrat substitute that really is not in sharp conflict with the Republican bill. Many things we tried and include and did suggest in the brief time we had to work on this bill. Basically, what we have done, though, is to pay more attention to the middle class that really are the victims of the alternative minimum tax than we pay attention to the richest of America who do not find their Republican tax cuts being threatened until 2009. Why did we do this? Is it merely a technicality? It is a very important difference.

Yes, we voted on the Suspension Calendar to provide relief for these people, not as much as we do in our substitute; but people have to understand the Suspension Calendar in the House is not protected under the other body's rules. They protected those people that they wanted to protect, those enjoying capital gains and will continue to enjoy capital gains and corporate dividend tax cuts until 2009. Why would they not include right in this bill, that would be protected on the other side, I do not know their political reasons.

But I do know this: what we refuse to do is to give tax cuts that would extend the deficit. We do not do that to generations that follow. Nor do we hit the poor who are sick or the kids that want to go to school or the foster kids or those kids that are dependent on money from their fathers who have abandoned their mothers. We do not do it in this season, nor do we do it anytime, because there is a difference in what we believe in.

I am suggesting this: if Members support the substitute, you are supporting deductions for State and local taxes, real estate taxes, the deduction for college tuition, the research credit they talk about that we agree is so important, the work opportunity tax credit, tax incentives for the District of Columbia and for Indian reservations, 15-year depreciation period for leasehold improvements and restaurant improvements, qualified zone academic bonds, the brownfields cleanups, and several other important, but minor, provisions.

What I am suggesting is that the major decision of those of you who will have to vote is whether or not you want to give $20 billion of tax relief to people who would not need it until 2009 at the expense not only of the deficit but at the expense of the poorest among us; or whether you want to take the good things that we could find in this bill, not increase the deficit and not cut the programs for the poor, and have a Democratic substitute that makes sense to the American people and, hopefully, to the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

There must be some chart around to show how many people were pushed into poverty during that same period of time and our wages have been reduced, but we have it in the back if any of our Members would like to use it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a distinguished Member of our Ways and Means Committee.

(Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), an outstanding member of this committee who truly understands the problem of the deficit.

(Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have all the respect for the majority leader, and it is true that he knows some of these people that have gone from upper middle income to become higher-income people, and there are other people in this country that have seen middle-income people slip into the rolls of poverty. So in order to have a more well-balanced bill, we concentrated on the middle class by putting the alternative minimum tax into

this bill to make certain that when it gets to the body, it is protected and we do not have to depend on just one of those people over there rejecting it for this higher tax cut, which, of course, does not adversely affect anybody, as the majority leader said, until 2009.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a hardworking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my distinguished friend from New York (Mr. Reynolds) that the Republicans did send a signal to protect the alternative minimum tax. We want to do a lot more.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), who can explain the difference between what you want to do and what we want to do in this substitute.

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to yield the remaining time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) to close on our side, who represents the minority at this historic time.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Does the gentleman from California? A parliamentary inquiry is no longer the Speaker's responsibility?

Well, I just wanted to know how many closing speakers they had.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Well, Mr. Speaker, you can take away our right to go to conference, our right to amend bills, but one thing you cannot take away is our right to vote. We have a game called 3 Card Molly in New York. You never know which one is under the shell. So they have an opportunity to say that they want to help the wealthiest Americans, but they like to give a whole lot of talk to those people who, through no fault of their own, except the ineptness and the inability of the Republicans to correct it, they got caught in the alternative minimum tax. Now, they will scream out that they took care of it on the suspension bill. Well, you do not have to be a parliamentarian to know when you send something to that other side and put it on the suspension calendar, you had better send a prayer over with it because any one guy can stand up and say I object.

But when you cover it because you believe in it and put it in the reconciliation bill, it means that is what you really want to do. At the end of the

day, when we vote, all we are saying is, we ask the conferees, whenever they might meet, that they are instructed by this House to take care of those who really deserve the tax privilege the most. Take care of those who were not really thrown into this thing because of increased income, but were thrown into the alternative minimum tax that was not supposed to capture them, but they got there because of inflation.

