[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 72 (Thursday, May 20, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H3459-H3475]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          CHILD CREDIT PRESERVATION AND EXPANSION ACT OF 2004

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 644, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 4359) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
increase the child tax credit, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 644, the bill 
is considered read for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 4359 is as follows:

                               H.R. 4359

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Child Credit Preservation 
     and Expansion Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. INCREASE IN CHILD TAX CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 24 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to child tax credit) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--There shall be allowed as a 
     credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the 
     taxable year with respect to each qualifying child of the 
     taxpayer an amount equal to $1,000.''.
       (b) Increase in Phaseout Thresholds.--Paragraph (2) of 
     section 24(b) of such Code is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Threshold amount.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the 
     term `threshold amount' means $125,000 ($250,000 in the case 
     of a joint return).''.
       (c) Acceleration of Increase in Refundable Portion of 
     Credit.--Clause (i) of section 24(d)(1)(B) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``(10 percent in the case of taxable 
     years beginning before January 1, 2005)''.
       (d) Combat Pay Taken Into Account.--Paragraph (1) of 
     section 24(d) of such Code is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new sentence: ``For purposes of subparagraph 
     (B), any amount excluded from gross income by reason of 
     section 112 shall be treated as earned income which is taken 
     into account in computing taxable income for the taxable 
     year.''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2003.

     SEC. 3. REPEAL OF SUNSET.

       Title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
     Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall not apply to the provisions 
     of, and amendments made by, sections 201 and 203 of such Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, it shall 
be in order to consider the amendment printed in House Report 108-496, 
if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or his designee, 
which shall be considered read, and shall be debatable for 1 hour, 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) each will control 30 minutes of debate on the 
bill.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of legislation to 
permanently extend the child tax credit to millions of hardworking 
American families. H.R. 4359, the Child Credit Preservation and 
Expansion Act of 2004, will prevent 30 million American families from 
being hit with a tax increase next year. The bill before us today will 
make the $1,000 child credit permanent while enhancing the credit for 
low-income families, middle-income families, married couples and our 
military families. As the economy continues to grow, it is important 
that Congress stand in firm support of policies that strengthen 
families.
  The current credit is a product of the 2001 tax law, the Economic 
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, which increased the tax 
credit to $600 per child through 2004, eventually raising it to $1,000 
per child by 2010. This tax relief was accelerated in last year's Jobs 
and Growth tax relief bill which made the $1,000 credit available to 
families immediately for 2003 and 2004. Today's bill would make this 
level of relief permanent and enhances the credit by making it more 
available to lower-income, middle-income and military families.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition to making the $1,000 credit permanent, H.R. 
4359 also provides for several other tax benefits that Members on both 
sides of the aisle have sought. The bill increases the level of 
refundability to 15 percent of earned income above $10,750, a year 
earlier than provided under current law. Soldiers in combat areas and 
their families will receive additional support because the bill allows 
combat pay to be treated as earned income for the credit's 
refundability. Further, this bill would permanently prevent the child 
credit from being lost to the Alternative Minimum Tax.
  Congress must not allow taxes to be increased on American families 
just as our economy gets going. This tax credit is good for the 
American family and good for the American soldier. I urge my colleagues 
to support the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important we understand what the issue is here 
today and where there is a difference. It is not a question of 
extending the child credit; we favor its extension. It is not a 
question of accelerating the 15 percent refundability; Democrats 
support it and urged it before. It is not a question relating to 
military families; we Democrats have been urging that before and 
support it now.
  So what is the issue here? It is interesting that my colleague from 
Michigan does not discuss either of the two

[[Page H3460]]

major issues. Somehow by using the term ``families,'' there is the 
notion that major issues can be avoided, that major issues can be 
skirted, that major issues can somehow be covered up by the use of the 
term ``families.'' We are not going to let that happen. Whoever is 
listening must learn the difference here.
  Part of it relates, and now I am talking about the differences 
between the substitute and this bill, to low-income working families. 
The substitute would provide more benefits because for working families 
the threshold was indexed. We want to de-index it. That will help 2.5 
million working families. We also want to increase the benefit for 
every family by indexing the credit.
  I also now want to point out two additional major differences. This 
is not only an extension, this is a new tax break. This is not only an 
extension of this credit, this is a new tax cut. And for whom? It is a 
tax cut not really only for families earning $110,000 because they 
receive some of the benefits of the present system. For example, it 
goes up to $120,000, $130,000, et cetera. For a family of two with 
$135,000, they get 375 bucks for each child.

                              {time}  1645

  So this really goes beyond the present system, one that provides some 
relief for families up to $150,000 and in some cases beyond, depending 
on the number of children. Now, what this is, is a new tax break that 
goes beyond the $150,000, beyond $200,000, beyond $250,000, beyond in 
some cases $300,000. This is not a tax break mainly for middle-income 
families. It is a tax break for Members of Congress who have kids 17 
and under. Do we need that tax break? I do not think so. I do not think 
so.
  Under the tax legislation that was passed before, the very wealthy 
families have already received an ample tax break. And if the first 
chart would be brought forth, I want to refer to it. This is for family 
household incomes 200 to $500,000: $7,430, this has been the average 
tax cut in earlier years. And what this bill would do would be to add 
2,000 bucks to it. That is what this bill does. Do not call it just an 
extension. That is point one.
  So when I hear, as I heard earlier today, this is for families to buy 
diapers, to buy toys, to buy a swing, no. I am in favor of providing, 
and so are Democrats, the extension for families who clearly need it. I 
am not in favor of a new tax break for families who clearly do not need 
it, 250,000 bucks a year.
  Stand up and say that you are providing a tax break for them. Stand 
up and say you are providing a tax break for the Members of Congress 
with kids 17 and under. What this is, is an example of imbalance of 
priorities and, indeed, of perspective. And to make it worse, you do 
not pay for it.
  I ask that the second chart be brought forth. And I want everybody to 
understand what the Republican majority is doing here. This tax cut, 
the way they have tailored it, the estimate is it is going to cost 
about $228 billion. Of that, close to $70 billion is because of your 
new tax break. My gosh, you do not even pay for the child credit that 
makes really good sense. Okay. Should you not at least pay for a tax 
break for families making 250 and 300,000 bucks a year? That is not 
just fiscal irresponsibility; that is fiscal madness.
  So that is why I rise today and urge support for the substitute and 
urge that people vote with some perspective, with some sense of 
priorities, and vote against the Republican majority bill.
  It is not going to pass the Senate. I do not even know how you make 
it in order in the Senate. If this bill had come out of the Committee 
on Ways and Means, as I understand the rules, there had to be a waiver 
by rules in order for us to consider it today because it does not come 
within any budget.
  So what we are doing today is in a sense going through the motions, 
and I am in favor of making clear to low- and increasing numbers of 
low-income families the need for a child credit. I am in favor of 
making clear an extension of the child credit for middle-income 
families in this country. It does not make any sense to dig a deeper 
fiscal hole for families making 200, 250, $300,000 a year.
  I close with this and everybody take notice: what you are doing by 
giving a tax break to a relatively small number of families, not all of 
whom but many of whom are earning 175,000, 200,000, $200,000 a year, 
what you are doing is, in essence, putting a tax on all of the families 
of America, if not next year, in the future, because they are going to 
have to pay for the interest on this deep, deep deficit. And you are 
just adding to it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Crane), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means and chairman of the Trade Subcommittee.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support for H.R. 4359, 
legislation that makes permanent the $1,000 child tax credit.
  The Bush tax cut of 2003 accelerated the amount of money American 
working families with children are able to keep, from $600 to $1,000. 
If we do not act today to make this tax relief permanent, next year 
working families will end up having to pay $300 more per child in taxes 
than they did in 2003 and 2004.
  In the following years, the Federal Government will take American 
families on a financial roller coaster ride. In 2005 through 2008, 
families will continue to see their taxes increased by $300 more per 
child. In 2009 it will decrease to $200 more. In 2010 they will get the 
full $1,000 credit, only to have the rug whipped out from under them in 
the following 2 years when the credit will decrease to $500 per child.
  Does this sound confusing? I will boil it down to its simpler form. A 
vote against this legislation is a vote to increase taxes on American 
families by $228 billion over 10 years. That is money earned by mothers 
and fathers who work hard to pay the enormous costs required to keep 
food on their families' tables and clothes on their families' backs.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4359.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to point out to the gentleman from Illinois that over 2 
million children in Illinois will receive more of a benefit from the 
Democratic substitute than from the Republican bill and only the very 
wealthiest 4 percent of the families in Illinois will receive any of 
the new tax cut that goes beyond the extension of the present system.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), an active member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and 
colleague for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in disbelief that we are even considering such an 
irresponsible bill today. Instead of taking responsible steps to make 
permanent a tax cut to help working families with children, this bill 
balloons our Federal debt and gives thousands of dollars in extra tax 
breaks to the very wealthiest Americans.
  On the other hand, those who need help the most, low- to moderate-
income working families with children, receive little benefit under 
this bill. And those at the very bottom get nothing. That is right, 
they get nothing.
  A family with one parent who works full time at minimum wage earns 
about $10,300 a year. That struggling family will get no benefit under 
this unfair bill. A better off, but still low-income, family with two 
children earning $12,000 will get a one-time $300 tax break. This is 
only $25 per child or $50 more than they would already receive under 
current law.
  Contrast that with a two-child family earning between $150,000 and 
$250,000. That family will get $20,000 in extra tax breaks over the 
next 10 years, $20,000.
  This largess comes at a high price indeed. This bill comes with a 
price tag of $228 billion over 10 years. In fact, when we combine the 
cost of this bill with the cost of the three other tax bills we have 
passed over the last month, we are looking at $569 billion worth of tax 
cuts. That is over half a trillion dollars added to our already 
incredible debt of $7.2 trillion.
  Yes, my colleagues heard me right, $569 billion on top of $7.2 
trillion.
  This bill is outrageous. It is a sham. It is a shame and a disgrace. 
What we

[[Page H3461]]

are doing today, yet again, is offering huge tax breaks for those who 
need them least by greatly increasing the debt tax that will burden all 
of our children and grandchildren for many years to come.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to tell me how that is fair. The 
fact is they cannot, and no one can because this bill is not only 
unfair; it is downright reckless.
  Mr. Speaker, it is long past the time for us to exercise fiscal 
restraint, but it is never, ever too late to take that first step.
  The Democrats, the people on my side of the aisle, we have a better 
version, a more responsible bill, a more equitable bill, a bill that 
truly helps those who need it most.
  I urge my colleagues to take the first step. Vote against this bill 
and vote for the Rangel substitute. Our children and our grandchildren 
deserve better.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada 
(Mr. Porter).
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to have breakfast with a young man 
from Nevada this week. He held up his hand and he said, ``I have a baby 
that was born 2 months premature, and I can hold that baby in my hand 
just like this.'' And as we talked about his child, who now is well and 
thriving and feeling wonderful, we talked about the tax credit. This 
was at breakfast just across the street. He was amazed and appalled and 
shocked that he would be seeing a $300 tax increase next year because 
he has a child.
  Mr. Speaker, there are 47 million kids across the country not unlike 
my friend's little baby that he held in his hand a few months ago, 
500,000 foster kids, 370,000 children in Nevada alone, who stand to 
have a tax increase next year if we do not take action today.
  Nevada is one of the fastest growing States in the country, close to 
5 or 6,000 new residents a month moving into our community. We need 
2\1/2\ new schools a month because we have about 20,000 new children 
that could benefit from this tax credit.
  We know that the economy is turning around; and because of the 
strength of the economy, because of the tax credits that we have given 
in this Congress, right now nationwide there are 1.1 million new jobs 
since 2003. Unemployment is down to 5.6 percent across the country. 
Nevada's unemployment rate is 4.4 percent. It is working. Personal 
income is up. Homeownership is the highest it has ever been, and this 
is because of these tax credits; and it is because families, working 
families, have an opportunity to reinvest in their community.
  I have been in office a short time as a Member of Congress, but I 
served in the Nevada legislature as many of the Members have served in 
legislature, and I will be honest with them, I am perplexed. One of the 
criticisms I am hearing about this bill to help families is that we 
have raised the threshold. I am perplexed because I know that politics 
is the art of bringing groups together and building bridges. The 
$250,000 threshold was a Democrat proposal just 10 days ago.

