[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 15, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H6826-H6834]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 1308, JOBS AND GROWTH TAX RELIEF 
                       RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2003

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. DeLauro moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House in the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 
     1308 be instructed as follows:
       1. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in 
     the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment 
     (not included in the House amendment) that provides immediate 
     payments to taxpayers receiving an additional credit by 
     reason of the bill in the same manner as other taxpayers were 
     entitled to immediate payments under the Jobs and Growth Tax 
     Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.
       2. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in 
     the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment 
     (not included in the House amendment) that provides families 
     of military personnel serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other 
     combat zones a child credit based on the earnings of the 
     individuals serving in the combat zone.
       3. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in 
     the conference report all of the other provisions of the 
     Senate amendment and shall not report back a conference 
     report that includes additional tax benefits not offset by 
     other provisions.
       4. To the maximum extent possible within the scope of 
     conference, the House conferees shall be instructed to 
     include in the conference report other tax benefits for 
     military personnel and the families of the astronauts who 
     died in the Columbia disaster.
       The House conferees shall, as soon as practicable after the 
     adoption of this motion, meet in open session with the Senate 
     conferees and the House conferees shall file a conference 
     report consistent with the preceding provisions of this 
     instruction, not later than Friday, July 18, 2003.

                              {time}  1845

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walden of Oregon). Under clause 7(b) of 
rule XXII, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, it has now been 47 days, nearly 7 weeks, since President 
Bush signed into law tax legislation that denied the extension of a 
$1,000 child tax credit to the families of 12 million children. In 10 
days' time, 25 million other families will begin receiving their checks 
in the mail but not the 6.5 million families who need it the most, 
hard-working, tax-paying families who earn between $10,500 and $26,625 
a year.
  Who will not receive this child tax credit? The families of nearly 
every child enrolled in Head Start, 912,000; families of incomes at or 
below the poverty line and are struggling to stay afloat in this 
economy.
  Forty-two thousand Head Start teachers will not qualify for this tax 
credit either. Why? Because they earn less than $26,625 per year. Even 
though these dedicated, committed, educated give their all every day, 
they pass up other more lucrative professional opportunities so that 
they can help our children get a good start in life, their own families 
are left out of this tax credit.
  One million children of military and veterans families, men and women 
who have served this country with honor, will also go without in this 
tax cut. One only need to open the paper to realize that many of these 
men and women are still fighting a war, risking their lives and dying 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet this bill does nothing for them or their 
families.
  On average, these families would have had an additional $151 per 
child had the tax credit been extended to them. It may not sound like a 
lot of money to some, but it is the difference between a child going to 
school with or without new school supplies. It helps families of the 9 
million children in this country without health insurance pay for the 
healthcare services that they need.
  What is particularly egregious is that while decent, hard-working 
Americans are being denied their rightfully earned tax relief, 
companies are still permitted to go overseas to avoid paying U.S. 
taxes, taking American jobs with them, and I might add that that is 
about $70 billion out of the revenue stream of this country because 
these folks have gone offshore not to pay their taxes. It is not right 
that every last one of these families pays more taxes than Enron did 
for the 4 out of the last 5 years.
  Think about that for a moment. Every minimum-wage-earning family in 
America paid more taxes than a multibillion corporation. What kind of a 
message does this send to our families and our children? What kind of 
values does this represent?
  All of these families work hard every day to put food on the table, 
clothes on their children's back; and, contrary to the claims by some 
on the other side of the aisle, they do pay taxes, payroll taxes, sales 
taxes, excise taxes, property taxes. They have done nothing to deserve 
being held hostage by this majority. This Republican majority would 
only extend the credit to these families on the condition that wealthy 
taxpayers get yet more tax cuts.
  Less than 2 weeks after passing a bill that gave every millionaire a 
$93,000

[[Page H6827]]

