Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 4297, Tax Relief Extention Reconciliation Act of 2005

MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 4297, TAX RELIEF EXTENSION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - April 06, 2006)

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

Mr. Speaker, people of this country are looking to our leadership for change. They want us to move in a different direction. They are tired of our spending money and going further into debt. They want to see us do something about the national debt and the deficit here in Washington. They want us to stop digging the hole deeper. They want to see a commitment to reduce the debt. They want to see tax fairness. They understand that the tax bills that we have passed in recent years provide average tax relief for those under $50,000 of $435 a year while those between $500,000 and $1 million enjoy $22,000 of tax relief. They want to see tax fairness.

They want economic opportunity so this economy can grow. They know that the R&D tax credit that allows companies to invest in the future needs to be made permanent. And they certainly want to see more savings in America. They understand that we have a negative saving rate. We know that young people and people of modest income have a very difficult time putting any money away for their retirement savings and too many companies do not offer incentives for their employees. They want to make sure that we extend the saver's credit that allows them to put money away.

Mr. Speaker, my motion to instruct the conferees on H.R. 4297 deals with these opportunities.

When I noted this motion last night, I was not aware that the conference is close to an agreement, and I use that word reluctantly because, as I understand it, there has been no conference. It is basically the Republican members of the conference committee have been negotiating; and according to the most recent Congressional Daily, tax writers are within striking distance of a reconciliation deal.

We have received a red alert from the Concord Coalition. The Concord Coalition, which is a nonpartisan body whose sole purpose is to try to bring some sense in this Congress in dealing with the deficit, says watch out. The deal that is being struck, ``instead of choosing among competing priorities,'' and I am quoting from the Concord Coalition, ``identifying revenue offsets or otherwise scaling back the cost of the tax cuts to comply with the budget, Congress is considering gimmicks and legislative maneuvers to circumvent budget limits and increase the deficit even more than the budget already allows. Evading the limits in the budget resolution would make a bad budget worse.''

I could not agree more with the Concord Coalition.

So what does my motion do with the tax legislation that is in conference? It provides for four instructions to our conferees:

First, it says to the maximum extent possible within the scope of conference, insist that a conference report will neither increase the Federal budget deficit nor increase the amount of debt subject to the debt limit. I would think that every Member of this body would endorse that instruction to our conferees.

I was just listening to the debate on the budget resolution and heard how we need to rein in the deficit. Well, this is our opportunity to act on that intent. This motion makes it clear that we want to rein in the deficit and the debt to the maximum extent possible. The 2006 budget had a deficit of $371 billion. The 2007 presented budget will increase the deficit by $423 billion, and I am not even counting the surpluses from Social Security that should not be counted in this.

According to the Joint Tax Committee, the conference may very well bring out a report that could increase the deficit by another $80 billion.

Enough is enough. Let's make a commitment to America's future. Let's recognize how dangerous this deficit is to America's future. Let's understand that in order to pay our bills, we have to ask foreign governments to buy our bonds, governments that don't agree with our foreign policy, who buy our bonds not because it is a good investment, but because they want to make sure that the exchange rate between their currency and ours is favorable so they can send more products into America, taking more jobs away from America.

Yes, this is a matter of national security, and that is why this motion speaks to this bill that could make the circumstances much worse. Let's tell our conferees not to do that.

The second part of the motion to instruct deals with two very important tax credits that are scheduled to expire. One is the savers credit. The other deals with the R&D credit. I mention both of those because it is important that we deal with these two credits that are scheduled to expire.

My motion tells us to take the longer period that the other body agreed to. Let's extend for 3 years the savers credit. I want to make it permanent. At least let's make it 3 years. The R&D that allows businesses to reinvest to create jobs, we should make it permanent. Let's make it at least 2 years.

But, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you my fear. I would urge my colleagues to support this motion. Let me tell you my concern. The Concord Coalition is admonishing us that they believe that we will be keeping these politically popular tax cuts hostage to new legislation, that it won't even be in this legislation, in this conference. Instead, we are going to put it in another bill to make the deficit even greater.

This should be our priority, extending these tax credits. This may be our last opportunity to speak to that. So I urge my colleagues who profess to support the savers credit and R&D credit to support this motion.

This motion also deals with the Alternative Minimum Tax, to make it clear we need to extend the Alternative Minimum Tax. If we don't, taxpayers will soon be getting information from the IRS, instructions to let them know that their taxes for 2006 are going to be substantially higher than they are for 2005. For you see, Mr. Speaker, if we don't correct the alternative minimum tax, and let me remind you the bill that passed this body did not include that, if we don't include it at this stage, because this is the bill that is going to be on the way to the President, we are going to find in excess of 15 million of our constituents across the country are going to wake up and find they now have tax liability they didn't expect, not because they are trying to avoid taxes, but because of action taken by us which increased liability for the Alternative Minimum Tax.

So it is critically important. This is our last opportunity to say before the conference is likely to take action that the Alternative Minimum Tax is our priority.

