[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13345-13346]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      INEQUITY OF RECENT TAX CUTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss an issue of 
great concern to America's families, an issue of equity and financial 
security. Only a few weeks ago, Congress passed a tax bill with an 
official cost of $350 billion. The real cost, after accounting for 
budget gimmicks and the expiring provisions, which will almost 
certainly be extended, will actually exceed $1 trillion.
  During that debate, some of us discussed the inequity of the tax 
cuts, that the vast majority of these benefits went to families who 
quite simply did not need this tax cut. People who earn in excess of $1 
million per year will receive a $93,000 tax break.
  As much as I believe the body of this bill was misguided, there was 
one provision in the bill that I supported wholeheartedly. That was the 
provision which allowed low-income working families to receive the 
child tax credit, which was increased from $600 to $1,000 per year. 
After we fought hard, the majority agreed to make that $400 increase 
refundable for those who did not earn enough to pay $400 in income 
taxes, though they pay other taxes, like payroll taxes. This one 
provision alone would have assisted the families of nearly 12 million 
children.
  So it was with shock and disappointment that we learned that the 
refundability provision had been quietly stripped out of the bill at 
the 11th hour. In a $350 billion bill, this one provision to help 
nearly 12 million children of the poorest Americans would have cost 
$3.5 billion, 1 percent of the entire tax package. These are families 
with incomes between $10,500 and $26,625, families who really need this 
tax cut. But it was removed from the bill in the dead of night.
  This one action speaks volumes about the priorities of the Republican 
leadership who claim to ``leave no child behind.'' But no matter how 
you slice it, this bill left almost 12 million children behind. It 
shows what one writer today called ``outright hostility towards 
America's poor and working classes.''
  It did not have to be this way. There was bipartisan support for 
increasing the child tax credit, making it available to the families 
that need it most, that is, the families that earn too little to pay 
income taxes. And, I will repeat, these families do pay taxes; they pay 
payroll taxes. In fact, Members of both parties fought for the 
refundability provision after it was left out of President Bush's 
original plan.
  Now exposed for having effectively abandoned these families and their 
children, the White House disingenuously says that the President would 
have signed this provision into law had it been in the legislation, as 
if the White House had not been involved in the drafting of the final 
bill and had no responsibility for removing it.
  Vice President Cheney was the one who brokered the final deal with 
Congressional negotiators before he cast the tie-breaking vote in the 
Senate. He was the White House's lead negotiator, ``The Deal Closer,'' 
as this week's Congressional Quarterly Weekly calls him on its cover. 
The deal closer on Capitol Hill, Cheney is the President's right hand 
and the fractious GOP's trusted broker.
  In fact, Senator Grassley went so far as to say, ``Without Dick 
Cheney's intervention, there would not be a bill.'' So to suggest this 
provision was dropped without his input or approval is, frankly, not 
believable.
  It is interesting to track the evolution of excuses coming from the 
other side. First they argue that the limits on the overall size of the 
tax cut set by Members of the Senate require that something had to go. 
But if they wanted the child tax credit to survive, there were any 
number of provisions the Vice President could have insisted upon 
substituting in its place. If the majority had wanted, they could have

[[Page 13346]]

easily paid for the provision by lowering the top tax bracket to 35.3 
percent instead of 35 percent, or cracked down on the offshore tax 
havens for companies like Enron. No, these are the special interests 
that are their strongest supporters.
  When that excuse failed, the President's spokesman said they never 
intended to give tax relief to those families. He said only taxpayers 
could get tax relief, despite the fact that these families, like every 
other family, pay over 7 percent of their income in payroll taxes.
  So, let us not fool ourselves; the White House and the Republican 
majority knew exactly what they were doing when they dropped this 
provision in the final bill.
  This sort of reckless, shameful disregard for working people in this 
country is becoming a pattern with this administration. In addition to 
the nearly 12 million children left out of this bill, when you include 
the 8 million kids that were kept from benefiting from any increase in 
the child tax credit, you end up with 20 million children who have been 
utterly and totally ignored by this President and his economic 
policies.
  This is about values. The character of this issue raises questions 
about the values that this majority has and the underlying policy of 
their budget and economic policies. It is wrong, and we are going to 
turn it around.

                          ____________________