                              {time}  1700

  I am perplexed that all of a sudden it has become a criticism. We 
have crossed the aisle and are using their proposal. I encourage the 
$250,000, and I thank the Democrats for their proposal. Families need 
permanence in the language.
  We also support the Democrat's proposal in helping those families 
that need help the most by increasing the refundability to 15 percent. 
I thank my colleagues from across the aisle.
  Criticism number three was about not helping military families. 
Again, I thank my colleagues across the aisle for their language and 
support of those folks with the combat pay.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having this opportunity to ask our 
colleagues to support this bill. The economy is getting stronger, men 
and women are getting back to work, hard-working families are receiving 
these credits so they can choose what to do with the funds and not the 
Federal Government.
  We have reinvigorated the entrepreneurial spirit across the country. 
We need to continue with these tax credits, so hard-working families 
can reinvest the money and take care of their families.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not want anyone to be misled by the gentleman from 
Nevada. The $250,000 figure related to the Alternative Minimum Tax, not 
to the child credit. The AMT was never intended to apply, except to the 
very wealthy, and we want to make sure it does not. They have not 
stepped up to the plate on it.
  Also, I want to point out that 400,000 children in Nevada will 
benefit more from the Democratic substitute than the Republican bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the active and distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Michigan for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, these are very troubling days in the Congress of the 
United States of America, because we are engaging virtually every day 
in the easy part of government. It is really easy to come to this floor 
and spend more money on things that people like, whether it is defense 
contracts that put people to work, or highway projects that make the 
traffic flow more easily, or cleanup of toxic waste dumps or more 
financial aid for colleges and universities. It is easy to do that, and 
it is great to go home and take credit for it.
  It is even easier to stand on the floor of the House and vote to 
lower people's taxes. There is not a constituent in America that I can 
think of that does not like to hear us come home and say we just 
lowered their taxes.
  What we are engaging in here is an act of economic malpractice 
against the people of this country. I heard my friend from Nevada talk 
about his friend holding his newborn baby. Well, I have two children, 
and I am going to vote against this bill, because I do not want to send 
them the bill for the money that we are borrowing to pay for our 
increased spending and tax cut after tax cut after tax cut.
  For every $100 dollars that this government spends, we borrow $30. We 
borrow $30 for every $100 we spend around here. We borrow it from the 
Social Security trust fund that is going to run out of money in the 
next decade, and we borrow it from future taxpayers of this country.
  Now, it is very easy to vote for these things today and hand the bill 
to our children in the future, but it is very wrong. And I hear all 
this talk about ``job creation.'' We have had tax cuts since 2001. We 
have lost a net 2.2 million jobs since 2001. I do not think they have 
worked.
  I will tell you what will work. There is a tried and true formula in 
America. The more money the Federal Government borrows, the higher the 
interest rates eventually go. The higher the interest rates go, the 
less economic growth you have. The less economic growth you have, the 
more jobs you kill. The more deficits you create, the more communities 
you hurt. We have seen this before. It happened in the 1980s and it was 
a disaster, and we are doing it again.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to listen to a Republican 
voice in the wilderness from the other body, Senator McCain, who said 
yesterday, referring to our Speaker, ``The Speaker is correct that 
nothing we are called upon to do comes close to matching the heroism of 
our troops.''


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from New Jersey 
will refrain from quoting Senators.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I would then paraphrase what the good 
Senator says.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may or either characterize nor 
quote the remarks of Senators.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I can certainly understand why the Speaker does not want 
this quote characterized.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind the gentleman that 
the standard is set in the Rules of the House, not by the Speaker.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, this Member of the House believes, and 
shares this belief with many people in both parties across the country, 
that it

[[Page H3462]]

is reckless and irresponsible at a time of war to be borrowing money to 
pay to reduce anybody's taxes.
  There used to be a time in this country when we had to sacrifice as a 
country, that everybody was part of that sacrifice. It is shameful that 
for the purpose of going home and delivering good news, we are 
borrowing money from our children.
  We should oppose this bill and we should support the substitute of 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), because it is paid for; and 
we should stop this economic malpractice against the people of this 
country.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Brown).
  (Mr. BROWN of South Carolina asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am so proud that this is 
the fourth straight week that this House is bringing important tax 
relief legislation to the floor.
  The Child Tax Credit Preservation and Expansion Act of 2004 is 
another step in the right direction to improve the Tax Code for the 
benefit of hard-working American families. By making the $1,000 child 
tax credit permanent, we are sending the right message that we want to 
help out all taxpayers with the burden of providing for their families 
and ensuring that they maintain their quality of life.
  Last year, the President signed the Jobs and Growth Tax Act into law. 
Our ailing economy needed bold and decisive action, and this plan was 
precisely what we needed to make a difference for this Nation. Since 
the law went into effect last June, the economy has expanded at an 
average quarterly rate of some 5.5 percent, and we are continuing to 
see positive signs from the job market.
  We all know that families are very busy in today's society with both 
parents often working to take care of their families, paying for 
daycare, making mortgage payments in an historically high housing 
market and trying to make ends meet. This bill, along with all of the 
other tax cuts that we have provided, will help keep families strong. 
With traditional marriage and families under attack from so many 
different sources, including the courts, the entertainment industry and 
the media, our tax system should not feed them any further.
  H.R. 4359 makes sure that the child tax credit does not drop from 
$1,000 per child to $700 next year, and to $500 by the year 2011. In 
other words, if this bill is not passed, taxes will increase on 
children by $300 next year and by $500 per child after 2010. How can we 
penalize so many American families across this Nation for having 
children? Shame on every Member of this House if we allow this to 
happen.
  I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter), 
for introducing this legislation, and the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Thomas) and the Republican leadership for making sure that we 
do everything in our power to reduce the tax burden on American 
families.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 4359 and to 
continue to fight for hard-working American taxpayers.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the 
distinguished gentleman from South Carolina that about 800,000 children 
in South Carolina will benefit more from the Democratic alternative 
than the Republican bill, and that less than 3 percent of the families 
in the gentleman's State would benefit from the additional $70 billion 
in tax cuts in the Republican bill.
  Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege and pleasure to yield such time 
as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the 
ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, how historic it would be if we could get 
back to the idea that tax bills would come out of the tax-writing 
committee. Every bill that has been coming to the floor has been 
without the benefit of Republicans and Democrats having an opportunity 
to evaluate the legislation, to improve on the legislation. At least at 
a time when our Nation has this polarized war on our hands, would that 
we could say in the tax-writing committee, we are working together to 
improve the economy and that we also support our troops, we support 
Social Security, we support Medicare.
  But this is not the case.
  There is no basic difference in the thrust of the Republican bill and 
the Democratic bill. They just would like to make certain that the 
benefits would go up to people making $329,000. There is no basic 
difference. They would drive us into debt some $228 billion, because 
they do not attempt to pay for it.
  There is no basic difference, because we are just more concerned with 
those in the lower income, while they have this fetish, this desire, 
that no matter how much it costs, they have to make these special 
appeals to those that have so much.
  It would have been that if we were working together, then we could 
find some equitable solution.
  Somewhere on the Republican side, somewhere there is somebody that 
believes that we should not go deeper into debt. I do not know who it 
is, I have not met anybody, but there has to be someone that believes 
that, with the $500 billion in the tax bills we have had.
  It would seem to me that the basic principle should include two 
things: One, this is a time of war. We are spending $4 billion a month 
because the President has been ordained to bring peace and democracy to 
this part of the world. He does not know, and neither does Secretary 
Rumsfeld know, how many months it is going to take in order to pay this 
cost, not just in human resources, but in dollars.
  We have spent over $150 billion, and we are going deeper and deeper 
in debt. As has been pointed out, we have to pay the interest on that 
debt. We do not know what it is, besides prescription drugs, that we 
are going to have to give up. How many schools do we have to give up? 
How many Social Security payments do we have to give up?
  Do we have any obligation at all to legislate today with some 
consideration for our kids and our grandkids? I do not think so. You 
have a Committee on the Budget, I guess, because you want to have one. 
But what impact does it have on the trillions of dollars that we have 
gone into debt because we want to show the world that we have a fetish 
in order to give the tax credits and the tax benefits to the top 
percentage of those people who have such high incomes.
  How embarrassed you should be to be able to tell one of your friends 
and constituents, have I got a surprise for you. I got on the floor of 
the House and I said, If you make $329,000 a year, net, and you have 
four kids, I was thinking about you. I was thinking about you on 
Memorial Day. I was thinking about you when they were looking for more 
troops to send to Iraq. I was thinking about you and wondering how 
could I get you to be patriotic enough to know that you can make a 
sacrifice? But how did it turn out? I am giving you $4,000 to let you 
know that as Republicans, we care.
  You may get some Democrats to support you because they do not want to 
be against any child credit. But if they only knew how much their 
children and their grandchildren would be paying for this credit in a 
nonpolitical year, we would not be doing it, and no responsible 
Republican would be doing something like this.
  This is election year politicking so you can say you voted for the 
child credit. Your credibility is so shot on the Republican side, they 
will not believe it anyway. But having said that, God forbid if they 
should ask one of your candidates, ``and how do you intend to pay for 
it?'' And paying for it is just not on the Republican agenda. Borrowing 
is.
  So I hope that people will see their way clear to do not just the 
right thing by working Americans, to give them a break, especially 
those that have kids, but do the right thing for the country. Do the 
right thing for the future. Do the right thing for our kids.
  How selfish it is for us to be spending everything, reducing taxes, 
and knowing one day someone may ask us, granddad, what were you doing 
when they increased the taxes on me so much? Were you one of those 
people in the Congress that was a part of this?
  I, for one, would be able to say ``no.'' I stood up against them. 
They have had

[[Page H3463]]

the majority temporarily, but, God willing, all of this will change and 
we can get back to some norm. It is nothing I am looking forward to, 
being in the majority, because we will have the responsibility to be 
responsible, and when we give tax breaks and social services and 
education and homes and make Social Security secure and come up with a 
decent prescription drug bill, we would say, ``And we have to find the 
money to pay for it.''

