Wally Herger

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to keep the alternative minimum tax from reaching out and ensnaring an additional 19 million new taxpayers, saddling them with an additional $2,000 tax bill. I have long voted to limit the reach of the AMT. In my Northern California congressional district, 54,000 people will pay the AMT in 2007 if Congress fails to act. But today's bill is in the wrong direction. Tragically, this legislation institutes permanent tax increases to pay for extending temporary tax relief. The AMT was originally intended to reach 155 of our country's wealthiest Americans who were not paying taxes and compel them to pay at least some level of taxes, but that original intent never included dipping down into the middle class. The AMT now collects taxes it was never intended to collect. It would be absurd to ``pay for'' extending this temporary fix for another year. Even worse, today's bill sends a clear signal to American families and individuals that the Democrats plan to allow the tax relief of the last 6 years disappear, raising taxes by trillions of dollars on millions of taxpayers. This includes marriage penalty relief, the higher child tax credit, and lower rates on investment income. The House should reject this Democrat pro-tax increase approach to patching the alternative minimum tax.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) for leading this talk this evening on this incredibly important issue of the taxes that are about to be raised if we do nothing here in the U.S. Congress. I might mention, it was interesting listening to my friend talking about all the individuals that he knows of that will have their taxes raised. I have to give some of my background. My reason, I grew up in Northern California in a rural area just south of Yuba City, Marysville, in a dairy community, born in 1945, so raised during the 1950s and 1960s. Our family also had a small business which I worked in. My reason for becoming involved politically and running for office was not what government was doing for me, but rather as a small businessman and small rancher what they were doing to me. So this evening, I want to discuss something that is more that they seem to be wanting to do to us. Mr. Speaker, if you earned the same amount of money last year that you do this year and you write a bigger check out to the IRS this year than you did last year, you have just experienced a tax increase. The expensive alternative minimum tax measure recently introduced by the Democrats and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Chairman Rangel, threatens to take us down the path of staggering tax hikes that will impact nearly every taxpayer. In fact, if that proposal were to be enacted, over the next 10 years, more than 120 million Americans would pay more than $312 trillion in additional taxes. Mr. Speaker, I have consistently supported doing away, outright, with the alternative minimum tax and am a cosponsor of legislation by my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) that will be speaking in a few minutes that will do precisely that. But the Democrats' ``mother of all tax hikes'' is the wrong approach on the American taxpayer. Ten years ago, most Americans had never heard of the AMT. Today, more and more middle-class families are becoming ensnared in this alternative tax regime. The AMT was created almost 40 years ago, in 1969, to make 155 of our Nation's wealthiest individuals, who were not then paying taxes, pay at least some level of tax. Yet, the income entry level for the tax were never set to be adjusted for inflation. So if Congress doesn't act soon, the number of taxpayers paying the AMT will rise from 4 million, now mind you that is up from 155, from 4 million last year to 23 million this year alone. In other words, an additional 19 million middle-class taxpayers could pay an average of $3,800 more in taxes this year. House Democrats would have us raise taxes elsewhere to the tune of nearly $312 trillion over the next 10 years to do away with this AMT that was never intended. They claim this massive tax hike is necessary to offset, or make up for, the tax revenue that is lost with the termination of AMT. For a married couple with two children and an income of $45,000 a year, as well as some typical deductions, this could mean a new $1,500 tax bill. How is this possible if the Democrats' bill assumes that the landmark tax relief of 2001 and 2003, which we put through the Ways and Means Committee in this Congress and signed by President Bush, will expire 3 years from today? Including the lower marginal tax rates and the $1,000 child tax credit. Under this scheme, more than 94 million Americans with income between 20 and $200,000 will see a major tax increase. I am seriously concerned about how these new taxes will affect taxpayers in my own Northern California congressional district. In 2005, just over 2 percent of all taxpayers in my district paid the AMT. If we fail to extend AMT patch, some 54,000 Northern Californians will have to pay the AMT this year alone. Again, this was a tax meant for only 155 of the wealthiest Americans who weren't paying any taxes in 1969. But what really troubles me is that the majority party's mother of all tax hikes would eliminate the AMT for this 2 percent and merely substitute it with higher taxes for almost every other taxpayer. This kind of pro-tax-increase thinking is simply unacceptable. We should do away with the AMT altogether. But the majority party's ``tax Peter to pay Paul'' approach is wrong and ignores a reality that the AMT was never intended to capture these Americans in the first place. I would like to thank, again, my friend, Kevin Brady, the gentleman from Texas, for hosting this important Special Order this evening and encourage all my colleagues to stand up for the taxpayers in their congressional districts and oppose the majority's proposed massive tax hikes.

Mr. HERGER. To my friend, yes. That is, as a matter of fact, that tax increase could go as high as $3,800, and talking about average families.

Mr. HERGER. That is correct.

Mr. HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Brady.

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1056, the Forbes motion to recommit H.R. 3685--Employment Non-Discrimination Act with instructions, I was unavoidably detained and missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. HERGER

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Robin Hayes.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield now 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

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

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

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

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time each side has.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the remainder of my time.

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

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

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

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

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, a very distinguished and active member of the Trade Subcommittee, Mr. Brady.