[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 116 (Thursday, September 23, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H7509-H7514]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 785, WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF
CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN
RESOLUTIONS
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 785 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 785
Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII
for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee
on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is
waived with respect to any resolution reported on the
legislative day of September 23, 2004, providing for
consideration or disposition of a conference report to
accompany the bill (H.R. 1308) to amend the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 to accelerate the increase in the refundability
of the child tax credit, and for other purposes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to my neighbor, the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 785 is a same day rule
that waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII requiring a two-thirds vote to
consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Committee on
Rules.
The rule applies the waiver to a special rule reported on the
legislative day September 23, 2004, providing for consideration or
disposition of a conference report to accompany the bill H.R. 1308, the
Working Families Tax Relief Act.
This rule today is the first step to permit the House to consider a
conference report that will infuse our economy with job creating tax
relief, investment incentives and overall economic growth.
For well over a year, this body has been debating the relief provided
by the Working Families Tax Relief Act and, with today's action, we
once again display our continued commitment to strong economic growth.
We also demonstrate to American workers, businesses and families that
this Congress will protect their stability.
Mr. Speaker, through a series of tax cuts, this Congress has acted to
create jobs and protect American families. Our strong leadership has
resulted in the shortest and shallowest recession in our Nation's
history. A delay in the consideration of this conference report for the
Working Families Tax Relief Act will put American jobs and families and
the strength of our economy at risk.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule so we
may proceed with debate on this time sensitive tax relief package.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my neighbor for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, we have before us a rule that allows for same day
consideration of a conference report for H.R. 1308, a bill to extend
the middle-class tax provisions in the 2001 tax bill.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that any time the body chooses to
stray from the regular order of business, it had better be for a darn
good reason. It had better be to respond to some catastrophic or
emergency situation.
Things are dire out there for the 2.7 million Americans who have lost
their good-paying manufacturing jobs since 2001. These workers live in
a constant state of emergency and face the catastrophic prospect of
losing their homes or sending their children to bed with empty
stomachs. The fact the body has failed to extend unemployment insurance
for nearly a year is a catastrophic failure, not a catastrophic
success.
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other bills languishing in
conference committees that certainly warrant emergency consideration.
What about the transportation bill? Immediate consideration of this
bill could bring millions of Americans a step closer to getting back to
work, because it is a job creation bill.
And what about addressing the WTO tariffs on American exports? Should
we not take immediate action to clear the path for more of our
manufacturers to export their goods?
Mr. Speaker, as you can see, there is no shortage of bills that could
be justifiably brought to the House floor under martial law, but,
unfortunately, the bill we have before us today fails to meet that
standard.
Although I think everyone here in the House supports extending the
middle class tax cuts, I do not like running roughshod over the rules
of the House. What is this emergency? The earliest that any of these
provisions would expire is December 31.
Mr. Speaker, the majority has not made its case for taking this
extraordinary action. The conference report was filed late this
afternoon. In fact, we do not have any paper on it at all. So that
makes it impossible for us to even continue with the bill. But for a
bill that is going to cost nearly $150 billion, the majority owes it to
us to provide us the time to read it.
For these reasons, I cannot support the use of a martial law rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there are some points well taken, except we have been
working 18 months on this legislation in bipartisan fashion in both
bodies and we now have a conclusion. I also think we have certainly got
strong opinions as we complete this of Members that will support this
and Members that will not. I believe it will pass with some bipartisan
support.
But also it is important that we have the opportunity that we can get
our work done today, because otherwise my belief is that many would ask
that we vote tomorrow, which, if we complete our work today, would keep
an
[[Page H7510]]
orderly fashion of having our work done and Members also back into
their districts.
So, as we move forward, it is my hope that we have a vote on the
rule, and that the body will consider that we move forward with the
opportunity of reviewing the conference report that was put together in
a bipartisan fashion in both the other body and this body.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from New York for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, this is an extraordinary process that we use when we
consider a bill the same day it is reported out. One of the concerns I
have about the process is that I want to make sure the Members
understand exactly what is in the bill that they are asking to be
considered and the process that it went through.
