[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 116 (Thursday, September 23, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H7514-H7540]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1308, WORKING FAMILIES TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2004

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 794 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 794

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 1308) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     to accelerate the increase in refundability of the child tax 
     credit, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     the conference report and against its consideration are 
     waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.

  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 the gentlewoman

[[Page H7515]]

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 794 is a customary rule 
providing for consideration of the conference report on H.R. 1308, the 
Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004. The rule waives all points of 
order against the conference report and against its consideration. The 
rule also provides the conference report will be considered as read.
  Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to head home to our districts for the 
weekend, there are two things that I look forward to telling my 
constituents that this Congress accomplished today: Cutting taxes and 
creating jobs. They are two of the most important things we can do for 
the hard-working people who sent us here to represent them.
  We all know the unfortunate hits America's economy has suffered over 
the past several years. But through the strength of this administration 
and the will of this Congress, we have made great strides in recovering 
from horrific terrorist attacks, corporate scandals and a recession.
  Time and time again, this Congress has responded to adversity with 
sound economic policies that continue to grow our economy. Thanks to 
the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act and the Jobs and Growth Tax 
Relief Act, we have given taxpayers in my district and all across 
America greater control over their hard-earned dollars.
  Not only does this provide greater motivation for savings and 
investment, but it also protects and creates jobs. The Working Families 
Tax Relief Act before us today is yet another step in our plan to 
create a fair and reasonable tax system for hard-working Americans and 
continue the path of new job creation.
  In March of 2003, this House passed our original version of the bill 
by a voice vote under suspension of the rules. In June of that same 
year we passed the bill for a second time.
  Mr. Speaker, in the 18 months that we have been debating this bill, 
our constituents have waited patiently for the tax relief they deserve. 
Today, that long wait ends.
  The underlying conference report includes much of the previous House 
passed language, providing more and longer lasting benefits for 
families of all income levels.
  It extends the child tax credit of $1,000 per eligible child that is 
currently scheduled to sunset in 2005. The conference report makes this 
a meaningful credit available through 2010.
  Important tax relief for married couples is also extended in the 
conference report. The House voted overwhelmingly in April of this year 
to make marriage penalty relief permanent, and we have yet another 
opportunity today to do the right thing.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report also expands the 10 percent 
bracket originally created in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
Reconciliation Act of 2001, and which overwhelmingly passed this House 
once again just over 4 months ago. This provision means substantial tax 
relief for low-income workers by taxing the first $14,000 of earnings 
for married couples and the first $7,000 for single taxpayers at a 10 
percent rate instead of a 15 percent rate.
  Without extensions of the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief 
and the expansion of the 10 percent bracket, working families would 
face a $109 billion tax increase over the next 10 years. This House 
simply cannot delay and must pass this measure in order to remove these 
excess tax burdens from our hard-working families.
  Mr. Speaker, the report additionally provides the middle class with 
relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax, the AMT. While the calculation 
for the AMT is quite complicated, the negative result is simple to 
understand: It is an extra tax some have to pay on top of their regular 
income tax.
  Originally conceived to prevent those with a very higher income from 
abusing tax benefits to unfairly reduce or eliminate their tax 
liability, the AMT has unintentionally ensnared millions of middle-
class taxpayers. In May of this year, the AMT tax exemption was widely 
supported in this House on a bipartisan basis. Without this much needed 
extension, more middle income families will be pushed into the AMT, 
resulting in a tax hike of $23 billion in the next 10 years.
  The conference report also continues to honor our servicemen and 
women in combat zones with nearly $200 million in tax assistance 
through the inclusion of tax-free combat pay when calculating their 
refundable child credit and an increase in the Earned Income Credit.
  Our brave men and women in uniform continue to defend the freedoms 
this Nation holds dear, and every day they work to protect us from 
those who would do us harm. They do not just deserve our thanks and 
appreciation, they deserve this sensible assistance for their hard work 
and sacrifice.
  The conference report further provides that the tax-exempt status of 
an organization is automatically suspended during any period in which 
the organization is designated as a terrorist organization or is listed 
in or designated by an executive order as supporting terrorism.
  Mr. Speaker, also included in the underlying conference report is a 
1-year extension of over 20 various expiring tax provisions, including 
the research and development tax credit, which is so important to 
business across the country.
  In all, $13 billion of needed tax relief is provided for with these 
extensions.
  Of particular importance to my home State of New York is the 
expansion of authority to issue advance refunding of Liberty Zone bonds 
through 2009. The Liberty Zone bond financing was intended to encourage 
the commercial revitalization of Lower Manhattan, and in particular, 
the World Trade Center site following the devastating attacks of 
September 11.
  Currently scheduled to expire this December, I am pleased this 
conference report recognized the importance of the program and has 
included this much-needed extension.
  Mr. Speaker, a yes vote today seizes on the momentum we have created 
towards a strong economy and job creation and sends a clear message 
that this Congress supports putting real dollars back where they 
belong, into the hands of hard-working men and women. A no vote simply 
prevents us this needed relief from becoming reality and denies our 
constituency the assistance they deserve.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the rule and the 
underlying conference report.
  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, and include extraneous material.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will include for the Record the revenue effects of the 
bill we are discussing. Up at the top here it says ``very 
preliminary.'' Given what we went through with the Medicare bill and 
the fact that we are still now getting revised estimates on what that 
cost, I thought that was a very interesting thing, and I have not seen 
that before. So I will put that in the Record.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. It provides the House 
with only an hour to debate a tax package that was rushed in so fast 
that we are not sure the ink is dry.
  The conference report before us contains many provisions that have 
broad bipartisan support. Members on both sides of the aisle strongly 
support the $1,000 per child credit and the new larger 10 percent 
bracket, and they provide real tax relief for working families. 
Additionally, the research and development tax credit, work opportunity 
tax credits and tax incentives for Qualified Zone Academy Bonds all 
have a great deal of support.
  Further, we all probably can agree on the importance of the bill's 
alternative minimum tax relief provisions. The AMT has increasingly 
become a major source of headaches for middle-class taxpayers. Last 
year alone, 3.3 million taxpayers unwittingly found themselves subject 
to this onerous tax because of the 2001 tax bill. Without further 
congressional action, the number

[[Page H7516]]

of Americans who will have to deal with it will grow over 30 million by 
2010. While I am pleased that the conference addresses the AMT, it is 
only a Band-Aid. Providing a permanent remedy to this egregious problem 
will be costly, but it must be done.
  As you can see, Mr. Speaker, there is little fault to find in what 
the conferees chose to include in their final tax package, except the 
cost, which, as I said, is very preliminary. I only hope that the 
conference report for the pork-laden, Christmas-tree-like corporate tax 
bill that this body passed in June is as reasonable.
  That said, the critical question for our Members to ask about this 
$150 billion bill is who is going to bear the cost? Our children? Our 
grandchildren? Both?
  The House leadership may not have qualms about putting off questions 
about the fiscal consequences, but, as a mother and grandmother, I 
certainly do. We could have paid for it by simply taking back a portion 
of the recent tax reductions enjoyed by taxpayers who earn over $1 
million a year. Unfortunately, the majority refused to consider this 
approach, choosing instead to push us further into debt by $150 
billion.

                              {time}  1630

  I do not understand this tactic. It is irresponsible and 
indefensible, especially given what the Congressional Budget Office 
told us 2 short weeks ago. The 2004 deficit will be our largest in 
history, $422 billion, surpassing last year's record by $47 billion. At 
this rate, how on earth do we ever stand a chance of bringing the 
budget back to balance?
  We can do better, and we must do better. And I also have no 
confidence in what we are being told, as I have said, about the cost of 
the bill. In the past 4 years, my experience has certainly taught me to 
question the cost estimates that were provided.
  Back in 2000, the majority went to great pains to deliver a package 
that would be scored at $350 billion, and they devised a scheme of 
phase-ins and phase-outs to arrive at that number. Now, we know the tax 
cuts have an actual cost of about $620 billion, according to the 
administration's own office.
  In addition to putting the true cost of the tax cut at nearly double 
the initial estimate, OMB attributed $290 billion of our deficit to the 
2001 tax bill, and yet this House refuses to recognize that. Then, let 
me say again, there is a medicare bill. In June 2003, Congress was told 
the bill would cost no more than $400 billion over 10 years. Then, we 
learned about the coercive tactics used to arrive at that magic number 
and that the actual number of $134 billion more was kept from us.
  Today, we understand that there is more to come and that the actual 
cost now of the medicare bill is $576 billion over 10 years, $176 
billion more than we voted on just a few months ago. So keep your eyes 
open on this one, because if you blink, you may miss millions more 
added to the price tag.
  Mr. Speaker, given the record, how can we trust the cost of this 
bill?
  For all of these reasons and despite my support for middle-class tax 
cuts, I oppose this rule because we are not allowed to do anything, not 
only about the extraordinary cost but for the children of our soldiers 
who are left out of this bill completely and lose their tax credit.
  Mr. Speaker, I will insert for the Record at this time the material I 
referred to earlier.

[[Page H7517]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23SE04.004



[[Page H7518]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23SE04.005



[[Page H7519]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23SE04.006



[[Page H7520]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, in listening to the gentlewoman's remarks on the general 
preliminary estimates that were there, as I understand it, that is what 
is published before the legislation is passed. Also, for the Record, I 
would like to have the final, which was prepared by the Joint Committee 
on Taxation, which is on their website for the Members who may not be 
in the chamber now if they choose to use it, but I would like to have 
this inserted into the Record as the final numbers.
  Also, as I have listened to some of the aspects about this bill, both 
in the previous rule and now, that it is not paid for, I think there 
are a couple of things that also need to be on record. This bill 
prevents a tax increase on families, and it is very clear, if we do 
nothing, that taxes will go up, and so, actually, we are preventing 
that. Secondly, the relief that is provided for in the President's 
budget which holds the line on spending, it cuts the deficit in half 
over 5 years. The recent data from the Treasury Department show we are 
on track to meeting the President's budget goals. Finally, the Treasury 
data shows that tax receipts are increasing, despite the President's 
tax relief, proof that tax relief leads to economic growth.