tax cut, that made sure that every corporation had the right to avoid 
paying taxes by relocating overseas and taking American jobs with it, 
this majority could not put partisan politics aside. They could not 
simply restore to these families the tax relief that they rightfully 
earned.
  This body passed a motion identical to the one that we are debating 
tonight that instructed conferees to provide those 6.5 million families 
with the same tax credit entitled to other families. It would have 
extended that tax credit to families of military personnel serving in 
Iraq and Afghanistan; and it would have paid for that tax cut so as not 
to add further to our ballooning deficit which, by the way, today the 
White House announced a record $455 billion.
  I might also add that Chairman Greenspan today in the Committee on 
Financial Services said, yes, indeed, we should do something about the 
child tax credit because it would, in fact, help to stimulate the 
economy.
  The motion passed in this body, I might add, on June 12 on a 
bipartisan basis by a vote of 205 to 201. More than a month has passed, 
and yet the conferees have not taken action to resolve this issue, and 
I will tell the Members why. The majority leader said that helping 
those families was not important to them. The majority whip said he did 
not know if the House would act after the body's bill. Then, after the 
House was dragged kicking and screaming to address this issue, the 
Committee on Ways and Means chairman and the majority leader said that 
Medicare reform was on the table until the July 4 recess and that, in 
any case, they did not know when they could even begin to conference on 
the child tax credit, in essence, stonewalling this evident.
  So, quite frankly, what we want to do is to call on the President of 
the United States. We asked the President to please use his moral 
authority to move this conference, to break the logjam, to provide this 
child tax credit to these 12 million children; and today we offered the 
same motion that was offered in July because enough is enough. The time 
for action is now. Six and a half million families have waited long 
enough. The other body has proven long ago that it can be done simply 
without increasing the deficit. The time has come for conferees to 
report out a bill that extends the full $1,000 tax credit to these 
families.
  Let us do right by every family who works hard day in and day out to 
give their children the opportunities for success. Parents define 
themselves in their children. They want to see their children succeed. 
That is what this tax credit is all about. We urge again the President 
to break this logjam, and I urge my colleagues to support this motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentlewoman is correct. This is exactly the motion that was 
offered some time ago. She focuses on the fact that it passed 205 to 
201. If they are to take some credence in a vote on a motion which is 
nonbinding, perhaps we will provide her with a different vote this time 
so the argument that it passed would not be available to her.
  People who may be watching and do not understand this process need to 
understand that the motion in front of us has no standing in terms of 
influencing a conference. It is a motion to instruct, not a motion to 
bind, not a motion to carry out required language in a bill, for 
example; and so it has, in essence, no enforcement power.
  The argument that there are people who are needful and should be 
provided with resources is, I think, a statement that we ought to 
examine. The legislation that we voted on was an attempt to make a 
change in the Internal Revenue Code which deals with income taxes.
  Her argument that there are some who perhaps do not pay income taxes 
but who nevertheless pay some kind of tax would lead us to additional 
motions to instruct of not only dealing with a payroll tax or an HI 
Medicare tax or perhaps a sales tax or a property tax or an excise tax 
or some tax that someone pays who should therefore share in the 
redistribution of wealth under the Internal Revenue Code. I think when 
we begin examining that argument on its face, it begins to fall apart.
  If the Members really want to know what this is all about, I would 
urge someone to review the debate that took place on the floor of the 
Senate, or the other body, in which someone who is up for reelection in 
November of 2004 was pleading to provide this relief between now and, 
do not be surprised, December 31, 2004, i.e., between the period of now 
and when they stand for reelection. This plea to assist these folk in 
receiving a $1,000 child tax credit is only of interest between now and 
the election.
  What the House did was examine that proposal offered by the Senate, 
and what we said was, gee, if in fact we did that and this particular 
individual was elected to the other body's 6-year term, how would that 
person vote in 2005, in 2006, in 2007, in 2008, in 2009? Chances are 
they would vote no. Why? Because they got what they wanted, coverage 
until the election.
  We thought that perhaps, instead of the politics of using children 
and families, we ought to deal with the policy of helping children and 
families. And what we did, we said we ought to take care of the valley 
created by the legislation to make sure that every year, not just the 
time between now and the next election, but for the rest of the decade, 
if we committed to providing $1,000 per child, we ought to provide it 
for the whole decade. That is policy, not politics.
  We debated that on the floor of the House. We passed it. We sent it 
to the other body. We also included the military assistance, a measure 
which, by the way, we passed twice in the year 2002; and the Senate 
neglected it. We felt that by combining it with this additional policy 
for those in need, as outlined by the gentlewoman from Connecticut, 
would perhaps induce the other body to do the right thing on a piece of 
legislation they have refused to move for now more than a year.
  We have moved substantive legislation to address the problem. The 
Senate has refused to take up the House legislation. We will meet in 
conference. The two committees assigned to reconcile the difference 
between the other body's political bill and the House's policy bill are 
exactly the two same committees that just today convened a conference 
on Medicare. We will move forward in an attempt to get the other body 
to understand that if it is good between now and the election, it ought 
to be good between now and the rest of the decade.
  That will be our goal. We believe we will be successful. The folks 
you are concerned about we believe will be taken care of, not just 
between now and the next election but for the rest of the decade. I am 
wondering why you are not willing to join us in ensuring that the 
Senate adopt sound policy instead of short-term politics.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The chairman is right. The views of the majority are often ignored in 
this House by the majority.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  She is certainly to be commended for the leadership that she has 
shown on this issue, having originally raised this entire matter before 
the Committee on the Budget back in February and for bringing up the 
matter quite eloquently and appropriately tonight.
  But I would have to say in all fairness the stronger arguments for 
the motion have been made by the gentleman from California. He has 
presented compelling arguments in favor of this motion by making clear 
that the conference committee has not even met during the time that it 
has been here and by indicating that he considers any nonbinding 
expression by this body, no matter how many Members there might be who 
voice their concerns, to be of little interest to him and the members 
on the conference committee and by suggesting that he thinks that 
providing the tax credit to working families out there, some of whom 
are paying a quarter or a half of their income in taxes to Federal, 
State, and local governments through payroll and other taxes, that they 
do not deserve any relief.

                              {time}  1900

  All of those suggest the reason why we should not let a single day go 
by

[[Page H6828]]

