Public Good IRA Rollover Act of 2007

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in order to consider the bereavement resolution in memory of our beloved colleague.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, it is with a profound sense of sadness, as well as a deep sense of privilege that I rise this evening to commemorate and to celebrate the life of our friend, colleague, and sister, Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio's 11th District. This evening, we do this with the deepest gratitude for her life, and on behalf of our entire Ohio delegation, the people of our State, her home city of Cleveland, and citizens far and wide, who were blessed to know and walk, work, worship and smile along with Stephanie.

On the day of her funeral, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, or actually it was the day after, the Sunday Plain Dealer, had a very large photo of the memorial service held in Cleveland, Ohio. And the headline read, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, 1949 to 2008: Tears flow, laughter rolls during memorial service. And the paper goes on to recount so many beautiful, beautiful remarks and remembrances that people across this country attributed to her life. We will be placing this in the Congressional Record, as well as I would like to read from my home paper, the Toledo Blade, way on the other side of the State from where Stephanie represented. It stated, a leader passes, the loss of her fighting spirit will be keenly felt, deeply mourned and difficult to replace.

I think particularly this evening of her son, Mervyn. We wish him comfort, and we wish him her strength as he mourns her passing.

We all know that when one met Stephanie, you knew you had met strength. You knew you had met someone who endured struggle. She had a keen intelligence, a high-minded idealism, and wow, her charisma just overflowed.

The other day I was in my district and I met a man from Cleveland who had gone to school with Stephanie. And I said, tell me, was Stephanie always that enthusiastic? He said, ``Marcy, I went to law school with her. She never changed.''

And from the time she was in her late teens and early 20s to her service here, she had the same boundless energy, drive and positive spirit.

She was a devoted wife, a beloved mother, a sister to us all, and an elected leader, in that order. And she relished all of her life's roles. Her drive and energy were genuine, and they were infectious. And she carved a nobler path for America with her election as the first African American woman from Ohio to serve in the U.S. Congress. We Ohioans were very proud of her.

I know that I, like my colleagues, have so many vivid lasting memories of Stephanie. Upon her first swearing in, I still recall a little table in a reception hall here where I was able to present her with a single red rose as she was sitting next to her predecessor, Congressman Louis Stokes, and how she poignantly responded. She knew the steepness of the climb.

I recall my efforts to comfort her on the loss of her husband, and she immediately reciprocated as she shared with me, over my Blackberry, a favorite poem from which she drew succor.

Imagine how many memories each of us has, how many thousands of lives she touched, representing a district and State that tested her talents, her spirit, and her conscience daily. She served people well beyond her district, logging thousands of miles in freedom's cause.

I don't think I saw Stephanie too many times without that little valise in the back room here. She was always going somewhere. She held a hard job, and she put her entire being into it. She literally gave herself to us. And in her memory, we should dedicate ourselves to her unfinished work.

One can imagine how few women have ever served in the Congress from our State. To those afforded the privilege, there is a priceless bond that links our spirits and provides support.

Stephanie was such a valued sister. Though her years with us were far too short, her impact endures well beyond the years. She made history. She spoke her conscience, and she reveled in every step of the journey.

Thanks be to God, she did not suffer in the end. The Lord spared her that, perhaps as, through her life, she had endured too much personal sadness and loss that would have broken lesser spirits.

In loss, Stephanie's strength strengthens us. Her enduring personal legacy of character and endurance, beyond her milestone achievements, remain the portrait of her life. Our delegation is especially honored to fittingly commemorate her life and achievements here this evening.

[From the Sunday Plain Dealer, Aug. 31, 2008]

Stephanie Tubbs Jones, 1949-2008: Tears Flow, Laughter Rolls During

Memorial Service

(By Tony Brown)

It was a moment that surely would have earned one of the

wide, knowing smiles remembered so well by all the friends of

Stephanie Tubbs Jones.

Rep. Tim Ryan of Niles, the man Tubbs Jones used to call

her ``white son,'' and fellow Congressman Kendrick Meek of

Florida, whom she nicknamed her ``black son,'' had just

finished moving tributes to their congressional ``mom.''

That's when Mervyn Jones II, her real son, slipped out of

his front-row seat to join his ``brothers'' in an intimate,

tearful embrace in front of thousands gathered to bid

farewell to the first black woman elected to Congress from

Ohio.

The three remained locked in each other's arms well into

remarks made by former Rep. Louis Stokes, the man whose seat

Tubbs Jones inherited in 1989.

After the men returned to their places, Sen. Barack Obama--

the son of a black father and a white mother who grew up to

become the first black presidential nominee of a major U.S.

political party--turned in his chair to console a still-

sobbing Meek.

In that moment, amid the grieving and the laughter and the

consolation and the stories and the campaign rhetoric of the

celebration of a life well-lived, everyone under the vaulted

ceiling of Public Hall--all friends of Tubbs Jones--shared in

that group hug.

