Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about the tax increase that's coming. Now, we know that in the budget that the Democratic majority put together in the House, they posited the largest tax increase in American history. But that's not the tax increase that I have been referring to. The tax increase I am talking about is something that had its genesis in the 1960s, was renewed in the 1980s, was never insulated against inflation and has been allowed to run riot across the American Tax Code.

The tax increase I am talking about is the alternative minimum tax. In the late 1960s, the alternative minimum tax was created to deal with, at most, several hundred dread taxpayers. They were the people at the very pinnacle of the American economy who somehow were able to position themselves using a hyper-complicated Tax Code, using it to free themselves almost completely or, in some cases, completely, of tax liability.

In the late 1960s, correctly, Congress, looking at the complexity of the Tax Code and looking at this outcome, thought that isn't fair. So they created an alternative calculation that would provide that everyone pay at least a certain tax liability. That policy was renewed and actually expanded in the late 1980s when Democrats controlled the House of Representatives.

In the process, this alternative minimum tax was applied to what was then very high-income thresholds. Lo and behold, it was never indexed to inflation. Accordingly, more and more people have fallen under this alternative unfavorable tax calculation, which I am going to talk about in this hour, and more and more people that we would consider to be middle class have found themselves under the alternative minimum tax.

More and more small business owners have seen the incentives that they expected to get for making investments in the economy stripped away. More and more families have seen pro-family tax policies taken away from them by the alternative minimum tax.

Far from applying to a few hundred taxpayers, today the alternative minimum tax is applied to nearly 3 million taxpayers. But in past Congresses, quietly, we have moved to at least protect the people who would have been hit in recent years with additional tax liabilities from being covered. We have put in place a series of patches, patches that would protect taxpayers that we wanted to give tax relief from being hit with the AMT.

Those patches have become more expensive. To apply the annual patch next year, we would have to, in effect, set aside $47 billion to do it. But if we don't do it, not a few hundred taxpayers, not 3 million taxpayers, but 23 million taxpayers in America, including a significant part of the middle class, would have to pay the AMT.

That, frankly, is flat-out unfair and unsustainable. It's a tax increase that Congress had never intended and that the last few Congresses have acted to protect the middle class against.

Yet what has happened here, we find that the majority, the House Democrats, particularly, and their budget, haven't set aside a dime for a patch to deal with the AMT. They want to spend the money, even as they want to spend the money from the lapsing of some of the tax policies that we put in place at the beginning of the decade. They don't call it a tax increase, but they take the money and run.

By not fixing, by not patching the AMT, implicit in their budget is a major tax increase on top of that, on a major part of the middle class. Yet it's far worse than that, because we have been hearing recently in the committee that I serve on, the Ways and

Means committee, that some in the majority want to make changes in the AMT, supposedly to reform it. But they do it by raising taxes elsewhere, and that's what I am here tonight to argue against.

If we deal with the AMT, not by controlling spending and by putting in place a long-term fix, but by simply raising taxes, we run the risk of having a dramatic impact on the economy. I have some numbers here that I think put this into a fairly dramatic perspective. As we have looked at the bracket creep, we have seen many middle class families, particularly in communities with higher taxes and higher standards of living, paying, potentially, the AMT.

What we have looked at is that some of the proposals that have been laid out there would provide AMT tax relief to middle class taxpayers by increasing the tax burden. Specifically, we understand that some in our committee are considering an AMT exemption for families earning up to $250,000.

That sounds great, but it also, potentially, will raise taxes at the high end. We have just had an election in France. In France, one of the issues was that their economy hasn't been very dynamic because of their top tax rate. The top tax rate in France is about 48 percent. Unfortunately, fixing the AMT would require so much revenue that if it's only done through raising the top rate, our top tax rate would be in the range of 48 percent. That would be a significant break on the economy.

Let me put this into a local perspective. I represent a district where not many people are in the highest income levels, but we have many local businesses and many local manufacturers that are subchapter S companies. They are closely held relationships, and they exist, basically, and pay personal income tax rates. This would, in effect, on some of our most dynamic job-creating local companies put the brake on their growth.

This is a direct tax on jobs in the emerging economy. As such, it is a real concern in a place like northwestern Pennsylvania where we have mainly people who are working class and middle class and very few high- income people. We think that this would have a big impact directly on our local economy.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am very concerned that we get this right, and I am also very concerned, not only that we fix the AMT but also that we do it in the right way. Now, we have a proposal, and I think it's very important to realize there is a proposal out there to repeal the individual AMT.

I am a cochairman of the zero AMT caucus, and I am prime sponsor of a bill, H.R. 1366, that would flat out repeal the AMT. In my view, the AMT is a Frankenstein's monster, which over the years has affected more and more taxpayers by subjecting them to a parallel tax system that arbitrarily and sometimes unpredictably deprives them of tax preferences and incentives that they have planned for.

