Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany 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, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and, Mr. Speaker, I think my friend makes an extraordinarily good and important point about the need to ensure that we have the resources that are necessary to fight the global war on terror and to make sure that we are able to meet all of these pressing demands that are there.

The point that I think needs to be made here, and I am going to make it in my remarks in just a few minutes, but when the gentleman was talking about it, it led me to come to my feet.

We have seen a surge in revenues to the Federal Treasury in the areas that we are talking about here, in the area of both capital gains and in dividends with that reduction that has taken place, and I know conventional wisdom in the earliest part of this decade was that if we cut taxes we would see a diminution in that flow of revenues, but between 2002 and 2004 we have seen a 79 percent increase in the flow of revenues to the Treasury because of the capital gains cut and a 35 percent increase because of the dividend cut.

So I think, though, my friend makes an excellent point about the need to make sure we reduce the deficit and have the resources to meet the pressing needs in the global war on terror and all, but the best way to do that is to keep the economy growing, and that is exactly what this package is doing.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will further yield, just to take each of the points my friend has mentioned, and I thank him for yielding to me on this.

First, if you look at this issue of the deficit, I do not know if my friend is aware of the fact that we last month saw a monthly budget surplus in the months of December and January, we actually saw a monthly budget surplus, more money coming in than was going out for that month. That is even though we have to deal with the war on terror, the war in Iraq, because of Hurricane Katrina and those very important needs which my friend has addressed so well.

Obviously, meeting the needs of those who are less fortunate is something that is important. I would argue that those in the upper income brackets are paying more, and it is not just my argument. It is actually the facts, and this was pointed out in an op-ed piece the other day.

Americans who are earning in excess of $200,000 a year saw nearly twice, actually more than twice, the amount in tax payments than all other Americans earning less than that, meaning that their payments to the Federal Government, even though they got this tax cut, they were paying more in taxes because of the economic growth that we have seen. Actually, it was nearly 20 percent, and so what has happened is the rich are paying more in tax payments to the Federal Government, and so they are not the great beneficiary of this.

Yes, they are encouraging more investment, but we have seen an increase in the Federal revenues.

Absolutely.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that my friend in his opening remarks said that he did not question our motives, and I appreciate the fact he did not question our motives. He basically said he thought we were insane. He questioned our sanity. I understand that means slightly insane, but the fact is my friends on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, appear to be fearless in the face of the facts because the facts clearly are that no matter how you try to obfuscate it we are enjoying tremendous economic growth because of the tax cuts.

I am a proud Republican. I am a proud Republican, and by virtue of being a Republican I was born to cut taxes. I am proud of the fact that I was born to cut taxes because I believe that not only should people be able to keep more of their own hard-earned money, but I believe that cutting taxes is what generates the kind of economic growth that will allow us to deal with the extraordinarily pressing problems that my friend from Fort Lauderdale mentioned.

It is clear we want to do everything we can to help the underclass, the poor,

those struggling to get onto the first rung of the economic ladder. There is no doubt about that. I do not believe we do anything at all to help those who are struggling by trying to penalize the job creators.

The founder of my party, Abraham Lincoln, said it best, although I guess he didn't actually say it, but he is always credited with saying that you can't pull up the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.

So the standard old argument of class warfare, us versus them, is a tired, worn and failed argument. I believe we need to do everything we can to again look at the facts. The facts are that the first quarter of this year saw a 4.8 percent gross domestic product growth. Virtually unprecedented, very strong, bold, dynamic growth. We are going to see the Federal Reserve have a 250 basis point increase in interest rates. Why? Because they are making sure we do not go into inflation. I am not a proponent of seeing the 16th consecutive increase in rates, but the fact is we do have a growing economy.

As we look at those who are struggling to get onto the first rung of the economic ladder, it is very important to note that they are individuals who frankly are enjoying a higher standard of living than has been the case in the past.

Last night in the Rules Committee, Mr. Hastings and I engaged in a discussion on homeownership and the savings rate. We know it is regularly discussed that Americans are not huge savers. We do not have as high a savings rate as some other countries do, but when you look at the level of homeownership in this country, the highest level of minority homeownership that this Nation has ever seen, in excess of 50 percent of those in the minority community own their homes. On a nationwide basis, it is nearly 70 percent of the American people own their own homes. That is forced savings. As people pay down their mortgages, they are seeing their asset, their savings increased. Obviously as we see the increase in value of property, we are also seeing those savings increased. So that is taking place today.

And to the argument, Mr. Speaker, of this lack of revenues to the Treasury, as I said to my friend just a few minutes ago, during the month of April we actually saw a budget surplus. We saw a budget surplus for the month of April that has come about because of the economic growth that was put into place through these tax cuts.