[[Page H7521]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23SE04.007



[[Page H7522]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23SE04.008



[[Page H7523]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23SE04.009



[[Page H7524]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania 
(Ms. Hart).
  Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me this time to speak on this issue. There are so many 
important tax issues involved in the legislation that this rule would 
allow that we cannot cover them all in the time allotted, but I think 
it is important that we address several that are extremely important.
  First of all, this administration inherited a recession. Our goal was 
to bring us out of the recession. A number of these tax cuts and 
adjustments, tax credits, helped bring our Nation out of a recession. 
If we allow those tax cuts to be removed, meaning increased taxes, we 
do not help our economy and certainly will do the opposite and, in 
fact, will put a number of families in a difficult situation as well as 
a number of businesses.
  I am interested in a number of the provisions that will help our 
employers, especially the research and development tax credit. In my 
district, the companies creating new jobs are the ones that have 
benefited from the R&D tax credit. In fact, one just this week held a 
job fair to fill 150 new positions. They have benefited significantly 
from the R&D tax credit. A number of those savings are being used to 
hire new folks. That is important to us.
  Another issue to help employers is the work opportunity tax credit, 
not only to help employers, but to help those who are involved in 
getting off welfare. It is a credit for those who hire people who are 
getting off welfare. That encourages employers to employ those who are 
getting off welfare. Why would we want that to end?
  Also, the expensing of brownfield remediation costs: Throughout the 
Northeast and the Midwest, we have brownfields that are being 
redeveloped and the remediation costs are very expensive. Allowing the 
expensing of some of those remediation costs is encouraging employers 
again to take over those properties, develop them and create new jobs 
in communities that desperately need them.
  The tax credit for electricity produced from renewable sources, from 
what I understand, both sides of this aisle are very interested in 
finding better renewable energy resources. Well, if we remove that tax 
credit for developing those resources, we are not going to see as much 
activity. We all know that, if you want less of something, tax it.
  What we have done is cut taxes and encouraged growth. We have created 
tax credits to encourage research and encourage employment. We need to 
extend the tax cuts, extend the tax credits and make sure we are not, 
in effect, going to increase taxes on Americans and job creators.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this morning in the Wall Street Journal, former 
Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough wrote, and this is a 
conservative, a Republican former member from Florida: ``Ten years ago, 
Republican congressional candidates like me were running as Washington 
outsiders, promising to balance the budget and pay off the debt,'' but, 
Joe Scarborough added, bluntly, ``we lied.''
  That is what Joe Scarborough said, referring to ``we'' being 
Republicans running as outsiders for the Congress of the United States. 
Joe Scarborough, ``We lied.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is Joe Scarborough, former member of your 
Republican Conference, issuing that indictment. Not Steny Hoyer, not 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), not even my friend, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), but Joe Scarborough: ``We 
lied.''
  Last year's record budget deficits of $375 billion will be eclipsed 
by a projected deficit of $422 billion this year and deficits totaling 
nearly $2.3 trillion in the next 10 years. That is the result of ``we 
lied.'' And because of the Republican Party's fiscal mismanagement, 
this Congress is on the verge of increasing the ceiling on the national 
debt for the third time in 3 years to $8.1 trillion, but it lacks the 
courage to do so on an up-or-down vote before the November elections. 
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has tried to have us do that.
  Very frankly, if that is the issue, I vote aye. I am not for America 
welching on its debts. I am not for doing it secretly. I am not for 
doing it in the dead of night. I am not for hypocrisy which said, when 
we were in charge, oh, you cannot do that, and when you are in charge, 
hiding it under the rug.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I join virtually every Member of this body on both 
sides of the aisle in supporting the extension of middle-class tax 
cuts, the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief and expansion of 
the 10 percent income tax bracket. But we cannot continue to disregard 
fiscal reality. It is very nice to say that we are going to give 
everybody a tax cut and have the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania come up 
here and say, the extensions will help. They will; we agree with her. 
But deep deficits will not help our economy in the years ahead. We 
cannot ignore the historical turnaround from budget surpluses to record 
deficits and exploding debt during the last 4 years.
  We conservatives are offended by going deeply into debt. Fiscal 
irresponsibility is radical, is not conservative. It puts our country 
at risk. We cannot continue to pretend the tax cuts have no effect on 
our Nation's ability to invest in homeland security, invest in 
education, veterans and health care, and we must not ignore this 
generation's responsibility to our children and grandchildren.
  I have three children and three grandchildren, and we are putting 
them very deeply into debt. That is wrong. Saddling them with deeper 
debt and a diminished future is nothing less than fiscal child abuse. 
Hear me: fiscal child abuse.
  I urge my colleagues to vote conservatively, to make sure that we do 
not plunge this country deeper into debt. Let us extend these tax cuts, 
but let us pay for them. That is what this generation has a 
responsibility to do for the next generation.
  Let me continue to read from what I know my colleagues want to hear 
from their conservative colleague, Mr. Scarborough: ``Mr. Bush, like 
most Republicans these days, only pays lip service to smaller 
government and balanced budgets. He is, after all, a President who 
inherited a $155 billion surplus and turned it into a $442 billion 
deficit.'' Mr. Scarborough, our conservative former colleague said, 
``It is ironic that we Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 by 
attacking Bill Clinton for his free-spending ways. But spending grew 
annually under Mr. Clinton at a 3.4 percent rate, while exploding under 
President Bush at a 10.4 percent clip. Republicans taking credit for 
restraining Mr. Clinton need to explain why they did not hold their own 
President to the same standards.''
  How ironic it is that my Republican friends claim credit for 
restraining the government when we had the presidency, but they cannot 
do it when their own President is in charge. Can anybody believe that 
representation?
  I am going to vote no on this tax bill. I urge others to. The 
individual items in this bill are good, but the overall policy is 
disastrous, and Joe Scarborough told the truth.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We are getting into some of the theatrics of politics 40 days before 
an election. I accept that. But I also want to say that before Joe 
Scarborough was elected in 1994, in the time he served, it was the 
failed liberal policies of 40 years that knew tax and spend, in this 
House and allowed the policy that started in 1995 which was to stop a 
train wreck, and also begin to move forward in recovering from the 
largest tax increase in American history in 1993.
  Now, what I also find ironic, the Democratic leadership of the House 
never listened to Joe Scarborough when he was a Member but might choose 
to now that he is a pundit and an author.
  But the fact is, as we look at this legislation on the underlying 
bill, as we consider this rule today, this rule prevents a tax increase 
on families, middle-class American families that the politics of 
America has been addressing day in and day out while the 2004 election 
is underway. If you do not vote for

[[Page H7525]]

it, you begin to threaten the aspect that middle America will have a 
tax increase.
  This relief is provided for in the President's budget, which holds 
the line on spending and cuts the deficit in half over 5 years. Recent 
data from the Treasury Department shows we can and we are on track in 
meeting the President's budget goals. The Treasury data shows that tax 
receipts are increasing, despite the President's tax relief, proof that 
tax relief leads to economic growth.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the Joint Economic Committee 
United States Congress Report, in their summary it clearly says in 
there that raising taxes to cover budget deficits is usually a bad idea 
because it reduces incentives to work, save and invest.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the comments of my friend from New York, I 
feel compelled to remind everyone of the words of the late Will Rogers 
when he said, ``It ain't people's ignorance that bothers me so much. 
It's them knowing so much that ain't so that is the problem.''
  We can talk about this all that we want to, and I rise in strong 
opposition to this rule, but any Member who has ever stood on this 
floor and talked about fiscal responsibility should vote no on this 
rule. All Members who care about the future integrity of the Social 
Security system should vote no on this rule. All Members who care about 
the legacy that we will leave for future generations should vote 
against this rule, and you know it in your heart.
  Now, I too strongly support middle class tax relief. I support 
extending the marriage penalty relief. I support continuing the $1,000 
per child tax credit and the expanded 10 percent tax credit. I have 
been a strong advocate for extending the wind energy tax credit.
  The question is whether or not we will provide tax relief to middle 
income families. The debate is not whether we should do so with 
borrowed money, adding more debt on top of our $7.3 trillion national 
debt. We should not pay for tax cuts by borrowing money against our 
children's future. That is the argument we make today.
  Congress should be required to sit down and figure out how to make 
things fit within a budget just like families across the country do 
every day as I hear from my friends on this side all the time, except 
when it counts. Unfortunately, the leadership of the House seems to 
have forgotten that common-sense principle. Instead of figuring out how 
to make these tax cuts fit within our budget, the majority has decided 
to avoid making tough choices. Every dime of these tax cuts will be 
added to the debt we will leave for our children and grandchildren, and 
you know it.
  In the next couple of weeks, we will have to vote to raise the debt 
ceiling unless we hide it. Last year foreign interests financed more 
than 70 percent of our $374 billion deficit. More than $1.8 trillion of 
this debt we now talk about, well, we do not talk about it on this side 
of the aisle, is held by foreign investors.
  I find it particularly ironic that we are considering legislation 
that would add $146 billion to that debt on the same day the House 
Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled to act on a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution. If a balanced budget amendment were 
already in the Constitution, we would not be able to continue following 
the budget policies being advocated by the majority. It seems only fair 
that those who support the amendment, as I do, be willing to budget 
accordingly by paying, rather than borrowing, for the policies they 
advocate.
  The legislation before us is a perfect example of why we need a 
balanced budget constitutional amendment, to protect the rights of 
future generations who are not represented in our political system, but 
will bear the burden of our decisions today. It is easy for politicians 
to vote for tax cuts or spending increases that will benefit current 
voters and leave the bill to our children and grandchildren who do not 
have a vote.
  Passing legislation cutting taxes or increasing spending without 
offsets today will increase the debt tax that must be paid by future 
generations and can never be repealed. The debt tax will consume 40 
percent of all individual income taxes paid this year and will keep 
growing as long as we continue to pass legislation putting our Nation 
deeper into debt.
  Continuing to run up the national debt will ensure that we and our 
children and grandchildren will be overtaxed for the rest of our lives. 
We should defeat this rule so the conferees can go back and put 
together a package that provides tax relief to working men and women 
without increasing taxes on our children and grandchildren.
  To my friend from New York (Mr. Reynolds), let me remind him, it took 
our country 204 years to borrow the first $1 trillion, 204 years. We 
are borrowing $1 trillion every year and a half under the policies that 
you have got the guts to stand up here and say we ought to keep 
following.
  Then vote for increasing the debt ceiling and tell the American 
people before November 2 this is the result of the policies. We are 
borrowing the money to have the policies that we are giving to you. 
Vote for us. Forget our grandchildren.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Well, there they go again. Let us have a plan where we will sell a 
loaf of bread that says we will cut middle class taxes, but then again, 
I do not really have a plan on how to do it.
  I have been in the majority before getting here and serving in the 
majority since the day I got here, but that majority of the previous 40 
years has nicely gotten trenched into the minority because they have a 
lot of rhetoric but they have not put forth a plan as to how to get the 
job done.
  So when you look at this, the Democrats have agreed to extending 
child tax credit, the 10 percent tax bracket, the marriage penalty 
relief, however, to accomplish the offsets they want, it means they 
have to come up with $130 billion of either tax hikes or spending cuts. 
The Democrats are not prepared to make that tough choice regarding 
which taxes to increase or which programs to cut. They want to come up 
and say, I am for cutting the middle class tax, but then again, I do 
not see this, I do not see that, BBA, debt, but there is never a 
solution.
  So the Democrats' plan is a zero sum game here, it provides tax 
relief with one hand and takes it away with the other. So the Members 
who should vote no on this rule are the ones not interested in helping 
millions of American families that deserve tax relief.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  This debate is about one basic thing. Do you think the money coming 
into the Federal Government is the people's money or the government's 
money?
  Number one, what are we talking about today? What we are talking 
about is whether we should keep taxes at the levels they are today. 
Should we keep the child tax credit where it is? Should we keep the 
marriage penalty relief where it is by and large? And what they are 
saying on the other side is, okay, if we want to keep these taxes from 
going up, we got to raise more taxes.
  So what we are looking at here is an emphasis. Is it the people's 
money or is it the government's money? We believe this is the people's 
money. We believe most importantly that people ought to be able to keep 
more of their paycheck in their pockets. And what we get from the other 
side is, to pay for this, let us raise taxes. So we are saying, to 
prevent these taxes from going up, we will raise taxes over here.
  What we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is accelerate the policies and 
keep the policies that have been working. Letting people keep more of 
their own hard earned money has been good for the economy and good for 
the individuals and good for the families of America. Just take a look 
at the fact that over the last year where we have had lower tax rates 
we have brought in

[[Page H7526]]

more revenues. That is right. We have got $56 billion in higher 
revenues this year, the deficit has gone down, under the lower tax 
rates that we are paying today, than a year ago under higher tax rates.
  Why? Because we have better economic growth, because we have more 
jobs being produced in this economy, because more people are paying 
taxes because they have a job to pay taxes in.
  So why would we want to go down the road of raising taxes to keep 
these tax levels where they are, to kill the goose that is laying the 
golden egg that is giving us this economic recovery that is now 
underway. Point number one.
  Point number two, this is already in the President's budget. The 
President's budget, which is to slash the deficit in half within 5 
years, accommodates this policy. I wish we had a budget resolution in 
full force which is what we passed in the House which froze domestic 
spending, met our priorities overseas in fighting the war on terrorism, 
in protecting the homeland and froze domestic spending. Unfortunately, 
the other body failed to do this.
  So the question before us on this rule is do you think that the 
middle class families ought to be able to keep more of their own money? 
Do you think that these tax extenders which would go away and raise 
taxes on the economy and raise taxes on businesses should come into law 
or not? Or should we keep these tax increases from hitting the economy? 
Should we have keep these taxes from being raised on families, and is 
the only way to do that to just raise taxes on someone else?
  No. Let us put the emphasis where it ought to be, on spending. Let us 
put the emphasis on where it ought to be, on letting people keep more 
hard earned money in their paychecks, in their wallets. Let us not put 
the emphasis on continuing to raise taxes.
  There is a fundamental, philosophical difference between the two 
parties. You are seeing it on display here on the House floor. We just 
fundamentally disagree. We believe that people ought to be able to keep 
more of their own hard-earned money. It is a belief we have. And that 
belief has translated time and time again, under Jack Kennedy, under 
Calvin Coolidge, under Ronald Reagan, and, yes, now under this current 
President, to produce better economic growth, better economic policy 
and, yes, more revenues. That is what is happening today.
  Let us keep the taxes low. Let us prevent the families have having 
tax increases. Let us not raise taxes. Let us keep them low. I urge 
adoption of this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  If I could say to the previous speaker, the idea of it being the 
people's money, obviously, all taxes are the people's money. It is also 
the people's debt that we are running up. They might want us to have 
some consideration for that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, today we prepare to pass what this majority 
has called ``The All American Tax Relief Act.'' But that name masks the 
fact that the Republicans are, in fact, increasing the taxes on 4 
million working Americans. If I could make reference to the prior 
speaker, these are 4 million people who are getting their taxes 
increased. Because the House Republican leadership refused to lower the 
income threshold for the child tax credit, 9 million children are being 
deliberately left out of the tax relief that is included in this 
legislation. This is the story.
  The eligibility level for the child tax credit will rise to $11,000 
next year. So a family making $10,000, that qualifies now will be in 
for a rude awakening on April 15. They will not qualify. And because 
household income has actually declined by more than $1,500 under this 
administration, many families whose income taxes have gone down in the 
last 4 years will see their child tax credit shrink or even disappear 
next year because of this bill. So much for no new taxes.
  And the Republican leadership has demonstrated the depth of their 
disdain for these families, saying that the child tax credit is not 
intended to serve as a ``welfare program.'' But these families are not 
on welfare. They work hard. They earn the minimum wage. And I would 
challenge any Member of this body to raise a family earning the minimum 
wage. It is just about impossible. As a matter of fact, this body voted 
itself a raise in salary just not a week ago.
  Righting this injustice would cost about $4.3 billion, a little more 
than a third of the cost of the $12 billion in tax breaks for big 
businesses in this bill.
  This very morning, The Wall Street Journal, the article on page 2, 
some top companies avoided Federal income tax under Bush. So much for 
the people being able to get a break. It would appear that the friends 
of the administration, the large corporations are getting a break. 
Eighty-two of the country's largest profitable corporations have paid 
no Federal income tax in at least one of the last 3 years. Yet this 
Republican leadership saw fit to give them more tax breaks while 
raising taxes on minimum wage families and middle class families.
  What this administration does is reward wealth and it taxes wages. So 
this is the All American Tax Relief. Eighty-two of our most profitable 
corporations, companies like Enron, pay nothing in income tax. Twelve 
billion dollars in tax breaks at the last minute for businesses. Nine 
million children are left out in the cold.
  I want to remind this majority, those children are every bit as 
American as the rest. They deserve better than this tax.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we are getting down 
into election year, and I am so used to the other side of the aisle 
using class warfare, more importantly, I guess the American people are, 
that it is totally false, the information coming out here.
  The information is false. The bill does not increase taxes on anyone. 
It actually increases the refundability of the child tax credit for low 
income families; $23 billion comes back to low income working families 
to help them, and they do not pay income tax in the category that is 
the outlay.
  So, in other words, low income families who pay no income tax at all 
still will receive an additional $23 billion in the bill.

