[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 110 (Wednesday, July 23, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H7444-H7449]
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. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayes). The Clerk will report the
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I move 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 provision 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.
5. 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 preceeding provisions
of this instruction, not later than the second legislative
day after adoption of this motion.
{time} 0145
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayes). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) and a Member of the majority party
each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I rise today to urge conferees on H.R. 1308, the child tax credit
legislation, to do the right thing and act now to give lower-income
families the tax refunds they deserve. This Friday, Uncle Sam will drop
checks in the mail to millions of families who will benefit from the
child tax credit. However, if the House would simply put an end to
stalling tactics over the Senate bill and act to extent the child tax
credit, 4 million additional families would receive a much-needed check
in the mail, and 2.5 million families would enjoy a larger check than
they are currently scheduled to receive.
Earlier this year, this Congress passed a $350 billion tax cut bill
that failed to provide families of low-income children with a child tax
credit. The Senate acted in early June to extend the child tax credit
to include low-income families. The Senate bill was deficit neutral, as
its costs were offset by other revenues. The House responded to this
$9.5 billion deficit-neutral Senate bill with a bloated $82 billion
plan, every dime of which adds to a deficit that is already of
staggering proportions. Why?
It is difficult to resist the conclusion that the House leadership
chose this response to the Senate bill precisely because they knew it
would be completely unacceptable to the Senate. This is perfect, right?
Give the illusion of responding to a real problem when in fact the
response makes the solution even more elusive.
Now, the House continues to stall, unwilling to give an inch so that
low-income families can receive the same $1,000 child tax credit other
families are expecting. We have an opportunity to call off the
stonewalling and follow the Senate's lead in passing meaningful relief
for low-income families and we should do it.
Refusing to take the time before Congress goes on vacation to provide
low- and middle-income families with a child tax credit is nothing
short of an assault on the working poor. At the present time, when our
economy has taken a nose dive and families are forced to cut their
budgets left and right, it defies logic to engage in such a blatant
form of class warfare.
Any Member who thinks it is acceptable to leave town to go on
vacation and to push off the urgent business of 6.5 million hardworking
families is sending an unmistakable message about misplaced priorities.
This kind of attitude may be acceptable in Washington, but it is not
okay in my district. I am ashamed to return home to Long Island as the
representative of a Federal Government that has turned a blind eye to
the needs of the 20,000 families in my district estimated to lose out
if we deny them their benefits without a fight.
If this House sees wisdom in giving millionaires alone a $90 billion
tax break, certainly we can give families making between $10,500 and
$26,000 a small break. That is $10,500 to $26,000.
[[Page H7445]]
Yet there is a great resistance to offsetting the cost of extending the
child tax credit by reducing the dividend and capital gains relief
flowing to millionaires by a remarkably trivial amount.
We were sent to Congress by people we represent to make choices. When
the original conferees excluded families making from $10,500 to $26,000
from sharing in the benefit of the expanded tax credit, they had
several options available to them. The cost of extending the child tax
credit to these families is $3.5 billion, or one percent of the total
cost of the bill. Surely somewhere in the remaining 99 percent of the
bill, the conferees could have found $3.5 billion in adjustments, but
they chose not to. Instead, they chose to remain within the $350
billion limit of the bill, arbitrary and illusory as it is, by telling
these families, these working poor, that it was more important to
assist millionaires than it was to assist them. That is the choice they
made.
The tax cut is cleverly referred to as the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2003. If the real goal of this tax cut bill, as
stated in its title, is to create jobs and growth, I believe we would
not be here tonight having this debate. If we were really interested in
job growth, we would not be so concerned about a negligible decrease in
the refund going to the wealthiest Americans who hold the largest pool
of discretionary money and who are probably going to use this tax cut
to bolster their savings accounts. If we were really interested in job
growth, we would not hesitate to invest in lower-income working
families who are going to immediately reinvest the money from the tax
cuts in the economy.