In effect, the AMT runs the risk of punishing millions of middle class Americans every year with a tax that is, as I have said, was intended only for a handful of the highest level earners. My legislation once and for all would rid the Tax Code of this arcane and unfair tax policy and remove a significant barrier for economic growth in the American economy.

The AMT is not only a source of higher taxes; it's a source of complexity in the Tax Code. Getting rid of it is a priority for many of those who have advocated a simpler Tax Code.

The AMT, I believe, is unfair on the face of it, because it is now applied to a whole host of taxpayers that Congress had originally told them, this will never apply to you. While the structural features of the regular income tax are indexed to inflation, the AMT is not. As a result, as incomes have risen over the past 20 years, more and more taxpayers have fallen into the AMT. I think that Congress needs to act now. Act now to repeal the AMT or at very least to patch it.

As I said earlier, it would take $47 billion, which is a lot of money, but in a $3 trillion budget, it's something that we could find the room to do. Patching for 2 years would cost, they estimate, $110 billion. That's also something that's expensive, but it's something that we should be prepared to do.

An alternative approach would be to make the AMT a temporary tax provision. I have argued potentially for doing that if Congress does not have the will to pursue flat out repeal. But the idea of getting rid of the AMT by simply raising taxes is very, very dangerous.

I was always struck by a quote from H.L. Mencken, ``When a new source of taxation is found, it never means, in practice, that an old source is abandoned. It merely means that the politicians have two ways of milking the taxpayer where they previously only had one before.''

I think that the unfortunate thing about the AMT is that it is generating now so much revenue that people in Washington are afraid to do away with it. I think we need to have an aggressive approach to getting rid of the AMT that does not simply shift the tax burden more to taxpayers.

We need to come up with a creative way of dealing with this problem. I believe that there is the will to do it. I have offered to work across party lines with my colleagues on the other side, and I want to extend that offer again today.

I do think that if we approach this as something that has to be fixed through a combination of savings and maybe other changes in tax policy, there is going to be a range of ways that we could deal with this problem and certainly to protect the middle class from the AMT falling on it.

But we are concerned when we hear the press reports that suggest that the House Democrats simply want to use this to raise taxes.

Here is what in effect they are doing. They are taking that additional 20 million taxpayers and they are effectively holding them hostage for a higher tax level which is going to generate revenue for them to fulfill their campaign promises. We think that there has got to be a better way of doing that.

We are also concerned that the AMT can become a locomotive, recognizing that many taxpayers will otherwise be hit by liabilities that AMT relief will become a basis for running through a bill that generates much higher levels of revenue, in effect, manufactures a crisis. That way, the AMT bill becomes a locomotive for driving much higher taxes in the economy.

Today, I would argue very simply, Mr. Speaker, that Washington take a very high percentage of what people earn in America today. The problem and the source of our national deficit is not the fact that we don't generate enough revenue. In fact, revenue has been growing steadily on a year-to-year basis. The problem is not that we haven't entertained tax increases, because in effect we have been passing and adopting tax policies; curiously, through lower capital gains rates we have been generating more revenue from capital gains. The problem has not been a lack of revenue. It has been a lack of spending restraint. And, unfortunately, our friends on the other side of the aisle have approached the AMT problem exclusively as one that needs to be dealt with through revenue.

I think people need to understand what level of taxpayer we are talking about here. The AMT would be applied to people who are authentically middle class. I am struck here by the fact that if we look today, Washington is left to deal with this growing monster that is the AMT that is going to ensnare 23 million Americans come April 15, 2008. It operates as a parallel tax system, and in effect it takes away from taxpayers some preferences that Congress had firmly intended to them. This, I think, represents something that is fundamentally unfair.

We are talking here that, for the year 2006, under the AMT, the basic exemption from the AMT is only $62,550 for joint returns. This is not, in my view, a wealthy couple. It is $42,500 for a single and head-of- household returns, which in turn is subtracted to obtain AMT taxable income. It is the income above that that pushes people into the AMT.

These exemption levels, as I have pointed out, are the result of a patch that past Congresses have enacted. In other words, they are temporary and are scheduled to revert in 2007 to their prior levels of $45,000 for joint returns and $35,750 for unmarried taxpayers.

The basic AMT exemption is phased out for taxpayers with high levels of AMT income. A two-tiered rate structure of 26 percent and 28 percent is assessed against AMT taxable income.

The taxpayer then, and this is how it works, compares his AMT tax liability to his regular tax liability and pays the greater of the two. As a result, middle-class Americans, hardworking families, are falling victim to what was, and always was, intended to be a policy that was aimed at the wealthiest and which ultimately at the end of the day is simply bad tax policy.

We think that we need to do a better job of dealing with the AMT, but to do that, simply raising taxes, is the wrong way to go.

How high would taxes have to go to deal with the AMT problem? I am struck by an estimate by the Urban Institute in Brookings Tax Policy Center that took a look at this question and came back with some startling figures. They argue that, in order to repeal the AMT, the majority, if they were to do that simply through tax increases, would have to increase the top three brackets very substantially. This study estimates that the majority would have to increase the 28 percent, 33 percent, and 35 percent brackets to 32.2 percent, 38 percent, and 40.3 percent respectively.