Now we want to encourage investment. We hear Republicans and Democrats alike talk about the need to encourage investment. Frankly, one of the reasons that this measure is so critically important is that we look at the problem of uncertainty out there.

The reduction of the rate on capital gains and dividends to 15 percent is, if we do nothing, set to expire in 2008. What does that mean? It means there will be a tax increase that clearly will slow the economy if we do nothing. So what is it that we have found by making sure that we keep that rate low and extending it for at least 2 years? I and a majority of this House would like to make it permanent. Unfortunately, because of rules in the other body, we have not been able to make it permanent. But we need to make it permanent and at least extend it for these 2 years. Why? So the job creators out there can plan and save for the future, so they can make long-term investments that will create more jobs and opportunities for the American worker.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at what has happened, again we have seen an increase in the flow of revenues to the Treasury because of what it is that we have done here.

My friend raised concern about middle income Americans. That is one of the reasons that we addressed the so-called alternative minimum tax. The alternative minimum tax, because it was not indexed, is a tax that has not just hit the rich, but has hit middle income wage earners. That is exactly why we will be providing relief to millions and millions of middle income workers in this country with the AMT provisions included in this bill.

I think it is also important for us to note that there are some real specifics we can point to that we have seen by virtue of these tax cuts that were put into place.

In the early part of this decade, time and time again we heard our friends on the other side of the aisle say if you cut taxes the economy is going to go right into the tank and we will see the deficit go sky high when in fact the opposite has been the case in both instances. Between 2002 and 2004 we were able to see a 79 percent increase.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

The income of the middle class, that is people earning $40,000 to $70,000 a year.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his question. It is very clear that we are providing relief to middle income wage earners who would get no relief at all under the AMT provisions that our colleagues were very supportive of putting into effect in the past.

We are providing relief because we are seeing their standard of living increase. Obviously we have a lot of problems. Gasoline prices, we want to do everything we can to help us attain self-sufficiency by increasing refinery capacity, dealing with boutique fuels and other problems that are out there. But we have seen the standard of living for the American people improve dramatically because of these tax cuts.

As I was saying, we have seen a 79 percent increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury between 2002 and 2004 because of reducing that top rate on capital gains to 15 percent. Similarly, from the dividend tax relief we have seen a 35 percent increase.

Again, I would harken back to the arguments that were made in the early part of this decade when President Bush came forward and this Republican supported the notion of reducing taxes to increase economic growth, and the argument that was made was it would ruin us.

We know we have tremendous costs out there. We have costs like dealing with the war, and thank God we are seeing this week under Mr. Malicki's government a new cabinet go into place in Iraq. We are seeing progress there.

Similarly, if you look at the fact that we have tremendous costs related to Hurricane Katrina, unanticipated. We do have responsibilities there. And yes, as my friend from Fort Lauderdale said, it is essential that we do all we can to provide assistance to those who are truly in need and to help them get onto the economic ladder. That is why when you have a 4.7 percent unemployment rate, virtually full employment in this country, we are doing all that we can to find more opportunities, and that is what this measure is all about, and generating the kind of growth that will allow us to have the resources to meet these very pressing needs is essential as well.

If you don't vote for this bill, you are voting for a tax increase, you are voting for a tax increase on those middle income wage earners who are getting relief from AMT and on the job creators out there who are successful.

So I believe we have a win/win. I hope very much we will see Democrats join with Republicans to keep our economy growing, help us meet the pressing needs that are out there, and make sure we can have the kind of success for which the United States of America is known.

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Pasco understands this very well, and he has done a great job of providing leadership on these economic growth issues.

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Rochester and my friend from Fort Lauderdale are two people for whom I have the highest regard. I really do. I enjoy working with them on the Rules Committee, and I just had the thrill of participating in the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Conference with my friend from Rochester, dealing with areas of concern as it relates to our neighbor to the north.

But I have to say, as I listen to the arguments that are being propounded by both of my friends from the other side of the aisle, they represent little more than what I describe as the ideological baggage of the past.

Now, my friend from Rochester has just talked about the 1980s. It is true that we saw a tremendous increase in spending during the 1980s, a lot of increased spending in the area of national defense. And we saw the demise of the Soviet Union. The Cold War came to an end.

During the 1980s, Mr. Speaker, because of the 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act, I think I am the only Member on the floor now who was here at that time, and I am very proud to have voted for that. We put into place across-the-board tax rate reductions, marginal rate reductions. And Mr. Speaker, what happened? We saw a doubling of the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury during the 1980s.

People continue to try and rewrite the history of the 1980s, somehow implying that we saw the U.S. economy go right into the tank. We saw a surge in economic growth and a doubling in that flow of revenues to the Treasury. And so I think that this notion of class warfare, us versus them, is a tired, old, failed one.