Any observer of spending patterns will tell my colleagues that
putting money into the pockets of those who need it the most will
provide an immediate and welcome shot of adrenaline to our damaged
economy.
Close to 12 million children nationwide and 43,000 children in my
district stand to benefit from an expansion of the child tax credit to
lower-income families. If these families receive their checks this
summer, certainly our economy will benefit from an immediate economic
stimulus. Their money is not going to go to savings accounts. Rather,
their money will be reinvested because it will go to families in my
district just in time to purchase back-to-school supplies for children.
One need not be a Nobel Laureate in economics to figure this out. If
we put money in the hands of people who live paycheck to paycheck, and
certainly families making $20,000 a year live paycheck to paycheck,
they are going to spend it immediately on the necessities of life.
Conversely, when we add to the income of those whose discretionary
income is already generous, their spending and purchasing patterns are
likely to be affected modestly or not at all. Where is the economic
benefit? How many jobs will we really create?
I am here in the wee hours of the morning because I believe that
Congress must not fail the American people by leaving town without
extending the child tax credit to low-income families who so
desperately need it. Earlier I mentioned the failure to provide relief
to struggling families as emblematic of misplaced priorities. This is
only the latest in a long line of misplaced priorities, and I find it
very troubling.
Our government seems to think it is okay to crack down on low-income
children in the school lunch program, children and families who make
less than $23,000 a year, while Congress refuses to address the issue
of offshore tax havens. It is ludicrous to spend time taking sandwiches
away from low-income children while continuing to allow large
corporations a free pass on offshore tax havens costing taxpayers
billions of dollars a year.
Similarly, it makes no sense to devote government resources to crack
down on filers of the earned income tax credit who earn less than
$33,000 per year, while we are giving millionaires billions of dollars
in tax breaks; and it is certainly counterintuitive to keep a child tax
credit out of the hands of working families who will use it to care for
the immediate needs of their family and boost our economy. This is more
class warfare; and if we have any decency as a Nation, we will see to
it that it stops.
President Bush has urged us to do right by these families, and I urge
my colleagues to do the same. We should put an end to these delaying
tactics and deliver immediate tax relief to our Nation's neediest
children.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the motion to instruct, and
I claim the time in opposition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) is
recognized.
Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The hour is indeed late, Mr. Speaker. The majority of Americans, save
a few insomniacs, are, in the words of my 3-year-old daughter, fast
asleep. In fact, I see the yawns being stifled by staff members that
have put in a good, long legislative day here today. I do not expect to
use the entirety of the time allotted to me.
I want to applaud the gentleman from New York. I certainly share the
gentleman's stated desire, at least the stated desire tonight to reduce
the tax burden on working families in America. I wish the gentleman
would have had his vote in favor of tax relief earlier, but that is
another debate for another day.
When we think about the average worker's day in a couple of hours and
the amount of taxes that that individual will have to have put forth,
let me just give you a quick example. When the electric alarm clock
goes off in a couple of hours, whether you hit the snooze button or
turn it off, you are paying an electricity tax. When you get up and
brush your teeth and take a shower, you are paying a water tax. If you
drive to the convenience store to get your cup of coffee, you are
paying a sales tax. When you drive on to work, you are paying a
gasoline tax. If you use the phone during the day, you pay a phone tax.
Obviously the day's work, you are paying an income tax, as well as a
payroll tax.
When you get home, and thankfully about two-thirds of Americans
actually own their own home, you of course pay a property tax.
When you kiss your spouse good night, you think that is free. Not so
says Uncle Sam and the Internal Revenue Code because there is a
marriage tax, and then if you build and you save and you invest and you
risk and you sweat and you survive and you have a family business, yes,
there is Uncle Sam at death's door taking up to half of your family
business in something called the death tax.
So I share the gentleman's idea that the average working family in
America is overtaxed, and there are a number of ways that we have tried
in this Congress, in fact over the past couple of Congresses, to ease
that burden, that heavy tax burden on America's working families.
