[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 121 (Friday, September 5, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H7995-H8001]
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. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct
conferees.
The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Ruppersberger moves that the managers on the part of
the House in the conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the House amendment to the Senate amendment to
H.R. 1308 be instructed as follows:
1. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in
the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment
(not included in the House amendment) that provides immediate
payments to taxpayers receiving an additional credit by
reason of the bill in the same manner as other taxpayers were
entitled to immediate payments under the Jobs and Growth Tax
Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.
2. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in
the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment
(not included in the House amendment) that provides families
of military personnel serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other
combat zones a child credit based on the earnings of the
individuals serving in the combat zone.
3. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in
the conference report all of the other provisions of the
Senate amendment and shall not report back a conference
report that includes additional tax benefits not offset by
other provisions.
[[Page H7996]]
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Hayworth) each will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. Mr. Speaker, I have not come to the floor today to carry
someone else's torch in partisan battle. I am not here to fight a
political battle just for the sake of fighting one. I am here because
we need to get past the idea of Democrats versus Republicans and cut to
the chase.
I do not have to convince anyone here today that we need a child tax
credit. That is not the battle. The battle is whose version of a child
tax credit this Congress will send to the President for signature. And
I am here to argue that the Senate version simply makes more sense. We
are facing a troubled economy, rising unemployment numbers and an
exploding deficit caused by tax cuts that is just not working. We are
fighting a war on terrorism, a war in Afghanistan, and a war in Iraq.
We have our servicemen and -women deployed throughout the world. We are
trying to do everything and we need to focus on our priorities.
One thing we need right now is a child tax credit for all families,
including military and veteran families, including the families of
manufacturing workers, farmers, teachers, steelworkers and restaurant
workers. We need to include families who have not benefited from the
tax cut plan because they did not get dividend or capital gains relief
from this administration's tax cut, families who need this child tax
credit now to pay for housing, clothing, food and health care.
Now, I have been listening to arguments from all sides. Last night I
heard some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle say that
the House's version of the child tax credit does provide for all
families. But this is not what the bill says. The House version does
not cover all families. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle
said that their bill provides for military families. But the House
version does not provide specific child tax credit relief for military
families. Only the Senate version does this. And the House version is
expensive. It will cost over $80 billion, which will only balloon the
deficit, and we simply cannot afford that right now.
We need to be more fiscally responsible. We need to find solutions
that fix problems without creating new ones. And the Senate version of
the child tax credit does this. It provides tax relief for all American
families and it does it without adding to the deficit. It is fully
offset and that is more fiscally responsible.
The reality is we could not have an unlimited pot of money for
everything that we want or need. We have to make choices among tough
priorities, and that is our job. But the House passed a tax law in May
that left 6.5 million hardworking taxpaying families without a child
tax credit. And we need to fix that and we need to fix it now. There
has been a lot of debate and rhetoric about the House and Senate
versions of the tax credit bill. I think debate is healthy, but I think
the rhetoric has been misleading.
{time} 1445
Let us get to the facts. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle
say we already passed a tax credit bill. We did, but it is too
expensive and the wrong bill. We need the Senate version. The Senate
version focuses solely on giving the 6.5 million families the child tax
credit relief they need. The Senate version fixes the problem created
by the last tax cut without creating more problems. The Senate version
expands the child tax credit and provides relief specifically for
military families, and it does not cost more money.
The House version will cost over $80 billion. This will only add to
our exploding deficit, and it does nothing to help our economy. The
House version is not fiscally responsible.
The critical question here is which version of a child tax credit
helps military families more. My colleagues on the other side of the
aisle argued last night that their bill provides for military families.
That is true. There are military benefits in the House version of the
Child Tax Credit bill, but the House version does not include a
specific child tax credit benefit for military families.
Instead, the House leadership has taken provisions from a completely
different bill and thrown them into this bill. Military fairness is
something I will always fight for, but we need to tackle the child tax
credit problem now. The House bill does not do this for military
families.
Remember, none of the provisions in the House version provides
specific child tax credit relief for military families. Only the Senate
version does that. Only the Senate version considers combat pay in the
formula which means that military families will receive larger tax
credit relief. That is not rhetoric, that is fact.
I have to ask my colleagues what message are we sending to military
families. The tax cuts signed into law May 2003 cut major veterans
programs, including health care and housing. These cuts will total
$14.6 billion in benefits over the next 10 years. We have had proposed
cuts to imminent danger and family separation pay, and I am very
disturbed about this.
