[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 72 (Thursday, May 20, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H3443-H3445]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H3443]]

House of Representatives

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4359, CHILD CREDIT PRESERVATION AND 
                    EXPANSION ACT OF 2004--Continued
                              {time}  1445

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, how many times have we heard tax breaks 
for the rich in this body? Maybe their liberal Democratic base can 
believe it, but the American people are not stupid.
  They said the marriage penalty was a tax break for the rich. There 
should be a reward for people that get married, not a disincentive. Yet 
my colleagues said, oh, it's a tax break for the rich.
  Tax breaks for the family and the children, that is for the rich. 
Most Americans have children in this community and those that do not, 
adopt, like myself; and it is not just a tax break for the rich. But 
any tax relief for a working family, to my liberal colleagues on the 
other side, is a tax break for the rich. The American people are not 
stupid, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I invite Members to look up www.dsausa.org. This is 
their Web page. It stands for Democrat Socialists of America, DSA. Look 
what their 12-point agenda is. They talk about how they work with and 
they laud the Progressive Caucus, 58 Members of the House in the 
Progressive Caucus along with the Democrat Socialists of America. Their 
own Web page lists 12 points.
  They want government control of health care; they sure tried to do 
that. They want government control of education; they have sure tried 
to do that. They want unions over small business. That is where they 
get their campaign money. They have sure done that.
  They want the highest taxes possible. That is why any tax relief is 
for the rich only, because they want the justification to raise yours 
and my taxes, any working family.
  And they want to cut defense by 50 percent; they have sure tried 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, a man once called Abraham Lincoln two-faced. He said, do 
you think if I had two faces I would use this one. My colleagues on the 
other side say it is only tax breaks for the rich, but they have never 
seen a tax increase that they do not like. Also, if you look at the 13 
appropriations committees, and I serve on the Committee on 
Appropriations, there is not a single one except for Defense that they 
do not want to increase, and increase the debt.
  We just had a budget that limits spending. Most of my colleagues on 
that side of the aisle voted against it because they want to increase 
spending. They want to increase the debt. Yet they say, oh, don't vote 
for a tax break for the rich because it gives money to working families 
for children.
  Yes, Abraham Lincoln was right. There are two faces on some people.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I would like to respond to the gentleman from California, if I may. I 
very rarely agree with anything he says.
  I do agree with one thing he said and that is, the American people 
are not stupid. I would just like to say to him that the American 
people can add and they can subtract. The unpaid-for tax cuts, many of 
them for the wealthiest people of this country, that his party has 
championed during this last month have added $1.2 trillion to the 
Federal debt that is already nearly $7.2 trillion. That is an addition 
of $4,000 to each American's share of the Federal debt. Each citizen's 
share of the debt would be now, with all these tax cuts that they have 
passed that are not paid for, $28,479.
  Most of us on this side of the aisle have absolutely no problem with 
the marriage penalty tax relief provisions and most of the child tax 
credits that are being discussed here today. What we do have a problem 
with is passing the bill on to our kids and our grandkids. That is 
fiscally irresponsible.
  They should listen to one of the great leaders of their own party, 
Senator John McCain of Arizona, who said that the Republican Party used 
to be the party of fiscal responsibility. It used to be the party that 
would want to pay as you go. That is no longer the case. This is the 
most fiscally irresponsible Congress in the history of our country.
  And so to the gentleman who spoke earlier, I would say my problem is 
not so much that we should not provide tax relief to middle-income 
families; my problem is that you are not paying for it and you are 
passing the bill on to my kids and my grandkids, and that is not right.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The Chair would remind Members 
to avoid improper references to the other body.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support 
of this rule and for the underlying bill, the Child Credit Preservation 
and Expansion Act.
  If we do not pass this bill, the child tax credit, which is currently 
$1,000, will go down to $700 next year and then fall to $500 in 2011. 
In other words, if we do not act on this bill, taxes will increase for 
30 million taxpayers.
  This bill makes the $1,000 tax credit permanent and raises the 
eligibility limits for those who can claim the credit to include more 
middle-income parents so that more people can keep more of their own 
money.