It was a hug that encircled the woman whose body lay in a

flag-draped casket that rested on a square of red carpet in

front of the stage: Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, who died of a

burst brain aneurysm on Aug. 20 at the age of 58.

Friend was a word heard over and over as the nation's most

powerful Democratic leaders, fresh from Obama's nomination in

Denver, joined religious leaders and Tubbs Jones' beloved

constituents, family and sorority sisters in testifying to

the immensity of Tubbs Jones' spirit.

Former President Bill Clinton, not scheduled to speak but

unable to help himself, called his relationship with Tubbs

Jones ``16 years of astonishing friendship.''

So astonishing that Tubbs Jones continued to support a

failing presidential bid by his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton,

well after many of the congresswoman's constituents had voted

for Obama.

``She was not a fair-weather friend,'' Hillary Clinton told

the crowd.

``I certainly know what that means. Now, her friendship was

not uncritical. When she was your friend, she felt it her

responsibility to inform you of all the matters that needed

improvement.''

Obama, Clinton's opponent for the party's presidential

nomination, also counted himself among Tubbs Jones' buddies.

``I am here today to pay tribute to an extraordinary

American and a devoted public servant, a mother, a daughter,

a sister, a wife and a dear friend to so many here in

Cleveland, so many in Ohio and so many across America.

``And during the most recent contest, Stephanie and I were

on different sides, and we would see each other, she would

say to me, ``This is what it means to be a friend for me.'

All I could say is, `I understand.' ''

There were more words of praise and prayer from elected

officials, some quoting Shakespeare and Scripture, during the

three-hour-and-47-minute marathon of tributes.

Speakers included Sen. Sherrod Brown, Mayor Frank Jackson,

Cuyahoga County Commissioner Jimmy Dimora, Rep. Carolyn

Kilpatrick of Michigan and Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland.

And they told plenty of funny and poignant stories.

Perhaps the funniest and most poignant was recounted by

Bill Clinton, who recalled accompanying Tubbs Jones to Puerto

Rico on a primary campaign visit for his wife.

``Now, how Stephanie became a native Puerto Rican in 15

minutes, I'll never know,'' Clinton said, warming to his

subject.

They went into a shop, Clinton said, where Tubbs Jones

admired a piece of locally made jewelry. Clinton bought it

surreptitiously and presented it to her.

``She looked at me and laughed and she said, `You know, I

really like this,' she says. `It's not often a man'll give a

woman a piece of jewelry and not want anything for it.' I

totally lost it.''

So did Clinton's audience. As the laughter died down, the

former president moved in for the kicker.

``I looked at her and said, `Stephanie, you have given me

and our family more, you have given your people and this

country more than you will ever know.' ''

In addition to the eloquent politicians who were gathered,

there were plenty of just plain friends who laughed and wept

and patted each other on the back to the rhythm of hymns like

``Amazing Grace'' and ``Canaan's Happy Shore.''

Some of the late arrivals almost didn't make it into the

funeral.

At 11:30 a.m., about 30 minutes after the service began,

Secret Service officers blocked the entrance. ``The event is

closed,'' one told approaching visitors.

Within minutes, the number lingering at the entrance grew

to more than a dozen. They spoke in shared disbelief.

``Stephanie would not want this,'' one woman said angrily.

Someone in charge agreed. Within minutes, the officers

stepped aside. Newcomers flowed into the cavernous auditorium

until well past noon.

One of the most moving speakers the Friends of Stephanie

heard Saturday was no politician or preacher.

She was a 16-year-old named Tiffany Robertson, a member of

an all-girls health careers class at Cleveland's Martin

Luther King Jr. High School that Tubbs Jones took under her

wing two years ago.

`` `This is the future,' '' Tiffany recalled Jones telling

the girls.

The congresswoman took time from her political and

legislative schedule to visit the class and take them places.

She took them to church one Sunday, but Tiffany had to work.

So Jones dropped by the workplace with Tiffany's classmates

in tow.

``We're family,'' Tiffany told her classmates, who stood in

a show of unity with their peer.

``We got to stick together. We got to carry on her legacy.

She was steward, protector and advocate to us.

``I will miss her as a friend.''

``There's a famous song a few years back . . . and the

refrain of the song says, `If you have a choice, to sit it

out or dance, I hope you dance.' And we all know that

Stephanie didn't sit it out, she danced.''--Tim Ryan, U.S.

Representative from Ohio.

``Stephanie was the kind of political leader who needed

hours to go grocery shopping because everyone she saw wanted

a moment of her time, and she willingly gave it. Because if

you met Stephanie, she was your friend.''--Ted Strickland,

Ohio Governor.

``Oftentimes, late at night, on the campaign trail, whether

the news had been good or bad, she would have a look in her

eye. Sometimes she would grab my hand, and she would say,

`Oh, I miss my husband, I wish he were here.' Well, they are

together now.''--Hillary Clinton, U.S. Senator.