While we were away on our August break the Department of Defense put
out and attempted to cut combat pay and pay for our families that are
separated. We have our American service people over in Iran and Iraq
putting their lives on the line. We need to do whatever we can to
support them, and for them to be over there protecting our freedom and
liberty and to cut any of their combat pay or their military family
separation pay is wrong.
I have a letter, after hearing about this, that I sent to Secretary
Rumsfeld, and I want this to be made a part of the record, asking him
not to do this, that it is wrong, and I want to make this a part of the
record, but to this date, I have received no response from Secretary
Rumsfeld or the Department of Defense, but this is something we have to
make sure we stay on top of.
I will insert the letter that I referred to earlier at this point.
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, August 14, 2003.
Hon. Donald H. Rumsfeld,
Secretary of Defense, The Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20301.
Dear Secretary Rumsfeld: I am very disturbed by recent
press accounts of the Pentagon's attempt to decrease both
imminent danger pay and family separation allowances. I am
asking you for a quick response to my inquiry.
We have over 148,000 troops in Iraq and 9,000 troops in
Afghanistan, many military families rely on this pay to help
make ends meet when their loved ones are away serving our
country and fighting for our freedom. I was shocked to learn
that as part of the Pentagon's interim budget request, there
was a recommendation to return to the lower rates of special
pay pending further inquiry by military experts. This sends
the wrong message to our soldiers and their families. It says
to them that the Pentagon does not care about their well
being. It suggest that their efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan
are no longer dangerous. In my view, we cannot let our
soldiers and their families feel like we do not understand
and appreciate what they are going through.
Our troops face daily guerrilla attacks. They face
unbearable temperature, and they have to deal with missing
their families and loved ones. This is not the time to reduce
their special duty pay.
As Congress goes to conference on the Defense
Appropriations bill, I hope that you will not proceed with
the Pentagon's combat pay reduction recommendation and
instead submit a request to Congress for additional funding
so that we can honor our soldiers abroad and their families
at home. I would also request that you support the Senate
language that calls for making the increase in combat pay
permanent. These men and women make a huge sacrifice and we
need to make sure that they receive all the resources and
compensation they need to ensure that their families are well
supported.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to a speedy
response to our letter.
Sincerely,
C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger,
Member of Congress.
Why is this occurring? Because we do not have the money. The tax cut
is not
[[Page H7997]]
working, but we cannot take it out on our military families.
We also had a $200 million cut to Impact Aid, denying military school
children a decent education, again because we do not have the money. We
need to reprioritize where we are putting our money, and after all
these cuts, we are denying 200,000 low-income military personnel a
child tax credit. That is wrong.
What message do we want to send to our service men and women and
their families? The House version does nothing to help military
families specifically. Only the Senate version does this, and it does
it without increasing the deficit.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I welcome my colleague from Maryland. It is the first chance, Mr.
Speaker, that I have had the opportunity to engage my friend in debate
on the floor of this House, though on a personal note I certainly
appreciate the gentleman's friendship and welcome him to the floor, not
to rehash rhetoric but to champion and highlight some respectful
differences in policies.
First of all, when it comes to the priority of military families, I
do not know anyone in this House who does not believe our fighting men
and women should have the best equipment, the best opportunity to
succeed and the best for their families, and when they leave the
military, the best care.
It is interesting that my friend during this debate, which is on a
motion to instruct in terms of the tax credit and the child tax credit,
would spend much of his time talking about the military and I welcome
that because I think we should always have that scrutiny, but let me
respectfully suggest that tax policy does not occur in the vacuum, and
what is most notable about the question confronting us today are the
things that my friend from Maryland failed to say.
First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, the House should be reminded that
under current policy, 40 million tax filers in this country pay no
income taxes, and of that group, many of those folks with whom my
friends on the left say they are very concerned, many folks in that
category receive payments from the government far more generous than
anything outlined in the child tax credit.
Four letters, Mr. Speaker, E-I-T-C, earned income tax credit, and it
is interesting because on previous occasions when we have addressed the
topic, no matter whom might make the motion here, it is as if
historical and financial amnesia envelops my friends on the left.
Because the thing is right now poor folks, who are hardworking people,
who are paying payroll taxes, who may not pay income taxes, they are
eligible for payments. However much it is a fair question, Mr. Speaker,
let us deal with specifics.
For someone earning a combined salary or wage of $10,000, who is the
head of the household with two children, that head of household is
eligible for a refundable earned income tax credit of over $4,000. Mr.
