Jim McCrery

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. I am.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is the intent of clause 10 of rule XXI to require tax increases to pay for preventing scheduled tax increases. That is precisely what we are debating on this point of order. If the Chair determines that this motion violates rule XXI and the House sustains this ruling, then the House is endorsing more than $3 trillion of tax increases over the next 10 years. PAYGO, as a budget enforcement law between 1990 and 2002, as the majority leader referred to, required automatic spending reductions across the government when budget targets were not met. Rule XXI, should it apply to this motion, is a very, very different PAYGO. It would prevent any Member from offering an amendment that prevents a tax increase without another tax increase. I would understand, and even strongly support, an interpretation of rule XXI that had the effect of requiring spending reductions to offset increases in spending. Further, while I would not necessarily endorse it, I could understand a PAYGO interpretation that requires a spending cut or tax increase to offset any reduction in current tax rates, or an increase in any current tax deductions or credits; but that is not what we're dealing with here today, Mr. Speaker. Today, with my motion, we are simply maintaining the Federal Government's current take, so to speak, from the people. Current individual tax rates and policies have largely been in place as they are since 2003 and have led to sustained increases in revenue to the Federal Government. In fact, the annualized increases over the last 3 years have been 14.6 percent, 11.7 percent and 6.7 percent. Even if my motion passes and is eventually enacted, we will again see increased revenue, it is projected, to the Federal Government next year. Those who wish to apply PAYGO to my motion, those who wish to object to my motion, are advocating very clearly that they want to lock in not only the largest revenue take in history, but also the largest tax increase in history. These tax increases will lead the government to collect more than 20 percent of GDP from its citizens by the end of the decade, and far higher in the years that follow. These tax increases will be of such a dramatic magnitude that they threaten to bring our economy to its knees and render it uncompetitive in the global marketplace. The motion I have offered contains no new spending, no new tax cuts. Instead, it simply prevents a tax increase. That, I submit, is not what rule XXI was designed to prevent. And I urge the speaker to reject the point of order.

Mr. McCRERY. Since that was an awfully quick ruling, Mr. Speaker, I most respectfully do appeal the ruling of the Chair because this may be the only opportunity we have to veer from this tax increase interpretation so that we can clear a bill that the Senate will pass and the President will sign.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Gene Green. (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is the third time this year that I have stood before this body to debate a tax bill dealing with energy. Like the debates before, the bill before us today has more to do with politics than policy. It is indeed Orwellian logic to say that gas prices are too high; therefore, we ought to raise taxes on the oil and gas industry. Hmm. The majority claims that American manufacturing jobs are important, but it is pursuing tax policies that will drive good-paying jobs in the oil and gas industry overseas. The majority claims to be adhering to PAYGO; yet by clever sleight of hand, they have included an additional $900 million in tax relief for New York that falls just outside the budget window, thereby evading PAYGO. And the majority, despite its stated concerns about tax earmarks, seems to have a massive one in here of a $500 million tax credit bond program that appears to benefit one single landowner. A rifle shot. The bill, as has been discussed in the past, creates tax credit bonds that State and local governments can use with little accountability and without any assurances that funded projects will reduce fossil fuel consumption or greenhouse gas emissions. On top of that, those tax credit bonds would be tradable, setting up a market for tax credits very similar to something that Congress tried back in 1981 and repealed the very next year because of the outcry of the public. Mr. Speaker, I don't expect this bill to make it through the process. I don't think it will get through the Senate. If it were to, the President would most certainly veto this bill, but maybe then we can go back to the drawing board on a bipartisan basis to craft an energy bill that actually produces energy and reduces costs and protects American jobs. Until then, I urge my colleagues to defeat what is an ill- conceived bill. We have wasted more energy today debating it than its passage would possibly create. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Barton be allowed to resume allocation of time for the minority.

Mr. McCRERY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. McCRERY. 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. McCRERY. 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. McCRERY. 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.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to allow Mr. Levin to control 1 minute of my time.

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to allow Mr. Rangel, the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, to allocate 2 minutes of my time.