[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19046-19052]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 1308, TAX RELIEF, SIMPLIFICATION, 
                         AND EQUITY ACT OF 2003

  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Ross 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:
       Number one, 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.
       Number two, 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 individual serving in the combat zone.
       Number three, 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.
       Number 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.
       Finally, number five, the House conferees shall, as soon as 
     practicable, after the adoption of this motion, meet in open 
     session with the Senate conferees, and the House conferees 
     shall file a conference report consistent with the preceding 
     provisions of this instruction not later than the second 
     legislative day after adoption of this motion.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 7(b) of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) and a Member of the opposite party, 
in this case the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) is recognized.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, tonight I am offering a motion to instruct conferees on 
the child tax credit. As Congress considered H.R. 2, the Jobs and 
Growth Tax Reconciliation Act, at a cost of more than $300 billion, one 
important provision was omitted that affects a majority of the 
hardworking families in my home State of Arkansas, as well as working 
families across our Nation.
  The increase of a child tax credit that could be refundable to 
include low- to moderate-income families who earn between $10,500 a 
year and $26,625 a year was dropped from the conference agreement. Wage 
earners in this group include our men and women in the military, police 
officers, firefighters, and even our school teachers. Expanding the 
child tax credit to include the families of these people made up only 1 
percent, let me repeat that, made up only 1 percent of the total cost 
of the tax cut package; but the impact of this omission on the millions 
of working families who need this relief is immeasurable.
  I am very proud of our senior Senator from Arkansas, Blanche Lincoln, 
who led the effort in the United States Senate to correct this wrong, 
to right this wrong; and the Senate did so in a bipartisan way. The 
vote in the Senate was 94 to 2. Let me repeat that: in the Senate it 
was a bipartisan vote, 94 to 2.
  Mr. Speaker, it is simply wrong. It is wrong to enact a tax cut in 
the name of economic relief and not give that relief to those who are 
trying to do the right thing and stay off welfare and work jobs with 
few or no benefits, struggling day in and day out to make ends meet and 
provide for their children and their families.
  At the end of this week, some 25 million checks will be printed and 
put in the mail. Soon, the 25 million families who qualify under the 
new tax cut law will begin to receive those checks for child tax 
credits aimed at providing them with economic relief. This means that a 
mother of two who earns $65,000 a year will soon find an extra $800 in 
her mailbox. Meanwhile, a mother of two who earns up to $26,625 will 
get absolutely nothing, not one dime.
  We had to explain today to a single mother from my congressional 
district back home, Arkansas' Fourth Congressional District, who earns 
$16,000 a year, she was under the impression that she would be getting 
the child tax credit. After all she works for a living; she pays taxes 
and wanted our office to settle an argument with a friend who insisted 
that she did not qualify. Even though she is trying to do the right 
thing and stay off welfare, her friend told her she does not make 
enough money to get money back in terms of a child tax credit.
  We had to tell her that she lost that argument; and because House 
Republicans, this Republican national leadership has yet to act on a 
bipartisan,

[[Page 19047]]

Senate-passed provision, I repeat again on a 94 to 2 vote in the United 
States Senate, a bipartisan vote, because the House has refused to act 
on the Senate version, she will be left out in the cold.
  Mr. Speaker, if we act now, we can include some 6.5 million working 
families who need this help the most.
  This motion to instruct does a few simple things. It tells the 
conferees to agree to the Senate language, the bipartisan language that 
passed the Senate 94 to 2. It tells the conferees to let this language 
provide for tax credit checks to be mailed immediately to low-income 
family, those earning up to $26,625 a year. It provides that the tax 
credit be extended to personnel in combat zones in Iraq, Afghanistan 
and elsewhere around the globe. It provides assistance for the families 
of those who died in the tragic Columbia shuttle disaster, and yes, it 
ensures that this minimal cost is fully offset. In other words, we are 
not adding to the national deficit through this motion to instruct.