Now, my friend just referred to the tax reduction that an American who is earning $40,000 will get juxtaposed to someone who is earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, who will get a $41,000 tax reduction. And he referred to the fact that someone will earn $40,000 and get a very small tax cut, and that person in the upper bracket will get a $41,000 tax cut.

I mean, I would ask my friend, does he advocate that the person earning $40,000 a year get a $41,000 tax cut?

The point that I am making, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that if you look at someone who is paying taxes, you look at what their tax liability is, and again I get to the point that we raise that we have seen the American people who are earning in excess of $200,000 a year, Mr. Speaker, having a tax payment to the Federal Treasury that is twice that of all other taxpayers, twice that of all other taxpayers, the rate of growth of that.

And so I think that we need to realize it is the job creators who pay taxes and it is the job creators who, with tax relief, will be able to create more opportunity in this country to make sure that those who are less fortunate, those about whom my friend from Ft. Lauderdale and I are concerned.

And to somehow imply that there is not concern on this side of the aisle for those who are trying to have opportunity in this country is a preposterous argument. We care even more, I would argue, because we are the ones who are guaranteeing everything possible to provide them with opportunity will be met.

And so I say, Mr. Speaker, that we are in a position where this measure is going to allow investors to plan and save. It will provide a little certainty. And we need to remember that more than half of the American people, 91 million Americans, are today members of the investment class. One of the things we need to note is that many people who are earning $40-, $50-,

$60,000 a year, in fact, the income for the median shareholder in this country is $65,000 a year, not considered to be very rich, but they will be the beneficiaries of keeping this capital gains rate and the dividend rate at 15 percent.

And so that is why, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is a measure which is going to be beneficial all the way across the board.

I thank my friend for yielding. And my friend has made several very important points, Mr. Speaker. And let me just go back to his earlier argument about the Clinton years.

The gentleman is absolutely right. We saw a surge in economic growth during the Clinton Presidency. It was economic growth that actually began before he became President. Virtually every economist has acknowledged that economic growth.

The tax cuts, yes. The tax increases did not help the country.

If the gentleman would yield, I was just building my argument to talk about the great policies of President Clinton.

I thank my friend for yielding.

And, Mr. Speaker, what I was arguing is the fact that the economic growth that we saw during the 1990s began before Bill Clinton became President. Virtually every economist has acknowledged that.

Now, in 1993, we saw the largest tax increase at that time in our Nation's history. It was put into place, and I voted against it. I said, I am a Republican and I was born to cut taxes. I am proud of the fact that I voted against that tax increase.

I will never forget, late one night, Bill Clinton, in giving a speech to business leaders in Houston, Texas, said that he believed that that tax increase in 1993 was too much. He said he raised taxes too much. He later regretted that. He said that his mother told him he shouldn't, when he was tired, give a speech like that.

But the fact is I believe the truth came out in that speech that he delivered in 1994. I don't remember exactly when it was. But the tax increase went into effect in 1993.

Then we need to look at what happened in the 1990s. A year after the largest tax increase was put into place by President Clinton, what happened? For the first time in four decades the body that, according to article I, section 7, of the U.S. Constitution has the responsibility for taxing and spending changed hands. And what happened? In 1994, we won our majority, 12 years ago. And we immediately began our quest to cut taxes.

It was a joint effort with President Clinton is what I am saying.

God forbid.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my good friend and namesake from the State of Washington for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule and the underlying legislation. At the outset, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I truly do not question the motives of my Republican colleagues who genuinely believe, in my judgment, that the legislation they might pass later today will make for good public policy. I do not impugn their motives or question their determination regarding this issue, but I do quite frankly question their fiscal sanity.

It is my belief that cutting taxes to the tune of $70 billion at a time of war and staggering human needs is, well, just financially crazy for a governmental body.

Last week, we debated port security on the floor of this House, and I heard many of my Republican colleagues say that we did not have the money to inspect all incoming containers. Well, here apparently is some extra money for that purpose.

We hear almost daily from the President that the so-called war on terrorism costs a lot of money. In fact, we face emergency spending bills on a near monthly basis in this place. Maybe instead of having the Chinese bankroll us until they call in their chips we should use some of the $70 billion that we are prepared now to give to the wealthiest Americans.

Today's headlines in all three of the biggest papers in south Florida that is represented by Republicans and Democrats, half and half alike, those papers announced the need for more Federal dollars, not a curtailing of services which this bill will ultimately mandate.

