Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 72 (Thursday, May 20, 2004)

[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.

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.''

____________________