Speaker, that is current law. That exists right now.
So the question becomes if that type of effort is being made right
now, why the cry that somehow what the House passed is lacking? Again,
my colleagues will recall that I said it is notable what is omitted
from the argument of my friend from Maryland. Let us take a closer look
at their motion to instruct on this child tax credit.
This motion to instruct actually allows the child tax credit to drop
from $1,000 to $700 immediately following the 2004 election. In other
words, Mr. Speaker, for these families, bingo, a tax increase of $300
per child. What we have passed in the House ensures the child credit
will remain at the $1,000 per child level throughout the decade.
The motion to instruct that my friend offers does not eliminate the
marriage penalty and the child credit until the year 2010, and even
then it does so for 1 year. Temporary relief means that when the
pendulum comes back, thereto is a tax increase.
Under the motion offered by my friends, millions of children will be
denied the credit because the parents are married. What we have passed
in this House benefits middle-income families by taking care of this
problem immediately.
My friend touched on the military concerns, as I heard earlier, and I
think it is important. He asked for specifics. What have we done in
terms of tax legislation to help those in the military? 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 our House-passed bill. The motion they
offer to instruct would only increase the refundable child credit for
some families by allowing them to take into account tax free income
when they compute their refundable credit.
The House-passed bill, Mr. Speaker, what we have passed in this
House, provides more tax relief to military families because it
includes some $806 million of military tax benefits. These provisions
have already passed our House. They await action in the other body. Let
me articulate for my colleagues what some of those provisions are. They
include capital gains tax relief on home sales, tax free death gratuity
payments, tax free dependent care assistance for members of the
military. These provisions passed by this House await action in the
other body.
The fact is we have a child tax credit that reaches out to America
already, and the fact remains that through the earned income tax
credit, the very people who some in this Chamber claim are forgotten
are, in fact, helped already in existing law.
Mr. Speaker, facts are a stubborn thing. This is not an isolated
incident, occurring in a vacuum. My friend from Maryland is right to
this extent. It should not be our attempt today to score debating
points, but it is our mission in the Congress of the United States to
embrace sound policy. We have taken steps to help those who find the
challenges of work and who find that they are on the lower end of the
socioeconomic scale, but the notion of tax credits for those who pay no
income tax is something that deserves scrutiny, especially in the full
light of what this government and what this House and what this
Congress have already done.
That is why I would invite my colleagues to respectfully reject the
arguments of my friends and vote no on this motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
First, the gentleman from Arizona has made some good points. His
rhetoric is excellent. However, I would like to get into the facts
again.
To begin with, the 40 million people who are not covered do pay
taxes. They pay property taxes. They pay payroll taxes, Social Security
taxes, sales taxes. This is not a bill that is fair for all.
Secondly, the issue on fiscal accountability. I never thought, as a
Democrat, I would be here asking my colleagues in the other party, on
the other side of the aisle, to be more fiscally responsible. If my
colleagues look at the two bills, we cannot afford this bill. The
Senate bill has a setoff. It makes sense. We have enough fiscal
problems right now, but if they are serious about military fairness,
which we all are, and we all agree that we are, the Senate bill is at
the desk right now. Let us bring it up and let us vote on it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think the point remains and, again, what has been left out of the
discussion is existing tax policy. Nobody said the working poor do not
pay taxes. What we said was we are offering help already, and to
somehow willfully blind ourselves to the case of the head of household
making $10,000 a year getting a refundable earned income tax credit of
over $4,000 is to be, I believe, derelict in our duties to recognize
the policy that already exists, and that is what we should remember
today, that we have those programs in place to help the working poor.
To the extent my friend from Maryland champions what the other body
has done and what he says is fiscal responsibility, I would simply
point out there are tax increases which abound
[[Page H7998]]
in what came out of the other Chamber. When my colleagues move to
reduce the child credit from $1,000 to $700, after the next election,
they have just increased taxes on the American people, Mr. Speaker, and
here I guess is the ultimate paradox.
If it is so wrong to reduce taxation, if it is so wrong, if we accept
my friend's logic, that somehow it imperils growth or fiscal
accountability in the country at large, why any motion to instruct? Why
not just a straight ``no'' vote from my friends on the left? The logic
escapes me, but the truth does not, and it is this: The working poor
are championed under existing policy by the earned income tax credit. I
respectfully disagree with my friend because I believe by reducing
taxes, we can actually increase economic growth, and as we saw and it
is no respecter of parties, on a nonpartisan basis for Jack Kennedy in
the 1960s, for President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, total tax receipts
to the government actually increase when there is more economic
activity.