The Miami Herald front page says, ``Miami Dade 911 System Experiencing Difficulties.'' Maybe they could use a few of these $70 billion to help upgrade critical emergency communications in the Nation's eighth largest county.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the chairman simply by saying that you ignore the fact that the deficits are sky high in this surge of revenue of which you speak, and the needs, I might add, of those that are most vulnerable in our society have not been reduced. The poor and the near poor are feeling the effects of us, and what we are really

doing is we are taking care of the wealthiest people in our society. As a matter of fact, we fall in that category. Those of us that make $165,000 a year here, we are getting the benefit, and the people at the bottom that we are going to cut the services to are getting hurt.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I have been very generous in yielding, and I hope at some point in the future you will do likewise.

Mr. Speaker, I hear you, but what you ignore is the fact that when President Bush took office we had a surplus in this Nation and now we have deficits. I mean, we cannot keep swiping the Chinese, Japanese, Saudi Arabian card to pay for the war. You cannot have guns and butter, and I think we have proved that more times than one in this Nation.

Insofar as your argument about the wealthiest paying more taxes, let me just give you today's Washington Post and the analysis that they put forward and just use as a ``for example'' someone making $40,000 to $50,000. Their average tax savings under this particular measure will be $46. That amounts to just a little bit more than a tank of gas if you ain't driving an SUV, but someone who makes $500,000 to $1 million gets $41,000. The persons, Jane Lunch Bucket and Joe Lunch Bucket, who are in the category of $20,000 to $30,000 get $9. They cannot even buy 3 gallons of gasoline.

The Palm Beach Post front page reads today, ``Farm Workers Still Waiting on FEMA Aid,'' and I know that all too well from the calls in my office every day. So maybe some of my constituents in Bell Glade and Pahokee and Clewiston and South Bay and Canal Point might like to see a slice of this $70 billion kickback we are giving to the most well off in this country.

In the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, a large newspaper where Clay Shaw and Debbie Wasserman Schultz and I represent that area, are reports on a theft at a homeless shelter which led to $3,000 worth of spoiled food. So while we give roughly $42,000 tax cuts for those in the country making more than $1 million, a footnote right there: People making $1 million have not been flooding our offices with calls saying give me some more money. They are willing to share. But what we have gotten into is an argument here that seems to make it sound like we do not like rich people. All of us wish we were rich people, but what we are saying is that rich people have the same responsibility as all of us do in sharing and caring about the least of us in this society. People in south Florida and throughout this country are going to go hungry tonight while we go about our business here allegedly fixing their problem.

My Republican friends have and will continue to argue all today that these irresponsible tax cuts establish a strong economy and are necessary to continue this myth of growth. That is just plain old hocus-pocus, and the money that you talk about is funny money, phony money, because the deficit absorbs it any way you look at it economically.

Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ. Facts can be stubborn things, but I think we ought to discuss them anyway. Since this President began to work with this rubber-stamp Congress, 1 million more Americans are unemployed today than there were in January 2001.

Last night, I said to the chairman, if this economy is so good, why is it I feel so broke, and I make $165,000 a year, like every other Member of the House of Representatives, and am barely able to have minimum discretionary income.

5.4 million more Americans live in poverty today than they did 6 years ago, and 6 million more Americans are without health insurance. Some 45 million Americans in all are uninsured.

And these are things we should be proud of? These are signs of a strong economy? Where is the shame? Better yet, where is the decency to those that are the least among us in this society?

How dare we absorb resources to our wealthy selves and cut spending when people here and all over the world expect better of the United States of America.

Some of the same money could be used to take care of the impoverished conditions and the significant number of people that have been pushed into lower than middle class or you could argue intent to eliminate the middle class in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that others want to speak on this critical issue so I will not go on longer right now. I think, however, that the distinguished Senator in the other body, Ms. Snowe from Maine, summed it up perfectly yesterday when criticizing this bill. After reflecting on the fact that the preponderance of the benefits of this bill go to upper income people, Senator Snowe said simply, ``It's a question of priorities.''

Indeed, it is, Mr. Speaker. We should prioritize those Americans who have the greatest needs, not those who have the greatest wealth, and when I hear the rest of what my colleagues are going to say, they are going to say all the things we are going to do before we get out of here and go have our death grip fight in November about we are going to fix it for the poor. In the meantime, some more poor just got poorer and some more rich just got richer.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

When you speak of the middle class, what is the income of the middle class?

If the chairman will continue to yield, in the calculations under the AMT as he proposes they will get between $9 and $14. That person in the middle class, how in the world is that helping them?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and remind the chairman just one thing: I think everybody in America knows the difference between $9 and $42,000, and under the AMT provision, persons making $40,000-$50,000 get $9. Under the AMT provisions, people making between $500,000 and $1 million get $42,000. That is not rocket science. That is real money that is not going to middle class people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member of the Rules Committee, who can talk about industrial circumstances in her district.

Absolutely not.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, in large measure to respond to the distinguished chairman from California, who is my friend.