The reason that I stand in opposition to the motion being offered by
the other side proffered by the gentleman from New York is that the
motion is deficient in several respects.
First of all, the motion that is offered by the gentleman from New
York allows the child credit to drop from $1,000 to $700 shortly at the
end of 2004. As a result, many of those low- and middle-income families
that the gentleman talked about will receive a smaller child tax credit
right after, as it turns out, next November's elections.
The House-passed bill that is currently awaiting a conference, and I
would say to the gentleman I do not share the pessimism expressed here
on the House floor because if he reads some of the publications, it
appears that House and Senate conferees are beginning to work and move
this package forward, but at least the House-passed version ensures
that the child credit remains at the $1,000 level throughout the
decade; and I would say simply to all Members of the House, if it is
good policy now, if it is good policy through 2004, surely it is good
policy beyond 2004. That is one reason that I strongly oppose this
motion to instruct.
Secondly, the motion being offered by the gentleman from New York
does not eliminate the marriage penalty in the child credit until the
year 2010, and even then under this motion only does that for one
measly, meager year. Under the Democratic motion, millions of children
will be denied the child credit simply because their parents are
married, and we are talking about those on the socioeconomic scale that
[[Page H7446]]
we have been encouraging the institution of marriage. So on the one
hand we are encouraging them to enter into a state of matrimony. At the
same time we say, but there is a penalty, again a marriage penalty for
those of you single parents coming together who have children because
we are denying you at least under the Democratic alternative this child
credit through the marriage penalty.
So for those two reasons and others that perhaps we will have a
chance to discuss later I think the gentleman's motion should fail.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 0200
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume, and I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri and
commend him for being here with us this evening. This is certainly a
very important subject and it deserves full and complete debate.
He is quite right that the subject of our votes on the tax bills that
have come before us is a matter for discussion at another time. I would
say simply that I would be delighted to vote for a tax cut package that
is properly targeted to the families that need it the most and is not
obscured by a package that provides tax relief to people who need it
the least.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in strong support of this motion. I want to thank my
colleague from New York, as well as my other colleagues who are here
this evening. I think the test of this issue is the staying power on
the issue, and I have been here most nights for the last week and a
half.
I might say that the preponderance of the discourse and the
preponderance of the effort to address the issue of the child tax
credit has come from the Democratic side of the aisle. We are committed
to making sure that those hard-working, albeit low-wage income people,
people who make between $15,500 a year and $26,625 a year, that these
folks in fact do get the benefit of a child tax credit, a benefit that
was in the tax bill and yanked out in the middle of the night in order
to provide a dividend tax cut to 184,000 millionaires, providing them
with a $93,000 tax break.
If my colleague from Missouri was so enthusiastic about making sure
this was $1,000, we could have done it in the first go-round of this
effort. But that $350 billion piece had to be held inviolate because
the Senate would not accept anything else, so these vulnerable people
were yanked out in the middle of the night. And, in fact, it was not
much, 1 percent. One percent is what we were talking about, $3.5
billion to people who were making $93,000 a year in a tax cut. My
colleagues could have done it then but decided not to.
So what did you do? You came up with this construct for $82 billion
because you knew the Senate was not going to accept it, and it was the
majority leader of this House who said, ``Ain't nothing gonna get done
on this issue.'' And it was the Wall Street Journal who had an
editorial that commended the majority leader and said, Amen, you did
the right thing by making sure that this issue would go nowhere,
because the Senate would not accept $82 billion.
The other body voted 94 to 2 to address this issue, to redress it,
and to say we made a mistake, let us address it and make sure that when
those checks go out on this Friday that this group of people, these 6.5
million families, these 12 million children get the benefit of a child
tax credit. Because as much as the other side of the aisle would like
to say that they do not pay taxes, they pay property taxes, they pay
sales taxes, they pay payroll taxes, and they work and live paycheck to
paycheck. They know what it is to pay taxes. We should walk in their
shoes.