In 3 Card Molly, you do not know what is going to happen. But we will know at the end of this vote something that John Lewis knows that they said in the civil rights movement, and that is, which side are you on? What a great opportunity. Take away everything you want. Take away our votes, our opportunity to express ourselves, give us rules that you like to give us. But, on this vote, at the end of the day, people might ask how did you treat the alternative minimum tax? Some people might say, well, it did come up in the House. It was not important enough to put in the reconciliation bill and it was not important enough to allow a lot of debate. We put it on the suspension calendar because it was not paid for and we did not think it would be controversial. And so, with all of the debate, what is going to happen when you get back home is did you protect those that were most vulnerable. Forget about the poor. Forget about the rich that you are giving the incentives to. Just ask, on this one thing, no matter what happens in conference, where was the alternative minimum tax protected? It is protected in our motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 588 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, in April Congress passed a responsible budget that called for spending restraint, reduction of the deficit; and by slowing the unsustainable and automatic growth of mandatory spending programs and extending tax relief to families and small businesses, we have successfully accomplished the first two. Now, this rule will provide for consideration of our final commitment to American taxpayers, extending numerous important tax relief provisions.

In 2001, 2003 and 2004, Congress enacted responsible tax relief to help create new jobs, grow America's economy, and put more money in the hands of workers, families, small businesses, farms, and ranches. Following this tax relief, unemployment dropped a full percentage point to 5 percent, and we have experienced 10 uninterrupted quarters of real growth in our economy, above 3 percent, the longest stretch since the 1980s. As was proven by the tax cuts during the Kennedy and Reagan administrations, Federal revenues actually increase after taxes are lowered.

Our expanding economy is led by consumer spending, job growth, and business investment. This is a result of allowing workers to keep more of their hard-earned money, decreasing the tax burden on small businesses so they can expand and hire more workers, and providing incentives for families to save and invest.

Unless we take action today, many of the important tax provisions that have helped our economy grow strong will expire. Without passage of this legislation, workers, families, and small businesses will have less of their paycheck to take home each week.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4297, the Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act, not the most eloquent of names but an important one, will continue to build on the economic progress we have already made.

A key part of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 was a return to fairness for those who live, work, and raise families in States with no State income tax. The State and local sales tax deduction is particularly important to those in my home State of Florida and nine other States because it gives every taxpayer the opportunity to deduct State sales tax from his Federal tax bill, something that other higher- tax States have enjoyed for some time. This provision is set to expire in 3 weeks. While I will continue to work to make the State and local sales tax deduction permanent, this bill extends the provision for an additional year, which is an important step forward for fairness.

The bill also extends several tax incentives to enhance the affordability of higher education, including tax-deferred education savings accounts and tax credits for post-secondary education. It allows all taxpayers to deduct up to $4,000 of higher education expenses, which will help more students go to college.

For teachers, the tax bill extends an important above-the-line deduction to help them contain the costs of out-of-pocket classroom expenses such as books, supplies, and computer equipment. We all know that our hardworking educators are covering for some of our neediest students, and this bill lets them keep the tax deductibility of their generosity.

In an effort to encourage savings and stable retirement security, this tax bill allows lower-income families that contribute to individual retirement accounts and pension plans to continue receiving a Federal match in the form of an income tax credit for the first $2,000 of annual contributions. This encourages families to save and plan for their own retirement. While we were unable as a body to settle on a Social Security reform plan, surely we can all agree that encouraging low-income families to save for retirement and giving them the tools to do so is a sound economic policy.

Our bill freezes the rate on capital gains and dividends and prevents an increase of the tax burden on 24 million families. It is imperative that we extend this tax relief so our economy will continue on its upward track.

New data released at the start of December show that our economy continues to strengthen and grow. The Labor Department reported that employers added 215,000 jobs in November, after adding 44,000 in October and 17,000 in September in the wake of devastating hurricanes.

The jobless rate remains unchanged at 5 percent. The economy grew at an annual rate of 4.3 percent in the third quarter, much stronger than expected.

Forecasters' outlooks for coming months are upbeat as well. November's increase in payroll, the largest since July, was broad- based. Construction employment rose by 37,000. Employment in professional and technical services rose by 22,000. Health care employment rose by 20,000 jobs. Manufacturers added 11,000 jobs last month following an increase of 15,000 in October.

The most recent Commerce Department report shows overall consumer spending increased at a 4.2 percent annual rate, exceeding expectations. Purchases of nondurable goods surged 3.6 percent, exceeding expectations. Housing spending came in at 8.4 percent. Business investment spending rose at 8.8 percent, exceeding expectations.