                              {time}  1700

  As I said, Mr. Speaker, it is an election year. Prior to 2001, the 
child credit was refundable only for those families with three or more 
children. This President, under 2001 tax relief, made all families with 
children eligible for the refundable child credit.
  The size of the refundable credit is based on the family's earned 
income in excess of $10,000, which is indexed for inflation; and what I 
am seeing from the other side of the aisle is argument that the $10,000 
limit should not be indexed for inflation so that families can receive 
a bigger check from the government. Ironically, they did not make this 
argument in 2001 when the refund was created in the first place.
  It is very important that our colleagues understand $23 billion of 
outlays are going to help people who do not pay income tax in the low-
income levels of our society.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the Record at this 
point an article from the Boston Globe entitled ``Sticking it to 
working families,'' that shows how this Congress is raising taxes on 4 
million low-income families which support 9 million children.

                [From the Boston Globe, Sept. 21, 2004]

                    Sticking it to Working Families

                          (By Thomas Oliphant)

       Washington.--Only in George Bush's privileged America could 
     the following outrage occur:
       Despite the president's supposed theological objection to 
     tax increases, that is exactly what about 4 million families 
     with roughly 9 million children are about to experience, with 
     Bush's cynical support.
       The outrage is actually worse, because the shiv is about to 
     be stuck in these hand-working families under the guise of an 
     effort to help them.
       Congress is about to pass a catch-all measure allegedly 
     designed to deal with several

[[Page H7527]]

     problems affecting middle-income and lower-income working 
     families arising from the tax cuts of recent years. The 
     problems are a graphic illustration of how shoddy legislation 
     written by people who mostly focus on big-shot lobbyists can 
     cause ordinary Americans to plummet through the cracks. At 
     issue is the child tax credit--which first appeared in tax 
     law in the late 1990s in a budget deal between the Clinton 
     administration and the Republican Congress. This provision 
     permits a deduction from income taxes due for each child 
     under the age of 17 in a household. In 2001, the value of the 
     credit was set to gradually increase to $1,000 per child, but 
     in the package of additional tax cuts enacted two years 
     later, the phase-in was eliminated and the full, $1,000 
     figure was made immediately effective.
       The problem arises because parts of the law governing the 
     child tax credit are ``indexed'' to remove the effects of 
     inflation and parts are not. The value of the credit itself, 
     for example, is not indexed; neither are the income amounts 
     above which the value of the credit begins to phase out 
     ($75,000 for a head of household, $110,000 for a married 
     couple).
       On the other hand, the income thresholds above which a 
     working person can claim a ``refundable'' child tax credit--a 
     check from the government if income tax liability is so low 
     to begin with that the person would not get his full credit--
     are indexed for inflation. The original legislation permitted 
     a refundable child tax credit for families worth up to 10 
     percent of their earnings above $10,000. That indexed 
     earnings amount is now $10,750.
       And there's the rub. An analysis by the Urban Institute and 
     the University of Wisconsin offers the example of a married 
     couple with two children who work at the federal minimum wage 
     of a puny $5.15 an hour. Three years ago, their income of 
     $20,6000 would have produced a child tax credit refund of 
     $1,060. With a higher threshold two years later, the credit's 
     value drops 5 percent to $1,010.
       But that's just the tip of the iceberg. As ordinary 
     Americans know too well, incomes downscale in the United 
     States have been worse than stagnant in this decade. Not only 
     has the minimum wage not budged in seven years, but family 
     incomes above that have also suffered severely since 2000, 
     and the suffering has been proportionately greater the lower 
     you go on the income scale.
       Moreover, this decline in earnings (even before inflation 
     in cases like workers with less than a high school education 
     or single parents) has been accompanied by large increases in 
     the cost of necessities--including everything from gasoline 
     to health insurance for those low-income workers lucky enough 
     to have any. In the expert analysis--Leonard Burman of the 
     Urban Institute and John Karl Scholz of the University of 
     Wisconsin--a single parent who got a $109 credit in 2001 
     would have received nothing last year even though her 
     earnings fell.
       Looking ahead to next year and beyond, it is helpful that 
     the refund rate will rise to 15 from 10 percent, but it will 
     largely ignore the working families with the lowest incomes. 
     As the analysis sums up: ``The higher phase-in rate will do 
     nothing to abate the underlying problem that arises from 
     stagnant income growth at the bottom of the earnings 
     distribution. Low-income households with earnings that grow 
     slower than inflation will see their child tax credit erode 
     in real terms every year, and at a rate that is even faster 
     than their decline in real earnings.''
       Bush and his Republican Congress buddies could fix all this 
     substantially, by simply restoring the original $10,000 
     threshold. The cost to the government would have been $4.3 
     billion over five years.
       The fact that they did nothing is eloquent testimony to the 
     status of working families in today's political culture. The 
     next time Bush trumpets his opposition to tax increases, John 
     Kerry should say something about the 4 million families Bush 
     prefers not to count.

  Mr. Speaker, low- and middle-income Americans need help. They need 
help paying for college, health care, and things that every family 
needs. When I heard the House is going to do this, I thought, oh, boy, 
I better get my rubber stamp and get out and help the President do it. 
It sounded like a good idea. The middle class has been pummeled in the 
last years.
  Between 1979 and the year 2000, the income of the top 5 percent in 
this country has increased 200 percent. During the same period, the 
income of the middle class grew by 12 percent, and low-income families 
have seen their income actually drop. Roughly during the same period, 
the top 5 percent saw their income tax rates sliced in half and enjoyed 
a precipitous decline in taxation of their investment income. 
Meanwhile, Social Security and Medicare taxes, a burden carried 
primarily by the low- and middle-class taxpayers, grew 82 percent 
faster than their incomes did.
  Mr. Speaker, when President Bush came in, income inequality got 
worse. The Bush tax cuts increased the after-tax income of the top 5 
percent by 8 percent, while our middle class watched their incomes 
decline during the same period.
  We have to do something to help the middle class; but after reading 
this bill, I learned that my colleagues are asking us to play charades 
today.
  This bill gives the average middle-class household $169 of tax 
relief, but guess what, it gives the top 5 percent $2,000 worth of tax 
cuts. So for every dollar that my colleagues provide in tax relief to 
the middle income, they provide $10 additional for the top 5 percent of 
income earners, which happens to include ourselves. Where is the 
fairness? Where are our priorities if we vote for this thing?
  New data from the U.S. Labor Department indicates that since Bush 
took office at least 670,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost to 
foreign trade. The CRS, the Congressional Research Service, recently 
estimated that 860,000 service sector jobs were shifted offshore in 
2003 and 2004.
  Mr. Bush went to Harvard Law School or went to business school, I 
guess; but I do not think it had much effect on him. He has not asked 
the Congress to do anything to address our competitiveness problem. He 
just asked us to pass tax cuts for the richest among us. Mr. Speaker, 
he may have gone to grad school or business school, but it really has 
done nothing for him.
  The bill before us is going to add $146 billion to our budget 
deficit. Where are we going to get that from? We are going to borrow 
it. We are going to go to the Chinese and say, hey, we have got some 
notes we want to sell you; would you like to buy some of our notes? How 
about you, Japanese; would you like to buy some of our notes? That is 
where this tax cut is coming from. The gentleman says it is coming from 
our money; it is not. It is coming out of the Japanese if they buy the 
bonds.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Half of the cost of this bill is child credit, which has an income 
limit. High-income people do not qualify. So I want to make sure that 
is on the record after my colleague just spoke.
  My colleague is right, though, that low-income families do need help, 
and that is just exactly what this conference report does. It provides 
$23 billion in outlays. In other words, low-income families who pay no 
income taxes at all will receive an additional $23 billion from the 
government under this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, for those of my colleagues 
who follow the debates on the House floor, they know in the past month 
they have heard a lot of talk about morals, about patriotism, and sound 
economic policy. I do not see how adding $146 billion to our Nation's 
debt makes any of them better. As a matter of fact, I would like the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) to look me in the eye because I 
am going to tell him that I think it is immoral that the Republican-led 
Congress has added $1,712,281,371,000 worth of debt to our Nation, to 
our children; and I would like the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) 
to please look at me, because to our Nation's unborn children he has 
stuck them with that bill.
  I will tell my colleagues that it is immoral that this Republican-led 
Congress since May 9, 2001, has stolen, and please listen to my words, 
stolen $521 billion from the Social Security trust fund. When my 
colleagues take money that people paid into Social Security and use it 
to the pay for someone else's tax break, they have stolen it. It is not 
there and they have no plan to pay it back.
  I will say it is unpatriotic that in the 10 years that my colleagues 
have controlled this House that they have increased the national debt 
by $2,557,432,000,000; and by the way, one-third of all of the debt 
accumulated in this country in over 225 years, one-third of it has been 
accumulated in less than 10 years by a Republican House of 
Representatives.
  Lastly, I want to hear someone tell me how it is sound economic 
policy for a Nation to borrow $3 for every $1 given back in tax breaks, 
and please check the Treasury figures. My colleagues have added 
$1,857,747,000,000 to the debt in order to give people $620 billion 
back.

[[Page H7528]]

  So I will question my colleagues' morality for sticking my kids with 
their bills. I will question their patriotism because I think they are 
bankrupting this country; and lastly, I will question their so-called 
sound economic policy that has gone out and borrowed three bucks for 
every buck they gave back in tax breaks. This is not what is good for 
our country. It is not what is good for our kids, and it is not what is 
good for America.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule. I urge my colleagues, for 
once, let us draw the line and start thinking of the future of this 
country instead of seeing how many cute things they can do in the 40 
days before the election that will get them a few more campaign 
contributions at the expense of trillions of dollars in debt.
  The folks who said we are borrowing this money from the Chinese, 
every word of that is true. We now owe the Communist Chinese $300 
billion. Tell me how that is good for our country.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Just as I listened carefully, I thought I understood that the 
Republicans since being in the control of the majority have brought 
about a third of the country's debt in policy decisions. I guess that 
would mean two-thirds of the debt would be borne by the Democratic 
minority party.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I find this debate to be extremely 
interesting. The gentleman on the opposite side of the aisle asks why 
are we listening to Joe Scarborough. Well, not only are we listening to 
him, I am listening to Pat Buchanan. Pat Buchanan said my colleagues 
are a bunch of fake conservatives, they have run up this deficit, and I 
have to remind my colleagues when Bill Clinton left office we had a 
reserve. We had money in the bank, and since they have been in power, 
the Republicans have been in power, this administration, they have been 
spending like drunken sailors.
  My colleagues have created a $7.3 trillion tax debt. Buchanan says my 
colleagues are not true conservatives; and at the same time that they 
created this debt and it keeps growing, they had the audacity to come 
into the Committee on the Judiciary and pretend to attempt to pass a 
balanced budget amendment. We know that that was just a political act. 
As a matter of fact, one of my colleagues reminded my colleagues that 
they are in charge of the House, they have the majority in the Senate, 
they have the White House. They could work to balance this budget 
anytime they want to. They do not need to have a balanced budget 
amendment, but they cannot do that because they are in the political 
mode in an election year, and they come back with the most outrageous 
public policy to extend tax cuts.
  It does not take a Harvard scholar to know that we cannot keep 
spending, spending, spending and at the same time reduce the amount of 
money that is coming in. My colleagues are mismanaging $4 billion a 
month, and they cannot win with the $4 billion. $4 billion a month, no 
post-war planning, we cannot even take Fallujah and Najaf. The soldiers 
do not have all of their equipment, and my colleagues are coming back 
for more money.
  Well, on top of that, when we look at what is happening domestically, 
44 million Americans with no health insurance, a housing crisis, 
veterans crying, and my colleagues are going to come in here and give a 
tax cut to the richest corporations and Americans in this country. It 
is outrageous. It does not make good sense. They ought to be ashamed of 
themselves.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It just is something, I would almost like to look at that particular 
time transcript before 1994, when I think of the failed liberal 
spending policies of the previous majority; but we are here today and 
we have to reflect that in the 21st century we have faced 9/11, a 
recession, corporate scandal, reinvestment into the types of things 
that we have had to do in order to get the economy moving again, create 
jobs, open opportunity, but also to make sure that we are moving again 
and moving strong on homeland security and our national defense, which 
was all but beaten up pretty well in the nineties.
  As we move forward, we have also done it with the aspect of a 
President outlining in this budget, which I hope this Congress, both 
sides of the aisle, might hold the line on the spending and cuts so 
that we can achieve the deficit reduction by cutting it in half over 5 
years as the President outlined, and then how the House Republican 
majority put forth in its budget this year as well, the plan to do 
that.
  But I will also say that while I have enjoyed listening to comments 
from the sidelines about the aspect of tax cuts or how to help middle-
class Americans not see a tax increase or low-income Americans not see 
a tax increase or expanding $23 billion of outlays to low-income 
Americans who would be benefited by this legislation today, I have not 
seen any plan that is even on the table from the other side of the 
aisle that will make the tough choices we have with this legislation 
and the underlying bill or they have a proposal of raising taxes or 
cutting programs, some other solution than this.
  But I do know this, Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues vote ``no'' on 
this, they are voting to raise middle America and the low-income 
families of this country's taxes, and if my colleagues vote ``yes'' for 
this rule, and they vote ``yes'' for the underlying legislation, they 
are going to keep millions of Americans from having to pay more in 
taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am going to be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. 
If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment that 
directs the enrolling Clerk to add language to the conference report 
that pays for this bill. The previous question directs the Secretary of 
the Treasury to pay for the costs of the bill by rolling back part of 
the tax breaks of those incomes exceeding $1 million annually.