{time} 1500
On this motion to instruct, we are ignoring the realities of what
would be a tax increase following the 2004 election. Likewise, we are
ignoring a policy that in previous days in this Chamber was championed
by my friends in the minority, the earned income tax credit.
Again, Mr. Speaker, we have to end this selective amnesia, understand
the full picture.
And in that spirit I respectfully request a ``no'' vote on the motion
to instruct.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, just to respond to my friend, the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Hayworth), I think there has been some debate about refundability
and about the tax credit that the Senate bill stops after 1 year.
Both sides of the aisle I think have misinterpreted this to an extent
based on some of the debates that I have heard. We already have a law
in effect that the President signed. That law is automatic. And after
this year the refundability automatically kicks in. That is what the
law says. Those are the facts.
So let us not confuse it. I heard the colloquy before we took the
floor, an argument that the other side has been using. It is not going
to stop. It kicks in automatically, and that is the law. And that is
something that is important. That is fact.
Secondly, if we are talking about fiscal accountability, again, the
Senate bill has the set-offs. This bill does not.
We are in a difficult time in this country right now. We need to be
fiscally responsible. And I will say it once and I will say it again: I
think it is extremely important that we work on both sides of the aisle
as a team to get control of this economy and to do what is right.
The Senate bill has the off-sets that are necessary for this child
tax credit bill. This House version will cost us $80 billion. We cannot
afford that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cardoza).
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct
by my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), the home
State of my alma mater.
I rise to express my disappointment that there has been a refusal of
this House to enact what I believe to be a sensible and fair child tax
credit for 6.5 million working families, many of them members of the
military who we need to protect as they protect us.
Over the August recess, a large number of people in our country went
to their mailboxes and found the first installment of the child tax
credit. That was good news to them.
Unfortunately, another large group of people went to their boxes but
found them empty. I can imagine no excuse for not getting these
families their fair share.
In my district alone, nearly 35,000 families, 65,000 children who
live in them, were excluded from this benefit. Nationwide that adds up
to 12 million children deliberately left behind.
We are talking about working families, as the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Ruppersberger) said. We are talking about those who pay taxes, who
love their children, and aspire to better lives, as we all should.
By excluding these families from the child tax credit, the majority
in this Congress is essentially telling them that the equality of
opportunity is a myth in America.
A bipartisan Senate bill that has been discussed would have helped
these 12 million children who were left behind. It passed
overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis in the other body, but was not
allowed to become law.
Time and time again this bill has been defeated on a party-line vote
in this House.
I am particularly dismayed by the fact, as I said before, that
262,000 military families have been denied this expanded child tax
credit.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for the President to impose some
compassionate conservatism on his side of the aisle for the sake of
hard-working American families.
Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of the inadequacies in funding in the
No Child Left Behind education program. Let us ensure that we do not
leave them behind again by denying them a tax credit that they deserve.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, may I request the time remaining on
both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Carter). The gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Ruppersberger) has 17 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) has 20 minutes remaining.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this is a terribly important
issue. We have to ask ourselves, have we no shame? This is the people's
House, where we have provided trillions of dollars to the very
wealthiest families in America, those who need it the least, and yet
have denied child tax credits to the working class families who need
them the most.
Twelve million children were denied this July when the checks went
out. Three months ago, on June 5, the Senate overwhelmingly passed a
measure to immediately give an increased child tax credit to 36 million
working families, including the families of 262,000 military children
that were deliberately left out of the $350 billion tax cuts that the
House Republicans passed. The Senate was supposed to be the
aristocratic part of this Congress, yet they understood that it was
wrong to provide $350 billion out of a total of trillions of dollars of
tax cuts to the wealthy and leave behind so many working-class
families.
Now, I understand that the Speaker of the House said that we are not
taking care of these families because, quote, first of all, they do not
pay taxes. Well, the fact is they do pay taxes. They pay payroll taxes.
Seventy-five percent of the families in this country pay more payroll
taxes than they do income taxes. They pay into the Social Security and
Medicare trust funds. Of course, its those trust funds that we are
having to borrow from in order to pay for these tax cuts. Add the
interest together, and recognize the fact we are not going to sunset
these tax cuts over the next decade; we are talking about over $4
trillion in tax cuts. Yet we cannot find $3.5 billion. What is that,
about one-twentieth of 1 percent of all the tax cuts that we have
passed? But we cannot provide for 12 million children of families that
are earning less than $26,000 a year.