without raising this issue to the American people. Because at the end 
of this month, as the gentleman told us a little while before, in an 
election year, thank God we do not let election year politics get 
involved in any other tax policy. Everybody else in the country is 
going to get their tax credit relief, unless they are among the 6 
million working poor families in this country, and they will be left 
out. But thank God the Republicans are only concerned about election 
politics for other Americans, not for those people who are struggling 
to make ends meet.
  The military tax fairness bill has been sitting at this desk, I 
believe, for 2 months; and among the families that will be hurt by 
failing to follow the motion to instruct that the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut is proposing are our military servicemembers who are 
fighting on behalf of this country right now in a combat zone in Iraq. 
Those individuals will not get the full benefits of the child tax 
credit unless this motion is not only adopted tonight, but implemented 
by the conference committee.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as we indicated earlier, the motion to instruct is not 
binding in any way. It does, however, afford our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle an opportunity to talk about how someone who 
pays Federal taxes or State taxes or local taxes or dog license taxes, 
should be privileged to have part of the redistribution of the income 
taxes. We understand their position.
  But I look only to the language in the motion to instruct to 
determine whether or not they are really serious about what they want. 
And all one has to do is look at the last paragraph which, after 
delineating what must be done under the conditions in which they say it 
must be done; remember, these are the people who lost on the formal 
real legislation, all of the requirements that have to be met, and then 
the last paragraph says, the House conferees shall, as soon as 
practicable, after the adoption of this motion, meet in open session 
with the Senate conferees and the House conferees, shall file a 
conference report consistent with the preceding provisions of this 
instruction, not later than Friday, July 18, 2003. Three days to 
complete this assignment.
  I understand they believe that it is overdue in being completed, but 
when we put that kind of a time line on these specific instructions, I 
do believe it is fairly evident to anyone who understands what is going 
on that this would otherwise be known as the political hour.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I will just make a couple of comments.
  To my colleague from Texas who said if we want to get this done and 
help these families, we need to follow these instructions, we do not. 
We need to go ahead and pass the legislation that came out of the House 
and the conference committee with the Senate and take it to the 
President and have the President sign the law. That would provide the 
relief not only to those people who have no income tax liability, but 
it would also provide relief to those who do have income tax liability. 
Does that not make sense?
  Under our legislation, yes, we raise the cap from $110,000 to 
$150,000; but anybody making over $150,000 as a family, a couple, gets 
no benefit from this, so this talk about tax cuts for the rich, I do 
not know where that comes from. It is for middle-income families, 
working families, all families who pay income taxes, plus for those 
families who do not have any income tax liability. If you follow the 
motion to instruct, if you follow the thinking of my friend from Texas, 
what you would do is make permanent out until 10 years, which is as 
permanent as we can make it, all of the income tax cuts for those who 
do not have any income tax liability, but you would not provide the 
same relief for people who have income tax liability, because guess 
what? That ends in 2005. So we would sunset in 2005 the tax cuts to 
people who have income tax liability, who are working every day, trying 
to make ends meet who, yes, make up to $150,000 and make $50,000, 
$60,000, $70,000 a year, two people working; we do not give them the 
10-year relief, but we give it to folks who do not have income tax 
liability.
  Many people do not have payroll tax liability either. Now, we can 
argue about State taxes or property taxes, but I just think that is 
unfair, and that would be the result. You would be taking from people 
who do have income tax liability, and you would be giving it to people 
who do not. That is it. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) laughs, 
but it is true. Look at the language. Look at the legislation. That 
would be the result.
  Second, is this politics? Gee, I wonder. This went through the 
Committee on Ways and Means where I sit, it went through the House of 
Representatives where I vote, it went through the chairman's mark of 
the committee over in the Senate without a change in the refundability 
of the child credit. We kept current law, which is what? That people 
who make over $10,000 a year, instead of having 10 percent of that 
money be subject to a refundable child credit, it would go up to 15 
percent. That is current law. It happens in 2005, it goes to 15 
percent.
  That is all we are talking about here, remember. Under current law, 
those who do not have income tax liability get a refundable tax credit 
up to 10 percent now, and it goes up to 15 percent in 2005. The motion 
would say it should go to 15 percent now. Why was that not raised in 
the Committee on Ways and Means? Why was that not raised on the floor 
when we debated this issue? Why was it not in the chairman's mark in 
the Finance Committee in the Senate? It only came up in the Finance 
Committee deliberation when one Senator said, I am not going to vote 
for this bill unless you immediately increase it from 10 to 15 percent, 
even though, again, for those who do pay taxes and have income tax 
liability, it ends in 2005.
  So guess what? The Senate said, we have to have two votes. We will go 
ahead and add the 15 percent right now. Then what happened? That 
Senator did not vote for the bill. She decided for other reasons she 
was not going to vote for the bill anyway. Suddenly, my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle said, you have left people out, which is 
what they are saying tonight. We have somehow in the middle of the 
night as Republicans said we are going to hurt a certain group of 
people who do not have income tax liability. That is not how it 
happened, folks; and my colleagues know that is not how it happened. 
And for those colleagues on the other side who are on the Committee on 
Ways and Means, why was it not raised there? Why was it not raised on 
the floor? I think there is a little bit of politics here.
  I would just say two things: One, let us provide, as the House did, 
the immediate 15 percent; let us go ahead and do that and provide some 
stimulus. We said we were willing to do that. But let us not leave out 
the people who you are leaving out, and that is the people who work 
hard every day who do have income tax liability; folks in my district 
and yours who make $60,000 $70,000 a year, maybe a school teacher and a 
firefighter. We are saying to them, in 2005, yours will sunset; but for 
those folks who do not have income tax liability, we are going to go 
ahead and give them an additional amount of taxpayer money coming from 
those who do pay income taxes because, well, I guess it is the 
political season.
  The second point to be made is, is this politics? The way this thing 
happened, the way it has been described, I have to say I see a little 
bit of politics in it. My colleagues had the chance on the floor. The 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) did not raise it on the floor. We 
had the chance in committee. My colleagues did not raise it in 
committee. Suddenly, again, in the Senate, because it was added for 
someone who in the end did not vote for the bill, and therefore, it was 
removed because she was not voting for the bill, suddenly it is 
something that somehow nefariously it got left out.
  We did not leave anybody out. We left everybody in. Then the House 
came back and passed it and said, yes, let us help those in the 
military and those who make up to $150,000 a year. I think that is 
fair. I think the motion to instruct conferees is the wrong way to

[[Page H6829]]

go. Let us go with regular order. Let us get the House-passed 
legislation to the President, he would sign it, it could become law, 
and all of these folks could benefit immediately from the tax relief.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman, I am more than 
willing to be generous with the time to my colleague, but I believe the 
gentleman from Maryland is going to be recognized on their time to make 
his points.
  Mr. HOYER. Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have asked the gentleman if 
he would yield. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) is now using 
the time that he yielded to me.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, who has the time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simmons). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman) controls the time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, quite obviously he is using the time that the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) could use, so you may not yield.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, and then I will 
yield back the time unless he says something so persuasive that I need 
to respond.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is a good friend of mine. I 
have great respect for him. He is also a Member of this House that is 
closest to the President of the United States, perhaps. The President 
of the United States said that we ought to do what the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut is asking us to do; and, as I recall, he said we ought to 
do it right away. Is that not correct?
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say that what 
the President would like to do is he would like to get this issue off 
the table and to provide this relief, both to working families who do 
pay income taxes, which is provided in our bill, but also to those 
folks who do not have income tax liability.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would tell my friend that I interpret the 
answer to that question to be yes.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
say, the gentleman's question was: Did the President support what the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut is advocating, a motion to instruct, a 
multi-part motion to instruct with a drop-dead date? The President in 
no way intended to support what the gentlewoman from Connecticut is now 
advocating. The answer simply is no.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a member of the Committee 
on Ways and Means.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of rhetoric that goes on in this Chamber 
and in this town when it comes to different issues, and I know the 
intent of a lot of people is different from the intent of others. And I 
know that there are those who would like to see this child tax credit 
given to a lot of people. In fact, the bill that we voted on here, this 
some--$80 billion tax relief would do what a lot of people would like 
to see done, and that is the child tax credit spread around more.
  But as I go back to the district at home, and not just in my 
district, but traveling throughout Georgia, I have the question asked 
of me: How in the world, Mac, can you give a tax credit or a refund to 
people who actually did not have a tax liability? And that is a 
difficult question to answer, because the Tax code is supposed to be 
set up in a way and in a fashion that people pay based upon their 
income; and if they do not have the income to pay the tax, then they 
have no tax liability. So, therefore, there is some concern with people 
who do as to why we should give a tax credit, a refundable tax credit 
to those who do not.