                              {time}  1715

  That is the only difference between Republicans and Democrats: We pay 
for what we want to do.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho 
(Mr. Otter).
  (Mr. OTTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, we are a Nation of families, and for good 
reason. The family unit is the foundation of society. And America's 
future depends on the success of our families. Our jobs as Members of 
Congress should be to nurture an environment in America where families 
can flourish and provide and support the opportunity of freedom and the 
sense of civic virtue that children need to become responsible 
citizens.
  We did the right thing by increasing the child tax credit in 2001. We 
did the right thing by accelerating that process last year. And now, by 
making the child tax credit permanent, we ensure that families continue 
to retain more control over their own money and we enable them to plan 
for the future, and we give them the freedom to help their children 
accomplish their dreams.
  There are almost a quarter of a million children in my State whose 
families will benefit if we pass H.R. 4359. But without this 
legislation, those families will feel the weight of a significantly 
increased burden next year. In fact, under current law, tax-paying 
families in Idaho will pay $757 million more in taxes than they did 
last year. That money should be staying in their pockets. They should 
continue to enjoy the fruits of their labors, planning for tomorrow's 
doctors and teachers and scientists and leaders.
  This legislation is about creating an environment that enables those 
families to take care of their own. It is about time we let them take 
care of their own.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  This has got to be a frustrating debate for the American public, 
these tax bills. It is a frustrating debate for those of us who were 
for much of what is proposed. It is certainly a frustrating debate for 
future generations.
  Mr. Speaker, over the last 4 weeks, our Republican friends have worn 
their reckless tax cut hearts on their sleeves. That is a pretty harsh 
phrase. But for those of us who believe we ought to balance America's 
budget as we ought to balance family budgets, it is nevertheless, I 
think, accurate.
  Republicans have cynically put popular tax legislation on the floor 
and dared Democrats to oppose it knowing full well that the only reason 
that many Members on our side of the aisle would cast ``no'' votes 
against such bills is because they were not paid for, and on the 
pretense somehow that cutting taxes, cutting revenues, cutting prices, 
if you will, for what we buy, whether it is defense, education, health 
care at NIH, CIA agents, FBI investigators, whatever we are buying, you 
will want to cut the cost and will not pay for it. You want to put it 
on our national credit card, and you want my kids and your kids and our 
grandchildren to pay for it.
  Very frankly, if this were a Democratic President today making these 
proposals, there is not a person on your side of the aisle that would 
not be outraged at the fiscal profligacy, at the fiscal 
irresponsibility, at the fiscal immorality of the policies that you are 
pursuing.
  I assume you go back to your districts and say, oh, the deficit will 
take care of itself, just as it did in the 90s. Baloney. What took care 
of the fiscal deficit in the 90s was a bill that George Bush, the 
first, had the courage to sign, a bill in 1993 that no Republican voted 
for in the House or the Senate. And in 1997, in a bipartisan way, we 
came together and passed a balanced budget amendment for which I voted, 
and we passed PAYGO, for which most of you voted, which said that PAYGO 
would apply to spending and to taxes.
  You are digging a hole. You are not digging a hole for yourself, 
though. You are digging a hole for my children, my grandchildren, and 
all the children and grandchildren in America who are going to have to 
pay this debt.
  I do not get it. I do not get the intellectual disconnect between 
what you said in the 70s and 80s and 90s and what you are saying today. 
I do not get it. And you are hoping the American public does not get it 
either. You are hoping the American public is saying only that I want 
tax cuts. I want tax cuts. I want tax cuts and to heck with my 
children.
  We are talking about one another. How sad. The deficit is going to be 
half a trillion dollars this year. When I came to Congress it was $985 
billion. Last year we raised the debt limit by $900-plus billion. And 
yesterday all of you voted, almost all, to increase the debt limit by 
$670 billion. And how your side of the aisle railed, and the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut has been here long enough to remember that 
railing, against increasing the debt. How awful that was and we ought 
to stand up and vote for it.
  And what did you do? You hid it by the Hastert rule in your budget 
because you did not have the courage to stand up and say, these are the 
policies that I am going to pursue as a Representative of the Congress 
of the United States.
  Democrats are for fixing the marriage penalty. Democrats are for 
keeping the 10 percent tax bracket. Democrats are for fixing the 
Alternative Minimum Tax. Democrats are for making the child tax credits 
permanent. We are for that, and we are for paying for it so that we do 
not say we are going to fix it. But generations to come, young people, 
hear me, young people, you are going to pay for it. That is bad policy. 
That is bad morality.
  Let us pass the Democratic alternative, which seeks to be responsible 
and honest with America and with generations yet to come.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means and chairman of the Subcommittee on Health.
  (Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4359. This is about 
children. It is about families. I think back to when my husband and I 
raised our children and the tremendous economic pressure on us. I look 
at that pressure on my children and their husbands and it is enormous. 
We paid $28,000 for our house. That is not what the kids are out there 
facing. We paid $2,000 for a car. The kids are having to make payments 
on houses that are worth more than the cars we bought and the houses we 
bought.
  It is tough to raise a family today. It is very hard to meet the 
expenses of raising children in a stable, secure environment, saving 
for their educations and saving for your retirement which is also part 
of their security. So this is not about digging a hole. This is about 
setting priorities.
  One of my most deeply held priorities is to reshape public policy so 
that it strengthens families and increases the economic and emotional 
security of our children. Indeed, one of the things I like about this 
bill is that it adopts the definition of the middle class that was 
encompassed in a bill the Democrats offered just 2 weeks ago as part of 
their effort to shelter more middle-class families from the impact of 
the Alternative Minimum Tax. I thought that was a good definition. We 
were impressed by it.
  It does expand the definition of the middle class, and this bill 
reflects that. But you cannot have a tax policy that one year gives a 
family $1,000 worth of child credit, the next year $700, the next year 
$500. It is erratic. They have to be able to plan. They have to be able 
to think through how will we meet the needs of our family.
  Making this particular tax credit permanent is important to building 
a

[[Page H3464]]

solid, strong support system under our families. And I rise in strong 
and proud support of H.R. 4359, the Child Credit Preservation and 
Expansion Act.
  Now, why do I say we are not digging a hole for our children in the 
budget sense? First of all, I have been here a long time, and I am one 
of the ones that fought hard to balance the budget in 1997. I was here 
when we had to dig out of long years of debt. In fact, when we balanced 
the budget in 1997, it was the first time in 40 years or the first time 
in 2 generations and we did it right here in this Chamber by 
disciplined spending. And the result was that as the economy got going, 
we had a surplus that required us to add just tax policies because we 
were taking, the estimates were trillions, more out of people's pockets 
than we needed to fund government services. So we did make changes in 
tax policy to make the code fairer and more family friendly.
  This was one of the most constructive bills, and I am willing to take 
the responsibility to make this tax credit permanent, and in the future 
to adjust defense and other spending as we work our way out of Iraq and 
address priority domestic needs. That is what we did last time. To pass 
this year's budget, which is a freeze budget on spending, it is going 
to be tough for us because we do need to increase the funding for 
public education and to do that, we will have to cut spending in other 
areas. But I am willing to take responsibility to pass tough budgets 
year after year, as we will have to, to get to balance. I am willing to 
do that again and again and to realistically adjust the defense budget 
as our responsibilities in Iraq decline in the context of new revenues 
from an expanding economy. And through those mechanisms, to balance the 
budget.
  Again, we showed the grit to do it before the war and a recession. 
Then had no choice but to allow imbalance. In the future we will have 
the grit to do it again. But we should not question that grit and fail 
to fulfill this obligation today, that obligation being to create a 
predictable, stabilizing tax policy around our young families.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Camp) has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Burns).
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, as I listen to this debate, it appears that we have 
different perspectives about what is important to America. There is no 
tax relief measure that has ever been passed by this House which has 
done more good to help the average working family in my district, the 
12th District of Georgia, than the child tax credit.
  My friend from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) made a quote. He said the $20,000 
of tax credit over 10 years was for families earning more than 
$250,000. Well, he is correct. What he failed to mention is that this 
assumes you have two children, $1,000 a year for 10 years. If you made 
$100,000 a year, you would receive the exact same tax credit, $20,000 
over 10 years. If you made $50,000 a year you would receive the same 
tax credit, $20,000 over 10 years. If you make $35,000 a year, which is 
the average for a small family in my district, you would receive the 
same tax credit of $20,000 over 10 years.
  With a median income for a family of four in my district at $35,000, 
the child tax credit virtually eliminates all Federal income tax for 
these families. These families earning that range have children. They 
need every penny of their income to properly raise their children, and 
I oppose them having to pay one nickel more.

                              {time}  1700

  There are 113,000 children and families in the 12th District, and if 
we fail to pass this bill, the tax burden on these families will go up 
by $33.9 million. We must pass and make the child tax credit permanent. 
If we fail to do this, it will expire and we will, by default, raise 
taxes across America, the most broad-based tax increase since this body 
approved the income tax itself in 1913, which was a huge mistake, and 
we need to fix it.
  Mr. Speaker, the child tax credit needs to be made permanent as long 
as we allow this failed income tax system to continue. I urge Members 
to support the bill.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Herger), the Subcommittee on Human Resources.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Child Credit 
Preservation and Expansion Act of 2004. As a member of the tax-writing 
Committee on Ways and Means, I have been privileged to work on a number 
of important tax relief measures. However, nothing has done more to 
reduce the tax burden on middle-class families than the child tax 
credit. Three years ago, we made a decision to raise the child credit 
from $500 per child to $1,000 per child. This was good policy 3 years 
ago, and it is good policy today.
  Unless we act, the child credit would drop next year to $700. This 
will mean an average tax increase of $600 on 30 million Americans with 
children. Without the congressional action, the child credit would drop 
again to $500 after 2010. This would result in a tax hike of more than 
$1,000 on 34 million taxpayers with children.
  Many families in my district in northern California, Mr. Speaker, are 
already having a difficult time making ends meet. Now is not the time 
to allow for a new tax increase.
  The underlying bill also improves the child credit by allowing more 
families to qualify. Further, the bill makes the credit more valuable 
to lower-income families and more accessible to military families 
receiving combat pay.
  Mr. Speaker, if we value children and we value families, let us make 
our Tax Code more family friendly. I urge my colleagues to reject the 
Democrat substitute and support the underlying bill.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Baker).
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  It is apparent we have three different perspectives on taxes. There 
is one group, when talking about giving back programs or benefits, that 
says when we give. Well, that comes from the assumption that the money 
they are giving is actually their money, like the Congress has this big 
bank and we are just going to give it away because we are doing good 
things for the American people. They do not really think this through, 
that that money comes from working families and the Congress is just 
the middleman who just kind of passes it along based upon the votes 
that the majority might get on a particular issue.
  There is another group, too, that troubles me in Washington when they 
look at taxes. First, they look out across the economic landscape and 
they see people doing something very bad. They are actually making 
money, you know, it is a terrible thing.
  So, first, we are going to regulate it, make sure we kind of slow 
that pace of making money down. If that does not work, then we are 
going to tax them and, by George, if they are still moving after we 
regulate and tax, let us just sue them. It is a three-step recovery 
plan to keep an American from having anything in their pocket.
  There is a third group. We happen to believe that the 52 or 53 
percent of Americans who pay all the taxes in this country, who are 
working families, who work hard every day, ought to have the 
opportunity to do something radical. If you make money, we think you 
might ought to get to keep it. I know, that is out there on the edge, 
but I think we ought to give it a try because going into the future, as 
we worry about the economic prosperity of this country, this is a 
country of small businesses, family-owned businesses, people who get up 
very early in the morning and work hard all day just to pay their 
taxes, keep the kids in school, keep the car running and keep the blue 
jeans on. It is not easy.
  Will this tax benefit reverse the economic fortunes of our country? 
No, but I will tell my colleagues what, there are a whole lot fewer 
dairies in Louisiana and a whole lot less farmers today than there were 
a decade ago, and it is primarily due to government regulation and 
taxes.
  This may keep some family farm operating. It may keep another dairy