On top of the already enormous tax increase in the Democrats' budget, this level is confiscatory tax policy and it is a recipe, in our view, for a quick and nasty economic slowdown.

Well, I sincerely believe that there is the potential for a bipartisan consensus here. I think what we are seeing is a setup for much higher taxes; and that is why I am here on the floor tonight, to blow the whistle on it.

In my own district, in Pennsylvania's Third Congressional District, in 2005, a little over 2,700 taxpayers were impacted by the AMT. By contrast, if Congress does not act, in 2007, roughly 18,500 taxpayers will be hit with the AMT. This is a serious tax bite, and it has to be dealt with in a serious way and not simply by raising taxes.

Mr. Speaker, the AMT is a classical example of the rule of unintended consequences. The fundamental reason for the spread of the AMT is that the exemption amount was never indexed to inflation. As a result, the AMT spread rapidly before the 2001 and 2003 tax laws were adopted, and it would have continued spreading without those laws. It is projected to spread further after 2010, even if those laws are sunset. Taxpayers who move on the AMT in 2007 through 2010, due to the 2001 and 2003 tax laws, will still enjoy a net tax cut from those laws.

The most recent attempts to deal with the AMT have been through the use of patches; yet, I would argue that a more comprehensive solution is more desirable.

You know, it is also important to realize, we had an opportunity to repeal the AMT in 1999. It passed the House and it passed the Senate. It was part of a broader tax bill, and it was recognized at that time to be a very important priority. Repealing it at that time was something that we knew we could afford to do; yet, in 1999, the Clinton administration vetoed that legislation. Unfortunately, some of those who now want to deal with the AMT by raising taxes voted to sustain that veto, voted in effect to leave in place a tax that was never intended for the middle class.

The individual AMT doesn't just affect individuals. It also hurts small businesses. The many small businesses that pay the individual AMT lose the benefit of important tax incentives, such as the R&D tax credit, the work opportunity tax credit, accelerated depreciation, and many other general business tax credits. It is, anyone who has been in it and any accountant will tell you, ridiculously complicated and arbitrary. It is almost impossible for the average taxpayer and small business owner to calculate the AMT without help from a tax preparer or from tax software.

If we are serious about dealing with the problem of complexity in the Tax Code, one of the quickest things that we could do, one of the simplest things that we could do is flat-out repeal the AMT. We think this is something that ought to be of direct interest to us today, and we are very concerned that this real problem is being commandeered by those who simply want to raise taxes.

Our solution is that we want to see action today. We want to see both parties come together and talk about this problem honestly, not just discuss plans to raise taxes behind closed doors. We want to see an opportunity here today to discuss how we can use fiscal discipline and restrained spending to get rid of the AMT, or to potentially sunset it and phase it out over time. It is not too late to do that.

We believe that there are ways to deal with the AMT as an alternative that don't require us to bring our top tax rates up to the level of France. I believe that there are means of dealing with this problem without sucker punching our economy. I believe that we have the opportunity to deal with this problem fairly and honesty without presuming a tax increase.

We tend to forget this in Washington, but when somebody is paying out more in taxes, that is a tax increase. Whether that tax increase was the phaseout of a tax provision that was put into the law years ago and simply not renewed, whether that change in tax policy is something that was a policy from the 1960s that was never adjusted or modernized, the fact is we anticipate a tax increase unless we show fiscal restraint this year. And the Democratic budget, in addition to positing the largest tax increase in American history, has manufactured this AMT crisis and created a challenge for us that the Democrats are apparently proposing to respond to simply by raising taxes.

When people hear that the only folks experiencing the tax increase are going to be the highest income people, that doesn't tell the whole story, because so many jobs are tied up in companies that are also taxed at those rates. This is a challenge that I think requires an authentic bipartisan solution, not just a tax increase.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas such time as he may consume.

Will the gentleman yield?

First of all, I want to thank the gentleman for his stirring words. I can say in northwestern Pennsylvania, we have watched the developments in Kansas with horror, because it was just a couple of decades ago that we had a series of major tornado events that very much marked, seemingly immutably, many of our rural communities. And I think of Albion, Pennsylvania, and how it took years for its downtown to bounce back.

Can I reassure the gentleman that I think all of his colleagues appreciate his plea, appreciate the terrible dilemma facing so many of his constituents? And you can count on our solidarity in this effort.

And it seems a little trite to point this out, but I have to say, the gentleman has always been one of the most eloquent voices for rural America. He has done a great job here tonight of laying before us the plight of this community. But we are particularly grateful for his advocacy tonight, and I want to say, our prayers will be with you. Our resources will be with you, and Northwestern Pennsylvania will be there for Kansas in any way we can help out.