                              {time}  1915

  But you know what is interesting about all of this conversation and 
all of this rhetoric about the different tax provisions, whether it be 
the payroll tax or whether it be the income tax, whether it be the 
corporate income tax or whatever it may be, it just fuels the fire at 
home. And I like this fire. I like to see it fueled, and I appreciate 
some of my colleagues bringing it up and doing so. But it just 
accelerates and fuels the fire of those who would like to see a total 
tax reformation here in Washington of the Tax Codes. As Mr. Archer used 
to say, just pull it up by the roots and do away with it and put in 
place a different type of system.
  I am often asked by my constituency at home and other parts of the 
State about a representative from Georgia who has introduced such a 
measure that is called the Fair Tax introduced by the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Linder). That is the reason I am a co-sponsor of it, 
because of the complexity and the cost of complying with this type of 
system and how it treats people who pay tax far differently than it 
does those who do not pay tax. I am a strong supporter of the gentleman 
from Georgia's (Mr. Linder) Fair Tax.
  I have asked the chairman of the committee to let us hold some 
hearings on the Fair Tax. Let us see just exactly how it would be 
implemented and how it would change the makeup of the tax system in the 
United States and how that makeup today is far different from other 
nations and how, if we changed it, it would make us a lot more 
competitive in the world marketplace, which we need to be.
  Just in the last couple of years we have lost over 2 million 
manufacturing jobs from this country to offshore, many of those U.S. 
companies who have moved offshore. I believe if we were to reform this 
tax system we would see a lot of those companies maybe change their 
mind and relocate back here or at least change the mind of some of 
those who want to relocate offshore.
  I kind of like the idea that they bring all of this rhetoric to the 
floor of the House of Representatives and expose the fact that we have 
a very complicated, complex tax system that treats people who actually 
get out and work every day and take a risk and invest and try hard to 
provide for their families, but yet some of their funds are taken from 
them and transferred to people who do not have a tax liability because 
some of them do not have enough income or they have a far larger family 
than the income requirements for the tax liability.
  So I appreciate the fact that they will bring this type of 
information to the floor and this type of rhetoric. It just fuels the 
fire of the gentleman from Georgia's (Mr. Linder) Fair Tax bill that I 
am a strong supporter of and would like to see the House Committee on 
Ways and Means address it with hearings.
  I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding me time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to quote what the President's 
spokesman said about what the President wanted.
  He, the President, wants to sign that legislation and hopes that the 
Congress will get it to him quickly. He believes what the Senate has 
done is the right thing to do, a good thing to do, and he wants to sign 
it.
  He said that on June 9. Now, that is what the effect of this motion 
is, and that is what the President wants.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her 
leadership on this and look forward to once again passing this motion 
to instruct.
  We actually on this side of the aisle take these motions to instruct 
very seriously. We think they do have some meaning or at least should 
have some meaning to the conferees, and I am disappointed to hear that 
the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means thinks that you can 
just throw away this kind of vote. It does not matter that the majority 
of people on this floor voted for it.
  I brought a picture of the Johnston family. I have introduced the 
Johnstons to this Chamber before, but I think a lot of people have 
forgotten about them. Particularly the Republican majority has 
forgotten about them. This is a family that would benefit from the full 
thousand dollar child credit but will not be getting any check on July 
25 when those checks go out, the same day, by the way, that we are 
scheduled to recesses for our August break.

[[Page H6830]]