[[Page H3465]]

door open, and it may make some small business that we do not know 
about tonight operate for 3, 4 or 5 years, but let us give it a chance. 
Let us let people who work, who are the engine of our economy, 52 or 53 
percent of all working families pay all the taxes, is it not time we 
give them a break?
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  (Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, this bill is, as my colleagues on the 
other side say, about now and the future, but I think we see it a 
little bit differently. It is an honest debate, and I would tell my 
friends that my colleagues on the other side, I believe, feel that if 
we give tax relief money to people, it just goes down a rat hole; that 
it does not work; that it is just gone; that it adds to the debt and 
the deficit. I do not believe that is true.
  When we give money to a family, maybe they go out to the store and 
they buy books or they buy a double egg, double cheese, double fry 
burger at McDonald's and they pay taxes on that. They pay local, they 
pay State and they pay Federal taxes, and that money comes back to our 
coffers for more money to spend. That is called tax relief.
  It is not all President Clinton's fault. We are in Congress, we spend 
money and we make the rules. But right after President Clinton left, we 
were in a slight recession. We gave tax relief and we had one of the 
fastest recoveries ever, and we had 9/11. My friend from New York knows 
the devastation that was in New York City. We spent billions of dollars 
to fix it. We lost a lot of revenue because a lot of people not only 
lost their lives but lost jobs there.
  Guess what, now that those jobs are coming back, that revenue is 
coming here. It means more money to spend. We are tying to give them, 
the same families, more money to spend to come here.
  The President and the Congress, bipartisan as the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) said, we want to give tax relief. Those families 
got that tax money and, guess what, they spent it, and now look what we 
have today. We have a growing economy. Four and 4\1/2\ percent in 
personal incomes have gone up. We have added over 1.2 million jobs in 
the last 3 months and it is coming back. So the money is not going down 
a rat hole. It actually creates money and revenue for us so that we 
will have more money in the future. This is the difference.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers at this time, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I just want to say to the gentleman, this is not about tax relief for 
people who need money to buy hamburgers or books. You add $60 billion, 
$8 billion, $70 billion to the debt, in large part for families making 
$200,000, $250,000.
  Mr. Speaker, how much time is left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin) has 2\1/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Camp) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman ready to close?
  Mr. CAMP. We have the right to close.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of the time to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), our very distinguished colleague.
  (Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the misguided 
legislation, H.R. 4359.
  Mr. Speaker, the current total outstanding national debt of the 
United States, including intragovernmental holdings, is $7.2 trillion, 
a $1.7 trillion increase from where it was in 2001. Our budget deficit 
recently reached an all-time high, and it has increased by $648 billion 
since 2001.
  Our Social Security and Medicare surplus funds have been raided, and 
our national unemployment rate remains high at 5.6 percent. Our fiscal 
condition, at best, can be described as a calamity; and now this 
legislation, H.R. 4359, the Child Credit Preservation and Expansion 
Act, wants to add to our fiscal woes by catering to wealthy Americans 
who do not need this particular tax cut.
  This legislation will add an unwarranted and unaffordable expansion 
of the child tax credit for the high-income filers that will cost $69 
billion, thus adding to our outstanding debt.
  Mr. Speaker, I support a strong national defense and a vigorous 
program for homeland security, and Mr. Speaker, I especially support 
making permanent the $1,000 child tax credit, but only for those whose 
annual incomes do not surpass the existing $110,000 threshold. These 
families, the ones making $110,000 or less, are the ones who need a 
permanent $1,000 child tax credit.
  If this legislation only provided support for these families, I, too, 
would have supported it, but it does not. It goes far beyond what is 
needed and expands the credit to families making up to $250,000 a year.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4359 is not a middle-class tax cut, as some have 
attempted to characterize it. I do not know many in America who would 
consider a married couple making $250,000 a year a middle-class family.
  Under this legislation, a married couple with two children would be 
eligible to receive the $1,000 child tax credit until the couple's 
income nearly reached $290,000.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4359.
  At a time of record budget deficits and in the midst of a war, this 
action is irresponsible and fiscally dangerous at this time.
  For all of these reasons, I strongly encourage my colleagues to 
oppose H.R. 4359.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation makes the child tax credit permanent 
and enhances it. Without this credit, without action, this credit will 
decline by $300 or it will raise taxes on families next year if we do 
not take action.
  The enhancements in this legislation increase the level of 
refundability to 15 percent of earned income at those income levels 
above $10,750 and it raises that 1 year earlier than under current law.
  Our military families have enhanced benefits as a result of this 
legislation because combat pay is treated as earned income for 
refundability, and we permanently prevent the child credit from being 
lost to AMT.
  Let me just say something about the Alternative Minimum Tax. A couple 
of weeks ago, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle offered an 
amendment to define the Alternative Minimum Tax to define middle-income 
taxpayers exactly the same way we have defined them in this 
legislation. So the enhancement of this credit for those middle-income 
families is important, but it is something that those on the other side 
proposed just 2 weeks ago.
  Let me lastly say that this is really about strengthening families, 
and it is interesting to hear the argument on the other side for those 
who feel that if the government loses money, somehow that is a problem 
for families. What we say is, no, this money is earned by those 
families in America and across the country, and if we can do whatever 
we can to have them keep more of their hard-earned money, that 
ultimately means not only would their families be doing better, but our 
economy will do better, and if the economy does better, our government 
will do better.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 4359, the ``Child 
Credit Preservation and Expansion Act of 2004.'' Once again the 
Republicans are giving a new and unnecessary tax break to wealthier 
Americans at the expense of the hard working middle class. For this 
reason I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Republican proposal and 
support the Democratic substitute, which provides real relief for 
middle-class families and ensures working families benefit for years to 
come.
  Making the child tax credit expansion permanent is one of the best 
things we can do to provide tax relief for working families. However, 
the Republicans have made a mockery of this expansion by giving the 
full credit to families that make $250,000 a year. Members of Congress 
don't need this tax credit, but under the Republican proposal, many 
members would qualify for thousands of dollars in new tax credits they 
do not receive under current law.
  No big surprise, the Republicans also don't want to pay for this new 
tax cut for households making over $110,000 per year. Just yesterday 
they passed a budget that specifically exempts this and other tax cuts 
from a requirement that they be paid for. Even Republican Senator John 
McCain said this week

[[Page H3466]]

it was fiscally irresponsible to cut taxes given the current status of 
our domestic and international obligations.
  The Democratic substitute is a real solution for working families. 
Our tax credit expansion is indexed so that the value of the credit 
keeps pace with inflation and doesn't lose value over time (something 
the Republican bill ignores). We ensure lower-income families get the 
benefit of actual money in their pockets by increasing the refundable 
portion of the credit and lowering the income threshold. Our substitute 
also refuses to make this credit available to families making over 
$110,000 per year who don't need it. Finally, we pay for our proposal 
by asking households making over $1,000,000 to pay a little more.
  The Republican bill proposed today gives $70 billion in tax cuts to 
families in the top 10 percent of income, but does nothing to ensure 
real low and middle class families get the permanent relief they 
deserve. The Republican agenda is clear, more tax cuts for the 
wealthiest Americans at the expense of the majority of hard working 
American families. My agenda is also clear, I will continue to oppose 
these unfair, fiscally irresponsible tax cuts that put more money in 
the pockets of the fat cats while taking it away from those who need it 
most.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to protest what I consider to 
be one of the most egregious examples of the reckless fiscal policies 
that are being pursued relentlessly by those on the other side of the 
aisle. Today, the majority has decided to distort the child tax 
credit--a policy intended to help lower- and middle-income families 
support their children--and twist it into yet another tax break for the 
rich.
  Mr. Speaker, I favor making the existing $1,000 tax credit permanent, 
and I favor expanding the credit to cover more low-income families. 
However, I cannot support a policy that would provide a tax credit for 
families that make more than $300,000, while denying a credit to those 
with the lowest incomes.
  The bill that the majority has proposed today would greatly expand 
the tax credit for families with incomes between $100,000 and $300,000, 
but would not allow a low-income family where a parent works full-time, 
year-round at the minimum wage to receive the credit! The tax credit 
would remain unavailable to families with incomes below $10,500. 
Approximately 8 million children are in families with incomes below 
this amount! Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that those families with 
incomes below $10,500 are having a much harder time affording the costs 
of raising a child than are families with incomes of $300,000, and yet 
this bill does nothing to help them.
  Not only would the bill under consideration today provide another tax 
break to those who do not need one, but it would do so by digging a 
deeper hole in our federal deficit. Mr. Speaker, the deficit this year 
is expected to be the largest in history! Yet, this bill would add more 
than a quarter of a trillion dollars to that deficit--and nearly a 
third of the cost ($69 billion) is due to the expansion in tax breaks 
for those with incomes between $110,000 and $300,000.
  Mr. Speaker, we are a nation at war. We have deficits so large that 
international organizations like the IMF are warning that the 
continuation of our fiscal policies threaten to hurt not just the U.S. 
economy, but the global economy. This is no time to be using borrowed 
money to give tax breaks to those who do not need them. Mr. Speaker, 
the legislation under consideration today is a stark reflection of the 
differences in priorities and values that many of us have with the 
current tax and economic agenda of the majority.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the objective of child tax credits 
should be to help families with children who are in need of assistance 
and to improve tax fairness. This legislation provides little to no 
help for a single mother making minimum wage, while increasing the 
income ceiling allowing parents that earn as much as $300,000 per year 
to receive tax credits.
  Low-income working mothers and fathers pay a disproportionately high 
cost for providing care to their children so that they can earn a wage 
outside of the home and stay off of welfare assistance. These are the 
families most in need of a child tax credit, yet, they are the families 
that are short-changed and left behind by the Republican tax bill.
  The money to provide these tax credits for families making well over 
$100,000 per year is taken from the thin wallets of families making up 
to $10,000 per year, who receive no benefit from this legislation, and 
from borrowed funds that will further increase our record deficit. The 
inequities of this legislation are unconscionable.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of providing a child 
tax credit. I am supporting the Rangel substitute because it, unlike 
the underlying bill, is paid for and does not drive our country deeper 
into debt.
  The Democratic substitute, like H.R. 4359, calls for permanent 
extension of the $1,000 per child credit, but would index the credit 
for inflation and fully pays for this extension through 2010. It would 
also accelerate the increase in the refundable portion of the credit, 
from 10% to 15%, starting in 2004. The Democratic substitute also 
provides the tax credit to low income individuals--it is simply unfair 
that they are left out of the child tax credit.
  Because the GOP bill proposes no offsets to their version of the 
expanded and extended child credit, their proposal costs $228 billion 
over 10 years.
   Mr. Speaker, today the national debt is largest in history. 
Americans now collectively owe more than $7 trillion--$24,304 for every 
man, woman and child. We have borrowed an additional $280 billion so 
far this year. The Majority would now like to borrow another $228 
billion with the passage of this bill. Someone needs to remind them 
that we are also fighting a war, a war that has already cost us $150 
billion and will cost another $4 billion a month.
  More tax cuts without offsets will not only jeopardize critical 
public services now, but will also hurt Americans well into the future. 
Massive deficits now lead to increases in the debt and will create high 
interest payments that crowd out spending on public investments for 
future generations. Moreover, these deep deficits threaten to increase 
interest rates well into the future, making it harder for Americans to 
buy homes and afford higher education and making it harder for 
businesses to raise capital. We are literally squandering the wealth of 
this country by not paying for our tax cuts. This bill further 
contributes to a glaring problem--the breathtaking fiscal 
irresponsibility that is going on here in this town.
   Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the substitute and 
defeat the $228 billion dollars of debt in the underlining bill.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support providing tax relief to 
middle-income Americans and I support permanent extension of tax cuts 
aimed at helping working American families. However, I am not in favor 
of a new tax break for families making over $300,000 per year, which is 
exactly what H.R. 4359 provides, and I rise in opposition to this 
legislation.
  The legislation before us today is a dangerous tax cut Trojan Horse. 
Disguised as an extension of the child tax credit increase included in 
the 2001 and 2003 tax cut packages, this bill provides an entirely new 
tax cut for the wealthiest of Americans by expanding eligibility for 
this tax cut to families making over $300,000 per year. This more than 
doubles the previous high point of $110,000 per family where the child 
tax credit started to phase out, and provides those in the top 10% of 
income earners over $70 billion in tax cuts.
  This is not surprising considering the House leadership decided not 
to include a child tax credit benefit for working families making 
between $10,500 and $26,625 during the 2003 tax cut package. By loading 
on tax breaks for the very wealthy, H.R. 4359 is simply another 
demonstration of the majority's contempt for working American families.
  Further, it is unfair to Americans today, and especially the next 
generation, to delude ourselves by thinking the record budget deficits 
facing our nation, estimated by the White House at over $500 billion 
this year alone, will simply go away. H.R. 4359 as drafted contains no 
offsets, and will add $288 billion to the budget deficit over the next 
10 years at a time when the raid on the Social Security and Medicare 
Trust funds continues.
  As a member of the House Budget Committee, I supported a budget 
resolution that would have extended the child tax credit at the current 
levels, while still reducing the deficit. This approach required touch 
choices, prioritization, and a commitment to helping working families. 
Unfortunately, this was not the approach taken by the House leadership, 
putting tax relief for middle-income Americans in jeopardy.
  I support the alternative offered today by my colleague 
Representative Levin that fully extends the child tax credit increase 
for middle-income Americans. It would prevent any tax increase in 2005, 
and will not increase the budget deficit because it is fully paid for 
through a responsible offset. Further, it provides more tax relief to 
more families making up to $110,000 by indexing the child tax credit 
for inflation--bringing it up to $1,100 by 2009. It also benefits our 
military families by allowing combat pay to be counted toward the 
refundable portion of the credit. This approach makes sure that during 
these difficult economic times, the vast majority of the benefits of 
the child tax credit help the vast majority of Americans.
  In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support the Levin alternative 
and reject the new tax break for the wealthiest of Americans. Without 
the Rangel alternative, this legislation creates more harm than good; 
it not only increases the budget deficit of today, but also increases 
the debt of the future at the expense of working families.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, the House Republican leadership proposal 
on the child

[[Page H3467]]

tax credit is a travesty that puts politics above the well-being of 
America's children. I strongly support making the $1,000 child tax 
credit permanent. That tax credit provides important relief to middle 
and lower income families around the country. But rather than simply 
extending the existing credit, the Republicans seek to expand the child 
tax credit to higher income families by adding tens of billions of 
dollars to the nation's deficit. It is not the Republican leadership 
that will be left to pay that debt; it is our children and 
grandchildren. It is incredible that the same Republican leadership 
that refuses to fully fund the No Child Left Behind Initiative would--
under the guise of helping families--add billions of dollars to the 
debt tax that will have to be paid by future generations.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.


      Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Levin

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and 
myself, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. 
     Levin:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AND EXPANSION OF CHILD TAX CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 24 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to child tax credit) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--There shall be allowed as a 
     credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the 
     taxable year with respect to each qualifying child of the 
     taxpayer an amount equal to $1,000.''.
       (b) Adjustment of Credit Amount for Inflation.--Section 24 
     of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(g) Inflation Adjustment .--In the case of any taxable 
     year beginning in a calendar year after 2005, the $1,000 
     amount contained in subsection (a) shall be increased by an 
     amount equal to--
       ``(1) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(2) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable 
     year begins,
     determined by substituting `calendar year 2004' for `calendar 
     year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof. Any increase 
     determined under the preceding sentence shall be rounded to 
     the nearest multiple of $50.''.
       (c) Restoration of $10,000 Threshold for Refundable Portion 
     of Credit.--Subsection (d) of section 24 of such Code is 
     amended by striking paragraph (3).
       (d) Acceleration of Increase in Refundable Portion of 
     Credit.--Clause (i) of section 24(d)(1)(B) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``(10 percent in the case of taxable 
     years beginning before January 1, 2005)''.
       (e) Combat Pay Taken Into Account in Determining Refundable 
     Portion of Credit.--Paragraph (1) of section 24(d) of such 
     Code is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     sentence: ``For purposes of subparagraph (B), any amount 
     excluded from gross income by reason of section 112 shall be 
     treated as earned income which is taken into account in 
     computing taxable income for the taxable year.''.
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2003.
       (g) Repeal of Sunset.--Title IX of the Economic Growth and 
     Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall not apply to the 
     provisions of, and amendments made by, sections 201 and 203 
     of such Act.

     SEC. 2. BENEFITS EXTENSION NOT TO INCREASE FEDERAL BUDGET 
                   DEFICIT.

       (a) In General.--Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(j) Additional Tax on High Income Taxpayers.--In the case 
     of taxable years beginning in calendar year 2005, 2006, 2007, 
     2008, 2009, or 2010, the amount determined under subsection 
     (a), (b), (c), or (d), as the case may be, shall be increased 
     by 2.75 percent of so much of adjusted gross income as 
     exceeds $1,000,000 in the case of individuals to whom 
     subsection (a) applies ($500,000 in any other case).''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2004.

     SEC. 3. REQUIREMENT THAT CONGRESS BALANCE THE BUDGET WITHOUT 
                   USING THE MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST 
                   FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the provisions of section 
     1 of this Act and any other provision of law, title IX of the 
     Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 
     shall take effect in the form as originally enacted unless 
     Congress meets the requirements of subsection (b).
       (b) Requirements.--Congress meets the requirements of this 
     subsection if--
       (1) before September 1, 2010, Congress has enacted 
     comprehensive Federal budget legislation, and
       (2) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
     certifies in September of 2010 that such legislation--
       (A) will result in a balanced Federal budget by fiscal year 
     2014, determined by taking in to account the costs of the 
     foregoing provisions of this Act and without taking into 
     account the receipts and disbursements of the Social Security 
     and Medicare Trust Funds, and
       (B) will substantially reduce the United States 
     Government's reliance on Foreign central bank purchases of 
     its debt obligations.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 644, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and a Member opposed each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra), a very distinguished colleague and member of 
the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  To be sure we are clear, this is a bill to make the child tax credit 
permanent, to extend it to include families that were not part of the 
legislation before, those families that are high-income earners.
  The other part of this that we have to talk about is the fact that it 
is $22 billion worth of costs without paying for it.
  The first part everyone will agree on. Child tax credit, let us go 
with it. Second part, increase it or expand it to include families who 
are among the highest-income earners in this country, we could debate 
that, but let us do it fiscally responsibly.
  The third part, to not pay for it, is the irresponsible part of this 
legislation.
  If my colleagues want to do something to expand the child tax credit 
at the same time they are making it permanent in the face of what is 
today a $400 billion deficit for this country, and in the face of, as 
we have heard other Members say, a $7.2 trillion debt that this Nation 
has on which we pay close to a quarter of a trillion dollars a year 
simply in interest, does nothing to give anyone any additional service 
or benefit, just paying interest.

                              {time}  1745

  If we did not have that $17.2 trillion debt, that is about $24,000 
for each man, woman, and child in this country today; and if we did not 
have in this fiscal year a more than $400 billion deficit that we face, 
that adds to that national debt, then perhaps you could easily talk 
about extending this to the high-income earners and not paying for the 
cost of it. But that is not the case.
  Today, what is the world like? We have men and women, over 100,000 of 
them, that have not seen their children, in some cases, for more than a 
year. We have a Social Security System where people are today 
contributing for their retirement, where every single cent of the 
Social Security surplus is being spent and more. We have a situation 
where more than a million and a half Americans in the last 3\1/2\ years 
have lost their jobs. And those Americans who have been lucky enough in 
the last few months to regain a job, are finding they are earning less 
today than in the job they held previously.
  So, then, you have to ask yourself, is this truly the direction we 
want our country to take? Is this the one problem we have to tackle 
today, increasing the child tax credit to include high-income earning 
families in America at a cost of expanding the size of the national 
debt?
  And that is where folks on this side of the aisle break. Because we 
would love to be able to go back to our districts and say, you know 
what, we just extended the child tax credit, we made it permanent so 
you can always count on it being there. But you cannot in good faith do 
that to people who have sons and daughters in Iraq or in a war where we 
have no exit strategy, where we have already spent more than $166 
billion, again not saying how we are paying for it, and what we are 
doing is adding to the debt.
  One of our colleagues from Nevada came to the floor and spoke 
eloquently just a moment ago about how he held a newborn child in his 
arms, and he talked about how that child tax credit

[[Page H3468]]

will now go to that family because of that child. What he did not say, 
of course, is that while that child is going to help that family 
receive, perhaps, if they are lucky enough to qualify, a $1,000 child 
tax credit, that child is born today with a $2,000 additional debt just 
from the last four bills that have passed this House in the last month 
that deal with tax cuts: this child tax credit; the marriage penalty 
relief; the relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax; and the cut on the 
10 percent bottom tax bracket.
  If you total all those up and extend them for the 10 years, that is 
over $1 trillion dollars in cost, unpaid for. So you cannot continue 
doing this and be realistic, be fiscally responsible, be fair; and we 
go from there. This is not the way to go. Go with the Democratic 
substitute.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada 
(Mr. Porter).
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, we have talked at length about where the 
threshold should be. Just a few days ago, May 5, 2004, my colleague 
from California voted in favor of an amendment that said that we will 
eliminate all liability for individual minimum tax for taxpayers with 
adjusted gross incomes at less than $250,000 and above those levels we 
phase in over $40,000.
  It seems to me very hypocritical that just a few days ago our 
colleagues from across the aisle felt that $290,000 should establish 
the threshold. And if I can read again from that amendment, it said, in 
general, the Alternative Minimum Tax to the taxpayer shall be zero, 
zero, if the adjusted gross income of the taxpayer, as determined by 
this bill, is $290,000.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems hypocritical we can use numbers, play with 
numbers. The important thing is to get people back to work and get 
people to be able to invest their own hard-earned tax dollars. The 
economy is improving because of the policy of returning to families 
their hard-earned dollars.
  I again would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and 
support the original bill as proposed.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Do not keep repeating a big fib. The AMT was not supposed to cover 
except a small minority of the taxpayers. We did not define a certain 
amount as middle class. It is not in that legislation.
  Do not repeat it. It is not true. This is a child credit. You are 
adding on to an extension $70 billion in large part, substantial part, 
for very high-income families beyond $250,000. This is not the AMT; 
this is the child credit. Get off your big fib.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, this substitute, for those who are 
listening, gives an opportunity for people to do the right thing for 
working families that deserve some type of tax break for their young 
kids, that deserve a deduction. Again, the basic difference is do we 
want to burden the children of the future with the price that we pay 
for this. We say no.
  Can we not think about doing things and providing this type of relief 
and paying for it? There has to be in this Tax Code that weighs 25 
pounds some loopholes that my colleagues can find for the wealthy that 
you are prepared to say, this is a time of war, this is a time of 
sacrifice, we just cannot take care of everybody at the same time. Let 
us start off with those people that work every day. Those families, the 
kids from the families that are working, that are volunteering, that 
are in the National Guard, that are in the Reserve, these are the 
families that really need the help.
  When we start getting up there to $300,000 a year, these are not the 
families from the communities that produce our warriors. It is not me 
that says that; it is the DOD that says it. The statistics say it. The 
low- and the middle class are the warriors that are fighting in Iraq. 
These are the families that deserve the support.
  We welcome the fact that our colleagues saw their way clear to make 
adjustments so that combat pay would not exclude these families from 
some type of relief. But every time you bring a tax bill, do not drive 
us deeper and deeper in debt. We support the concept; we just support a 
better economic basis for the future.
  It is so selfish for us to do what we want to do politically this 
year and leave the burden on the generations thereafter that follow us. 
As Americans, as Members of Congress, the things that we have to do in 
terms of national security are not always just guns and planes and the 
military. It is a sound economic policy so that the future of our great 
country will not be left in the hands of foreign investors, but in the 
hands of economists that work with us as Members of Congress to do the 
responsible thing.
  So the reason that we have this substitute is so that we do not 
deviate from the good intentions of some of our Republican friends, but 
that we do have a sound economic policy.
  Now, my colleagues can talk all they want about the Alternative 
Minimum Tax. We are not going to attack you on that. You do not have 
the courage to stand up and talk about the $800 billion it would take 
to fix it. You are not going to fix it. We tried to give temporary 
relief. This is designed to create some type of relief for those in the 
higher income that we say must pay some type of tax. But what you have 
done is driven the tax burden on these middle-income people, and we 
tried to give relief.
  Let us try not to avoid the fiscal irresponsibility on this bill. Do 
not talk about the Alternative Minimum Tax. We beg you to bring a bill 
out to talk about that. Talk about this bill and who gets the relief. 
And I hope some of the people on the other side of the aisle might say, 
what does this do to the deficit. Let that be the key question: What is 
the difference between the bills: Which one is paid for, which one is 
not paid for, which drives us into the deficit and which one says that 
we break even because we have closed up loopholes?
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) 
for the opportunity to speak and the way he has managed this bill 
today. It causes us in the House and on the Committee on Ways and Means 
to wish we could do some of these debates in committee rather than wait 
for the Committee on Rules to give us a bill that we have to debate on 
the floor.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, Members should oppose this substitute for three simple 
reasons:
  First, just like the sponsors' substitute last week on permanence of 
the 10 percent bracket, this substitute is only temporary. It is not 
permanent tax relief. The substitute would cut the child credit in half 
after 2010, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.
  Here is what that means. The benefits to the lowest income families 
would disappear. The benefits for our military personnel and their 
families would disappear. The AMT will gobble up the tax credits, which 
will drop to $500 per child in 2011 for families.
  Second, the substitute does not eliminate the marriage penalty and 
the child credit, and it does not expand access to the credit for 
middle-income families. By contrast, our bill, H.R. 4359, will provide 
the full tax credit to married couples with up to $250,000 in income 
and for single parents with up to $125,000 in income.
  The substitute's advocates are opposed to providing help to these 
families. And this is really a mystery, since the Democrats were 
willing to provide these same families with tax relief three separate 
times in the last 3 weeks. Two of their recent substitutes to other tax 
bills would have granted AMT relief both to married couples and people 
in the 10 percent bracket regardless of their income. The Rangel 
substitute on AMT relief exempted couples with up to $250,000 adjusted 
gross income, and single taxpayers with up to $125,000 in adjusted 
gross income from the AMT.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would submit my friends on the other side simply 
are not being consistent. They continue to change their definition of 
middle-class families to suit whatever needs they see at the time.
  Finally, a tax increase is used to fund this bill, a 2.75 percent new 
tax on entrepreneurs. Seventy-five percent of the tax filers that this 
new tax will strike have business income. The Democrats' approach would 
raise taxes on small business owners and investors