[[Page H3444]]

  Americans deserve to keep more of their hard-earned money. For many 
families, $1,000 goes a very long way. Parents could invest the money 
for their child's education.
  This bill also helps more of our men and women in uniform become 
eligible to receive the child tax credit. It would allow nontaxable 
combat pay to be taken into account when calculating the refundable 
portion of the tax credit. Currently, combat pay is excluded from 
calculating eligibility for the credit. This bill would allow low-
income families to receive more of the child tax credit and to keep 
more of their own money.
  I wholeheartedly support tax credits; however, I think we all need to 
remember whose money it is in the first place. It is not the government 
giving back its money to the people. It is the American taxpayers' 
money and they should be able to keep more of it, whether it is in the 
form of a tax credit or lower taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, we have all seen firsthand in the past few years how 
much tax cuts have stimulated the economy. The American economy grew at 
a strong annual pace of 4.2 percent during the first quarter of 2004, 
well above the historical average. In fact, economic growth over the 
last three quarters has grown the fastest in nearly 20 years. Tax 
relief has helped drive the economic recovery forward, putting more 
money in the pockets of America's families and creating more jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, as a former businesswoman and realtor before I came to 
Congress, I know firsthand the impact that tax cuts have on businesses. 
And as a mother, I know how far $1,000 can go towards a child's 
education or for immediate needs like food, diapers, clothing, et 
cetera.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support America's families and vote 
``yes'' on the rule and on the underlying bill.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am reminded, my colleague on the other 
side talked about middle income. I listened to the gentleman from 
Missouri that ran for President over and over and over again in the 
1990s, 1991, 1992, 1993, talk about the middle class.
  First of all, we should never use that term. There is no such thing 
as a middle class in this country. There are middle income, there is 
low income. But they play the race card, they play the social card 
every chance they get. Time after time they said, oh, we want tax 
relief for the middle income.
  In 1993, when they had the White House, the House and the Senate, 
what did they do? They raised the highest tax on the middle income in 
the history of this country. They increased the tax on Social Security. 
They took every dime out of the Social Security trust fund. They cut 
the veterans' COLAs, the military COLAs. They gave us the highest gas 
tax possible. And they increased the tax on the middle income.
  When we took the majority in 1994, we reversed those and they said, 
oh, look, the economy. After we reversed that tax, not a single 
Democrat economic structure or tax passed in this House or the other 
body and they said, ``Well, look. Look at the fine economy we had under 
President Clinton.''
  Not one of President Clinton's measures ever passed in this House or 
was signed. So if that is the case, if we reversed that and none of 
their policies went forward since we have had the majority, then how 
can they be responsible for the good economy?
  But, no, they will use every chance they can to say we want middle-
class tax cuts, middle-class tax cuts. But when it comes time to do it, 
they will increase it every time because it increases their power to 
spend on big government.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to answer the gentleman's question. He asked, what did we give 
the American people when the Democrats had the White House and the 
House of Representatives and the United States Senate. We gave the 
American people one of the largest surpluses in the history of this 
country.
  What have they given the American people now that they control the 
White House, House and the Senate? They have given the American people 
the largest deficit in the history of this country.
  There is a clear difference.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, that is the whole idea. When the 
gentleman claims that they gave a surplus, we took away their Social 
Security tax increase. We restored veterans' pay. We restored military 
pay. We put their gas tax into a highway trust fund so we could build 
more. We took away the middle-class tax and we had our budgets to 
balance the budget. We had 9/11 and it has gone up, but their policies 
did not create that surplus. We did away with that tax and it was our 
policies that increased it, not decreased it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just would remind the gentleman again that yesterday he and a 
majority, almost every single member of the Republican Party, voted for 
a budget to increase the national debt to over $8 trillion. That is not 
something I think anyone can be proud of.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for printing in the Congressional Record an 
editorial that appeared in the Washington Post, entitled ``Leave No 
Rich Child Behind'' that refers to the bill we are talking about here 
today.