                              {time}  2230

  The conferees could easily accomplish these changes and bring us a 
final bill within 2 days, which is what this motion calls for.
  For those who argue that a tax cut should not be provided for those 
who do not pay taxes, I am here tonight to say that that dog won't 
hunt. We are not talking about a tax credit for welfare recipients. We 
are talking about a tax cut for working families. There are hard-
working people in our own offices who fall in this income level. Check 
out their next pay stub and tell me that they do not pay taxes.
  Working individuals who pay a significant part of their income in 
taxes, including Social Security and Medicare taxes and gas taxes and 
sales taxes and property taxes, taxes which are never cut, should be 
entitled to share in the benefits of a tax cut, particularly since it 
is their Social Security Trust Fund, their children's Social Security 
Trust Fund, and their grandchildren's Social Security Trust Fund that 
is being raided to pay for this tax cut for the wealthy.
  It is only fair that tax cuts benefit all Americans who contribute. 
Let us right the wrong and make sure that those 76,000 working families 
in my State, and the 6.5 million working families across our country, 
the families of our firefighters, our policemen, our schoolteachers, 
and even families with loved ones fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan will 
be included in this effort to provide economic relief. Let us provide 
it to those who need it the most. Let us provide it to those who will 
actually spend the refund on items their families need, and in doing so 
will help get this economy moving forward once again. Let us provide it 
to America's working families because it is the right thing to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct, and I thank my friend 
from Arkansas and others who will enjoin this debate this evening, Mr. 
Speaker, because it gives us a marvelous opportunity to carefully 
review all the facts.
  It was the second President of the United States, Mr. Speaker, John 
Adams, who first observed that facts are stubborn things, and perhaps 
the stirring presentation from my friend from Arkansas is most 
compelling for what he omitted from his motion to instruct. Mr. 
Speaker, it is my sad duty to inform this House that the Democrat 
motion to instruct allows the child credit to drop from $1,000 to $700 
after the 2004 election.
  Let me repeat that because it is very important that all who join us 
in this debate, in this presentation tonight, Mr. Speaker, understand 
clearly what would transpire. The Democrat motion to instruct allows 
the child credit to drop from $1,000 to $700 after the 2004 election. 
Now, Mr. Speaker, in the world of commerce, that is known as bait and 
switch. And as a result, millions of the people who my friend professes 
to champion, millions of low- and middle-income families, will receive 
a smaller child tax credit right after the elections.
  The House-passed bill, and let us point this out too, Mr. Speaker, 
because my friend also omitted something that just was passed by this 
House, H.R. 1308, the All American Tax Relief Act of 2003, our more 
comprehensive bill, which was not a part of my friend's presentation, 
passed by this House, ensures that the child credit remains at $1,000 
throughout the decade.
  Mr. Speaker, there is more, and I will be happy to delineate it, but 
let me pause, because my friend mentioned the needs of one of his 
constituents in the Fourth Congressional District of Arkansas. Mr. 
Speaker, I would hope that for all our low-income constituents who call 
about this, that we would inform them of four letters, EITC, Earned 
Income Tax Credits. That exists for people just like the constituent 
that was mentioned, which opens up economic prosperity and opportunity 
for those who do not pay a high level of taxes.
  And again, understand, so expansive has been our move to reduce 
taxation on the American people, Mr. Speaker, that I am able to report 
that a family of four earning close to $40,000 a year now would pay no 
income taxes. And you see, really, this is the issue, Mr. Speaker. 
Those of us in the common sense majority say if you pay income taxes, 
those taxes should be reduced. Our friends on the other side say if you 
pay any taxes, then income taxes should be reduced.
  There is a certain amount of illogic to that, speaking of dogs that 
will not hunt, Mr. Speaker, but let us take it a step further. What we 
have done in this House, through adoption of H.R. 1308, is to expand 
the credit to the very folks they claim to champion, to maintain that 
credit across the board throughout the decade. And we have gone a step 
further. In stark contrast to the shop-worn sloganeering of tax cuts 
for the rich, we have discovered something in America, and let me point 
to my own city of Phoenix, Arizona.
  I represent the Awatukee portion of greater Phoenix. There lives a 
nurse practitioner making $64,000 a year, and her husband, a school 
principal, making $64,000 a year; both of them earning that salary. We 
have expanded the child tax credit, because we do not believe you 
should put a tax credit on children that rolls back and forth like the 
old-fashioned slide rule to penalize two-income families who happen to 
succeed. So let us then accept the premise that if we are not going to 
punish children at the lower end of the economic scale, certainly we 
should not punish families who have two-income earners. And sixty-four 
times two is about $128,000 in today's world, Mr. Speaker, and I would 
submit that that is not wealthy.
  Something else that is important that I would bring to the attention 
of the House, Mr. Speaker. The Democratic motion to instruct does not 
eliminate the marriage penalty in the child credit until 2010, and even 
then it only does so for 1 year. Under the motion to instruct, millions 
of children will be denied the child credit simply because their 
parents are married. What we passed in the House benefits middle income 
families by eliminating this type of abridgement immediately.
  The House-passed bill, which a common sense majority moved through 
this House, does not deny the child credit to military families. 
Military families, including those who are deployed abroad, are already 
receiving a refundable child credit and will continue to receive a 
refundable child credit under the House-passed bill. The Democrat 
motion to commit would only increase the refundable child credit for 
some military families by allowing them to take into account tax-free 
income when they compute their refundable credit.
  And the House-passed bill, which moved through, again, with a 
bipartisan majority, provides more tax relief to military families 
because it includes $806 million of military tax benefits. We should 
point out that those provisions have passed the House on numerous 
occasions. They are awaiting action in the other body. Indeed, Mr. 
Speaker, while we tend to our affairs here, and I will not characterize 
what might transpire across this Capitol, I will simply say that a more 
comprehensive approach, as endorsed by