[[Page H3469]]

and undermine the economic growth that tax relief has delivered.
  This same tax-and-tax again approach has been rejected twice this May 
by substantial margins in this House and should be rejected again.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Look, the 10 percent applied across the board, and so much of it went 
to families other than the very wealthy. So much of this proposal of 
yours goes to families that are very wealthy. That is the difference.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro), one of the cosponsors of the substitute.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin), in offering this substitute. Correcting this injustice is 
something Democrats have been advocating for almost a year now.
  It is almost hard to believe a full year after this Congress passed a 
$350 billion tax cut bill that gave every millionaire in this country a 
$93,000 break, deliberately leaving behind 6.5 million families with 12 
million children in the process, this majority has finally decided it 
is time to right the wrong done to these families, so long as something 
is done for the wealthy in return.
  During that time, Democrats have come to the floor time and time 
again imploring this majority to extend the $1,000 child tax credit to 
those families, a million of whom are military and veterans' families, 
with 260,000 children of active duty personnel serving today in 
Afghanistan and in Iraq. We have said that it is a matter of values.
  Now, when Republicans finally relent, they do so on the condition 
that families earning as much as $309,000 also get the credit.

                              {time}  1800

  But they do not do anything about capturing any additional people at 
that lower wage scale; they will not do that. What it also means is a 
$3.5 billion problem will now add another $69 billion to an exploding 
deficit, $87 billion if you count the increased interest payments on 
the extra debt.
  To illustrate the profound unfairness of this bill, at the same time 
that low-income families with two children would get a one-time $300 
average tax break under this legislation, two-child families with 
earnings between $150,000 and $250,000 would receive $20,000 in extra 
tax breaks over the next 10 years. In my view, particularly at a time 
when we face deficits as far as the eye can see, it is not only 
irresponsible; it is immoral.
  By contrast, our substitute is simple, to the point, and fair. Not 
only would it extend the $1,000 tax credit to only the low-income 
families left out of this bill, hard-working, tax-paying families, yes, 
they are tax-paying families who need it the most; but it is fully paid 
for, meaning that it will not add to the deficit.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time that Republicans stop using these families as 
a bargaining chip for more tax cuts for the wealthy. Do the right 
thing, support the Rangel-Levin-DeLauro substitute.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, here we are again. For the fourth week in a 
row, Republicans have put us between a rock and a hard spot, forcing a 
choice between short-term relief for hard-working families and the 
long-term interest of future generations. It breaks my heart.
  Each one of these votes has broken my heart because I have four adult 
children. They are families, they each have a spouse, and I have three 
grandchildren. They would like this short-term relief; but guess what, 
they know better. They know better than my colleagues do on the other 
side of the aisle.
  It broke my heart to oppose the 10 percent tax bracket, to oppose 
relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the end of the marriage 
penalty; and it will break my heart to oppose the child tax credit 
extension today. But I will oppose it because I know we could do better 
for our children.
  I wanted to vote for tax relief because these bills would help my 
kids, and it would help the people in my district, but short term. 
These bills would help short term the four families that I have talked 
about. Members talk about hard-working families. These kids work around 
the clock, week in and week out; yet the Republicans are squandering 
the future of these children and their children. They are providing tax 
relief for the very wealthiest, and they are providing tax relief in 
the short term, and I think we can do it better. We will do it without 
mortgaging the future of our grandchildren with this substitute.
  Here are two of my grandchildren. Let me introduce Members to Teddy 
and his baby sister, Julia. Teddy is 4 and Julia is 9 months old. They 
have a 16-year-old cousin named Sean, and they have two cousins on the 
way by year end. I will not ask my grandchildren to pay for their 
parents' tax relief, nor should you. It is not in their best interest 
to grow up in a country that cannot afford to properly fund its public 
schools. It is not in their best interests to work in a Nation crippled 
by debt. My grandchildren and yours deserve better than that.
  The Democratic substitute we are considering today will give both my 
children and my grandchildren a little extra money, and it will not 
mortgage the future of the next generation. At first blush, it is 
troubling to oppose this bill, a bill that would seemingly benefit my 
own hard-working family. But I am lucky, my constituents and my 
children understand the hidden price of these tax bills. We understand 
that tax relief for my children should not come at the expense of 
Teddy, Julia, Sean, and their cousins we are expecting to be born 
before the end of year.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is really a sad moment that we are 
considering this bill, another tax bill, another week. We are really 
not serious about trying to help American taxpayers or trying to get a 
budget that makes some sense, that is balanced, that does not mortgage 
our future, that does not require us to ask our children and 
grandchildren to pay for what we are doing today.
  Mr. Speaker, I would have a little more sympathy for this bill if it 
was an extension of the current child credit bill that many of us have 
supported. We think the child credit law makes some sense. But this 
bill does more than that. I think it is important to point out that 
this bill would increase the income limits of those who qualify for the 
child credit. That is an additional tax cut that is being placed in 
this bill that affects people whose incomes are over $100,000-some.
  I mention that because every dollar of tax relief that this bill 
provides is going to have to be borrowed. We are going to have to pay 
interest on it. It is going to encumber our decisions in the future, 
whether to protect our Nation in national defense, homeland security, 
or to adequately fund our schools. I think it is immoral for us to 
create debt today in order to give a tax cut and then ask future 
generations to pay for those tax cuts.
  Mr. Speaker, I said that this was an extension of a bill that we 
already passed. I think an argument could be made, but this is to 
expand that credit, to give an additional tax cut; and it is being done 
in a way that it is not paid for. I just think that is wrong.
  I would hope that we would be able to work together on tax policies 
because I think there is some agreement on both sides of the aisle, but 
not the way that this legislation is being presented. I urge my 
colleagues to support the substitute and to reject the final version if 
the substitute is not approved.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments and appreciate 
much of the work we have done together on the Subcommittee on Human 
Resources.
  I would say, just a couple of weeks ago the other side of the aisle 
set their own definition of middle class when they offered an amendment 
on the floor to expand AMT to include ``more middle class families'' 
and exempt

[[Page H3470]]

them from the AMT, which is exactly the same levels we have tried to 
incorporate in this bill. We have changed this bill to include those 
families. We are working together to try to strengthen families in 
America and try to help families with the incredible costs and burdens 
of raising children today. So I think we can all agree it is those 
families that need help.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I just wanted to touch base on this amendment and speak 
against the substitute.
  The reason I want to do that is because the substitute actually 
increases taxes on small businesses in order to get to their tax 
credit. But more importantly, the tax credit is not a permanent fix. 
What we believe the young families need today is a permanent child tax 
credit so they can count on this for many years to come.
  I am a father of four. I spend a lot of my time in the carpool line. 
In fact, I just left the House immediately after the last vote to drive 
my son to a Little League game. And after this last vote, I am going to 
drive back to the Little League game, and that is not untypical of 
working parents today. Parents are juggling money trying to raise these 
children. And often you think it is time for mom and dad to get a 
little relaxation. Well, they cannot do that because they have to put 
the money into new tires or a new dryer, children's braces, whatever.
  This makes it helpful and affordable for families, who are often in 
the sandwich generation somewhere between having dependent children and 
dependent parents. I believe that the Camp bill, the Thomas bill, the 
Ways and Means Committee mark in its present form is a good bill.
  I think that the Democrats have raised a lot of good points, and I 
share a lot of their concerns about our growing debt. I think it is 
time we start bringing that up, and I am glad that they are doing it. 
But I also feel when you reduce taxes, you put it back in the pocket of 
those who earn it, and they are going to go out and buy more hamburgers 
or clothes, more CDs. And when they do, small businesses are going to 
react. They are going to expand their inventory and hire more people, 
and it is going to be an extremely important multiplier to the economic 
engine of our society. Or as Adam Smith said, It is the invisible hand 
at work. We want to cut the budget, but we should not start with taking 
more money out of the taxpayers' pocket. We should start by overseeing 
some of these Federal Government programs and eliminating some of them.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I want to say respectfully to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston), what the majority's bill does, adding a new tax cut, gives a 
tax cut to Members in the gentleman's position, not to families who are 
struggling to find money to buy books or buy hamburgers; and to dig a 
deeper hole for that reason is a mistake.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I too was struck by the words of the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) because I think he has the 
rhetoric right, but I am concerned about the target for his concern. 
The Republican bill takes resources and extends them to families who 
make up to $309,000 a year for a family of three. I have people like 
that in my neighborhood who would like compassion, who would like some 
help, who are soccer moms and dads. But frankly, I am more concerned 
about those parents that do not have the resources to be soccer moms 
and dads, that parent who has three kids and works at minimum wage and 
who is left off altogether.
  Somehow the concern that we have to raise the level to over $300,000 
and ignore the people who are most in need, I find disingenuous and I 
find it sad.
  This is not any confusion about whether or not the Democrats want to 
provide assistance for the middle class. The millionaire's tax that my 
Republican colleagues refused to fix on a permanent basis so they can 
use over a half trillion dollars to mask the costs of further tax cuts 
for people who need it the least is something that we tried to do 
something about so they would not be subjected to the millionaire's 
tax.
  But today, we are talking about the child care credit. The Democrat 
substitute is seeking to focus it where it is needed most, not the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), not my friends in my 
neighborhood who make over $300,000 a year.
  Most important, it is an opportunity for us to step back and think 
about who our priorities ought to be directed at. He talks about 
attacks on entrepreneurs because we would have a small surcharge on 
people who make over a millionaire dollars a year. Yes, it includes 
some entrepreneurs, it includes some power forwards, it includes some 
actuaries, but these people have been treated most generously. They 
have received massive reductions, increased disposable spending. To 
provide a modest adjustment to help the families most in need is 
something I can go back to my middle class, my upper middle class, my 
rich constituents, and I can defend.
  Indeed, I do not have to. I have them asking me to do this for poor 
families. I have CEOs sitting next to me in airplanes saying why are 
you giving me these tax cuts when there are people who are more in 
need. I would hope our Republican colleagues would get in touch with 
those who need help the most.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada 
(Mr. Porter), the sponsor of the base bill, H.R. 4359.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, while we are speaking of those children who 
need help the most, I would like to talk about those children without 
parents, those foster kids that are impacted by the bill. The 
substitute, as proposed, will be a tax increase on kids who depend upon 
the kindness of strangers. The amendment, as written, will be a tax 
increase on those children. It will punish children who do not have 
parents.
  I suggest to my colleagues that we reject this amendment, that we 
speak for those kids who need help the most, those without parents, and 
reject this amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to just take a moment and say thank 
you to the staff for their hard work on the bill as originally written. 
I appreciate their efforts and time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  I have no idea what the gentleman was referring to. No idea.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, last night the Republican majority passed a 
$2.3 trillion budget that left a $500 billion deficit, showing it is 
impossible to finance three wars with three tax cuts.
  They never miss an opportunity to stick it to working families and 
add to the deficit, in this case $228 billion. They never miss an 
opportunity.
  When Ronald Reagan created the earned income tax credit and Bill 
Clinton doubled the size of it in 1993, we actually cut taxes and 
reduced the deficit. In 1997, we balanced the budget, invested millions 
of dollars in health care for uninsured children and created the $500 
per child tax credit. We did it while balancing the budget.
  They have taken the whole notion of fiscal responsibility, thrown it 
out, added $228 billion to the deficit, raiding Social Security at that 
time, just so they can have a tax cut and stick it right to working 
families who, more than just tires and braces, who do not have health 
care in some cases.
  So you can actually have a tax cut, balance the budget, provide 
health care, open the doors to college education, but you have to 
govern and, as President Kennedy once said, to govern is to choose. 
Those are things that they refuse to do. They do not try to make those 
choices.
  We have two proposals here to expand the child credit, but we have 
two different visions of America, two different sets of values. We are 
willing to make the choices that put working families, the interest of 
their health care, their children, their family, their college 
education, their savings at the front and center without raiding, 
without destroying, Social Security. In the last three times that they 
have