``That's not the air show. The rumbling you hear is the

rearrangement of chairs in heaven.''--Dennis Eckart, Former

Representative standing outside Public Hall as a jet roared

by.

``I considered her my congresswoman as well. We talked all

the time about statewide issues.''--Michael Coleman, Columbus

Mayor.

``Whenever Stephanie came in contact with young people, she

inspired them, she taught them, she mentored them, she stayed

in touch with them. Her legacy is in their legacy.''--Sherrod

Brown, U.S. Senator from Ohio.

``Whenever we talked on the phone, she would say,

`Congresswoman, I love ya.' And I'd say: `I love you, too.'

She was a great congressman. She was a good friend. Thanks,

Stephanie, I love ya.''--Louis Stokes, former U.S.

Representative from Ohio.

``For Stephanie, it wasn't enough to rise up from modest

circumstances and break so many barriers herself. She had to

reach back and pull others through the doors she opened.''--

Barack Obama, Democratic presidential nominee.

``I want to let you know, Cleveland, that you were

represented by one of the best . . .Ladies and gentlemen, she

lived a life that was worth living.''--Kendrick Meek, U.S.

Representative from South Carolina.

``I'll always know her as Aunt Stephanie. She had a big

smile.''--Erin Norton, 24, of Cleveland, whose uncle lived

next to Tubbs Jones.

``All the good things she started, it's like she's still

living.''--Schuvar Murray, 37, of Cleveland.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call on the distinguished Member from Cleveland, the colleague of Congresswoman Jones, Congressman Dennis Kucinich.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee from New York City, our beloved colleague, Charles Rangel.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Stephanie's colleague from the State of Ohio, Congressman Zack Space.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield a minute and a half to Stephanie's distinguished colleague from Ohio, our dear friend, Congressman Charles Wilson.

Does the gentleman yield?

Would the gentleman be kind enough to yield us any remaining time he might have so we can complete the speakers on our side.

I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. Speaker, would you please tell me how much time we have remaining then?

Thank you very much.

I would like then to yield 2 minutes to our fine colleague from the State of California, who was such a close associate and friend of Stephanie's, Congresswoman Lois Capps.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the Representative from California who was a close colleague of Stephanie's, Congresswoman Susan Davis.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlelady from Chicago, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, who was a real soul sister to Stephanie.

I would now like to yield time to the distinguished Congressman from North Dakota, Congressman Earl Pomeroy, a friend of Stephanie's for many years.

I thank the gentleman for his remarks and presence this evening.

I would like to yield 2 minutes now to one of Stephanie's sisters here from the State of Texas, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to place in the Record the names of the very able staff of Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones. This staff has endured great sadness, and they have tried to carry on with their leader being in spiritual guidance but not there personally.

And I would like to thank, from her district office, Betty Pinkney, her district director; Beverly Charles, her senior liaison; Theresa Lang Coaxum, her health liaison; Sharon Cole, business liaison; Saulette Reed, her office manager.

And here in Washington, Kimberley Alton, her legislative director; Lalla King Green, her scheduler; Eric Hammond, her staff assistant; Aaron Wasserman, her legislative correspondent; Darrell Doss, her tax counsel; Athena Abdullah, her health counsel; Nicole Y. Williams, her communications director; and Patrice Willoughby, dear Patrice, her chief of staff and counsel, who has tried to stand in Stephanie's place during these very difficult days.

And, finally, from the Committee on Standards, Dawn Kelly Mobley, the counsel to the chairwoman.

These are wonderful, wonderful staff people who have Stephanie's heart, and we want to do everything we can to help them through this very difficult time. And we thank them for their service to Stephanie and serving the people of the 11th District and the people of our country.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to place in the Record before I call on our final speaker this story: There were many tributes paid to Stephanie at the service in Cleveland. One of the most moving speakers, the friends of Stephanie, heard Saturday from no politician or preacher but from a young 16 year old named Tiffany, a member of an all girls health careers class at Cleveland Martin Luther King Junior

High School that Stephanie took under her wing 2 years ago. Tiffany recalled Jones telling the girls ``This is the future. You are the future.'' And the Congresswoman took time from her political and legislative schedule to visit the class and take them places. She took them to church one Sunday, but Tiffany had to work that day. So Stephanie dropped by to the workplace with Tiffany's classmates in tow. Stephanie kept her eye on every one of them. ``We're family,'' Tiffany told her classmates, who stood in a show of unity with their peer. She said, ``We've got to stick together. We have got to carry on in her legacy. She was steward, protector, and advocate to us. I will miss her as a friend.''

Stephanie had friends of all ages. We thank her for her leadership and for the seeds that she planted in the new growth forest that is growing in Cleveland and growing across this country to which she devoted her life.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call as our final speaker in this bereavement resolution Stephanie's very good friend from the State of Missouri, Congressman Emanuel Cleaver.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding this first hour this evening in honor of our dear colleague Stephanie Tubbs Jones, let me just say that Stephanie Tubbs Jones was a true mother of this Republic. Let the record show that. Let the record comfort her son in years hence.

