[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14625-14651]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   RELATING TO CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 1308, TAX 
             RELIEF, SIMPLIFICATION, AND EQUITY ACT OF 2003

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 270 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 270

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution 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, with the Senate 
     amendments thereto, be, and the same are hereby, taken from 
     the Speaker's table to the ends that the Senate amendment to 
     the title be, and the same is hereby, agreed to, and the 
     Senate amendment to the text be, and the same is hereby, 
     agreed to with the amendment printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution.
       Sec. 2. It shall be in order for the chairman of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means to move that the House insist on 
     its amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1308, or that 
     the House disagree to any further Senate amendment, and 
     request or agree to a conference with the Senate thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). 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 gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), 
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.


                             General Leave

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on H. Res. 270.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 270 is a customary rule 
relating to the consideration of an amendment to the Senate amendments 
to H.R. 1308, the Tax Relief, Simplification, and Equity Act of 2003. 
The rule allows the House to proceed with consideration of legislation 
providing tax relief to millions of American workers and families.
  Upon adoption of this resolution, the House will have agreed to the 
disposition of the Senate amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, when I return to my district each week, my constituents 
tell me they want me to do two things: create jobs and cut taxes. 
Thanks to the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act and the Jobs Growth 
Tax Relief Act, Congress is doing just that, and taxpayers in my 
district and all across America now have greater control over more of 
their hard-earned dollars, providing greater incentive for savings and 
investment and expanding job opportunities.
  Today's legislation is another important step in our ongoing efforts 
to create greater fairness in the Tax Code for working families. In 
fact, upon adoption, it will be retitled the All-American Tax Relief 
Act in recognition of the fact that it puts even more money back into 
the hands of more Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, much of what we are debating today we have debated and 
supported before. Many of the important measures in H.R. 1308 have 
passed this body or the other body over the last few years. For 
instance, the House passed its version of H.R. 1308 by voice vote under 
suspension in March of this year.
  Last week the Senate took up H.R. 1308 with revised and added 
provisions, including an accelerated increase in the refundability of 
the child tax credit currently scheduled to take place in 2005.

                              {time}  1530

  While the House language contains the same provision, it has the 
added benefit of ensuring that the child tax credit remains at $1,000 
through 2010, unlike the Senate amendment that offers only the $1,000 
tax credit during taxable years 2003 and 2004. Simply put, the House 
language provides more and longer-lasting benefits for families at all 
income levels. And it does not take it away in just a couple of years.
  This bill will eliminate the marriage penalty and the child tax 
credit even sooner, by raising the phaseout for married couples from 
$110,000 to $150,000. This is a fundamental issue of fairness. Working 
men and women should not face a higher tax burden simply because they 
choose to get married and raise a family.
  The House bill is more responsive to more Americans than the other 
body's version in other ways. It honors the men and women of our Armed 
Forces with over $800 million in tax relief over 11 years. This 
includes capital gains tax relief on home sales, tax-free death 
gratuity payments, and tax-free dependent care assistance for members 
of the military. Our men and women in uniform protect our country and 
ensure our security every day and deserve sensible tax relief for their 
hard work and sacrifice.
  Also, the bill will suspend the tax-exempt status of terrorist 
organizations, a provision that passed both the House and the other 
body in 2002. In short, Mr. Speaker, this bill will achieve even 
greater parity and fairness in the Tax Code. That is something I know 
my constituents and working Americans all over the country want, need, 
and deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, I expect that in the course of this debate, we will hear 
a

[[Page 14626]]

great deal about procedural terminology, but this vote is actually 
quite simple. A ``yes'' vote means greater fairness in the Tax Code and 
more tax relief for American workers, families, and children. A ``no'' 
vote stops that relief from moving forward and hurts the very people I 
know many of my colleagues eagerly want to assist.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, while this bill purports to give low-income people a tax 
break, it also gives Members of Congress a tax break. We see that there 
is an additional tax break for people who earn $150,000 a year. Who 
earns $150,000 a year? Members of the United States Congress. It is 
very generous of them in the majority to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about what is at stake on the House 
floor today. At the conclusion of this debate, there will be an 
important procedural vote known as the previous question. If we defeat 
it, then the child tax credit bill and the Armed Forces tax assistance 
bill can become law tomorrow, and military and working families will 
get immediate relief. Those two bills are here, at the Speaker's table, 
already passed by the Senate and ready to be signed by the President, 
but only if Republicans will stand up to their leadership. On the other 
hand, if Republicans vote for the previous question, then those bills 
will not become law anytime soon, if at all, and millions of military 
and working families will not receive immediate tax relief.
  To quote President Kennedy: ``To govern is to choose.'' When 
Republicans vote on the previous question today, Americans will know 
whether they choose tax relief for working and military families or 
party loyalty to the House Republican leadership that is blocking it.
  Mr. Speaker, since George W. Bush took office, Republicans have 
successfully enacted their economic plan. It consists of not just one, 
but two budget-busting tax giveaways for the richest few. I call these 
bills part I and part II of the Bush Pioneers Enrichment Act because 
they shower expensive tax breaks on the wealthiest few, people like 
that small, elite group of rich Bush Pioneers who funded the 2000 Bush 
campaign.
  But where is the country after these Republican tax giveaways? Some 3 
million Americans have lost their jobs. And just today the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office increased this year's deficit projection to 
$400 billion, the largest single-year deficit in this Nation's history. 
All in all, Americans are still suffering from the second Bush 
recession and the third Republican recession in the last 20 years. So I 
suspect that we will hear a lot of clever Republican rhetoric today. We 
will hear them swear that this latest Republican tax bill will finally 
boost the economy. They will claim that they are simply trying to 
improve on the bipartisan bill which the Senate passed overwhelmingly 
last week. But as John Adams once said, Mr. Speaker, facts are stubborn 
things. Even poll-tested Republican rhetoric cannot change those facts.
  And the facts today are straightforward. House Republicans are the 
sole remaining obstacle to immediate tax relief for millions of working 
and military families who pay taxes. Unless House Republicans stand up 
to the Republican leadership today, then the families of 12 million 
children, 1 million of whom live in military families, will not get the 
immediate tax relief they need and they deserve.
  Here is why, Mr. Speaker. When Republicans wrote part II of the 
Pioneers Enrichment Act last month, they denied the child tax credit to 
these hardworking, tax-paying families. The reason was simple: so that 
they could spend even more on tax breaks for the wealthiest few. As a 
result, millionaires got a tax break of $93,500, which is just shy of 
the $100,000 in campaign contributions necessary to qualify as a Bush 
Pioneer, while millions of military and working families got stiffed. 
Republicans gave $100,000 in tax breaks to those making $1 million a 
year, but they call it welfare when Democrats try to give $150 in tax 
relief to the military families who need it most to feed and clothe 
their children. This is shameful, Mr. Speaker. And if Republicans are 
not ashamed, then I am ashamed for them.
  Fortunately, the Senate has overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan, 
fiscally responsible bill to fix this one especially shameful feature 
of the Bush Pioneers Enrichment Act. And the White House says the 
President wants to sign it immediately. But many Republicans do not 
believe these working and military families deserve immediate tax 
relief, despite the fact that they work hard and pay taxes. So the 
Republican leadership is using their power to stop the full House from 
voting on the bipartisan Senate-passed bill which could become law 
tomorrow.
  Specifically, they have brought up their plan as a motion to concur 
in the Senate amendments with a House amendment, a very boring title. 
In plain English, that means they are using a parliamentary maneuver to 
rig the rules to prevent Democrats from offering an alternative, or the 
motion to recommit that is guaranteed in the House rules. The 
Republican leadership's rule is so restrictive that it does not allow 
the House any general debate on the Republicans' $82 billion tax plan. 
But make no mistake, the Republican leadership's actions on the House 
floor today will have a very real consequence.
  Simply put, they are holding hostage immediate tax relief for 6.5 
million working families. They are using this bill to give high-income 
families a new tax break that is worth nearly six times as much as the 
tax credit for low-income families. They are taking a $3.5 billion 
problem that they created and they are using it to spend $82 billion of 
the Social Security trust fund to drive America even deeper into debt, 
raising the debt tax on all Americans. All of this, Mr. Speaker, means 
that this spendthrift House Republican plan will not pass the Senate 
and everybody knows it. Let me say that again. What we are voting on 
today will not pass the Senate and everyone knows it. So this is a 
meaningless gesture that will simply delay for days and weeks and maybe 
even months the tax relief that the Republicans claim that they want to 
offer to working families. If the Republican leadership wins today, 
then millions of working and military families will lose because they 
will not get the immediate tax relief that they desperately need.
  As a result, there is just one question on the floor today: Do you 
want to give to military and working families at least a fraction of 
the tax cuts that Republicans have given the millionaires, the Bush 
Pioneers and others of the wealthy? If the answer is ``no,'' then 
proudly explain why these hardworking, tax-paying families do not 
deserve tax relief. But if the answer is ``yes,'' then there is only 
one way to do it. Stand up to the House Republican leadership and vote 
against the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, then 
I will offer an amendment to the rule to allow the House to pass both 
the bipartisan child tax credit bill and the Armed Forces tax fairness 
bill, both of which are here at the Speaker's table and both of which 
have already passed the Senate.
  As I said before, Mr. Speaker, those are the facts; and that is the 
choice House Republicans face today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In listening to the ranking member's remarks, I would first say, to 
my recollection of the law, no Member of Congress would be eligible for 
this program. Number two, I want at least the voters of my district and 
the people of New York to know that while we have listened to class 
warfare and tax cuts, I know those New Yorkers that make $100,000 in 
their income, or even as much as $150,000, if you are a fireman or you 
are a cop, you are a teacher, you are a salesman and work in a store, I 
know you are not rich. I know you are middle America. And I know that 
as we look at fair tax relief, it is not just helping the poor or the 
class warfare

[[Page 14627]]

message of the rich. We are trying to make sure we take care of the 
middle class, and we know that $150,000 combined income could be a 
middle-class income.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Weller).
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to hear the 
rhetoric of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle. Let me 
tell you something. Here is the news. The All-American Tax Relief Act 
provides immediate tax relief for working families and for our 
military. Immediate tax relief. It does it in a number of ways. A 
tremendous benefit to working and military families. In fact, not only 
do we recognize that we increase the child tax credit in the 
legislation the President signed a few weeks ago from $500 to $1,000 
but we extend that through the end of the decade. Our friends on the 
other side of the aisle would like to see it sunset in a couple of 
years and drop back to $700.
  I would also note that we eliminate the marriage tax penalty in the 
child tax credit. One of the great successes of the Republican majority 
is we have targeted and worked to eliminate the marriage tax penalty; 
but in the child tax credit, it still exists. If you make $75,000 as a 
single person, you can claim the full child tax credit. But you can 
only claim the full child tax credit as a married couple if you make up 
to $110,000. That is not right. Those who are joint filers, men and 
women who happen to be married who are both in the workforce, if you 
want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty and treat them equally and 
fairly, you should allow a married couple to earn twice as much as a 
single and still be able to qualify for that credit without being 
punished for being married. That is why we raise the eligibility level 
to $150,000. It is a single 75, and then we double it for a married 
couple to 150. That is policeman and a teacher in the south suburbs of 
Chicago. Some would say they do not deserve that child tax credit, but 
they have earned it and we, of course, want to assure that we will 
bring fairness by eliminating the marriage tax penalty.
  We also accelerate the increase in the refundable tax credit, a point 
that my Democratic friends say we need to do. What they omit is it is 
already law. All this legislation does is move it up to this year. That 
acceleration for low-income families was to be phased in over the next 
couple of years. We make it effective immediately, this year. Not only 
do we accelerate the increase in the refundable child tax credit but we 
bring up an issue which is so important. Remember the men and women who 
went to Iraq? Remember those men and women who fought so valiantly and 
liberated the 28 million people who were oppressed under Saddam 
Hussein? This House passed tax relief specifically targeted to help 
them. Unfortunately, that has yet to become law. We on the Republican 
side of the aisle feel it is time to take care of those military men 
and women who fought in Iraq and that is why we combine this child tax 
credit with the legislation which provides tax relief and enhances tax 
fairness for members of our United States Armed Forces.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this is legislation that deserves bipartisan 
support. I ask for that kind of vote.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), one of the most conservative Members on the 
Democratic side.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I cannot begin to say how 
hypocritical I think it is that a bill that purports to be for tax 
relief for children would burden our children with $80 billion worth of 
new debt to solve a $3 billion problem. There is a lot of inconsistency 
and, of course, there is a much stronger word than that.
  On March 17, 1994, I believe it was right there, then-Member Hastert 
stood on this floor and said clearly, ``Until our monstrous $4.3 
trillion Federal debt is eliminated, interest payments will continue to 
eat away at the important initiatives which the government must fund.

                              {time}  1545

  I will not stand by and watch Congress recklessly squander the future 
of our children and grandchildren.'' That was Speaker Hastert.
  The same day he said, ``In light of Congress' exhibited inability to 
control spending and vote for fiscal responsibility, it is imperative 
that we have a balanced budget amendment to compel Congress to end its 
siege on our financial future.''
  The Speaker has now been Speaker for 1,622 days and has yet to have 
scheduled a vote on a balanced budget amendment. But I can tell you 
what happened in the 2 years and 3 weeks since the passage of the Bush 
budget spending increases and the Bush budget deficit decreases. We are 
now $914 billion dollars deeper in debt.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Under House rules, I would like to have our colleagues 
help us. How much debt did the gentleman say we have accumulated since 
the budget first passed on May 9? Is it $914?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, no, under 
Speaker Hastert's tutelage for the past 2 years, we have added not $914 
dollars of debt. In fact, under the rules of the House, I am going to 
ask my colleagues to step to their right, because we are going to need 
four more of our colleagues to come forward.


                Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman will suspend.
  The Chair notices that we have a number of Members entering the well. 
The Chair has responsibility under clause 2 of rule I to preserve 
proper decorum in the proceedings of the House, and the Chair is 
constrained to distinguish between an exhibit, which a Member may 
employ for the edification of his colleagues, and an exhibition.
  Although a Member may supplement ordinary oratory with a visual aid, 
he may not stage an exhibition, nor should other Members traffic the 
well.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, what rule are you stating?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Clause 2 of rule I.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair be kind enough to read the 
provision, because I have never heard of this ruling given from the 
Chair before. I would be very grateful if the Chair could read it to 
the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. To the knowledge of the Chair, we have not 
had an exhibition such as this before.
  Mr. FROST. Do we have the rules book handy?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The relevant provision is, ``The Speaker 
shall preserve order and decorum and, in the case of disturbance or 
disorderly conduct in the galleries or in the lobby, may cause the same 
to be cleared.''
  The Chair has ruled that while an exhibit is quite acceptable, an 
exhibition such as being conducted at the current time is in violation 
of the rules, in the opinion of the Chair.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlemen will suspend.
  The Chair also would observe that while one Member is addressing the 
House, other Members should not traffic the well, as is happening.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I just want to be clear. So what the 
gentleman is saying is the Members who are standing in the well right 
now----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Who are trafficking the well.
  Mr. FROST. The ones who are in the well with 914878724867, they are 
out of order for advising the country what the size of the debt is?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, it has a 
tendency to impair the decorum of the House.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary observation.

[[Page 14628]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Taylor) yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Well, you have not recognized me for mine, 
so I might as well.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would make a parliamentary observation. If 
we keep raising the debt as fast as we are raising it----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. HOYER. Well, I am, because it will be a moot point, because there 
will not be enough room in the Chamber to make the display.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. I have to ask, 
because I am a little confused, I will not refer directly to the 
Members at this point, but I am confused, Mr. Speaker, because the 
rule, I have my rule book, it says, ``The Speaker shall preserve order 
and decorum, and in the case of disturbances or disorderly conduct in 
the galleries or in the lobby, may cause the same to be cleared.''
  This seems to relate to decorum in the galleries or in the lobby. I 
do not read the rule to relate to matters on the floor of the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Clause 2 of rule I applies to the 
proceedings of the House.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, if an elected Representative 
of the people of the United States, who represents about 700,000 
American citizens, wishes to make his colleagues aware of the growth of 
the national debt in just 2 years and 2 weeks, without creating----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman stating a parliamentary 
inquiry or engaging in debate? The Chair is open to parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I am continuing, sir.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Proceed.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. And if 16 of his colleagues, also elected, 
wished to make the Chair aware, in a very orderly manner, and to make 
our colleagues aware of the growth of the debt in a very orderly 
manner, I would like you to cite which section of the House rules, 
which, by the way you waive on a daily basis at your discretion, are 
being violated?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would state that a Member may use 
an exhibit when that Member is under recognition, but other Members, 
who are not under recognition, may not separately display exhibits.
  The Chair at this point would ask that the Members clear the well.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I wish to continue at this 
time. How much time do I have remaining, sir?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Mississippi has 45 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak with 
deep regret at the continued efforts of the majority to hide from the 
American people the true nature of the deficit that they have employed; 
that they have increased more debt in 2 years than in the first 200 
years of our Nation. Their answer to that debt is $80 billion of more 
debt.
  I do not think you should dare call yourself fiscal conservatives. I 
think what you should call yourself are the seeds of destruction for 
the greatest Nation this world has ever known.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, following that fascinating display, I would 
like to rise and indicate that as the economic downturn began during 
the last 2 quarters of 2000, we worked very hard to ensure that we 
could put into place policies that will encourage economic growth that 
will once again get us back on the path of a balanced budget.
  Now, we all know that the challenges with which we have had to deal 
stem from not only the economic downturn that began during the last 2 
quarters of the year 2000, but also September 11, the war with Iraq, 
and I am proud that we were able to stand together in a bipartisan way, 
Democrats and Republicans, to stand up to the threat of international 
terrorism and the repression that Saddam Hussein was imposing.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to my dear friend, the gentleman from Georgia, a 
member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, is it not true that the Democrats did not 
pass a budget last year, and during the period of time after 9/11 when 
we were trying to fund the troops and the war on terrorism, homeland 
and internationally, that the Democrats on the Committee on 
Appropriations, bill after bill, insisted on more spending, and in fact 
offered amendments on every appropriations subcommittee to increase 
spending; and now they are coming out here as fiscal conservatives. It 
seems there is a little tap dance going on that is difficult to follow.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is fascinating. I 
know when the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) yielded to the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) he talked about the fact that he is one 
of the most conservative Democrats in the House. But clearly if you 
look at the pattern that we have gone through for decades and decades, 
it clearly has not been Democrats who have stood forward as the great 
champions of fiscal responsibility. It is wonderful to see them join us 
now as we work towards encouraging economic growth so that we can get 
back onto this course of balancing the budget.
  I would like to take just a few moments, if I might, Mr. Speaker, to 
talk about some substantive issues here.
  My friend the gentleman from Dallas (Mr. Frost), the ranking minority 
member of our Committee on Rules, has talked about the fact that he 
knows exactly what the other body is going to do. I do not. I do not 
know what the Senate is going to do.
  But I do know this: We passed $726 billion in tax cuts with the 
budget that we put into place, and we know that action was taken over 
in the other body that imposed a limit of $350 billion. But I think it 
is wrong for the United States House of Representatives, the people's 
House, the one that has every Representative here on behalf of the 
between 600,000 and 700,000 Americans, simply kowtow to action over 
there.
  I think we have a responsibility to do everything that we can to take 
action, and let me say that I believe we need to do everything that we 
can to stand up for what it was that we did in our budget, to try and 
ensure that the American people can keep more of their own hard-earned 
dollars and to put into place tax policies which will encourage 
economic growth. That is exactly what we are doing here today.
  Now, we heard in our Committee on Rules yesterday and we have heard 
here on the floor that somehow the President of the United States has 
made a determination as to exactly what he wants to do.
  I have here, Mr. Speaker, a copy of the Statement of Administration 
Policy. That is the statement of the President of the United States. 
Contrary to some of the arguments put forward by my Democratic 
colleagues, this is what the statement of administration policy says:
  ``The Administration supports passage of H.R. 1308, the All-American 
Tax Relief Act of 2003, and urges the House and Senate to quickly 
resolve their differences.''
  The administration understands the bicameral process that takes place 
here. For some reason, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
want to just buckle under, and not realize that we can do even better 
than what was done in the other body.
  That is what we are striving to do. We are striving to get this 
economy growing. We have already seen very positive signs from what has 
taken

[[Page 14629]]

place with passage of the Jobs and Growth Act. We have seen positive 
signs with the Dow above 9200. That has taken place since we have 
passed this legislation.
  We have indicators out there that we can get this thing growing to 
the point where we will be able to generate the revenue that we need to 
deal with the very important prescription drug program, which we are 
working on right now as part of Medicare reform, education priorities, 
transportation issues which we were addressing earlier.
  This measure today is a very important part of that, and, Mr. 
Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this package.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Scott), one of our very respected new members.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am one of the few Democrats that 
joined my colleagues on the other side to vote for the President's tax 
cut on the last time, largely because my voters in Georgia felt it 
would be good for them if we were able to get some badly needed dollars 
back to our State.
  But this is a different story, and I think we ought to recognize why 
the American people have us here in the first place at this time.