I thank the gentleman for his contribution.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to keep my remaining remarks brief and, again, salute the gentleman for taking the time to come down and share the experience of his district and his community with this awful weather disaster, which we in northwestern Pennsylvania certainly understand and certainly we will reach into our pockets and be generous in helping our fellow Americans.

But, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to, for a moment, return to my prior topic, put my green eye shade back on and talk about the AMT and its potential effect on taxpayers.

You know, one point that I hadn't had the opportunity to make earlier, was that over the past few weeks, in the ramp up to what we fear will be an attempt to use the AMT as a basis for a broader tax increase, we've heard made the strange argument by our friends on the other side of the aisle that somehow, the AMT is falling on more families because of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. This argument has been echoed within the Ways and Means Committee, and it's bizarre on the face of it. But there are actually arguments that are being made trying to connect these dots and square this circle.

The argument is that, as a result of reduced income tax rates relative to the AMT, more taxpayers are subject to the AMT. Conversely, this logic maintains that if income taxes are increased, less people would be subject to the AMT. It's an odd reform that raises taxes on Americans, and this smells an awful lot like robbing Peter to pay Paul. After all, if taxpayers are paying the AMT, or paying the basic income tax, one way or the other, what is relevant to them is how much they're paying.

The argument we are hearing from the other side simply runs roughshod over the facts. The AMT is growing significantly because the tax brackets involved were never indexed to inflation. Clearly, no American is worse off under recent tax relief. And fewer taxpayers are subject to the AMT than otherwise would be as a result of the patches that that tax relief contained.

I have, I believe, a number of charts, but I am not going to trouble you with them at this time of the evening, that demonstrate that this problem has been stated in an unusual way. It is misleading to claim that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts led to more people paying the AMT.

The fact is, between the patches and the tax cuts, fewer people are paying the AMT today than would have under pre-2001 tax laws. This is a very important revelation.

The fact is, past Congresses have moved, in budget after budget, to protect the middle class from the ravages of the AMT. Notwithstanding that, the AMT now hits nearly 3 million taxpayers, where it was originally designed only to hit a few hundred. Without a patch, the AMT would fall on 23 million taxpayers.

Because of that added tax liability on 20 million taxpayers, fixing the AMT is certainly a challenge. But to me, it's a much bigger challenge to argue that somehow we should let the AMT fall on these people when it was never conceived as a tax to be applied to them.

The fact is the AMT at the current rate runs the risk of crowding out the rest of the tax code and becoming the Tax Code, and that would be a disaster. The AMT does not treat families as favorably. It does not treat small business investment as favorably. It doesn't have the nuances of the current Tax Code, and it simply has higher rates.

We believe that in the end, the real solution is fundamental tax reform, to move to a reformed tax system that contains no AMT but through its simplicity also requires no AMT to guarantee that everyone pays what they are obliged to pay. Through simplicity we can reduce the tax gap. We can make the Tax Code more predictable, and we can provide through fewer loopholes fewer opportunities for people to take unfair advantage. That is the real solution at the end.

I believe, though, that we are going to see this year a concerted effort by the new majority to do what they did the last time they were in the majority, and that is to push through massive tax increases. The AMT, it looks like, is going to be their first excuse to do it. So it is going to be the first real test of this Congress, whether it is going to take a different route than that that we traditionally expect or whether it is going to go down the old path of tax and spend, raising taxes, expanding the size of government, and ultimately hitting the taxpayers in newer and more subtle ways.

Enacting French tax structures is not the solution to growing the economy. It is not the solution to the deficit, and it is not the solution to the AMT.

I think the time has come for Congress to deal with this issue honestly, to bring it out into the open. My hope is that our committee, the Ways and Means Committee, will have an opportunity to do hearings specifically on this point. As ranking member of the Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee, I also hope that we have the opportunity there to more closely examine the AMT and to build on recent hearings to look at actual solutions and come up with a solution that reduces the tax burden and protects the middle class rather than simply raising taxes. That may be a challenge that requires statesmanship, but I believe the time has come to deal with this issue directly.

Anyone who, I believe, signs on to what the papers tell us might be the solution here can't claim that they are following certainly the dictum of Americans for Tax Reform, which years ago got many Members of Congress to sign a pledge not to raise taxes. I believe that any AMT solution that raises taxes will put Congress on record as being in favor of Big Government and higher taxes. I believe that we need to look at creative alternatives and the time has come for that.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to take my party's leadership hour.

Madam Speaker, today I introduced legislation that would shorten the depreciable lives of electric distribution assets from 20 to 15 years. I feel this legislation, is necessary to spur investment in a time where the demand for electricity is at an all-time high. Despite continued energy efficiency improvements, electricity consumption is expected to increase 41 percent by 2030, according to the Energy Information Administration.

To meet this growing demand, electric companies must expand and upgrade the nation's electricity infrastructure. The need to expand the nation's distribution infrastructure will require significant investment. According to a recent study by the Brattle Group (``Why Are

Electricity Prices Increasing? An Industry-Wide Perspective''), if recent investment trends continue, distribution investment will average $14 billion per year over the next 10 years. This investment is almost triple the projected amount of annual investment in new transmission capacity and is likely to exceed capital spending on generation capacity over the next decade as well.