Mr. Speaker, we ought to be able to say that they are entitled to a
child tax credit the way 25 million other people are, and 184,000
millionaires who are going to get $93,000 a year. In that group of
people excluded, I might add, are 200,000 military families, 42,000
families where there are Head Start teachers, 900,000 kids who are in
Head Start programs. These are the people who are being excluded from
the child tax credit. It is wrong. We ought to do the right thing and
provide this kind of assistance to people.
I would just say that in fact we voted on this motion to instruct on
June 12, 205 to 201 on a bipartisan vote. We voted to do this, to take
up what the other body had done. It was the chairman of the Committee
on Ways and Means the other night who said it was not a binding
resolution; we do not have to worry about it. It does not make any
difference what the majority did in this body.
All we are asking for is that we have a chance to take up what the
other body did. We are talking about not a lot of money for people, on
average $276. That means potentially health insurance, it means school
supplies, it means clothes for kids going back to school. These people
deserve it. This is an issue of values. It is an issue of morals.
And I say to the President of the United States, who wanted to get
this done, who said let us take up what the Senate did, that since his
leadership in the House and the Senate have abdicated their leadership
responsibilities, take on this issue, use your moral authority and do
what is right by hard-working American families. Bring justice to these
families. They deserve it. Let us give them that.
Mr. Speaker, we will continue on this floor every night on this
issue.
Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
What I would say to my colleague and friend from Connecticut is that
we have had a number of recorded votes on this issue. And the
gentlewoman is correct that on the first occasion that the motion was
considered it did in fact pass by a narrow margin. We have had five
subsequent votes, if memory serves, and on each of those occasions the
motion did not pass.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HULSHOF. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that that is
right, it did not pass, because some people who did vote for it were
persuaded by one reason or another, and I will not comment on the
nature of the persuasion, but they were persuaded to vote otherwise.
Their first instinct was to vote what they believed was the right thing
to do. Subsequently it has become a different issue, especially when
the majority leader said, ``Ain't nothing gonna happen.''
Mr. HULSHOF. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, actually what the
majority leader said was, when asked will the House take up the Senate
bill, the majority leader then made the statement the gentlewoman
suggests, and that was that, no, the House would not take up the
identical language in the Senate bill. In fact, the House passed H.R.
1308, the All American Tax Relief Act of 2003, which was an amendment
to the Senate version.
But I want to say just a couple of things regarding the comments that
have been made. The House passed a budget, the Senate did as well. The
two Chambers reconciled that budget number, and it was the Senate, of
course, that drew the line in the sand, as it were, and said no more
tax relief over $350 billion. And so what I think needs to be pointed
out is that I think as a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, as
we began to mark up the bill and move it through the committee process
and bring it to the House floor, I cannot recall ever the discussion
being that we needed to have this refundable child credit for low-
income wage earners. It was only as an amendment on the Senate side,
and then ultimately, of course, again with that $350 billion figure,
they were unable to get it done. So, then, we come back and go through
the legislative process again, and again I remain optimistic that the
two bodies can get together.
What I want to say, though, specifically regarding this continued
mantra about the amount of taxes that all Americans pay, as I stated at
the outset, I continue to believe that all Americans are overburdened
with State and Federal and local taxes. But what I would say to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut or the gentleman or anyone else that
wishes to make this point, we do not have the authority to bring down
the property tax rates in
[[Page H7447]]
the State of Connecticut. There are some States that do not have an
income tax and, in fact, draw revenue based entirely upon a sales tax.
That is not within the purview of Congress. That is left up to the
discretion of States legislatures.
We had a recent referendum in my hometown of Columbia, Missouri,
whether we should raise the property tax levy for the school districts.
We decided as a community that, yes, we should. That is not something,
then, that we should collect taxes from someone from the Hamptons, that
happens to be in the First Congressional District of the gentleman from
New York, to suddenly help redistribute that Federal income tax money
to pay for this school referendum that we had at the local level.