                              {time}  1600

  It is not to come back for another tax cut. It is to address an 
omission, a very serious omission from the first tax cut, and that is 
to correct that by bringing a clean, crisp bill that pointedly 
addresses bringing the child tax credit to those working families at 
the lower-income levels. That is what we are about to do here. I think 
it is a sham.
  Unfortunately, I think it is disrespectful for our Republican friends 
to do this, and they know full well that what they are doing with this 
measure is nothing but to delay and certainly, quite possibly, kill any 
tax credit. That is why I come and urge all of my colleagues to vote 
against this rule. Let us follow President Bush's lead. Let us get a 
clean-cut bill, and let us pass it so that he can sign it this weekend 
and give the Nation's families and poor people an opportunity to have 
an outstanding Father's Day gift.
  I come down here as one of the few Democrats who voted for the 
President's tax cut because it was a good plan for my Georgia 
constituents, but it has one problem. It did not provide child tax 
credits for many working families.
  Fortunately, this is an easy problem to fix. The Senate 
overwhelmingly passed a clean child tax credit which the President has 
said that he would sign into law. If we passed the Senate child tax 
credit, it could be on the President's desk before this weekend. 
President Bush is right about this. He's asked us to pass the Senate 
Bill with just the 10 billion for the child tax credit for lower income 
families, so we can get the checks in the mail immediately. By next 
month at the same time higher income Americans get theirs.
  The Republican measure now before us will not do that. It will only 
guarantee that working families would not get child tax credits anytime 
soon if at all. By tying on the 82 billion additional tax cuts we would 
guarantee that the Senate would reject the bill. This is a sham.
  Let's vote against this rule so that we can get a clean child tax 
credit before us today. You would then have my vote and an overwhelming 
majority of the House and a certain signature by President Bush.
  I stand with President Bush on this. Let's stand together and do the 
right thing, pass a clean child tax credit and help working families 
immediately. Get it to President Bush so he can sign it, give our 
nation's working families in lower brackets the relief they need and a 
wonderful Father's Day gift this weekend.
  Let's treat the lower income working families with the respect they 
deserve. Give them the tax credit immediately--now.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I want to say, first of all, this door is wide open on the Republican 
side of the House. If the Democrats want to join us in holding the line 
on appropriations spending, we welcome you. If you want to join us in 
cracking down on waste, fraud, and abuse in government, we welcome you. 
If you want to join us in eliminating some duplication in government 
programs, we welcome you. And I hope that the Blue Dogs will work with 
us and anybody else over there who will.
  On this issue, which is one of expanding welfare, we are trying to 
work with you. You know you voted against welfare reform, and you know 
it worked. There were 14 million people on welfare when we passed 
welfare reform. President Clinton signed it. So we can claim 
bipartisanship, even though the majority of the House Democrats voted 
against it. Welfare reform has been a success. Nine million people are 
not on welfare that used to be on welfare.
  Now we still have 5 million; that is too many people. It may be your 
way of giving them an additional benefit, and maybe this is a good 
idea. It is not a tax rebate because you do not get a rebate on a tax 
that you do not pay. I know a lot of my colleagues will say, well, they 
do pay sales tax and so forth; that is true, but that is disingenuous 
on your part. As my colleagues know, we are talking about income taxes, 
and those folks do not pay income taxes.
  Now, that being the case, and I will yield to my friend from Texas; 
that being the case, let me say this. There is a guy out there, as the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) said, he is a policeman, his wife 
is a teacher. He shops at Wal-Mart for Christmas. He goes to Home Depot 
on Saturdays to pick up a hammer and some two-by-fours to do a little 
home repair. When his car needs tires, he goes out and gets three 
different quotes for them. He owes on his house. He owes on one of his 
cars. The other car is paid for because it is 8 years old. He scrimps, 
he saves to get his kids into college. His son goes off to war. They 
are the first in standing up for the country.
  It is very difficult for that guy to get any tax credit because he 
falls through the cracks in this country. The combined income is 
$125,000. This gives him eligibility for that $1,000 tax credit. And I 
am a believer that the more money we put in his pocket, the more money 
he is going to spend on the economy. When he spends, small businesses 
expand. When they expand, more jobs are created, more jobs are created, 
and less people are on public assistance, more people go to work, more 
people are paying into the system rather than taking out of it. I 
believe that tax reductions actually increase revenues. They are good 
for jobs; they are good for the economy. That is why I am going to 
support this.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if I have time remaining for my friend, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), I yield.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, you look at this chart, the bill we have 
before us today; this is the problem you are fixing. This is the 
interest.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The time of the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston) has expired.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, as the majority leader said just the other 
day, ``Well, well, well.''
  Mr. Speaker, the majority does not want to be here today. They do not 
want to talk about the child tax credit. They wanted this whole issue 
to simply disappear. To many on the other side, as we have already 
heard, the child tax credit is just another form of welfare. If it were 
up to them, they would be cutting Ken Lay's taxes, again, instead of 
giving a soldier in Iraq who makes only $16,000 a year a small tax 
credit.
  But we on this side of the aisle and the American people refuse to 
let this issue go. And I do not know whether it is shame or 
exasperation, but the other side has finally agreed to discuss the 
child tax credit. Well, sort of.
  The sensible, responsible thing to do would be to bring up and pass a 
very good bill that passed the Senate last week by a bipartisan vote of 
94 to 2, a bill that is fully paid for with offsets. But the Republican 
leadership rarely misses the opportunity to be insensible and 
irresponsible. That leadership

[[Page 14630]]

knows very well that the Senate-passed bill would become law in a snap, 
because Members on both sides of the aisle would vote for it, and even 
the President supports it.
  Instead, the majority leader and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas) have brought us a bill that costs $82 billion. And, get this: 
there are no offsets. It is not paid for. The Republican leadership 
simply wants to saddle our children and our grandchildren with ever-
increasing debt. How do they justify that?
  If this bill stands as it is, it will help bankrupt our children, 
including the 12 million low- and moderate-income children the 
Republicans first ignored by deleting the child tax credit from the 
last tax bill. They are so ashamed of their strategy that not one 
Republican came to the Committee on Rules to testify on behalf of this 
$82 billion bill. Not one Republican.
  They refuse to allow us to vote on the Senate-passed bill, a bill 
that passed 94 to 2. This process is undemocratic, it is irresponsible, 
it is outrageous; and it ought to be stopped.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues to put a stop to this. 
Do the right thing. Do the right thing. Let us vote on a sensible, 
bipartisan child tax credit. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bachus), my friend.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, whatever we do here today, let us be honest 
with the American people. Now, the gentleman from Massachusetts kept 
talking about the child tax credit. It is not a tax refund; it is not a 
tax credit. If we are going to do it, let us call it what it is, and it 
is welfare.
  When you get back money you have paid in, when we give the American 
people money they have paid in, that is a tax refund. That is a tax 
credit. When we take money away from some American taxpayers and we 
give it to someone else, that is not a tax credit. That is not a 
refund. That is welfare. And that is what you have proposed to do. If 
an American pays in $1,500 and we give them back $4,000, that $2,500 is 
not a refund; it is not a credit. It is someone else's money. And if we 
want to turn our Tax Code into a welfare system, let us be honest with 
the American people that that is what we are doing. That is what we are 
doing.
  Why represent this as a credit? Where is the credit? You pay in 
$1,500, you get back $3,000; $1,500 is a credit, but the other $1,500 
is someone else's money.
  Today, of 100 American families, 50 of them paid 96.1 percent of the 
taxes before the last tax cut, and in the last tax cut, we gave 
Americans back their own money. And what the Democrats have proposed is 
taking Americans' money, your money, America, and we are giving it to 
someone else, and that is not a tax credit. That is welfare. Let us be 
honest with the American people. We are turning our Tax Code into a 
welfare system. And if we want to do that, let us call it what it is. 
Let us have a little truth in labeling. We are requiring 86 percent of 
the American people to pay their tax dollars to someone else, and that 
is welfare.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any additional time, but I wish 
I had time to question the last speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, in 1 minute I want to tell you why this 
bill, compared to the Senate bill, taxes could be raised, could be 
raised on enlisted men and women serving in Iraq by as much as $1,000 
per child. It is a fact, a shocking fact about this bill.
  Let us take an E6, a sergeant, making $29,000. You have to make more 
than $10,500 in order to qualify for the child tax credit. That leaves 
him if he is state-side $18,500 times the 15 percent, two child tax 
credits for his two children.
  But let us assume now he goes to Iraq and let us assume he stays 8 
months. That means $18,500 of his income, because he is in a combat 
zone, will not be subject to taxation. It is not taxable income. 
Therefore, his taxable income is only $9,500. What happens? By going to 
Iraq, by serving his country for 8 months in a combat zone, his family 
loses both of the child tax credits.
  This is not necessary. The Senate bill worked it out. It was 
deliberately deleted from the Senate bill, for what reasons I would 
certainly like the other side to explain.
  Let me tell my colleagues one other thing. At this desk is a military 
tax fairness bill passed by the other body. If we really want to do 
something for the military, call it up. Because in every respect, the 
bill at the desk is more liberal, more beneficial to our service men 
and women. I hope you will answer the charges I have just made, rather 
than supporting the provisions included in this bill. This is an 
outrage.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, to hear the Republicans tell it, you might 
think that they were bringing this bill to the floor to extend the 
child tax credit to the families of 12 million children. One might 
think that they believe that 6.5 million families, including more than 
200,000 military families, deserve the child tax credit.
  Where were they when they stole, when the Republicans stole the child 
tax credit in the dead of night from these hard-working families? For 
that matter, where were they when I offered an amendment back in March 
in the Committee on the Budget to extend this credit to those families 
and they all voted ``no,'' families who earn between $10,500 and 
$26,625. Yes, they pay taxes: payroll taxes, sales taxes, property 
taxes, excise taxes. Where was the compassion from my Republican 
colleagues when these families needed them? It was the Republican 
majority leader not 2 days ago who said he had more important things to 
do.
  I will tell my colleagues where that compassion was. It was with 
Enron and all of the corporations who avoid paying taxes by relocating 
overseas and taking American jobs with them. You want to talk about 
welfare? That is welfare on a grand scale. Enron paid no taxes the last 
4 out of 5 years, a disgrace; and they just ate away and took away 
people's pensions, and nobody in this House on the other side of the 
aisle is willing to do anything about that.
  Now the Republicans hold hostage responsible legislation, 
overwhelmingly passed in the other body 94 to 2. And why? Because they 
want to use these families as a bargaining chip in their endless, 
endless quest to cut taxes for only the wealthiest Americans, driving 
our country deeper and deeper in debt.
  Let us consider the other body's legislation. The White House wants 
to do it. Today the Republicans bring to the floor this irresponsible 
$82 billion bill. It is cynical, and it is designed to fail in the 
other body and to prevent these families from receiving the tax relief 
that they need. And to see more cynicism about this, most families are 
going to receive their tax credit on July 1.
  Mr. Speaker, these families, these families, military families as 
well, have got to claim the tax credit next April. They cannot get it 
now when everyone else is going to. They do not deserve this. They are 
hard-working. They pay taxes. Let us give them a chance. Pass an honest 
child tax credit bill.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Sometimes we get lost here a little bit about the result of the 2003 
tax cuts. In 2003, 91 million taxpayers will receive on average a tax 
cut of $1,126 under the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003. Sixty-eight 
million women will see their taxes decline on average by $1,338. Forty-
five million married couples will receive an average tax cut of $1,786. 
Thirty-four million families with children will benefit from an average 
tax cut of $1,549, and 6 million single women with children will 
receive an average tax cut of $558. Twelve million elderly taxpayers 
will receive an average tax cut of $1,401. Twenty-three million small 
business owners will receive tax cuts averaging $2,209, and 3 million 
individuals and families will have their

[[Page 14631]]

income tax liability completely eliminated by this act.

                              {time}  1615

  Now, today, we are going to do even more, because unlike some of the 
debate here, let us not kid ourselves, the other body sent a bill that 
does something for us from now until next election. That is 2004. That 
is when the child tax credit ends.
  This bill today, when we vote it up or down, it is going to go to 
2010. A $1,000 child tax credit is scheduled to sunset in 2005. It will 
gradually increase back to $1,000 in 2010. In this bill, it puts it up 
right up front, now to 2010, a $1,000 tax credit. It eliminates the 
marriage penalty on the child credit. It accelerates the increase to 
the refundable child credit. It provides tax relief and enhances tax 
fairness for members of the Armed Forces. It suspends the tax-exempt 
status of designated terrorist organizations. It provides tax relief 
for astronauts who die in space missions.
  We are getting the job done, Mr. Speaker. America knows it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel), the distinguished ranking member.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, we should thank the heavens that we have got 
such an honest person like the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). They 
do not make people like that anymore.
  The gentleman from Georgia who spoke so eloquently about the welfare 
bill that we are talking about today, and those who made these nasty, 
disparaging remarks and left the floor, this is honesty. This is the 
United States of America.
  I wondered why, why would these good people, albeit Republicans, why 
would they drop a provision that only costs $3.5 billion that would 
help 12 million kids and 6.5 million working families? It is because in 
their minds if one is not an investor, one is on welfare.
  Do we get where they are finally coming from? Have Members listened 
to the debate? They said refundable tax credits. That is not a tax 
credit. You can work every day, you can pay Social Security taxes, you 
can pay Medicare, you can raise your family, you can join the Army, you 
can fight in Iraq. But guess what, look into the Republican book and 
see how you are listed. As a hardworking American, as a mother and 
father concerned about their children, someone struggling every day to 
make ends meet, to pay the rent, to pay the mortgage, to pay the 
tuition? No. Look under welfare.
  Then, of course, if we really want to find out who they think 
deserves tax relief, look at the hardworking people who get their 
dividends every day while they are at the clubhouse. Look at those that 
clip the coupons. These are the people, as they would say, who pay 
taxes; and they are the ones who get relief.
  But when they said that they will never, never, never give welfare to 
these families, the President of the United States said, enough is 
enough. We got a bipartisan agreement. True, it is $10 billion. Swallow 
it, go home. But they said, no, no. No welfare.
  Let us give them an offer that they have to refuse. For $3.5 billion, 
they are asking this hardworking family to pay back, for this, $82 
billion. I do not know how this would work, whether the family gets 
$100 a year. But I do know one thing, that this deficit that they keep 
building on day after day, month after month, and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay) said they will be coming back, but each time they 
borrow money to give tax cuts to the coupon-clippers and those who get 
the dividends, they are asking the kids and the grandkids that we are 
trying to help today to pay for it. But $82 billion for $3.5 billion? 
That is so shameful.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I were not here when some of the tax-
and-spend left kept spending us through an oblivion of deficits. We 
were here after 9-11 when we faced terrible tragedy in our country 
which has caused us to address the war on terrorism, to rebuild our 
cities, to address some of the complications of an economy that has 
slowed down.
  I do not mind that the debate that America hears is whether we have a 
bigger central government that spends more of their money on programs 
that the government figures out; or whether the economy began moving 
because middle America and the poor of America had more money in their 
pockets to make their decisions what they wanted to do with that money, 
whether they wanted to pay off a consumer loan, whether they wanted to 
pay tuition, whether they wanted to use it just to help have some 
opportunity for their child, their mother, or father.
  The decision that voters are going to make down the road is whether 
they want a smaller government that allows people to make more 
decisions on their hard-earned money, money out of their pocket; or 
whether they need more money in the downtown central government in 
Washington, D.C., or some government bureaucrat trying to figure out 
some way to help them out.
  I am going to tell the Members, we have started on a tax cut. I read 
earlier the millions of Americans who are going to benefit across the 
board. We are now in a situation where we are going to watch.
  Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle had every nay 
and say about what is going to happen with the economy. I do not know, 
they do not know. But by 2004, in that fourth quarter, we are going to 
find out whether the economy of consumer goods began moving, confidence 
of investors began moving, and whether America started to see a resolve 
from a terrible tragedy of 9-11; to see, as the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Dreier) said, in the third and fourth quarters of 
2000 when it slowed down, if it moved.
  If it does move, there are going to be more Republicans on this side 
of the aisle; if it does not, maybe there will be a little less. But 
the conviction of the majority is, people have an opportunity and a 
right to have more money in their pockets for them to decide how to 
spend it, not Washington.
  The only proven way to restrict government spending is to reduce 
revenues. Tightening the purse strings but providing much-needed tax 
relief is the only way to get money back in the hands of hardworking 
Americans and out of Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the rubber-stamp Congress is in session. 
Last night, they came up to the Committee on Rules. Nobody even 
bothered to come up and talk about the bill. They had an order from the 
President. Ari Fleischer said, the President says, pass it so he can 
sign it. So they had the little meeting up there and rifled it down 
here, with no hearings in the Committee on Ways and Means, not one 
single minute of debate in a hearing where we could listen to anybody 
give any opinion about what this bill does. But all of them came with 
their rubber stamps.
  Let me tell the Members, if they go for what they put out there, the 
chairman has put out there, the President is going to be real mad, 
because the President does not like that bill. He likes the one that 
the Senate passed. So hold rubber stamps on the one for the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thomas) and save it for the one for the President.
  All he asks Members to do is to approve; to say, I approve everything 
George Bush wants. That is what this Congress is about. They do not 
want any debate. They do not want to talk about how much this debt 
builds up or anything else; they simply want to be rubber stamps for 
the President. Boom.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this unfair 
and undemocratic rule and proposal.
  Only in Washington would the Republican tax cuts just signed into law 
by the President come at the expense of working families.
  Only in Washington would Republicans borrow money to pay for that 
Republican tax package while failing