The American Council for Capital Formation released an analysis yesterday of the depreciation treatment of energy assets of the U.S. compared with 11 other countries. The analysis concluded that the U.S. generally has less favorable tax depreciation rules for electric distribution rules than a number of the U.S.'s major trading partners. The U.S. has slower cost recovery during the first five and ten years after the investment than the comparison countries. For example, U.S. capital cost recovery for distribution lines in the first five years is 29.5 percent compared to 40 percent in China, 58 percent in Korea and 50 percent in Taiwan. Nine of the countries analyzed had faster cost recovery than the U.S. From a competitive standpoint, our depreciation rules need to be updated. My bill will begin to tackle part of the problem.

Investment in electric distribution facilities--in wires, transformers, substations and all traditional utility distribution facilities--is needed, first and foremost to keep pace with growing customer demands. Distribution investment also is needed to replace and modernize our nation's aging distribution grid.

Tax depreciation incentives for electric distribution systems also would help mitigate the cost of other factors affecting spending on distribution infrastructure. For example, some companies are being directed to place new and/or existing distribution lines underground, particularly in urban areas. Undergrounding power lines costs five to ten times the cost of overhead lines. In addition, large distribution system expenditures have been necessitated by widespread hurricane and storm damage experienced in 2004 and 2005, which has impacted energy and material costs across the nation.

The Brattle Group report estimates that underinvestment in transmission and distribution systems costs the American economy at least $20 billion a year--a figure certain to grow if transmission and distribution infrastructure investment does not keep pace with demand. In 2005, we reduced depreciable lives for transmission assets from 20 to 15 years as part of the Energy Policy Act. Similarly, Congress should do the same for distribution assets. This action will spur investments needed to update the aging distribution infrastructure to a modern, automated, high-performance network.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

In its present form, I am.

Mr. Speaker, in my view, there are three Grand Canyons in America. One is famous, and it is in Arizona and, I think, familiar to most in the West. Another is well known in the eastern United States, and it is in Wellsboro, Pennsylvania.

The third has opened up since the last election. And here, Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the grand canyon, the gap, between the rhetoric of the Democratic Caucus in the House of Representatives, as witnessed on the floor of the House in the last Congress and in previous Congresses, and the policies of the Democratic Congress since being sworn in in this Congress.

I remember, Mr. Speaker, fondly, some of the speeches that were given on the floor of Congress on behalf of the Social Security system. Some fierce, even lachrymose presentations that any additional funding for any new priority inevitably would be at the expense of the balance of the Social Security system, which is seriously in the red. In other words, new spending, because we were running a deficit, was inevitably at the expense of the Social Security system. I have heard our friends on the other side of the aisle make the case repeatedly in previous Congresses to restrict spending because additional funds would be coming out of the Social Security system.

But, Mr. Speaker, since the election, Democrats seem to have muted these concerns and Democratic actions have been very different.

Mr. Speaker, I propose to give our friends on the other side of the aisle an opportunity to bridge the Grand Canyon. I propose to give the majority a small, perhaps symbolic, but very important opportunity to reach out and express their commitment to fiscal policies that preserve the Social Security balance for what it was intended for: to fund retirement savings.

Mr. Speaker, by commingling our Social Security surplus with our deficit-ridden general fund, we potentially expose our Social Security system to risk by shielding our policymakers from their spending decisions to the full consequences and the full balance sheet. The time has come for us to change that practice.

Specifically, this motion says that the funding authorized for the Advanced Technology Program will be capped at the previous year's appropriated amount until such time as the Social Security surplus is not used to foot part of the bill.

There is no doubt that the ATP program has great merit. But I think we have to ask ourselves, Mr. Speaker, is increasing funding for the program more important than saving the Social Security surplus for future beneficiaries?

Mr. Speaker, I serve on the committee of jurisdiction, and recently we had an opportunity to hear from the Social Security actuaries one more time that the Social Security system is at risk, is under enormous pressure, and that the time has come to take decisive steps to make it solvent so that its promise can be fulfilled to the next generation. What we are proposing here today is maybe to begin this process in a small way and create an opportunity for all of our friends in this institution to go on record firmly in an important policy decision and make it clear that we are not going to raid the Social Security fund in the future.

This is a very clear issue. It is a very simple issue. It is an opportunity to cut past the rhetoric and, frankly, create an opportunity for us to do something very significant on one of the major issues facing the country.

Mr. Speaker, I hope everyone in this body will join me in supporting this very important initiative on behalf of the Social Security fund.

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, today the House is considering legislation that, in my view, represents the first brick in a Chinese wall of tax increases.

Generating revenue by assuming that Americans with more than $5 million in income will increase their annual withholding by one-tenth of 1 percent simply makes a mockery of PAYGO.