The arguments that Chairman Dreier makes, among other things, are that Ms. Slaughter's and my arguments are tired in the sense that from an ideological point of view, we somehow or another don't understand the dynamics of wage payers providing for wage earners.

Mr. Speaker, we don't have the time to go into every nuance of persons who make a lot of money. But a lot of people that make a lot of money that are going to benefit from this tax don't hire anybody because they don't own any businesses. They have been legatees. Some of them were born rich, and all they have ever had to do is invest. But some people were born poor and have never had an opportunity to get out of that.

In essence, I believe that most Americans are willing to share. Evidence the fact that until very recently, we have been the greatest givers to charity, not the government, but individuals, and that is small and large contributors to charity. We know that there are great moral standards in this country, and among them is the fact that we, as a community, care about each other.

But you cannot convince me that you have been good economic stewards of the revenue that has come into this country. And, Mr. Chairman, you can't have it both ways.

If, as some would argue, the distinguished late President Ronald Reagan's economic policies were successful, and they were successful, those, in part, would argue because of a reduction in taxes, and at that particular time, you argue everything that happened, and you somehow skip over the success of the 1990s, I question whether or not you are mindful that during that period of time taxes were increased.

I was here, you were here when Marjorie Margolis Mezvinsky walked down this aisle in tears and cast her vote and didn't come back here. But the economy in this country took off, and we had a dynamic surplus when Bill Clinton went out of office.

Now, I don't know how you account for the trickle down of Ronald Reagan and then the fact that there was the gap that you don't allow for. But I am asking you to, at the very least, allow for the success during the Clinton administration that nobody can deny. And you can't deny that when you came into power with this President, we had a surplus, and today we have deficits as far as the eye can see.

The American public will eventually understand that we are going to pay for this stuff. And you know where President Bush is going to be? He is going to be back at his ranch. He is going to be doing good things for America as a civilian in 2009 when the baby boomers hit and all of this stuff hits the fan.

Just one more thing. This chart reflects, and I ask you to refute it if you can, Mr. Chairman, that income in dollars, 2005, the average tax saving for people making 10,000 to 20,000 is $2; 20,000 to 30,000, $9; 30,000 to 40,000, $16; 40,000 to 50,000, $46; 75,000 to 100,000; $403. 100,000 to 200,000, $1,388; $1 million, $41,977.

Now, millionaires have a right to have all the money that they can. But if you ask them, I believe that they want to share it with the poor. I believe they want to see that other 50 percent who do not have affordable housing have affordable housing. I think they want to help to cure the problems of AIDS. I don't think that they want to see people pushed out into the streets in nursing homes. I don't think that they want to see the suffering that is going on in the insufferable triumvirate of inadequate jobs, inadequate education and inadequate housing.

There may be this big boom on Wall Street, but on Main Street, there is hell to pay.

Reclaiming my time to ask a question. Are you saying that those tax cuts didn't help this country?

And are you saying that those tax increases that you voted against and I voted for did not cause this economy to boom?

If we use that argument, my mom used to say something to me that was really interesting. She said, All you all do is go up there and say that the other people did it if it is bad, and if it is good, you did it.

If you use the doctrine of relating back, then if Bush didn't cause the deficit and Clinton didn't cause the surplus, and former President Bush didn't cause anything, and Reagan caused the economy to take off, by that standard, George Washington did it. My goodness gracious, man. The 1990s were real.

I yield to the chairman.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman.

A joint effort speaking well for divided government, and the precursor to what is coming in November when doubtless we have divided government again.

And we have secured the deficit that you created, or maybe it was George Washington.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, well, the Republicans are coming. The Republicans are coming. The Republicans are coming with relief for the alternative minimum tax. It is the same way they were coming to give our older people prescription

drugs. Work through the maze, and at the end of it we will give you a penalty. The Republicans are coming in order to balance the budget, but we just have to borrow more money from China and around the world.

Just how gullible do you think that the American people can be? I can imagine now in November my colleagues, Republicans, running around with a sign, ``I am from the Republican Congress. I am here to help you.''

You cannot believe it. If you want the alternative minimum tax the way they are offering it, wherever the conference was, you have to swallow with that a tax bill, a tax cut bill that costs over $40 billion. And this only would help a fraction of 1 percent of the wealthiest Americans in the world.

So if you want equity and fair play, which they refuse to give in the House for the alternative minimum tax, all you have to do is hold your nose and let them continue to give the tax cut to their rich friends and then tell you this is the last chance that the train of equity is coming through your neighborhood.

Well, it is not the last time, because we have a motion to recommit to tell the conferees to take care of those 81 million people that are caught up in this tax hookup which they should not be and to drop the rest of it and to let you try to do something with the deficit.