[[Page 14632]]

to include child care tax credits for the working families whose very 
children will be forced to pay for the Republicans' fiscal 
irresponsibility.
  Only in Washington would the Republican tax package leave one in five 
children of active duty U.S. military families out from benefiting from 
the increased tax credit while their parents are off risking their 
lives in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere for their Nation.
  Only in Washington would Republicans then propose an $82 billion tax 
bill, adding another $100 billion to the national debt to fix a $3.5 
billion problem.
  If we repeal every sunset in their tax bill, which is what we are 
beginning to do here, we will have $400 billion in annual deficits. 
That is not what we want to do to the very children we are trying to 
help in this bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, there are two bills at the desk. They are 
right next to the podium there, H.R. 1307 and H.R. 1308. They are right 
there. The question to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) and 
his leadership is, why not take those two bills, pass them today, and 
have them signed by the President? That is the question.
  Well, someone comes here, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), 
and reads a statement from the President. Oh, but just a few days ago 
his spokesperson said, he, the President, believes what the Senate has 
done is the right thing to do, a good thing to do, and he wants to sign 
it. Instead, they want to do something else.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has maybe made clear, he said, 
as mentioned earlier, that there are a lot of things more important to 
do. Then a little later he says, to me it is a little difficult to give 
tax relief to people who do not pay income tax, though they pay all 
other kinds of taxes. So what they are doing is a bill with a huge, 
huge addition to the deficit. Maybe they hope that they will kill this 
bill when it goes over to the Senate.
  There is a kind of legislative machoism going on here: we are going 
to show the Senate, at the cost of the people of this country. They are 
making wimps out of some Republicans who would like to vote the right 
way by tying this into a rule. They are making the President issue a 
statement that contradicts what was said on his behalf just a few days 
ago. Most importantly of all, what they are saying once again is, 
deficits be damned. Pile them up. Pile them up. Pile them up.
  What I say is take these bills, let us pass them today, and get on 
with our work for the children of the United States of America.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, only a week ago I do not think the gentleman was 
advocating any tax cuts. But I just want to remind our colleagues that 
are both here and throughout the offices that in fiscal year 2004, in 
the adopted budget resolution, language was included for the first time 
limiting the amount of revenue reductions in the Senate to a deficit 
impact of $350 billion.
  The House articulated its clear reservations to this maneuver because 
all revenue measures must originate in the House; we retained our right 
to develop more measures to reduce the tax burden on the American 
people.
  So the options for the Committee on Rules, they could, one, accept 
the Senate proposals as a whole imposing offset requirements; two, call 
up an entirely new House bill, starting the process anew, with likely 
substitutes, in essence dragging out the process that would take the 
ability to move, and I am not sure whether the gentleman knows for sure 
we have a quorum tomorrow; and, three, we could stipulate the House 
prerogative to provide tax relief with a comprehensive proposal that 
has broad policy support.
  Why should the House impose offsets when our own budget made room for 
a proposal just like this, the one I have outlined that does so much 
for working families across the country?
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) 
talked about averages. Beware of averages.
  If the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) gets $100,000 tax cut 
and I get a zero tax cut, that means the two of us got a $50,000 
average tax cut. Beware of Republicans quoting average tax cuts.
  The GOP's intransigence is on full display with the self-executing 
rule on this legislation to allow low-income working American families 
to benefit from the increase in the child tax credit.
  Let there be no mistake: With this rule, the GOP leadership wants to 
send this legislation into conference committee where it hopes to tie 
up the bill and watch it die a slow death.
  Two days ago, when the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) unveiled the House GOP's 
fiscally irresponsible version of this bill, he had the audacity to 
say, ``We are not in the business of politics, but rather policy.''
  Well, I ask, is the United States Senate playing politics with this 
issue?
  That body passed a responsible bipartisan bill, 94 Senators voting 
for it, giving relief to 12 million children and 6.5 million families. 
I ask, is the President of the United States playing politics when he 
said he would sign the Senate bill and urged us to pass it? And the 
Democratic Caucus on this side of the aisle, every one of whom is 
prepared to vote for the bill that the President says he will sign that 
will give immediate relief to 12 million children and 6.5 million 
working families.
  So we all know who is really playing politics on this issue. And it 
is not Senate Republicans, Senate Democrats, House Democrats, and 
President Bush who support the immediate passage of the Senate bill. It 
is the House Republicans who have proposed an irresponsible, $82 
billion bill that is not paid for, that would drive us even deeper into 
debt and possibly prevent low-income working families from receiving 
this benefit.
  I have said on this floor before, when you did not allow us to offer 
a substitute, that you did not have the courage of your convictions. I 
have said on this floor before when you did not allow us to offer 
amendments, that you did not have the courage of your convictions. Now, 
you not only do not allow us to offer a substitute, you do not allow us 
to offer amendments, you do not even have the courage to put your own 
bill on the floor.
  The public probably does not understand that. This is a rule. Not the 
bill. We are not debating the bill. And, as a matter of fact, the 
committee whose jurisdiction has this bill is not even on the floor and 
they have not spoken on this bill. The leadership of the committee has 
not come forward and said that it is good bill. They have handled it on 
a procedural matter. Why? To muzzle us and to muzzle their folks who 
they do not rely on to vote on the substance of this bill, but hope and 
pray they will get enough of their people on the procedural end of this 
bill to carry the day. That is unfortunate.
  Eighty-two billion dollars of deficit that Americans are going to 
have to pay for, my children are going to have to pay for, my 
grandchildren are going to have to pay for; and we do not even have the 
courage to put the bill on the floor, but this rule ruse is what we are 
confronted with.
  Vote no on the previous question. Vote no on the bill.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think there are any rubber stamps in that 
package.
  Mr. Speaker, in this short time, it is 4:34, daylight, we will have 
an opportunity to have our colleagues come in, and they are going to 
vote yes and they will do a tax cut that varies on the All-American Tax 
Relief Act of 2003, or they will vote no and say all those press 
releases I put out last week wanting to move expeditiously on this, 
they do not really matter because now it is before us.

[[Page 14633]]

  Well, it is here. And I must say both the chairman, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thomas), and others from the Committee on Ways and 
Means and the Committee on Rules found a solution to meet what seemed 
to be Republican and Democrats wanting to expedite this bill. And so we 
took the House resolution with a Senate amendment. The Senate amendment 
we have disposed with, the House coming back quickly with the 
amendments to go to the other body. And it is going to be done today. 
It is not going to be done tomorrow. It is not going to be done next 
week. We have an opportunity to do it right now.
  And while we are listening to all of this, some of them on procedure, 
I just want to remind the esteemed whip that I think we have been 
debating the merits of this bill for an hour; and some agree, some do 
not. Pretty soon we will put it up, 4:35, and take a look at how it 
ends. But I want to remind my colleagues that this bill, as amended, 
and sent back to the Senate will increase the child credit for $1,000 
for an eligible child through 2010; not for some slick promise of 2003 
and 2004, and then it slides back after the next election. It is 
straightforward, straight up, right until 2010. It eliminates the 
marriage penalty on child credit. It accelerates the increase in the 
refundable child credit. It provides tax relief and enhances tax 
fairness for members of the Armed Forces. It suspends the tax-exempt 
status of designated terrorist organizations and provides tax relief 
for astronauts who die on space missions.
  Those pieces of legislation, as they were before us or the other 
body, have been dealt with in the last several months and years by this 
body or the other body. So when we get done here with this debate, we 
are going to have an opportunity, yes or no. If you vote yes, you are 
going to give America that tax cut. If not, you are going to find some 
way to wrangle out of it with a press release. But what I heard was 
everybody wanted to get underway and make this happen. The Committee on 
Ways and Means and the Committee on Rules is giving this honorable body 
that action today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The Chair will inform Members 
that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Reynolds) here that I am a member of the Committee 
on Ways and Means, and we did not have any markup. We did not have any 
opportunity to debate this bill in committee.
  We call it the All-American Tax Relief Act. It is red, white and 
blue. And you say to yourself, who could possibly object? I object. And 
I object on behalf of those 200,000 military families who are 
ineligible for this enhanced child tax credit, even though they served 
honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan and other combat zones. They 
apparently are not all-American enough to qualify for this bill. That 
provision is missing from the House All-American Tax Relief Act.
  You might have noticed that the refundable tax credit has no revenue 
impact this year under the House bill but does so under the Senate 
bill. How could it be that the stars-and-stripes House bill provides no 
relief this year? That is because the all-American bill rejects the 
notion that low-income families deserve immediate relief as every other 
American family will get in the next 6 weeks.
  Low-income families must wait for their checks until next year, and, 
of course, those serving in a combat zone, they can wait forever. 
Reject this bill. It is unpatriotic.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, one of our esteemed colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle is very fond of beginning his speeches by 
saying that nothing underscores more the difference between our two 
parties than whatever we are debating that day. And I happen to agree 
with him on this issue, Mr. Speaker.
  I have only been here for 4 months, and I have heard a lot of debate 
in this Chamber, but I say this very candidly: My party would not have 
reached into the pockets of hardworking Americans to get to a $350 
billion cutoff number. My party would not leave veterans out of a 
package that purports to help people. And my party would not have to 
depend on a procedural maneuver to get votes to pass a tax credit for 
working families.
  There are very fundamental differences between our parties and they 
are very much on display today. I urge all of my colleagues in this 
Chamber to understand that the very people who are steamrolling this 
particular bill through this Chamber today in the form of a rule vowed 
to kill it just several days ago. That would be very powerful proof if 
we had a jury and we had a trial here.
  The very people that are pushing this measure today vowed several 
days ago that it would not be.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, if the ranking member would consider, I 
have one speaker to close. And if he would like to close, then I will 
do that and yield to the majority leader. If he has more speakers, I 
will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have one speaker and then I will close.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) 
for yielding me time and for the magnificent way that he has managed 
this rule today.
  Little did we know when we were discussing this issue of an expansion 
of a tax credit for working families in our country and for the 
children of our military men and women, that it would be a bill that 
would be managed by the Committee on Rules. Little did we know that a 
bill of the magnitude of $82 billion would be something that would be 
unveiled on Tuesday night, not go to committee for review; when it went 
to the Committee on Rules yesterday, to not have the leadership, the 
author of the bill, present to defend it. And now we know why. Because 
they never intended to have a rule to bring the bill to the floor.
  So frightened of debate on this issue are the Republicans, so 
frightened of the outcome that their own Members could not support this 
outrage that they are putting forth today, that they had to hide their 
ill will towards America's children behind a procedural vote to command 
the loyalty of the Republicans on a procedural vote while they knew 
they could not hold them on the substance of their bill. But that is 
the reality of it. And so we have to use the opportunities under this 
rule, as limited as it is, to point out what is so very, very wrong 
about what is going on on the floor of the House today.
  Let us talk about the children. President Kennedy said that children 
are our greatest resources and our best hope for the future. A 
beautiful statement. One I am sure that we would all agree with. He did 
not say children of those making over a certain level of income in our 
country are our greatest resources, and if their parents do not serve 
in the military, they are our best hope for the future. But that is 
what this rule says today.
  We had an opportunity in this body to expand the tax credit for 
children of working families and of military families by simply calling 
from the desk the Senate bill. It is right there at the desk. We could 
take it up by unanimous consent. The distinguished majority leader is 
here. We could agree to take it up by unanimous consent. It would be 
passed unanimously. It would be on the President's desk within the 
hour, signed into law, and all of the children that we are talking 
about, children of our men and women in uniform, children of families 
making between $10,000 and $26,000 would get the tax credit expansion 
this year.
  No matter what the Republicans want to say about their proposal, it

[[Page 14634]]

sabotages that good intention. There is no way with the proposal that 
they are putting forth, costing $82 billion unpaid for, indebting the 
same children they purport to care about, indebting those same children 
to the tune of $82 billion, granting with one hand but not granting to 
all children, and not granting this year but taking away with the other 
for a long time to come, burying our children in a mountain of debt 
heaped onto the debt incurred by their previous tax legislation, and 
depriving the children of the Federal initiatives to invest in their 
education, in their health, in their well-being, in their future, and 
in the future of our country.
  The Republicans insist on doing this even though the opportunity that 
I said earlier exists. And why? One would have to suspect that they do 
not want to have a tax credit for the children of America's military 
and the children of working families between the income of $10,000 and 
$26,000, certainly not this year.

                              {time}  1645

  Even though we cannot take up a full consideration of the bill or, 
heaven forbid, a substitute to it, indeed even the Senate bill which 
passed 94 to 2, a bipartisan piece of legislation, approved by the 
President, even though we cannot do it and we cannot have that 
discussion, it is important to note several facts.
  One is the families that we are talking about here, working full 
time, working full time, many of those families make in a year less 
than Members of Congress do in 1 month; and yet Members of Congress, 
their children will receive the expansion of the tax credit this year; 
but no, no, no, if you make $10,000 to $26,000, I am sorry, children, 
you are out of luck. The Republicans give new meaning to the biblical 
phrase, ``Suffer little children.''
  The other point to make is about the military. In the military, it is 
important to note that combat pay does not count toward consideration 
of the children's tax credit. Under current law, and this is important 
to note, under current law an E-5 or an E-6 sergeant with 6 years of 
service and two children would not be entitled to the full tax credit 
if he is in combat. So the minute that sergeant went to Iraq, if he 
stayed there for 6 months, his combat pay would not count toward his 
income for tax purposes, and so his children would not receive the tax 
credit expansion. This is not corrected in the Republican bill. The 
Senate bill helps these military families. The House bill does not.
  It is important also to know that this legislation really is 
suspected as one that would kill the expansion of the tax credit. The 
Senators have said that they will not support the package if it is not 
paid for. They certainly have made it clear that they are not going to 
add $82 billion, $82 billion to the deficit, to the debt.
  The issue before the House is clear. We can pass a fiscally 
responsible tax credit bill that helps 12 million children, including 
250,000 children from military families, or we can indebt them for 
future generations. We can invest in our children, or we can indebt 
them. That is the choice that the Republicans have put before us.
  Mr. Speaker, when I referenced the comments of President Kennedy, it 
was with the hope that we would agree in a bipartisan way in this body 
that when we say children are our greatest resource and our best hope 
for the future, that we are talking about all of the children in our 
country. We all want the best for our children. Many of us are 
privileged. I have five children, five grandchildren. I want the best 
for them, but they cannot have the best opportunity unless every child 
in America has opportunity. The Senate bill would enable that. The 
House bill does not.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and, in doing so, to 
support the value that we place on our children as our messengers to a 
future we will never see but that we want them to take forward a 
message of respect for all children in our country.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, does the gentleman----
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, am I to be recognized?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Reynolds) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Frost) has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I want to know if I can be recognized.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) 
is recognized.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As I listened here, I kind of got the same confusion of when I 
listened to some of my colleagues on the debate when we just did some 
tax relief not long ago. Class warfare, this is all for the rich. I 
reminded my colleagues that I come from kind of a small town in upstate 
New York, and the debate occurred with my colleague, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel) from Harlem, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules from Grand 
Prairie. None of them are really rich communities, and I cited that the 
tax bill the House Republicans moved forward on the floor after the 
adoption of the rule and then later passed took a family of four to 
make 40,000 bucks in my district and took their tax relief from $1,785 
they had to pay down to about $40. I think that is real tax relief. I 
do not think $40,000 is rich.
  When I look at the legislation, I watch the press releases all over 
America say let us get on with it. We are on with it. Today we are 
either going to vote ``yes,'' and I think it is going to be bipartisan, 
we are going to vote ``yes'' and send it to the Senate, or we are going 
to vote ``no.''
  But I want to remind some of my colleagues when we get the light of 
day on this tax bill that was sent to us by the Senate there a couple 
of things we might have made an improvement on as House Republicans 
because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle might argue that 
the Republican tax relief plans rob Peter to pay Paul, in other words, 
tax cuts for the rich. However, the Senate proposed offsets, Customs 
user fee extensions. I would argue this is robbing Peter to pay Paul 
because if you are raising taxes on those who actually pay them in 
order to subsidize tax refunds for those who share in no income tax 
liability whatsoever, it is fiscally and fundamentally unsound.
  The only proven way to restrict government spending is to reduce 
revenues. Tightening the purse strings by providing much needed tax 
relief is the only way to get money back to hardworking Americans, no 
matter how wealthy or poor they are. Get it out of Washington and back 
in the pockets of American taxpayers.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans face a choice. They can do the right thing 
by passing the Senate bill, giving 12 million children and their 
working families immediate tax relief, or they can do the wrong thing 
by continuing to explode the deficit with a bill that the other body 
will never accept.
  I urge Members to do the right thing and vote ``no'' on the previous 
question. Do the right thing for working families. Do the right thing 
for military families. It is not hard. Just do the right thing. If the 
Republicans tried it, Mr. Speaker, they might find they actually liked 
it. Come on in, Democrats say, the water is just fine; the water is 
warm.
  If the previous question is defeated, we will immediately take from 
the Speaker's table H.R. 1307 and H.R. 1308, the Senate-passed version 
of the Armed Forces Tax Fairness bill and the child tax credit. This 
House will pass them unanimously and send them to the President for his 
signature. This is it. No games, no delay. Just immediate tax relief 
for working and military families that is completely paid for.
  Mr. Speaker, these bills are at the Speaker's table. What is the 
choice? Do Republicans want to pass the bills, or do they want to kill 
the bills? Will they ever choose the right thing? Democrats await their 
answers. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous 
question.

[[Page 14635]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This vote is actually quite simple. A ``yes'' vote means greater 
fairness in the Tax Code and a mere tax relief for American workers 
families and children. A ``no'' vote stops that relief from moving 
forward and hurts the very people I know many of my colleagues eagerly 
want to assist.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on this resolution 
at the end of the debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, this is a big one. This bill really 
crystallizes the differences between the two parties, and the American 
people should know exactly what is going on here today.
  We are here to answer one question, do you support a $1,000 child tax 
credit, or do you not support it? This bill that we are debating here 
today provides $80 billion in tax relief and $77 billion of it extends 
the life of the child tax credit instead of cutting it off in 2004.
  At the end of this vote, the American people will see that the 
Republican Party believes in helping families through the child tax 
credit and the Democrat Party does not. The record up to now is very 
clear. In 2001, a Republican Congress and a Republican President 
doubled the child tax credit to $1,000, and the Democrats voted ``no.'' 
Just a few weeks ago, the President's jobs and growth package expanded 
the child tax credit and took 3 million low-income Americans off the 
tax roles altogether, and once again, the Democrats voted ``no.''
  Now our critics said it was too big. Then they turned right around 
and demanded that we make it bigger. You said working Americans needed 
additional tax relief, and you know what, the Republicans could not 
agree more with you.
  Consider a single mother of two earning $20,000 a year. Under the 
Clinton tax hike of 1993, her total tax bill, including income tax, 
payroll tax, local taxes, State taxes and the sales tax was more than 
$800. Now, after the Bush tax relief of 2001, that same single mother's 
total tax bill shrunk to less than $100, and under the President's jobs 
and growth package we just passed, that same single mother's total tax 
bill is now zero, and in fact, she now gets additional money from the 
American people because of tax relief that the Republicans passed, and 
all along the Democrats voted ``no.''
  Under the bill we pass today, not only will that same single mother 
pay no taxes, but she will get more than $400 in additional help from 
the American people; and yet if this debate is any indication at all, 
you will still vote ``no.''
  Our critics talk a very good game, but this is their chance to put 
their money where their mouth is. I will ask again, are you for a 
$1,000 child tax credit, or are you against it?
  This bill is real simple, Mr. Speaker. It extends the life of the 
child tax credit. It provides additional help for lower-income 
families, and it eliminates the marriage penalty. It includes, by the 
way, tax relief for military families, which you all have been calling 
for, and revokes the tax-exempt status of terrorist organizations.
  Finally, it will provide tax relief for the families of astronauts 
who lose their lives in the service of their Nation in space like the 
Columbia 7. This is a pretty important point, especially for me. 
Members from Florida and Texas, whose constituents include astronauts 
and members of the NASA family, have a clear choice to make. Will they 
cast their votes with their courageous constituents or with the empty 
promises of the obstructionists? How can Members from Texas and 
Florida, how can any Member, oppose this piece of legislation?
  In this bill, we have given our critics everything that they have 
said they wanted to help lower-income Americans, and now with the whole 
world watching and the credibility of the Democratic Party on the line, 
are you for a $1,000 child tax credit, or are you against it?
  In just a few moments we will once again see which party stands up 
for the cameras and which party stands up for working families.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, the issue today is fixing a 
mistake of the last round of tax cuts: the inherent bias of the Child 
Tax Credit. Although the Child Tax Credit was a great victory for the 
families of America, it was not perfect. It created an inequality 
between the poor and rich by excluding 6 million members of the working 
class from the tax breaks.
  Recognizing this error, the Senate, with support of the President, 
passed a bill correcting this inequality. This bill extends the tax 
breaks to those 6 million previously left out, while also providing an 
effective way of paying for the breaks. It solves the problem facing us 
while also being fiscally responsible.
  By accepting the Senate's bill, the House could get the legislation 
quickly on the President's desk, expediting financial aid to those who 
most need it. If only it was that easy. Instead of moving to accept 
this legislation, the House Leadership has seized this opportunity to 
further their cause of additional tax relief for the wealthy. They have 
taken this bill and manipulated it into a tax cut with an $82 billion 
price tag, which will further contribute to the exponential rise of our 
nation's debt. Additionally, in a rarely used political maneuver, they 
have attached this bill to a vote upon the rule governing 
consideration, not the measure itself.
  I urge this House to stop these political games, defeat the rule and 
address equity in the Child Tax Credit by passing the measure agreed to 
by the Senate and President Bush.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is appalling that a substantive vote 
on H.R. 1308 has been denied. The use of a self-executing rule has 
transformed the House action into a procedural vote guaranteeing its 
passage while denying any kind of fair fight on the spending of nearly 
$80 billion additional dollars.
  The bill before us today says more about our long-term priorities 
than about helping the lower income families and children left out of 
the recently enacted tax cut. Apparently, based on the actions of the 
Republican leadership, there is not enough money for hard- working, 
low-income people, but there is money to help people who are much 
better off. The gist of the tax credit debate these last two weeks has 
been about the lesser tax credit offered to families that make between 
$10,500 and $26,625 per year. Providing these families with the same 
child tax credit as families making up to $110,000 per year would cost 
$3.5 billion.
  Today, we are debating a bill with a price tag of $82 billion. This 
comes on the heels of new projections that our budget deficit this year 
will surpass $400 billion, far exceeding any other one year budget 
shortfall in history. Many economists are projecting a 2004 budget 
deficit on one half of a trillion dollars. The exploding deficit will, 
in this year alone, add about $16 billion in extra interest payments, 
which simply reduces funding available to other needed programs.
  All the groups that care deeply about children and poor people are 
appalled by this bill, and will be left to hope that the Senate has the 
good sense to resist it. If this bill succeeds it will accelerate the 
pace of reauthorizing these proposals, eliminating the sunsets and 
making them permanent leading to even more dramatic budget shortages. 
These deficits will squeeze out funding for necessary programs and 
establish the principle that we are not going to help those that are 
struggling in this depressed economy.
  The Republican leadership is spending 6 times as much to give the tax 
credit to the top 10 percent of the population as they are to extend 
the benefit to the modest income families they left out. For about the 
same cost as giving it to the most well off, they could extend coverage 
to those making as little as $7,500 per year. It's all about 
priorities.
  I do not share these priorities. I only wish there would have been a 
chance to vote against their proposal.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
opposition to H.R. 1308, the ``Only If you Make Enough Money'' All 
American Tax Relief Act of 2003.
  In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton writes, ``I know that 
powerful individuals, in this and in other States, are enemies to a 
general government in every possible shape.'' Perhaps Hamilton had the 
current Republican Caucus in mind when he issued this warning more than 
225 years ago. Clearly, the bill that this body is considering today is 
an example