Obviously, the current tax policy of this Congress has encouraged economic growth, and to raise taxes now would close the door of opportunity that is open for so many today.

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of a substitute bill.

While we often hear Democrats decry tax relief, they have decided to offer a substitute that extends many of the same tax provisions as this underlying bill does, but let us look at who they left out.

The Democratic substitute does not extend an income tax credit for low-income families who contribute to individual retirement accounts, IRAs, and pension plans. This hurts low-income families who are struggling to save for retirement, people who are doing the right things to prepare for their future rather than solely depending on the government to do it for them.

The Democratic substitute does not extend enhanced small business depreciation expensing, so it increases taxes on small businesses, the very engines of innovation and growth and employment in this country.

The Democratic substitute does not include an extension of the reduced rates on capital gains and dividends. Without this extension, 24 million families will see a tax increase, including 7 million seniors who have benefited an average of $1,200 annually from that change. At a time when concern is growing about foreign investment in the United States, the Democratic substitute throws up barriers to Americans investing in America.

The Democratic substitute does include a tax increase on families and small businesses to pay for the bill. Many of these individuals are small businesses who do much of the hiring and buying in this economy.

The Democratic substitute bill leaves behind small businesses, omits low-income savers, and hurts families and seniors. At a time when home heating bills are rising and local property taxes are growing, why would the Democratic substitute take even more from the wallets and purses and piggy banks of the American taxpayer?

Mr. Speaker, the Republican tax reforms of 2001, 2003 and 2004 have created jobs, strengthened our economy, and increased Federal revenues in the process. They quantifiably aided in shortening and curtailing the severity of the recession of 2000 and 2001. They buoyed the economy through major terrorist attacks, devastating natural disasters, and a global war on terrorism. Now is not the time to increase taxes on the American people. Failure to pass this bill would result in higher taxes on seniors, savers, small businesses, and farmers. We must continue the policies that grow our economy and keep our tax bills from rising.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and the underlying bill, the Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would remind the gentleman that AMT relief is not in our package because it passed yesterday in the House by a vote of 414-4. That is why it is not in this package, because it passed yesterday.

We all talk about what we do here in Washington as it relates to the economy. The bottom line is that the economy is doing quite well because Americans are out there working hard every day. A lot of them are getting up before the sun comes up and not getting home until the sun goes down, bringing in food and fiber from our fields, manufacturing the devices that we take for granted each and every day in our manufacturing facilities, and working hard in an expanding and robust services economy, going into classrooms, going into hospitals, building houses that are part of the American Dream for more and more Americans. In fact, a record number of Americans now have achieved that piece of the American Dream through homeownership.

So it is ordinary Americans doing every day what they do best that is allowing this economy to move forward, and our role in that is to create the climate that allows them to maximize that opportunity, to put in place policies that keep inflation in check, keep interest rates low, and reduce the tax burden in their lives.

Today, more corporations pay dividends than at any other time. In fact,

there has been a 69 percent increase in S&P 500 companies that pay dividends. It is not only wealthy people that are benefiting from dividend taxes being cut and the corresponding increase in companies paying dividends. In fact, it typically is your retirees who are owning those stocks that they have invested in their whole lives that are paying the dividends to supplement their retirement income.

Prior to us changing that policy, the number of companies paying dividends over the last several years had actually gone down by 45 percent; and since the change in the tax that lowered the dividend tax, it went up almost 70 percent. That is a clear indication that what we did here in that small policy changed behavior in the business world to the benefit of all Americans: poor Americans, seniors, middle class, professionals, people who make six figures, people who make five figures. Everybody benefited from that. In fact, disproportionately, seniors benefited from that.

Everybody benefits from the fact that unemployment is now at 5 percent. That is indisputable. Would we like to see it go lower? Of course. Would we like to put policies in place that do that? Of course. Does raising taxes on the American people help lower the unemployment rate? I do not think so. Perhaps some on the other side of the aisle would disagree.

More Americans own stock today than ever before. This is not a class- warfare argument: 91 million individuals own stock in America. This bill puts in place a policy that encourages more Americans to invest in America. That, I believe, is sound economic policy.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Addressing the gentleman's concerns, yesterday 414 Members of the House voted for AMT relief. I am unclear which piece of that the gentleman is referring to that the Democrats had that paid for that as it relates to that. And the gentleman, in reference to his concern about the deficit, which is legitimate and shared by all of us about the growth of the deficit, failed to point out that the deficit has gone down over $100 billion in the last year. The size of the U.S. deficit dropped $100 billion based on the strength of the economy.

