[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 124 (Wednesday, September 10, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H8178-H8182]
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. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct
conferees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Davis of Tennessee moves that the managers on the part
of the House in the conference on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses on the House amendment to the Senate amendment
to H.R. 1308 be instructed as follows:
1. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in
the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment
(not included in the House amendment) that provides immediate
payments to taxpayers receiving an additional credit by
reason of the bill in the same manner as other taxpayers were
entitled to immediate payments under the Jobs and Growth Tax
Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.
2. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in
the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment
(not included in the House amendment) that provides families
of military personnel serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other
combat zones a child credit based on the earnings of the
individuals serving in the combat zone.
3. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in
the conference report all of the other provisions of the
Senate amendment and shall not report back a conference
report that includes additional tax benefits not offset by
other provisions.
4. To the maximum extent possible within the scope of
conference, the House conferees shall be instructed to
include in the conference report other tax benefits for
military personnel and the families of the astronauts who
died in the Columbia disaster.
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 preceding provisions of
this instruction, not later than the second legislative day
after adoption of this motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7(b) of rule XXII, the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. Thomas) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, sometimes we ask ourselves, why would I introduce this
motion to instruct the conference committee? Seventeen other times this
motion has been here on the floor. And you think, really, would it make
a difference? Maybe it will not. But there are a lot of people who live
in my district that hope that this one will be successful.
A few months ago, I voted for the $80 billion bill that included
families in my district that have children that really would hope that
they too would get the same treatment as those who make 10 or $15,000
more than them, that make above the $26,000 level that basically were
allowed the tax credit of $400 each. So you wonder if it has been here
17 times, what is going to be magic about the 18th time? If it takes a
thousand times, it is important to people who live in the district I
represent.
Recent surveys by different groups analyzed different congressional
districts. The one that I represent in rural Tennessee is the fourth
most rural district in America, which means when you take the folks who
live inside an incorporated area and those outside, of the 435, mine is
the fourth most rural district in America. I traveled that district
through the August recess. I attended 92 different meetings. A lot of
the folks that I met with, a lot of folks who came to open meetings
that I set aside for constituents to come and visit with their
Congressman, this was one of the issues that really was of great
concern to them.
But when you talk about being rural, then you look at the folks who
work in the district that I represent. We have the third largest base
of blue collar workers of any congressional district in America working
in the fourth district, somewhat over 40 percent. Generally, you would
assume blue collar would be the auto industry or some other industry
that would pay higher wages. Yes, we have that in the district as well,
but most of the ones I am talking about are individuals who fall in the
criteria of the 10 to $26,000 bracket. They are the lower-wage income
earners. They are the ones who get laid off first. They are the ones
generally that their employer are not able to provide a health care
policy for them.
Many of those had high hopes as they saw us go through this process.
There were times that I would be back in the district and they would
say, why don't Democrats support a tax cut? What's the problem? Then
when I explained to
[[Page H8179]]
them what happened, they are saying, you left us out. You left us out
of at least that opportunity to share in a tax cut that went to other
folks. Some folks will say, you don't get a tax cut. This is a tax
credit for people who work every day, every day, that earns a check,
that owns a home, has an automobile, pays almost 40 cents a gallon on
gasoline when they drive to work.
I have a nephew who works at a factory in Crossville, Tennessee, in
the district that I represent. He married my niece. They have two
little boys. This past weekend, those two little boys along with my
niece, my brother, his other daughter and the nephew that works at that
factory helped hauling tobacco all weekend. Those two little boys are
saying, Uncle Lincoln, it's good to see you. But I talked to Marty
Brown about his earnings. He earned above the $26,000 last year because
he worked overtime. He checked at his factory on the 180 folks who work
on that assembly line where he does, 40 of those were extremely
disappointed that they were not included in the $400 tax credit, the
child tax credit that he received. On the particular assembly line
where he works, there were only two that received it, his supervisor
and him. He got the $800 for his two children. But there were folks who
worked with him that did not receive anything. They do not understand.
They are hurt. They are disappointed. They are concerned.