And I want to say to our dear, dear friend and colleague Congressman Regula, whose district sort of held Stephanie's up on the southern side, I want to thank him so very much, the dean of the Republican side of the aisle, for being here throughout this evening and through the wonderful participation of her colleagues of various persuasions here on the floor. The friendships went beyond party, and I thank the gentleman for his participation.

Thank you, Congressman Regula, and I want to thank all of our colleagues who have participated this evening. I can guarantee you that every word that is on the Record will come to comfort Mervyn and the Tubbs Jones family, their church family, her sisterhood, all the people of Cleveland, all the people who have known Stephanie across our Nation. I want to thank our colleagues for their generosity and for their good hearts.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the Ohio delegation stands beside those from the Congressional Black Caucus, who will have the second hour this evening in remembrance of Stephanie Tubbs Jones. We thank them very much for doing this. I know how very much their words will mean not just today but in future years to those who love Stephanie always.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel, makes a number of points in support of the PAYGO rule, which forms the basis of the requirement in this bill to raise taxes on one set of taxpayers in order to prevent a tax increase on another set of taxpayers. I just want to talk about why this rule, I believe, has been treated in a way that nobody who ever came up with the idea of PAYGO meant for it to be treated.

If we were to go out on the street, Mr. Speaker, and pull aside an average person on the street and say, we're thinking about instituting in Congress a PAYGO rule. And what that means is, if we cut taxes somewhere, we have to pay for that by increasing taxes somewhere else or decreasing spending somewhere else.

Okay. That sounds reasonable.

Well, it also means that if we increase spending in some program, or if we create a new spending program, we either have to decrease spending somewhere else or raise taxes to pay for that increased spending.

Oh, well, yeah, that sounds reasonable.

But, then if you tell that person, and, oh, by the way, we're going to assume that we have more revenue next year, and that revenue is going to be produced by this set of taxpayers. They're not paying it now, but we're going to assume that next year they will pay it. And in order to relieve them of that assumption that they're going to pay for in taxes, we're going to increase taxes on this group of taxpayers over here. How's that sound?

The average person, Mr. Speaker, I would submit, would say that doesn't make much sense. And it doesn't make much sense. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it puts this House and this Congress in a fiscal straitjacket with respect to tax policy and fiscal policy.

Now, the chairman has said himself, this AMT thing is crazy. It was never meant to apply to middle-class taxpayers. It was a mistake. Well, why don't we just admit the mistake and get rid of it? If it was our mistake, let's correct the mistake by getting rid of it. We never meant to collect this level of revenues that are anticipated in the CBO baseline.

I don't want to talk about the CBO baseline because folks in America don't understand the CBO baseline. But that's the genesis of all this tax raising that the majority is about to undertake here. And we ought to stop it today. This is the first step.

I feel like the little boy in Holland sticking his thumb in the dike. If I'm not here today to stick my thumb in the dike and stop this bill from passing and expose the flaws of this PAYGO system, we're going to have a torrent, a flood of tax increases over the next 10 years.

In fact, the CBO, with the assistance of the Joint Tax Committee, has determined that if this PAYGO rule that governs this bill today stays in place, we're going to increase taxes on the American people over the next 10 years $3.5 trillion.

Mr. Speaker, that is the largest tax increase in either nominal terms or real terms in the history of this country. Now, is that what the Democratic majority wants for this country?

Do they want to take a chance on increasing taxes to that extent on the American people at a time when we have a housing crisis, when the dollar's value is dropping? I hope not.

Today is the day we expose this very flawed and dangerous PAYGO policy by defeating this bill today, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, although I cannot support this bill, I strongly support extension of the AMT patch and most of the provisions of current law extended in this bill. Congress should protect the 19 million Americans who are at risk of paying the AMT this year. Congress should also extend individual and business tax incentives important to the Nation's economy.

Unfortunately, at its core, this bill is not about the AMT or extenders. It is about the elevation of form over substance and the decision of the Congress to bind itself to the mast of Paygo, wherever it may lead.

While there may be valid reasons to apply the principles of Paygo to spending changes, we think the calculus is far different in the case of tax policy.

As we amply documented during the Ways and Means mark-up of this bill, the majority's budget assumes that the Federal Government will generate revenue from allowing the AMT to continue to plague taxpayers and from allowing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to sunset. These budget assumptions will have the effect of raising taxes on the Americans people by $3.5 trillion over the next decade. Paygo forces Congress to decide whether to let those tax increases take place or replace them with other tax hikes.

It is true that under the current iteration of Paygo, tax cuts could be ``paid for'' by spending cuts, but we have seen no appetite of the current majority for such as sensible approach. For bills both small and large, the Ways and Means Committee has become an ATM for other committees, spitting out tax increases of whatever shape or size is deemed necessary to meet the new majority's appetite for additional spending. Indeed, this House

has already passed over $100 billion in tax increases this year alone.