  I would suggest that the child tax credit is something we should not 
go home without. We should not go home without it. We have just a few 
days. And, again, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means 
suggests that we are just not serious, that the July 18 date that we 
have in here could not be done, and all of us know that we could do it 
instantly. We could do it tonight. We could do it tomorrow. We could do 
it in a few minutes, just the way the Senate did.
  I think we ought to do a little look back at the real history of what 
happened here.
  The Senate had the child tax credit in their Jobs and Growth Bill, a 
$350 billion tax relief bill, most of which went to the wealthiest. No, 
it is true the House did not. But when the negotiation came on this big 
tax break mostly for millionaires, how, when that negotiation took 
place, it looked like, uh-oh, we have exceeded the $350 billion mark. 
Somebody is going to have to be thrown over the side.
  The Vice President of the United States, who, by the way benefitted 
to the tune of about $116,000 in tax relief in one year from that bill, 
this family would have to work approximately over 5 years to just meet 
what the tax cut was for the Vice President, he said, somebody has to 
go. We cannot provide all of this tax relief.
  And guess who went? Twelve million children, including this adorable 
baby, over a million children of veterans and other people in the 
military who are not going to get their full thousand dollar child tax 
credit, 6.5 million working families who earn a huge sum of money, 
between $10,500 and $26,625 per year, not nearly what the Vice 
President will make in just his tax break.
  We say in this Chamber all the time how much we value work. This is a 
working family. The working families we talked about, health aides, 
teacher aides, security guards, they take care of our parents and our 
children. Those are the families who are not going to get it.
  This is a very simple matter. You do not have to be a rocket 
scientist or an actuary or know math to figure out this is the kind of 
family who would benefit who is not going to because the Republican 
majority said no.
  But we value work. Somehow, though, the kind of work we value most is 
cutting open envelopes and taking out dividend checks, not the kind of 
work that people do 40 hours a week taking care of children, taking 
care of seniors, serving in our military, putting their lives on the 
line. We should vote and mean it for this motion to instruct.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simmons). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thomas) has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) has 18 minutes remaining.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague from 
Connecticut for bringing this motion to instruct conferees.
  I speak as a new Member of the House of Representatives. I know that 
all of us take the oath of office to represent and do our due diligence 
of representing our districts. Yet the Republican tax plans to me are 
devastating to people working in my district. Every city in my district 
in California, every city has lost jobs since President Bush took 
office. Believe it or not, the number of unemployed has increased more 
than 30 percent in 2 years in most of my cities; and in one city alone, 
the city of South El Monte, the unemployment rate is 10.8 percent. It 
started out 2 years ago at about 9. Now it is at 10.8. And the 
Republicans call cutting taxes for rich trickle-down economics?
  The only thing trickling down to my community is a headache and 
budget cuts. The $450 billion deficit that has accumulated since the 
President took office is trickling down to States and communities like 
mine, and it all adds up to a lot of bad news for working class people. 
Local taxes have increased, job losses, cuts to school budgets, cuts in 
health and first responder services and an inability to deal with our 
environmental issues and problems like the quality of air and water.
  The burden of these cuts are hitting hard working-class families like 
those in my district, and it is shameful that the main beneficiaries of 
the Republican tax cuts are the millionaire friends of the folks on 
that aisle. Republicans found $90 billion to give to 200,000 
millionaire families. They got $93,500 in tax breaks. Yet 47 percent of 
Californians, that is almost half, will get a total cut of less than 
$100; and 28 percent in California will get absolutely nothing. Nada.
  Tax breaks for millionaires will not make it in my district because I 
do not even have a millionaire that lives in my district. They all make 
below $200,000 a year.
  To add insult to injury, the last-minute changes made by the 
Republicans will also prevent families in the area of $10,500 to 
$26,625 who have 11.9 million children from receiving child tax 
credits.
  Democrats did offer an economic stimulus plan with an immediate 
increase in the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief for all, and 
the expansion of the 10 percent tax bracket. Democrats tried to put 
money in the pockets of people who earn it; and, as usual, we were 
stifled.
  We demand to see this restored tax credit for our families, and I 
would urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct conferees.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, apparently it is necessary to repeat once again the 
House has acted. We are on record to send a check out to these people, 
not just between now and the next election but every year this decade, 
every year this decade. Someone may wonder why we are saying that this 
also should go out to people who make $150,000 a year. That was in the 
Senate measure that they are asking us to support. Of course, if you 
read the fine print it turns out it only goes out to families making 
$150,000 in 2010. So when you combine sending it out to families who 
make $150,000 in one year, 2010, and you provide $1,000 only between 
now and the next election, you realize exactly what is going on.
  What we did in this House was say to those people who we think are 
entitled to a check should have a check every year for the rest of this 
decade. And if it is worthy of giving someone $150,000 in 2010, it is 
worthy to do it this year and every year. After all, $150,000, if you 
are an elementary school teacher in New York and your husband is a 
fireman who responded on 9-11, $150,000 is about what they earn. It is 
not the rich.
  You will hear repeated over and over again, we built a tax program 
for the rich. An elementary school teacher in New York City and a 
fireman in New York City, ask them if they are rich. Ask them if 
offering the $150,000 only in the last year, 2010, and offering the 
child credit only between now and the next election is not politics. 
Let them decide who is offering policy.
  Our position, every year for the rest of the decade; $150,000 for the 
rest of the decade; $150,000 in 2010; the thousand dollar child credit 
between now and the next election. I think that family will sit around 
the kitchen table and say, we know who is playing politics.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller) for purposes of control.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) 
laid this out very accurately. Tonight is all about politics. I 
remember when I was elected in the class of 1994 I campaigned on 
creating the child tax credit which was a centerpiece of what was 
called the Contract with America at the time. And I remember many of 
those that are now somehow laying claim to the child tax credit were 
the same ones in 1995 who criticized the child tax credit somehow as a 
tax break for the rich.

                              {time}  1930

  So it is the same well-worn-out, tired, partisan rhetoric that we 
hear from the other side.
  One of the things I hear from my colleagues is they always like to 
somehow make everyone a victim. They always

[[Page H6831]]