The question that I ask is why would I introduce this legislation to
instruct the conferees in the House to meet with the Senate to resolve
this issue? As a Democrat who voted for the initial $80 billion child
tax credit, I am here appealing to the other side not to leave out
those individuals that we included in the $80 billion tax cost over the
10-year program. Let us at least work with the Senate for this year to
make it possible, at least through 2004, to make it possible. That is
what the Senate bill does. That is what the initial bill did, was only
made it through 2004. The $350 billion tax cut that was given that had
the inclusion of those who would get a child tax credit only goes
through 2004. It does not go through 2010 as the tax cut did in 2001.
Let us include, as the President asked us to and as the Senate has
passed, a child tax credit for those individuals I am talking about,
the 40 of that 180 who work in that one factory in my district, that
are disappointed not only in just Lincoln Davis but on the other side
as well that they were excluded from the fairness that I think this
Chamber has about it and I think this Chamber will and I hope this
Chamber will correct it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of the time on
this side until the gentleman is down to his last speaker.
Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek). His mother served here in this
Chamber for many years, and we are fortunate to have a young man like
him that is here today that will be speaking on the child tax credit.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Tennessee
for his eloquent opening remarks as it relates to this child tax
credit. I think it is very important, Mr. Speaker, that we look at the
reason why we are here for the 18th time. One would assume in this
country, in this great country of America as it relates to financially
challenged families that make under $26,000 a year and also those men
and women that are fighting on behalf of the freedom that we enjoy
every day, that we would not even have to come to the floor on their
behalf and on behalf of their families to be able to receive a fair
share from this government that they look up to.
This issue is not a new issue to this House. As my colleague from
Tennessee references, this is the 18th time that Democrats have come to
the floor to ask for fair play and equal justice for these individuals.
I want to say that this issue as it relates to just months ago, we were
here on this floor, Members sat in this Chamber, we voted for this tax
credit, we wanted to make sure that every American was able to enjoy
it; but until this day, they still cannot. Checks have been mailed out.
They have not been mailed out to the low-income individuals in our
country. I think it is important that we remember them.
Since we are on the eve of 9/11, I think it is important for me to
point this out. I turn on the television, and I am seeing not only
Members of this body but also members of the executive branch flying
around, draping themselves in the flag, saying that we stand with our
military families.
{time} 2115
I believe they do, to a certain extent, only when it comes down to
their families being able to receive a child tax credit.
Those men and women that are out there in Iraq and Afghanistan, and
even here domestically in the United States working with our various
military operations, those individuals that are in combat zones are
going to receive combat pay. And, guess what? They are going to receive
a tax increase due to that combat pay. Will they be able to celebrate a
tax credit? No, they will not, not unless this motion to instruct
actually passes and we are able to fight on their behalf.
I think it is important for us when we talk about coming together as
Americans to make sure that we fight on behalf of 20,000 military
families who were left out of the Republican new tax law. I think we
should do as the other body has done. They have moved in the right
direction to make sure many families, not only in my State of Florida,
are able to receive a tax credit. I think it is important that we do
not muddy the water as it relates to what this Congress has done for
low-income families.
My colleague from Tennessee mentioned my mother, Carrie Meek, who
served in this body, and I am glad I have had the opportunity to follow
in her footsteps. She was one that stood for the individuals that we
may say are the least of these, hard-working Americans that are just
trying to make their way in this free democracy.
I believe America is all about fair play. I believe America is all
about individuals receiving their fair share for a hard day's work.
But, unfortunately, many times I hear Members rise to their feet when
we raise the question of the have's and have not's, and class warfare,
and blue collar versus white collar, whatever the case may be.
But this is a perfect example as we are here in this Chamber today
for the eighteenth time saying that just because someone makes under
$26,000 a year, that they cannot receive the same credit as those that
are at a higher income bracket. Something is fundamentally wrong with
that. I think it is important as we are here for the eighteenth time,
and I look forward to this hopefully being the last time that we have
to come to this floor and to this Congress to ask for justice on behalf
of these families.
I cannot help but think of those individuals in Florida and
throughout this Nation that have loved ones that are in a tent or out
in a field, have sand in their teeth right now, fighting on behalf of
this country and standing against terrorism, that we have to come and
speak on their behalf, when it should be something that is automatic.
I must say to even those families that are not military families, I
want to say it again, these are people that work every day. These are
individuals that want to provide for their families every day. These
are families working every day. I think it is important that we
understand that we are not talking about people that are sitting at
home with a bag of Lay's potato chips watching cable television. I
think it is important we understand that these are people that punch in
and punch out, they are catching a bus, driving their cars. They are
paying the same $2 a gallon for gas as I pay $2 a gallon for gas.