Then the fourth thing, Mr. Speaker, is that we have to make choices. We can't do everything. I was listening to the chairman of the Budget Committee tell us that we can't give everything to everybody that everybody wants. Well, I hope he will vote now in the first vote after his speech to carry that out. We can't do everything that everybody wants and still bring the budget deficit down.

The capital gains and dividend provisions, they are not set to expire until 2008. Let me remind my colleagues of that. We have plenty of time to take that issue up. So my instruction includes holding off on that issue so that in fact we can bring in a conference that is in compliance not only with the letter, but the spirit of our commitment to deal with the budget deficit.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion. I believe this is what almost everyone in this body has been speaking about. Now let's see how they vote.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to correct the record from my friend from Pennsylvania.

If AMT relief was a priority, you would have put it in budget reconciliation, because you know that is the only legislation that stands a chance of passage to the President. You have had 12 years to fix it and you have not. There is a statute of limitation on how long you can go back to when the Democrats were in control.

In regards to the $1,400 you referred to for families under $75,000, I question your numbers. I will tell you, their share of the national debt as a result of your fiscally irresponsible policies will far exceed the $1,400 in tax relief.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), my colleague on the Ways and Means Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to emphasize a point that Mr. Levin made.

There is no question that the overwhelming amount of relief provided by the tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 go to the highest income people. That is not tax fairness. There is modest relief that goes to middle income families, very modest relief. Every dollar and more of that will be eaten up by these increased debts and deficits. The interest costs alone, the share of the National debt all will make whatever relief is provided in here meaningless. And when you take a look at the impact that the deficits are having on our economy and you look at how middle income families are struggling in order to meet their needs, in order to be able to afford the increase in college education and energy costs and health care costs, they are falling further and further behind.

So for the sake of middle income families, I would urge my colleagues to support this motion in the conference to bring back a responsible product.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear. I offered this amendment not as a Democrat, and I don't ask you to vote for it because you are a Democrat or a Republican. I offer it as an American who is concerned about the debt of this Nation. I want to see this Nation change direction. I don't think we are heading in the right direction on our economic policies. I think this debt is very dangerous and I want to change direction.

Let me also just say to my friend from Pennsylvania, words have consequences, so please be careful obviously the words we use in this body. We have a responsibility. It is wrong to say that this motion increases taxes. You are using that because we don't extend in our motion a tax provision that will expire in 2008. Well, Mr. English, I could say that you are raising taxes by voting against it because you are only extending the R&D credit to 2007, where that is even shorter than 2008. And I would acknowledge to you that would be a wrong thing for me to say. So please be careful with the language you use. You know that this motion does not increase taxes whatsoever.

A question was asked: What is the appropriate level of taxation? Well, this motion asks: What is the appropriate level of debt? Is anyone going to be concerned about the bottom line debt of our Nation? Isn't there a limit? Now it is $8.9 trillion. Whether we lose revenues through taxes or spend it through the appropriation process, it costs the people of this Nation the same burden to their economy.

No, I am not happy about the economic progress that we have had over the last 5 years. I am not happy about our trade deficit of $720 billion. I am not happy about how many jobs we have exported to other countries. You look at the loss of jobs in America, good jobs, and you look at the job creation, and it is not equal. This has been the worst performance of any administration in modern times as far as the growth of good jobs here in America. So, no, I am not happy about our economic performance.

But what I do ask my colleagues to do is look at this motion that is before you. Read it. It says that we don't want to increase the debt. I would hope all my colleagues would agree with that. It says we want to extend the R&D and the saver's credit to the maximum extent possible. I would think, using my friend from Pennsylvania's argument, that voting against that you are voting for a tax increase. And I don't believe you are, but I just point out the illogic of that argument.

And then it says, yes, we have to make choices, and the Alternative Minimum Tax should be our top priority. Why? Because that expires this year. If we don't correct it in 2006, our constituents are going to have to be paying the Alternative Minimum Tax. And you can keep on saying you will pass legislation to do it, but you know if it is not in the budget reconciliation, if it is not protected by a point of order, we are not going to get it done. We know that. That is why we are saying let's put it in the bill that is going to make it to the President's desk that is going to be signed into law. Let's not play games with this. Let's do what is right for the people of this Nation.

So if you read this motion to instruct, you are going to find that if you are for reducing the debt, if you are for the saver's credit, if you are for the research and development credit, and if you really want to provide Alternative Minimum Tax relief, and then lastly, if you want to avoid a calamity that may in fact be happening if the reports are correct about what is happening in the tax conference, where it is even going to be worse than what we thought, that we are going to be using gimmicks and accounting procedures in order to say that we fit within the budget reconciliation when in fact we don't. I have been told one of the provisions is the RSAs, the retirement savings accounts, which is going to count money as had, even though we are going to lose revenue in the long term.

That is not what we should be doing here. Let's act responsibly. Let's act in the best interest of all the people in our community. Let's not just vote one way or the other because you are told that that is the partisan thing to do. Let's do what is right for this country. Let's speak out about this deficit. Let's speak to the priorities that should be in our Tax Code.

This is our opportunity to do it, and I urge my colleagues to support the motion.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/