                              {time}  1715

  These millionaires will still receive a substantial portion of their 
tax cuts, but a modest rollback will offset the cost of this bill for 
middle-income American families.
  Mr. Speaker, I think many Members of this body want to see the tax 
breaks in this bill extended. I know I do, 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 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. A ``no'' 
vote will allow the House to amend the rule to make the changes 
necessary for this conference report to pay for these tax cuts, and not 
increase our already-bloated and record-breaking deficit. However, a 
``yes'' vote on the previous question will not allow the changes to be 
made and will drive up our debt to the tune of $146 billion. I urge a 
``no'' vote on the previous question so we can fix this conference 
report.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas 
(Mr. Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding me this time. I cannot think of a more disturbing situation 
than we face today. I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
talk about this great prosperity that we are enjoying. We all know that 
is not true. We all know that the average family in this country, at 
least in the First Congressional District of Arkansas, the average 
family has lost $1,500 a year in income. The cost of gasoline has 
doubled. The cost of health care is so high they just simply cannot 
afford it anymore, yet we are presented with this idea.
  If we do this ridiculous thing, and we continue on this path of 
reducing taxes on the very wealthiest people in this country, and allow 
working people to be taken advantage of in the way that is happening 
today, it is going to destroy this country. I agree with the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), this is immoral.
  It is wrong to continue to add debt on top of debt on top of debt on 
our children and grandchildren. No right-thinking person in the world 
would do that, and yet the Republicans all continue to want to do that. 
And then my

[[Page H7529]]

colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about how prosperous we 
are.
  My goodness alive, if we are doing so good, how did we go from a $5 
trillion surplus to $3 trillion in additional debt? That is impossible 
if we are doing well. You do not have to be all broken out with brains 
to figure this out. My colleagues do not want to do this to their 
children and grandchildren, and I do not either.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the amendment I referred to earlier 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, 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 the balance of my time, and 
in my closing remarks, I just want to remind my colleagues that this 
rule gives us the opportunity to have the debate on the Working 
Families Tax Relief Act of 2004. It extends family tax provisions 
through 2010, it provides assistance to military families in combat 
zones, it provides and extends relief from the alternative minimum tax, 
or AMT, through 2005, it creates a uniform definition of a child for 
tax purposes, and it extends 23 expiring tax provisions that end this 
year unless they are authorized in extension.
  Mr. Speaker, a ``yes'' vote today seizes on the momentum we have 
created towards a strong economy and sends a clear message that this 
Congress supports putting real dollars back where they belong, in the 
hands of hardworking men and women. A ``no'' vote simply prevents this 
needed relief from becoming a reality and denies our constituents the 
assistance they have earned. In other words, will provide a tax 
increase on them if this bill is not passed.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the rule 
and the underlying conference report.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I was incorrect when I mentioned in my 
opening remarks that the conference report included a provision 
suspending tax-exempt status of designated terrorist organizations. 
While it was included in an earlier version of the bill, that provision 
has already been signed into law under the Military Family Tax Relief 
Act and it was therefore unnecessary to include it in the Working 
Families Tax Relief Act.
  The text of the amendment previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is 
as follows:

  Previous Question of H. Res. __ Rule on H.R. 1308--Child Tax Credit 
                           Conference Report

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       ``That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider the 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. All points of order against 
     the conference report and against its consideration are 
     waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.
       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 add at the 
     end of the bill the following (and conform the table of 
     contents accordingly):

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

       (a) In General.--Section 1 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(j) Additional Tax on High Income Tax-payers.--
       ``(1) In General.--The amount determined under subsection 
     (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e), as the case may be, shall be 
     increased by the applicable percentage 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).
       ``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the applicable percentage is the percentage determined 
     by the Secretary to be necessary for the Working Families Tax 
     Relief Act of 2004 to be revenue neutral over the 10-fiscal 
     year period beginning with fiscal year 2005.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2004.

  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, 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.
  Without objection, and notwithstanding any intervening debate, the 
Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electric vote 
on the question of adopting the resolution.
  There was no objection.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 212, 
nays 193, not voting 28, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 470]

                               YEAS--212

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

                               NAYS--193

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)

[[Page H7530]]


     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--28

     Bishop (GA)
     Bonner
     Cannon
     Collins
     Deal (GA)
     Delahunt
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gephardt
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Herseth
     Istook
     Kleczka
     Lipinski
     Lucas (KY)
     Majette
     McCarthy (MO)
     Miller (FL)
     Myrick
     Nunes
     Osborne
     Quinn
     Smith (WA)
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Thompson (MS)
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1744

  Mr. EMANUEL changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan and Mr. TERRY changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 470, 
the previous question, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, 
I would have voted ``no.''
  (Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to speak out of order and 
to revise and extend his remarks.)


                       Congratulating Porter Goss

  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this moment to inform the 
House that one of our most distinguished Members is leaving us and will 
resign as of midnight tonight.
  Yesterday, the other body did something good. They confirmed our 
colleague, Porter Goss, as the next director of Central Intelligence. I 
have known Porter Goss for a long time. He has been a person that I 
have relied on for a variety of issues. He has great judgment, an 
abundance of common sense and a real ability to bring people together 
to get good things done for the American people. Porter has been 
chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for 8 years. 
He knows the CIA inside out, and he has good ideas on how to make sure 
our intelligence agencies are the best in the world.
  Porter, we are going to miss you, but we know you will be doing your 
best to make this Nation, America, more secure. Thank you, and God 
bless you.

                              {time}  1745

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235, 
noes 167, not voting 31, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 471]

                               AYES--235

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     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
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--167

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

                             NOT VOTING--31

     Bishop (GA)
     Bonner
     Cannon
     Capps
     Collins
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     Doggett
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Herseth
     Istook
     Kleczka
     Lipinski
     Lucas (KY)
     McCarthy (MO)
     Miller (FL)
     Myrick
     Nunes
     Osborne
     Paul
     Quinn
     Smith (WA)
     Tauzin
     Thompson (MS)
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter

[[Page H7531]]




                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1757

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  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, during rollcall vote No. 471, 
on agreeing to H. Res. 794, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 794, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1308) to amend the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 to end certain abusive tax practices, to provide 
tax relief and simplification, and for other purposes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
today.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) 
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the conference report for H.R. 
1308, the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004. It is, I think, a 
significant and timely agreement. It will prevent tax increases on 
millions of Americans and their families. We will renew the current law 
tax extenders like the R and E tax credit and take a major step towards 
simplifying the Tax Code by implementing the uniform definition of a 
child provision supported by the administration, the Senate and the 
House. This conference report builds upon the President's 2001 and 2003 
tax relief initiatives.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The chairman of the committee is correct, this is timely. It is on 
the eve of an election. So, therefore, Republicans believe that all tax 
cuts should be held back, especially the child credit, until election 
time. And I assume that they believe that we will not notice that they 
are running us deeper and deeper and deeper into deficit. But since 
they have no awareness or do not care about it, then once again we have 
a political issue that is brought to us on the floor.
  How long has it been since the Republicans were talking about a 
balanced budget amendment? How long has it been since it was supposed 
to be Democrats who just tax and spend, but they were the ones who were 
concerned about the future of our children and our children's children?
  So now they have brought a very popular bill that they are not going 
to get much problem from the Democrats in terms as to whether or not 
the middle income this time should enjoy some of the benefits that in 
the past they just lavished on the very wealthy. And so if we are going 
to extend the tax credits for children, a child tax credit, if we are 
going to make certain that we give some relief for married couples, if 
we expand the 10 percent tax bracket, who would contest these types of 
things?
  It is true that in the conference there did not appear to be that 
much concern about working parents that were at the poverty line. As 
most of the Members know, the present legislation index, the threshold 
at $10,000, because of inflation it is now up to $10,750. As a result 
of that, some 4 million working people will be denied the tax credit, 
which comes to over 9 million children would be denied.

                              {time}  1800

  In the conference when the question was raised, why can you not make 
provisions to take care of the children of those people that work every 
day and live in an inflationary society and not have them cut off, the 
prevailing view was this was a tax bill and not a welfare bill.
  Then we had some controversy where we were able to get the majority 
to adjust to make certain that those young people that were fighting in 
combat and not having to pay taxes on their combat pay, that 
adjustments would be made that they still could be eligible for the 
Earned Income Tax Credit. But somehow they only thought that they could 
do it for 2 years.
  The President says he does not even know whether we can win the war, 
and then the majority said that they would be glad to do it, except 
that the Internal Revenue Service would have difficulty because it is 
so complex. Then some Members said it was abuse. Having said that, I do 
not think you have to be a rocket genius to figure out how many poor 
infantrymen we have in Iraq and how many of them have children and how 
many of them are poor and how many of them we should say, hey, you are 
fighting for this country, and we got to give you the same benefits as 
we give anyone else.
  So the reason given that we would not make this benefit permanent was 
because it was too complicated for the Internal Revenue Service to 
handle and we would like to see how this works.
  Well, these are the poison pills that are put into a piece of 
legislation, that the majority is just hoping that they will be able to 
say that Democrats voted against the provisions to provide tax benefits 
for the middle class.
  But one day someone is going to have to answer to these young people 
and their kids. One day history is going to ask us, where were we when 
this deficit was mounting? Where were we when we turned the moneys that 
we are borrowing over to the Chinese and the Japanese? Where were we 
when the interest on the debt exceeded that of discretionary spending? 
Where were those responsible Republicans when they decided to do the 
political thing, rather than the right thing?
  Well, I, for one, am just as political as they are, and even though 
they did not pay for this bill, they are saying there were savings, 
there were loopholes, there were things they could have done. But 
because they are so anxious to get the jobs bill, this is the newly-
labeled jobs bill, you know, this was the bill that it turned out that 
the World Trade Organization said we had about $4 billion liability, so 
they waited for years to get us deeper and deeper in trouble, for 
tariffs to be against our exporters, and then say why not do what we 
always wanted to do, reduce taxes for corporations?
  Some of us, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and I, thought 
that was a great idea. How little did we know on that bill they only 
meant corporations that were moving their jobs overseas. But that is 
another bill for another day, and that is a political issue.
  But here we are again, and I hope no one has to say that I voted yes 
and I voted no on this one, because they are driving the deficit, and 
we do not think that the people who deserve a tax benefit should pay 
the penalty, when deficits mean nothing for the $1.4 trillion tax cut 
they gave to the very wealthy.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York once again has painted 
primarily a conspiracy that this was done somehow in a clandestine way. 
What I really want to do is make people understand that on the 
conference there were five Senators, three Republicans, two Democrats; 
and from the House there were three House Members, two Republicans, one 
Democrat. This provision was voted seven ayes and one no. It should not 
take you much time to figure out who the ``no'' was.
  You also need to know that the Senator from Arkansas, Ms. Blanche 
Lincoln, had she had her way, based upon the amendments she offered to 
the conference committee which were not accepted, would have raised the 
price of this bill by almost $100 billion. For those people, those 
families, those struggling lower income people who the gentleman from 
New York describes as though they are getting nothing out of this bill, 
it is just a total cliche to say this is another tax cut for the rich 
as it involves $23 billion in outlays for those very same people that 
the gentleman from New York says were left out of the bill.
  It was a bipartisan agreement. We were able to hold down the 
exuberance of the Democrats in the Senate. I know I am not supposed to 
mention the Senate, but I want everybody to remember it was the other 
body that would have