So I think it is important that they receive the tax credit. I think
it is important that this Congress stands up on behalf of these
individuals.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Tennessee for coming
to the floor once again and being courageous on behalf of working
families in the United States.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
from California continues to reserve his time.
Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
[[Page H8180]]
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this is the people's House. Every single
American should be represented here. Unfortunately, the Republican
majority has turned this House over to the powerful and the privileged.
Week in and week out, the Republican leadership neglects middle and
lower income Americans, and there is perhaps no better example of this
intentional neglect than the child tax credit.
How many nights will we as Democrats have to come to this floor to
fight to provide for 12 million children of low income parents who were
neglected by Republicans in their latest tax bill? Unfortunately,
according to this morning's Roll Call newspaper, which I have here, we
may be forced to continue our fight indefinitely. Why? Well, the
chairman of the committee on Ways and Means, who is here on the floor,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), according to the article,
refuses to work out the differences between separate House and Senate
bills passed earlier this summer.
I have a quote here from the paper. Senator Chuck Grassley, the
chairman of the conference, ``Complained that Mr. Thomas has been
unresponsive to his entreaties to work out the differences between the
House and Senate versions of the bill.'' That is in this morning's Roll
Call on the first page.
You see, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership just cannot be
bothered. These 12 million children do not have any power. These 12
million children are not among the privileged. Therefore, why should
the Republican leadership represent them? Why bother? Why can the
chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), not respond to
the letter from Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley
attempting to work out differences between bills passed in the two
Chambers?
I heard the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), say
that he was going to address the House later this evening, and I hope
he does answer the reason why he has not been responsive to the Senate
chairman's letter.
In the article, Chairman Grassley is quoted as saying, ``I suppose I
could call a conference meeting, but I'm not going to do that unless it
is going to be productive. And right now, it doesn't look like it would
be.''
Chairman Grassley concluded that the only way negotiations would
begin was if Republicans felt some heat here on the floor from
Democrats.
Well, they are going to get it. We are going to be here every night,
and we are going to keep making these motions to instruct, and I
commend my colleague for bringing this up.
Again, quoting Republican Chairman Grassley, ``The Democrats won't
let it be dead, and I don't blame them. If I was them and the majority
party wasn't doing something about it, I would make an issue of it
too.''
Well, I am glad that Chairman Grassley feels that way, because that
is certainly what we are going to do. We demand a response. It is not
fair for the Republican leadership to be unresponsive.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise Members not to make
reference to individual Members of the other body.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, that last sentence that I quoted says it
all. House Republicans do not want to help these 1 million children. If
they did, the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) would have
responded to this letter.
It is also clear that President Bush does not want to help these
children either. It has been 99 days since President Bush advised House
Republicans to pass this child tax credit legislation and send it to
him so he could sign it. The urgency the President showed in June has
clearly dissipated. Not once since then has the President urged
Congress to send him a bill that would provide these 12 million
children a tax credit. If that silence is not an indication of the
President's true intentions, I do not know what is.
Mr. Speaker, this a simple question of fairness. How can Republicans
say it is fair to give a millionaire a tax break of more than $90,000,
while giving nothing to millions of working families? Unfortunately,
the simple answer is that as long as the Republicans remain in control
of this House, we will not see fairness, for the simple reason that
fairness can only occur when all Americans are represented, and under
the control of the Republican leadership, unless you are part of the
powerful privileged elite, your voice will simply not be listened to
here.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California continue
to reserve his time?
Mr. THOMAS. Yes.
Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case).
(Mr. CASE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his
effort tonight, the eighteenth time that the Democrats in this House
have tried to do the right thing, the fair thing.
Mr. Speaker, I have been a Member of this House now for 9 months, and
I discovered in that 9 months that the issues that I face, the
difficult issues that we all face, fall into three categories:
Category number one are the issues that I understand and I agree
with, the solutions that are brought forward by this Congress.
Category number two are the issues that I understand, and I disagree
with the solutions that are brought forward by this Congress. Those two
categories we can all appreciate.