say that someone's going to get hurt. Let us think about who gets hurt 
if the Democrats prevail: poor people who have their child tax credit 
raised from $600 to $1,000, who right now qualify for the earned income 
tax credit. If Democrats have their way, it is only there for 1 year. 
Then they take it away at the end of 2004; and if the Democrats have 
their way, married couples, for example, who suffer from a marriage tax 
penalty in the child tax credit will suffer as well.
  As the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) pointed out, we 
eliminated the marriage tax penalty in the child tax credit in the 
legislation we passed out of the House. The version they support, we do 
it in not 10 years, but we eliminate the marriage tax penalty. We want 
to eliminate it for the decade so it is in effect right now and stays 
there rather than waiting a decade for, as the Democrats would want to 
do, to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Again, by eliminating the 
marriage tax penalty, we say if a person makes $75,000, they qualify, 
as they would today, for the $1,000 tax credit; and if they make twice 
what a single person makes, which is $150,000, and that is a good 
income, but as the chairman pointed out, that is what a schoolteacher 
in New York City and a fireman in New York City who are married, a 
combined income, make, and they are denied the child tax credit under 
what the Democrats would like to do. We want to eliminate the marriage 
tax penalty right now.
  We also, under our legislation, make the child tax credit available 
for the entire decade. I mentioned that earlier, and one other group 
that I think it is important for us to note is that if the Democrats 
have their way, our military men and women who would benefit from the 
House-passed tax relief targeted to our military families, many of whom 
have loved ones engaged somewhere in the Middle East, in Afghanistan, 
Iraq or elsewhere, the Senate, as my colleagues know, has not yet 
passed that legislation. We feel it should have been done not yesterday 
but months ago that we should have passed that legislation. That was 
coupled with the bill that passed the House of Representatives. Again, 
if the Democrats had their way, our military men and women who would 
benefit from the package of targeted tax relief to help our military 
men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan would be hurt, to use a 
Democrat's term.
  So those are some of the victims out there. The victims, of course, 
are low-income families who have the child tax credit increased from 
$600 to $1,000 but immediately so, but it would only be there for 1 
year. So it would be taken away from them.
  Second, under the Democrat plan, we would not eliminate the marriage 
tax penalty for those who could benefit from the child tax credit. We 
want to do it immediately. They want to do it essentially 10 years from 
now.
  In particular, we are also trying to help our military men and women, 
those in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, who are risking their 
lives today by ensuring that they get the tax relief, the help that we 
promised them months ago, unfortunately which other body has not yet 
passed. We think that needs to be done as well.
  One thing we want to make clear. In this House, we Republicans want 
to ensure that all children who should qualify benefit from the child 
tax credit. As my colleagues recall, the Bush tax credit, the same 
children who they claim to be trying to help right now were already 
provided $1,000 tax credit. It was phased in. We agree that it needs to 
be increased. We want to increase it for the entire decade. We want to 
eliminate the marriage tax penalty for the child tax credit, and we 
also want to help our Armed Forces currently in Iraq and Afghanistan 
with tax relief they should have received months ago; but 
unfortunately, for whatever reason, it has not yet been passed by 
Members of the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
time.
  The gentleman's premise, and we have heard the chairman also say, 
gee, we want to do this, we want to help these children, we want to 
help these 12 million children, we want to help these 6.5 million 
families. Gee, we cannot do it unless we do it all, and the Senate will 
not pass our bill.
  What precludes my colleagues from doing it all and doing it now as 
well? I suggest to the gentleman, nothing. The President of the United 
States, President Bush, asked my colleagues to do the Senate bill, do 
it now so we can get money into the hands of these families now, not at 
some theoretical future date.
  Mr. Speaker, at 6:39 tonight it was 33 days exactly since the House 
appointed conferees to the House-Senate conference committee on 
legislation to increase the child tax credit for those 6.5 million 
families and those 200,000 servicemen and -women that the Republicans 
say they want to help, but only if we help them for 10 years. Nothing 
precludes them from helping now and helping later.
  Thirty-three days, Mr. Speaker, and still no movement by Republicans 
on the fundamental issue of fairness that the President asked them to 
respond to. The President, not Democrats, President George Bush, the 
President of the United States, said pass the Senate bill; but the 
majority party has turned a deaf ear to the President on this issue. 
Selective hearing.
  In fact, on June 12 when this House GOP passed a fiscally 
irresponsible $82 billion bill that will cost $800 billion in the years 
after 2013 that included the child tax credit, rather than accept the 
Senate version costing $3.5 billion, now they really do not care about 
deficits, they have blown a hole in the surplus they inherited, the 
largest surplus in the history of our country and have turned it into 
the historically highest deficit in the history of our country in less 
than 30 months. That is one heck of an accomplishment, a bad one.
  They hoped to kill this bill. That is why they did not pass the 
Senate bill. They said, oh, we want to do it all, knowing full well 
that they could not do it because, as the gentlewoman said, the reason 
they cut out these families was because they could not afford it; but 
yet they think they can afford $82 billion. They cut out 3.5 billion. 
Great math on that side.
  Thirty-three days, Mr. Speaker, and still America waits for the GOP 
to summon a sense of fairness for these 12 million children who were 
deliberately and consciously and specifically left out in the cold by 
conferees on the Republican tax bill because their parents have low 
income. The clock is still ticking, but there is still time to do what 
is right for these families.
  The gentleman from Illinois said we could do it tonight. Our side of 
the aisle will give unanimous consent for my colleagues to take the 
Senate bill, pass it tonight, pass it tonight without change and send 
it to the President, and the President can sign it tomorrow morning so 
that on July 25, those working families, the families that are having 
the toughest time in America, will have some help.
  I had some school supplies in my office the other day. We took it off 
the Internet, matter of fact today off the Internet, the suggested 
school supplies for going back to school in September, $220. This tax 
cut, if we paid it on July 25, could take care of those school supplies 
for those families.
  Pass it, pass it now. Do not dissemble; do not delay.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how much time 
remains on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simmons). The gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Weller) has 4 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro) has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I believe I have the right to close, being 
in the majority.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro) has the right to close.
  Mr. WELLER. She has the right to close, pardon me. I reserve the 
balance of my time to allow her to use up some more of her time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro) is recognized.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)

[[Page H6832]]