[[Page H3471]]

brought up tax cuts, they have never missed an opportunity to raid 
Social Security and add deficit.
  In the last 3 years they have added $3 trillion to the deficit, 3 
million Americans have been unemployed and they have had three tax 
cuts. I do not know what it is about the number three that they love so 
much. I have no idea.
  What they have done here is they have decided to stick it to working 
families. We need to go back, to put our fiscal house in order, not 
raiding our children's future, provide a tax cut for working families 
and reduce the deficit. Not to say, ``I empathize with my colleagues on 
the other side about the importance of the deficit'' but to do 
something, after passing a budget with a $500 billion hole, do 
something that we can provide a tax cut finally to working families so 
they can get the resources and know it is there without raiding Social 
Security from their grandparents while you are doing it.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I certainly appreciate the gentleman's view of history. I would just 
point out that he forgot to mention that the previous administration 
signed the largest tax increase in history, which actually started to 
begin the economic decline that occurred at the end of the last 
administration.
  I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that what we are trying to do here in 
terms of helping middle-class families is exactly the same definition 
that my friends on the other side used 2 weeks ago in their attempts to 
change the AMT to make that more beneficial.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, twenty-two million new jobs, the beginning 
of an economic recession. Lifting 4.3 million families out of poverty, 
the beginning of an economic recession. Reduction of uninsured in this 
country from 44 million to 38 million, the beginning of our economic 
recession?
  There is a rampant case of an inversion in the world. To the people 
that had those jobs, more people going to college, more people not in 
poverty, more people with health care, and the gentleman says that is 
the beginning of the recession? I could have sworn in the 1990s when I 
was around, all the Republicans talked about was that it had nothing to 
do with Bill Clinton; it had everything to do with Ronald Reagan's boom 
from the 1980s. Maybe the gentleman needs a rendezvous with history 
here and a rendezvous with his record.
  He is right, we raised taxes on the wealthiest and we cut them on 
working families, and we reduced the deficit and had a balanced budget. 
I would recommend that the gentleman take a rendezvous with that record 
of what a balanced budget would look like, since his colleagues have 
done a great job of adding $3 trillion to the Nation's debt.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just say that my friend's view of this whole economy and 
budget process is very different, because while his party was in 
control, the budget was not balanced for two generations. It took our 
party to gain the majority to actually bring some fiscal sanity to the 
process.
  I would just say that what we are debating here today, though, is 
whether we are going to extend the child tax credit permanently and 
whether we are going to do that in a way to help more low-income 
families, more middle-class families and more military families. The 
base bill does that.
  The substitute regrettably raises taxes on small businesses and 
entrepreneurs. That is exactly the wrong thing to do as we begin to see 
job creation come again; 1.2 million jobs since October of last year 
have been created as a result of the tax relief that we have passed.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side 
have a distorted concept of history inasmuch as we lived under a 
balanced budget for the years that President Clinton was in office and 
we struggled together in a unified way to bump up the economy.
  Right now, in the fourth largest city in the Nation, in Houston, 
Texas, not only are there cuts to the pension of working men and women, 
the city budget is not only cutting their pensions, laying off people 
in the library, in the health department, pulling out strings so that 
we can find a way to finance the needs of the citizens of Houston. But 
that is the story of major cities around the country. Sadly, it is 
taking place in Houston, and I wish it was not.
  But this particular legislation that my good friends have on the 
other side is leaving 3 million people at the bottom without a child 
tax credit and giving us a $228 billion bill that we cannot pay. I 
would rather my friends look closely at their proposal and wonder why 
those who are making $300,000 a year, who have, as my colleagues have 
already indicated, received generous cuts, now putting those others at 
the bottom of the barrel.
  In a letter by Margaret written to the Houston Chronicle in July 2003 
she begged as a student making $10,000, with an 8-year-old son, why she 
could not get a child tax credit, why we are making it permanent for 
those who make $300,000 a year, yet Margaret who is trying to make ends 
meet, get an education and take care of that 8-year-old child cannot, 
in fact, get that kind of coverage.
  This substitute allows us to provide for those working families along 
with those who have already made it. We do not discriminate against 
them. We want to have tax cuts for the middle class and working 
families. But what we do not want to have is a splurge that we cannot 
afford. Waging war in Iraq, waging war in Afghanistan, young military 
personnel cannot even afford to put food on their table; and they are 
giving us a $228 billion deficit.
  I argue vigorously for the substitute, not for us and not for 
partisanship, but for working families. Three million of them are not 
yet going to be able to see a tax cut today. We need the Rangel-Levin 
substitute in order to make it work.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4359, the Child Credit 
Preservation and Expansion Act, and I call on this body to adopt the 
more fiscally responsible Rangel Substitute. The Rangel Substitute 
gives real tax relief to middle-class Americans while not raising the 
deficit.
  Conversely, the original legislation of the Child Credit Preservation 
and Expansion Act seeks to amend the Internal Revenue Code in the 
following ways:
  To repeal the scheduled reductions in the amount of the child tax 
credit for taxable years beginning in 2005 through 2009 (from $1,000 to 
$700 in 2005 through 2008 and $800 in 2009);
  To make the $1,000 credit amount permanent;
  To increase the income threshold amount for calculating reductions in 
the credit amount to $125,000 ($250,000 for married taxpayers filing a 
joint return).
  To eliminate the reduction in the percentage of earned income for 
calculating the refundable portion of the credit (15 to 10 percent) for 
taxable years beginning before 2005;
  To include in earned income for purposes of calculating the 
refundable portion of the credit otherwise tax excludable combat zone 
compensation of members of the armed forces; and
  To exempt from the general termination date in the Economic Growth 
and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (December 31, 2010) 
provisions of that Act disregarding as income any refunds from the 
child tax credit for purposes of determining eligibility for federally 
funded assistance programs.
  Mr. Speaker, the original legislation, as drafted will allocate $70 
billion in permanent tax cuts to 2 million taxpayers with children who 
are in the top 10 percent of the income hierarchy but leaves working 
families ``in the lurch.'' Furthermore, the bill threatens the welfare 
of middle-class families because the drafters have failed to include 
provisions to pay for these tax cuts--increasing record deficits that 
threaten economic growth, raise interest rates, and cost jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, instead, I support the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute as offered by my esteemed colleague from New York and that 
has been made in order by the Committee on Rules. In sharp contrast to 
the instant bill, Mr. Rangel's proposal will ensure that the Republican 
tax cuts are paid for through 2010, will increase the child tax credit 
for more than 31 million people to help middle-income families with 
children (over 75 percent)

[[Page H3472]]

currently receiving the credit, and provide the child tax credit to an 
additional 2.5 million working families, instead of directing this 
tremendous relief to a groups who have already benefited tremendously 
under the Bush tax cuts.
  Middle-class families would be better off if tax cuts were paid for. 
Given the loss of 2.2 million private-sector jobs over the past three 
years, Democrats believe tax cuts should not add to the budget 
deficits, as ballooning deficits threaten economic growth, raise 
interest rates and cost jobs. Instead of taking the responsible course 
of action and paying for these tax cuts, our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle choose instead to increase our debt and deficit 
levels. Economists agree that federal budget deficits threaten to crowd 
out private investment and raise interest rates on mortgages, consumer 
credit and business borrowing, which will slow economic growth and job 
creation. Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan warned that soaring budget 
deficits represent a ``significant obstacle to long-term stability'' in 
the economy.'' (Washington Post, 5/7/04) ``The [child tax credit] bill 
. . . 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.'' (editorial, Washington Post, 5/19/04) Republicans have 
already taken us from a $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus to a nearly $3 
trillion deficit, and now are proposing to add another $228 billion in 
this bill.
  This bill is increasing the deficit to provide tax breaks for higher-
income taxpayers, while doing nothing for working families. Instead of 
providing more tax cuts to middle-income families or helping working 
families struggling to get into the middle class or making minimum 
wage, Republicans spend nearly $70 billion (or 30 percent) of the tax 
cuts on extending the child tax to taxpayers making up to nearly 
$300,000. According to the Tax Policy Center, 40 percent of the 
benefits of the Republican bill go to the top 10 percent of taxpayers 
making over $100,000. For example, a family with a parent working full-
time at the minimum wage ($10,300) would get no benefit at all from the 
bill, while two-child families earning up to $250,000 would get an 
extra $20,000 in tax breaks over the next 10 years. ``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.'' 
(editorial, Washington Post, 5/19/04).
  Democrats pay for these tax cuts and require a balanced budget to 
make the tax cuts permanent. Democrats know we can provide real tax 
relief to millions of families without endangering our economy or 
threatening job creation. The Democratic plan essentially pays for 
these tax cuts through 2010, through a small surtax on the most 
affluent 0.2 percent of households in America--for couples the surtax 
only applies to those with annual incomes over $1 million. Democrats 
are committed to tax cuts that are fiscally responsible. That is why 
the Democratic plan makes these tax cuts permanent once Congress enacts 
legislation to balance the budget by 2014, as Republicans have already 
promised to do, without tapping into the Social Security or Medicare 
surplus.
  The Democratic plan provides more tax relief for middle-income 
families and working families. The Democratic plan will provide more 
tax relief to more than 31 million (over 75 percent) of middle-income 
families--those making less than $110,000. It does so by indexing the 
$1,000 child tax credit for inflation bringing it to $1,100 in 2009. It 
also provides the child tax credit to an additional 2.5 million working 
families with children by lowering the income at which families are 
eligible from $10,750 to $10,000. Democrats will fight to make sure 
that tax cuts are targeted to the nearly 85 percent of middle-income 
and working families feeling the squeeze in the Bush economy.
  Democrats have long favored more tax relief for middle-income 
families. Last year, Democrats worked to provide long-lasting tax cuts 
for middle-income families, including rescinding the marriage penalty--
providing the child tax credit for more people and for a longer period 
of time. Unfortunately, Republicans are consistently willing to 
shortchange middle-class families in order to provide tax cuts for the 
wealthy. Last year, Republicans made the acceleration of the marriage 
penalty relief, child tax credit, and the 10 percent bracket temporary 
in order to protect their tax cuts for corporate dividends. This 
``problem'' is one they themselves created.
  Extending tax cuts is not an economic plan. Republicans have launched 
a phony P.R. offensive called ``Hire our Workers,'' but they have yet 
to explain how they lost 2.2 million private sector jobs, how they 
increased the deficit to $3 trillion, or how their failed economic 
policies are going to lead to the hiring of even one additional worker. 
Democrats have a real plan to create jobs, by passing bipartisan tax 
relief for manufacturers that keep jobs here in the U.S., passing a 
robust highway bill, fully funding the Small Business Administration, 
passing middle class tax cuts that are fully paid for, and putting the 
federal government back on a ``pay as you go'' basis. I urge the entire 
body to reject H.R. 4359 and adopt the Rangel Substitute which is the 
only responsible fiscal legislation before this body that actually 
benefits middle-class Americans.