And finally, to the gentleman's point, he illustrated and spoke very clearly and directly about the Democratic intentions with regard to tax policy. They want to pick and choose the winners in American society, and we want everyone, everyone on equal footing to have the opportunity to achieve their piece of the American dream. We do not propose to pick winners and losers in economic policy and tax policy. We say everybody has got a shot at making the most of their opportunities in this country. Everybody has got a shot at paying less in taxes on capital gains. Everybody has got a shot at paying less in taxes on dividends that are paid by companies that support all Americans. Everybody has got an opportunity to go to college through the tax incentives that are in there for higher education opportunities. Everybody has got an opportunity to achieve home ownership through economic policies that keep interest rates low and inflation in check. That is the difference, an opportunity for each and every individual, according to their own merits and their own hard work, and their own character and their own ability to get out there every day to do it. And the other side's proposal to pick and choose the winners in our society.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Recognizing that volume does not always make up for sound policy, I would just pose the question as to why the Democratic substitute leaves out many of the people that the gentleman purported to speak for. The Democratic substitute does not include the savers credit for low income families, those low income families who are contributing to IRAs and pension plans, scrimping and saving every day, every week, every month to put aside money to prepare for their own retirement, to

prepare for their own retirement security so that they are not solely dependent on the government. Their substitute is silent on that point.

Why are they silent on the point of assistance for small businesses, allowing them to increase section 179 expensing so that they can get that new piece of equipment, add the new line, which means more employees, more growth, more purchasing and a better economic ripple effect in the community? Why do you leave out small businesses along with your low income savers?

Why do you leave out the part that impacts domestic manufacturers who finance sales of large equipment to foreign customers?

We hear an awful lot of concern about outsourcing. Here you have American-based companies doing everything they can to trade in an increasingly complex globalized economy, and you leave them out of your substitute.

Why do you leave out the parts that deal with capital gains and dividends? Why is it only about the wealthy and not about every one of those 91 million Americans who own stock, who are trying to invest in America, who understand that markets offer them an opportunity to grow and create opportunities that they may not have had otherwise?

Why are all of those 91 million Americans who participate in our capital market so bad? Why are they such awful people that they ought to be singled out and excluded from the tax policy that you have created?

Why do you leave out the tax credits for cleaning up brownfield sites? That is something that I have always thought was the cornerstone of the Democratic Party, cleaning up our environment. It is certainly something that we are proud of our record on with Teddy Roosevelt and our conservation effort. We believe that you can use the Tax Code to encourage businesses to go into areas that formerly were environmentally damaged sites and clean them up and create jobs and opportunity in otherwise blighted areas. This is an issue that impacts disproportionately urban areas. Why would we leave them out? The Democratic substitute is silent on these points.

It is important that we move forward together with sound economic policies that encourage people to invest and save and be a part of this ever complicated globalized economy, not pick and choose the winners and single out individual cases of success to be punished, which is what their bill seeks to do.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I have one remaining speaker as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).

(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the debate here has been consumed by the discussion of capital gains and dividends, and that is a big part of this and that is appropriate.

But the AMT relief component, which has been the source of much recent debate, we dealt with yesterday. We dealt with it on a vote of 414-4, overwhelming, bipartisan, on the suspension calendar, which I will remind Members under the rule, requires a two-thirds vote to pass. It is out of here. The AMT relief bill moved through here in an expeditious manner on a bipartisan basis.

What this bill does is provide continued assistance for those people who are saving to go to college. Middle- and low-income students, this is their shot at going to college. Assistance for those who are saving for retirement, seniors, low income, saving through an IRA and a pension plan for retirement. Ten States that do not have a State income tax that want the same tax treatment that high-tax States have, this expires in 3 weeks unless we pass the bill. Just one of several important components in this tax relief package.

It is vitally important that we pass this and not allow taxes to go up 3 weeks from now on those 10 States, not allow teachers to lose their deductibility on classroom supplies, not allow low-income seniors and savers to be punished under the Democratic plan.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to support the rule and support the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee and chairman of the Trade Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just want to point out to the Members that yesterday the House passed the Gulf Opportunities Zone Act 415-4 which dealt with many items to help gulf coast area residents who had been hurt by the hurricane, incentives to help rebuild housing, investment to provide depreciation and expensing for small businesses, bonding authority so that tax-exempt bond authority could help rebuild devastated infrastructure in the hurricane zone.