I think it is important to point out that the underlying bill that we
are talking about contains many important changes in the Tax Code that
are supported on both sides of the aisle. There is no question that
Democrats support an extension of the 10 percent bracket provision,
child credits and marriage penalty relief, and certainly Alternative
Minimum Tax relief, where more and more of our constituents are falling
within the Alternative Minimum Tax, and extension of the so-called
extenders, the research and others that would otherwise expire. That is
without question. And there has been bipartisan efforts to try to make
sure that those provisions in the Code are extended or made permanent.
But this is where the bipartisanship ends, because there has not been
an effort made to do this in a way that is in the best interests of the
taxpayers of this country.
Our only opportunity to raise these issues will be on the rules that
are going to be presented today. My friend from New York will explain
later the previous question votes we are going to ask to be taken,
because that is going to be our only opportunity to raise the faults
that are in the underlying bill, because, as I said, the substantive
provisions are provisions that are supported by both Democrats and
Republicans.
The first problem is that these are just temporary changes. We do not
make them permanent. As my friend from New York pointed out, we have
until the end of this year on most of these provisions. Some of the
provisions are extended for a year, some for 2 years, some for a little
bit longer, but none of them are made permanent. So, once again, we are
not really confronting the issue of making this predictable for the
taxpayers of this country.
But the more serious faults that will be raised by the previous
questions deal with the fact that despite the efforts that we have made
in a bipartisan opportunity to pay for these tax cuts so we do not add
to the $400 billion annual deficit, we have offered ways to pay for
these tax changes. The underlying bill is scored to add another $150
billion to the deficit of this country. Where does this end?
Give us an opportunity to give proposals to offset the cost so that
we are not adding to the red ink of the Nation. We should have that
opportunity, and I think we could do that with a strong bipartisan vote
in this body.
The second problem, Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, is that we did not
correct a major problem with the Earned Income Tax Credit and to a
certain degree with the refundable child credit, and that is we are not
treating our military fairly.
We all talk in our districts and here on the floor about the
tremendous sacrifices being made by the men and women who are in harm's
way serving our military in Iraq and Afghanistan. They put their lives
on the line for us every day, and we are thankful. But we should show
it by deeds. We have pointed out that because of the tax treatment of
military pay, our men and women who are in harm's way will not get the
full relief provided under this bill. That is wrong.
The conferees from the other body made a suggestion that would have
fixed this, one which is supported by the Democrats in this body. It is
hard to believe that you get a more favorable tax treatment in the
military if you serve in the United States than if you serve in Iraq.
That is just wrong, and we should fix it.
But instead of accepting the reasonable offer made by the Members
from the other body, because of the House position of the Republicans,
we have a very small, temporary fix for 1 year that will not provide
the full relief to our military, which is kind of complicated, quite
frankly, adding to the complexity of the Code without fixing the
problem.
That is wrong, and we should take care of that now. If there is an
urgency, the urgency should be with our military and to make sure we do
not discriminate against them.
So, Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to point out to my
colleagues, yes, we will not have a lot of time to consider this bill.
It was just reported out today. There are a lot of good provisions in
this bill. But, once again, it is a missed opportunity. It is a missed
opportunity for fiscal responsibility, it is a missed opportunity to
correct a problem with our military pay, and I hope that you will
support the request made by the gentlewoman from New York in regards to
the previous questions so we can fix these errors.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I know that it is not a missed opportunity for those
millions of taxpayers who are going to be assisted by this. While I
respect my colleague from Maryland, I think there is a couple of things
we need to look at to set the record straight. I was prepared to do it
as we do the rule on the legislation, but maybe now is a good time.
This bill provides nearly $200 million in assistance for our
military. This bill has 23 annual extenders for tax provisions that we
have worked on in the past. It is going to address child tax credit
that we have passed overwhelmingly in this House in a bipartisan
provision. It is going to address the marriage penalty, which this
House has, again, done in overwhelming provisions in past votes.