What Paygo has become, as embodied in this bill, is far more breathtaking. Here, it is being invoked as a reason for Congress to raise taxes in order to prevent a tax increase.

Let me say that again, the majority has created a rule under which Congress must raise taxes in order to prevent a tax increase. Let me give an example utilizing the context of this bill.

If Congress does not enact this legislation, Americans will pay about $70 billion more in taxes next year. If we pass this bill, Americans will pay about $70 billion more in taxes next year. What's wrong with this picture? Either way it's a tax increase.

And let us keep in mind that this bill imposes mostly permanent tax increases to pay for temporary tax cuts. Even if this bill passes, we will be back here again next year struggling to find another $70-plus billion in tax increases to ``rent'' one more year of expiring provisions.

Unfortunately, this is just a baby step. Under the next President, we seem likely to face large tax increases in order to ``prevent'' a tax increase on families with children, tax increases on marriage, marginal tax rate increases, or tax increases on estates. And that's before we are asked to enact other tax increases to pay for new tax incentives or new spending programs.

Raising taxes to prevent a tax increase shows the danger of turning a bumper sticker into a budget rule.

According to estimates the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Tax Committee, Federal revenues in fiscal year 2007 totaled about 18.6 percent of our economy, well above the historical average of 18.2 percent.

The Joint Tax Committee estimates that over the next decade if we continue to operate in this Paygo straitjacket, revenues will reach 20.1 percent of GDP in 2017, a level seen only once since 1962. Think about it--this bill is the first step in endorsing what will be, in both nominal and real terms, the largest tax increase in the history of the United States.

We may well pass this bill today, but what happens next is anyone's guess. The Senate has given us strong and repeated signals that they intend to reject offsets to pay for an AMT patch and the administration has issued a veto threat. This all suggests we will spend more days debating this issue, even as the continued delay threatens to make the coming tax filing season chaotic.

As the Secretary of the Treasury warned us last month, ``enactment of a patch in mid-to-late December could delay issuance of approximately $75 billion in refunds to some 50 million taxpayers who are likely to file their returns before March 31, 2008.'' That would be on top of the confusion it will cause taxpayers and the added costs the Federal Government will pay to print new forms and provide assistance to perplexed taxpayers.

Simply put, we should stop this charade and recognize that we need to promptly pass a patch and extenders package that the Senate can pass and that the President can sign. If we fail to do so today, the cost of delay and inaction on the AMT patch will continue to mount.

I urge defeat of the bill so that the Ways and Means Committee can promptly put together a package that has a chance of making it to the President.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished minority whip, Mr. Blunt of Missouri.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member on the Health Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Camp.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas, the distinguished ranking member of the Social Security Subcommittee (Mr. Sam Johnson).

(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee, in which some of this bill was developed, Mr. English.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining for each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee and a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Ryan from Wisconsin.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's enthusiasm for his point of view doesn't make his point of view correct. In fact, Republicans time and time again protected taxpayers, middle-class taxpayers, from the application of the AMT. That is why there's a patch in place today; that is why last year those 21 million taxpayers didn't pay the AMT. In 1999, I would tell the Speaker to inform the gentleman, the Republican Congress repealed the AMT and, unfortunately, President Clinton vetoed that repeal. So I would take issue

with the gentleman's characterization of the Republican Congress's actions with respect to this issue.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

There has been a lot said here on the floor today and a lot of it is one person or one party's spin on the facts or on history. The distinguished majority leader put his spin on history. I would just like to point out to the House that for the last 6 years of the Clinton administration, which was bragged about so by the majority leader, there was a Republican-controlled Congress. Under the Constitution, the Congress controls the purse strings of the country and develops fiscal policy. And under our fiscal policy, we balanced the budget and created a surplus.

Then when President Bush came into office, he inherited a recession, a short-lived recession, admittedly, but still a recession. And then we had 9/11 which was a shock to the economy and then we had war. Every time in this Nation's history that we have had either a recession or a war, we have had a deficit. This time is no different. But, under our policies, we are producing this year 18.6 percent of GDP for Federal revenues and that is above the historic average. Why do we need more, Mr. Speaker? This bill would add to that. We don't need to.

Mr. Speaker, to close the debate for our side, I recognize for the remaining time the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the distinguished minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this debate must be somewhat confusing for the American public. First of all, almost every one of us stands and says that we want the alternative minimum tax fixed. We want it fixed because of the presumption of the alternative minimum tax, which I support and which I will not vote to repeal unless we pay for it. I want you to know that I speak as the father of three daughters, as the grandfather of three grandchildren, and as the great-grandfather of one great-granddaughter. I have listened to this debate. I am going to speak about this debate, and I am going to refer to history. My friend Mr. Ryan knows what I am going to say because I have said it before, but I believe the American people need to know this.