So this House has acted to help hurricane victims.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

(Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee and chairman of the Human Resources Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today extends important tax relief for families and small businesses all across this country. Much of the relief in this bill is already in current law and will expire next month. If we do not pass this bill, Americans will be hit with tax increases.

The tax relief in this bill goes directly to the issues of poverty and education that the gentleman from New York mentioned. This bill will allow America's teachers to receive tax deductions on out-of- pocket classroom expenses. Students will be able to use tax incentives to enhance the affordability of higher education. Employers will be eligible for incentives for hiring low-income Americans transitioning from welfare to work, getting on that first rung of the economic ladder, and States and local governments will continue to be able to qualify for tax credit bonds to help repair schools, purchase school equipment and train teachers in economically distressed areas.

These are just a handful of the important tax benefits this bill will provide to low- and middle-income Americans and small business owners.

This bill is also a big win for our Nation's economy; and without a strong economy, we will not see families achieve the kind of economic independence they need to realize the American Dream. This bill reauthorizes and strengthens the research and development tax credit amendment which passed the committee with a unanimous vote. It is a valuable tool in promoting U.S. businesses to innovate.

When I hear about distressed manufacturers in Michigan, one of the main issues they are competing on is to innovate and find the newest technology to remain competitive in a global economy. Michigan's economy, my home State, is closely tied to the ability of Michigan companies to make a sustained commitment to long-term, high-cost research. The manufacturing sector in the United States is the highest user of the research and development tax credit. Michigan, for example, is one of the top 10 States in reported research and development activity with more than 1,300 companies performing research and development in that State.

This bill is a positive piece of legislation across the board. It helps small and low-income businesses and working families, as well as helps our manufacturers to rebound, and also our high-tech community to stay competitive in a global economy. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and vote ``yes'' on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from New York that we have dealt with the AMT issue. In our legislation, we did not choose to raise taxes, as the gentleman's substitute does, to the tune of $40 billion. So because of that, the AMT is done outside of the reconciliation process.

When I hear so many on the other side of the aisle talk about high- income earners, I remind Members that many small businesses in the United States file as individuals. So when they have this $40 billion tax increase, that is really on small businesses and the families that those small businesses support. According to the Treasury Department, 80 percent of the people affected by the $40 billion tax increase in their substitute are small and entrepreneurial businesses. That is the engine of job creation in America, and that is why our economy has recovered, because we have helped those small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a distinguished Member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a distinguished Member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, and the $40 billion in taxes in the Democrat substitute certainly will not give many Americans a break.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the current rate structure of the AMT was created by the Democrats in 1993 with no Republicans supporting the bill.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).

(Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, chairman of the Trade Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Actually, in a few minutes we will have a vote on two tax bills, and we have heard a lot of debate this afternoon about the two approaches the bill takes, and I certainly appreciate my friends on the other side for recognizing the need for tax relief.

In fact, in many important ways these bills are very similar. Twenty- two provisions in our underlying bill were taken by my friends on the other side and put into their bill. I guess imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

For example, the income tax deduction for State and local taxes; the research and development tax credit, so important to our high-tech and manufacturing sectors of our economy; the above-the-line deduction for higher education expenses; and the bonds for school modernization equipment and teacher training; as well as the enhanced charitable deduction for computer donations to schools. These are provisions that we have that are the same.

What the Democrat substitute does not include is the extension of a saver's credit for low-income families; the expensing for small businesses so small entrepreneurs can grow their companies, buy the equipment, increase their businesses and hire more people; cleaning up brownfields sites so we can continue economic development in so many small towns and communities in our Nation; as well as helping our domestic manufacturers finance those large equipment sales overseas so we can export more.

Also capital gains and dividends. We have heard a great deal about that this afternoon. That tax provision, that benefit, has helped 24 million American families in this country. Twenty-five percent of those families have incomes under $50,000 a year. Are those the rich we hear talked about so much on the other side? Fifty-seven percent, almost 60 percent of the families have incomes under $100,000 a year. Are those the very rich our friends on the other side are so worried about us assisting?