We have a 10 percent bracket, which is there. Without passage of the
legislation, the bracket would start to fade until it is totally
removed from the Tax Code, and that would affect 73 million families
who will be paying higher income taxes next year. Over the next 10
years, these families will pay out a total of $2,400 more in taxes.
That is a bill that this House has passed in previous times.
When we look at the AMT relief which was created more than 30 years
ago as a way to prevent high income taxpayers from avoiding income tax
payments, something happened, and the failure to index AMT for
inflation has resulted in millions of Americans paying for this onerous
double tax.
{time} 1445
As a result, by 2010, one in three American taxpayers will be hid in
the shadow of the AMT tax. Both in the 2001 and 2003 growth packages,
Congress worked to ensure the new tax cuts would not force more
taxpayers into the AMT trap. Yet, the provisions preventing millions of
middle-class Americans from being hit with the AMT will expire at the
end of this year. This is why the legislation is so critical, to
prevent these Americans from being hit with the unsuspected tax.
So when we look at this legislation, when the House is scheduled to
adjourn on October 1, and we look at this House that may extend itself
a few days in closing, we need to also keep on track moving legislation
that is ready for the body to consider.
I would also say that when we look at this, which was provided for,
the paying of this, in the House-crafted budget that was adopted by
this body, the extension of family tax relief is already provided for
in the House-passed budget resolution. That resolution would cut the
deficit in half over 5 years without raising taxes, so this bill is
paid for.
The second aspect is the Democrats have agreed to extending the child
tax credit, the 10 percent bracket, and the marriage penalty relief.
However, to accomplish the offsets, they want means of more than $130
billion in either tax hikes or spending cuts. The Democrats are not
prepared to make the tough choices regarding which taxes to increase or
which programs to
[[Page H7511]]
cut. We are going to talk about a procedural provision of whether we
adopt this rule to consider same-day or not versus the aspect of an
alternative, which I welcome as they bring their legislation before the
House.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, to my distinguished friend from New York, I
was at the tax conference last night, and I would just like to yield
him enough time to respond. Did he say that this $147 billion bill is
paid for? No, I do not think so. I do not think he said that.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman asking me if I would
yield on his time?
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the gentleman whether or not
he said to this body that this bill, this tax cut bill, which he gave
all the virtues of what it does for the middle class and all of the
corporations with the extenders, did he imply that this does not throw
us $147 billion further into deficit?
Mr. REYNOLDS. No, I will give the gentleman exactly what I said, if
the gentleman will yield.
Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds.)
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I said the extension of the family tax
relief is already provided for in the House-passed budget resolution.
That resolution would cut the deficit in half over 5 years without
raising taxes. I believe that the previous speaker on the minority
side, the gentleman from Maryland, made a statement that he felt that
it was not paid for.
Mr. RANGEL. Well, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, but let
me join in with the gentleman from Maryland because, clearly, those of
us that work on the committee know that there are a lot of virtues in
this bill. True, we have a couple of poison pills in there that relate
to unfair treatment of the young people who are married, who have kids,
who are doing combat duty, and also by having the index on who is
eligible for the refundable tax credit, having it move from 10,000 to
70,000; we exclude some 9.2 million children. Those are the poison
pills that I think that a lot of Members are willing to swallow for the
good that is in the bill.
But one of the most important things that Americans are missing and
the majority does not hear about is who pays for these tax cuts. All
tax cuts for working individuals have merit, but this bill, according
to the Joint Committee on Taxation, will cost us $149 billion. We tried
as Democrats in the conference to take the loopholes, to bring the tax
savings and to bring the revenues to make this revenue-neutral so that
we could have the benefits without the deficit. But what happened last
night was that the Republicans said they wanted to save these revenue
raises. They want to save these corporate loopholes for the next tax
bill, which they call the jobs bill, which I call the offshore jobs
bill, but the next bill, some call the FSC bill, but whatever they call
this bill, they want to have that paid for as opposed to this bill.