  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, as of February this year, I too 
serve on the Committee on Ways and Means; and I am so happy to have the 
opportunity to sit there, and tonight I rise in support of the motion 
to instruct conferees to take action on the child tax credit by this 
Friday, as my colleague from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) has urged.
  I heard the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means say, have it 
happen by Friday, how could that be? Contemplate that almost every 
piece of significant legislation that has come before this Congress in 
the last few months gets to the Democratic Party on the morning that 
the legislation is debated, hundreds of pages. We are required to go 
through hundreds of pages. Surely this Congress could go forward and 
take care of this issue by Friday.
  The other thing that was so amazing to me was the discussion about 
politics. Give me a break. The politics of everything we have done in 
the last few months looms large.
  The reason we dealt with the prescription drug benefit before July 4 
was because the President instructed them to do that, and it was 
political because he needed to have that done.
  The reason we dealt with a tax cut was on the President's 
instruction, and it was political because he needed to pay back all the 
people who supported his campaign.
  The reason that the children, in this instance, were left out was 
political because there was only $400 million set aside for the tax 
cut; and the poor, the poor folks in this country were put aside in the 
name of the rich in this country.
  It is just a shame that we would have to sit here and talk about an 
issue and call the most important issue for many working families in 
this country rhetoric and that this motion has no significance; but the 
motion was significant enough to bring the chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, the motion was significant enough to bring the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), who has a relationship with the 
President, the motion was significant enough to bring the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Weller) down here to debate against us. It is 
significant and they know it, and that is why they are down here on the 
floor debating us.
  I say that it would be wonderful if on July 26 when those checks went 
out that the checks would go out to families who need it the most. In 
my State, the State of Ohio, 147,000 people have lost their jobs since 
2001. Surely those working folks would like to be able to say I paid 
income tax in 2001 and 2002, give me a job, I would pay income tax. 
Unfortunately, as a result of the proposed 2001 tax cut that did not 
boost the economy, 147,000 people in the State of Ohio have lost their 
jobs.
  I could go on and on about this issue, but I have colleagues here in 
the audience who would like to say something about the issue. Give me a 
break. It is political, it is political, but we are being political on 
behalf of working folks. I seek opportunity to yield back my time to 
give some other Members of this House an opportunity to be heard on the 
issue. Before I do that, let me say one more thing.
  It is significant that many of the minority children in this country 
will not be given an opportunity to get dollars, 2.4 million African 
American children, 4.1 million Latino children. Overall, it is almost 
one in six children that will not get a benefit because this Republican 
Party has delayed, delayed, delayed.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), the chairman of the Hispanic Caucus.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight because some of my 
colleagues have stood here on the House floor and stated they believe 
that working families who earn less than $26,000 do not deserve a tax 
relief. Shame on them.
  I stand before my colleagues today to speak to those people who are 
blocking the efforts to extend this child tax credit for low-income 
working families throughout this country, to let them know that their 
actions are affecting some of the hardest-working mothers and fathers 
in our Nation.
  The Bush tax cut left behind thousands of hardworking south Texans 
and Americans. Many jobs, good jobs, just do not qualify my 
constituents for tax relief.
  Let me look at some of these examples. We have child care workers who 
make roughly $13,000 starting salaries, fast-food cook workers who make 
$13,000, waitresses who make $14,000, food preparers and servicers who 
make $14,000, preschool teachers who start at $13,000.

                              {time}  1945

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simmons). The gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) has 4 minutes remaining.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague, the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), for yielding me this time 
and for taking the leadership on this issue.
  A number of folks on the other side of the aisle mentioned people who 
did not pay taxes. I agree with them. It is very important that people 
pay taxes. That is why I am struck by the lack of compassion for the 
fact that Enron, for 4 out of 5 years with record profits, never paid a 
single corporate income tax, yet was the recipient of $250 million 
worth of export-import loans, or corporate welfare. I do not see 
anybody shedding any moral indignation about Enron not paying corporate 
taxes for 4 out of 5 years.
  WorldCom, which recently declared bankruptcy and defrauded many of 
its shareholders, recorded $12.5 billion in profits, and yet 2 out of 3 
years never paid any corporate taxes. Yet on this side not a voice is 
raised out of concern for the fact that corporations who have not paid 
taxes get many tax credits and benefits. They pay no incomes taxes, and 
yet they continue to receive taxpayer-funded government contracts, 
whether that be MCI or Enron.
  Exxon Mobile recently reported, if I am not mistaken, $12.3 billion 
in their quarterly income, yet received a $25 billion tax credit. To do 
what? Drill for oil. I thought that was what their business was. I 
thought that was what they were supposed to do. I did not know 
taxpayers are supposed to subsidize what they are supposed to do for 
business. That is in their business plan and in their own quarterly 
reports of what they do, yet they reported quarterly profits. But this 
Congress provides them a tax cut.
  So is there politics? My colleague is right. There are politics. Do 
people not pay taxes and yet get corporate benefits and get government 
benefits? Yes, they do, and the taxpayers pay for them all the time.
  In The New York Times about 3 weeks ago I noticed that the taxpayers 
of the United States were paying Iraqi citizens $20 a day to not show 
up for work. Now, I come from Chicago, and my good friend from Illinois 
comes from the suburbs of Chicago, but we both know something about no-
show jobs. In Chicago, we think we wrote the book on no-show jobs. But 
$20 a day for a no-show for an Iraqi citizen, well, the taxpayers of 
the United States are paying those people $20 who do not show up for 
work. That can make a ward committeeman in Chicago a little jealous.
  That is over $1,000 in the last 3 months since the war ended. That 
Iraqi gets $1,000, yet American citizens, 12 million children, do not 
get a child tax credit. Their parents cannot buy their school supplies 
as they get ready to go back to school.
  So I think there is a great deal of irony, and, if I may say, a great 
deal of policy that my colleagues would provide Iraqis $20 a day for 
not showing up for work, yet the men and women who are over there in 
uniform, making us proud, their children will not get the full tax 
credit. I do not know if that is policy or politics. I do not know what 
to call that, except that it is shameful.
  So as we begin to think about what we are going to do here, the 
motion to instruct here would provide us the opportunity to move on 
this.
  And I would like to remind people of one other point today. In front 
of the Committee on Financial Services, Chairman Greenspan spoke, and 
he talked about one of the reasons he thought the economy was taking 
off the second half of this year. One of two

[[Page H6833]]

reasons he provided was that we had a child tax credit that would put 
money in the pockets of middle-class families, and he lauded the child 
credit. He saw it as a good thing. We asked him if he thought it would 
be helpful to the economy if working middle-class families got it. He 
said he did.
  Now, I know that periodically we selectively use Chairman Greenspan's 
words around here, but he lauded the child tax credit, and he lauded 
its ability to stimulate the economy. We would hope that since 
President Bush has asked us to get this done and Chairman Greenspan has 
talked about the value of this to working families and since our 
colleagues have decided to provide $20 a day to Iraqis, I would hope 
that we would give that same consideration to American taxpayers who do 
show up to work.
  Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct a factual point that my 
good friend from Illinois made, and that is the original voice behind 
the $500 per child tax credit was the Gore-Downey legislation. And the 
President of the United States who signed the $500 per child tax credit 
into law was President Clinton in 1997 in the Balanced Budget 
Agreement. Now, there was a piece of that in the Contract With America, 
but the first child tax credit idea was the Gore-Downey $500 tax 
credit. It became law in 1997 and was part of President Clinton's 
budget.
  I would not want that to get in the way, and it might have been in 
the Contract With America, and I am glad he ran on it, and there should 
be bipartisan agreement on that rather than disagreement on that. I 
would hope that we could do that. We are willing to give our colleagues 
the right to get it done right now, to adopt the Senate provision. We 
would like to be the voice for those 12 million children who do not get 
the tax credit as other children would. I hope my colleagues will see 
the economic benefits of that and see that it gets accomplished.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy my good friend from Illinois, the former 
member of the Clinton administration, but I would point out again that 
it was a Republican Congress that passed the $500 per child tax credit. 
He is right. President Clinton did sign it in the Balanced Budget 
Agreement that was passed by a Republican Congress, but I would note 
that it was the centerpiece of the Contract With America, the child tax 
credit; and many of my friends on the other side of the aisle again 
called the child tax credit a tax cut for the rich because they would 
rather spend the money here in Washington.
  We have heard a lot of rhetoric tonight, and it has all been 
political. That is what this exercise is all about, rhetoric and name 
calling. But so much of it is not true.
  It is often asked, who benefitted from the Bush tax relief package? 
Who benefitted from the jobs and economic growth package? Well, in my 
State of Illinois, the average tax-paying family will see lower taxes, 
or what we like to call higher take-home pay of about $1,000. And if 
they are married couples, they see an elimination of the marriage tax 
penalty.
  Three million Illinois children are already benefitting from the 
doubling of the child tax credit to $1,000. It will be a big help to 
millions of Illinois families. Again, if you pay income Federal income 
taxes, you benefit, and millions of low-income taxpayers are no longer 
on the tax rolls thanks to this package.
  One other example of someone who benefits from the package that was 
just signed into law by President Bush is Jose and Magdalena Castillo 
of Joliet, Illinois, a couple of construction workers. They work hard 
in Joliet. They have two children, Eduardo and little Carolina, and 
they suffered from the marriage tax penalty. Under the provision that 
eliminated the marriage tax penalty for couples like Jose and 
Magdalina, they see about $1,400 in benefit. Think about that. That is 
a couple of semesters worth of tuition at Joliet Junior College. It is 
several months worth of day care at a local day care center. It is 
several months worth of car payments. It is probably 2 months worth of 
house payments for Jose and Magdalina. They benefit.
  They also benefit from the legislation we passed out of this House 
because they benefit from the child tax credit. Under the legislation 
the House passed, we extend the child tax credit for Jose and Magdalina 
Castillo through the end of the decade.
  The Democrats, of course, want to take that away at the end of 2004, 
once the election is over with. Well, we want to honor our commitment 
and keep our commitment, and many of us believe that we should make the 
elimination of the marriage tax penalty and the doubling of the child 
tax credit permanent forever. That is a separate debate, but the House-
passed bill, which my Democratic friends oppose, extend it at least to 
the end of the decade so families can make plans.
  If the Democrats had their way, Magdalina and Jose Castillo, for each 
of their two children, would lose that $1,000 tax credit. In that case, 
it would cost that family $800 in higher taxes for Jose and Magdalina 
Castillo, if my Democratic friends had their way. That is why it is so 
important to oppose what the Democrats are proposing today and that is 
to take away the tax credit from Jose and Magdalina Castillo.
  That is why I strongly support what the House passed with bipartisan 
support, legislation to extend it through the end of the decade so 
families like Jose and Magdalina Castillo can make plans.
  The second thing is that we eliminate the marriage tax penalty. I 
thought the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) laid it out very 
well, because he pointed out that, under the House-passed bill, which 
my Democratic friends stand in opposition to, we eliminate the marriage 
tax penalty under the child tax credit. Right now, if you are a single 
person with a child, a single mom making up to $75,000, you can get the 
thousand dollar tax credit. However, if you are a married couple, you 
can only make up to $115,000. Who gets hurt?
  Mr. Speaker, I, of course, urge my colleagues to vote in bipartisan 
opposition to the Democrats wanting to take away the child tax credit 
and also their efforts to oppose our efforts to eliminate the marriage 
tax penalty and the child tax credit.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  This body did pass a motion identical to the one that we are debating 
tonight. It instructed the conferees to provide the 6.5 million 
families with the same tax credit given to other families, extending 
that tax credit to families of military personnel serving in Iraq. It 
was an overwhelming vote, a bipartisan vote, 205 to 201. But I guess 
what the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means said is right, the 
Republican majority does not care about the will of the majority of 
this House and what we are talking about.
  The House GOP bill contains bad news for the children of 200,000 men 
and women who currently serve in Iraq and other combat zones. What we 
would do with this motion to instruct tonight is to help these military 
families, while what they had passed originally does not help those 
families.
  Want to talk about playing politics? They passed what they did here 
because they knew there were no votes in the Senate and they would try 
to kill this piece of legislation, that they would not want to do 
something for those 12 million children who are not going to get the 
benefit of the child tax credit. That is playing politics.
  When they say that in fact they will do nothing, that we do not have 
time for a conference, well, we could call that conference, as has been 
said here earlier tonight, in a heartbeat. We could vote on it 
tomorrow. We could do what the President of the United States has said 
we ought to do. We could do what the Senate has done and what he 
believes is the right thing to do, a good thing to do. And he wants to 
sign it.
  I ask the President of the United States to please call on his 
leadership in the House of Representatives and in the United States 
Senate to come together in a conference. He should use his moral 
authority, use the bully pulpit to do something for 12 million children 
whose families work hard every single day to allow for their success.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

[[Page H6834]]

  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________