mr. speaker , i rise in opposition to the substitute and in favor of the underlying bill .  i want to talk about some of the allegations that have been brought up in this debate .  one is the fact that perhaps by continuing the tax policies or extending the reduction in tax rate , especially in the area of tax dividends and capital gains tax , that somehow we are aggravating the deficit .  i think that the evidence is pretty conclusive that we have seen a tremendous stimulus and tremendous growth in revenues because of this tax policy .  if i could quote the chairman of the federal reserve board , back in june of this year he said : `` i do think that there are parts of the existing recent tax changes , especially with respect to eliminating part of the double taxation of dividends , which i think enhances economic growth , enhances the tax base and , therefore , tax revenues , and that it is good economic policy. '' the second point that i think is being made in favor of the substitute and opposing the underlying bill is saying that the extension of the reduction in tax rates on cap gains and dividends somehow is a tax cut for the rich .  i could not disagree more .  and , in fact , our own joint committee on taxation , on the amt extension 's impact , compares the two , the one that we acted on yesterday and the one today .  the amt extension impacts 14 million taxpayers ; 62 million taxpayers benefit from reduced rates on cap gains and dividends .  and per the most recent irs data , 96 percent of taxpayers hit by the amt in 2003 had adjusted gross incomes in excess of $ 100 , 000 .  so it is clear .  furthermore , the joint economic committee says that 60 percent of those paying capital gains taxes earn less than $ 50 , 000 annually ; 85 percent earn less than $ 100 , 000 annually .  this is about jobs .  this is about creating jobs for america 's families , and i urge rejection of the substitute and passage of the underlying bill .  