So what I am saying is that it is close to election, and everybody
wants to vote for a tax cut. The Republicans have so carefully and
cynically, on the eve of an election, planned several tax cuts and make
other tax cuts permanent in order to try to get the Democrats to vote
no, not because we are against the tax cuts but because we have some
sense of responsibility as citizens and legislators to believe in what
Republicans used to believe in, and that is a balanced budget. I am too
old to think it would happen in my lifetime, but as the Republicans put
raising the debt ceiling on the back burner, as they put the size of
the deficit spending on the back burner, all Americans should know
that, as we enjoy this day of tax cuts that the gentleman from New York
talked about, that our children will be paying for these for decades to
come.
So I will suggest to my colleagues, it has to stop somewhere. We have
a responsibility as legislators to try to leave a world better than the
one that we inherited. We cannot do this with a $200 billion war. We
cannot do this by denying benefits to those low-income people who are
fighting this war, who are in combat, and we cannot do it by leaving a
legacy to our children and our grandchildren that they will have to
pay.
I thank the gentleman from New York for responding. He may think we
have paid for this in a big budget, but they sure did not pay for it
last night.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, upon reflection and in listening to the
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member
of the Committee on Ways and Means and one who is the senior member of
the New York delegation, I agree with him that we should phase out and
change the AMT tax, and I have watched him advocate a lot of other
things. A few times I have not seen him want to pay for it except for
raising taxes.
But the thing I heard most out of the debate was not about helping
the American family put more money back into their pockets, not about
the middle class, which some of the politicians outside this body would
talk about middle-class warfare and all of the other type of class war
discussion.
Today, if we are allowed to start the debate on this bill, we will
begin to help the middle class because, otherwise, if the Congress does
not act, families will face a tax increase next year. For example, next
year, the $1,000 child tax credit drops to $700 per child. The 10
percent bracket will apply to less than an individual's income, and the
marriage penalty provision will provide less relief for couples.
I did not hear the aspect of a debate over how we get it done out of
the distinguished ranking member. What I heard was the Democrats may
look bad however they vote versus a decision of whether you are going
to help the middle class today with a tax cut or whether you are going
to raise taxes by not getting the job done. I hope we will pass this
same-day rule so we can bring the legislation to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
This is a sad day for this body, and a sad day for the country in
many ways, I think. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and others
have touched on it. I have not spoken on the floor in a long time on
very much, but I heard the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) talk
about tax increases.
What we are afraid to say today is that we are actually raising taxes
on people who earn less than $11,000 a year. As hard as it is to
believe that Republicans, who tout themselves as tax-cutters over and
over and over and over again to the point that they would even call
some of us to accept a round of tax cuts, fully aware that they will
increase the budget deficit by $150 billion; they could not find it in
their hearts to find $4.3 billion over 5 years to 9.2 million of the
poorest children in this country whose parents, I might add, work every
day. They do not sit around waiting on a check, I say to my colleagues;
they work just like you and I do, and all they ask is for the same
ability to avoid a tax increase.
So I would say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) and his
friends, you are raising taxes as you would accuse us of doing, on
people who earn $11,000 a year or less.
But I say to my Democratic colleagues, we should not be so saddened
by this, because you will remember that the President has had a change
of opinion on a variety of issues. When Enron and WorldCom collapsed,
the President initially opposed any changes to ensure that the big
corporate cheaters who robbed pension-holders and shareholders and
workers of their savings, he initially said no to reform. And then he
flip-flopped; he said yes.
When the Homeland Security Department was offered as an idea, Mr.
Speaker, the President initially opposed that, and then he flip-flopped
in favor of the right thing to do and decided to support it. When the
9/11 Commission idea was offered by many Members, including Tim Roemer,
as an idea to help America atone and reconcile, he said, no way, and
then he flip-flopped and said we should create one. When the 9/11
Commission made recommendations about how to change
[[Page H7512]]
the intelligence structure in this country, the President said no way
will we have a central director of intelligence or one with budgetary
authority, and thank God, he flip-flopped.