It does not make sense. It is not right. Yet in July the Treasury
Department sent out checks for this expanded tax credit and excluded 6
million families. Now it is time for the President to impose some
compassionate conservativism on House Republicans for the sake of these
hard-working and military families and for the sake of our economy,
because that money is going to get spent. If you are earning millions
of dollars, you do not need to spend your tax cut. If you are earning
less than $26,000, you are going to spend your tax cut immediately. In
fact, this September they would have been spending their tax cut on
buying more jeans and buying bookbags and all the kinds of school
supplies that they need to be able to buy, yet they did not get that
money. The wealthy sure got their money on time.
The other thing is, and what is particularly grating in what the
House Republican leaders have done, is that
[[Page H7999]]
there are 262,000 children of military families that were denied the
expanded tax credit because we are blocking passage of the Senate bill;
200,000 men and women serving in Iraq or other combat zones. Now, what
is important to understand is that if we do not accept the Senate
version, it leaves in place current law under which families will have
tax increases, because combat pay is not counted for purposes of the
child tax credit.
For example, an E5 sergeant with 6 years of service and two children
is paid $29,000 a year. Generally, both of his children would have been
entitled to the full $1,000 tax credit. But if he goes to combat for 6
months, his credit would drop to $450 under the House bill. The Senate
bill fixes that. It is one of the reasons the Senate bill should be
passed.
Now, we want to get this economy going, too. We see the numbers, too,
with 93,000 more jobs lost. We have now lost more than 3 million jobs
since President Bush took office. It is the worst record since Herbert
Hoover. Imagine. Under the Clinton administration more than 23 million
new jobs were created. We have lost 3 million since President Bush has
been in office. We want to create jobs. And one of the ways to create
jobs is to put money in the hands of people who need to spend that
money, and that is the working class. So that is why we need to pass
this Senate bill.
Let me just conclude by making a point about the fact that we now
have a deficit of over $400 billion this year. It will be almost $.5
trillion next year. What that means is that families are going to be
saddled with a debt tax of almost $5,000 per family by 2011 just to pay
interest on the debt that we are creating.
In addition, the last point, of the 12 million children left behind,
178,000 are children of farming families, 567,000 are children of
nurses or orderlies, 337,000 are children of teachers, and behind
disproportionately are minority children, with 2.4 million African
American children and over 4 million Hispanic children. These are
families that need the help. They are hard-working American families.
They deserve it. Let us give it to them. Let us pass the Senate
version.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the preceding two speakers from the other
side. A few points need to be brought out because there are some
classic misimpressions at work here in the House. And for the American
people to understand really what is going on in terms of tax fairness,
we should make these points.
Number one, no one undervalues our people in the military. They do
not put on their uniforms with partisan designations. This is one fact
that should be understood. Combat pay is tax free. Mr. Speaker, let me
repeat that: combat pay is already tax free.
And while I heard both my friend from Virginia and my friend from
California speak of going to the mailbox in July, no one on the other
side, not a single speaker has refuted the point that for working folks
who do pay taxes in terms of the payroll tax there already exists an
earned income tax credit, taking into account the challenges of the
working poor.
And the fact is if those constituents take advantage of existing law,
a head of household with two kids earning only $10,000 a year, this
April, after filing an income tax form on which he paid no income tax,
but taking into account his other taxes, that head of household, that
family, those children would have received in excess of $4,000.
Mr. Speaker, the contention remains intact: facts are stubborn
things. And then to say that people are left out, to ignore the funds
available that this government has made available precisely to the
people who need the help, and at the same time, under a curious
labeling of fiscal responsibility end the ability to continue the per-
child tax credit at $1,000 per child per year, to change that and
reduce that immediately following the next election, which is what the
motion to instruct does, Mr. Speaker, not only leaves the American
public with the wrong impression, it is dangerously flawed policy.
The question was where is the compassion? Compassion, in fact, can
coexist. The earned income tax credit, already a part of our tax
policy, already a part of lending a hand up rather than a hand out,
helps those people. It exists today. Again there is the strange paradox
of attacking tax relief and yet saying, well, we will offer it in this
limited form.