What is irresponsible is the part of the Democrat substitute which raises taxes. Forty billion dollars in tax increases. And 80 percent of those taxes, that tax burden, would fall on small entrepreneurial businesses. I urge a vote against the substitute and in favor of the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Well, I guess we are going to be telling Christmas stories. Rather than fiction, I would rather deal with fact. Yesterday 414 Members of the House voted to assist a group who, on average, are far richer than those who receive dividends and cap gains. There were four no votes. All four of them were on the Democratic side of the aisle. And I respect those people for casting what I believe was a sincere vote. But out of the 188 Democrats who voted aye, I just have to point out that my friend who just finished speaking, who is on the Ways and Means Committee, protesting the amount in this vote, voted aye. Some of the other folks, just let me run down the list alphabetically, which tends to touch on Lowey, Lynch, Maloney, Markey, you heard him, Marshall, Matheson, Matsui, McCarthy, McCollum, McDermott, all of them voted to assist those individuals in this society that are far richer, on average, than many of those seniors who, investing prudently over the years, receive dividends and capital gains on their investment in deferred consumption that they need, in their senior years.

So as we listen to the rhetoric and the term ``millionaire'' is repeated over and over again by my friends on the other side of the aisle, it begins to be a question of whose millionaire are they talking about. If one is a millionaire in Massachusetts, it seems, we want to protect them. If one is a millionaire in New York, we want to protect them.

At some point the rhetoric, the fiction, has to be compared to the truth. The truth is 188 Democrats, every Democrat member of the Ways and Means Committee, voted to assist people yesterday that are far richer on average than the individuals who receive dividends and cap gains. That is not a Christmas story. That is the truth.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thought the gentlewoman from New York indicated she had one final speaker, and that final speaker spoke, Mr. Pomeroy.

I was asking the gentlewoman from New York.

Notwithstanding the equal time, Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman says it is a final speaker, we normally honor that.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 588, I call up the bill (H.R. 4297) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(b) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that does not deserve the kind of rhetoric that is being delivered so far, at least that which I have heard on the rule. This bill consists of extending current tax provisions. It virtually breaks no new ground. It merely retains those structures supported in committee, for example, in a bipartisan way, to allow people to continue to utilize current tax privileges.

I have a hard time when I listen to the rhetoric associated with the description of this bill when one of the provisions, for example, is the authority to issue qualified zone academy bonds for school modernization, equipment in high-poverty areas. I cannot believe my colleagues on the other side of the line are opposed to that. Above- the-line deduction for higher education expenses, in opposing this bill, I guess they are opposed to that. Continue the deduction for State and local sales taxes due to expire, I guess they are opposed to that.

I could go through and point out a number of items. For example, the work opportunity tax credits for hiring individuals who face barriers to employment, in addition to the extension. The age limit for eligible food stamp recipients is increased from 25 to 35. Maybe they are opposed to that.

I guess when we go through and examine these various provisions, if those are items that are reserved for the rich, the millionaires and the privileged, I guess I just do not understand it.

But they are required to attack any bill that allows Americans to hang on to their own hard-earned money. That is just kind of fundamental, I guess.

My concern is if they are going to produce the kind of rhetoric they are producing on a piece of tax legislation which simply extends current law, what are they going to do when we have to rethink the way in which we tax people today to make sure that we do not destroy the economic engine in this country that produces the quality of life-style for each and every American?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is not aware that the Senate has included the alternative minimum tax in their reconciliation tax package. They have already voted on it. So there is no need to provide any assurance from the House side, because the Senate has already included it. But, again, that is reality.

The economy is not good because the President told us so. Leading economic indicators tell us so: the unemployment numbers, the productivity numbers. The real problem with my friends on the other side of the aisle is that if reality does not coincide with their rhetoric, they choose rhetoric rather than reality.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) to explain to the gentleman from Washington that it is not a zero sum game that is what has made the American standard of living.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to ask a rhetorical question.

If the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) voted yes on this alternative minimum tax bill yesterday he either was protecting the very rich in Massachusetts.

No, it is a rhetorical question.

Whose time is it, Mr. Speaker?

Either he was voting to protect the incomes of the very rich in Massachusetts or he exercised a futile procedure.

There were four Members of his party who voted no. He had an opportunity, if he believed it was not real to vote no. He voted yes. The problem is they always want it both ways.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the Select Revenue Subcommittee, and ask unanimous consent that Mr. Camp control the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, actually, I do not need 12 minutes, I only need 10 seconds. This bill is a----

No.