So let's focus not on the fact that this is the last train in town to help, but Democrats are on the way to really help by knocking off the tax cuts that no one is asking for except the administration and K Street, and concentrate on what we are here for.

And so it just seems to me that you should not frighten people to join some HMO and hold back their drugs and you should not frighten people that you are not going to get relief from the alternative minimum tax unless you buy the whole package, which is an additional $50 billion of unfair, undeserved tax cuts for the wealthy.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said the Wall Street Journal says we are doing well. The Main Street Journal says people are going into bankruptcy. They are losing their pensions; they are losing their health insurance. It depends on what paper you read.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), an outstanding member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a senior member, hardworking member, in the Ways and Means Committee.

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

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

I do not know what kind of water they drink on the other side of the aisle, but back where I come from, you get a check that tells you how much you have earned and how much is deducted, and what is deducted is a tax and what you take home is net. So you can call it payroll, you can call it income tax, but a tax is a tax is a tax.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. McDermott), an outstanding member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the conscience of the Congress, from the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), an outstanding member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our outstanding minority whip.

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

Yeah, that next bill will probably be $100 billion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), who makes outstanding contributions to the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), an outstanding, valued member of our Ways and Means Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, for those who say that we will not have an opportunity to vote for a fair alternative minimum tax, I would like to share with you that on the motion to recommit that we give instructions that we will have an opportunity to do that. Why are the Republicans so excited about enacting the cuts and interest rates and capital gains taxes for something that does not expire when 17 million, 18 million people need help? I don't know, but they want to give this $50 billion tax cut to people who are not screaming for it.

Where are they going to get the money? They are going to borrow the money in order to give the tax cuts, so that on our motion to recommit we set aside these tax cuts for the rich and concentrate on the middle class. This is really where your vote should be counted. Do you want to deal where 50 percent of this tax cut is going to the top 1 percent of the country, or are you really concerned with the alternative minimum tax that we Democrats have been advocating for the last few years that these people were not supposed to be caught up in this, and so we don't want them caught up in this. We don't pay for it, we borrow money to do it. It is paid for.

It just seems to me that as we talk about the economy booming, that as we go home, I hope we talk with the people that worked in the factory. The increase that we have had in job creation, 50 percent of it has been an expansion in government jobs. I am certain that this is not what the other side is so proud of. But as you walk the street and ask the people that work every day that are concerned about their pensions, concerned about their health care, the Delta pilots on strike, our automobile industry in jeopardy, why don't you ask these people about this great economic boom that you are talking about, and now you got to promise them more.

I am glad that we have come to this time in this session that we can distinguish between Republicans and Democrats and we can see the difference between us. I think what you are saying if you give these enormous tax cuts to the richest people, sooner or later it will leak down to the people who are working on the jobs.

I can understand how some people do not believe that a Medicare tax or that a Social Security tax is a tax. You may call it a fish, you may call it a fishing pole. But when people work every day and they know what their salary really is and they see what they take home, they think what is taken out is a tax.

Maybe in November we will see who is right and who is wrong. Meanwhile, this is an opportunity for America to distinguish do we borrow money for tax cuts and do we cut those people off that are relying on Medicaid and Medicare and reduce their services that we are supposed to give them. I think this is a classic case as we see more and more poor people becoming poor statistically and more of the rich people getting rich and more of the middle class people losing that status, and the people know who they are.

If the old folks really think that they have gotten a fair shake by the other side, well, then, they can be heard. They have an opportunity to be heard. But right now what we are talking about is fairness, we are talking about equity, we are talking about services. Clearly, we are talking about $70 billion or at least $50 billion of that going to the richest people that we have in this country.

The AMT should have been handled separately, and we hope that the motion to recommit will carry, and therefore we would see what honest Americans really believe as to where the relief is going to be.

The biggest fault that we have probably on our side is that we don't rub shoulders with the billionaires and millionaires that you are doing this for. But we do work for the American people. We do know what they want, and I have not received one letter from people asking me to give more relief in that upper income tax bracket. I, for one, refuse to wait for this to leak down and be able to help the middle class people that made this great republic the great country that it is.

People who work hard every day, not just cutting coupons to make this country great, people who volunteer to fight this great war, which we are paying $500 billion a month, these are the people we should be supporting and not the richest of the rich that make no sacrifice at all.

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, in its present form.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 805, I call up the conference report on 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, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House is finally able to take up the conference report. The last time the House visited the Reconciliation Act of 2005 was in December of last year. The minority was very much concerned about dealing with the alternative minimum tax problem facing millions of American taxpayers.

We were also concerned, primarily on this side of the aisle, with making sure that the economy continued its robust growth. I am very pleased to announce today that there should be near unanimous support on the other side of the aisle for this reconciliation agreement.