So I say to my friend, and I would ask my friend, and he is a friend
of the President, give us one more flip-flop. There is still an
opportunity to not raise taxes on people earning $11,000 a year or
less, Mr. Speaker, 9.2 million children, $4.3 billion over 5 years.
If all of us just decide to give up one project in our districts from
all the pork we pass in this Congress, we can probably accommodate it.
Mr. Speaker, one more flip-flop is all we ask for: $4.3 billion over
5 years. You have my support, and I promise you I will not call you a
flip-flopper on this one if you will just do it for the kids.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I hope my colleague will take the opportunity to brief himself on the
income tax savings for middle-income families, a Joint Economic
Committee study done by the gentleman from New Jersey (Vice Chairman
Saxton) of the Joint Economic Committee of the Congress; possibly that
will provide him some assistance on some of the points that he has
made.
The impending tax increases, unless Congress takes action, the
following tax increases will automatically occur. I want all of my
colleagues from all walks of life to look at what actually is at risk
here if this legislation is not passed before we adjourn. The impending
tax increases, unless Congress takes action, the following increases
will automatically occur: In 2005, the child tax credit will decrease
from $1,000 to $700.
The standard deduction for couples as a percentage of the standard
deduction for singles will decrease from 200 percent to 174 percent,
reinstating the marriage penalty. The top end of the 15 percent
marginal income tax bracket for couples as a percentage of the top end
for singles will decrease from 200 percent to 174 percent, reinstating
the marriage penalty.
The 10 percent marginal income tax bracket will contract from
covering the first $7,000 of income for singles and $14,000 for joint
filers to covering only the first $6,000 of income for singles and
$12,000 for joint filers.
The bonus depreciation will decrease from 50 percent to 30 percent.
The exemption of the alternative minimum tax will decrease from
$40,250 to $33,750, Mr. Speaker, for single filers, and from $58,000 to
$45,000 for married couples filing jointly.
In 2006, the section 179 small business expensing cap will decrease
from $100,000 to $25,000, and the definition of small business will
decrease from $400,000 to $200,000.
In 2009, the personal capital gains rate will increase from 15
percent to 20 percent. Dividends will no longer be taxed on the
personal capital gains rate, thereby increasing the double taxation of
dividends by as much as 62 percent.
In 2011, the marginal income tax rates will increase as follows: 35
percent bracket will increase to 39.6 percent; 33 percent bracket will
increase to 36 percent; 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent;
the 25 percent bracket will increase to 28 percent; and the 10 percent
bracket will increase to 15 percent.
The child tax credit will decrease from $1,000 to $500. The annual
education IRA contribution limit will decrease from $2,000 to $500.
The standard deduction for couples as a percentage of the standard
deduction for singles will decrease from 200 percent to 167 percent,
reinstating the marriage penalty. The top end of the 15 percent
marginal income tax bracket for couples as a percentage of the top end
for singles will decrease from 200 percent to 167 percent, reinstating
the marriage penalty.
{time} 1500
The estate tax using the stepped-up basis will return with a 60
percent maximum rate, including surtax, and a $1 million exemption
after years of decreasing estate tax rates, increasing exemptions, and
one year using the more fair carry-over basis to calculate the tax due.
The annual IRA contribution limit will decrease from 5,000 to a post-
2008 inflation of 2,000.
So we can see that if Congress takes action, we will help all
taxpayers that are paying taxes to put money back in their pocket
versus having it in the government. As we consider whether we have a
same-day, I again urge the adoption of this rule so we can consider the
underlying legislation in the next rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the answer of the gentleman, and I
just want to engage him in a brief colloquy. That was an answer to a
question I did not ask.