Let me place it in context. I have served in this body for 26 years. During that time, Republican Presidents have served for 18 of those years. A Democratic President, President Clinton, served for 8 of those years. During the Presidencies of President Reagan, President George Bush and the present President Bush, we have accumulated deficits in America of $4.1 trillion of deficit spending.

Now, there is only one person in America who can stop spending in its tracks. Just one. Not me, not anybody on this floor. We need 217 other people to do that with us. But one person can stop spending in its tracks. And in the 26 years that I have been in the Congress of the United States, no President has had a veto of a spending bill

that spent too much overridden. Not one.

This President has vetoed no spending bills under Republican Congresses. Not one. No matter how much they spent. And, by the way, ladies and gentlemen of this House, they spent at twice the rate of growth that the Democrats under President Clinton spent.

Now, Republicans were in charge of Congress, but they were in charge of everything during the first 6 years of this century. Everything. House, Senate, Presidency.

My friend made the observation that neither side had done too well. I would suggest my side has done a lot better. Because under my side in those 8 years of the Clinton administration, we had a $62.9 billion net surplus after 8 years, and we didn't have to raise the national debt one time in the last 4 years after we got the deficits created under the Reagan administration and the first Bush administration down, from a $292 billion operating deficit when we took over to surpluses during the last 4 years, and a straight line of reduction every one of the first 4 years of the Clinton administration.

Why? Because we Democrats believe in spend and pay. You simply believe in spend and borrow. You believe that it is a politically wise policy to pursue that ``don't tax the voters, tax the children.'' Tax the children. Delay the ramifications of spending until tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, when the children will have to pay the bill, because, after all, they are not voting.

I have heard a lot of wringing of hands about PAYGO. I know you are all waiting to hear me read a quote, so I will read it to you. ``With the other body unable to pass even a budget this year,'' that was referring to a Republican Senate, by the way, ``we were obviously unable to reach an agreement on legislation to extend PAYGO and other budget rules. It is my hope that this can be done next year as part of a normal budget process. I would close by reminding our colleagues and Members that the PAYGO rule contributed to taming of deficits over the past seven years, and it is my hope that a successor to PAYGO can be developed and coupled with caps on discretionary appropriations.'' That quote, of course, comes from Jim Nussle.

As a matter of fact, President Bush's administration also said that they were for PAYGO, until they found out that PAYGO applied to cutting revenues. And because they didn't want to stop buying, I say to my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, and you knew that you would be constrained in buying if PAYGO applied to your tax cuts, which I supported for the middle-class but not for the skewing of taxes that I saw in your proposals, that you would have to stop spending, because you couldn't pay for it. So you jettisoned PAYGO, a premise that was overwhelmingly adopted by Republicans and I voted for in the 1997 Budget Act, because I believe in balancing our budget.

I have served in legislative bodies for almost 40 years, and I have found people who like to vote for spending but don't like to vote for paying. It takes no courage whatsoever, I tell my friends, to take my credit card out of my pocket and put it in there, sign the little slip and think I will never have to pay for it, because, by the way, I will be dead and gone by then and my children will have to pay the debt. That has been referred to by Mr. Portman as an immoral policy, Rob Portman, the former Director of the OMB, a former member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in very, very strong support in favor of this tax cut for millions of Americans. Will there be an offset? There will be. And, as I said, I will not vote to fix the AMT unless we pay for it. Because if we fix the AMT without paying for it, what we will say to people like Steny Hoyer and every Member of this House, maybe we have a conflict of interest, because every Member of this House is going to be affected by this if we don't repeal the AMT, for those of us at this income level.

So maybe we have a conflict of interest. Maybe we want to save ourselves a little money, but we don't want to pay for it, because raising revenues takes political courage. There is no courage whatsoever in plunging our country into debt, spending and not paying. It is, as Rob Portman said, an immoral policy, lacking in courage and lacking in fiscal responsibility.

My friends, we need to pass this bill and give millions of Americans a tax cut and ensure that millions of Americans will not get a tax increase. PAYGO is a policy that demands responsibility.

Many of you voted for the bankruptcy bill, as I did. I was criticized by some because we thought that individuals ought to exercise fiscal responsibility in the managing of their finances. I think corporately as a government we ought to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, let no one be mistaken. This is precisely what this legislation offered by Chairman Rangel was designed to do, give a tax cut to millions of Americans and preclude millions of Americans from paying more, and asking other Americans to pay their fair share so those at the bottom of the rung don't have to pay more to defend our country, to educate our children, to keep our families healthy.

Mr. Speaker, this tax cut will provide 30 million homeowners with property tax relief. It will help 12 million children by expanding the child tax credit. It will help 4.5 million families better afford college with tuition deductions. It will save 3.4 million teachers money with deductions for classroom expenses.

My wife was a teacher. She died 10\1/2\ years ago. She was one of the best people that I have ever met in my life, if not the best. Every year, we would spend a couple of hundred dollars, and we could afford it, maybe even a little more than that, to make sure that her kids in her classroom had things that they needed but were not provided. We are going to give teachers a tax cut to do that. Our children will be served and our teachers will be served.