[[Page 14636]]

of power, ignorance, and plain and simple greed.
  When the President signed into law the most recent tax cut, he signed 
a flawed bill. It was flawed when it first passed the House and it was 
flawed when the Conference Report was approved. Honestly, Mr. Speaker, 
I'm not surprised. As in so many other instances, during the still of 
the night--when the majority of Americans had already gone to bed--
House Republicans cut a deal with Senate Republicans and rushed to 
complete a tax cut requested by an over zealous President.
  As America has had a chance to sift through the most recent tax cut, 
it has become clear that the Republican Majority passed a bill which 
neglects more than 12 million children who are growing up in low-income 
families and the ability for their parents to benefit from the 
expansion of the child tax credit. Even worse, when provided with an 
opportunity to fix what is wrong with the initial bill--in a non-
controversial manner and at a relatively inexpensive cost--the 
Republican Majority has proven that it is more interested in scoring 
political points with the rich at the expense of America's children.
  Now, I'd like to give the Majority the benefit of the doubt and 
believe that the exclusion of families making between $10,500 and 
$26,625 was a simple oversight. However, after examining the bill that 
the House is considering today, as well as the reluctance at which the 
Majority is bringing it to the floor, it is increasingly clear that the 
``oversight'' Republicans made in the most recent tax bill was anything 
but an oversight. Instead, it was a concerted effort to avoid extending 
the credit to all families, rich and poor, to save offset room for an 
international business tax bill that the Majority Leader and Chairman 
of the Ways and Means Committee have each indicated is a priority.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, I can think of no greater priority than helping 
America's children and neediest families. This bill does little of the 
sort.
  The Majority may try and sell this bill to the American public as one 
that helps those who need it most, but the truth remains that the bill 
is filled with tax cuts that benefit the wealthy more than six times as 
much as they do the needy. This is a tax cut that further drives our 
country into debt and deficit spending, and it lacks even the slightest 
bit of fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, I've often been referred to as a ``tax and spend 
liberal.'' Well, I'm liberal and I'm proud of it. Frankly, I don't mind 
spending our tax dollars on government programs that, one, help people, 
and two, can be paid for through honest fiscal policy and, to the 
extent possible, balanced budgets. On the contrary, perhaps it might be 
best to describe the Majority as a bunch of ``cut and charge 
conservatives.'' The key difference between them and us is that 
Democrats pay up front for the government programs we support, whereas 
Republicans pay for their priorities on credit cards and leave the debt 
for future Democratic Majorities to pay off. This bill further runs up 
America's charge account for generations to come.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and join America's children 
and call on the Republican Majority to bring the Senate passed child 
tax credit bill to the floor for its immediate consideration.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate, but H.R. 1308 is a new 
$82 billion tax cut package that simply is too large. The House-passed 
version of H.R. 1308 will add to the already unprecedented national 
debt that future generations will face. Apparently, the Senate last 
week initially considered a proposal similar to the House-passed 
version of H.R. 1380 during its negotiations on child tax credit 
legislation, but the Senate rejected this proposal out of hand because 
of the effect it would have in worsening the deficit.
  Furthermore, while the focus of debate has been on the extension of 
the child tax credit, only a tiny fraction, about 4 percent, of the $82 
billion tax cut amount--$3.5 billion--goes toward extending the child 
tax credit for the estimated 12 million children who were left out of 
the previously enacted tax cut legislation. It is also unfortunate that 
over two-thirds of the House-passed version for child tax credit 
benefits will go to many higher-income families through an increase in 
the income level from $110,000 to $150,000 at which the child tax 
credit begins to phase down for married families. This would make 
married families in the $110,000-150,000 income range, who now receive 
a partial child tax credit, eligible for a full credit. It also extends 
a partial tax credit to many families in the $150,000-$200,000 range 
or, in the case of families with more than two children, to some 
families with incomes exceeding $200,000. The extension of the credit 
to these higher-income families would cost $20.4 billion through 2010 
under the House-passed bill. While the Senate-passed child tax credit 
bill has a similar provision, it costs only $4.8 billion because the 
Senate provision would not begin to phase in until 2008 and would not 
take full effect until 2010.
  Mr. Speaker, therefore, what is at stake is more than a simple 
extension of the child tax credit, instead what is at stake is whether 
or not many of the major tax cuts already passed will be extended 
beyond their sunsets and whether new additional tax cuts will be passed 
to further add to our deficit without the costs being offset. This 
Member believes that if this happens then our nation's long-term fiscal 
status is destined to markedly decline. Furthermore, this Member has 
been an outspoken critic that the original tax cut proposal from the 
Administration was too large, and this Member continues to believe that 
unless we take a more fiscally responsible course of tax cuts, then we 
will simply be passing a greater mountain of debt of our nation's 
children and their children. This Member also believes that such 
fiscally irresponsible tax cuts will increase the pressure to make even 
more draconian cuts in our Federal programs--beyond what is considered 
to be the necessary cuts to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in such 
programs.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
Republican Tax Cut bill, H.R. 1308, and in strong support of the 
Democrat's Child Credit package passed in the Senate.
  I stand today in solidarity with my Democratic colleagues to stop the 
attack on America's children and families. The Democrats have proposed 
a clean child tax credit bill that will provide relief to millions of 
America's children and families. The Republicans are trying to bog our 
bill down with unnecessary provisions. America's children are our 
number one priority. I don't understand why the Republicans continue to 
put our children at risk.
  The America we believe in is one of fairness. The Republican tax cuts 
have failed to live up to that test. At the expense of America's 
children they chose to give tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans. In 
fact, an advocacy group study found that under the Republicans' plan, a 
million children of active-duty military families and military veterans 
would not get tax relief. That is wrong and we must do better.
  The Democrats have given the Republicans a means of reversing their 
damaging tax cut and helping America's children. If they chose to take 
up the Senate legislation, House Republicans could get 6.5 million hard 
working families child tax credit checks this year. This would provide 
America's working class families with the same breaks as families with 
higher incomes. Some of these families work full-time at the minimum 
wage and still make less than $11,000 per year.
  The Republican's bill contains is damaging to the families and 
children of our brave men and women in uniform. Under current law, an 
E-5 or E-6 sergeant with 6 years of service and 2 children is paid 
$29,000 a year. If he did not serve in combat, both of his children 
would be entitled to the full $1,000 tax credit; but if he goes to 
combat for 6 months his credit would drop to approximately $450 under 
the House bill. The Senate bill helps these military families, the 
House bill does not.
  Republicans are exploiting the child tax credit provision in order to 
pass even more tax cuts that will burden America's children with 
insurmountable debt for years to come. This was all done in order to 
make room for a dividend tax cut target to the wealthy few. It is time 
for House Republicans to right this wrong, stop playing politics, and 
pass the Senate bill.
  Strengthening our nation means investing in all of our children. 
Further, the Republican decision to delay the increase of the child tax 
credit disproportionately harms military families and black and 
Hispanic families. Experts estimate that 260,000 children--or one in 
five--from families of active military will lose some of the child 
credit because of the Republican's decision to drop the Lincoln 
provision. It also disproportionately penalizes black and Hispanic 
children. Minority children, including 2.4 million black children, and 
4.1 million Hispanic children will be left in the cold by the 
Republican plan.
  The Senate Bill is the Way to Strengthen the Economy. The Democrat's 
plan is preferable because it puts money in the hands of working 
Americans by keeping our fiscal house in order can we create jobs and 
build a strong economy.
  For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I support the bill passed by the 
Senate and say shame on the supporters of H.R. 1308, who insist on 
doing harm to America's children.
  Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to discuss 
real intentions. The real intentions of the majority party to

[[Page 14637]]

continue its careless actions that further devastate a suffering 
economy, that further diminish the opportunities of working and 
military families to care for their loved ones, and that further helps 
the rich become richer and the poor become poorer.
  My colleagues, last month's $350 billion tax-cut package that passed 
was not really about stimulating the economy, but instead it was about 
borrowing nearly a trillion dollars to engineer a permanent shift in 
the tax burden away from the very wealthy, and a permanent reduction in 
federal revenues. If the tax bill's real intention was to stimulate the 
economy, those 12 million checks of up to $400 would have been first 
in, not first out, of the legislation. Again, the real intentions of 
the majority came to light--to provide relief for upper-income 
taxpayers. These real intentions are best seen in H. Res. 270, which 
provides low-income families with a child tax credit, but only if 
higher-income families are also eligible.
  The intentions of the majority have caused many upper-income 
taxpayers to pay attention to what is currently happening and they send 
a thank you to those who support this shady legislation. They want to 
say:
  Thank you for borrowing another $82 billion at a time when the 
federal deficit has exceeded $400 billion for 2003 and approaches $500 
billion for 2004, adding billions of dollars in ``debt tax'' onto the 
backs of the very families that need this assistance the most.
  Thank you for making a compromise between the two parties so hard to 
reach, for you are only further preventing discussion of a real 
prescription drug benefit and the rising percentage of unemployed 
people across this great nation.
  Thank you for ignoring the agreement reached in the Senate, you are 
only further keeping Congress from focusing on other important issues 
such as the 41 million uninsured people in this nation.
  Thank you for the corporate welfare to criminal enterprises like MCI 
Worldcom who stole the retirement savings of more than 1 million 
pension holders in New York State. These pension holders were 
victimized by MCI Worldcom's fraud and now see MCI abusing Sec. 108 of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in order to avoid paying about $4 
billion in future taxes because of its past criminal behavior.
  Finally, thank you for the deceptive games being played, we truly see 
how as a majority party how careless and clueless you are about what it 
takes to restart this economy and support needy families throughout 
this nation.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the All-
American Tax Relief Act of 2003. This is a balanced approach to 
extending tax relief to America's families.
  This tax package not only gives relief to American families that need 
a helping hand, but it also provides fair tax relief to military 
families and young married couples.
  Tax relief to military families, Mr. Speaker, who sacrifice so much 
to protect and contribute to our American way of life.
  Tax relief to young married couples, Mr. Speaker, who are just 
starting out and building a family of their own.
  We have heard the Democrats all day say that Republicans are giving 
more tax breaks to the rich . . . Well I don't know about you, Mr. 
Speaker, but I don't know too many military families or young married 
couples that I would call rich.
  Two weeks ago, the Democrats said we were providing too much tax 
relief to American families, then last week the Democrats said we were 
not giving enough tax relief to American families, and, as we have 
heard here time and time again today, the Democrats now say we are once 
again giving too much tax relief to American families.
  I say to my friends across the aisle, which is it?
  I also say to my friends across the aisle, stop playing politics with 
the American people's money.
  The All-American Tax Relief Act of 2003 is a balanced approach to 
providing tax relief to families with children. Every parent knows 
there is always another pair of sneakers to buy, or another text book 
or calculator to buy and this bill gives parents more of the money they 
earn to spend it on the needs they have.
  This bill brings long overdue tax fairness to America's military 
families.
  No longer will the surviving family members of soldiers that lost 
their lives protecting this country have to be taxed for the money they 
receive for their loved ones' sacrifice.
  No longer will military families be taxed on assistance they receive 
when their home values drop because Congress closes bases.
  No longer, Mr. Speaker, will our military Reservists be prevented 
from deducting travel expenses incurred by serving this country.
  The All-American Tax Relief Act of 2003 does just what it says; it 
provides balanced tax relief to all of America's families.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill and I urge the Democrats to 
stop listening to their pollsters and start listening to the many 
Americans that not only want, but need tax relief. This is not an issue 
to play politics with; this is an issue to provide leadership on.
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1308, a 
measure brought to the floor by House Republican leadership with little 
intention of truly helping America's working families.
  On June 9, I sponsored important bipartisan legislation that would 
help each and every parent pay their bills during this time of 
financial uncertainty. My bill, H.R. 2392, would restore the child tax 
credit to working families; it is the House version of a bill passed by 
the Senate last week, on a vote of 94-2, supported by our Senators 
Roberts and Brownback.
  If the House passes my bill without amendment, it would immediately 
go to the President for his signature. President Bush has asked 
Congress to act on this bill now.
  My bill would fully restore those provisions of the President's tax 
cut that were stripped out by the House leadership in order to make 
room for a larger dividend and capital gains tax cut.
  This bill would restore the child tax credit to the families of over 
12 million children nationwide, 1 million of whom have parents serving 
in the military. In Kansas, this bill would assist over 162,000 
children and their families who have received this credit since 1997--a 
credit which was taken from them by the leadership in the House.
  These families earn between $10,500 and $26,625 per year. They work 
hard to raise their children--and helping hard-working families make 
ends meet and raise their kids is the goal of the child tax credit.
  This bill is not about welfare. This bill is about helping working 
families who pay taxes to receive tax relief. This bill is about 
fairness for all families and children.
  My bill is about our priorities; and our priorities reflect our 
values.
  Taking the child tax credit away from hard-working Kansans doesn't 
represent Kansas values. It wasn't compassionate. It wasn't fair. And 
it still isn't right.
  My bill will help parents struggling to make ends meet. They will use 
the additional $400-per-child tax cut to buy clothes or shoes or books 
for their kids--helping their families and providing an immediate boost 
to our economy at the same time.
  The House leadership hopes to appear to be assisting our most needy 
families when, in fact, their real goal is to kill this bill. Indeed, 
the Senate has already moved to bring relief and President Bush has 
called for quick House action on a measure to restore this portion of 
the child credit. In vote after vote this week, my colleagues and I who 
support helping working families have given House leaders the 
opportunity to follow the Senate; heed the President's call; and bring 
up my bill. They have repeatedly said--and voted--no.
  Instead, they have decided to slow and muddy this process by 
considering a budget-busting bill that will cause a tedious conference 
committee; thus, serving only a defeat any attempt to bring relief to 
working families across America.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Thomas proposal costs $82 million and 
is irresponsibly laden with goodies and extras, in an attempt to slow 
this process. My alternative offers clean language mirroring the Senate 
legislation, in accordance with the President's request, and a $10 
million paid-for price tag.
  This is Washington politics-as-usual at its worst.
  I applaud the effort underway to defeat the rule on this bill so that 
either the Senate bill or Castle-Tanner-Moore can be taken from the 
desk, considered, passed and immediately sent to the President for 
enactment.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to consider their values and 
priorities when voting on this legislation. Passage will slow the 
process to help alleviate fiscal pressures endured by families across 
the nation; rejection of the Thomas bill will be a step forward in the 
flight for hard-working families who need and deserve this support.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Frost is as follows:

                 Previous Question Text for H. Res. 270

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following:
       ``Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the House 
     shall be considered to have taken from the Speaker's table 
     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 purpose, with Senate 
     amendments thereto, and a single motion that the House concur 
     in each of the Senate amendments shall be considered as 
     pending without intervention of any point of order. The 
     Senate

[[Page 14638]]

     amendments and the motion shall be considered as read. The 
     motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without 
     intervening motion or demand for division of the question.
       ``Sec. 2. Immediately after disposition of the bill H.R. 
     1308 the House shall be considered to have taken from the 
     Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1307) to amend the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a special rule for members of 
     the unformed services in determining the exclusion of gain 
     from the sale of a principal residence and to restore the tax 
     exempt status of death gratuity payments to members of the 
     uniformed services, and for other purposes, with Senate 
     amendment thereto, and a motion that the House concur in the 
     Senate amendment shall be considered as pending without 
     intervention of any point of order. The Senate amendment and 
     the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening 
     motion.''

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, 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.
  Mr. FROST. 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.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225, 
nays 201, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 273]

                               YEAS--225

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

                               NAYS--201

     Abercrombie
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     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)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Ackerman
     Blumenauer
     Cubin
     Eshoo
     Gephardt
     Johnson (CT)
     Linder
     Smith (WA)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1720

  Mr. GORDON and Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 201, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 274]

                               YEAS--224

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford

[[Page 14639]]


     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     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 (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--201

     Abercrombie
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     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
     Osborne
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     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)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Ackerman
     Blumenauer
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Cubin
     Eshoo
     Gephardt
     Johnson (CT)
     Linder
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1728

  Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 270, the House, 
A, concurs in the Senate amendment to the title of H.R. 1308; and, B, 
concurs in the Senate amendment to the text of H.R. 1308 with the 
amendment printed in House Report 108-149.
  The text of the Senate amendments is as follows:

       Senate amendments:
       Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Relief for Working Families 
     Tax Act of 2003''.

                       TITLE I--CHILD TAX CREDIT

     SEC. 101. ACCELERATION OF INCREASE IN REFUNDABILITY OF THE 
                   CHILD TAX CREDIT.

       (a) Acceleration of Refundability.--
       (1) In general.--Section 24(d)(1)(B)(i) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to portion of credit 
     refundable) is amended by striking ``(10 percent in the case 
     of taxable years beginning before January 1, 2005)''.
       (2) Advance payment.--Subsection (b) of section 6429 of 
     such Code (relating to advance payment of portion of 
     increased child credit for 2003) is amended by striking 
     ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2), by striking the period 
     at the end of paragraph (3) and inserting ``, and'', and by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) section 24(d)(1)(B)(i) applied without regard to the 
     first parenthetical therein.''.
       (3) Earned income includes combat pay.--Section 24(d)(1) of 
     such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     sentence: ``For purposes of subparagraph (B), any amount 
     excluded from gross income by reason of section 112 shall be 
     treated as earned income which is taken into account in 
     computing taxable income for the taxable year.''.
       (b) Effective Dates.--
       (1) Subsections (a)(1) and (a)(3).--The amendments made by 
     subsections (a)(1) and (a)(3) shall apply to taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2002.
       (2) Subsection (a)(2).--The amendments made by subsection 
     (a)(2) shall take effect as if included in the amendments 
     made by section 101(b) of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief 
     Reconciliation Act of 2003.