I simply asked the question, why are we raising taxes on families
earning $11,000 a year or less? When given the opportunity to cut taxes
for them in the form of a child tax credit beginning in 2005, you chose
and your side chose not to extend the tax cuts to them, $4.3 billion
over 5 years. I am using only your language. In essence, you are
raising taxes on people who earn $11,000 a year or less.
Now, if the gentleman would answer that question, I am probably going
to vote for the bill. I just do not know why we cannot add an
additional $4.3 billion. What is $4.3 billion amongst friends when you
are spending all that you are spending for everybody else? The poorest
families in the country, 9.2 million children, it is $4.3 billion over
5 years. My understanding, I was not there, but every press report says
that the Republican leadership in the House did not support the
Republican chairman of the finance committee in the Senate.
All of this is big talk to the people at home. What it means is we
are raising taxes on people who earn $11,000. So if you are watching,
if you can afford a TV or you know somebody that earns $11,000 a year,
they are raising taxes on you this afternoon.
I would yield to my friend, I would ask him why are you raising taxes
on people who earn $11,000 a year or less in this country?
I would not want to answer it either. So I say to my friend, I hope
in light of the litany of things I mentioned with my friend, the
President, we need one more flip-flop. One more flip-flop can save
monies for families earning $11,000 a year or less. I am blessed. I am
not in that category. Those of you who support things we have supported
in the Congress and friends we have outside of it, we are not in that
category. But for those who are, we are raising taxes this evening in
this Congress on behalf of people who earn $11,000 a year or less who
work day in and day out.
I would not want to defend it either. And the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Reynolds) is my friend. I do not blame him. I would not want to
defend it either.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to this gentleman and any others coming
to the Committee on Rules if we get consideration of the same-day so we
can hear any amendments that they would like to discuss. But as we well
know, a conference report is not amendable, so it will be an up or down
vote.
I do not know many taxpayers that are $11,000 that have to pay an
income tax that we are considering. I thought the earned income tax
credit is a refundable tax credit offered by the Federal Government; I
know New York has its own EITC, and that rate is 27.5 of a qualifying
taxpayer's Federal EITC in the tax year 2002 and that the Federal and
State EITC or for the working people that earn low or moderate income.
So I certainly will continue to listen to my colleague, as I always do
on his thoughts, both on this as an individual, Member to Member, but
also anything he would like to bring on the floor of the debate when
the distinguished Committee on Ways and Means will continue in what I
believe will be a proper debate.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REYNOLDS. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. FORD. Folks who are enjoying part of this tax credit today, in
2005 will see that tax cut decrease or eliminated all together. Which,
if I understand the definition of a tax increase, that indeed is a tax
increase on people earning $11,000 a year or less.
So can we at least agree that this is a tax increase on people who
earn
[[Page H7513]]
$11,000 a year, on people who work and earn $11,000 a year or less in
this country?
I might add, I invite the gentleman to my district, and anyone else
who may choose to come, and we can hold a town hall meeting, and I will
amass, unfortunately, a decent-sized group who are affected negatively
by this.
I yield back to my colleague for an answer. I used his time, so I
thank him for the time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. I will bring this debate to a closure.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I just want to know if it is a tax increase.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Then I will not yield so I can complete my question on
my time. If the gentleman gets time from his ranking member of this
debate, we will certainly continue.
Mr. FORD. I apologize to the gentleman.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, in consultation with the Committee on Ways
and Means and, of course, this is more appropriate on the underlying
legislation, or I suppose even we could request them on the next rule,
EIC has been expanded dramatically in this legislation which is going
to assist in a number of fashions. I am not exactly sure as the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) has outlined a particular part that
he has talked about on 11,000; but the EIC is expanded just on the
aspect of making sure that we capture helping low income wage earners
so that they are not caught in this.
As I said, in my State, the EITC has been extensively of assistance
to our poor and low income family wage earners.
I would hope that we can move forward to a closure of this rule on
same-day, take a vote on it, see if the body will consider then the
rule on the underlying legislation, to consider this legislation so
that all Members will have an opportunity to participate in the debate,
and then we can have consideration of whether we pass this conference
report, which has been 18 months in the making. Most of these are
extenders and legislation that all Members are well aware of.