When we offered the alternative minimum tax outside of reconciliation, we got 414 votes for providing that alternative minimum tax relief outside of reconciliation.

Subsequent to the House passing the reconciliation measure, my friends on the other side of the aisle offered, not once but twice, motions to instruct to require the conference to place in the reconciliation measure alternative minimum tax repeal.

It is my pleasure to announce today that the wishes of my friends on the other side of the aisle have been granted. The alternative minimum tax, in the most comprehensive way ever offered, is part of this package; because it is so comprehensive, that more than 15 million Americans will not pay the alternative minimum tax once this bill becomes law in 2006, and that, in addition, more than 2 million taxpayers will not have any liability because of this bill. Because of its comprehensive nature, this is the only opportunity for Members of the House to vote to provide alternative minimum tax relief to taxpayers.

And so I look forward to having my colleagues join me since we have provided in the reconciliation package what they have voted for and have asked for.

I am also pleased to announce to my friends on both side of the aisle that this measure also contains a provision which extends one of the primary stimulus factors in the economy, and that is the ability to pay only a 15 percent tax on dividends for investing in the economy and 15 percent on capital gains for taking a risk opportunity in the economy.

I will say for those items that were in both the House and the Senate bills that are not part of this package, we are working on an additional important tax relief package which will provide that opportunity. And I know my colleagues on the other sides of the aisle, especially those who represent the States that will see the greatest relief under the alternative minimum tax, those Members who represent the States of California, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Jersey, they will be pleased to note that a ``yes'' vote on this reconciliation measure provides the tax relief and, I might underscore, the only opportunity for tax relief on the alternative minimum tax measure.

I might say in the reverse, that if a Member does not vote for this measure, they are, in essence, then voting to raise taxes on more than 15 million Americans.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I do want to make a slight correction on a factual basis. The gentleman from New York knows full well, in the reconciliation package the single largest item is the alternative minimum tax relief.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

What the gentleman just quoted was indeed on the front page of The Washington Post today and it comes from the Tax Policy Center. Of course, what he did not bother to do is tell you other material that has come from the very same Tax Policy Center.

Because in 2001 we took millions of people off of the tax rolls, and so for the first time many people making $10,000 to $20,000 do not pay any taxes. And what the Tax Policy Center said was, the top 50 percent pay 97 percent of all Federal income taxes.

We are good, but when we remove people from the tax rolls who do not pay any taxes, how would they expect to get money back? That is, of course, the other side of the story, and it comes from the very same center that the gentleman just quoted.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on my time?

If, in fact, I said taxes, I obviously meant income taxes, and I appreciate the gentleman's bringing that point to me. And I would like the record corrected to say, they do not pay income taxes.

I do appreciate having you around making sure that everyone understands that what we did in 2001 was take millions of people off of the income tax rolls.

Mr. Speaker, how is the time distributed at this point?

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

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

I heard my colleague say a tax is a tax is a tax. Everyone knows a consumption tax buys you a fish for a day; an investment buys a fishing pole and bait, and you eat for a lifetime.

A tax is not a tax is not a tax. Capital gains, dividends are a fishing pole and bait. The kind of taxes they go for is a fish.

Eat for a day or eat for a lifetime. Our taxes provide a lifetime of benefits.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez), a valued member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to engage in a colloquy with the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

I will tell my colleague that in my opening remarks I indicated that there were provisions that passed both the House and the Senate in the reconciliation packages that are not part of this bill. We are working currently on this next bill. Clearly, the State and local tax deduction will be a part of it, and we will move it to the floor as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) for a revision and extension remark.

(Mr. CAMP of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

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

The gentleman from Illinois wanted to know why we aren't going to be voting on the research and development tax credit, on State sales tax provision, the work opportunity tax credit or the assistance to teachers for out-of-pocket expenses, money for paying for items in the classroom. My answer to the gentleman from Illinois is that he should look forward shortly for an opportunity to vote on that measure. My hope is, based on the statement, at least the feeling I got out of the statement that he made, that he would be anxious to vote ``yes'' on that measure. We will provide him an opportunity to do that.

Gee, I don't know. We had AMT outside of reconciliation, and we got all kinds of complaints about how it should be inside reconciliation. We put it inside reconciliation, and we get all kinds of complaints about the fact that it is inside reconciliation.

Our colleague from Ohio said, what time is it, Mr. Wolf? I will tell her what time it is. It is time to act. This is the measure that provides alternative minimum tax to American taxpayers. It is time to act.

If you vote ``yes,'' you are in favor of that relief. If you vote ``no,'' you are not. What time is it, Mr. Wolf? It is time to quit wolfing. It is time to vote. A ``yes'' vote provides relief.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 805 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 805 waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. The resolution also provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.