                [From the Washington Post, May 19, 2004]

                       Leave No Rich Child Behind

       The House Representatives plans to take up a bill this week 
     that would provide new tax breaks to families earning as much 
     as $309,000, while doing next to nothing for those at the low 
     end of the income scale. The bill, which could come up as 
     early as today, is the most egregious part of a House tax-
     cutting spree that altogether would add more than $500 
     billion to the deficit over the next 10 years, according to 
     estimates by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax 
     Policy Center.
       The House would not only make permanent the $1,000-per-
     child tax credit enacted as part of the 2001 tax cut but 
     would dramatically increase the income limits for 
     eligibility. Currently, married families with incomes of up 
     to $110,000 receive the full credit; the bill would more than 
     double the income ceiling, to $250,000. Under existing law, 
     families with two children and incomes up to $149,000 receive 
     a partial tax credit; the bill would make that partial credit 
     available to families with two children and income of between 
     $250,000 and $289,000; families with three children would be 
     entitled to the partial credit up to an income of $309,000.
       This is unnecessary, misguided and irresponsible. Families 
     at that income level have already enjoyed significant 
     benefits from the recent tax cuts; they don't need an extra 
     subsidy to help support their children. While tax cut 
     proponents argue that lowering marginal tax rates or cutting 
     dividend and capital gains taxes helps promote economic 
     growth, there is no such claim to be made for the child tax 
     credit. And the increase in the income ceiling would cost $69 
     billion through 2014, $87 billion if you count increased 
     interest payments on the extra debt.
       House Republicans have the gall to propose all this--and 
     many House Democrats don't seem to have the spine to oppose 
     it--while providing almost no extra help for the poorest 
     families. Currently, low-income families who earn more than 
     $10,750 are eligible for a small refundable tax credit. 
     (These are families that pay payroll taxes but don't earn 
     enough to be subject to paying income taxes, so they get a 
     check back from the government.) For example, a married 
     family with two children and an income of $12,000 gets $125 
     per child. The House bill would speed up by one year a 
     planned increase in the size of this credit, giving low-
     income families a one-time average benefit of $150 per child. 
     This remedies--belatedly--last year's mean-spirited omission 
     of these families from the accelerated increase in the child 
     tax credit enjoyed by higher-income taxpayers. The cost of 
     this meager improvement: $1.8 billion.
       For families earning less than $10,750, however, the House 
     bill would do nothing. Thus, a family with a parent working 
     full-time at the minimum wage ($10,300) would get no benefit 
     from the bill. A better-off but still low-income family with 
     two children would get a one-time $300 average tax break 
     ($150 per child). By contrast, two-child families with 
     earnings between $150,000 and $250,000 get $22,000 in extra 
     tax breaks over the next 10 years ($1,000 per child per 
     year). This is bad social policy, bad tax policy, and bad 
     fiscal policy. You'd think they'd be embarrassed, but they're 
     not.

  Let me close, Mr. Speaker, by saying I hope that my colleagues will 
look seriously at the Rangel substitute. We provide a child tax credit, 
but we pay for it. I think that is the fiscally responsible thing to 
do.
  We are now experiencing record deficits. We are going into debt. We 
are passing on to our kids an incredible bill. We need to be more 
responsible in this House. I would urge my colleagues to support the 
Democratic substitute.

[[Page H3445]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  When I vote ``yes'' today, I will be voting for America's hardworking 
families and their children. I will be voting to strengthen the economy 
and support American jobs, Mr. Speaker. I invite my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to join me in voting ``yes'' today on both the rule 
and the underlying bill. I cannot think of a better vote to take than a 
vote for America's children and families, the economy and American 
jobs. It is the right thing to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________