In short, this bill will extend tax credits and deductions that will benefit a wide array of Americans and the American economy. And, yes, this legislation helps to restore tax fairness and once again demonstrates that this Democratic majority is committed to fiscal responsibility.

Let me restate that figure: 18 years of Republican Presidents, $4.1 trillion of deficit spending. Under Bill Clinton, 8 years, $62.9 billion net surplus. No indebtedness. No indebtedness in the last 4 years.

We are now over $9 trillion in debt. This administration has gone from $5.7 trillion to over $9 trillion. Republicans were in control of everything, and spending escalated at twice the rate it did when Bill Clinton was President.

My friends, this bill is a fair bill. This bill is responsible. This bill gives tax cuts to millions of Americans and asks some few Americans to pay their fair share. Vote for this bill. It is good for America, it is good for our people, it is the right, and as Rob Portman said, the moral thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3996, the Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007. This bill will bring relief to tens of millions of hardworking American families, including nearly 100,000 in my district alone.

It makes responsible, sensible changes to the tax code to make it more efficient and more equitable, changes that are sound both morally and economically. Most importantly, H.R. 3996 will be the first tax relief bill of this millennium that did not increase the deficit.

This bill would lower the tax burden on 95 percent of the people affected by it--which is about as close to perfect as we're able to get with the tax code. I'd like to commend Chairman Rangel and his staff for their work on this excellent bill, which I am proud to support today.

Mr. Speaker, we are at something of an impasse. The President's budget assumes the revenue next year from a vast expansion of the AMT, and the President has offered no alternative to either eliminate the AMT or patch it, likely in recognition of the immense cost to the treasury. Yet nearly everyone agrees that we must pass some form of AMT relief this year and that we must do it soon. The Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation have spelled out specifically what the cost of a one-year AMT patch would be. It cannot, whatever tooth fairies we might wish to believe in, be accomplished for free.

What we seem to disagree on is how to reconcile these two truths. We don't have many choices, Mr. Speaker, and other Members are correct in pointing out that many of them are difficult. The consequences of choosing wrong, however, are far too drastic for us to avoid confronting the problem head on.

If we are to pass an AMT ``patch,'' we can do one of three things: we can cut benefits in Social Security and Medicare to comply with Pay-Go, we can raise additional revenue to comply with Pay-Go, or we can waive Pay-Go and continue financing tax cuts by increasing the federal deficit and the national debt. That is, we can just irresponsibly pass the buck to our children and grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be possible for me to oppose waiving Pay-Go in sufficiently strong terms. As the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Capuano, told us yesterday, this Administration has increased U.S. government debt by an average of $15,644.93 per second since they took office.

Pretending that sexual activity among teenagers does not exist will not reduce the number of new sexually transmitted infections; it will not reduce the number of teenage girls who become pregnant; and it will not reduce the number of abortions performed every year.

I want to thank Chairman Obey for including language in this Conference Report to ensure that programs will not be funded that are medically inaccurate. I hope that in the future, we can continue to work together to ensure that our children receive high quality, science-based, age-appropriate sex education that is medically sound and free from ideological or religious bias. Despite my concerns about this program, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this important bill and urge my colleagues to do the same, so that we can get needed funds to these critical programs as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will bring relief to tens of millions of hard-working American families, including nearly 100,000 in my district alone.

It makes the tax code more efficient and more equitable, changes that are sound both morally and economically. Most importantly, H.R. 3996 will be the first tax relief bill of this millennium that did not increase the deficit.

This will would lower the tax burden on 95 percent of the people affected by it--which is about as close to perfect as we're able to get with the tax code. I'd like to commend Chairman Rangel and Mr. Neal and their staff for their work on this excellent bill, which I am proud to support today.

Mr. Speaker, the President's budget assumes the revenue next year from a vast expansion of the AMT, and the President has offered no alternative to either eliminate the AMT or patch it, likely in recognition of the immense cost to the Treasury. Yet nearly everyone agrees that we must pass some form of AMT relief this year, and that we must do it soon. The Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation have spelled out specifically what the cost of a 1-year AMT patch would be. It cannot be accomplished for free.

If we are to pass an AMT ``patch,'' we can do one of three things: we can cut benefits in Social Security and Medicare to comply with PAYGO, we can raise additional revenue to comply with PAYGO, or we can waive PAYGO as the Republican party has done for the last 7 years and continue financing tax cuts by increasing the Federal deficit and the national debt. That is, we can continue to irresponsibly pass the buck to our children and grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Capuano, told us yesterday, this administration has increased U.S. Government debt by an average of $15,644.93 per second since they took office.

This money does not exist merely on paper; it is real money, which we are borrowing from countries whose interests are contrary to our own, countries like China that have accumulated sovereign wealth funds at alarming rates over the past 6 years. And we are leaving this legacy of fiscal wreckage to our children, and our children's children, mortgaging away their future at a rate of more than $15,000 per second.