The majority is exploiting a statistical quirk in the way that the Joint Tax Committee does its revenue estimates, and will have accountants, not normally known for their high spirits and good humor, roaring with laughter all over the country.

Perhaps, in the aggregate, there are enough people in America making more than $5 million who will pay an extra $2,000 in estimated taxes to raise revenues as much as anticipated, but this seems more likely to be an instance where the Joint Tax Committee's scoring rules and common sense have dramatically parted ways.

If the Judiciary Committee thinks the companion bill to create a new Member from Utah and add voting rights to a Member from the District of Columbia is such a good idea, surely they could have found some program within their jurisdiction to trim by an offsetting amount. And they didn't find a user fee in their jurisdiction to increase by just a few dollars.

In fact, despite the fact the Democratic majority created a budget that includes more than $2 trillion in spending, they could not even trim $3 million from that total to pay for this rather modest initiative. To put this in perspective, the majority could have offset this bill by reducing entitlement spending by just two ten-thousandths of a percent.

By not going down that route, this bill confirms what we have all suspected: the Tax Code is going to be the ATM machine that pays for all of the new majority's fondest initiatives. The bill today may be cheap in total dollar terms, but we will not be so lucky the next time around.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, in my view, H.R. 1906 represents what will be the first of a series of bizarre revenue raisers, Rube Goldberg devices, and tax gimmicks to be trotted out to pay, first for small things, and then pay for the demands of the majority's budget, which includes the largest tax increase in American history, nearly $4 billion over 5 years.

It also demonstrates that the majority's PAYGO promise that new entitlement spending could be offset with entitlement spending cuts is hollow and cynical. If they can't even find $3 million of entitlement savings for this bill, can we expect them to pay for their new programs with anything other than a significant tax increase ultimately on the middle class?

This makes even traditional budget gimmicks, like putting routine spending into an emergency spending bill, or bypassing the budget resolution by using ``advanced appropriations'' look pristine by comparison.

The process for this bill's consideration is flawed, deeply and fundamentally. It did not go through the Committee on Ways and Means. This is another example of the new majority ignoring their own promises for regular order.

The procedure, Mr. Speaker, for considering the broader issue of expanding the House of Representatives itself is deeply flawed. The example being set today that you can split a bill into separate elements so as to limit what amendments and motions will be germane is the triumph of form over substance.

The proposal before us only adds more complexity to the Tax Code. And think about this: if you thought filling out your taxes wasn't tough enough, our friends on the other side of the aisle are raising the level of difficulty to complicate the code and increase the risk that an inadvertent error will have the IRS demanding interest on your underpayment.

At least it is better than the last version of this proposal, which generated an even more ludicrous $3 million by raising the safe harbor amount for people with incomes over $150,000 by just three one- thousandths of a percent.

Mr. Speaker, this is a flawed bill. It is a silly exercise. And I think it is appropriate that we vote it down.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, may I reclaim my time? And instead allow the leader on his own time to pose those sorts of questions.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, it is my time and I will allow the gentleman from Wisconsin to yield to the leader on the leader's time.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, it would be my privilege now to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to yield 5 minutes to a gentleman who brings marvelous expertise to any tax debate, who is entitled to wear a green eye shade if he chooses, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to just briefly yield myself 15 seconds to thank the last speaker for her eloquence and her marvelous remarks and to say that I am very proud to stand with her today as one of the 22 who voted for the preceding bill. I am very proud of the fact that at a time when we are debating the needs of democracy all over the world that we have taken the time in the House to move forward to correct an anomaly in our own representation and create an opportunity for the gentlelady who has for many years so well represented the District of Columbia to have an opportunity fully and legally to vote on the floor, representing her people.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I do have one other speaker who has appeared, and one who has made an immense contribution to the debate on the previous bill. So it is my privilege now to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

(Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I must tell you it is a privilege to be on the floor today to play a role in having passed the last bill which our last speaker spoke about with great eloquence. It is a real privilege to be here with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) who certainly has had a long career of fighting for people's voting rights and civil rights. It is great to look across the floor and see former Secretary Jack Kemp, a 20-year veteran of this institution, present here today.

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of principle, I voted for the last bill, and as a strong supporter of tax simplification and fiscal responsibility, it is my privilege to vote against the bill that is before us at this moment, which is a procedural grotesque, a gimmick, a trick, a ploy, a ruse, and one that I think represents the poorest of possible tax policies.

I ask my colleagues to vote this bill down and send a clear message that we don't support this kind of chicanery on the floor of the House of Representatives.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained by a meeting in my office during rollcall vote 213 providing for a conditional adjournment of the two Houses. If I had been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Chairman, whatever the rhetoric, the Democratic budget resolution fails to keep faith with the American people.

Instead of embracing fiscal responsibility, it underwrites a saturnalia of spending propped up by, and listen to my words, the largest tax increase in American history.

Instead of maintaining pro-growth tax policies that grow the economy and reduce the deficit, this budget clobbers the American economy by requiring nearly $400 billion of new revenue.