Mr. Speaker, in 2001, 2003 and 2004, Congress enacted responsible tax relief to help create jobs, grow America's economy and allow workers, families and small businesses to keep more of their hard-earned money to save, invest and spend for their future. I believe individuals and families are best able to make these decisions, not the Federal Government.

These tax relief policies are clearly working, Mr. Speaker. Over the last 5 years, tax relief has helped spur economic and job growth. The economy has expanded for 18 consecutive quarters, reaching 4.8 percent growth in the first quarter of this year alone, and the forecast for continued growth is positive.

Since enacting tax relief, national unemployment has dropped over a full

percentage point and is now down to 4.7 percent which is lower, Mr. Speaker, than the average of the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s. We have experienced 31 consecutive months of job growth, and during that time more than 5 million new jobs have been created.

The Department of the Treasury reported that Federal revenues for fiscal year 2005 totaled $2.15 trillion, the highest level ever; and the increase is 15 percent over last year, which amounts to over $320 billion this year alone. Homeownership is at nearly 70 percent, and the stock market is soaring. Yesterday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average surged within 85 points of its record high, which was reached in January of 2000. A new all-time high could happen any day now.

It is clear that encouraging investment leads to significant job growth which leads to a more prosperous America for America's working families.

The Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation conference report before us today protects families, small businesses and investors from tax increases and provides taxpayers with additional certainty. This certainty is vital to continued economic growth.

I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to highlight a few provisions in the conference report that allow small businesses to grow and hire more workers, encourage investment by extending capital gains and dividend income tax relief, and continued relief for millions of middle-income taxpayers from the alternative minimum tax.

Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the backbone of our economy, employing over half of all private sector employees, paying 45 percent of total U.S. private payroll, and generating 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually over the last decade.

In 2003, Congress allowed small businesses to keep more of their money through enhanced business expensing. It is vital that we extend tax relief to small business in order for them to grow and hire more workers. This conference report provides small businesses that tax relief.

The alternative minimum tax was originally enacted to ensure that all taxpayers, especially high-income taxpayers pay at least a minimum amount of Federal taxes. However, the alternative minimum tax is not indexed for inflation, and more and more middle-class families are adversely affected by this tax.

In 2001, 1.8 million taxpayers were subject to the alternative minimum tax. And it is estimated, over the next 5 years, 33 million, or one-third of all taxpayers, will be subject to this tax.

This conference report will extend the alternative minimum tax exemption levels through the end of 2006 and at a higher level than 2005. It also will allow taxpayers to claim nonrefundable personal tax credits such as dependent care credit, the credit for the elderly and disabled, and the credit for interest on certain home mortgages against the alternative minimum tax. This will help families continue to receive the full benefit of these tax credits.

This conference report extends reduced tax rates on capital gains and dividend income for an additional 2 years. This extension will continue to encourage investment by lowering the tax burden of 24 million families, including 7 million seniors who depend on dividend income to pay their bills.

Mr. Speaker, the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act Conference Report before us today is part of a commitment we made to taxpayers last year when Congress passed a responsible budget that called for spending restraint, slowing the currently unsustainable growth of automatic spending programs and extending tax relief to families and small businesses.

However, let me be clear that this conference report is not our final commitment to taxpayers. Last year, the House and Senate approved extending additional tax provisions that are not part of this conference report, including State sales tax deductibility for those States that do not have an income tax.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to quickly bring a bill to the floor that will extend this important provision as well as others that have expired, such as tax incentives to enhance affordability of higher education and spur innovation in our country through research and development.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 805 and the underlying conference report.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this has been an absolutely fascinating exchange between my friend from Florida and the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, and I have been enjoying it. This is exactly, I think, what our Founders thought the House should be is a time to debate great ideas and come to conclusions and so forth.

Let me make a few points here that were made and just kind of, hopefully, put things into perspective.

I think this rule that will support the underlying bill is a very good rule. I

think the underlying bill is a very good rule.

My friend from Florida talked several times about the deficit. I am concerned about the deficit too. But I think you have to put this into some sort of a historical perspective. Right after the war, Second World War, the percentage of the deficit as it related to GDP was extremely high. I think it was well in excess of 10 or maybe even 15 percent.

This year, according to CBO, the deficit as a percentage of GDP is 2.6 percent. To put that into perspective, during the 1980s it was in excess of 5 percent before the economy started to grow.

If we maintain this policy, and we certainly have a responsibility in this body to control the spending, not only discretionary spending, but mandatory spending, which we did last year in our budget resolution, and which we want to do again this year with our budget resolution, if we stay the course on that, the percentage of debt, as opposed to GDP, will be down to less than 2 percent. I think that is a trend in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, I think this, as I mentioned, is a good rule. The underlying bill is a good rule.

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

The previous question was ordered.