[[Page H7532]]

had this bill $100 billion higher. It is not because of the fiscal 
restraint on the part of the majority in putting this package together.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair would remind Members 
that references to Senators should be confined to their sponsorship of 
actual measures, avoiding characterizations.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social 
Security.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I hear my friend from New York talking about deficits. 
There is one deficit that he did not talk about, and that is family 
deficits, the deficit where so many families are struggling and trying 
to do the right thing, go to work, come home, take care of their kids, 
and this bill addresses that.
  I am sure that there are thousands or tens of thousands in the 
gentleman's district that are going to profit greatly from this bill, 
and maybe live a little better because of what is in this bill.
  I think that we need to have a good debate over the issues and not 
sarcasm. When you get sarcasm involved and talking in broad terms, you 
are covering over what is in this bill. I would like to go down a few 
of the provisions in there.
  It extends family tax relief provisions through 2010. What does that 
mean? Well, the marriage penalty relief. Everybody is for the marriage 
penalty relief. I would hope so.
  The expanded 10 percent income tax bracket. If this does not pass, 
those brackets are going to go back up, and those are the lowest income 
tax brackets that we have.
  The $1,000 tax credit for children. This is tremendously important 
for working young families.
  It provides assistance for military families in combat. I have talked 
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) about this very issue and 
he is very much aware of it and very much in favor of it. Because of 
the technicality of combat pay not being included in income, they lose 
out on tax credits of this nature, and we correct that for them. No 
person should be penalized because they are in a combat zone, for God's 
sake.
  I would like to talk too about extending relief on the alternative 
minimum tax. I know my friend from New York is very concerned about the 
Alternate Minimum Tax. He, as I, would like to do away with the whole 
thing. I think it is a huge mess. We do take care of it, and provide 
that people with $58,000 in income a year are exempt from the amount if 
they are a married couple or $40,250 for a single individual. These are 
tremendously important.
  There are other provisions in the bill, such as, of course, the 
extension of the expiring provisions, which there are some 23 of them 
listed, and these are available right here at the desk if anybody wants 
to look at them. I can tell you that almost all of them have great 
bipartisan support.
  I do not know of anything in this bill that can be described as a 
Republican provision. It is a good provision, it is a working 
provision, and, yes, it is a jobs bill, and it is for hard-working 
people.
  There is nothing in here for high income people of any great extent 
other than the fact that it will help preserve capital, which is 
something we all should want to do.
  So I would tell all the Members on both sides of the aisle, before 
you vote on this, take a close look at it. I would hate to go out and 
say that I voted to do away with the provision that was extinguishing 
the marriage penalty. I would hate to go out and say that I was doing 
away with the $1,000 child credit. These are important to all people.
  So I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote yes on 
this bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, with great pleasure, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), an 
outstanding member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will not be sarcastic. I might be somewhat morally 
indignant. And I really think it is up to individual Members how they 
choose to vote on this bill. But I do think the bill clearly defines 
the Republican Party and it clearly defines the difference, and it 
defines compassion and conservatism as the Republicans understand it.
  One might say there is some fascism in the bill and there is some 
socialism. That is okay too. But let us look at what the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel) talked about earlier.
  4.3 million families in this bill, because of the Republican refusal 
to freeze the $10,000 cap on income, 4.3 million families below $10,750 
a year will have a tax increase. That means 9.2 million children living 
in those families will have less money while their parents' income has 
stayed the same or gone up slightly. To fix that would cost $4.3 
billion. There is not enough compassion on the Republican side of the 
aisle to find $4.3 billion over 5 years to help those 9 million of the 
poorest children in this country.
  That is your Republican compassion. That is indecent, it is un-
Christian and it is immoral.
  Now, this same Republican Party has countenanced a Tax Code on the 
other side. Eighty-two of the Fortune 500 companies, the most 
profitable companies in the country, paid no taxes over 3 years, and 
those 82 companies received $12.6 billion in refunds. So the 
Republicans are willing to give 82 rich, biggest corporations $12.6 
billion.
  That is conservatism. But they do not have the compassion to let $4.3 
billion be spent on the 9 million poorest children. There you have it. 
The Republicans will help 82 of the richest corporations with three 
times as much money as it would take to have helped the 9 million 
poorest children in this country.
  So whatever you vote on this bill, it does not make any difference, 
but know the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if we are trying to draw a line between Democrats and 
Republicans, then I think we really ought to understand that prior to 
the 2001 tax bill, the provision that my friend from California is 
getting exorcised over, allowed that refundability only for families 
with three or more children. That is how generous they were. President 
Bush, the Republican House and a Republican Senate extended that 
provision to all families.
  They were in power for 40 years and thought it was appropriate and 
fair to provide refundability only to families with three or more 
children. We said that did not make sense. We said it should be 
provided to all families. Yet you just heard the diatribe about what we 
do or do not do. That is actually what we did.
  In addition to that, it just seems to me that a Senator from Arkansas 
and a Senator from Montana would differ with the gentleman from 
California about their party affiliation. All of the Senators, Democrat 
and Republican, supported the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the chair of the Subcommittee on Health.

                              {time}  1815

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise in strong and enthusiastic support of H.R. 1308. We made a 
promise in 2001 to provide income tax relief to every working American. 
And indeed, extending the marriage penalty relief, extending the $1,000 
tax credit per child, leaving families with more disposable income to 
meet the needs of their children, and extending the 10 percent bracket 
are important to the well-being of our families and working people in 
America.
  But I particularly congratulate the chairman on extending crucial 
provisions in the Tax Code that have recently or are about to expire. 
Allowing the expensing of cleanup costs associated with brownfields, 
old, polluted, industrial sites, helps jobs to be created in our cities 
and is absolutely crucial to the future of economic opportunity to our 
city folks and to the tax base of our urban areas. Extending the work 
opportunities tax credit and the welfare-to-work tax credit means hard-
to-employ people, people who have spent time in jail, people who have 
very little education, get the work opportunity that they deserve with 
the

[[Page H7533]]

training that they need. In addition, extending the R&D tax credit 
allows American companies to invest in risky innovations. R&D is a 
gamble, even for the largest companies, but it is a gamble that often 
results in tremendous economic reward, and it is a gamble that must be 
taken for any nation that hopes to have a strong economy.
  Other nations have long recognized the benefits of subsidizing 
research and development. In a global economy where research and 
scientific experimentation can occur anywhere, the U.S. can ill afford 
to stand idle while France, Germany and other countries in Europe 
provide strong incentives for companies who do R&D on their soil. 
Indeed, other nations use tax dollars to subsidize their companies. Our 
European trading partners, for example, funnel billions of dollars, 
direct and generous loans, to their companies to develop products that 
compete directly with American goods. The R&D credit is about 
competitiveness. It is about jobs in every community across America, 
and it helps small and medium-sized companies as well.
  According to a recent Ernst & Young report, more than 4,500 firms 
with assets of less than $1 million claim the credit. That is 25 
percent of all firms. For the smallest firms in the study, the value of 
the credit, on average, was about 9.4 percent of their assets.
  The R&D tax credit has a long history of bipartisan support, and 
while I am disappointed that the credit was not enhanced, and I will 
continue to press that issue to make it more accessible to start-up 
firms, I urge strong support for the bill.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me make it clear and try to set the direction in which this 
debate is going. We do not find Democrats disputing the merits of the 
tax cuts. We are not even challenging the fact that Republicans have 
decided to do this on the eve of the election. All we are saying is 
that you could have given our combat people a better deal by making 
their extension permanent, and you certainly could have given the 
working poor an opportunity to enjoy this even though they make 
$10,750.
  The problem we have with this is the fact that you are running us 
$149 billion back into the deficit when you know, and it will go 
unchallenged, that in the committee, in the conference, we did have the 
loopholes to repair this and to bring to this floor a bill that would 
have been paid for, that would have passed with all Democrats and all 
Republican votes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cardin), a Member whose career has been spent trying to protect all 
Americans, especially those who are struggling to become part of the 
mainstream.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy my distinguished chairman 
comparing the records of the Democrats and Republicans on major issues. 
Let me try to complete that a little bit more, if I might. It was the 
Democratic administration under President Clinton that brought our 
budget into balance, and it was the Republican administration that 
undid all of that good work.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democrats support responsible tax legislation. The 
tax provisions in this legislation are well-targeted to extend 
important tax provisions that help most Americans and help our economy.
  But there are two glaring flaws in the bill before us. The gentleman 
from California (Mr. Stark) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) have already talked about the limited impact on low-wage 
families, particularly on military families. We did not do what was 
right as it related to the child credit for those groups of people. It 
certainly was not treated with equity as to what we did with the other 
provisions on extensions.
  The second major flaw is that bill adds $150 billion to our national 
debt, on top of the $422 billion deficit we have in this one year.
  I listened to my distinguished chairman talk about what happened in 
conference, the efforts made by some of my democratic colleagues to 
increase the extent of this bill and increase the cost of this bill. 
But what my distinguished chairman did not say is that the Democrats 
also offered in conference ways to offset some of the costs, and that 
was rejected by our Republican friends.
  We believe that this bill should be paid for. The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark) has already given us one example of how we could 
pay for this bill. The Wall Street Journal today reported 82 companies, 
all which have benefited from these tax cuts, pay no taxes at all. We 
could have them pay some of these taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, if we could just revisit the tax changes for the 
wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, we could not only pay for the entire 
cost of this bill, we could also help reduce our national debt and 
deficit.
  So, Mr. Speaker, our objection is that we should be fiscally 
responsible. We should have paid for this bill. The underlying 
provisions are good and should be enacted.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to tell my friend, the gentleman from Maryland, 
that the statement that the minority from the Senate offered offsets 
for the provisions that they offered simply is not true. They did not 
offer offsets. There were provisions that were offered that did not 
cover it. There were offers for particular portions of the bill, and 
there were offers to simply cut the bill in the tax credit areas to 
cover the cost of the new items added, and on the largest amendment 
offered by the minority, there was not coverage for the cost.
  So the gentleman's statement that they provided offsets for the 
entire bill, including the amendments that they offered, if that was 
the intent of the gentleman's statement, simply is not accurate.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) offered in conference to revisit 
the tax breaks on the upper 1 percent, and it is my understanding that 
that would pay for the entire cost of the bill. That is the reason why 
I stated that.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I understand the 
gentleman's statement, and that was with respect to the underlying 
bill, but there were amendments offered which were not offset. The 
gentleman indicated that yes, there were increases offered, but offsets 
were provided as well. That statement simply is not factual.
  Certainly, the gentleman from New York, who voted against the bill, 
provided a method which would take money away from individuals, 
increase their taxes, to distribute their income taxes, to distribute 
money to people who do not pay income taxes, but that was not on the 
portions that were offered by the Senators on the amendments that they 
offered.
  I will certainly concede the underlying bill was covered by making 
people pay more in income tax so money could be distributed to those 
who do not pay income tax, but the statement that all of the amendments 
that were offered that increased the cost were offset is simply not a 
factual statement. That is the only point.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would just yield for 
further clarification, I appreciate that statement, and the point is 
that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) 
would have covered all of those costs. I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland also knows that, 
under the United States Constitution, the purse strings are controlled 
by Congress under article I, not the President under article II. The 
reason we were able to balance the budget after all of those years was 
that, notwithstanding the fact that the Democrats captured the White 
House, which does not control the purse strings, the Republicans 
captured the Congress, House and Senate. Those who control the purse 
strings control the spending. The budget was balanced because of a 
Republican Congress, not a Democrat President.
  I would also have to tell my friends, as they review with indignation 
the combat pay provision included in the earned income credit, it used 
to be that way. But President Clinton in his administration recommended 
that in 2001 it be dropped. We accepted the Clinton

