[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.




                          ____________________