On all arguments, on all counts the motion to instruct is woefully
inadequate. Understand current law, embrace the policies of growth,
show true compassion by saying ``no'' to this motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1515
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Just in response to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), let us
crunch the numbers and get to the facts. The military families would do
better with a child tax credit than no taxes on combat pay. But why are
we here debating either one of them? If Members really cared about the
military, men and women putting their lives on the line, we should be
doing both.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Honda).
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger) for offering this motion to instruct
conferees on the child tax credit. I really appreciate his commitment
to this important issue, and also his expertise in being able to
explain the fairness of what we want to do, fairness to the public of
this country.
This is not the first time I have spoken out on the child tax credit.
In fact, this is not the first time Democrats have spoken out on this
issue either. For over 3 months, Democrats have been fighting to expand
the child tax credit to the 12 million children Republicans left
behind. We will continue to speak out on this floor and we will
continue to fight this Republican leadership until we provide this
benefit for all working families.
Back in July, I know many Americans received a check for the child
tax credit in the mail from the IRS. However, and it has been said
before, 6.5 million families received no check or a smaller check
because the Republicans decided they did not deserve this money. The
Republicans decided that when they put together their $350 billion tax
cut bill, Republicans decided they had room for dividend and capital
gains tax cuts, 72 percent of which goes to the top 5 percent of the
households. They decided they had room to provide tax cuts of over
$93,500 to those making over a million dollars. But when it came time
to do a child tax credit, they decided they could not afford to help
all working families.
Mr. Speaker, I know many Americans listen to these debates, and the
message we Members try to convey often gets lost in all of the
technical and legislative terminology. So what is our message today? It
is simply this: Republicans managed to pass a $350 billion tax cut but
deliberately left 12 million children behind, and Democrats have been
continuing to fight on behalf of those 12 million children.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me congratulate my friends on the left in terms of their
remarkable uniformity in talking points. But there reaches a point in
time when we get past the focus groups and the pollsters and we deal
with the facts. The silence is deafening from the left. There has been
no answer, because I guess they really cannot offer one, to the fact
that in existing law we have already made provisions for those
families. We have already made provisions for the working poor to the
tune of a head of household with two kids earning just $10,000, and we
do not deny they are working hard, under the refundable earned income
tax credit, that family would get back over $4,000. Yet the silence is
deafening.
It is good in America that we have differences, and I believe the
American people, once they understand the scope of the differences, can
appreciate some rational tax policy.
I just heard from my friends on the left that they supposed that
military families, rather than receiving cash directly tax free from
the government,
[[Page H8000]]
would far rather see that money processed through the IRS and then wait
for a year to maybe get a tax credit. That is the logic my friend from
Maryland just employed when he talked about military families.
Mr. Speaker, call me old-fashioned, but I believe cash on the
barrelhead to those families who have been willing to go out and defend
America is a lot better, a lot quicker, to get to them right now. No,
it is not the mystery of legislative terminology, Mr. Speaker. It is
simple, basic fact. True compassion means making sure people have their
money and get them to it and recognize extenuating circumstances. We do
that already with combat pay. We do it already through the earned
income tax credit. And in the final analysis, sound policy will beat
political talking points every time. That is why I say this House
should continue to maintain a measure of common sense and true
compassion and say no to this motion to instruct conferees.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Honda).
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, let us talk about fairness for everybody:
262,000 of these children are from military families; 178,000 are
children from farming families; 567,000 are children of nurses and
orderlies. They say no to these children. Three hundred thirty-seven
thousand are children of teachers. They say no to these additional
children.
We can go on and talk about earned income, but this is fairness for
all people with children in this country and they deserve a child tax
credit.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) made a comment that I said
that I was in favor of taxing combat pay. That is not what I said. I
said when we look at the facts, a person in the military would do
better by going forward with the child tax credit than not paying taxes
on military combat pay. What I said was when we have our men and women
risking their lives on behalf of us for our freedom and liberty, we
should do both.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all of the rhetoric
that we are getting on how much the majority likes military families,
but they have to put their money where their mouth is. The fact is that
that sergeant, that E-6 sergeant who makes less than a third of the tax
cuts that you are giving to millionaires, less than a third, he makes
$29,000, he did not have a choice about getting combat pay, so he goes
over to Iraq. If he stayed in this country, he would have more money in
his pocket because he would have been eligible for the child tax
credit. If he goes over to Iraq, it is not taxable income, but the
reality is, the bottom line is that he suffers. His family gets less
money.