I will say this regarding the property tax. Back in 1975, the earned
income tax credit was enacted. At that time in 1975 it was a temporary
program to return a portion of the Social Security taxes that were paid
by lower-income taxpayers. It was made permanent in 1978. In 1990, the
program had become a major component of Federal efforts to reduce
poverty. Now it is the largest anti-poverty entitlement program.
My friends on the other side talk about this child credit provision,
this $3.5 billion over 10-year provision. Actually it is a 2-year
provision, and yet every year, every single tax year, income taxpayers
collectively put $30 billion of income tax monies into the earned
income tax credit for those wage earners on the low-income wage scale,
$30 billion for some 19 million Americans, at least tax filers, every
year through the earned income tax credit.
Now, yes, we all work hard, we play by the rules, and those
individuals that contribute to Social Security, it did a wonderful
thing that we have a national retirement system that if you work 40
quarters that entitles you then to Social Security benefits. And that,
too, payroll taxes are these dedicated taxes that finance Social
Security and Medicare. I think it should be pointed out that Social
Security offers a progressive benefit structure that is by design more
beneficial to low-income workers.
And lastly, in many instances, the combination of the earned income
credit and the current law child credit more than completely offsets
this payroll tax liability. And so I think that this Congress has
spoken on many occasions as far as the expansion of the earned income
tax credit.
I think the child credit, again, is something that we have discussed.
I think that the motion to instruct is deficient and would urge a
``no'' vote.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
There has been some discussion of what the majority leader did or did
not say. One thing he was widely quoted as saying with respect to this
issue is, he said there were a lot of other things that were much more
important for this House to deal with than by expanding this credit.
And I think that statement speaks volumes with respect to the order or
the level of priority with which the majority treats this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Miller).
(Mr. MILLER of North Carolina asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have noticed in
reviewing the Congressional Record of my remarks earlier that the
otherwise very talented people who transcribe do seem to have limited
southern proficiency, which I think you would appreciate.
This is the second time, Mr. Speaker, that I have stayed up well past
my bedtime to speak on the floor on a motion to instruct conferees on
the child tax credit. I cannot recall having stayed up this late this
often since I was in college, and it is not because I believe that
insomniacs in my district watch C-SPAN. I am staying up tonight, as I
stayed up last week, because I think it is important that we adopt a
child tax credit.
{time} 0215
The gentlewoman from Connecticut spoke a few minutes ago about people
being prevailed upon, not voting their instincts. I was very reluctant
to vote against the bill, even the bill that came before us, the $82
billion bill. I certainly knew that we could not afford it. We are
digging a deep deficit hole that is going to drag down our economy for
the foreseeable future and is going to destroy our ability to do the
things that really will help working- and middle-class families, like
providing a decent education, like reforming our health care system
which is just not working for most families and is not working for
American business, like making sure that Social Security and the
Medicare system are solvent, particularly when my generation starts to
retire.
But of all the tax cuts that this House has passed, the only one that
helped working- and middle-class families was this one. That is why it
is the only one that I really wanted to vote for, and now we know it is
the only one that the majority did not really mean. They did not really
mean this tax cut when they voted for it. They put the price tag of $82
billion on it to sabotage the tax credit, to make sure it would not
really pass. They knew the Senate would not go along. They knew that
they would simply dog it when it came time to confer and try to work
out a compromise, they would not agree to any kind of compromise, and
this would simply die. And they tell the working- and middle-class
families who would benefit from the child tax credit that they had
voted for it, but somehow nothing had happened. In fact, the conference
committee, as I understand it, has never even met, has yet to meet.