It is category number three that bothers me the most, and that is the
category of things that I just do not understand at all, no matter how
long I stay on the floor of this House, no matter how long I listen to
the arguments, no matter how long I try to understand what is the
motivation of somebody for doing or not doing something.
Now, hopefully over time category number three will diminish with the
time that I spend in this House. But I have been in this House now for
9 months, and this issue clearly falls into category number three, and
I do not think it is ever going to exit category number three until we
pass this child tax credit.
I have tried to understand, why are we not passing this? What is the
problem? What is the big deal? What is so hard to understand about the
fact that we have 12 million kids that are not covered by this credit,
that we have families that are not covered by this credit, that we have
poor people that are not covered by this credit, that we have soldiers
coming back from overseas that are not covered by this credit?
I get letters from my constituents. I try to understand from my
constituents and translate for them what is going on in Congress.
Sometimes I can translate and say I understand and I agree, and we all
agree on this, or I understand and I disagree. But this one throws me
for a loop.
Here is just one of those communications, from a gentleman named
Peter Gorham in Hawaii. He writes me, ``Dear Representative Case, my
wife and I recently adopted two orphans from Kazakhstan. The children
are doing well and it is a joy to see them grow stronger every day as
they recover from the terrible situation they were in.
``I write you today for this reason: We are shocked to find that our
tax refund has been shortchanged by the sudden rescission of the child
tax credit. As you know, adoption costs are very high and the Federal
tax credits for adoption and the child tax credit are a welcome relief
from a portion of these costs. It is a painful blow to take this from a
Congress and administration that has prided itself on spoken words of
tax reform, when in fact, the results appear to be the opposite. Please
accept the responsibility to work for the reform of these egregious tax
laws.''
Mr. Gorham, I have no way of explaining to you what we are doing here
tonight and what we continue to do, because I do not understand it
myself.
Can it be that we do not have the money? That would be a pretty
common explanation. Sorry, we cannot apply $3.5 billion to a child tax
credit that is fair after we have already spent multi-billions of
dollars on a child tax credit for everybody else. Can that be it?
Frankly, I am not sure I have heard anybody say that yet, and how could
they say it? We just gave away hundreds of billions of dollars in tax
cuts that people that do not need it. We just gave away multi-billions
of dollars,
[[Page H8181]]
$500 billion now and climbing, in a deficit that does not seem to
matter to anybody.
I guess you could say well, why do we not just add another $3.5
billion to the deficit. But we do not appear to be ready to do that.
We seem to be ready to spend another $87 billion on Iraq and
Afghanistan that is not even accounted for. And who thinks for one
minute that that is the last amount of money we are going to spend in
Iraq and Afghanistan? But we cannot spend $3.5 billion on a child tax
credit.
What else can it be? Can it be some rationale in our Tax Code that
says somehow low income people should not be helped, whereas middle
income people should be and higher income people should be? I cannot
see that. I have heard the argument made on the floor. I have heard the
argument made well, low income people do not pay taxes, and therefore
they should not have a credit. I do not buy that argument. I do not
understand it, and I do not think anybody else understands it too.
So what is it? What is the explanation? Why are we sitting here again
for the eighteenth time trying to pass something that, to me, makes so
much sense, that in the context of what we consider, in the context of
who we are trying to help, makes so much sense?
When I walk back into my district back in Hawaii and I say, I wish I
could explain this to you in a context that you can understand, I
cannot do it.
So I am left with this question, so I ask this question, and I come
up with this answer, and this is the best I can do for you: Because
they do not want to. Because they do not want to.
It is not a matter of affordability, it is not a matter of tax
policy, and it is certainly not a matter of caring about the people
that are impacted. This issue has risen above all of that, and it is
now just about winning. It is about not giving in. It is about
maintaining face, as we call it, keeping face, and that is the wrong
reason to not do the right thing.
I urge that we pass this motion and end this, and finish this once
and for all.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do want to indicate that as to the
statements that were made in terms of not understanding some third
category as to why certain things have not been done, the gentleman
really needs to simply examine the Congressional Record.
{time} 2130
On June 12 of this year, the House passed a tax relief measure
providing tax relief for astronauts, suspending the tax exempt status
of designated terrorist organizations, providing tax relief and
enhancing tax fairness for members of the Armed Forces. That has passed
this House. It passed it in June. But it not only did that, it
accelerated the increase in the refundable child credit. The provision
that passed on June 12 cost $3.5 billion over 11 years.