     SEC. 102. REDUCTION IN MARRIAGE PENALTY IN CHILD TAX CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Section 24(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (defining threshold amount) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``($115,000 for taxable years beginning in 
     2008 or 2009, and $150,000 for taxable years beginning in 
     2010)'' after ``$110,000'', and
       (2) by striking ``$55,000'' in subparagraph (C) and 
     inserting ``\1/2\ of the amount in effect under subparagraph 
     (A)''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2002.

     SEC. 103. APPLICATION OF EGTRRA SUNSET TO THIS SECTION.

       Each amendment made by this title shall be subject to title 
     IX of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act 
     of 2001 to the same extent and in the same manner as the 
     provision of such Act to which such amendment relates.

                 TITLE II--UNIFORM DEFINITION OF CHILD

     SEC. 201. UNIFORM DEFINITION OF CHILD, ETC.

       Section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 
     to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 152. DEPENDENT DEFINED.

       ``(a) In General.--For purposes of this subtitle, the term 
     `dependent' means--
       ``(1) a qualifying child, or
       ``(2) a qualifying relative.
       ``(b) Exceptions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Dependents ineligible.--If an individual is a 
     dependent of a taxpayer for any taxable year of such taxpayer 
     beginning in a calendar year, such individual shall be 
     treated as having no dependents for any taxable year of such 
     individual beginning in such calendar year.
       ``(2) Married dependents.--An individual shall not be 
     treated as a dependent of a taxpayer under subsection (a) if 
     such individual has made a joint return with the individual's 
     spouse under section 6013 for the taxable year beginning in 
     the calendar year in which the taxable year of the taxpayer 
     begins.
       ``(3) Citizens or nationals of other countries.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `dependent' does not include an 
     individual who is not a citizen or national of the United 
     States unless such individual is a resident of the United 
     States or a country contiguous to the United States.
       ``(B) Exception for adopted child.--Subparagraph (A) shall 
     not exclude any child of a taxpayer (within the meaning of 
     subsection (f)(1)(B)) from the definition of `dependent' if--
       ``(i) for the taxable year of the taxpayer, the child's 
     principal place of abode is the home of the taxpayer, and
       ``(ii) the taxpayer is a citizen or national of the United 
     States.
       ``(c) Qualifying Child.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `qualifying child' means, with 
     respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year, an individual--

[[Page 14640]]

       ``(A) who bears a relationship to the taxpayer described in 
     paragraph (2),
       ``(B) who has the same principal place of abode as the 
     taxpayer for more than one-half of such taxable year,
       ``(C) who meets the age requirements of paragraph (3), and
       ``(D) who has not provided over one-half of such 
     individual's own support for the calendar year in which the 
     taxable year of the taxpayer begins.
       ``(2) Relationship test.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(A), 
     an individual bears a relationship to the taxpayer described 
     in this paragraph if such individual is--
       ``(A) a child of the taxpayer or a descendant of such a 
     child, or
       ``(B) a brother, sister, stepbrother, or stepsister of the 
     taxpayer or a descendant of any such relative.
       ``(3) Age requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(C), an 
     individual meets the requirements of this paragraph if such 
     individual--
       ``(i) has not attained the age of 19 as of the close of the 
     calendar year in which the taxable year of the taxpayer 
     begins, or
       ``(ii) is a student who has not attained the age of 24 as 
     of the close of such calendar year.
       ``(B) Special rule for disabled.--In the case of an 
     individual who is permanently and totally disabled (as 
     defined in section 22(e)(3)) at any time during such calendar 
     year, the requirements of subparagraph (A) shall be treated 
     as met with respect to such individual.
       ``(4) Special rule relating to 2 or more claiming 
     qualifying child.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B) 
     and subsection (e), if (but for this paragraph) an individual 
     may be and is claimed as a qualifying child by 2 or more 
     taxpayers for a taxable year beginning in the same calendar 
     year, such individual shall be treated as the qualifying 
     child of the taxpayer who is--
       ``(i) a parent of the individual, or
       ``(ii) if clause (i) does not apply, the taxpayer with the 
     highest adjusted gross income for such taxable year.
       ``(B) More than 1 parent claiming qualifying child.--If the 
     parents claiming any qualifying child do not file a joint 
     return together, such child shall be treated as the 
     qualifying child of--
       ``(i) the parent with whom the child resided for the 
     longest period of time during the taxable year, or
       ``(ii) if the child resides with both parents for the same 
     amount of time during such taxable year, the parent with the 
     highest adjusted gross income.
       ``(d) Qualifying Relative.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `qualifying relative' means, 
     with respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year, an 
     individual--
       ``(A) who bears a relationship to the taxpayer described in 
     paragraph (2),
       ``(B) whose gross income for the calendar year in which 
     such taxable year begins is less than the exemption amount 
     (as defined in section 151(d)),
       ``(C) with respect to whom the taxpayer provides over one-
     half of the individual's support for the calendar year in 
     which such taxable year begins, and
       ``(D) who is not a qualifying child of such taxpayer or of 
     any other taxpayer for any taxable year beginning in the 
     calendar year in which such taxable year begins.
       ``(2) Relationship.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(A), an 
     individual bears a relationship to the taxpayer described in 
     this paragraph if the individual is any of the following with 
     respect to the taxpayer:
       ``(A) A child or a descendant of a child.
       ``(B) A brother, sister, stepbrother, or stepsister.
       ``(C) The father or mother, or an ancestor of either.
       ``(D) A stepfather or stepmother.
       ``(E) A son or daughter of a brother or sister of the 
     taxpayer.
       ``(F) A brother or sister of the father or mother of the 
     taxpayer.
       ``(G) A son-in-law, daughter-in-law, father-in-law, mother-
     in-law, brother-in-law, or sister-in-law.
       ``(H) An individual (other than an individual who at any 
     time during the taxable year was the spouse, determined 
     without regard to section 7703, of the taxpayer) who, for the 
     taxable year of the taxpayer, has as such individual's 
     principal place of abode the home of the taxpayer and is a 
     member of the taxpayer's household.
       ``(3) Special rule relating to multiple support 
     agreements.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(C), over one-half 
     of the support of an individual for a calendar year shall be 
     treated as received from the taxpayer if--
       ``(A) no one person contributed over one-half of such 
     support,
       ``(B) over one-half of such support was received from 2 or 
     more persons each of whom, but for the fact that any such 
     person alone did not contribute over one-half of such 
     support, would have been entitled to claim such individual as 
     a dependent for a taxable year beginning in such calendar 
     year,
       ``(C) the taxpayer contributed over 10 percent of such 
     support, and
       ``(D) each person described in subparagraph (B) (other than 
     the taxpayer) who contributed over 10 percent of such support 
     files a written declaration (in such manner and form as the 
     Secretary may by regulations prescribe) that such person will 
     not claim such individual as a dependent for any taxable year 
     beginning in such calendar year.
       ``(4) Special rule relating to income of handicapped 
     dependents.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(B), the 
     gross income of an individual who is permanently and totally 
     disabled (as defined in section 22(e)(3)) at any time during 
     the taxable year shall not include income attributable to 
     services performed by the individual at a sheltered workshop 
     if--
       ``(i) the availability of medical care at such workshop is 
     the principal reason for the individual's presence there, and
       ``(ii) the income arises solely from activities at such 
     workshop which are incident to such medical care.
       ``(B) Sheltered workshop defined.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A), the term `sheltered workshop' means a 
     school--
       ``(i) which provides special instruction or training 
     designed to alleviate the disability of the individual, and
       ``(ii) which is operated by an organization described in 
     section 501(c)(3) and exempt from tax under section 501(a), 
     or by a State, a possession of the United States, any 
     political subdivision of any of the foregoing, the United 
     States, or the District of Columbia.
       ``(5) Special support test in case of students.--For 
     purposes of paragraph (1)(C), in the case of an individual 
     who is--
       ``(A) a child of the taxpayer, and
       ``(B) a student,

     amounts received as scholarships for study at an educational 
     organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) shall not 
     be taken into account in determining whether such individual 
     received more than one-half of such individual's support from 
     the taxpayer.
       ``(6) Special rules for support.--For purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) payments to a spouse which are includible in the 
     gross income of such spouse under section 71 or 682 shall not 
     be treated as a payment by the payor spouse for the support 
     of any dependent,
       ``(B) amounts expended for the support of a child or 
     children shall be treated as received from the noncustodial 
     parent (as defined in subsection (e)(3)(B)) to the extent 
     that such parent provided amounts for such support, and
       ``(C) in the case of the remarriage of a parent, support of 
     a child received from the parent's spouse shall be treated as 
     received from the parent.
       ``(e) Special Rule for Divorced Parents.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (c)(4) or 
     (d)(1)(C), if--
       ``(A) a child receives over one-half of the child's support 
     during the calendar year from the child's parents--
       ``(i) who are divorced or legally separated under a decree 
     of divorce or separate maintenance,
       ``(ii) who are separated under a written separation 
     agreement, or
       ``(iii) who live apart at all times during the last 6 
     months of the calendar year, and
       ``(B) such child is in the custody of 1 or both of the 
     child's parents for more than \1/2\ of the calendar year,

     such child shall be treated as being the qualifying child or 
     qualifying relative of the noncustodial parent for a calendar 
     year if the requirements described in paragraph (2) are met.
       ``(2) Requirements.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the 
     requirements described in this paragraph are met if--
       ``(A) a decree of divorce or separate maintenance or 
     written separation agreement between the parents applicable 
     to the taxable year beginning in such calendar year provides 
     that--
       ``(i) the noncustodial parent shall be entitled to any 
     deduction allowable under section 151 for such child, or
       ``(ii) the custodial parent will sign a written declaration 
     (in such manner and form as the Secretary may prescribe) that 
     such parent will not claim such child as a dependent for such 
     taxable year, and
       ``(B) in the case of such an agreement executed before 
     January 1, 1985, the noncustodial parent provides at least 
     $600 for the support of such child during such calendar year.
       ``(3) Custodial parent and noncustodial parent.--For 
     purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) Custodial parent.--The term `custodial parent' means 
     the parent with whom a child shared the same principal place 
     of abode for the greater portion of the calendar year.
       ``(B) Noncustodial parent.--The term `noncustodial parent' 
     means the parent who is not the custodial parent.
       ``(4) Exception for multiple-support agreements.--This 
     subsection shall not apply in any case where over one-half of 
     the support of the child is treated as having been received 
     from a taxpayer under the provision of subsection (d)(3).
       ``(f) Other Definitions and Rules.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) Child defined.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `child' means an individual who 
     is--
       ``(i) a son, daughter, stepson, or stepdaughter of the 
     taxpayer, or
       ``(ii) an eligible foster child of the taxpayer.
       ``(B) Adopted child.--In determining whether any of the 
     relationships specified in subparagraph (A)(i) or paragraph 
     (4) exists, a legally adopted individual of the taxpayer, or 
     an individual who is placed with the taxpayer by an 
     authorized placement agency for adoption by the taxpayer, 
     shall be treated as a child of such individual by blood.

[[Page 14641]]

       ``(C) Eligible foster child.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A)(ii), the term `eligible foster child' means an individual 
     who is placed with the taxpayer by an authorized placement 
     agency or by judgment, decree, or other order of any court of 
     competent jurisdiction.
       ``(2) Student defined.--The term `student' means an 
     individual who during each of 5 calendar months during the 
     calendar year in which the taxable year of the taxpayer 
     begins--
       ``(A) is a full-time student at an educational organization 
     described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii), or
       ``(B) is pursuing a full-time course of institutional on-
     farm training under the supervision of an accredited agent of 
     an educational organization described in section 
     170(b)(1)(A)(ii) or of a State or political subdivision of a 
     State.
       ``(3) Place of abode.--An individual shall not be treated 
     as having the same principal place of abode of the taxpayer 
     if at any time during the taxable year of the taxpayer the 
     relationship between the individual and the taxpayer is in 
     violation of local law.
       ``(4) Brother and sister.--The terms `brother' and `sister' 
     include a brother or sister by the half blood.
       ``(5) Treatment of missing children.--
       ``(A) In general.--Solely for the purposes referred to in 
     subparagraph (B), a child of the taxpayer--
       ``(i) who is presumed by law enforcement authorities to 
     have been kidnapped by someone who is not a member of the 
     family of such child or the taxpayer, and
       ``(ii) who had, for the taxable year in which the 
     kidnapping occurred, the same principal place of abode as the 
     taxpayer for more than one-half of the portion of such year 
     before the date of the kidnapping,

     shall be treated as meeting the requirement of subsection 
     (c)(1)(B) with respect to a taxpayer for all taxable years 
     ending during the period that the individual is kidnapped.
       ``(B) Purposes.--Subparagraph (A) shall apply solely for 
     purposes of determining--
       ``(i) the deduction under section 151(c),
       ``(ii) the credit under section 24 (relating to child tax 
     credit),
       ``(iii) whether an individual is a surviving spouse or a 
     head of a household (as such terms are defined in section 2), 
     and
       ``(iv) the earned income credit under section 32.
       ``(C) Comparable treatment of certain qualifying 
     relatives.--For purposes of this section, a child of the 
     taxpayer--
       ``(i) who is presumed by law enforcement authorities to 
     have been kidnapped by someone who is not a member of the 
     family of such child or the taxpayer, and
       ``(ii) who was (without regard to this paragraph) a 
     qualifying relative of the taxpayer for the portion of the 
     taxable year before the date of the kidnapping,

     shall be treated as a qualifying relative of the taxpayer for 
     all taxable years ending during the period that the child is 
     kidnapped.
       ``(D) Termination of treatment.--Subparagraphs (A) and (C) 
     shall cease to apply as of the first taxable year of the 
     taxpayer beginning after the calendar year in which there is 
     a determination that the child is dead (or, if earlier, in 
     which the child would have attained age 18).
       ``(6) Cross references.--

``For provision treating child as dependent of both parents for 
purposes of certain provisions, see sections 105(b), 132(h)(2)(B), and 
213(d)(5).''.

     SEC. 202. MODIFICATIONS OF DEFINITION OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD.

       (a) Head of Household.--Clause (i) of section 2(b)(1)(A) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(i) a qualifying child of the individual (as defined in 
     section 152(c), determined without regard to section 152(e)), 
     but not if such child--

       ``(I) is married at the close of the taxpayer's taxable 
     year, and
       ``(II) is not a dependent of such individual by reason of 
     section 152(b)(2) or 152(b)3), or both, or''.

       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 2(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended by striking subparagraph (A) and by redesignating 
     subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) as subparagraphs (A), (B), 
     and (C), respectively.
       (2) Clauses (i) and (ii) of section 2(b)(3)(B) of such Code 
     are amended to read as follows:
       ``(i) subparagraph (H) of section 152(d)(2), or
       ``(ii) paragraph (3) of section 152(d).''.

     SEC. 203. MODIFICATIONS OF DEPENDENT CARE CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Section 21(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``In the case of an 
     individual who maintains a household which includes as a 
     member one or more qualifying individuals (as defined in 
     subsection (b)(1))'' and inserting ``In the case of an 
     individual for which there are 1 or more qualifying 
     individuals (as defined in subsection (b)(1)) with respect to 
     such individual''.
       (b) Qualifying Individual.--Paragraph (1) of section 21(b) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(1) Qualifying individual.--The term `qualifying 
     individual' means--
       ``(A) a dependent of the taxpayer (as defined in section 
     152(a)(1)) who has not attained age 13,
       ``(B) a dependent of the taxpayer who is physically or 
     mentally incapable of caring for himself or herself and who 
     has the same principal place of abode as the taxpayer for 
     more than one-half of such taxable year, or
       ``(C) the spouse of the taxpayer, if the spouse is 
     physically or mentally incapable of caring for himself or 
     herself and who has the same principal place of abode as the 
     taxpayer for more than one-half of such taxable year.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (1) of section 21(e) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(1) Place of abode.--An individual shall not be treated 
     as having the same principal place of abode of the taxpayer 
     if at any time during the taxable year of the taxpayer the 
     relationship between the individual and the taxpayer is in 
     violation of local law.''.

     SEC. 204. MODIFICATIONS OF CHILD TAX CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 24(c) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--The term `qualifying child' means a 
     qualifying child of the taxpayer (as defined in section 
     152(c)) who has not attained age 17.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 24(c)(2) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``the first 
     sentence of section 152(b)(3)'' and inserting ``subparagraph 
     (A) of section 152(b)(3)''.

     SEC. 205. MODIFICATIONS OF EARNED INCOME CREDIT.

       (a) Qualifying Child.--Paragraph (3) of section 32(c) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(3) Qualifying child.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualifying child' means a 
     qualifying child of the taxpayer (as defined in section 
     152(c), determined without regard to paragraph (1)(D) thereof 
     and section 152(e)).
       ``(B) Married individual.--The term `qualifying child' 
     shall not include an individual who is married as of the 
     close of the taxpayer's taxable year unless the taxpayer is 
     entitled to a deduction under section 151 for such taxable 
     year with respect to such individual (or would be so entitled 
     but for section 152(e)).
       ``(C) Place of abode.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), 
     the requirements of section 152(c)(1)(B) shall be met only if 
     the principal place of abode is in the United States.
       ``(D) Identification requirements.--
       ``(i) In general.--A qualifying child shall not be taken 
     into account under subsection (b) unless the taxpayer 
     includes the name, age, and TIN of the qualifying child on 
     the return of tax for the taxable year.
       ``(ii) Other methods.--The Secretary may prescribe other 
     methods for providing the information described in clause 
     (i).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 32(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     is amended by striking subparagraph (C) and by redesignating 
     subparagraphs (D), (E), (F), and (G) as subparagraphs (C), 
     (D), (E), and (F), respectively.
       (2) Section 32(c)(4) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``(3)(E)'' and inserting ``(3)(C)''.
       (3) Section 32(m) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``subsections (c)(1)(F)'' and inserting ``subsections 
     (c)(1)(E)''.

     SEC. 206. MODIFICATIONS OF DEDUCTION FOR PERSONAL EXEMPTION 
                   FOR DEPENDENTS.

       Subsection (c) of section 151 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Additional Exemption for Dependents.--An exemption of 
     the exemption amount for each individual who is a dependent 
     (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer for the taxable 
     year.''.