               [From the Houston Chronicle, July 8, 2003]

            A Poor Mother: My Child's Worth Tax Credit, Too

                          (By Margaret Gaffin)

       I'm among the millions of men and women being shafted by 
     the Bush administration.
       Under the Bush administration's new tax law, families whose 
     taxable income is more than $26,625 will see an increase in 
     the Child Tax Credit of $400 for a total of $1,000. They will 
     get a check in the mail for the difference this summer.
       For working families whose taxable income is between 
     $10,500 and $26,625, it's still being debated as to when and 
     if they will receive the credit after they were left out of 
     the bill the first time.
       At the same time, the entire tax bill is expected to return 
     an average of $90,000 a year to people making more than a 
     million dollars a year. Not to mention the fact that most of 
     the members of Congress stand to receive dividends. But 
     families earning less than $10,500 like mine will remain 
     ineligible for any part of the child tax credit.
       My situation is like millions of women around the country. 
     While we work, go to school and care for our children, we 
     often don't get paid well. My dream is to give back to my 
     community by working in social services like being a 
     probation officer. I have lived a tough life and know how 
     trying it is where there is no one to lend a helping hand in 
     difficult circumstances.
       Being in human services will allow me to be that helping 
     hand for other families and the children facing hard times. 
     I'm going to school full time to complete my associate's 
     degree. This means I bring home $5,600 a year, since I can 
     work only part time. Student loans help pay some expenses, 
     but it still is not enough.
       It hurts when my 8-year-old daughter wants to go to the 
     movies or even have a meal at McDonald's and I have to say, 
     ``No, Mommy can't afford it.'' If I had gotten a tax cut, I 
     would spend it on bills that face me. Like millions of other 
     working people, I would have put the money right back into 
     the economy.
       (Unlike many millionaires, who will most likely put their 
     $90,000 refund in the bank or spend it on stocks or campaign 
     contributions to keep those tax cuts coming.)
       The deficit caused by this tax cut is already being felt in 
     states around the country. In Ohio, we had to cut back Head 
     Start programs and medical expenses, leaving millions of 
     children without early education and medical insurance.
       It seems shortsighted. The expenses our country will have 
     to pay by not healing ill children and providing a quality 
     education at an early age will be counted not only in 
     dollars, but also in the pain of impoverished human lives.
       Twelve million kids, including 1 million military children, 
     are being penalized because their parents are teachers, 
     social workers or in the armed forces. When the President and 
     Congress ignore us, we are being told that our children 
     aren't as valuable as those of persons making more than we 
     do. We are told that our children are not worth a tax credit, 
     even though we work and pay taxes like everyone else. When 
     all the dust settles, I hope our congressional leaders will 
     stop placing higher value on a child from a rich family over 
     my daughter because I am poor.
       I'd like to believe that another world is possible, a world 
     where we have equal opportunity, and one child is not favored 
     over another because of skin color or wealth.

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say that I urge 
Members to reject the substitute because it does not make the child tax 
credit permanent, it ends in 2010, and we need to make that tax relief 
permanent.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I could not help noticing today that the 
President had to come up here and stiffen the spine of his troops. I 
understand that they are getting a little weak-kneed but this is the 
rubber-stamp Congress, and we know that when the President comes up 
here and asks for something, no matter how big the deficit is or how 
many poor people or ordinary working folks you exclude, you will do 
exactly what he wants.
  The people should understand, this is a priority of the President of 
the United States. He is the one that wants to cut the money or give 
more money to people on the top. His whole idea is, if I can give 
enough to the people on the top, I will get reelected.
  I noticed some of the Members were a little worried there when we had 
that discussion about having an investigation of what is going on with 
the prisoners and how high up the ladder that

[[Page H3473]]

goes. There were a lot of weak knees over there. They are going home 
and they have got to take home this tax credit, by God. I can hear them 
saying it down in HC-5 today: ``Gentlemen, you have to vote for this 
because you'll have nothing else to say.'' You have got to say 
something to cover up what is going on in Iraq.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), chairman of the full Committee 
on Ways and Means.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I assume there is some relevancy to this 
particular debate on this particular measure offered by the gentleman 
from Washington.
  But I think we really ought to put this entire debate in perspective. 
In 1993, with a Democrat President and a Democratically controlled 
Congress, the largest tax increase in the history of the United States 
was put in place. There was an opportunity at that time to make 
adjustments on the Alternative Minimum Tax which would not place us in 
the position that we are in today. That measure passed this House with 
all Democratic votes and no Republican votes. That was in the first 
full year of President Clinton's presidency.
  The next year was an off-year election for the House of 
Representatives and one-third of the United States Senate. The American 
people, for the first time in 40 years, decided that empty promises and 
failure to deliver and continuing to assume that by requiring Americans 
to send a dollar to Washington with bureaucratic waste, fraud and abuse 
subtracted and the 86 cents, the 82 cents, the 76 cents that was sent 
back to them on programs that they promised to help them was a failed 
policy. That produced the first Congress of a Republican majority in 40 
years.
  Ten years later, Republicans are still in the majority. I do not see 
any better example of the fundamental choices in which the American 
people chose our way of dealing with issues versus theirs.
  Somehow requiring people to pay taxes when they have children at 
home, for which the amount we are debating does not even offset 
inflation over the last decade, of increasing the child deduction, 
somehow allowing them to keep $1,000 per child so that perhaps a school 
choice would be different, perhaps an educational or enlightenment trip 
would be different, so that that child in terms of the $20,000 that is 
going to be available to someone, have you checked college tuition 
nowadays? The concept of putting money away for future education can be 
assisted by this $1,000.

                              {time}  1830

  And the real problem to my friends on the other side is to see a 
dollar of tax revenue lost because they did not get it, they did not 
get their fingers on it, and they did not create a program in the hopes 
that someone would vote for them because they were going to give them 
the money.
  What I see is an opportunity for a family to allow that child to be 
enriched over their lifetime, that, in, fact they do go to college. 
Anybody knows, and graphs show today, a college education is worth 
about $4 million over the earning life of that individual. And do you 
know what you do when you make that much money? You surely know 
listening to their arguments, because if people make a little bit of 
money, they pay a lot of taxes.
  One of the things Republicans have done in this Tax Code is to drop 
more people off the tax rolls than they have ever done in the history 
of the time that they have controlled the House of Representatives.
  Now, there is a problem when people do not pay income taxes, because 
they do not get the benefits of the structure of the income tax, for 
example, the child tax credit. So they then come to the well and say 
people who do not pay income taxes should get the benefits, 
notwithstanding the fact they do not pay income taxes, of the people 
who pay income taxes. That is an unfair system.
  And all we are saying is let us give the American family a little 
security and assurance. What we do in our proposal is make it $1,000 
and make it permanent. What they do is dangle out the opportunity that 
there may be $1,000. If someone in the executive branch certifies that 
what this constitutionally independent body can do is okay to do, they 
turn over fundamental legislative decisions to the executive branch. 
Does the executive branch certify that we can do it? Yes or no?
  That is how desperate these people are, to come up with an angle 
which allows them to say this is what we are going to offer, with the 
ability, in fact, to jerk it away and never allow the American family 
to get the $1,000 child tax credit.
  So the choice is pretty simple. Certainty, appropriateness, and the 
investment where we think that investment does the most good, to the 
family for them to decide. That is the proposal before us.
  The substitute says let us promise something that is not guaranteed, 
that someone in an entirely different constitutional structure will 
tell you whether or not you can do it. I think that is why finally in 
1994 the American people said we have had enough, we want to go a 
different way.
  And to my friend from Texas talking about a balanced budget under the 
Clinton administration, to make sure history is accurate, 6 of those 8 
years Republicans were in the majority in the House and the Senate. 
That is how we came out of the deficit. Everybody knows the world's 
circumstances that we were in. We will get out of the deficit again 
how? By not hoping that keeping taxpayers poor and government rich will 
solve the problem, but by making sure that we invest in the future in 
the American way, let those people spend their own money in ways they 
think bring the best return. And guess what, jobs are created, 
productivity is up, more taxes come in, i.e., we have revenue coming 
in.
  The real question of whether or not we are able to grow out of this 
deficit is whether or not we control spending. Not giving people their 
own money back to spend, that is not the problem. It is new programs, 
larger programs, spending, that is the greatest concern.
  A pretty fundamental battle here today. Invest in individuals that 
made America great, provide more fodder for government spending so that 
these folks can say I gave them something. We want the mother and 
father to tell the child they gave them something, not the government.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The issue is not extension of the child credit. We favor it. Nor 
taking into account the needs of military families. We are very much 
for it.
  There is a difference and a big difference. Why should we create a 
new tax program here? Why? Why for families making $300,000, $250,000? 
Are they the families in need? And is it right to do so when we add $70 
billion to the deficit? The answer, I say to my chairman, pay for it. 
Pay for it.
  You say it is not permanent and yet you say you are going to grow out 
of the deficit. Okay. If you are right, our proposal is permanent. If 
you are wrong, as you have been before, in some years we will take 
another look. Do not raise, I hope again in your remarks, even though 
when you have a message, you keep after it even if it is wrong, the AMT 
illustration. It is simply not correct. We do not use the term ``middle 
class'' in our AMT proposal. What we say is the AMT should be used for 
the same purpose as it was intended, for very wealthy families, and we 
are consistent because we say do not add a new child credit, a new tax 
break for very wealthy families when you are digging another $70 
billion in the hole.
  That is not fiscally responsible, as I said before. It is fiscal 
insanity. Do not raise children when your kids and my grandkids, if not 
my children, would pay for your irresponsibility, adding $70 billion to 
the already huge pile of debt. It is red enough. Do not add to it.
  I urge that we vote for this responsible substitute and that we vote 
``no'' against a very irresponsible, unneeded, additional tax credit 
that is in their proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the Rangel substitute for 
three reasons: the Rangel substitute does not make the $1,000 tax 
credit permanent. The Rangel substitute will cut the $1,000 child tax 
credit in 2011 in half,

[[Page H3474]]

according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. The result: millions of 
low-income families and military families will face a hefty tax 
increase. In addition, more than 1 million more taxpayers would fall 
victim to the Alternative Minimum Tax.
  The second reason to reject the Rangel substitute is that it does not 
include tax relief for middle-class families in the way of the child 
tax credit. In the Democrat substitute to the AMT bill, it was the 
Democrats who defined middle-class families as single parents earning 
$125,000 a year and married couples earning $250,000 a year. This 
substitute would deny the full credit to families in those ranges. As a 
result, this substitute does not give the full tax credit to families 
defined by my friends on the other side as middle class.
  Thirdly, the Rangel substitute raises taxes on small businesses and 
entrepreneurs. The Democrat alternative creates a new tax that will hit 
approximately 200,000 individual tax returns. Seventy-five percent of 
those have business income, the same small business community that we 
have been working so hard to bring back. The House has rejected similar 
tax increases twice in the last 3 weeks.
  I urge my colleagues to believe in parents, believe in families, 
believe in children, reject the Rangel substitute, and vote for H.R. 
4359.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
644, the previous question is ordered on the bill and on the amendment 
by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 187, 
nays 226, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 208]

                               YEAS--187

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--226

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Ballance
     Burr
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Gallegly
     Johnson, Sam
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Marshall
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     Menendez
     Miller, Gary
     Murtha
     Norwood
     Owens
     Rush
     Tauzin


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1903

  Mr. PLATTS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 271, 
noes 139, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 209]

                               AYES--271

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Costello

[[Page H3475]]


     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Feeney
     Filner
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gephardt
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--139

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Blumenauer
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Majette
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Ballance
     Blunt
     Burr
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Ferguson
     Gallegly
     Gutierrez
     Johnson, Sam
     Leach
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     McCarthy (MO)
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     Menendez
     Miller, Gary
     Murtha
     Norwood
     Owens
     Rush
     Tauzin
     Turner (TX)

                              {time}  1920

  Mr. DELAHUNT and Mr. SCHIFF changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 209, I was 
unavoidably detained on H.R. 4359, Child Credit Preservation and 
Expansion Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________