As the very point of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis) where
he said he cannot understand why it has not been addressed, we have
addressed it. I do not happen to know how he voted on the measure, but
clearly enough Members of the House were concerned about that child
credit provision, were concerned about the members of the Armed Forces,
that that measure passed.
It is now over in the Senate. The Senate is the body that has not
responded to these concerns.
Mr. Speaker, when we talk about entreaties, as was indicated in the
quote from the other body, first of all, the other body is the Chair of
the conference on the tax credit. All the other body has to do is
simply call for a conference. They can moan, they can groan, they can
complain. All they have to do is call for a conference. That call has
not been made.
In terms of the reference to the 18th time that we have dealt with
this issue, Mr. Speaker, I refer to my statement on the floor in regard
to the nonbinding nature of this motion to instruct and the tax
applicability argument offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel) on page H5340 and H5341 of the Congressional Record of June 12,
2003.
Mr. Speaker, I would refer to the statement I made on the floor in
response to the motion to instruct offered by the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) on page H6828 of the Congressional Record of
June 2003. Repeatedly, this motion has failed.
I do want to indicate so that everyone understands that on the 18th
try or the 19th try or the 20th try, every page in the Congressional
Record cost the taxpayers $575. Quite a sum in terms of showing how
many times they are willing to refuse to admit this House passed tax
relief for child credit on the amount they stated and aid to armed
services.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, the question I asked is why would I come here for the
18th time. There is a reason. The $500 or whatever it cost today or
whatever it cost for those 18 times, I guarantee the folks sitting back
home expect me and expect those of us in this Chamber to be fair with
them as well.
As we talk about the 6.5 million lower-income families, this is a
comment made today in one of the publications, If it ain't dead, it is
doing a pretty good impression, said one Senate GOP aid about the bill
which caught fire in June when the media reported that about 6.5
million lower-income individual families had been left out of President
Bush's $350 billion tax cut.
The reference was made that we have not had a conference committee
nor a call. On the Senate side the chairman said, ``I suppose I could
call a conference meeting, but I am not going to do that unless it is
going to be productive. And right now it does not look like it would
be.'' We have not gotten a response from them to our letter about the
conference that we sent this summer.
As I said earlier, I voted for the $80 billion tax package on June
12. That included the families I mentioned a moment ago that I
personally know and that each of us knows.
Now, when we talk about those folks, we are not talking about
Democrats and Republicans; my colleagues have not heard me make
reference today to either political party. My hope and my request is
that all of us will realize that this is not a Democrat or Republican
issue, that really what it is is an issue about people back home who
really feel they have been left out. And do my colleagues know
something? I agree with them; they have been left out. And I think
those of us in this Chamber, when we talk about we have passed the
bill, we have done what we should do, we did not do what the President
asked us to do. That does not necessarily mean we have to. But he asked
that these families be covered with the child tax credit, and the
Senate passed a $3.5 billion bill that did just exactly that. They went
above the $350 billion agreement that they had agreed on, but they
still passed that shortly after the $350 billion tax cut was passed in
this Chamber, which reduced dividend earnings to 15 percent and capital
gains to 15 percent, I believe. These individuals who work every day,
we did not give them anything. We have left them out.
So as we talk about why are we back, in number five of this motion to
instruct, ``The House conferees shall, as soon as practicable, after
the adoption of this motion, meet in open session,'' and it says
please, basically, meet in open session with the Senate conferees and
the House conferees shall file a conference report consistent with the
provisions of this instruction not later than the second legislative
day after adoption of this motion.
In essence, what we are trying to do is get within a short period of
time, perhaps no more than 2 days after passage, a gathering of those
folks in the House and the Senate who will compose a conference
committee that will reach out, as the Senate has done, to those lower
wage-earners who live in our districts. Who do they vote for? Someone
voted for me. Someone voted for my opponent. Who did they vote for in
anybody else's district? Some voted for Republicans, and some voted for
Democrats. This is not an issue about who we are helping, it is who we
are hurting; and the ones we are hurting are the low-income families
who have children at home and who go to work every day.
[[Page H8182]]
My request is that we pass this instruction to the conferees and that
we get on with business.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Without
objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. 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.
____________________