     SEC. 207. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (1) Section 2(a)(1)(B)(i) of such Code is amended by 
     inserting ``, determined without regard to subsections 
     (b)(1), (b)(2), and (d)(1)(B) thereof'' after ``section 
     152''.
       (2) Section 21(e)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     is amended--
       (A) by striking ``paragraph (2) or (4) of'' in subparagraph 
     (A), and
       (B) by striking ``within the meaning of section 152(e)(1)'' 
     and inserting ``as defined in section 152(e)(3)(A)''.
       (3) Section 21(e)(6)(B) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``section 151(c)(3)'' and inserting ``section 152(f)(1)''.
       (4) Section 25B(c)(2)(B) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``151(c)(4)'' and inserting ``152(f)(2)''.
       (5)(A) Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 51(i)(1) of 
     such Code are each amended by striking ``paragraphs (1) 
     through (8) of section 152(a)'' both places it appears and 
     inserting ``subparagraphs (A) through (G) of section 
     152(d)(2)''.
       (B) Section 51(i)(1)(C) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``152(a)(9)'' and inserting ``152(d)(2)(H)''.
       (6) Section 72(t)(2)(D)(i)(III) of such Code is amended by 
     inserting ``, determined without regard to subsections 
     (b)(1), (b)(2), and (d)(1)(B) thereof'' after ``section 
     152''.
       (7) Section 72(t)(7)(A)(iii) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``151(c)(3)'' and inserting ``152(f)(1)''.
       (8) Section 42(i)(3)(D)(ii)(I) of such Code is amended by 
     inserting ``, determined without regard to subsections 
     (b)(1), (b)(2), and (d)(1)(B) thereof'' after ``section 
     152''.
       (9) Subsections (b) and (c)(1) of section 105 of such Code 
     are amended by inserting ``, determined without regard to 
     subsections (b)(1), (b)(2), and (d)(1)(B) thereof'' after 
     ``section 152''.
       (10) Section 120(d)(4) of such Code is amended by inserting 
     ``(determined without regard to

[[Page 14642]]

     subsections (b)(1), (b)(2), and (d)(1)(B) thereof)'' after 
     ``section 152''.
       (11) Section 125(e)(1)(D) of such Code is amended by 
     inserting ``, determined without regard to subsections 
     (b)(1), (b)(2), and (d)(1)(B) thereof'' after ``section 
     152''.
       (12) Section 129(c)(2) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``151(c)(3)'' and inserting ``152(f)(1)''.
       (13) The first sentence of section 132(h)(2)(B) of such 
     Code is amended by striking ``151(c)(3)'' and inserting 
     ``152(f)(1)''.
       (14) Section 153 of such Code is amended by striking 
     paragraph (1) and by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), and 
     (4) as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively.
       (15) Section 170(g)(1) of such Code is amended by inserting 
     ``(determined without regard to subsections (b)(1), (b)(2), 
     and (d)(1)(B) thereof)'' after ``section 152''.
       (16) Section 170(g)(3) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``paragraphs (1) through (8) of section 152(a)'' and 
     inserting ``subparagraphs (A) through (G) of section 
     152(d)(2)''.
       (17) Section 213(a) of such Code is amended by inserting 
     ``, determined without regard to subsections (b)(1), (b)(2), 
     and (d)(1)(B) thereof'' after ``section 152''.
       (18) The second sentence of section 213(d)(11) of such Code 
     is amended by striking ``paragraphs (1) through (8) of 
     section 152(a)'' and inserting ``subparagraphs (A) through 
     (G) of section 152(d)(2)''.
       (19) Section 220(d)(2)(A) of such Code is amended by 
     inserting ``, determined without regard to subsections 
     (b)(1), (b)(2), and (d)(1)(B) thereof'' after ``section 
     152''.
       (20) Section 221(d)(4) of such Code is amended by inserting 
     ``(determined without regard to subsections (b)(1), (b)(2), 
     and (d)(1)(B) thereof)'' after ``section 152''.
       (21) Section 529(e)(2)(B) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``paragraphs (1) through (8) of section 152(a)'' and 
     inserting ``subparagraphs (A) through (G) of section 
     152(d)(2)''.
       (22) Section 2032A(c)(7)(D) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``section 151(c)(4)'' and inserting ``section 
     152(f)(2)''.
       (23) Section 2057(d)(2)(B) of such Code is amended by 
     inserting ``, determined without regard to subsections 
     (b)(1), (b)(2), and (d)(1)(B) thereof'' after ``section 
     152''.
       (24) Section 7701(a)(17) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``152(b)(4), 682,'' and inserting ``682''.
       (25) Section 7702B(f)(2)(C)(iii) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``paragraphs (1) through (8) of section 152(a)'' and 
     inserting ``subparagraphs (A) through (G) of section 
     152(d)(2)''.
       (26) Section 7703(b)(1) of such Code is amended--
       (A) by striking ``151(c)(3)'' and inserting ``152(f)(1)'', 
     and
       (B) by striking ``paragraph (2) or (4) of''.

     SEC. 208. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this title shall apply to taxable 
     years beginning after December 31, 2003.

                      TITLE III--CUSTOMS USER FEES

     SEC. 301. EXTENSION OF CUSTOMS USER FEES.

       Section 13031(j)(3) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(j)(3)) is amended 
     by striking ``September 30, 2003'' and inserting ``March 31, 
     2010''.

         Amend the title so as to read: ``An Act to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to accelerate the increase in 
     the refundability of the child tax credit, and for other 
     purposes.''.

  The text of the House amendment to the Senate amendments is as 
follows:

       House amendment to Senate amendments:
       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the 
     amendment of the Senate to the text of the bill, insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, ETC.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``All-
     American Tax Relief Act of 2003''.
       (b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly 
     provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is 
     expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a 
     section or other provision, the reference shall be considered 
     to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.
       (c) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title, etc.

                       TITLE I--CHILD TAX CREDIT

Sec. 101. Expansion of child tax credit.

                  TITLE II--ARMED FORCES TAX FAIRNESS

Sec. 201. Special rule for members of uniformed services and Foreign 
              Service in determining exclusion of gain from sale of 
              principal residence.
Sec. 202. Restoration of full exclusion from gross income of death 
              gratuity payment.
Sec. 203. Exclusion for amounts received under Department of Defense 
              homeowners assistance program.
Sec. 204. Expansion of combat zone filing rules to contingency 
              operations.
Sec. 205. Modification of membership requirement for exemption from tax 
              for certain veterans' organizations.
Sec. 206. Clarification of the treatment of certain dependent care 
              assistance programs.
Sec. 207. Clarification relating to exception from additional tax on 
              certain distributions from qualified tuition programs, 
              etc., on account of attendance at military academy.
Sec. 208. Above-the-line deduction for overnight travel expenses of 
              National Guard and Reserve members.

 TITLE III--SUSPENSION OF TAX-EXEMPT STATUS OF TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS

Sec. 301. Suspension of tax-exempt status of terrorist organizations.

                    TITLE IV--RELIEF FOR ASTRONAUTS

Sec. 401. Tax relief and assistance for families of astronauts who lose 
              their lives on a space mission.

                       TITLE I--CHILD TAX CREDIT

     SEC. 101. EXPANSION OF CHILD TAX CREDIT.

       (a) Credit Refundability.--Clause (i) of section 
     24(d)(1)(B) (relating to portion of credit refundable) is 
     amended by striking ``(10 percent in the case of taxable 
     years beginning before January 1, 2005)''.
       (b) Increase in Credit Through 2010.--Subsection (a) of 
     section 24 (relating to child tax credit) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--There shall be allowed as a 
     credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the 
     taxable year with respect to each qualifying child of the 
     taxpayer an amount equal to $1,000.''.
       (c) Removal of Marriage Penalty in Phaseout Thresholds.--
     Paragraph (2) of section 24(b) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Threshold amount.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the 
     term `threshold amount' means $75,000 ($150,000 in the case 
     of a joint return).''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2002.
       (e) Application of EGTRRA Sunset.--Each amendment made by 
     this section shall be subject to title IX of the Economic 
     Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 to the same 
     extent and in the same manner as section 201 of such Act.

                  TITLE II--ARMED FORCES TAX FAIRNESS

     SEC. 201. SPECIAL RULE FOR MEMBERS OF UNIFORMED SERVICES AND 
                   FOREIGN SERVICE IN DETERMINING EXCLUSION OF 
                   GAIN FROM SALE OF PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 121 (relating to 
     exclusion of gain from sale of principal residence) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(10) Members of uniformed services and foreign service.--
       ``(A) In general.--At the election of an individual with 
     respect to a property, the running of the 5-year period 
     referred to in subsections (a) and (c)(1)(B) and paragraph 
     (7) of this subsection with respect to such property shall be 
     suspended during any period that such individual or such 
     individual's spouse is serving on qualified official extended 
     duty as a member of the uniformed services or as a member of 
     the Foreign Service.
       ``(B) Maximum period of suspension.--Such 5-year period 
     shall not be extended more than 5 years by reason of 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) Qualified official extended duty.--For purposes of 
     this paragraph--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `qualified official extended 
     duty' means any extended duty while serving at a duty station 
     which is at least 150 miles from such property or while 
     residing under Government orders in Government quarters.
       ``(ii) Uniformed services.--The term `uniformed services' 
     has the meaning given such term by section 101(a)(5) of title 
     10, United States Code, as in effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this paragraph.
       ``(iii) Foreign service.--The term `member of the Foreign 
     Service' has the meaning given the term `member of the 
     Service' by paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) of section 
     103 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980, as in effect on the 
     date of the enactment of this paragraph.
       ``(iv) Extended duty.--The term `extended duty' means any 
     period of active duty pursuant to a call or order to such 
     duty for a period in excess of 180 days or for an indefinite 
     period.
       ``(D) Special rules relating to election.--
       ``(i) Election limited to 1 property at a time.--An 
     election under subparagraph (A) with respect to any property 
     may not be made if such an election is in effect with respect 
     to any other property.
       ``(ii) Revocation of election.--An election under 
     subparagraph (A) may be revoked at any time.''.
       (b) Effective Date; Special Rule.--
       (1) Effective date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the amendments made by 
     section 312 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
       (2) Waiver of limitations.--If refund or credit of any 
     overpayment of tax resulting from the amendment made by this 
     section is prevented at any time before the close of the 1-
     year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act by the operation of any law or rule of law (including res 
     judicata), such refund or credit may nevertheless be made or 
     allowed if claim therefor is filed before the close of such 
     period.

[[Page 14643]]



     SEC. 202. RESTORATION OF FULL EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME OF 
                   DEATH GRATUITY PAYMENT.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 134(b) (relating 
     to qualified military benefit) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Exception for death gratuity adjustments made by 
     law.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any adjustment to 
     the amount of death gratuity payable under chapter 75 of 
     title 10, United States Code, which is pursuant to a 
     provision of law enacted before December 31, 1991.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 134(b)(3)(A) is amended 
     by striking ``subparagraph (B)'' and inserting 
     ``subparagraphs (B) and (C)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to deaths occurring after September 
     10, 2001.

     SEC. 203. EXCLUSION FOR AMOUNTS RECEIVED UNDER DEPARTMENT OF 
                   DEFENSE HOMEOWNERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 132 (relating to 
     certain fringe benefits) is amended by striking ``or'' at the 
     end of paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end of 
     paragraph (7) and inserting ``, or'' and by adding at the end 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) qualified military base realignment and closure 
     fringe.''.
       (b) Qualified Military Base Realignment and Closure 
     Fringe.--Section 132 is amended by redesignating subsection 
     (n) as subsection (o) and by inserting after subsection (m) 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(n) Qualified Military Base Realignment and Closure 
     Fringe.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `qualified military base realignment and closure fringe' 
     means 1 or more payments under the authority of section 1013 
     of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act 
     of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 3374) (as in effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this subsection).
       ``(2) Limitation.--With respect to any property, such term 
     shall not include any payment referred to in paragraph (1) to 
     the extent that the sum of all such payments related to such 
     property exceeds the amount described in clause (1) of 
     subsection (c) of such section (as in effect on such 
     date).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to payments made after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 204. EXPANSION OF COMBAT ZONE FILING RULES TO 
                   CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 7508 (relating 
     to time for performing certain acts postponed by reason of 
     service in combat zone) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or when deployed outside the United 
     States away from the individual's permanent duty station 
     while participating in an operation designated by the 
     Secretary of Defense as a contingency operation (as defined 
     in section 101(a)(13) of title 10, United States Code) or 
     which became such a contingency operation by operation of 
     law'' after ``section 112'',
       (2) by inserting in the first sentence ``or at any time 
     during the period of such contingency operation'' after ``for 
     purposes of such section'',
       (3) by inserting ``or operation'' after ``such an area'', 
     and
       (4) by inserting ``or operation'' after ``such area''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 7508(d) is amended by inserting ``or 
     contingency operation'' after ``area''.
       (2) The heading for section 7508 is amended by inserting 
     ``OR CONTINGENCY OPERATION'' after ``COMBAT ZONE''.
       (3) The item relating to section 7508 in the table of 
     sections for chapter 77 is amended by inserting ``or 
     contingency operation'' after ``combat zone''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to any period for performing an act which has not 
     expired before the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 205. MODIFICATION OF MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENT FOR 
                   EXEMPTION FROM TAX FOR CERTAIN VETERANS' 
                   ORGANIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 501(c)(19) 
     (relating to list of exempt organizations) is amended by 
     striking ``or widowers'' and inserting ``, widowers, 
     ancestors, or lineal descendants''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 206. CLARIFICATION OF THE TREATMENT OF CERTAIN DEPENDENT 
                   CARE ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 134 (defining 
     qualified military benefit) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Clarification of certain benefits.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1), such term includes any dependent care 
     assistance program (as in effect on the date of the enactment 
     of this paragraph) for any individual described in paragraph 
     (1)(A).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 134(b)(3)(A) (as amended by section 202) is 
     further amended by inserting ``and paragraph (4)'' after 
     ``subparagraphs (B) and (C)''.
       (2) Section 3121(a)(18) is amended by striking ``or 129'' 
     and inserting ``, 129, or 134(b)(4)''.
       (3) Section 3306(b)(13) is amended by striking ``or 129'' 
     and inserting ``, 129, or 134(b)(4)''.
       (4) Section 3401(a)(18) is amended by striking ``or 129'' 
     and inserting ``, 129, or 134(b)(4)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2002.

     SEC. 207. CLARIFICATION RELATING TO EXCEPTION FROM ADDITIONAL 
                   TAX ON CERTAIN DISTRIBUTIONS FROM QUALIFIED 
                   TUITION PROGRAMS, ETC., ON ACCOUNT OF 
                   ATTENDANCE AT MILITARY ACADEMY.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 530(d)(4) 
     (relating to exceptions from additional tax for distributions 
     not used for educational purposes) is amended by striking 
     ``or'' at the end of clause (iii), by redesignating clause 
     (iv) as clause (v), and by inserting after clause (iii) the 
     following new clause:
       ``(iv) made on account of the attendance of the designated 
     beneficiary at the United States Military Academy, the United 
     States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, 
     the United States Coast Guard Academy, or the United States 
     Merchant Marine Academy, to the extent that the amount of the 
     payment or distribution does not exceed the costs of advanced 
     education (as defined by section 2005(e)(3) of title 10, 
     United States Code, as in effect on the date of the enactment 
     of this section) attributable to such attendance, or''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect for taxable years beginning after December 
     31, 2002.

     SEC. 208. ABOVE-THE-LINE DEDUCTION FOR OVERNIGHT TRAVEL 
                   EXPENSES OF NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE MEMBERS.

       (a) Deduction Allowed.--Section 162 (relating to certain 
     trade or business expenses) is amended by redesignating 
     subsection (p) as subsection (q) and inserting after 
     subsection (o) the following new subsection:
       ``(p) Treatment of Expenses of Members of Reserve Component 
     of Armed Forces of the United States.--For purposes of 
     subsection (a)(2), in the case of an individual who performs 
     services as a member of a reserve component of the Armed 
     Forces of the United States at any time during the taxable 
     year, such individual shall be deemed to be away from home in 
     the pursuit of a trade or business for any period during 
     which such individual is away from home in connection with 
     such services.''.
       (b) Deduction Allowed Whether or Not Taxpayer Elects To 
     Itemize.--Paragraph (2) of section 62(a) (relating to certain 
     trade and business deductions of employees) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) Certain expenses of members of reserve components of 
     the armed forces of the united states.--The deductions 
     allowed by section 162 which consist of expenses, not in 
     excess of $1,500, paid or incurred by the taxpayer in 
     connection with the performance of services by such taxpayer 
     as a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the 
     United States for any period during which such individual is 
     more than 100 miles away from home in connection with such 
     services.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2002.

 TITLE III--SUSPENSION OF TAX-EXEMPT STATUS OF TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS

     SEC. 301. SUSPENSION OF TAX-EXEMPT STATUS OF TERRORIST 
                   ORGANIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 501 (relating to exemption from 
     tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc.) is amended by 
     redesignating subsection (p) as subsection (q) and by 
     inserting after subsection (o) the following new subsection:
       ``(p) Suspension of Tax-Exempt Status of Terrorist 
     Organizations.--
       ``(1) In general.--The exemption from tax under subsection 
     (a) with respect to any organization described in paragraph 
     (2), and the eligibility of any organization described in 
     paragraph (2) to apply for recognition of exemption under 
     subsection (a), shall be suspended during the period 
     described in paragraph (3).
       ``(2) Terrorist organizations.--An organization is 
     described in this paragraph if such organization is 
     designated or otherwise individually identified--
       ``(A) under section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II) or 219 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act as a terrorist organization 
     or foreign terrorist organization,
       ``(B) in or pursuant to an Executive order which is related 
     to terrorism and issued under the authority of the 
     International Emergency Economic Powers Act or section 5 of 
     the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 for the purpose 
     of imposing on such organization an economic or other 
     sanction, or
       ``(C) in or pursuant to an Executive order issued under the 
     authority of any Federal law if--
       ``(i) the organization is designated or otherwise 
     individually identified in or pursuant

[[Page 14644]]

     to such Executive order as supporting or engaging in 
     terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act) or supporting terrorism (as 
     defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989); and
       ``(ii) such Executive order refers to this subsection.
       ``(3) Period of suspension.--With respect to any 
     organization described in paragraph (2), the period of 
     suspension--
       ``(A) begins on the later of--
       ``(i) the date of the first publication of a designation or 
     identification described in paragraph (2) with respect to 
     such organization, or
       ``(ii) the date of the enactment of this subsection, and
       ``(B) ends on the first date that all designations and 
     identifications described in paragraph (2) with respect to 
     such organization are rescinded pursuant to the law or 
     Executive order under which such designation or 
     identification was made.
       ``(4) Denial of deduction.--No deduction shall be allowed 
     under section 170, 545(b)(2), 556(b)(2), 642(c), 2055, 
     2106(a)(2), or 2522 for any contribution to an organization 
     described in paragraph (2) during the period described in 
     paragraph (3).
       ``(5) Denial of administrative or judicial challenge of 
     suspension or denial of deduction.--Notwithstanding section 
     7428 or any other provision of law, no organization or other 
     person may challenge a suspension under paragraph (1), a 
     designation or identification described in paragraph (2), the 
     period of suspension described in paragraph (3), or a denial 
     of a deduction under paragraph (4) in any administrative or 
     judicial proceeding relating to the Federal tax liability of 
     such organization or other person.
       ``(6) Erroneous designation.--
       ``(A) In general.--If--
       ``(i) the tax exemption of any organization described in 
     paragraph (2) is suspended under paragraph (1),
       ``(ii) each designation and identification described in 
     paragraph (2) which has been made with respect to such 
     organization is determined to be erroneous pursuant to the 
     law or Executive order under which such designation or 
     identification was made, and
       ``(iii) the erroneous designations and identifications 
     result in an overpayment of income tax for any taxable year 
     by such organization,

     credit or refund (with interest) with respect to such 
     overpayment shall be made.
       ``(B) Waiver of limitations.--If the credit or refund of 
     any overpayment of tax described in subparagraph (A)(iii) is 
     prevented at any time by the operation of any law or rule of 
     law (including res judicata), such credit or refund may 
     nevertheless be allowed or made if the claim therefor is 
     filed before the close of the 1-year period beginning on the 
     date of the last determination described in subparagraph 
     (A)(ii).
       ``(7) Notice of Suspensions.--If the tax exemption of any 
     organization is suspended under this subsection, the Internal 
     Revenue Service shall update the listings of tax-exempt 
     organizations and shall publish appropriate notice to 
     taxpayers of such suspension and of the fact that 
     contributions to such organization are not deductible during 
     the period of such suspension.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to designations made before, on, or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

                    TITLE IV--RELIEF FOR ASTRONAUTS

     SEC. 401. TAX RELIEF AND ASSISTANCE FOR FAMILIES OF 
                   ASTRONAUTS WHO LOSE THEIR LIVES ON A SPACE 
                   MISSION.