Mr. Speaker, who has the time?

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the gentleman from New York wants to make sure you do not hear this.

As I said, you do not need 12 minutes to say this: If you vote ``yes'' for the Democrat substitute, you are increasing taxes over 5 years by $40 billion.

That is the single largest tax increase since they were in the majority in 1993.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I do not need to mention yesterday or the 414 who voted to fix this problem. I would tell my friend from New York that you only need 60 votes outside of a reconciliation to pass this. But I do want to mention 1985. The Tax Reform Act of 1985, under their watch, said this: ``Other regular tax itemized deductions such as those for State and local taxes paid and for certain investment expenses, are not allowed for minimum tax purposes.'' I assume they did that knowingly. They were the ones who did it.

In 1993, they passed the largest tax increase on the American people and had a chance to adjust it again then. I will say that we have made progress today. This is an appropriate motion to recommit. It does not kill the bill. The gentleman from Massachusetts said this is about upper income groups. In fact, there was an editorial recently that said it is between the rich and the very rich. But I do want to mark the landmark comment of the gentleman from Massachusetts who said this was about middle income people. And on page 2 of the motion to recommit, ``For purposes of this paragraph, the term `threshold amount' means $100,000 and $200,000 in the case of a joint return.'' So $200,000 is now middle income. I believe that is correct. They are the ones who have always said those are the very rich. Now, the other thing you need to understand, it is this business of how many people are going to fall under the alternative minimum tax. Do you know why?

The reason, in 1994 that there were so few people who fell under the alternative minimum tax is because the regular tax was so high. What has happened in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 we have driven down the rates. And because we have lower taxes, there are more people who fall under the alternative minimum tax. Do we need to address it? Of course. But the vote today is far more fundamental than that. This vote, if you vote yes, gives money to rich people to spend on consumption. Surely, you know that pure consumption does not move the economy very much. What they want to do is deny people the opportunity to invest and to save to supply fuel to the engine of the economy so we can continue with the lowest unemployment rate and the highest productivity rate than we have seen in years. This vote is very simple. A yes vote, consumption, not much bang for the buck. A no vote, investment and savings and a lot of bang for the buck. Vote no on reconciliation, yes on the bill. If we have limited dollars to spend, spend them for the highest and best purpose.

Mr. Speaker, we have before us a very important piece of legislation, H.R. 4297, the Tax Reconciliation Act. It is very important to understand this piece of legislation within the big picture the Republicans are painting here. Just last month, the Republicans passed a bill called ``The Deficit Reduction Act.'' This was a spending cut bill that slashed funding to many vital programs my constituents depend on, including to Medicaid, student loans, food stamps, and child support programs. The Republicans lectured us on the need to make sacrifices to control the national debt. By passing the spending cut bill, the Republicans

actually asked the poor, the downtrodden, the disabled and the young to sacrifice on behalf of the rest of the country.

Now we are faced with the Tax Reconciliation Act, which will actually add $86 billion dollars to the deficit over the next 5 years. This proposed tax cut will not help the poor and middle class, either. An estimated forty percent of the tax cuts will go to families with incomes of $1 million or more, and 84 percent of the major tax cuts in this bill will go to the richest 20 percent of families.

In fact, under this bill, over 17 million middle class Americans will face a tax increase next year from the Alternative Minimum Tax (the AMT)! An important aspect of this bill is the House's failure to adequately address the AMT. The Alternative Minimum Tax was enacted over 35 years ago to ensure that the richest Americans would pay their fair share of income tax. Unfortunately, when the AMT was enacted, Congress neglected to index the tax rates to inflation. The AMT has now begun to add an extra burden to middle class taxpayers at an alarming rate. The senate bill provides $30 billion for AMT relief to the middle class, while the House Republican leadership could only find $2.8 billion for this cause.

Republicans couldn't find the money to adequately pay for AMT relief for the middle class. They can't find any money for tax relief for those affected by hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Coast. Last month, the Republicans couldn't find the money to spare the elderly from Medicaid cuts, to spare the students from loan increases, or spare our children from child care cuts. They couldn't find the money because they are choosing to extend the dividend and capital gains tax cuts for the richest in our country.