We have had strong bipartisan support for this legislation as has
been considered in this body in the past. Otherwise, as I understand
it, if we are not able to take this legislation up today, it will cause
us to be continuing our work tomorrow if we cannot complete our work
today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. May
I inquire if the gentleman does.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am
prepared to close.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, before I yield back my time, I will be asking for a
``no'' vote on the previous question; and if the previous question is
defeated, I would offer an amendment that upon its adoption of the
rule, the Enrolling Clerk is instructed to add language to the
conference report that does two things:
First, it directs the Secretary of the Treasury to pay for the cost
of the bill by rolling back part of the tax breaks for those with
incomes exceeding a million dollars annually. These millionaires will
still receive a substantial portion of their tax cuts, but this modest
rollback covers the cost of this bill for middle-income American
families.
Second, it fixes a serious flaw in the conference report that
negatively affects our military families. Because combat pay is exempt
from taxation, many low-income military families with children are
ineligible for the low-income tax credits or the child care tax
credits. Democrats would change this so that soldiers would be able to
count combat pay as income when applying for both the child tax credits
and the earned income tax credit over the next 5 years.
The majority only wants to provide a 2-year extension of the EITC
provision. Mr. Speaker, I think most Members want to see the tax breaks
in this bill extended, particularly the child tax credit. However, many
of us are very concerned about the legislation's substantial price tag,
and I think this is a fair and a reasonable way to address that cost.
I want to stress that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not
stop consideration of the conference report for the tax bill. But a
``no'' vote will simply allow the House to amend the rule to make the
changes necessary to pay for the tax cuts and not increase our already
bloated deficit. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will
not allow these changes to be made, will drive up our debt to the tune
of $149 billion.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can fix the
conference report and provide tax relief to those who need it most.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment
be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous
question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, again, I urge a ``no'' vote on the
previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is important for the record as this has had
substantial debate on the underlying bill of future consideration of
the next rule. There is only one change to the EIC in this bill which
is an expansion for military families, in contradiction to some of the
debate before.
The bill allows military families to include combat pay in the EIC
and child credits, and that provision is in the legislation that will
be considered later if this bill is now passed as a rule before us.
So to get back to where we are, we have a rule that is requesting
consideration of this body of a same-day rule that if we pass it today,
we will continue in being able to do our work on a conference report
rule to consider the legislation, the underlying bill today. If not, it
would seem to me, as I understand it from previous briefings before
coming to the floor, if we are not allowed to continue our work today,
we will then find ourselves working tomorrow on this legislation
because we were not able to complete it today.
So the resolution before us today and the rule is for same-day
consideration of the legislation that will be the underlying
legislation rule next. I would hope that we could pass this legislation
and vote for the previous question so that we can move forward.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, when I was responding to Mr. Ford's
remarks about those earning under $11,000 per year, I inadvertently
referred to the EIC, when I meant to refer to the refundable portion of
the child credit. It is important to note that the bill does not
increase taxes on anyone and actually increases the refundability of
the child credit for low-income families.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 785 Rule Waiving 2/3rds on September 23,
2004 for Rule Providing Consideration of H.R. 1308 Child Tax Credit
Conference Report
At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
Sec. 2.(a) A concurrent resolution specified in subsection
(b) is hereby adopted.
(b) The concurrent resolution referred to in subsection (a)
is a concurrent resolution--
(1) which has no preamble;
(2) the title of which is as follows: ``Providing for
Corrections to the Enrollment of the Conference Report on the
Bill H.R. 1308''; and
(3) the text of which is as follows:
Concurrent Resolution
Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to take
certain actions in the enrollment of H.R. 1308.
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill, H.R. 1308,
the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall--strike the
language in the bill that terminates the provision in the
bill relating to the treatment of combat pay under the earned
income tax credit, so as to make that provision permanent.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
[[Page H7514]]
____________________