       (a) Income Tax Relief.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (d) of section 692 (relating to 
     income taxes of members of Armed Forces and victims of 
     certain terrorist attacks on death) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Relief with respect to astronauts.--The provisions of 
     this subsection shall apply to any astronaut whose death 
     occurs while on a space mission, except that paragraph (3)(B) 
     shall be applied by using the date of the death of the 
     astronaut rather than September 11, 2001.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 5(b)(1) is amended by inserting ``, 
     astronauts,'' after ``Forces''.
       (B) Section 6013(f)(2)(B) is amended by inserting ``, 
     astronauts,'' after ``Forces''.
       (3) Clerical amendments.--
       (A) The heading of section 692 is amended by inserting ``, 
     ASTRONAUTS,'' after ``FORCES''.
       (B) The item relating to section 692 in the table of 
     sections for part II of subchapter J of chapter 1 is amended 
     by inserting ``, astronauts,'' after ``Forces''.
       (4) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply with respect to any astronaut whose death occurs 
     after December 31, 2002.
       (b) Death Benefit Relief.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (i) of section 101 (relating to 
     certain death benefits) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Relief with respect to astronauts.--The provisions of 
     this subsection shall apply to any astronaut whose death 
     occurs while on a space mission.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The heading for subsection (i) of 
     section 101 is amended by inserting ``or Astronauts'' after 
     ``Victims''.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply to amounts paid after December 31, 2002, with 
     respect to deaths occurring after such date.
       (c) Estate Tax Relief.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 2201 (defining 
     qualified decedent) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end 
     of paragraph (1)(B), by striking the period at the end of 
     paragraph (2) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) any astronaut whose death occurs while on a space 
     mission.''.
       (2) Clerical amendments.--
       (A) The heading of section 2201 is amended by inserting ``, 
     DEATHS OF ASTRONAUTS,'' after ``FORCES''.
       (B) The item relating to section 2201 in the table of 
     sections for subchapter C of chapter 11 is amended by 
     inserting ``, deaths of astronauts,'' after ``Forces''.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply to estates of decedents dying after December 31, 
     2002.
       In lieu of the matter inserted by the Senate to the long 
     title of the bill, insert the following: ``An Act to amend 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to enhance fairness in the 
     internal revenue laws, and for other purposes.''.

                              {time}  1730


                       motion to go to conference

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 270, I move to 
take from the Speaker's table the House amendment to the Senate 
amendment to 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, insist on the House amendment, 
and request a conference with the Senate thereon.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). Without objection, the motion 
is agreed to.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, it is my 
understanding that the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means has 
the opportunity to be recognized for 1 hour debate, and I want to know 
whether that was included in his request, which I understand from the 
Parliamentarian the gentleman is entitled to, to discuss this issue.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have requested the hour.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I remove my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in the 1 hour time I have, I would indicate to my 
colleagues that based upon the very lively debate that occurred on the 
rule, I believe the positions have been completely illuminated, and 
that when I ask for the previous question, the minority has the right 
to move the motion to instruct.
  Having been given the motion to instruct, I would tell my friends 
that I can live up to almost all of these provisions and intend to do 
so, and, therefore, any time that this House takes in debating the 
motion to instruct will be the time that the minority has on the motion 
to instruct, because the majority intends to move the previous question 
and indicates that it does not intend to use any of the time on the 
motion to instruct, and, therefore, the time at which the House 
adjourns today will be entirely in the hands of the minority.
  Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, could the Parliamentarian or the Speaker 
tell me, does the eloquent statement made by the chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means mean that he did not intend to use the hour 
of debate that he has?

[[Page 14645]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has moved the 
previous question.
  Is there objection to ordering the previous question?
  Mr. RANGEL. No, I made a parliamentary inquiry. I was not objecting 
to the previous question. I asked whether or not what the gentleman 
said meant that he did not intend to debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the House orders the previous question by 
unanimous consent, that will end debate.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
go to conference.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  The motion was agreed to.


                Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Rangel

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. RANGEL moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     in the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1308 
     be instructed as follows:
       1. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in 
     the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment 
     (not included in the House amendment) that provides immediate 
     payments to taxpayers receiving an additional credit by 
     reason of the bill in the same manner as other taxpayers were 
     entitled to immediate payments under the Jobs and Growth Tax 
     Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.
       2. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in 
     the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment 
     (not included in the House amendment) that provides families 
     of military personnel serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other 
     combat zones a child credit based on the earnings of the 
     individuals serving in the combat zone.
       3. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in 
     the conference report all of the other provisions of the 
     Senate amendment and shall not report back a conference 
     report that includes additional tax benefits not offset by 
     other provisions.
       4. To the maximum extent possible within the scope of 
     conference, the House conferences shall be instructed to 
     include in the conference report other tax benefits for 
     military personnel and the families of the astronauts who 
     died in the Columbia disaster.

  Mr. RANGEL (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion to instruct be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to rule XXII, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) 
each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I move that the managers on the part of the House in the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House 
amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1308 be instructed as 
follows:
  One, the House conferees shall be instructed to include in the 
conference report the provision of the Senate amendment that is not 
included in the House amendment that provides immediate payment to 
taxpayers receiving an additional credit by reason of the bill in the 
same manner as other taxpayers were entitled to immediate payment under 
the Jobs and Growth Tax Reconciliation Act of 2003.
  Two, the House conferees be instructed to include in the conference 
report the provision of the Senate amendment, that is not included in 
the House amendment, that provides families of the military personnel 
serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other combat zones a child credit 
based on the earnings of the individuals serving in the combat zone.
  Three, the House conferees be instructed to include in the conference 
report all of the other provisions of the Senate amendment and shall 
report back a conference report that includes additional tax benefits 
not offset by other provisions.
  Four, to the maximum extent possible within the scope of the 
conference, the House conferees shall be instructed to include in the 
conference report other tax benefits for military personnel and the 
families of the astronauts who died in the Columbia disaster.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cardin), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, working families that make between $10,000 and $26,000 a 
year were left out of the tax bill that was recently signed by the 
President. These are people who pay taxes, Mr. Speaker. They pay sales 
taxes, they pay property taxes, they pay excise taxes, they pay FICA 
taxes. In fact, many of them pay a greater percentage of their income 
in taxes than the wealthy people who got the benefits of the recently 
enacted tax bill.
  To correct this oversight, it will cost a modest amount of money, 
about 1 percent of what it cost in the recent tax bill. We have a 
Senate bill that corrects this. It is fully paid for. It passed the 
other body by a vote of 94-to-2. It is supported by the President of 
the United States. Why are we not taking this bill up? But for the 
leadership in this House, the Republican leadership, we could have 
passed this bill tonight.
  What this motion says, Mr. Speaker, is that we support the effort of 
the other body so that we could correct this bill now. This is a vote 
to help those working families. This is a vote to help the military 
families. This is a vote to say that we do not want to follow what the 
Republican leader has said, which is ``This ain't going to happen.'' We 
want it to happen, and our motion allows it to happen.
  I urge my fellow Members to support the effort in the other body, 
support the President in saying that he would sign this legislation. 
This is our opportunity to do it.
  Mr. Speaker, I just urge my colleagues not to hold low-wage worker 
families hostage to the notion that we have to do a lot more that is 
not going to happen in order for them to get the same type of tax 
relief that was provided to high-income families in the bill that was 
signed by the President.
  This is the right thing for us to do. I urge my colleagues to support 
the motion to instruct.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, not withstanding the language of the motion 
to instruct, which says ``I move that,'' and three of the four 
provisions that say ``The House conferees shall be instructed to,'' is 
the gentleman from California correct in understanding that the motion 
to instruct does not in any way bind or dictate to the conferees?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Motions to instruct are not necessarily 
binding on the conferees.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, if in fact the motion to instruct is not 
binding, I would tell my friends we are ready to accept this motion. I 
will reserve my time, and whenever you are ready to move the question 
for a vote, since it is not binding, we are ready to go.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, point of order. This is not 
a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I am on my time. Does the gentleman from 
Massachusetts now wish to deny me the time that is mine?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) yield himself time?
  Mr. THOMAS. I certainly do.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. As I was saying, since this motion to instruct is not in 
any way binding on the conferees, the gentleman from California awaits 
the awarding of the motion to instruct, and it can either be now and we 
can vote on it, or you can exhaust your time and we can vote on it. The 
effect is the same.
  Therefore, I reserve the balance of my time until they exhaust theirs 
or move for a vote.

[[Page 14646]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the gentleman 
from California. I know he is very thick-skinned, so he did not mind. 
But he had been speaking under the guise of a parliamentary inquiry, 
and he was not making a parliamentary inquiry, although the 
parliamentary inquiry made was about a rule which has been in effect 
ever since he got here, and I was surprised he had forgotten it. But he 
did not say he was going to use his time. I did want to clarify. 
Apparently he decided to use his time, but he decided to use his time 
to tell us he did not plan to use his time.
  I think it is somewhat unfortunate that, having shut off debate, 
having refused to an allow an amendment, he is suggesting that it is 
somehow improper for Members on our side to talk about the substance. 
He has said that he will accept the instruction, having made it clear 
with his usual consideration for other opinions that having accepted it 
in the vote, he plans to disregard it in the conference.
  So we continue to think it is important to point out the difference 
between what we want to do, provide real help to poor children, and 
what he plans to do.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, in the interests of saving time, I ask 
unanimous consent that H.R. 1308 and H.R. 1307, both passed by the 
Senate, be considered and accepted by the House, and that way we can 
send the bill immediately to the President and we can get out of here 
early, without amendment, of course.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The Chair is unable to 
entertain that request under the Speaker's guidelines recorded on page 
712 of the House Rules and Manual.
  Mr. RANGEL. I am sorry. I cannot hear what the Speaker is saying.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Speaker's guidelines for recognition do 
not allow the Chair to recognize for that request.
  Mr. RANGEL. Not for unanimous consent, without objection from the 
chairman of the distinguished Committee on Ways and Means? He does not 
object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. RANGEL. I am correct? I can do it? What is it?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct that the Chair is 
unable to entertain that request.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, if I ask for unanimous consent and no one 
objects, would the Parliamentarian tell me why I cannot be recognized?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Speaker has announced and enforced a 
policy of conferring recognition for unanimous consent requests for 
consideration of bills and resolutions only when assured that the 
majority and minority floor and committee leaderships have no 
objection.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas) does not say anything, Mr. Speaker, then there is no objection. 
So, I have unanimous consent until such time as he objects.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has not been apprised of the 
requisite clearances to entertain such a request.
  Mr. RANGEL. Well, could I ask unanimous consent that the chairman of 
the Committee on Ways and Means be given an opportunity to instruct the 
Speaker that he has no objection to accepting the Senate bill as 
passed?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would inform the gentleman that 
that is not a proper unanimous consent request.
  Mr. RANGEL. Well, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means 
knows that we will not allow parliamentary obstacles to move this bill 
that the Senate has passed in a bipartisan way and that the President 
has supported it. Now, I know a lot of time and money has gone into 
building up this $82 billion, but since the distinguished chairman has 
said that he wants to move this bill swiftly and the initial bill only 
cost $3.5 billion, if we knock off the $72 billion put on the Senate 
bill, it would seem to me, even with a little help from the 
Parliamentarian, that we could expedite this bill by not instructing 
the conferees to do anything which the chairman already has indicated 
he does not intend to do but, rather, to just have it pass as is. I do 
not know why we cannot do this. But I will get the Parliamentarian and 
get together with the chairman and see what we can do to expedite this.
  Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the 
sovereign State of California (Mr. Matsui), the distinguished senior 
member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York, the 
ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means, for yielding me 
this time.
  I can understand why the majority does not want to debate this issue. 
Perhaps he wants to catch a plane to California, I do not know. But I 
can understand why he would not want to debate this issue, given the 
fact that the President of the United States and the U.S. Senate, on a 
94 to 2 vote, basically came up with a bill that was totally different. 
It basically paid for its tax cuts and, at the same time, it tried to 
restrict itself basically to the main issue, that is, taking care of 
families that make between $10,000 and $26,000 a year.
  I might just for a moment go back to May 23 when the conference 
report was passed. As my colleagues know, the big issue on that bill 
was the dividend reduction and the capital gains tax reduction. At the 
same time, as we know, that bill also took out from the other body the 
provision that would have taken care of people that made, families that 
made between $10,000 and $26,000 a year, a measly tax credit of $150 to 
$400.
  At the same time, what this bill did, Mr. Speaker, it might be kind 
of interesting to really discuss why there is a lot of concern about 
this. We looked at the FCC filings of the annual report of Microsoft 
Corporation. Bill Gates, and this is not anything about Bill Gates, but 
Bill Gates will get, under the bill that passed, that became law on May 
23, $14,538,000; $14 million. Sandy Weill, again, somebody who is a 
good person, Citicorp, will get $2.7 million.
  What is very interesting, what is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, if 
we would have just taken that $14 million from Bill Gates and given it 
to families that earn between $10,000 and $26,000 a year, we could have 
taken care of 52,000 families.
  So I can understand why the majority does not want to discuss this; I 
can understand why they do not want to see this have the light of day, 
because they are really taking care of people that do not need the 
money. This will not help the economy of the United States. It is 
basically just game-playing, and it is really unfortunate that this is 
happening. This bill will not become law because the other body will 
ensure it does not become law because it is not paid for. I would have 
hoped that we would have adopted the other body's legislation.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California, nobody wants 
to dispute anything we say?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California continues to 
reserve his time. The gentleman from New York is recognized.
  Mr. RANGEL. Then Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to the motion. It says in 
paragraph 3, if the chairman, the distinguished chairman would listen, 
``The House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference 
report all of the other provisions of the Senate amendment and shall 
not report back a conference report that would result in increased 
deficits by reason of additional tax benefits not offset by other 
provisions.''

[[Page 14647]]

  We all know that motions to instruct are not technically binding, but 
I would like to yield to the chairman of the committee to ask him if he 
will commit verbally on the floor that he will not bring back a 
conference report that will result in increased deficits by reasons of 
additional tax benefits not offset by other provisions.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I told the gentleman from the initial 
introduction, and I am pleased to respond on his time, that three of 
the four seem to be somewhat reasonable; and my assumption is that as 
we go to conference, since it is the Senate that has been significantly 
concerned about the question of offsets, under the budget which was 
agreed upon by the House and the Senate, there is ample provision for 
us to move tax bills that are not required to be offset.
  Mr. LEVIN. So is the answer, if I could then ask the gentleman, since 
it is my time, is the gentleman willing to say here on the floor that 
he will not bring back a conference report that would result in 
increased deficits by reason of additional tax benefits not offset by 
other provisions?
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, under the 
budget agreement, the House is entitled to move tax bills that are not 
offset or are required to modify the deficit. If the Senate brings, if 
the Senate brings offsets to the conference to cover the House bill, I 
am more than willing to look at them.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. He is unwilling to answer, then.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. Well, just a minute. If the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin) needs 30 seconds in order to get a response to his question, 
notwithstanding the fact that the majority is not using their time, I 
will be glad to do it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) is 
recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I will wait for the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thomas) to say yes or no.
  Mr. THOMAS. The answer is, if the Senate brings offsets, I will be 
happy to look at them.
  Mr. LEVIN. No, but does the gentleman agree that he will not report 
back a conference report that will result in increased deficits by 
reason of additional tax benefits not offset by other provisions? Yes 
or no.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I asked of the 
Speaker a parliamentary inquiry which said this is not binding, yet the 
gentleman continues to pursue a yes or no as to whether or not an 
unbinding statement will bind me. The answer is, and it will be, if the 
Senate brings offsets, we will look at them.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is making a mockery out of this 
procedure.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, for my colleagues and the American public that perhaps 
have not quite figured out what is going on here when we are trying to 
help working families through a child tax credit, H.R. 1308, I believe, 
boils down to two things, and probably the best way to describe it is 
to remind folks about the very common joke we hear about how many 
people does it take to screw in a light bulb, except in this case, we 
have to ask how many people and how much money does it take to correct 
the $3.5 billion omission for working families through a child tax 
credit. The punch line, as funny as it may sound, is $80 billion, is 
what we are being told by our colleagues and friends on the other side 
of the aisle that it takes to correct the $3.5 billion omission: $80 
billion.
  And if it is not a joke, then it is either a very smart, some might 
say sneaky, others might say sinister, ploy, to try to sneak in all of 
these other tax cuts for very wealthy American families into what is a 
good package for working families, and a lot of our men and women who 
work in uniform who were left out by this House in the tax cuts under 
the child tax credit.
  It has got to be one of the two. Either it is a real joke on the 
American people, or it is a very cleverly planned, intentional way of 
sneaking through $76.5 billion of additional tax cuts that have nothing 
to do with the working families that we are trying to help.
  Now, it would not be so sinister or such a joke if it were not for 
the fact that our Federal Government is running a $400 billion deficit 
this year; and next year, we are being told by the White House and by 
our own congressional budget estimators that we will probably have 
about a $500 billion deficit next year. And yet, somehow our colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle believe we can spend an additional $6.5 
billion to correct the problem that costs $3.5 billion.
  I think it is clear what is going on, and I would urge my colleagues 
to support this motion to instruct.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, perhaps President Bush is wrong about this bill. Perhaps 
the 94 Members of the Senate who voted on this child tax credit measure 
are wrong, and perhaps all of the Democrats who have supported relief 
now, not some day, with reference to the child tax credit are also 
wrong, that all of us who together have supported meaningful relief 
that is paid for, that does not add a death tax to future generations 
of Americans, perhaps all of us are out of line and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay), standing there along with his minions who insist on 
having an approach that is different than that and killing this child 
tax credit, perhaps they are right.
  But I rather expect they are not just right, but far right, 
extremists and outside of the mainstream of American thinking; that 
those who work very hard, be they police officers, be they teachers' 
aids, be they home health care workers, be they the people that empty 
the bedpans in the nursing homes and do the hard work in our society, 
that they deserve a chance too. I believe that it is today, with the 
obedience to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and his thinking out 
of the mainstream, that our Republican colleagues have sentenced this 
child tax credit to death, death by conference committee.