This is not how we take care of our own in Texas, and this is not how we do things in the United States. The Republicans are launching an unabashed attack on the American way by ignoring the neediest in our country to give tax cuts to the richest.

Mr. Speaker, the decision to vote up or down on this legislation isn't a blurry line involving political ideology; it isn't a debate of Republican vs. Democratic philosophy. The priorities in this bill are misguided. Congress should not be providing additional tax breaks for the rich less than a month after huge spending cuts aimed at the most vulnerable. Congress should not be providing tax cuts for the rich in a time of war! In the end, this tax bill will either exacerbate our already large federal deficits, or will force even deeper cuts in critically important domestic programs. I am strongly opposed to this legislation, and I implore my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against these unreasonable cuts and instead consider the revenue neutral Democratic alternative.

Mr. Speaker, because the Republican tax bill raises the deficit $3 trillion and because of the valuable aspect of the substitute deductions for State and local retail taxes and other provisions for working Americans, I rise in support of the substitute and oppose the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, we have before us a very important piece of legislation, H.R. 4297, the Tax Reconciliation Act. It is very important to understand this piece of legislation within the big picture the republicans are painting here. Just last month, the Republicans passed a bill called ``The Deficit Reduction Act.'' This was a spending cut bill that slashed funding to many vital programs my constituents depend on, including to Medicaid, student loans, food stamps, and child support programs. The Republicans lectured us on the need to make sacrifices to control the national debt. By passing the spending cut bill, the Republicans actually asked the poor, the downtrodden, the disabled and the young to sacrifice on behalf of the rest of the country.

Now we are faced with the Tax Reconciliation Act, which will actually add $86 billion dollars to the deficit over the next 5 years. This proposed tax cut will not help the poor and middle class, either. An estimated 40 percent of the tax cuts will go to families with incomes of $1 million or more, and 84 percent of the major tax cuts in this bill will go to the richest 20 percent of families.

In fact, under this bill, over 17 million middle class Americans will face a tax increase next year from the Alternative Minimum Tax (the AMT)! An important aspect of this bill is the House's failure to adequately address the AMT. The Alternative Minimum Tax was enacted over 35 years ago enacted to ensure that the richest Americans would pay their fair share of income tax. Unfortunately, when the AMT was enacted, Congress neglected to index the tax rates to inflation. The AMT has now begun to add extra burden to middle class taxpayers at an alarming rate. The senate bill provides $30 billion for AMT relief to the middle class, while the House republican leadership could only find $2.8 billion for this cause.

Republicans couldn't find the money to adequately pay for AMT relief for the middle class. They can't find any money for tax relief for those affected by hurricane Katrina in the gulf coast. Last month, Republicans couldn't find the money to spare the elderly from Medicaid cuts, to spare the students from loan increases, or spare our children from child care cuts. They couldn't find the money because they are choosing to extend the dividend and capital gains tax cuts for the richest in our country. They also choose to pass the burden of paying for these tax cuts on to our children in the form of a huge deficit.

This is not how we take care of our own in Texas, and this is not how we do things in the United States. The Republicans are launching an unabashed attack on the American way by ignoring the neediest in our country to give tax cuts to the richest.

The Democrats have instead offered an amendment in the form of the substitute that is much more fiscally responsible and equitable. The Democratic Substitute extends for one year all temporary tax provisions that expire at the end of this year, similar to the majority's bill. The major difference, however is that the Democratic substitute addresses the problem of the AMT by eliminating all liabilities for middle class individuals. This will reduce the number of individuals that pay the AMT next year by 16 million people, to just over 3 million people. This provision would cost about $45 billion dollars, but would be fully offset by rolling back a portion of the tax cuts that would otherwise go to those with annual incomes of over $1 million for joint returns and $500,000 for other returns. The Democratic substitute, unlike the Republican option, is a fiscally responsible bill that goes to help those who really need it instead of the very rich.

Mr. Speaker, the decision to vote up or down on this legislation isn't a blurry line involving political ideology; it isn't a debate of Republican vs. Democratic philosophy. The priorities in the republican bill are misguided. Congress should not be providing additional tax breaks for the rich less than a month after huge spending cuts aimed at the most vulnerable. In the end, this tax bill will either exacerbate our already large Federal deficits, or will force even deeper cuts in critically important domestic programs. I am strongly opposed to this legislation, and I implore my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against these unreasonable cuts and instead consider the revenue neutral Democratic alternative.