Instead of protecting middle-class families, it lays the groundwork for tax increases on a whole new level of taxpayers.

Instead of setting new priorities, it throws priority setting to the wind and undercuts the benefits of tax policies that have clearly helped the middle class.

The details are stunning. For starters, the Democratic budget threatens to reduce the child tax credit by half, increase the lowest tax bracket from 10 to 15 percent, reconstitute the marriage penalty and eliminate incentives for higher education savings like the student loan interest deduction.

In my home State of Pennsylvania, the average taxpayer can expect to see an estimated $3,000-plus increase in their annual tax bill. That is an increase in the tax bill for a working family of more than $15,000 over a 5-year period. That is a different standard of living.

So much for their empty rhetoric about children and families. Not only does this budget contain the largest tax increase in American history, it also chooses to employ smoke and mirrors instead of underwriting real financial relief from the AMT for Americans.

For years, the AMT has been a growing monster because while originally intended to close loopholes for the very wealthiest taxpayers, it was never indexed for inflation. It is now hitting more and more middle-class taxpayers. As a result, this year, without relief, 23 million taxpayers will be forced into AMT status and hit with a significant tax increase, ten times the number than if it had been indexed to inflation. The Democrats' budget does nothing, sets aside no resources to address this problem.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle fail to include an AMT repeal in their budget. They don't even include the bare minimum step of a patch to keep it at bay as Republicans have in previous years. Instead, this budget resolution holds millions of middle-class taxpayers hostage to a record tax increase. Don't let the rhetoric on the other side of the aisle fool you. The reserve fund that is folded into this resolution is utterly meaningless. This is a piggybank that doesn't even rattle when you shake it.

America's working families deserve better. I urge every Member who cares about working families, cares about protecting their earnings to vote ``no'' on this budget today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of House Resolution 106.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Motorsports Fairness and Permanency Act. This bill would make permanent the tax treatment of speedways and racing facilities around the country.

This legislation will provide needed certainty to track and speedway operators regarding the depreciation of their properties. For decades, motorsports facilities were considered as ``theme and amusement facilities'' for depreciation purposes. Congress codified this treatment as part of the Jumpstart our Business Strength Act of 2004. The Motorsports Fairness and Permanency Act would simply make this treatment permanent, helping facility owners make long-lead time decisions on major capital investments.

My congressional district is home to Lake Erie Speedway, a \3/8\-mile track that hosts a full schedule of races, including the Mid-Atlantic Asphalt Racing Alliance and NASCAR Whelen All-American Series. Lake Erie Speedway can accommodate up to 7,000 race fans and has a substantial impact on the Erie County economy.

Pennsylvania is home to 60 motorsports facilities, including Pocono Raceway, which hosts two NASCAR Nextel Cup races each summer. These facilities are an important part of the fabric of our State's economy. Indeed, a recently-released report, authorized by the Pennsylvania General Assembly, found that motorsports facilities have a combined impact of over $390 million on the State's economy.

Because of the importance of motorsports to my district and State, I am cosponsoring the Motorsports Fairness and Permanency Act. This legislation will make permanent the well-understood and widely-accepted depreciation classification of motorsports facilities. The legislation will provide fair treatment and needed certainty to the dozens of facilities in Pennsylvania and the hundreds located throughout the country.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Motorsports Fairness and Permanency Act.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the current debate on the floor on Iraq policy, I would like to offer the following observations.

First, I respect the President's constitutional role as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and I appreciate President Bush's offer to entertain suggestions from Congress regarding Iraq policy.

I understand that success in Iraq depends on bipartisan support at home.

I applaud U.S. troops who are serving in Iraq with professionalism and bravery. They deserve the support of all Americans.

It is becoming self-evident that multiple, extended deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan have strained the military. Current deployments and those to come will have lasting impacts on recruiting, retention and readiness of the all-volunteer military.

Unfortunately, sectarian violence in Iraq between Sunni and Shia Muslims is increasing, and the failure of Iraqis to reach political settlements and support a unified government greatly contributes to the increased violence.

I believe it is time for Iraq's government and security forces to step forward and bear primary responsibility for internal security.

As the gentleman from North Carolina noted, the former head of the U.S. Central Command, General John Abizaid, told Congress last November that sending in more U.S. troops would not contribute to success in Iraq because it would prevent the Iraqis from taking more responsibility.

It is clear that Iraqi public sentiment opposes the continued U.S. troop presence.

In November, the Iraq Study Group called for new diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces that will allow the United States to ``begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly.''

Unfortunately, the Iraqi Government has made little progress toward assuming more responsibility for security, disbanding militias, reconciling sectarian differences and improving essential services.

Therefore, I have reluctantly concluded that I have to disagree with the President's plan to send in an additional 21,000-plus combat troops. While I applaud the President's reassessment of U.S.-Iraq policy, I joined with several of my colleagues in January in informing the White House that I did not support an expansion of American troop strength on the ground, and

nothing that I have learned since has caused me to reconsider my position.