[[Page H7534]]

administration recommendation, and it was dropped. We are now 
reinstating it. And what people need to understand is, the reason 
President Clinton asked us to drop it is because it was just too 
complex. We have figured out a way, through election, to resolve that 
problem. Yet, when people voted to remove it, we did not hear all of 
the criticism. When we decide to put it back in, in an effective way, 
we get criticized. It just is interesting, the process here. Even when 
we are trying to help people in need, we get criticized.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), a member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, much of the substance of this bill has been repeated 
here on the Floor today, and I am not going to do that, but there are a 
couple of areas that I want to emphasize.
  Before I do that, though, I want to underscore what the chairman just 
said about balancing the budget under President Clinton. Another way of 
putting it, without referring specifically to articles in the 
Constitution, is to say that the President proposes, the Congress 
disposes. That is to say, the President can recommend things to the 
Congress, but it is the Congress that actually votes and passes budgets 
and passes appropriations bills and entitlement programs and the like.
  Prior to Republicans taking over the House and the Senate, President 
Clinton was saying that he could see deficits as far as the eye could 
see, over the horizon. It was only when Republicans took control of the 
purse strings, as the chairman put it, that we started enacting 
policies that increased revenues by cutting taxes and controlling 
spending and balancing the budget for the first time since the late 
1960s. It was the Republican Congress that did that, not President 
Clinton. And as the chairman said, the Constitution provides that it is 
the Congress that disposes.
  Now, the two areas that I want to emphasize in the bill, number one, 
the extension of expiring provisions in the Tax Code. In other words, 
there are some provisions in the Tax Code that have expired. They are 
no longer in effect, or they will expire this year. The gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) mentioned a few of those. Let me 
mention a few more. A deduction for computer donations, a $250 
deduction for teacher classroom expenses, a tax credit for electric 
produced from renewable sources, such as wind energy, a very promising 
technology for renewable energy production. A tax credit for electric 
vehicles, a deduction for clean fuel vehicles; those kinds of 
provisions that are in the Tax Code to encourage the development of 
renewable sources of energy, to encourage the efficiency of energy in 
this country, in the use of energy in this country, would be expiring 
if it were not for the passage of this bill.
  The second thing I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, is that anyone who 
votes no on this bill today is voting for a tax increase on the 
American people and on the middle class in this country, because almost 
all of these tax provisions go to the middle class. And if you vote no 
on this bill, you are saying, we are not going to renew these tax 
breaks for the middle class; we are going to increase taxes on the 
middle class. That is the bottom line on this bill.
  So let us be clear: If you vote for this bill, you are voting to 
allow taxes on the middle class to remain low. If you vote against this 
bill, you are voting to increase taxes on the middle class in this 
country. That is it, plain as day.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just like to note, I have had this lesson in civics, and the 
gentleman is correct, the Congress does dispose. And in the tenure of 
the current chair of the Committee on Ways and Means, he has disposed 
of a $5.6 trillion surplus, and he now has us a $3 trillion deficit. He 
is throwing away $8 trillion, in his Republican leadership of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, and that is not so bad.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. McDermott), a gentleman who has seen the inside of a military 
uniform.
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, here we are again with one of these 
election-year bills. I can imagine that there are people out there 
watching and listening to this debate and trying to make head or tail 
of what is going on here today, and I intend to vote ``no.'' I was 
asked by one of the press, why are you going to vote ``no''? And I 
think that is a really good thing to discuss, because it would 
certainly be easy to vote ``yes.'' Everybody wants to give tax breaks.
  Who in the world in an election year, 40 days before election, would 
not want to give away all of this money and do all of these kinds of 
things? But I am a child psychiatrist and one of the things you learn 
in raising children is that sometimes you have to say, no, we cannot do 
that. We cannot buy that. We cannot have that. And this Republican 
majority in the House and Senate really does not seem to be able to 
ever say no. They do not believe that you cannot spend on a credit card 
forever.
  A credit card, I have got them in my pocket like everybody else does; 
you have to pay it back some time. Now, the United States right now, 
and the reason I do not want to borrow another $149 billion is because 
this is borrowed money. This is not money that anybody has paid in 
taxes. This is money that we are borrowing from the Chinese and the 
Japanese and the Saudis. We go out there selling these Treasury notes. 
Now, when that lapses, who controls the United States? Us or those to 
whom we are in debt?
  If they decide to pull that money out, we go down like a rock. And 
you think the Chinese are really on our side? Do you think they are 
really friendly? You think they would not do that to us economically? 
We are putting ourselves in danger. The Republican majority, if they 
were trying to destroy this economy, could not have done a better job 
than they have done in the last 2 years. We thought 350 or whatever it 
was last year was bad. Now we have got $420 billion. That is over $700 
billion that we have gone in debt, we have borrowed from the Chinese, 
from the Saudis, from the Europeans.
  We just go and say, Please, we need money. We are the richest country 
in the world. We have got the biggest army and all that kind of stuff, 
but we need money. Please give us money so we can keep our economy 
going. That is not the America that I want. I think we have to have 
some fiscal discipline in this House, and it has to start in things 
like this.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a member of Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my friend from Washington 
State not really discussing the merits of the bill, but discuss 
atmosphere and perception, and that is fine, as if families struggling 
to make ends meet are spoiled children to be indulged; as if somehow at 
this point in time, with 2-year terms, allowing Americans to keep more 
of their money is somehow ill advised or worse still, a political 
stunt.
  Mr. Speaker, our Founders, very exceptional people, gave us 2-year 
terms. This is overdue, to extend opportunities. Indeed, devoid from 
this debate until this point, Mr. Speaker, is the acknowledgement of 
the fact that this country was suddenly, violently and brutally 
attacked on September 11, 2001. Indeed, I hear laughter from the other 
side, Mr. Speaker. Laughter about an attack that killed 3,000 
Americans. I mention this not to wave the bloody shirt, but to talk, in 
essence, of what we do in this legislation.
  I am sorry my friend, the ranking member, is not here who apparently 
is against the bill. We have authority to issue New York Liberty Zone 
Bonds, extend that to 2009 to rebuild Ground Zero to bring back the New 
York economy. We advance refunding the Liberty Zone Bonds. We have tax 
incentive for the District of Columbia.
  We have already chronicled out, we reached out with the earned income 
credit for families of our combat soldiers in harm's way. And yet we 
hear bemused chuckles and poor analogies

[[Page H7535]]

somehow claiming that American families keeping more of their own money 
are spoiled children. The contrast could not be clearer.
  It is sad when those for whatever reason want to launch into diatribe 
or to somehow compare hard-working Americans to spoiled children, but 
the fact is nobody has talked about what the bill does. So apart from 
the election-year rhetoric and the endless class warfare diatribes and 
the cynical chuckles about people dying in the wake of terrorists 
attack, there is merit to this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I recommend a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I guess that there are people in the hall who are hearing things. 
Maybe they have receptors in their teeth. I heard no chuckles, but 
there are people who do get messages that are from strange sources; and 
they are certainly not in this hall.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. 
As we come here to debate this, I think we should make it clear, Mr. 
Speaker, to everyone in this Chamber and everyone throughout America 
who might be watching that most of us want to see an expansion of the 
10 percent tax bracket credit for all of our families because that is a 
tax cut that would go to all families including our lowest- or modest-
income earning families. We would like to see an extension of the 
$1,000 family credit for those with children.
  There are other tax proposals here that offer relief to American 
families which we support. That is not the issue. The issue is that 
today in America, America's families face a $7.384 trillion debt; and 
it grows by a billion a day in interest payments that we make. And so 
the difficulty here is that we are on a crash course to abomination.
  We are not being fiscally prudent in what we propose, even though it 
sounds very good. I am going to borrow some information that our 
colleague, someone who is a fiscal hawk and someone who has been 
watching this for some time has said and that is the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor). The debt is about $7.8 trillion. That debt 
increased $568 billion in the last 11 months of fiscal year 2004. It 
has increased $1.7 trillion in the 40 months since Congress passed 
President Bush's first budget plan on May 9, 2001. The President's own 
budget expects the debt to pass $8 trillion in 2005.
  The debt will surpass $9 trillion in 2007. It will surpass $10 
trillion in 2009. That will have to be paid by the 280 million 
Americans who live in this country.
  Our Nation owes close to $2 trillion of that debt to foreigners 
including more than $680 billion owed to Japan, more than $217 billion 
owed to China and Hong Kong; and the government borrowed $427 billion 
dollars from foreign governments and investors in just the past 12 
months.
  All of this is actually worse than what it sounds because what I have 
not mentioned is every year for the last several years the Social 
Security system has been collecting more money than it has had to pay 
out to those who are beneficiaries in retirement. And that is what we 
consider all or know all as the Social Security trust fund surplus. 
Unfortunately, every single cent of the Social Security trust fund 
surplus has been expended, not for Social Security, not to be prepared 
in the future for Social Security, but for other matters.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues and to all Americans who 
might be watching, while we all wish to continue to reduce the tax 
burden on Americans, it should not be done at the expense of increasing 
the tax burden of our American families and children into the future.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, ``crash course to abomination?'' I mean, I understand 
getting carried away with rhetoric, and I agree we have to be concerned 
when the Federal Government spends more than it takes in. We did not do 
that during World War II because it was a time during which we needed 
to win the war. We are in the wartime situation. Prior to getting into 
that wartime situation, we were in surplus.
  ``Crash course to abomination?'' The gentleman ran off some numbers 
about how big the current national deficit is, or the debt. This 
economy earns more than $11 trillion a year. If you made an analogy to 
a family, the entire deficit is less than what the family makes in 
earnings in a year. That does not even begin to examine the assets that 
the family holds, usually equity in a home. Begin thinking about all 
the physical assets that the society owns through the government.
  Do we need to worry about debt? Yes. You worry about it most often as 
a personal relationship to your income or productivity for countries. 
Today, that debt is about 3.8 percent. Back in the 1980s and 1990s when 
the gentleman's party was in control, it went over 6 percent. We were 
better than two-thirds of that percentage when the gentleman's party 
was in power. I didn't hear ``crash course to abomination'' then.
  There is nothing wrong with pointing out the fact that you need to 
have a debt that is manageable. The best way to view the debt is not in 
the absolute numbers, but in a percentage of your ability to pay. Today 
that debt is about 3.8 percent. In the recent past it has been as high 
as 6. Do we need to be concerned about it? Yes.
  Chairman Greenspan has said repeatedly in front of congressional 
committees, the way you control a growing debt is to reduce spending. 
That is the long-term procedure for getting imbalance back into 
balance.
  The other thing that you need to remember is the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Stark) said that when we cut people's taxes, we just 
throw the money away. If you ever wanted to get a mental set of how 
people approach the revenues raised by government it is that when we 
cut taxes, we gave people back their own money. When they look at what 
we did, giving people back their own money, they see it as throwing 
money away.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Schrock).
  Mr. SCHROCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 1308, the Working Family Tax Relief 
Act. We must act today to preserve the relief plan that has created 
record-breaking economic growth and has spurred the creation of over 
1.7 million jobs alone in the last year. Failure to act today will 
result in 93 million Americans and their families paying on average 
$565 more on their taxes next year.

                              {time}  1845

  As my colleagues heard the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) say, 
many of these families will be our military families, with a parent 
fighting somewhere in the global war on terror. Our military families 
are paying Uncle Sam enough just with their honorable service, and we 
should do everything we can to allow them to keep more of their hard-
earned money.
  This tax extension has important economic impacts for all of our 
military families. This bill provides an additional $199 million of 
assistance to military families in combat zones, and my colleagues 
heard the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) say this bill increases the 
child credit for military families by allowing them to include tax-free 
combat pay when calculating their refundable child credit.
  He also said, and as we heard the chairman say, this bill increases 
the earned income credit for military families in 2004 and 2005 by 
giving them the option to include combat pay in calculating that tax 
credit.
  Congress must pass this bill and help extend tax relief to our very 
important military families.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Stark) has 11 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thomas) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for whom the complexities of a tax credit for the 
military would not exceed his intellect, as it obviously does the 
leader at the White House and the leader of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.