The gentleman from Missouri has spoken eloquently of the need for
this tax credit; but he should talk to his own party's leaders because
they have said publicly, for attribution, on the record, that this is
not a priority for them. As the gentlewoman from Connecticut pointed
out earlier, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal said that
they intentionally made the price tag as big as it was to sabotage it,
to kill it, and to make sure that it would not really pass. And
certainly if there is one publication in the country that knows the
real intentions of the Republican leadership of this House, it is the
editorial board of the Wall Street Journal. It is hard to imagine that
any writer for the editorial board, for the editorial page of the Wall
Street Journal, does not have Tom DeLay and Bill Thomas on their speed
dial. They know exactly what the leadership of this House intended by
the package that came before the House and by the vote. It was intended
to kill the bill. It was a stunningly cynical maneuver.
Anyone who has ever watched a hospital show, a doctor show, knows
what code blue is. They know what it is for a patient to code. But many
hospitals have, or have had in the past, what they call privately light
code blue. That is when their patient is in their final illness. There
is a decision not to resuscitate the patient, not to take extraordinary
efforts to keep the patient alive. The patient has agreed to that, the
patient's family understands that, but for the peace of mind of the
patient's family when the time comes, they still rush around, they
still look frantic, they just do not do anything extraordinary to
resuscitate the patient. They let nature take its course, and, for
whatever reason, the patient's family feels a little better about it
rather than simply thinking that their loved one is being allowed to
die.
We have seen code blue. We have seen the extraordinary efforts that
the leadership of this House goes through to pass the tax cuts that
they really mean, the ones they intend to happen, they want to happen,
the ones that help the investor class rather than the middle class. The
inheritance tax, I am sorry, which you call the death tax, or the cut
on the taxes on dividend income, we have seen the extraordinary effort,
the rushing around, the moving of heaven and Earth to get those passed.
But not this. Not this. This has been at most light code blue. There
has been a little bit of activity, a vote on the floor; but it is very
clear that they have not meant this. They have not even met. The
conference committee has not even met.
This is the tax credit that should happen. This is a tax cut that
should happen, that will help working- and middle-class families. Let
us hope that
[[Page H7448]]
working- and middle-class families, the ones who would benefit from the
child tax credit, will see the difference between how the majority acts
when they want to pass a tax cut and how they act when they do not.
Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Before the gentleman leaves the floor, let me pose a hypothetical to
him because I certainly respect the fact as a newly minted Member of
Congress and having to agonize over some of these votes and I think the
gentleman was sincere talking about weighing these various tax cut
options. The hypothetical I would put to him, if there were in a
conference between House and Senate a compromise that would actually
increase the child credit to $1,000 per eligible child and maybe make
that extension for a 5-year period of time rather than a 10-year period
of time and if this hypothetical conference also would eliminate the
marriage penalty in the child credit, would the gentleman from North
Carolina be so inclined to support such a compromise?
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HULSHOF. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. The problem with that is that we know
that the Senate is not going to do it. There are several problems with
that. The first is we simply know the Senate is not going to do it. I
wanted to vote for that entire tax package. I wanted to make it
permanent. I wanted to extend it down for the people who had been left
out, shamefully. It was shameful to leave them out before. I wanted to
extend it down the income scale to reach them. I wanted to extend it
up. I think that the folks who would have gotten the expanded child tax
credit slightly higher up the income scale are still the middle class.
It is usually two working parents, working hard, trying to make a life
for themselves and for their families. I would like for them to have
gotten it. If I could write the tax laws, I would like for working- and
middle-class families to get this tax cut and for it to be permanent.
But I also know, one, we are digging a massive hole. We are digging a
hole that may take a generation to dig out of. It is going to be a drag
on the economy. It is going to eventually certainly, not just
eventually, probably already affecting interest rates, and it is going
to destroy our Nation's ability to deal with the challenges that we
will face, the challenges of education. We are cutting back on basic
research; we are losing out economically to the rest of the world. We
are in a desperate competition.
Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I am going to reclaim my time. I appreciate
the gentleman going on a rhetorical journey about the appropriations
bills. I did not mean to put the gentleman on the spot, but I again
believe that a compromise is, in fact, achievable.