Since 2001, China's accumulation of foreign reserves, mostly U.S. dollars, have increased from $46.6 billion to $1.066 trillion--that is, every new dollar we borrow makes us ever more dependent on China--which has profoundly different strategic aims than we do.

The idea that we should not pay for this AMT fix is unconscionable. The idea that we should sacrifice the futures of our children and our grandchildren in order to have our cake and eat it too, to continue giving enormous tax preferences to the richest of the rich in this country is morally bankrupt and fiscally unsound.

Mr. Speaker, even if we accept that there should be a distinction between the taxation of labor and capital income, income received as payment for the service of investing other people's money is not capital income under even the loosest of possible understandings. The idea that a hedge fund manager earning $500 million a year should be taxed at a lower rate than his secretary, who earns $40,000 a year is preposterous in both moral and economic terms and should embarrass us all.

This bill is about making a choice between what is right and what is easy. I applaud Chairman Rangel for standing firm in the face of overwhelming pressure to do the easy thing, for demanding that we pass a bill which is true to our principles. We were not elected to make easy choices--we were elected to do right by our constituents, their children, and their children's children. I am proud to support this bill today, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I'm going to do today after listening to my friend, Mr. McCrery, is to go back to my office and call Citigroup, that holds my mortgage, and I'm going to apply that logic when I tell them that I'm no longer going to bother paying the principal, because I just want to forget about the bill; that the bill is just gone. And I expect them to say to me, we're going to use the logic that Congress uses when it comes to paying the Nation's bills.

I'm in full support of this legislation, and I think we need to stand up to theology today and address it with fact. Without the extension of these important tax provisions, there's going to be a real impact back home. Ninety-four thousand Massachusetts teachers who took the deduction for out-of-pocket classroom supplies totaling $23 million in expenditures, they're going to lose that deduction.

Without this bill, 121,000 Massachusetts families who took the tuition deduction for higher education costs, totaling $317 million in expenditures, they're going to lose their incentive for higher learning.

If we don't pass this bill, 1,000 businesses in Massachusetts that took the research and development tax credit totaling $10 million, they're going to lose this credit.

We have to pass that bill so that 192 low-income military families in Massachusetts who claimed the earned income tax credit while in the combat zone, totaling $2 million in earnings, are going to keep that credit.

And further, Massachusetts school districts which receive $6.5 million in bond authority for school construction, they're going to lose their assistance without this bill.

And let me speak briefly to the issue of AMT. For a decade and more, I've been at this issue. The Republicans have said to me time and again, you're absolutely right in what you're trying to do. We're quibbling over the solution today. But there's a reality, and the reality is that if we don't do this, 125,684 taxpayers subject to AMT in Massachusetts will increase to, listen to this number, 770,336 people for the 2007 tax year. This means in my district alone 7,000 families to 67,612 will begin to pay AMT if we don't undertake this action today. And half of those 60,000 paying AMT this year will earn between 100 and $200,000. And another third will earn between 75 and $100,000.

This legislation is middle-class tax relief. These are the people that need our help.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, who has done a terrific job in that short tenure (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration has been there for 7 years, and they have not proposed once the elimination of the alternative minimum tax. In including next year's budget projections, they include the numbers from the alternative minimum tax for revenue.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record a colloquy between myself and Mr. Watt.

Then I will ask the gentleman from North Carolina to remain here and perhaps we can do it face to face.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

Mr. Speaker, I was with the ranking member of the Rules Committee yesterday, and he said that everything was fine, the economy was doing great.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3996.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) for 1 minute.

Let me quickly decipher what my friend the gentleman from New York said. He said, ``Let's borrow the money.''

I yield 1 minute to Mrs. Tubbs Jones, the gentlewoman from Ohio, former District Attorney.

There shouldn't be any confusion, Mr. Speaker, this bill cuts taxes for tens of millions of people.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. McDermott).

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

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate that epiphany, that after 6 years of a Republican Congress and a Republican President, they are blaming spending on the Democratic Party.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a thoughtful member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, 94,000 teachers in Virginia are going to benefit from this proposal today and 133,000 families are going to take advantage of the college tuition deduction in the State of Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, 284,000 teachers in the State of Texas will benefit from the proposal that is before us today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), another member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, 619 businesses in the State of New Jersey will take advantage of the research and development tax credit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Once again, what the gentleman said is we should borrow the money.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, there are 1,462 businesses in the State of New York who will take advantage of the research and development tax credit that we extend today.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, we are not surprised that the Wall Street Journal reported 3 weeks ago that the American people, with a two-thirds majority, give Bill Clinton high marks for his Presidency.

With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, we hold the same regard for the distinguished minority leader on this side that they hold for Chairman Rangel, as well. But the difference is essentially this: the Republican Party once again proposes to borrow the money to pay for tax relief. We intend to pay for tax relief.

With that, it is an honor for me to recognize the gentlewoman from California, the distinguished Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, for the balance of my time.