Mr. Speaker, tell me a better definition of a working-class family
standing up for his country than that sergeant over in Iraq. And the
other side of the aisle has made him worse off because of their
legislation. That is why we need to pass the Senate version.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I guess another technique in debate is to deliberately
misunderstand some assertions on the floor. In listening to the rather
heated and personal comments from my friends, and righteous
indignation, I would say, number one, we dare not lose what is at stake
here over a notion of the checkout line in terms of Americans being
willing to put their lives on the line, first of all, Mr. Speaker.
And I would hope that not entering this debate is the notion that
somehow those who serve their country are taking out a tote board and a
computer to adhere to the duty that they have sworn and the honor they
defend and the freedom that they are defending for us all, number one.
Let us dare not denigrate the military with a kind of checkout line and
taking a cipher to tax policy, number one.
Number two, to hear the same tired rhetoric that tax relief only
benefits the wealthy, that some who come to this Chamber and offer,
even when they barely suppress a smile, the fallacy in that has to be
pointed out even in the child tax credit because this credit, under
existing law, is phased out for single parents with incomes over
$75,000 and married couples with incomes over $110,000.
So it is interesting that a myopia envelopes one group of working
Americans, but by the same token we are willing to continue this
masquerade and this assertion that tax relief belongs only to the
wealthy.
And still from my friends on the left, not a word, not a whit, not
even an acknowledgment of existing law, the earned income tax credit
specifically designed for working people who may not pay income taxes
but who pay other taxes, and the largess of this government already
making sure those folks receive checks in the mail. They need only
apply when they file their tax returns, and yet not a word about that.
Comprehensive, true compassion rather than counterfeit compassion,
that is the question today, and no matter of dramatics, no matter of
sound and fury can take away from the facts and the bottom line that
tax policy does not occur in a vacuum, that we supply already a
practical working program for people who did not have to go to their
mailbox in July; they only make the filing and take advantage of
existing programs that exist for those folks. There is no attempt to
clarify we are going to give this now, but we are going to pull back
after 2004 and reduce the value of the child tax credit, and yet that
is what the motion to instruct offers.
Again, Mr. Speaker, reject the motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, this debate is healthy. That is what it is about in the
United States Congress. We both have difference of opinions; but what
we are here about today is trying to get the conference committee
together so we can talk about these issues. We have already debated the
merits of the bill and where we are, but now we need to come together.
I would ask the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), it has been 3
months since we have had this on the table, and the leadership in the
House will not meet for a conference. It amazes me that we cannot get
the conferees at least to take these issues we have discussed today and
try to resolve them. The threat of partisan politics aside, this is an
important issue to our country and to our military, and I would yield
to the gentleman.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting when we come to the floor to talk
about the merits of policy, an interesting thing is to shift it into
process. I do not have any accountability. My party made another
decision as to leadership, so not having a seat at the leadership
table, which pains me personally, I would tell the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), I cannot control that.
What I can say is this: that I believe if we embrace commonsense
existing policies, we can get this done. And as the House has
respectfully rejected this motion to instruct on numerous occasions,
and I appreciate the gentleman's argument, but I believe we will move
forward when we are able to get to conference, understanding that we
are working right now, working on a prescription drug bill, working on
an energy bill.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentleman for his comments and that he does not have the authority, but
he is a very persuasive individual, a great orator, and I would hope
that he uses his great expertise, with his new-found look, to help us
in that regard.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Brown).
{time} 1530
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I thank my friend from Maryland for yielding me
this time. I was not planning to speak;
[[Page H8001]]
I was going to speak later on another issue, but listening to my
golden-tongued friend from Arizona engage in the histrionics he did
about service men and women and about veterans, and I have been in this
House for a while, I have never seen the treatment of veterans that
this House of Representatives has given. It is three strikes and you
are out. First of all, this President and the Republican majority have
cut the prescription drug benefit to veterans twice in the last year
and a half, once and the second time it is proposed.
Second, this leadership and this Congress and this President have cut
health and education benefits to veterans. The President proposed a $26
billion cut. The Congress reduced the cut but nonetheless cut veterans
services. And if you live in Ohio, it is three strikes and you are out
because now this administration and this Congress want to close a
veterans hospital in Brecksville, Ohio. To send working-class kids to
Afghanistan and Iraq, to cut taxes on the richest people in this
country, and then when these young men and women come back to this
country and apply for veterans benefits, they see their drug benefits
are cut, they see their education benefits are cut, they see that
veterans hospitals in their communities are shut down in order to pay
for tax cuts, the average millionaire, $93,500 for a tax cut, is simply
immoral. This debate I think crystallizes that, showing what this
Congress really stands for.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me thank my friend from Ohio for polishing his banquet remarks for
the next Jefferson/Jackson Day dinner in his district. Let me also
point out, however, that when I hear the rhetoric about the rich, let
us see who qualifies for the per-child tax credit, Mr. Speaker.