                              {time}  1800

  Many Members will remember that death by conference committee was the 
appropriate execution method used to kill the Patients' Bill of Rights, 
so people in this country still do not have the rights they need to 
protect themselves from the giant insurance HMOs that often deny them 
the health care they need.
  Today, by sending this bill to conference, this is an attempt to kill 
a proposal that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) never wanted this 
House to consider, and today again rejects.
  It means for people in Texas almost 1 in 4 families will not get the 
child tax credit relief that they deserve. It means 1.3 million, 
1,312,000 children, will not have tax relief that they deserve; they 
will instead be saddled with a giant debt tax as a result of the 
approach that is being proposed.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some confusion here in 
the rubber-stamp Congress today.
  I will quote from an article in Roll Call this morning which explains 
to me what happened.
  It says that the President invited them all down to the White House, 
and this is from a senior Republican aide: ``Most people in the GOP 
leadership think it is inappropriate for the White House to bring our 
bosses down there to discuss congressional business and then not invite 
any staff to go with

[[Page 14648]]

them.'' The aide said, ``Members who attend meetings are frustrated by 
the exclusion of the staff because it leaves them without aides to jog 
their memories of the sessions later.''
  Now it is clear what has happened. The President said pass the Senate 
bill. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) had on his mind that he had 
to find all these legislators in Texas, so he had to call up the home 
security board and he had to call up the FBI, and he got confused and 
got down in there and told the chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, Do anything you want.
  Now, here we are coming out here with no debate, and nobody wants to 
have anybody talk about what the issues here are. They just want to 
slam another $80 million on this bill, and wind up with what? A dead 
bill. They know the Senate is going to kill it. They are not as wild 
and radical as they are. With 74 to 2, this is a conservative Senate; 
or 94 to 2. I get carried away.
  This rubber-stamp Congress is really out of control. They are the 
gang that cannot shoot straight. They should at least have one meeting 
on this.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Perhaps if the White House has a shortage 
of space, it might help if they invite the Members without staff and 
next week they invite the staff without the Members, and we might 
function better.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I think that is a good idea.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the article from Roll Call this 
morning to which I referred earlier.
  The article referred to is as follows:

                    [From Roll Call, June 12. 2003]

                           Hill Aides Spurned

                          (By Ethan Wallison)

       Republican aides on Capitol Hill are incensed over a new 
     White House policy to exclude virtually all Congressional 
     staff from the semi-regular ``bi-cam'' meetings between 
     President Bush and the GOP leadership.
       The aides contend that they are being kept out of the 
     meetings even as White House staffers and other senior 
     officials, such as top Congressional lobbyist David Hobbs, 
     continue to sit in.
       ``It does strike one as a little bit arrogant,'' one senior 
     Senate GOP aide said. But, the aide added, ``I think that's 
     the way some people at the White House think about 
     Congressional staff.''
       Noting that the meetings focus on the Congressional agenda, 
     one senior House Republican aide added, ``Most people [in the 
     GOP leadership] think it's inappropriate for [the White 
     House] to bring our bosses down there to discuss 
     Congressional business and then not invite any staff to go 
     with them.''
       The aide said Members who attend the meetings are as 
     frustrated by the exclusions as the staff, because it leaves 
     them without aides to help jog their account of the sessions 
     later.
       A White House official denied that there are any ``hard and 
     fast rules'' about whether Congressional staff can attend the 
     meetings.
       ``It comes down to the space that's available in the room 
     and the topics that are being covered,'' the official said, 
     adding that the same factors apply to White House staff.
       But Congressional sources said they have been told that the 
     staff directive comes straight from the top and President 
     Bush, who simply wanted less staff in the meetings.
       Under the new guidelines, according to these sources, 
     Speaker Dennis Hastert's (R-Ill.) top aide, Scott Palmer, and 
     Lee Rawls, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's chief of 
     staff, will be permitted to attend the bi-cam sessions.
       The new policy appears to be the upshot of a months-long 
     give-and-take between the White House and the Congressional 
     GOP leadership on the staff issue. Senior Congressional aides 
     said the White House has been seeking ways to pare down the 
     number of aides at the bi-cam meetings, but were finding it 
     difficult to exclude some Capital Hill staff while allowing 
     others to continue to attend.
       ``The figured they couldn't get away with the half-way 
     approach, so they went all-or-nothing,'' one senior House GOP 
     aide said.
       The same aide said the White House has pledged to pare down 
     the number of administration officials and staff at the 
     meetings as well in the weeks ahead. Congressional aides 
     remain skeptical.
       One source noted that even Rawls was among the Capitol Hill 
     aides who were kept out of the room Tuesday evening, when the 
     GOP leadership went to the White House to discuss 
     appropriations. (The spending meeting immediately preceded 
     the bi-cam session.)
       Rawls made the trip to the White House along with Senate 
     Appropriations Committee Staff Director Jim Morhard and Kevin 
     Fromer, Hastert's policy director.
       All three were forced to wait outside the door to the 
     meeting, even though Hobbs and Candida Wolff, Vice President 
     Cheney's legislative affairs director, were allowed to 
     participate.
       Neither Rawls nor Palmer responded to phone calls on 
     Wednesday.
       To be sure, frustrated Congressional aides acknowledge that 
     the personnel who are allowed into meetings at the White 
     House reflects Bush's sense of what's appropriate.
       Some of the meetings in the past have taken place in the 
     White House residence, a more intimate setting that provides 
     less space for visitors, according to a White House official.
       But the exclusions have nevertheless fed resentments on 
     Capitol Hill about what some Congressional Republicans 
     believe to be the White House's disregard for Congress' role 
     in shaping the overall agenda.
       ``It's particularly unhelpful in the same week that [the 
     White House] cut our legs out from under us on the child tax 
     credit,'' one senior House GOP aide said.
       And some senior GOP aides contend that the shortage of 
     first-hand accounts has at times had significant practical 
     consequences, such as misunderstandings about deals and other 
     arrangements that were sealed behind closed doors.
       ``When it comes down to implementing an agreement, it's the 
     staff that has to do that,'' a senior Senate aide said, 
     citing the appropriations process as one area where such 
     miscommunication has been a problem.
       ``It's just frustrating.''

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I know I sound like Johnny one-note when I get up here 
talking about the debt and the deficit on everything that seems to come 
along. But I want to tell the Members this is serious business, what is 
happening. If Members want to talk about spending, we and this Congress 
are spending more money now than any Congress in the history of this 
country. We are spending it every year, beginning next year and into 
perpetuity, on interest.
  The difference between the bill the chairman has and what we tried to 
do to fix the problem like the Senate did in spending is $3.39 billion 
additional in spending, because that is what the interest over 10 years 
is on $80-something billion that is not paid for.
  Now, anybody who wants to get into an argument about spending, we are 
spending ourselves into oblivion. CBO just came out and said that the 
deficit this year will be $400 billion. They raised it $100 billion in 
a month. So $400 billion at 4 percent is an additional $16 billion next 
year just to pay the interest on the operation of this government that 
has lasted over 200 years.
  They sit here and they talk about spending. We are spending this 
country silly, and they are doing it by borrowing money that we have to 
pay interest on every year from now on.
  Last year we paid or accrued $336 billion in interest, for which 
nobody gets a job, nobody gets an aircraft carrier, nobody gets health 
care, nobody gets an education. It is gone. It is payment on past 
consumption that we either did not have the courage to ask people to 
pay for, or we did not have the guts to cut the programs that need 
cutting.
  Members want to talk about spending; let us talk about it. Here is 
$30 billion right now that we can save if Members want to accept what 
we have done with the motion to recommit.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, let me explain to the House how under this 
Republican bill that we have just passed, compared to the Senate bill, 
taxes can be raised or child tax credits can be denied to many of our 
service men and women serving in places like Iraq and Iran and 
Afghanistan.
  Let us take for example an E-6, a staff sergeant with two children 
who makes $29,000. His family will qualify for the full child tax 
credit, get this, so long as he stays stateside, in the United States. 
His pay is $29,000. He has to make more than $10,500 to qualify.

[[Page 14649]]

Subtract the 105 from the 29, you get 18.5; multiply it by 15, he is 
fully qualified for two child tax credits at $1,000 apiece.
  Now let us assume that he is assigned to Iraq, Afghanistan, or a 
combat zone. His pay while he is in a combat zone is tax-exempt. Let us 
assume he stays there 8 months. That is two-thirds of the year. Two-
thirds of his income is therefore tax-exempt. It is not considered to 
be taxable income. His taxable income, therefore, is about $9,700, less 
than the $10,500 threshold. As a consequence, for serving in Iraq, 
serving in Afghanistan, he loses the two child tax credits.
  Is this necessary? Absolutely not. The Senate bill avoided this 
problem. The language was there in the Senate bill. For some reason 
that has yet to be explained to these service members, much less the 
whole House. We do not know why it was dropped; we just know it was 
dropped.
  As a consequence, an E-6, an average serviceman or woman serving in a 
combat zone, will be denied the benefit of these child tax credits that 
we are giving other people. Perversely, the longer he stays in the 
combat zone, the less his entitlement to these two child tax credits. 
That is absolutely outrageous. We should never have passed this bill; 
but having passed it, we certainly should pass the motion to instruct.
  Maybe Members can say the reason we did that is we had to trim back 
this child tax credit so we could fit it into the overall bill. But 
this chart right here shows down in the little blue corner how much of 
the total cost of this bill is committed or required for the 
refundability of the child tax credit to apply to families making less 
than $26,000. There it is right there, $3 billion 48 million.
  This represents the additional cost of the bill, all the other 
provisions that were extraneous, and this is the additional interest. 
It did not have to be done. There was plenty of room. Will somebody 
please tell us why we are treating our service members in this manner?
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Watson), the distinguished former Ambassador.
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, just a few minutes ago we had the pleasure and the honor 
of hosting Specialist POW Shoshana Johnson. Shoshana Johnson was the 
young woman who we saw worldwide taken captive by the Iraqi military. 
She served well. She endured, shot through both of her ankles. Once she 
was freed, they took care of her and flew her home. She has been in the 
States a few weeks, and agreed to come here so we could pay the most 
deserving tribute to her.
  I want Members to know she has a 2-year-old child. She is a 
specialist. She will make less than $18,000 this year. She will be 
denied the child tax credit under the bill that just passed.
  These young people who were willing not only to serve their country, 
but to give their lives and their limbs. I want Members to know she was 
up there in Rayburn with a cast on her left leg. She was brought in 
with a wheelchair. She is proud, and did not even realize what she did 
for her country.
  But, Mr. Speaker, if we do not take care of the Shoshana Johnsons and 
take care of the very wealthy, we are abdicating our values under a 
democracy. I ask Members to please let us accept the Senate proposal 
for the child tax credit.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I intend to close the debate on this issue, hoping that 
perhaps the conferees would have an opportunity to review what has been 
done by the Senate and what has been done by the House, and to 
recognize this all started with us trying to help 6.5 million families 
and 12 million kids.
  Why this was dropped by the majority, this provision that was in the 
Senate bill, I do not know. Why it was so vigorously resisted by the 
Republican leadership I do not know. Why they continuously referred to 
giving assistance to hardworking people throughout the United States 
and our military people as being welfare, I do not know.
  Why they do not understand that a stronger America, a productive 
America, an increase in the purchasing power not just for those who 
clip coupons but for those who work every day, that have to buy clothes 
for their kids and pay for prescription drugs and pay rent, these are 
the things that really spur the economy.
  It would just seem to me that somewhere we could find some type of 
compassion, to say we made a mistake, we left it out. And even for 
political reasons to be able to say, since the Senate has reached some 
type of bipartisan agreement, we looked it over, the President wants us 
to get relief out there as fast as we can; it is $6.5 billion more than 
we expected, but we will accept it.
  What went into the thinking when people said, this is not going to 
happen? There are a lot of other things that are more important than 
that. The President can suggest, but he cannot vote. Then all of a 
sudden someone said, oh, no, we have to find some way politically that 
we can vote for it but make certain that it never sees the light of 
day. What can we possibly do to get a positive vote on this but to make 
certain that the Senate cannot accept it?
  I was not privy to what happened, but one thing is clear: That other 
body knocked down the President's request from a tax cut for $726 
billion. When they got finished with that, they knocked down the House 
tax cut from $550 billion to $350 billion. So it appears as though the 
Senate is very, very concerned about the size of the deficit.
  Now, I know that that does not concern us in the House. I am glad to 
see the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget that is 
here, because God knows he picked the wrong time to head the Committee 
on the Budget. They just threw that away. But things change, and maybe 
we will see better days.
  But if they really wanted to find out what is it that they could do 
to politically irritate the Senate and to have them reverse themselves 
on the child credit, some demon could have whispered in their ear, Why 
don't you increase the deficit more? And they would say, yes, why not 
double it?
  So we would come out in the House with a $20 billion, go to 
conference and adjust it, and it will be $15 billion. But then they 
said, but if you do that, you still would have a child credit bill. We 
want to make certain that when the majority leader says that it is not 
going to happen, it is not going to happen.
  So then they said, Why not increase it to $30 billion, $40 billion, 
$50 billion, $80 billion? Bingo. The House will accede to the 
President's request and consider the legislation for giving child tax 
credits to working people by increasing the deficit by $82 billion. See 
how they like that.

                              {time}  1815

  See how the bleeding hearts like that? You really want to help the 
working families?
  Well, this is what the deal is: We will give the working families a 
break today, but when it comes time to pay down the deficit, those kids 
are going to pay and they are going to pay big time. That is the 
decision that you are leaving to the Senate. It is shameful because I 
do not doubt the dedication of members of the other party. You just 
have a different way of looking at government. You really believe that 
government should be so small that we will reduce the revenue so low 
that we will starve each and every program that we believe in.
  Some of those programs will not go away by legislation. You cannot 
kill Social Security by privatization. You cannot kill Medicare by 
vouchers. You cannot kill Medicaid by block grant. But there is one 
thing, whether you are a bleeding heart, a liberal, a Democrat or a 
moderate Republican, if the money is not there, then the leader is 
right, it is not going to happen. And let me tell you, every bit of 
taxes that we reduce here, that tax comes up somewhere. It comes up 
when Governors try to say, well, maybe we can fill up the gap, but 
politically they cannot. They have a limit on how much taxes they can 
raise, how much money they can borrow. And then it gets down to the 
cities, and, God knows, I know it. We got

[[Page 14650]]

a good mayor, trying to do all of the things that the Congress has said 
in terms of homeland security, but we are closing fire departments, we 
are closing clinics, we are closing libraries. And while you are 
cutting taxes here, guess what we are doing in the great city of New 
York with the working people?
  They are not getting welfare. They are working every day. They have 
got kids, but they are paying more for buses, for subways, for buying 
food and clothing, for day care, everything. They are paying more, 
including paying for Social Security and Medicare expenses.
  So I know a lot of you think that these working people that we are 
trying to protect are welfare recipients. You do not pay taxes, you do 
not get tax relief. Well, they deserve some relief. They are entitled 
when we are giving the people back, those who pay taxes, God knows who 
makes America great, except those people who work every day, hoping 
that life will get better for them and a lot better for their kids.
  And so if you want to say that that is not the Congress' 
responsibility, leave it to the United Jewish Appeal, leave it to 
Catholic Charities, leave it to the Protestants Council, but leave us 
out as the Federal Government. Let local and State government do it.
  If you believe that, then what you do is starve the great reserves of 
this country. And if you cannot kill the programs legislatively, you 
kill them by not having the money there. So what you are saying is that 
one day when you accomplish your purpose, we will be paying more in 
interest on the trillions of dollars that we have borrowed than we will 
be able to pay for the programs that America has been so proud of.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from California said, ``This really has nothing to do 
with working families.''
  I will tell the gentleman, it has everything to do with working 
families. The provision that was offered and accepted on the Senate 
side, which was included in the Senate bill, was not supported by the 
authors of that amendment. This measure was never presented to, asked 
for, or included in the Senate provisions. We are now at a position of 
examining the Senate's behavior.
  The movement for the refundable tax credit from 10 percent to 15 
percent is in underlying law. It will occur January 1, 2005. The entire 
debate is over whether or not it ought to be accelerated. But what also 
ends on January 1, 2005 is the $1,000 child credit, because the Senate 
decided it was more important to create the opportunity so that between 
now and the elections of 2004, someone can show their compassion for 
working families. The $57 billion of this proposal says, after the 
election, will you show your compassion for working families in the 
year 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, which just happens to 
correspond to the 6-year term of the Senate.
  We thought it might be appropriate if there is compassion between now 
and November that the people are going to vote. No compassion will be 
there for the next 6 years as well. I believe one move was politics, 
the other is policy.
  Let us talk about working families. In New York City, a fireman who 
responded on 9/11 and his wife, a teacher, make about $150,000 
together. The Senate in its wisdom said we ought to raise the child 
credit from $110,000 to $150,000. And if you read the fine print of the 
Senate proposal, they are going to do that for 1 year, in 2010. Is that 
politics or policy? The $21 billion of this measure says if it is good 
enough for the $150,000-a-year joint working family in 2010, it is good 
enough for the working family today, next year, and every year until 
2010.
  Do you want politics or do you want policy? Politics is cheap. Policy 
costs money. We are asking you to put your dollars where your mouth is.
  July 9, 2002, as a matter of urgency we sent to the Senate a military 
tax fairness bill that would provide appropriate changes in the laws 
for our men and women in uniform. Underscore that: July 9, 2002.
  It still languishes over in the Senate. If they really cared about 
the men and women in uniform, we would have seen that bill-signing 
ceremony already. We are including that provision in this bill and 
asking the Senate once again to put policy where their mouth is. If the 
Senate has provisions in their measure that they want to bring to 
conference that we did not include, we invite them. But we invited them 
to a conference that does policy and not politics.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1308, the 
House Republicans' phony attempt to fix the problem they created when 
they dumped low-income families from eligibility for the increased 
child tax credit passed as part of the President's latest tax cut 
package.
  The Senate has already passed a bill to fix the problem with nearly 
unanimous support. But, House Republicans refuse to bring forth that 
bill. Instead, they've written an $82 billion bill with numerous tax 
breaks unrelated to the child tax credit for low income working 
families--and none of those $82 billion are paid for. It will increase 
our ballooning deficit even more.
  This bill is nothing more than a way for the House Republicans' to 
look like they're trying to address the needs of working families. In 
fact, their goal is to sabotage this issue so they can hide the fact 
that they excluded low-income families from the child tax credit in the 
first place. They don't care at all if these families ever qualify for 
tax credit.
  The House Republicans have brought this Trojan horse to the floor in 
order to pass further tax relief to upper-income families while betting 
that the Senate won't touch such an expensive bill with a ten-foot 
pole.
  The House Republicans believe that they will then be able to blame 
defeat of the bill on the Senate, when in fact they are the ones to 
blame! The Senate bill has already overwhelmingly passed the Senate on 
a bipartisan basis. The bill is paid for, unlike the House version. And 
most important, the President has already signed-off on the Senate-
passed bill.
  These families work hard and contribute their fair share through 
payroll taxes and sales taxes. There is no question that they also 
deserve their fair share of tax relief, especially when the child tax 
credit has been increased by $400 for parents just one rung higher on 
the income ladder. They can use this tax credit to help pay for their 
children's needs--like food, clothing, medical care, and childcare.
  I applaud Senate Republicans for heeding the call of Democrats and 
reversing course to pass a bill reinstating the child tax credit for 
these low-income working families. While it doesn't go far enough, it 
is a step in the right direction. Now it is time for House Republicans 
to do the same. It is the right and fair thing to do for America's 
families.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic motion to instruct 
conferees on H.R. 1308 so that the conference will agree to the Senate 
child tax credit bill. That's the only way these low-income families 
are going to get the tax credit. These are the families that need those 
few extra dollars the most. Vote for the motion to instruct.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, last week the Senate passed legislation to 
restore to children of low-income working families the tax relief that 
was--at the last minute--removed from the tax cut signed into law last 
month. This new Senate bill's cost of 9.7 billion dollars is fully 
offset and is waiting at the desk right here, right now for our action. 
We could pass the bill today and send it to the President for his 
signature tomorrow.
  However, my House Republican colleagues couldn't resist taking this 
important non-controversial bill--which passed the other body by a vote 
of 94-2--and weighing it down with more deficit growing tax cuts. The 
package before us today is almost 9 times larger than the Senate bill 
and every nickel of its 82 billion dollar price tag will be put onto 
our National Debt and repaid by our children and grandchildren.
  The Congressional Budget Office reported earlier this week that the 
tax cut signed into law last month, coupled with increasing defense 
spending, will send the federal budget deficit above $400 billion this 
year. If House Republicans were serious about giving child tax credit 
relief they would have paid for their bill. And, knowing that the 
Senate is fiscally responsible--they know this product won't pass.
  This is a cute way to appear to be for ``something'' while knowingly 
killing it. Let's be honest--most poor working folks don't vote for 
your guys so you're punishing their children today. Shame on you.

[[Page 14651]]

  I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and to send a message to the 
94 members of the other body that we are with them.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 205, 
nays 201, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 275]

                               YEAS--205

     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Boehlert
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burr
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     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
     Smith (MI)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--201

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

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Burton (IN)
     Cannon
     Cubin
     Davis (FL)
     Eshoo
     Ford
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Gephardt
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     McInnis
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (VA)
     Paul
     Pickering
     Royce
     Sessions
     Smith (WA)
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Waxman


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1840

  Mr. WHITFIELD and Mr. HERGER changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. GUTIERREZ changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 275, I was 
unavoidably detained in traffic due to the thunderstorm in Northern 
Virginia. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote 275, the motion to 
instruct, I would like the Record to show that I intended to vote 
``yea'' and inadvertently voted ``no.''


                        Appointment of Conferees

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs. Thomas, DeLay, and Rangel.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________