Nevertheless, Congress should not take any action that would endanger U.S. military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funding for troops in the field.

Most Americans fundamentally understand the long-term security interests of the United States would be best served by an Iraq that can sustain, govern and defend itself and serve as an ally in the war against extremists.

Overall U.S. military, diplomatic, and economic strategy should not be regarded as an open-ended commitment but should be conditioned upon the Iraqi Government's meeting benchmarks, including the deployment of additional Iraqi troops in Baghdad, equitable distribution of resources without regard to sect or ethnicity, the use of oil revenues to benefit all Iraqi citizens equitably, and granting military commanders authority to make decisions without political interference.

Mr. Speaker, with very minor edits, the remarks you have just heard from me summarize the resolution on Iraq offered by Senator Warner in the other body. It is one of the alternative resolutions we should be debating here today. Unfortunately, the majority leadership does not want to allow a full and fair debate on Iraq.

When the Democrat leadership in the other body tried to force a vote on the resolution without an opportunity to offer meaningful amendments, the minority was able to insist on their right to a real debate rather than this phony pretense. Unfortunately, we do not have that ability in this Chamber.

So I will vote in favor of the resolution before us as offered, as narrow and as inadequate as it is, but I cannot help but express my frustration that the leadership of the House has squandered an opportunity to allow a full and fair debate with real amendments, not just to Republicans, but to all Members of the House, including their own Members whose voices are stifled by this decision to put political calculations ahead of the national interests and a robust debate.

I am not sure what the leadership of the majority party is afraid of. If they have the votes to reject alternatives, then they lose nothing by allowing them to be offered. If they do not, they will quickly learn, as we did, that if you need to use procedural games to avoid a tough vote, you have already lost on the underlying issue.

I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for allowing me to be a part of this debate.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, February 13th, I was unavoidably delayed and was unable to cast a vote on H. Res. 157 Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 63) disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

I would like the Record to reflect that if I had not been delayed, I would have voted ``no'' on H. Res. 157.

Madam Speaker, the manufacturing sector plays a pivotal role in the economic success of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as well as that of the Nation. The pre-eminent association that represents the producers of U.S. advanced manufacturing technology equipment, promotes manufacturing equipment sales both at home and abroad, and tries to shape legislation important to the manufacturing community is AMT--the Association for Manufacturing Technology, led by its President, John B. Byrd III.

For the past 32 years, the voice for AMT on Capitol Hill has been the tireless, knowledgeable, and ardent advocate for the association's legislative and regulatory goals, James H. Mack. Jim served AMT as the vice president for Government Relations for 27 years and most recently as vice president--Tax and Economic Policy. He has also been an important aide to former Illinois Governor Richard B. Ogilvie and public affairs manager for Illinois Tool Works in Chicago.

After earning his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Wisconsin, Jim demonstrated a life-long commitment to the manufacturing technology industry and its employees--providers of the vital equipment that has made our Nation the manufacturing leader in the world.

As Jim retires from this phase of his career, I wish to acknowledge the achievements of a man so many of us know and admire. Lest he be considered merely a master of the Tax Code wearing a smile that always includes a pipe, let me add that I know him to be trustworthy, an honest broker, and all around decent and caring individual.

Hats off and continued success to a great American, Jim Mack.

Madam Speaker, since the beginning of the year, my office has had the privilege of hosting Clare Ashby as an international trade intern.

Clare joined my Washington, D.C. team as part of the Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Program. Now in its 8th year, the educational exchange program brings 12 distinguished Australian university students to the Nation's capital each year to intern in the office of a Member of Congress. This unique bilateral exchange offers participants the opportunity to not only learn the inner-workings of the U.S. Federal Government but to also develop and maintain new, career-building relationships. Although this is only my first year hosting a student, I am impressed with Clare's intellectual curiosity and have found that she has made a real and substantial contribution in advocating my legislative efforts.

As a congressional intern in my office, Clare has actively engaged in open dialogue regarding the challenges of current U.S. trade policy; conducted extensive research and analysis on these same issues; and assisted in the drafting of legislation. Her intellectual breadth and keen ability to understand complex public policy have surely not gone unnoticed. At the same time, Clare has also taken the initiative to help bridge the gap between American and Australian cultures. My office joined Clare in the celebration of Australia Day, where we learned of Australian tradition and history. We also shared a favorite Australian treat, a sweet chocolate biscuit, known as a Tim Tam. During her time with our office, Clare also shared the same birthday as one of my legislative staffers. On that special day, we again celebrated the occasion and shared the stories of our birthday traditions.

Madam Speaker, I am proud that my office participated in this year's Uni-Capitol Washington Internship Program, as I found it to be a valuable experience on a variety of different levels. It is at this time that I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating Clare Ashby for her successful internship in my office. It was an honor to host her and I wish her continued success in her future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 58 I was unable to vote due to weather and traffic delays. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 59 I was unable to vote due to weather and traffic delays. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 60, I was unable to vote due to weather and traffic delays. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''