Providing for Consideration of H.R. 4297, Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act of 2005
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4297, TAX RELIEF EXTENSION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - December 08, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I just heard the gentleman from Wisconsin talk about job creation. He singled out one month. 22 million jobs created during the Clinton years. 22 million. Economic growth has been paltry and everybody knows it. In addition to which he talked about the deficit--with a straight face. They have rolled up the national deficit, $2.2 trillion we are in the hole. On their time this has happened.
Let me say this and I think it is very important to point out, Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority now says, as they did yesterday with a straight face, incidentally, well, the Democrats did not do anything about the alternative minimum tax when they were in the majority. In 1994, and I hope that anybody who is listening to this will write this number down, when the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives there were approximately 200,000 people paying AMT, 200,000 people. Next year 19.3 million people are kicked into AMT.
I would like to think, as the gentleman from New York has indicated, that I have had some consistency on the issue of alternative minimum tax, not only in the committee, but here on the House floor. We did a big nothing yesterday about AMT and everybody knows it. 19.3 million people next year are kicked into AMT. But the House of Representatives had time to repeal the estate tax and now to address the dividend and capital gains tax, but they really never have time to do anything about AMT. And the reason they do not have time to do anything about AMT is pretty simple, it goes to middle income Americans to bear that burden.
So if we do not have time here to do something for the wealthy, we really do not have time to do anything. We are rich and we are not going to take it anymore. We watch these numbers as they are presented to us. The Republican party, at one time, stood for anti-Communism and balanced budgets. Well, Communism is gone and the deficits have really soared, all from a party that preaches fiscal discipline. They have rolled those deficits up for one reason, after, by the way, robbing the Social Security trust fund to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest.
In this institution we hear, well, the Social Security trust fund is going broke. It is going broke because they took $2 trillion out of it in tax cuts during the next 10 years. There is no pressure to do what we have to do today. They are contributing to the national deficit, contributing to the debt, all under the guise of paying for tax cuts for the wealthiest among us.
Lastly, I defy anybody here to not acknowledge this static. The dividend relief bill that we are entertaining here overwhelmingly 53 percent of that benefit goes to people who made more than $1 million last year. That is where we find ourselves now.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to ask a rhetorical question.
If the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) voted yes on this alternative minimum tax bill yesterday he either was protecting the very rich in Massachusetts.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. THOMAS. No, it is a rhetorical question.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I am happy to participate.
Mr. THOMAS. Whose time is it, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gingrey). The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has the time.
Mr. THOMAS. Either he was voting to protect the incomes of the very rich in Massachusetts or he exercised a futile procedure.
There were four Members of his party who voted no. He had an opportunity, if he believed it was not real to vote no. He voted yes. The problem is they always want it both ways.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a member of the committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me time.
The chairman did raise a rhetorical question. Let me give a rhetorical answer.
We are all so desperate here after these 10 years of Republican rule to do something about AMT we are prepared to vote for any procedure that comes before this institution just to hopefully move it along.
Remember, when the Republicans took control, 200,000 people were paying AMT. Next year 19.3 million people will be paying alternative minimum tax.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for offering this motion to recommit today.
The Rangel motion to recommit is about two things: truth in budgeting and truth in borrowing.
In almost 14 years now on the Ways and Means Committee, we have spoken of addressing the alternative minimum tax issue. There has been a lot of talk and not a lot of action. And you are going to hear in a couple of seconds, well, yesterday, we took up the Alternative Minimum Tax. What we did yesterday was a procedural maneuver that allowed everybody to cover themselves, but will have very little reality as it addresses alternative minimum tax.
The gentleman from New York's motion to recommit goes right to the heart of the matter. You can, in a few minutes, cast a vote on really doing something about alternative minimum tax.
Now, the next thing we are going to hear today is this: The Democrats were in charge for 40 years and did not address the alternative minimum tax issue. In 1994, a couple of 100,000 people paid alternative minimum tax in America. On January 1, that number kicks up, next year, to 19 million people who will begin to pay alternative minimum tax. Mr. Rangel's proposal addresses this issue, and we pay for it, as I indicated at the outset of my remarks, honestly. The dividends and capital gains proposal does not even expire until the year 2008. And yet, we are doing that instead of doing alternative minimum tax.
Now, this Congress had time, in the last 5 years, to repeal a series of taxes on the American people, all, by the way, for upper income groups. We certainly had plenty of time to repeal the estate tax. We had time to address dividends and capital gains. But we did not have time to address alternative minimum tax other than with Band-Aid approaches. Today, you have a chance to do something. Mr. Rangel's proposal lacks complexity. You can, in the next couple of minutes, choose between fixing AMT or extending dividends and capital gains cuts for the wealthiest among us. And by the way, when we hear the other side say that these cuts to middle income people for dividends and capital gains, the dividend proposal that they have ought to be understood in this light. More than 50 percent, I believe, 53 or 54 percent of their dividend proposal, goes to people who made more than $1 million last year. Alternative minimum tax is a middle class issue across this country and we can do something about it.
Embrace Mr. Rangel's proposal. Give him a positive vote on AMT. But most importantly, give those 19.3 million Americans next year some much needed relief in alternative minimum tax.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov