[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 22, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H7320-H7326]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 1308, TAX RELIEF, SIMPLIFICATION,
AND EQUITY ACT OF 2003
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Ross 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:
Number one, 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.
Number two, 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 individual serving in the combat zone.
Number three, 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.
Number four, to the maximum extent possible within the
scope of the 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.
Finally, number five, 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 the second
legislative day after adoption of this motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 7(b) of rule XXII, the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) and a Member of the opposite party,
in this case the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), each will
control 30 minutes.
The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) is recognized.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, tonight I am offering a motion to instruct conferees on
the child tax credit. As Congress considered H.R. 2, the Jobs and
Growth Tax Reconciliation Act, at a cost of more than $300 billion, one
important provision was omitted that affects a majority of the
hardworking families in my home State of Arkansas, as well as working
families across our Nation.
The increase of a child tax credit that could be refundable to
include low- to moderate-income families who earn between $10,500 a
year and $26,625 a year was dropped from the conference agreement. Wage
earners in this group include our men and women in the military, police
officers, firefighters, and even our school teachers. Expanding the
child tax credit to include the families of these people made up only 1
percent, let me repeat that, made up only 1 percent of the total cost
of the tax cut package; but the impact of this omission on the millions
of working families who need this relief is immeasurable.
I am very proud of our senior Senator from Arkansas, Blanche Lincoln,
who led the effort in the United States Senate to correct this wrong,
to right this wrong; and the Senate did so in a bipartisan way. The
vote in the Senate was 94 to 2. Let me repeat that: in the Senate it
was a bipartisan vote, 94 to 2.
Mr. Speaker, it is simply wrong. It is wrong to enact a tax cut in
the name of economic relief and not give that relief to those who are
trying to do the right thing and stay off welfare and work jobs with
few or no benefits, struggling day in and day out to make ends meet and
provide for their children and their families.
At the end of this week, some 25 million checks will be printed and
put in the mail. Soon, the 25 million families who qualify under the
new tax cut law will begin to receive those checks for child tax
credits aimed at providing them with economic relief. This means that a
mother of two who earns $65,000 a year will soon find an extra $800 in
her mailbox. Meanwhile, a mother of two who earns up to $26,625 will
get absolutely nothing, not one dime.
We had to explain today to a single mother from my congressional
district back home, Arkansas' Fourth Congressional District, who earns
$16,000 a year, she was under the impression that she would be getting
the child tax credit. After all she works for a living; she pays taxes
and wanted our office to settle an argument with a friend who insisted
that she did not qualify. Even though she is trying to do the right
thing and stay off welfare, her friend told her she does not make
enough money to get money back in terms of a child tax credit.
We had to tell her that she lost that argument; and because House
Republicans, this Republican national leadership has yet to act on a
bipartisan, Senate-passed provision, I repeat again on a 94 to 2 vote
in the United States Senate, a bipartisan vote, because the House has
refused to act on the Senate version, she will be left out in the cold.
Mr. Speaker, if we act now, we can include some 6.5 million working
families who need this help the most.
This motion to instruct does a few simple things. It tells the
conferees to agree to the Senate language, the bipartisan language that
passed the Senate 94 to 2. It tells the conferees to let this language
provide for tax credit checks to be mailed immediately to low-income
family, those earning up to $26,625 a year. It provides that the tax
credit be extended to personnel in combat zones in Iraq, Afghanistan
and elsewhere around the globe. It provides assistance for the families
of those who died in the tragic Columbia shuttle disaster, and yes, it
ensures that this minimal cost is fully offset. In other words, we are
not adding to the national deficit through this motion to instruct.
{time} 2230
The conferees could easily accomplish these changes and bring us a
final bill within 2 days, which is what this motion calls for.
For those who argue that a tax cut should not be provided for those
who do not pay taxes, I am here tonight to say that that dog won't
hunt. We are not talking about a tax credit for welfare recipients. We
are talking about a tax cut for working families. There are hard-
working people in our own offices who fall in this income level. Check
out their next pay stub and tell me that they do not pay taxes.
Working individuals who pay a significant part of their income in
taxes, including Social Security and Medicare taxes and gas taxes and
sales taxes and property taxes, taxes which are never cut, should be
entitled to share in the benefits of a tax cut, particularly since it
is their Social Security Trust Fund, their children's Social Security
Trust Fund, and their grandchildren's Social Security Trust Fund that
is being raided to pay for this tax cut for the wealthy.
It is only fair that tax cuts benefit all Americans who contribute.
Let us right the wrong and make sure that those 76,000 working families
in my
[[Page H7321]]
State, and the 6.5 million working families across our country, the
families of our firefighters, our policemen, our schoolteachers, and
even families with loved ones fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan will be
included in this effort to provide economic relief. Let us provide it
to those who need it the most. Let us provide it to those who will
actually spend the refund on items their families need, and in doing so
will help get this economy moving forward once again. Let us provide it
to America's working families because it is the right thing to do.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct, and I thank my friend
from Arkansas and others who will enjoin this debate this evening, Mr.
Speaker, because it gives us a marvelous opportunity to carefully
review all the facts.
It was the second President of the United States, Mr. Speaker, John
Adams, who first observed that facts are stubborn things, and perhaps
the stirring presentation from my friend from Arkansas is most
compelling for what he omitted from his motion to instruct. Mr.
Speaker, it is my sad duty to inform this House that the Democrat
motion to instruct allows the child credit to drop from $1,000 to $700
after the 2004 election.
Let me repeat that because it is very important that all who join us
in this debate, in this presentation tonight, Mr. Speaker, understand
clearly what would transpire. The Democrat motion to instruct allows
the child credit to drop from $1,000 to $700 after the 2004 election.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in the world of commerce, that is known as bait and
switch. And as a result, millions of the people who my friend professes
to champion, millions of low- and middle-income families, will receive
a smaller child tax credit right after the elections.
The House-passed bill, and let us point this out too, Mr. Speaker,
because my friend also omitted something that just was passed by this
House, H.R. 1308, the All American Tax Relief Act of 2003, our more
comprehensive bill, which was not a part of my friend's presentation,
passed by this House, ensures that the child credit remains at $1,000
throughout the decade.
Mr. Speaker, there is more, and I will be happy to delineate it, but
let me pause, because my friend mentioned the needs of one of his
constituents in the Fourth Congressional District of Arkansas. Mr.
Speaker, I would hope that for all our low-income constituents who call
about this, that we would inform them of four letters, EITC, Earned
Income Tax Credits. That exists for people just like the constituent
that was mentioned, which opens up economic prosperity and opportunity
for those who do not pay a high level of taxes.
And again, understand, so expansive has been our move to reduce
taxation on the American people, Mr. Speaker, that I am able to report
that a family of four earning close to $40,000 a year now would pay no
income taxes. And you see, really, this is the issue, Mr. Speaker.
Those of us in the common sense majority say if you pay income taxes,
those taxes should be reduced. Our friends on the other side say if you
pay any taxes, then income taxes should be reduced.
There is a certain amount of illogic to that, speaking of dogs that
will not hunt, Mr. Speaker, but let us take it a step further. What we
have done in this House, through adoption of H.R. 1308, is to expand
the credit to the very folks they claim to champion, to maintain that
credit across the board throughout the decade. And we have gone a step
further. In stark contrast to the shop-worn sloganeering of tax cuts
for the rich, we have discovered something in America, and let me point
to my own city of Phoenix, Arizona.
I represent the Awatukee portion of greater Phoenix. There lives a
nurse practitioner making $64,000 a year, and her husband, a school
principal, making $64,000 a year; both of them earning that salary. We
have expanded the child tax credit, because we do not believe you
should put a tax credit on children that rolls back and forth like the
old-fashioned slide rule to penalize two-income families who happen to
succeed. So let us then accept the premise that if we are not going to
punish children at the lower end of the economic scale, certainly we
should not punish families who have two-income earners. And sixty-four
times two is about $128,000 in today's world, Mr. Speaker, and I would
submit that that is not wealthy.
Something else that is important that I would bring to the attention
of the House, Mr. Speaker. The Democratic motion to instruct does not
eliminate the marriage penalty in the child credit until 2010, and even
then it only does so for 1 year. Under the motion to instruct, millions
of children will be denied the child credit simply because their
parents are married. What we passed in the House benefits middle income
families by eliminating this type of abridgement immediately.
The House-passed bill, which a common sense majority moved through
this House, does not deny the child credit to military families.
Military families, including those who are deployed abroad, are already
receiving a refundable child credit and will continue to receive a
refundable child credit under the House-passed bill. The Democrat
motion to commit would only increase the refundable child credit for
some military families by allowing them to take into account tax-free
income when they compute their refundable credit.
And the House-passed bill, which moved through, again, with a
bipartisan majority, provides more tax relief to military families
because it includes $806 million of military tax benefits. We should
point out that those provisions have passed the House on numerous
occasions. They are awaiting action in the other body. Indeed, Mr.
Speaker, while we tend to our affairs here, and I will not characterize
what might transpire across this Capitol, I will simply say that a more
comprehensive approach, as endorsed by this House, makes more sense for
the American people.
I look forward to the other arguments, but, Mr. Speaker, I would have
to say that as I hear the litany from the left, it reminds me of that
country song, ``That's my story and I'm sticking to it.''
Mr. Speaker, again, facts are stubborn things. Reject the motion to
instruct.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
respond to the gentleman from Arizona.
All the things he was criticizing H.R. 2 does. In fact, he voted for
it and the President signed it. So I am at a loss as to what he was
talking about, although I think it is important that I point out to the
gentleman from Arizona that back home, in Prescott, Arkansas, just
outside of town, off the kill road at my deer camp, we have a saying:
``Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.'' But we are not
at the deer camp tonight, we are in the United States House of
Representatives, and we are talking about the future of 6.5 million
working families.
I will tell my colleague that he is right about one thing. I did fail
to mention one thing in my opening statement, and that was that this
motion to instruct will help 123,000 families who do not get the child
tax credit in the gentleman's home State; 19 percent of the working
families in his home State.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the honorable gentleman
from Arkansas for yielding me this time, and I stand to support the
motion to instruct.
I must admit that I am really amazed at my good friend on the
Republican side. It amazes me to see how he speaks out of not only both
sides of his mouth but apparently out of the back of his head as well.
If we remember very carefully what he said about the military, the
point that he failed to mention was that combat pay is exempt and falls
below the threshold level, so that those soldiers serving in Iraq are
not covered.
With the Democratic plan, what we are pushing would include those
soldiers and their children. And quite honestly, it brings tears to my
eyes, Mr. Speaker, when I think of us sending our troops into harm's
way and to come with this tax credit and not have them included. The
gentleman knew that. He said purposefully the military,
[[Page H7322]]
but he did not say combat soldiers, because they are exempt from taxes.
We know that.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let us deal with the facts as they should be. First
of all, why are we here? We are not here because of the Democrats. If
it were up to us and the Senate and the President of the United States,
the bill would be passed and these 6.5 million families would be
getting that check in the mail right now. We are here because of the
Republicans in this House that insisted on killing the child tax credit
by holding it hostage with an $82 billion irresponsible tax cut.
And I can say irresponsible tax cut with great credibility because I
was one of only seven Democrats who voted for the original tax cut. And
I voted for it because my constituents in Georgia wanted me to vote for
it and because we were able to get $567 million in aid to my State.
And, yes, it brought stresses to the deficit. But they want to take
another $82 billion tax cut, knowing the Senate is not going to accept
it; that the President of the United States already said he does not
want it. He came out with a report just 2 weeks ago that we are already
$500 billion into deficit now without even impacting this tax cut that
we have. Irresponsible.
We are here because of my good friend from Arizona and the
leadership. Now, I have been here just 6 months. I am new, and I am
just a country guy from the south, from Georgia, but I have learned a
couple of things since I have been here in 6 months. I have learned
that the House leadership runs the ship here. And that is why we
Democrats are often in the position of trying to correct the course of
the ship when it gets off course from what the American people want.
Now, why are we here? We are here because the Republicans cut out, in
the dark of night, this child tax credit. It was there. Many who voted
for this tax cut assumed it was there. The American people assumed that
this child tax credit was there for everybody.
{time} 2245
One of the things about the American people is this: the American
people root for the underdog. They always want us to stand up for the
little fellow. Why should we not give this tax credit to low- and
moderate-income people? And who are these low- and moderate-income
people? Who are these 6.5 million families? They are families making
between $10,500 to $26,000 per year, a sizable number of people, who
have children, who deserve this tax credit.
And they want to say, well, they do not make enough to qualify. My
goodness, they make enough. $10,500 to $26,000 a year in some cases is
a decent salary. Twenty-three percent of the families in my State make
this and 23 percent of the families in my State do not have this child
tax credit. Twenty percent of those from 13 States do not have this
credit.
Mr. Speaker, let us be right. Let us be fair. These folks deserve a
tax credit. It is the American way. I want to thank my honorable friend
from Arkansas for giving me that opportunity to speak. I just urge my
good friend, and we have several good friends in the Republican Party
that I have worked with, to put pressure on our leadership and let us
do right by the low- and moderate-income people and include this child
tax credit and get it to them immediately.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank my friend from Georgia for offering the hand of friendship,
as he characterizes it, across the aisle. I thought it was interesting
that some of his remarks seemed to be insult-laden, but that is his
prerogative coming to this floor. I think the American people deserve
better. And I would point out to my friends on the left that again the
dispute is not about tax relief. It seems that they are almost of two
minds. On one hand, if tax relief is limited to some few tightly
targeted, they seem to be fine with it. And, of course, we welcome the
gentleman's support, Mr. Speaker, on the first tax bill and certainly
appreciate that.
I am a little confused as to why he decided not to vote for even a
more comprehensive child credit that we offered in H.R. 1308, but let
me go back since he offered a specific criticism with reference to
members of the Armed Forces. Let me again delineate what we passed. I
made no such articulation nor claim about combat soldiers and, of
course, Mr. Speaker, our men and women in uniform go into action
without the designation Democrat nor Republican, they are Americans;
and I made no assertion as to the relative status, the tax-exempt
status of combat pay.
Let me, however, articulate for my friend, Mr. Speaker, and all those
who join us in this debate tonight exactly what it is we have passed
time and again in this House in terms of tax fairness for members of
the Armed Forces included in these provisions: capital gains tax relief
on home sales; tax-free death gratuity payments; tax-free dependent
care assistance for members of the military. Again, I would remind my
friends, Mr. Speaker, that these provisions provide $806 million of tax
relief to members of the Armed Forces over the upcoming 11 years.
Again, there is something that has been a glaring omission when we
come to discussing tax rates for those who do not pay income taxes.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I am haunted by the assertion of my friend who
sponsors this motion to instruct who speaks of a mother in the Fourth
Congressional District of Arkansas, if memory serves, I believe,
earning around $15,000 a year. According to the Tax Foundation, if she
were a single mother with two children as the head of the household,
she would receive a refundable earned income tax credit of $3,823. Her
total check under earned income tax credits from Uncle Sam would be
$4,273. Tax refunds as a percent of her income upon which she pays no
income tax would be 28.5 percent, and the percent of her payroll tax
that would be erased through the earned income tax credit, 186 percent.
Again, the compelling omission.
We have already reached out to those who do not pay income taxes. We
do so again, but my friends on the left find fault that we have
enlarged this to include two-earner households because again we do not
believe you put a price tag on the heads of children, not only those
facing tough times economically but, yes, those who both are working.
They likewise, those families, should deserve the child tax credit. We
have expanded it, made it constant; and in stark contrast to the
Democratic alternative, it remains constant. It does not drop down
after the election of 2004. Important points to keep in mind, country
music sloganeering notwithstanding.
Vote ``no'' on this motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
If I might quickly address the gentleman from Arizona's remarks, I do
not understand what the problem is. Why is he arguing against this when
the House has already passed this motion to instruct? The President
says he likes it. In fact, the President's press secretary, White House
Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, quote, he the President wants to sign
this legislation. Hopes that Congress will get it to him quickly. He
believes that what the Senate has done is the right thing to do, a good
thing to do, and he wants to sign it. President Bush's press secretary
from June 9, 1 month ago or so. And the GOP Senators like it, 94 to 2.
It was a bipartisan vote.
To the other matter that he keeps bringing up, he tries to tell us
that folks who earn $26,625 a year do not pay income taxes. Yes, they
pay income taxes; and yes, they pay sales taxes and property taxes and
gas taxes and the list of taxes goes on. Please tell me one time when
the gas tax, the sales tax, the property tax has been cut. We are
talking about people that are trying to do the right thing and stay off
welfare and work in the jobs with no benefits. If you earn $80,000 a
year and you have got three children at home, in about 2 weeks you are
getting a check for $1,200. If you earn $26,000 a year and are a
policeman, a fireman, a schoolteacher or serve in the United States
military and you have got three children at home, guess what you are
getting week after next? Zero. Not a dime. There is nothing fair about
this. The President has said so and the Republicans in the Senate have
said so. It is time for the Republican leadership in the House to step
up to the plate, put partisanship aside, and do what is right by these
6.5 million working families.
[[Page H7323]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Alexander), a member of the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition, a good
conservative Democrat who I am proud to call my colleague.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read just a portion of a letter that I
sent out today to my constituents. It is entitled, ``The Checks Are in
the Mail, At Least for Some":
``That's what I was told today when I asked when people would start
getting the $400 checks created by the recent tax cut that I supported
and helped pass in Congress. I asked because I know that these checks
are an important part of the economic stimulus package that my
colleagues and I created.
``However, while I am happy with the fact that many families will
soon be receiving these checks, I am not totally satisfied. I am not
satisfied because in the last-minute negotiations between the House and
Senate, low-income families were left out of the tax bill.
``That is why we offer to extend the tax credit to families who are
currently being left out. To make that goal simpler to achieve, I urged
my colleagues to accept a nearly identical Senate bill which
accomplishes the same thing. It passed the Senate with overwhelming
bipartisan support. The President has urged its passage. Now it is time
for the House to get on board and do the same.
``There is no excuse for inaction, no excuse to leave out one out of
four families in Louisiana that are today looking at an empty mailbox
wondering when their economic incentive check will arrive from
Washington.
``Those in leadership who are blocking tax relief for these deserving
families say they won't pass this measure unless they get an even
larger tax cut for the wealthy. That is wrong.
``They say those working families do not deserve tax relief because
they don't pay enough in taxes. But those hardworking taxpayers have
money taken out of their paychecks, too, and they deserve the same tax
relief as anyone else.''
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do welcome my friend from Louisiana to this House and
the 108th Congress. I look forward to working with him in a spirit of
bipartisanship. I thank him for his first vote for tax relief and again
would point out the four letters that my friends on the left just
cannot bring themselves to mention tonight, EITC, earned income tax
credit.
My friend from Arkansas either cited another example or gave a
different total than I thought I initially heard about his constituent.
Earning $25,000 a year, let me review what that constituent, who is
paying no income tax, receives through the earned income tax credit
according to the Tax Foundation. That person, that head of household
with two kids earning $25,000, the tax liability before the credit is
$885. After the child tax credit, the $1,000 per child, there is no tax
liability. The remaining refundable child tax credit, $565. The
refundable earned income tax credit, $1,717. The total check from Uncle
Sam to that person, the head of household with two kids earning $25,000
under the earned income tax credit, is $2,282. The percent of the
payroll tax erased for that head of household is some 60 percent.
What we are saying, Mr. Speaker, is simply an acknowledgment that our
friends who are not paying income tax are indeed working Americans, and
I find it ironic tonight that the earned income tax credit has been
avoided by my friends on the left as if it were a plague. Why would
that be, Mr. Speaker? I welcome the chance to certainly champion this
program for working Americans, and I certainly hope that in the many
mailings my friends on the left send out, they might inform their low-
income constituents of the programs that already exist that can avail
them of thousands of dollars. The glowing and glaring omission tonight
in this motion to instruct is that my friends on the left do not even
champion a program they once stood foursquare behind. They have instant
amnesia. It is curious, but it is not unknown in politics.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
If I could make just one quick point. The gentleman from Arizona
likes to keep referring to his friends on the left. From where the
Speaker stands tonight, we would actually be on the right.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sandlin), a fellow Blue Dog, a good member of the Blue Dog Coalition
and someone that I think will help us and hopefully help the gentleman
from Arizona understand why he needs to support this as his President
has asked, our President has asked, and as the Senate voted 94 to 2 in
a bipartisan way to pass.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, speaking from the center, it is an issue of
priorities. We have to ask ourselves in this House, who do we stand
for? Who do we stand for in this House?
Mr. Speaker, as we are well aware by now, last month the other body
voted 94 to 2 to immediately give an increased child tax credit to the
12 million children of 6.5 million working families. They voted to do
that immediately. The time is long overdue for the House to likewise
pass the language included in the bill passed by the Senate. As the
nearly unanimous vote in the other body indicates, this issue enjoys
broad bipartisan support. Leave it to the House Republican leadership
to turn a popular, bipartisan effort benefiting children into an
unnecessary, nasty battle. It is not difficult to figure out the
priorities of the Republican Party. All you have to do is follow the
money. The Republicans somehow managed to find room in their tax bill
for people with an income over $1 million.
Now, is that not special? Tax filers who make over $1 million per
year will receive an average tax cut in 2003 in that 1 year, an average
tax cut of $93,500 for the year.
{time} 2300
We have plenty of money for the millionaires. At the same time,
during conference committee negotiations between the House and Senate,
House conferees intentionally and knowingly dropped child tax credit
relief at the last minute, for working families who earn between
$10,500 and $26,625 per year. They just cut them out, said they get
nothing, zero, nada, zilch.
And what is funny about it is, they admitted it. Just listen to what
Ari Fleischer said, the White House press secretary. He said
``Everybody was aware in the conference of what was in and what was
out; so that was very well known to all the conferees, including the
White House.'' He told the truth. No wonder he is out of the White
House. He is not over there anymore. They cannot take that kind of
candor.
The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means summarized the
Republicans' attitude best when he said in response to a question
regarding the passage of an accelerated increase, ``There are worse
things than its not happening.''
Now this charming sentiment was echoed by the majority leader when he
stated bluntly in regards to passage of the Senate child credit,
``Ain't going to happen.'' Of course, this was entirely consistent with
his previous opinions. Earlier he had said ``There's a lot of things
more important than that.''
This week, on July 25, the Treasury Department will begin sending out
millions of checks for the expanded child tax credit provided in the
new law, just as the House adjourns. However, the 6.5 million hard-
working families, including the children of the 200,000 military
families currently serving in Iraq and other combat zones, will get no
check or a significantly smaller check than would be provided under the
Senate bill because of the opposition of the House Republicans.
Again, the Republican majority leader said, ``There's a lot of things
more important than that.''
My question is, like what, Mr. Leader? Like what? What is more
important than that? Like what? What is the answer? It is outrageous
that the Republican leadership is determined to leave town until
September without enacting tax relief for working families.
In 13 States 20 percent or more of families would be helped by
expanding the child tax credit, as the other body has proposed. In my
home State of
[[Page H7324]]
Texas, the bipartisan child credit bill passed by the other body would
benefit 23 percent of working families in Texas.
Conversely, the Republican bill disproportionately penalizes the
people who can afford it least, black and Hispanic children; 2.4
million black children, one in five, and 4.1 million Hispanic children,
one in three, are penalized. Two hundred and sixty thousand children
from families of active military will lose at least some of the credit
under the Republican bill. The children of the folks fighting in Iraq
will lose the benefits. That is outrageous. That is misplaced
priorities, Mr. Speaker. That is just flat-out wrong.
Strengthening our Nation means investing in all of our children and
making opportunities available to all people and especially to our
working families in America. There are not many things more important
than that, regardless of what the majority leader says.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I should note, Mr. Speaker, as you occupy the role of speaker pro
tempore, you are a newcomer to the Congress from the great State of
Arizona, and we welcome you as well; and I appreciate your presiding
this evening.
I want to thank my friend from Texas, who in addition to being a very
capable legislator, is a very accomplished attorney. And certainly we
saw tonight part of his legislative domain because when one does not
have the facts on his side, it is important to argue atmospherics. And
we all heard about the genuine intent of the Republican Party and all
of these interesting perceptions out there that I guess, from the
school of politics, perceptions outweigh reality.
But then again, Mr. Speaker, it is my assertion that we owe the
American people the facts. And the fact is, what this House passed is
much more comprehensive, what our Democrat friends offer is much more
restrictive.
We have heard no refutation of this fact, and it is as follows: The
Democrat motion to instruct allows the child credit to drop from $1,000
to $700 immediately following the 2004 election. That is a curious
alleged improvement in the bill. The Democrat motion to instruct does
not eliminate the marriage penalty in the child credit until 2010, and
even then it only does so for 1 year. We have heard no refutation of
that.
The House-passed bill does not deny the child credit to military
families, and indeed as I have delineated time and again, the House-
passed bill provides more tax relief to military families because it
includes $806 million of military tax benefits.
What else have we done in H.R. 1308, the bill that is assailed as
opportunities for the wealthy, as we hear that sad and shop-worn
sloganeering of the politics of envy? What we have done in this bill
is, we increased the child credit to $1,000 per eligible child through
2010. That provision alone provides $57.3 billion of tax relief over 11
years.
We have eliminated the marriage penalty in the child credit. We
accelerated the increase in the refundable child credit. We provide tax
relief and enhanced tax fairness, as I delineated, for members of the
Armed Forces. We suspend the tax exempt status of designated terrorist
organizations, and we provided tax relief for the estates and the
families of those brave astronauts who have perished on space missions.
This is included therein.
And actually we expanded the child tax credit to include children
across the board socioeconomically. We do not believe in attacking any
children.
And again what we have not heard from my friends on the other side
tonight, whether they stand in the center or to my left or to my far
left, what we have not heard tonight are the letters EITC, earned
income tax credit, something that ordinarily I thought my friends would
champion, but tonight they do not talk about it. Why? Because we are
sending money to those hard-working folks who do not pay income taxes,
moneys that will already be supplemented under the far more generous
and expansive child credit than we have offered in H.R. 1308.
So again, Mr. Speaker, failing the refutation of these salient
points, whatever sloganeering about our friend Ari Fleischer, who at
one point in time was our Committee on Ways and Means press secretary
on the majority side, who is not here to speak for himself tonight,
whatever incantations or imaginations as to the motives of the majority
party, that is certainly very interesting in terms of interpretive
oratory, but it brings nothing to bear on tonight's debate.
The fact remains when we review what they offer, it is inadequate. It
is bait and switch. And it peddles the shop-worn sloganeering of the
politics of envy, reason enough to reject this motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Might I just simply respond by saying this, that the gentleman from
Arizona likes to talk about how while we want to provide a $1,000 child
tax credit for those who earn less than $26,625 a year, he constantly
reminds us that it falls back to $700 in 2004. Guess why? Because that
is exactly what your bill does that passed, H.R. 2. It falls back to
$700 in 2004, and we are here trying to help these working families who
earn less than $26,625 a year.
You are here fighting that. We know if we tried to extend it to do
more than your bill does for all the wealthy folks, you would certainly
fight it even more. So let us make sure that we do not confuse the
facts here. We are simply trying to provide those who earn between
$10,500 and $26,625, the same playing field, the same parity, the same
tax cut that will be received by those who earn over $26,625 a year.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Matheson), a fellow Blue Dog member, a good conservative
Democrat, someone who is here to speak on behalf of the 62,000 working
families in Utah who have fallen through the cracks under this
concocted plan by the Republican national leadership, someone who is
here to try to make sense out of this for us.
{time} 2310
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arkansas for
yielding me time and raising this issue tonight. It has indeed been an
interesting discussion.
When I was elected to Congress, I thought I was coming back here to
get things done, and I think that a lot of people in this country would
like to see us make progress on issues. So when I look at issues, I try
to approach what I call ``what is possible.''
There are a lot of points of view around here, not just a Democratic
and a Republican point of view. There are a lot of points of view that
different people have about what is a perfect piece of legislation, and
I do not know if any of us have ever seen a perfect piece of
legislation come through. But tonight I suggest again that we ought to
think about what is possible.
I supported the $300 billion tax cut, and, quite frankly, I supported
H.R. 1308 as well. But I am also trying to be realistic about what we
can do to get some tax relief through for these particular families we
have been talking with in that lower income range.
The United States Senate has spoken in a profoundly bipartisan way
with a 94 to 2 vote. If we really want to make progress, it may not be
perfect for my friend from Arizona, it probably is not perfect for a
lot of folks in this body, but if we want to make progress in terms of
providing some relief for these folks, this is the opportunity that I
think is before us today.
I think as we have had this discussion about what is in the tax bill
and what is not in the tax bill and who said what, we have missed the
bigger picture, and the bigger picture is this economy is not doing
well right now, and the reason why we looked at a tax cut in the first
place was because we know we have got to take steps to stimulate this
economy.
A lot of people are hurting out there. It has been going on for a
long time. This week, we are going to see a bunch of checks mailed out,
and it is my sincere hope that those checks are going to have a
stimulative effect on this economy and we are going to see economic
growth result from that.
I would submit that in the context of those checks going out right
now, it only highlights the omission, the omission of this group from
$10,000 to $26,000 in annual income, this group that was
[[Page H7325]]
included, quite frankly, in H.R. 1308, and is actually included, at
least after 2005, in the original House bill we passed, and then in
conference committee it got taken out.
So whether the Earned Income Tax Credit is part of a benefit to those
folks in that income range, I do not dispute that. It is. It is an
important program. It is something that has bipartisan support. The
question is, do those families deserve some piece of additional relief,
as has been handed out to other families in this country? I would
suggest that they do.
So, in closing, I just want to suggest again, let us look for the art
of the possible. This may not be a perfect tax bill, but let us look at
the art of the possible. I saw a 94 to 2 result on the other side of
the Hill. That is a pretty good indicator to me, that if the House of
Representatives would pass similar legislation that that could go to
the President's desk and be signed into law, and these low-income
families, these folks who are working families, who work hard every
day, would receive some tax benefit as well.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me thank my neighbor from Utah, first of all, for
both of his votes on tax relief. That is perhaps the most compelling
testimony we have received tonight.
It is a bit curious that we diverge on what is possible. I believe,
and perhaps this is a point where those who embrace the Keynesian
theory of economics can actually agree with those of us who
characterize ourselves as supply-siders, at a time of economic downturn
it is important to provide tax relief. Indeed, we have accepted that as
an article of faith for those working families eligible for the Earned
Income Tax Credit, and, indeed, as I can point out again from the Tax
Foundation, with the child tax credit, a $30,000 head-of-household with
two kids is going to get over $1,000 back under previously existing
law. That money is going to go back to help those folks.
Now, listen: I do not believe you gauge the art of what is possible
on votes in the other body. I will leave atmospherics to the pundits
and the Sunday morning shows. To me, what is possible is what is passed
by a bipartisan majority, of which my friend from Utah was a part on
two occasions. So, again, it is curious to note this motion to
instruct.
Now, my friend from Arkansas offered some selective criticism. If you
listen carefully to his critique, he spoke of the original tax bill. Of
course, what we have done in H.R. 1308 is to expand and maintain the
$1,000 level; not sunsetting it, but increasing it and taking it
across-the-board for the next decade, the upcoming decade, to make sure
it is there.
What they offer in their motion to instruct is to go back to $700
after the 2004 election. He had no critique or criticism of H.R. 1308,
he was just silent on that, as he has been about the Earned Income Tax
Credit.
Mr. Speaker, as we review this, the art of what is possible, and good
folks can disagree, but I would maintain in this House that the art of
what is possible can be achieved and that the greatest number of people
can be helped to the greatest extent by this House maintaining its
original position, not to accept a motion to instruct that is in fact a
retreat from what has already been done in terms of promoting economic
growth and allowing all Americans to keep their hard-earned money. That
is what we have to deal with.
That is why it is important, and why tomorrow I know my colleagues
will join me in voting no on this Democrat motion to instruct. Why take
three steps backwards, when we can take a giant leap forward for all
American families.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, before I go any further, I would just like to make one
point. The gentleman from Arizona likes to point out and thank all
these conservative Democrats who have appeared here tonight for their
support of various tax cuts over recent years, which demonstrates to me
that the conservative Democrats that have appeared tonight on behalf of
these working families that are being left out of the child tax credit,
it appears to me that these are common sense, bipartisan Members, and
it looks like to me it would be something that the gentleman from
Arizona would stop and think, well, wait a minute, you know, these are
folks that agreed with us, and now they do not. It looks like a light
would come on and he would recognize that this is an act of fairness.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Scott), another fellow member of the fiscally conservative Democratic
Blue Dog coalition, a new Member, a shining star in the Democratic
Party and a voice of reason.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is very kind in his
introduction. I appreciate that, and I appreciate the time to come to a
summary.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important, because we probably do
have several million of our American citizens watching tonight, it is
very important, you argue the point on our motion to instruct. That is
not the issue we are here for. The motion to instruct is our only means
to press the case.
The issue we are here for is because the House Republican leadership
is standing in the way of our getting a child tax credit down to those
folks making between $26,000 a year and $10,500 a year. That is the
issue here.
In the remaining moment I have, I would just make this appeal to some
of my Republican friends to help us tomorrow. We cannot do it unless we
get a sizeable number of Republicans to help us. I do believe we have
some Republicans who will do that for us.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not thank my friends on the
minority side for offering their points of view, including my friend
from Georgia. I guess this is why we come to this great Chamber and
debate many differences.
But, rather than impugn motives, I am simply going to say this: Quite
to the contrary of what my friends assert, it is the opinion of this
majority that the money we are talking about belongs to the American
people, wherever they line up on the socio-economic scale. If you pay
income taxes, you will receive an income tax reduction, and, if you are
eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit, as I have pointed out time
and again tonight, the check has been in the mail for years. That is
something my friends have not dealt with tonight, and it is something
that, in the spirit of candor and complete discussion, we should not so
readily dismiss.
Indeed, I would ask my friends to embrace H.R. 1308 as they embraced
the initial tax bill. I thank my friend from Utah for his support of
both, and I appreciate the spirit in which the debate has been
conducted.
I know my friend from Arkansas has the right to close. I will simply
close for the majority side by saying that we need to reject this
motion to instruct. We offer a bill that is far more complete for a far
greater portion of the American people.
As I have demonstrated time and again tonight, we have provisions
under the Earned Income Tax Credit to alleviate the needs of those who
pay no income taxes, and, indeed, under our comprehensive plan of tax
relief, the numbers of families who pay no income taxes continue to
grow exponentially.
{time} 2320
If you opt for genuine tax relief, the real article, as some of my
friends on the minority side have done on both occasions, I would say
reject the motion to instruct. Embrace the House position. We will
persuade our friends on the other side of the Capitol and move forward
with more meaningful tax relief for Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
Let me say that I came to this Congress back in 2001 to try to offer
up some commonsense solutions to the problems confronting this Nation.
Like many Americans, Mr. Speaker, I am sick and tired of all of the
partisan bickering that goes on in our Nation's Capital. It should not
be what makes the Democrats look good or bad or what makes the
Republicans look good
[[Page H7326]]
or bad; it ought to be about doing right and providing a voice for the
people of America, including the 6.5 million working families that have
been shut out of tax relief.
We are faced with the Nation's largest deficit in our country this
year: $455 billion and growing, a deficit that our kids and grandkids
have to pay for, money that is coming from the Social Security trust
fund. Yet, the Republican national leadership managed to find a way to
cut taxes to the tune of $300 billion, but they left out 6.5 million
working families. They can talk about how these are folks who do not
pay taxes all night long; but the reality is, we are talking about men
and women in uniform, policemen, firemen, schoolteachers, folks earning
up to $26,625 a year. They have children, and they too deserve the same
tax cut as those who earn much more than that.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for support and a ``yes'' vote on the motion to
instruct conferees on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Franks of Arizona). Without objection,
the previous question is ordered on the motion.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. ROSS. 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 are postponed.
____________________