In one of the cities I represent, Phoenix, Arizona, a nurse
practitioner making $64,000 a year and her husband a principal. I guess
by some tokens, they are rich, I suppose. I happen to think they are
working people. In fact, their per-child credit is phased out because
their economic threshold is over $110,000.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is this. We were here debating a per-child tax
credit. I have my own differences with many in this House in terms of
our commitment to veterans, and the record reflects I voted ``no'' on
the bill that passed this House before the break so I would not assume
things here in a one-size-fits-all blanket indictment. Good people can
disagree and often we do and many times we agree across party lines.
But to my friends who want to embrace effective policy, again I would
recognize, it does not occur in a vacuum. We have moved as a government
and as a society to help the working poor. I have chronicled the
payments that already go to folks who are at the lower end of the
socioeconomic scale, who work and play by the rules, who do not have to
wait for a special provision in July, who could get thousands of
dollars from the government now. They only need apply. I have made the
case that there is no reason to cut back on this per-child tax credit,
from $1,000 to $700 after the next election, which their motion to
instruct would do and in essence be a tax increase.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me simply say this. This question has
come before the House on previous occasions. We recognize true
compassion and effective policy. I would ask my colleagues again to
join me in voting ``no'' to stand up for the policy passed by this
House which offers pro-growth and opportunity and, yes, funds to those
Americans who are working, taking into account those working Americans
who may not pay income tax in the broad scope of Federal tax policy.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this motion to instruct.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would just take 1 minute here to
make a few comments. I cannot believe that in the United States
Congress we have done all we could possibly do for the working poor in
this country. Shut out the lights, close the doors, we have done all we
can because we have given a tax cut. I think it is nonsense.
Two quick points. One, the gentleman from Arizona has brought up
about the earned income tax credit. A great program, no doubt about it.
This is the same program that has a better chance of getting audited if
you apply for that program by the IRS than if you make $1 million a
year. This government is slanted against the poor and for the rich.
Those are the stubborn facts that make it very difficult.
The second part is I have only been here 9 months. There is one thing
I have learned. If you do not have a lobby, if you cannot raise
millions of dollars for the majority party, your agenda does not make
it to this floor. If you are the pharmaceutical companies, if you are
the insurance companies, your agenda is here. If you are the working
poor, you get forgotten, you have got enough, we have done all we can
do. If you do not live in a gated community, you have been ignored by
this Congress.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is very interesting to hear these points. I certainly again welcome
my friend from Ohio to this Chamber. I appreciate honest, honest
differences of opinion. But to somehow say that a head of household
earning $10,000 a year who can receive in the mail a $4,000 check, to
somehow denigrate that by claiming there is going to be an audit and
somehow make the case that this is a strange Robin Hood in reverse when
historical accuracy compels me to point out, the reason Robin Hood went
to work in the first place was because the sheriff of Nottingham
overtaxed the people, that is often left out of the story, and to hear
this does nothing to the debate at hand and, that is, true compassion
does not mean reduce this per-child tax credit after the next election.
True compassion does not mean ignore what goes on or denigrate it
because of the threat of audit. Effective, comprehensive, commonsense
policy demands that we move forward with this per-child credit as
passed in the House and that we reject the Senate-passed bill and that
we reject this motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
My colleagues on the other side have said they are already helping
the military. We talked about the military because we are at war now
and that is a component of this bill that we are discussing here today.
If that is the case, and I believe very strongly that we all care about
the military, then why not continue the effort and pass the child tax
credit bill which helps our men and women putting their lives on the
line on our behalf? That just makes sense. That is American. That is
what we need to do.
The other Chamber talked about issues of fiscal responsibility. If
you look at the Senate bill versus the House bill, there are the
offsets that are there. It does not increase this deficit. We are in a
difficult situation now in this country. We need to be fiscally
responsible. The Senate bill does that. But really what we are talking
about here today, and I have been just as guilty as anyone else, we
have been debating the merits of the legislation and where we need to
be, but what we are talking about is let us just get to the conference.
Let us get to the conference. Three months and we have not sat down. We
need to sit down in a nonpartisan way because this is so important to
our country, to our families and our communities and our military.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Carter). Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
____________________