[[Page H7536]]

  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time.
  I rise in opposition to the conference report. A few minutes ago, my 
friend from Arizona said we should talk about what the bill does. Here 
is what the bill does.
  It does some very desirable and popular things for taxes for families 
in the country, which is good; and it pays for those tax reductions by 
borrowing $146 billion from the Social Security trust fund and from 
creditors who will collect those debts from our children in the future.
  Now, there was another way to do this. The other way to do this would 
have been to make a modest reduction in the tax cut that the people at 
the very top of the income scale would have gotten. We had an amendment 
that would have said let us just marginally reduce, somewhat reduce, 
the tax cut that the people at the top 2 percent or so get and let us 
pay for the tax cut that way and not reduce the deficit. We were not 
permitted a vote on that idea.
  So the choice is, deliver these popular tax benefits by borrowing the 
money to pay for them or not deliver them. It is a difficult choice. I 
come down on the side of saying we cannot deliver them by borrowing the 
money.
  I hear my friends talk about restraint of spending. Earlier this year 
we had an omnibus appropriations bill that spent more than $800 
billion. Only 83 Members voted ``no.'' I was one of the 83 Members. 
That was a bad political vote because the bill had lots of things in it 
that people liked; but because I did not want us to borrow the money, I 
voted ``no.''
  Tonight, we have a choice where there are all kinds of popular tax 
breaks for people. It is a bad political vote to vote ``no.'' I am 
going to vote ``no'' because we should not borrow the money to do this. 
People do not trust American government anymore. This is why, because 
we tell people that they can have everything and not pay for it. Stand 
for integrity and vote ``no.''
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to speak on behalf 
of the gentleman from New York (Ranking Member Rangel).
  I think somebody on the majority side misinterpreted the gentleman 
from New York's (Mr. Rangel) position. I am aware that the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Rangel) intends to vote for this bill. He is unhappy 
with the fact that it is not paid for and that it mistreats our 
military and our very lowest income people, but he does intend to vote 
for it. I think to suggest that he is opposing the bill is a 
misstatement of his position, and he has asked me to set the record 
straight.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. 
Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am always interested when people 
comment that we are returning money to people who pay the taxes. I 
guarantee my colleagues that the 60,000 people in Cleveland who have 
lost jobs since President Bush took office and the 230,000 people in 
Ohio who have lost jobs since President Bush took office would love to 
be in a position to pay taxes. In fact, they would love to be in a 
position where they were not just making minimum wage in exchange for 
some of the jobs that they have received.
  It is interesting that there is always a commentary about 1 million 
jobs having been created since President Bush took office. If we do the 
math, then we understand that he is still behind maybe 1.7 million 
jobs.
  Be that as it may, some of the provisions of this legislation are 
pretty good. Some of the provisions provide for research and 
development, and small business in Ohio and across this country would 
like to have those dollars.
  It has some parity about mental health, and that is wonderful because 
people believe that parity ought to be granted to people who have 
insurance costs arising in mental health.
  In fact, the people in my congressional district and across the 
country would love to be making more than $5.25 an hour so that they 
could pay more taxes.
  I am disappointed that in this bill there was rejected a proposal 
that would have ensured that low-income families, the most in need, 
would have been eligible for a child tax credit. The 2001 law 
stipulated that the $10,000 threshold would rise with inflation. The 
problem with indexing the credit with inflation is that wages are not 
keeping up with inflation; and as a result, there will be lower-income 
families that will not be eligible for the credit next year. It is also 
very interesting that as a result of that, 4.3 million families will 
not benefit under this proposal, and there will be 9.2 million children 
who will not benefit under this child tax credit.
  I am disappointed that the majority was not able to extend these 
middle-class provisions in a revenue neutral fashion. The estimated 
cost is $146 billion over 10 years, adding already to the $422 billion 
deficit. Fiscal responsibility is gone out the window, but according to 
the leadership, that is okay.
  I just wish that we would be as fiscally irresponsible when it came 
time to pay for health care, as fiscally irresponsible when it came 
time to help pay for education, as fiscally irresponsible when it came 
time to pay for seniors' prescription drug benefit, as fiscally 
irresponsible when we start to talk about what we might do on behalf of 
college students.
  I rise in support of these child tax credits, but I think we ought to 
call it like we see it, and this is what I have done.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am pleased that the gentleman from California has announced 
apparently on behalf of the gentleman from New York that he has 
Presidential aspirations. What I said was that the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) voted ``no'' on the conference report. The gentleman 
from California stood up and said, lest there be any misunderstanding, 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) proposes to vote ``yes'' on 
the measure, and so it is pretty obvious he has got Presidential 
ambitions.
  The point is he voted ``no'' before he voted ``yes.'' Perhaps my 
colleague should have said the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) 
will do the usual.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It was the gentleman from Arizona, not the gentleman from California, 
who suggested that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) opposed the 
bill, and that was the misunderstanding that I wanted to correct. The 
chairman is correct, he did not suggest that the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) was not in favor of the bill, and that was my point, 
to set that part of it straight.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, we are at the point where this 
administration has tried to finance three wars with three tax cuts, 
which has resulted in $450 billion in annual deficits and $3 trillion 
in additional debt. There is a right way to cut taxes and meet our 
obligations, both here at home and abroad; and then there is a wrong 
way.
  I have strongly supported responsible tax cuts for middle-class 
families, but that is not what we have here. I have worked in the past 
on two budgets, both in 1993 and 1997 when we balanced the budget, 
reduced the national debt and met our obligations in the areas of 
education, health care, the environment, while we secured the peace in 
the Balkans; opposite of everything that is being done today. We can do 
it if we make the right choices and have a good strategy. We are not 
doing that here.
  I find it ironic that we are handing out another $13 billion in a 
corporate giveaway on the very day that the New York Times and the Wall 
Street Journal cited studies and found that 82 of our largest and most 
profitable companies paid no Federal income taxes in at least one of 
the last three years and that corporate taxes were at their lowest 
sustained levels since World War II. In fact, corporate taxes have 
financed only 6 percent of the government expenses during the last two 
fiscal years at the very time that we have been sending people over to 
fight the war on terrorism. When we have a war going on, everybody has 
skin in the game. They cannot take a walk from this

[[Page H7537]]

country and enjoy the privileges that they have to be an American.
  What set of values lead my colleagues to give corporations an 
additional $13 billion in new giveaways at the expense of middle-class 
families trying to do right by their kids?
  In America today, corporate balance sheets are enjoying their 
strongest position ever, but middle-class families are struggling with 
flat wages and rising health care and education costs. Yet we are 
providing tax breaks to the very corporations that pay no Federal 
income tax. Everybody must have some skin in the game when we have a 
war going on.
  What kind of value systems say this is a good thing for corporations 
to avoid paying income taxes while enjoying the fruits of this country?
  Mr. Speaker, the leadership is about making choices. As President 
Kennedy once said, to govern is to choose. My colleagues today have 
reflected the choices they have made on behalf of corporate America at 
the expense of our middle-class families.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman ready to close?
  Mr. THOMAS. I have several speakers, but the Speaker announced the 
time differential.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) 
has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) 
has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I sit on the Committee on 
Appropriations; and of the 13 appropriations bills, on average there is 
an increase of $1.5 trillion on each of those appropriations bills. We 
came out with a budget, and the Democrats whine it is not enough. The 
President limits spending to 4 percent, and the Democrats say it is not 
enough. It is ironic they stand up here and talk about ``the debt.''
  I have got friends on the Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on 
Appropriations, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), and I have got guys like the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and many others that support 
defense, but the other point for those that say, oh, defense is an 
issue here, well, I think for many of the people, I hope they have time 
to explain themselves before they die so the rest of us do not die 
laughing.
  When my colleagues talk about the support for defense, look at the 
Presidential candidate that has voted across the board to cut defense 
and look at the progressive caucus and the rest of it. In 1993 my 
colleagues cut their COLAs and veterans COLAs and took every dime out.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear, or at least I might respond, that 
the Presidential candidate that I am going to support never ducked out 
of his military duty or had his daddy buy him a soft berth to avoid 
combat.
  We are talking now about a tax bill that I suspect will pass 
comfortably in the next few minutes, but I think it is important again 
to remember that the most vulnerable of our citizens are being 
disadvantaged. And I am talking about those in the military.
  I might add that when President Clinton did the tax credit for the 
military change, we had no military in Iraq.
  We also are disadvantaged, hurting, raising the taxes, if you will, 
on 9 million of the poorest children. On the one hand, we are giving 
$14 billion worth of tax breaks to corporations, when it would have 
only taken $4 billion of that to help the 9 million poorest children.
  I do not see how any Christian or anybody with any compassion can 
square their conscience, can go home to dinner tonight and tell their 
family or their children, I just voted to harm 9 million of the poorest 
children in this country and I gave away $14 billion to the richest 
corporations in this country. That does not wash with compassion. That 
is underhanded and immoral and obscene, and it is part of this bill, 
written by the Republican chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. 
And that is a fact.
  There is no excuse for continuing to raise the deficit, which has 
been done under the leadership of the current Committee on Ways and 
Means, so that we have gone from a $5 trillion surplus to a $3 trillion 
debt. That is $8 trillion thrown away by the Republican leadership of 
the Committee on Ways and Means and this House, and countenanced and 
supported by the White House.
  It is a shame that our leadership in the White House is so 
intellectually challenged that it cannot understand a tax credit. That 
in itself ought to be reason enough to change that leadership. Because 
by lacking the intellectual capability of understanding the Tax Code, 
they are harming our military.
  Vote as you will, but understand the difference, Mr. Speaker, between 
Republican compassion and conservative giveaways to the very rich.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a very valued member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, for a brief period of rationality.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, that is a lot of pressure.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I 
am pleased to respond to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Stark), who just told us that he is predicting this will be a 
comfortable victory for this bill. And it will be, because it is great 
policy.
  He talked about the fact that military families do not get help. It 
is just the opposite. Military families do get help under this bill. 
That is the whole point of the legislation, something the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Rangel) has supported forever. It provides $199 
million to our military families to allow them to include combat pay so 
they get more of an earned income tax credit; to allow them to have 
more help for their children. These are the people of modest income in 
our military who get help from this bill.
  The gentleman talked about children not getting help. Well, I can 
certainly say that the effect on low-income families is dramatic here. 
We are talking about $23 billion in this bill of outlays. What does 
that mean? That means it goes to families who do not pay Federal income 
taxes, do not pay Federal income taxes at all, but yet they get an 
additional $23 billion through the refundable, yes, refundable, fully 
refundable tax credit. That is in this legislation.
  Finally, the gentleman talked about the budget and deficits, and the 
fact we need to watch out for our deficits. Mr. Speaker, when I was 
first running for Congress in 1992, the deficit was 4.7 percent of our 
economy, which is what all economists think is critical. What is the 
percentage of our economy; can we pay it back or not?
  Back in the 1980s, when Democrats controlled this place, about two-
thirds of the way through their 40-year reign, it was about 6.2 
percent. Now it is about 3.8 percent. We just heard from CBO a few 
weeks ago we will actually be reducing the projection for this year by 
$56 billion. OMB says it is $76 billion. The point is, despite the tax 
cuts from last year, there are more taxes being paid right now to the 
Federal Government, not less. Receipts are actually up.
  Why? Because the tax cuts worked and the economy is growing. We have 
had the fastest growth in the last year that we have had in 20 years; 
not since 1984. And, yes, to my friend from Ohio, we have added 1.7, 
not 1, 1.7 million jobs just in the last year. This means that the tax 
relief works. Keeping spending under control and allowing the economy 
to grow is the key. This bill does it, and I strongly urge that we do 
have a strong vote for this bill.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ose).
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  When I came to Congress, I came to Congress to lower taxes. I came to 
Congress to lower taxes because it benefits the Americans who pay 
taxes, and this bill goes a significant distance towards reinforcing 
that message.
  But even if you are still inclined to vote against this bill, let me 
remind you that the tax rates we are setting as we deliberate on this 
legislation are minimums. In other words, it is a minimum rate.

[[Page H7538]]

  Now, if you are uncomfortable with paying that minimum rate, I would 
encourage you to take your hard-earned cash and make a charitable 
contribution to the point where you are comfortable with your tax rate. 
And then you can turn around to your constituents as a role model and 
say, look what I did.
  You have the opportunity, through the charitable provisions in the 
Tax Code, to pay as much as you wish to the United States Federal 
Government. We are trying to minimize it. That is what this debate is 
about.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is often said that talk is cheap. I do hope, as we 
close this debate, that people listen to what people have said, but, 
more importantly, watch what they do when they vote. It has been 
announced that the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means 
voted ``no'' in conference and plans to vote ``yes'' on the floor.
  We have heard a number of people criticize this bill. I would suggest 
that you watch their vote. What they say does not necessarily reflect 
what they are going to do. One is rhetoric, the other is voting.
  Please vote ``yes'' on the conference report.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership in this House 
continues to play games with the budget. This bill contains only short-
term extensions of many important tax breaks because Congress refuses 
to face the long-term consequences of its actions. I support middle-
income tax relief, but families will only be better off in the long-
term if we act responsibly now.
  The last 2 years have brought the largest budget deficits in our 
history and H.R. 1308 will add another $146 billion. New projections 
from the Congressional Budget Office show that the Bush 
administration's policies will lead to annual budget deficits in excess 
of $300 billion every year for the next 10 years. In other words, under 
the Bush administration, record deficits are here to stay.
  We can do better for families and those in need by acting 
responsibly. Cutting taxes while at war is questionable at best. Tax 
cuts for the most privileged and comfortable while shortchanging 
education, healthcare, and our Nation's infrastructure is not 
responsible. Providing short-term extensions so the long-range cost of 
policies is hidden is not responsible. Continuing to put off a 
permanent fix of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which poses the most 
serious tax threat to middle-income families, is shameful. I oppose 
this legislation.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern about H.R. 
1308. The bill before the House today extends many of the tax cuts and 
tax credits that have wide margins of bipartisan support here in 
Congress. This includes a 5-year extension of the existing $1,000 
family tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and an increase in the size 
of the 10 percent bracket. This bill also would provide for a 1-year 
extension of the current Alternative Minimum Tax exemption for married 
couples. I support all of these credits and extensions for individuals.
  There are other good provisions contained within this bill. For 
example, the bill extends the tax credit for electric vehicles, extends 
deductions for clean-fuel vehicles, and extends the Research and 
Development tax credit extension--which I strongly believe should be 
made. These targeted tax credits would help to make our air cleaner and 
help our nation's innovative industries achieve advances in both 
applied and basic research.
  However, the total cost of all of this is $146 billion over 10 years 
and it is paid for with borrowed money. In other words it's money we do 
not have. What this means is that we are paying for this with money 
taken out of Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund.
  It is disappointing that the Republican majority in this House is not 
willing to offset the cost of these broadly supported tax benefits. 
Failure to offset their cost now only means that we will borrow the 
money necessary and our children and grandchildren will pay for them 
later.
  The Republican majority in this House seems capable only of passing 
tax reductions, not dealing with the consequences of its irresponsible 
fiscal policy. We could have paid for this conference report quite 
easily by taking back a portion of the recent tax reductions enjoyed by 
couples who earn more than $1 million per year--$500,000 for single 
individuals. Had we done that, we could have passed this tax cut and 
still given those at the top of the income ladder a tax cut.
  Mr. Speaker, governing is about making choices. Our constituents all 
across America sent us to Congress to make the tough decisions. They 
did not send us here so we can pass those decisions on to our children, 
and they certainly did not send us here to pass the cost of our 
decisions on to our children.
  Mr. Speaker, today the national debt is the largest in history. 
Americans now collectively owe more than $7 trillion. That is more than 
$25,000 for every man, woman, and child. Yet rather than paying down 
this debt and getting our fiscal house in order, this bill would add an 
additional $146 billion to the debt.
  Americans cannot run their own household budgets like this, and 
Congress is letting them down by its failure to manage money 
responsibly.
  The national debt is not just paper. That debt is owned by other 
countries. Due to the failed fiscal management of the majority, 
Americans currently owe about $4 trillion to foreign countries. We owe 
Japan $607 billion; China--including Hong Kong--$205 billion; the U.K. 
$137 billion; Taiwan, $50 billion; Germany, $45 billion; OPEC 
countries, $43 billion; Switzerland, $41 billion; Korea, $37 billion; 
Mexico, $32 billion; Luxembourg, $26 billion; Canada, $25 billion--the 
list goes on and on.
  More tax cuts without offsets will not only jeopardize critical 
public services now, but they will also hurt Americans well into the 
future. Massive deficits crowd out investments in education, healthcare 
and homeland security. These deep deficits result in increased interest 
rates that make it expensive for all Americans to buy homes, pay back 
loans, and raise capital for small businesses.
  I believe Chairman Greenspan's comments are appropriate: ``Our fiscal 
prospects are, in my judgment, a significant obstacle to long-term 
stability because the budget deficit is not readily subject to 
correction by market forces that stabilize other imbalances. The free 
lunch has still to be invented.'' Just this week, the Federal Reserve 
raised interest rates. This is proof positive that it already considers 
that deficit out of control.
  Mr. Speaker, there has never been, and there never will be, a nation 
in the world that has been strong, free, and bankrupt. We need to 
restore fiscal sanity in our decision making process. We need to make 
the hard choices that our constituents sent us here to make. And most 
of all we need to protect the Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund, 
not spend them and send the check to future generations.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1308. 
My opposition is based on principle and facts. The principle that is 
important to me is that the majority through this bill, will exacerbate 
an already enormous budget deficit by $150 billion. I am outraged and 
dismayed that once again, my Republican colleagues have opted to offer 
legislation under the guise that it will provide tax relief. In 
reality, this bill is really nothing more than corporate welfare.
  According to recent reports, 82 of the country's largest corporations 
paid no Federal income taxes for at least 1 year of the Bush 
administration's first 3 years. In this bill, we are offering these 
same corporations with over $5 billion in corporate refunds.
  This bill, when passed, will increase the tax burden for 4.3 million 
families whose combined income is less than $10,750. It will have a 
negative impact on 9.2 million poor children. In effect this bill 
either has limited positive impact or profound negative impact on low 
wage and military families.
  At the end of the day, this bill will increase the Federal deficit by 
an additional $150 million on top of the current $423 billion deficit 
for FY 2005. H.R. 1308 will further burden my children and 
grandchildren with debt that they will be forced to pay for years to 
come.
  I will vote no on this bill, and urge my colleagues to do likewise.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
Working Families Tax Relief Act. When President Bush signs it into law, 
we will have accomplished another round of tax cuts--this one worth 
$146 billion--with more than $130 billion directed to families.
  Hard working American families will be able to spend or save this 
money based on their priorities rather than the U.S. Government 
spending it.
  This new law will keep thousands of families from falling into the 
Alternative Minimum Tax system. The AMT exemption will remain at 
$58,000 for married couples for 1 more year. This modest AMT relief is 
scored at a whopping $23 billion to extend for just 1 more year.
  This huge revenue effect, for just a 1-year ``hold harmless,'' is a 
good indication of the looming problem of the AMT. In 2008, the AMT is 
going to begin collecting more than the underlying income tax system. 
This means that in 2008 it will be cheaper for Congress to repeal the 
entire Tax Code than it will be to repeal the AMT.
  We will either achieve fundamental tax reform during the 109th 
Congress or it will be done to us when AMT imposes its version of the 
``flat tax reform'' at 28 percent on millions of American families. I 
look forward to this debate on fundamental tax reform.
  I am also pleased that we are able to take care of one additional 
piece of legislative ``housekeeping'' by extending some very important 
expiring provisions. In particular, I am

[[Page H7539]]

glad that we are providing a seamless extension of the research and 
experiment tax credit and the tax rules regarding Archer Medical Saving 
Accounts.
  It is important for American competitiveness, and particularly for my 
high-tech home State of Texas, that the research and experiment credit 
is extended. Foreign governments give generous outright subsidies to 
businesses for locating these high-valued-added jobs in their 
countries. We need to provide this modest tax break to businesses for 
them to remain competitive in global markets and to encourage them to 
keep these jobs here in America.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, in an effort to obtain a 
first-hand perspective on the conditions is the newly liberated nation 
of Iraq, to visit with and pay tribute to our Nation's uniformed sons 
and daughters serving there and to share insight with officials of the 
newly established government, I will be leaving for Iraq tonight as 
part of a bipartisan congressional visit.
  If I had been able to cast my vote, I would have been a proud 
supporter of the H.R. 1308 conference report, the All-American Tax 
Relief Act of 2003.
  This bill will extend important tax provisions including the $1,000 
per child tax credit, marriage tax relief, the expanded 10-percent 
income tax bracket and one year of additional relief from the 
alternative minimum tax (AMT).
  I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation in order to 
prevent a tax increase on hard-working American families.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give my support for H.R. 
1308, the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004. As a member of the 
Ways and Means Committee, it has been my privilege to work on the 
development of this legislation, and I look forward to its passage 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, if we do not pass this legislation, hard-working 
families will have to face tax increases over the next 10 years, 
totaling $109 billion. If we do not pass H.R. 1308, it will most 
certainly harm the economic recovery we are now enjoying in this 
Nation.
  H.R. 1308 will further eliminate the marriage penalty for American 
families. Before tax relief was implemented in 2001 and 2003, the 
marriage penalty tax was a burden to millions of Americans being taxed 
more than other citizens simply because they were married.
  Under our legislation, the $1,000 child tax credit rate will also be 
extended. If this legislation is not passed, working families will have 
to pay $300 more per child in taxes than they did in 2003 and 2004. 
Without our legislation, military families will suffer as the per-child 
credit for military families will be increased by allowing these 
families to include tax-free combat pay when calculating their 
refundable child credit.
  President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax relief bills also increased the 
Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT, exemption amounts from $45,000 to $58,000 
for married couples and from $33,750 to $40,250 for single men and 
women. These increases ensure that the AMT does not hit middle-income 
families as a result of the tax relief provided in the 2001 and 2003 
tax reduction laws. However, if we do not act now this relief will 
expire at the end of this year.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that it is private citizens, 
not the Federal Government, that create this Nation's wealth and pay 
this Nation's taxes. If we do not act on this legislation, millions of 
America's middle-class taxpayers will suffer as a result. That is 
unconscionable, therefore I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I have supported several tax reducing 
measures since coming to Congress, including the Economic Growth and 
Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and Jobs and Growth Tax Relief 
Act of 2003. These two bills, along with a number of other measures, 
decreased the marriage penalty, increased the child tax credit, and 
delivered immediate relief to all taxpayers. Without H.R. 1308, the tax 
burden on a family of four earning $40,000 would increase by $915 in 
2005. This legislation ensures that families will continue to enjoy the 
tax relief passed in 2001 and 2003 for years to come.
  Unfortunately, I was not able to vote on the conference report for 
H.R. 1308, the All-American Tax Relief Act. Along with a number of my 
colleagues, I had previously scheduled a congressional delegation trip 
to the Middle East and Iraq. If I could have voted on H.R. 1308, I 
would have voted ``yea.'' However, I felt confident that my colleagues 
in the House share my support for extending these family-friendly 
provisions, preventing a tax increase of $109 billion on America's 
families.
  Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, later today, the House will consider H.R. 
1308, the Tax Relief, Simplification, and Equity Act. As you know, H.R. 
1308 extends the child tax credit, provides relief from the marriage 
penalty and expands the 10-percent bracket for many families in South 
Dakota. Importantly, it also extends recent changes in the Alternative 
Minimum Tax. I also support provisions such as the extension of the 
research and development tax credit and the welfare-to-work and work 
opportunity tax credit.
  I am leaving today with a number of my colleagues on a delegation 
trip to Iraq. We have attempted to schedule this trip in a way that 
minimizes the activity in the House that we will miss. As you know, 
however, getting to and from Iraq is not easy, and, unfortunately, it 
appears that I will miss this vote today. I want the Record to be clear 
that I support H.R. 1308, I would have voted for the bill, and I urge 
my colleagues to do the same.
  As I prepare to meet with our Nation's soldiers serving in the 
region, it is important to note that H.R. 1308 also extends for 5 years 
the fix for military families for the Child Tax Credit, and a 2-year 
fix for families of soldiers earning combat pay, regarding the Earned 
Income Tax Credit. Our men and women in uniform are risking their lives 
under our country's flag. And it is fitting that we can provide this 
assistance to them. These fixes make passage of H.R. 1308 even more 
important, and again, I urge my colleagues to pass this important piece 
of legislation.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill 
because of the tax relief that it provides our middle class and the 
incentives it provides for additional research and development.
  Without hesitation, I support marriage penalty relief, the expansion 
of the 10-percent bracket and the extension of the AMT exemption.
  I also am pleased that the conference approved extensions of the work 
opportunity tax credit and the welfare-to-work tax credit.
  If I had my druthers, those tax credits would be permanent, but I 
will certainly support their extension.
  While I wholeheartedly support the middle-class tax relief in this 
particular bill, I cannot cast my vote without also speaking out 
against the lopsided tax cuts that this Congress has enacted.
  What convenient timing for this Congress to finally consider tax cuts 
for the wage earners right before the people are heading to the polls.
  Any other time of the year, however, this Congress seems to be 
focused on giving tax relief not to the middle class, but to the 
corporations that seem to be doing just fine at avoiding their tax 
liabilities.
  In fact, of the 275 largest companies that were profitable in the 
last 3 years, 82 of them paid no income tax during at least 1 of those 
years.
  That's no income tax on a total of $102 billion in profits.
  Not only did these companies avoid their tax liability, they siphoned 
even more resources from the Treasury--in the form of $12.6 billion in 
tax rebates.
  In total, these companies benefited from $175 billion in tax breaks 
over the past 3 years.
  Make no mistake about it, I'm glad we're giving the middle class the 
tax relief they need.
  I just wish they didn't have to wait in line while this Congress gave 
away the farm to the corporations.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 339, 
noes 65, not voting 30, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 472]

                               AYES--339

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.

[[Page H7540]]


     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gephardt
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watt
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--65

     Andrews
     Becerra
     Berry
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Clay
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Frank (MA)
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Kanjorski
     Kilpatrick
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Markey
     McCollum
     McDermott
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rush
     Sabo
     Schakowsky
     Scott (VA)
     Stark
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Waxman
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--30

     Bishop (GA)
     Bonner
     Cannon
     Collins
     Deal (GA)
     Delahunt
     Doggett
     Fattah
     Garrett (NJ)
     Goss
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Herseth
     Istook
     Kleczka
     Lipinski
     Lucas (KY)
     Maloney
     McCarthy (MO)
     Miller (FL)
     Myrick
     Nunes
     Osborne
     Quinn
     Rodriguez
     Smith (WA)
     Tauzin
     Thompson (MS)
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1929

  Mr. TOWNS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 472, 
H.R. 1308, Extension of Tax Cuts Conference Report, Final Passage, I 
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``aye.''
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 472, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from voting on the 
Conference Report on H.R. 1308, the All-American Tax Relief Act of 
2003. This bill represents important tax savings to our hard working 
American citizens. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on 
this bill.

                          ____________________