Just a couple of points, Mr. Speaker, regarding the gentleman and his
insinuation that Congress has been derelict in dealing with or in
providing relief for working families. I go back to the year 2001 in
the previous Congress. That is the first time Congress actually made
the child tax credit refundable, which we now are talking about
expanding. Also I would point out that the jobs and growth package
previously enacted and now signed into law but which originated in our
Committee on Ways and Means and then considered by this House
accelerated those income tax rate reductions that are now law. The
reason that there is more take-home pay in the next month's monthly
paycheck is because of those accelerated income tax rate reductions, as
well as doubling the standard deduction for married couples to try to
at least eliminate to some degree the marriage penalty.
And so I would take issue with the gentleman's comment that Congress
has not been doing its work as far as working families with those prior
examples and again would urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 additional minutes to
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller).
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, how does the gentleman
from Missouri account for the public statements by Tom DeLay that this
is not a priority for him and embracing the Senate position ``ain't
going to happen,'' the public statement by Bill Thomas that this is not
a priority for them, the editorial in the Wall Street Journal that this
was intentionally made rich so that no tax credit bill would pass at
all, and how does he explain the fact that the conference committee has
yet to meet?
Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. HULSHOF. I would say to the gentleman that the leadership on our
side, and he referenced a number of leaders, the very fact that we
considered on this House floor an expansion of the child credit beyond
what is included in the Democratic motion to instruct, the All-American
Tax Relief Act of 2003, H.R. 1308, shows the commitment of leadership
to move this issue forward.
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Is the Wall Street Journal out to lunch
in saying that that was intentionally made as rich as it was so that
nothing at all would pass? I do not expect that they have the gentleman
on their speed dial the way they have Bill Thomas and Tom DeLay.
Mr. HULSHOF. I would say to the gentleman that at least in some of
the publications, at least Congress Daily of yesterday that talked
about that there now is some dialogue between Senate conferees and
House conferees, again I believe optimistically, and the President of
the United States has said this is a priority for him, I believe we are
going to have a compromise reached.
I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. I celebrate the power of shame.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).
(Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of
the motion to instruct conferees on the child tax credit. Time is
running out for House Republicans to fix this mess. The GOP's
irresponsible tax law leaves millions of working Americans out in the
cold. It tells them quite frankly that they are simply not a priority
for this administration. I am calling upon the conferees to immediately
adopt the major aspects of the bipartisan Senate-passed child tax bill.
Working and military families need real tax relief, not lip service.
Particularly this is the case with the rising unemployment rate and our
sluggish economy. The simple fact is that the economy continues to
remain stagnant. The national deficit continues to rise at an
astronomical rate and the unemployment rate remains at a high 6.4
percent. There seems to be no end in sight to these economic problems.
Yet the Republicans continue to give tax cuts and child tax credits to
the very wealthy in this country.
I support the Senate-passed child tax credit bill. The bill would
immediately help 6.5 million hardworking families, including many
military families. In California, for example, expanding the child tax
credit would help an additional 21 percent of families. One of the 4
million families that would greatly benefit from the expansion of the
child tax credit lives in my district. The Ramirezes are like many
families across the country that work hard to make ends meet every day
and play by the rules. Mrs. Ramirez works full-time as a teacher's
assistant and her husband is a mechanic. Both of them work full-time.
They are raising five children on an income of $24,000 a year. I spoke
to Mrs. Ramirez and she told me, quote, that any additional money that
they would receive through the child tax credit that right now does not
apply to them would allow her to buy clothes, school supplies and food
for her five children. Times are hard for her family, she told me, so
any money that they would receive back in the form of a child tax
credit would greatly help them make ends meet.
We must act now to enact the Senate child tax credit bill. Families
like the Ramirezes need and deserve our help. They need to be a
priority for this administration. Conferees must adopt the Senate-
passed child tax credit bill to help these families. Republicans should
[[Page H7449]]
stop refusing to provide hardworking families like the Ramirezes with
any tax relief whatsoever.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the motion to instruct
conferees on the child tax credit. Let us for once show families like
the Ramirezes that they matter to this country just as much as the
millionaire families do.
Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
What I would say to the gentlewoman from California who just spoke is
a couple of points. The child credit actually, we phase out for upper-
income individuals.
{time} 0230
In fact, families that have children that are above a certain income
threshold do not qualify. Their children do not qualify. I think what
is interesting in all of this debate is night after night when we
debate this motion to instruct and we talk about trying to provide for
the children that we are only talking about some of the children; that
is, children of the successful families do not qualify. But that is
neither here nor there, but I wanted to set the record straight that as
she talks about tax cuts for the wealthy regarding a child credit,
those successful families do not qualify for the child credit.
What I would say to the gentlewoman, too, who just spoke regarding
the Ramirez family and the teacher and mechanic with children, under
existing law, and again this is sort of back of the envelope
calculations, but under existing law, as I understand it, the Ramirez
family already is entitled to the refundable child credit; in fact, a
family with children whose annual income from salaries and wages is
roughly $25,000. Their Federal income tax liability before the child
credit is roughly $885. Their tax liability after the child credit is
zero. In fact, with the refundable child credit, they get an additional
$565, and part of that of course is refundable. The total check from
the United States Treasury to the family like the Ramirez family is
roughly, again back of the envelope calculation, $2,282. That is an
income supplement that goes to good hard-working families like the
Ramirez family as described by the previous speaker. So I think that
they are already benefiting from actions of Congress, specifically the
refundable child credit from 2001.
Again, I would just sum up, Mr. Speaker, and say that the Democratic
motion to instruct actually allows the child credit to drop from $1,000
to $700 after the 2004 election. As a result, millions of low- and
middle-income families will get under their motion a smaller child
credit. The House-passed bill H.R. 1308 ensures that the child credit
remains at this $1,000 level that we have decided to be appropriate
throughout the decade. Again good policy now, good policy next year,
good policy 5 or 7 or 8 years down the road. The Democratic motion to
instruct should fail because it does not eliminate the marriage penalty
in the child credit until the year 2010 and even then just for a year.
So again under their motion millions of children will be denied the
child credit because their parents are married. What signal are we
sending across the country that we say that again if they do the right
thing, work hard, play by the rules, and then choose to raise their
family within the institution of marriage but it is going to cost them
on their bottom line under the Democratic motion that they do not get
this refundability if, in fact, they choose marriage as the course for
their family?
The House-passed bill benefits middle-income families, married
families, by eliminating the child credit immediately for married
couples.
I did want to point out because I know it has been referenced on a
couple of occasions the House-passed bill does not deny child credit to
military families. Military families, including those that are deployed
abroad, are already receiving a refundable credit and will continue to
receive a refundable credit under the House-passed bill.
So I think, again, H.R. 1308, which has passed this House, is far
superior than the Senate version. So I would urge a no vote on the
motion to instruct. In Washington, DC, Mr. Speaker, pessimists are
seldom prophets. I happen to believe in the best nature of this
institution as well as our counterparts on the other side of the
Capitol. I happen to believe that we will be able to find a good
workable compromise for all children of working families. So I would
urge a no vote on the motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
The hour is late; so let me say two quick points. One, as a
clarification, the House-passed bill does, in fact, deny the child tax
credit to military families in combat zones. And, secondly, let me say
that if the majority party were as serious about providing this credit
to these needy families as they profess to be, then we would be passing
the Senate bill now. We can get this done before we go home on Friday
or Saturday or whenever it is we are going to go home. It has already
passed the Senate 94 to two. It is fair. It provides an immediate
benefit, and it does not worsen an already staggering deficit situation
for this country that imperils our ability to provide the kinds of
services that our people in this country need and deserve out into the
future.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayes). 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 New York (Mr. Bishop).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. 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.
____________________