[[Page 19048]]

this House, makes more sense for the American people.
  I look forward to the other arguments, but, Mr. Speaker, I would have 
to say that as I hear the litany from the left, it reminds me of that 
country song, ``That's my story and I'm sticking to it.''
  Mr. Speaker, again, facts are stubborn things. Reject the motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
respond to the gentleman from Arizona.
  All the things he was criticizing H.R. 2 does. In fact, he voted for 
it and the President signed it. So I am at a loss as to what he was 
talking about, although I think it is important that I point out to the 
gentleman from Arizona that back home, in Prescott, Arkansas, just 
outside of town, off the kill road at my deer camp, we have a saying: 
``Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.'' But we are not 
at the deer camp tonight, we are in the United States House of 
Representatives, and we are talking about the future of 6.5 million 
working families.
  I will tell my colleague that he is right about one thing. I did fail 
to mention one thing in my opening statement, and that was that this 
motion to instruct will help 123,000 families who do not get the child 
tax credit in the gentleman's home State; 19 percent of the working 
families in his home State.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the honorable gentleman 
from Arkansas for yielding me this time, and I stand to support the 
motion to instruct.
  I must admit that I am really amazed at my good friend on the 
Republican side. It amazes me to see how he speaks out of not only both 
sides of his mouth but apparently out of the back of his head as well. 
If we remember very carefully what he said about the military, the 
point that he failed to mention was that combat pay is exempt and falls 
below the threshold level, so that those soldiers serving in Iraq are 
not covered.
  With the Democratic plan, what we are pushing would include those 
soldiers and their children. And quite honestly, it brings tears to my 
eyes, Mr. Speaker, when I think of us sending our troops into harm's 
way and to come with this tax credit and not have them included. The 
gentleman knew that. He said purposefully the military, but he did not 
say combat soldiers, because they are exempt from taxes. We know that.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, let us deal with the facts as they should be. First 
of all, why are we here? We are not here because of the Democrats. If 
it were up to us and the Senate and the President of the United States, 
the bill would be passed and these 6.5 million families would be 
getting that check in the mail right now. We are here because of the 
Republicans in this House that insisted on killing the child tax credit 
by holding it hostage with an $82 billion irresponsible tax cut.
  And I can say irresponsible tax cut with great credibility because I 
was one of only seven Democrats who voted for the original tax cut. And 
I voted for it because my constituents in Georgia wanted me to vote for 
it and because we were able to get $567 million in aid to my State. 
And, yes, it brought stresses to the deficit. But they want to take 
another $82 billion tax cut, knowing the Senate is not going to accept 
it; that the President of the United States already said he does not 
want it. He came out with a report just 2 weeks ago that we are already 
$500 billion into deficit now without even impacting this tax cut that 
we have. Irresponsible.
  We are here because of my good friend from Arizona and the 
leadership. Now, I have been here just 6 months. I am new, and I am 
just a country guy from the south, from Georgia, but I have learned a 
couple of things since I have been here in 6 months. I have learned 
that the House leadership runs the ship here. And that is why we 
Democrats are often in the position of trying to correct the course of 
the ship when it gets off course from what the American people want.
  Now, why are we here? We are here because the Republicans cut out, in 
the dark of night, this child tax credit. It was there. Many who voted 
for this tax cut assumed it was there. The American people assumed that 
this child tax credit was there for everybody.

                              {time}  2245

  One of the things about the American people is this: the American 
people root for the underdog. They always want us to stand up for the 
little fellow. Why should we not give this tax credit to low- and 
moderate-income people? And who are these low- and moderate-income 
people? Who are these 6.5 million families? They are families making 
between $10,500 to $26,000 per year, a sizable number of people, who 
have children, who deserve this tax credit.
  And they want to say, well, they do not make enough to qualify. My 
goodness, they make enough. $10,500 to $26,000 a year in some cases is 
a decent salary. Twenty-three percent of the families in my State make 
this and 23 percent of the families in my State do not have this child 
tax credit. Twenty percent of those from 13 States do not have this 
credit.
  Mr. Speaker, let us be right. Let us be fair. These folks deserve a 
tax credit. It is the American way. I want to thank my honorable friend 
from Arkansas for giving me that opportunity to speak. I just urge my 
good friend, and we have several good friends in the Republican Party 
that I have worked with, to put pressure on our leadership and let us 
do right by the low- and moderate-income people and include this child 
tax credit and get it to them immediately.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank my friend from Georgia for offering the hand of friendship, 
as he characterizes it, across the aisle. I thought it was interesting 
that some of his remarks seemed to be insult-laden, but that is his 
prerogative coming to this floor. I think the American people deserve 
better. And I would point out to my friends on the left that again the 
dispute is not about tax relief. It seems that they are almost of two 
minds. On one hand, if tax relief is limited to some few tightly 
targeted, they seem to be fine with it. And, of course, we welcome the 
gentleman's support, Mr. Speaker, on the first tax bill and certainly 
appreciate that.
  I am a little confused as to why he decided not to vote for even a 
more comprehensive child credit that we offered in H.R. 1308, but let 
me go back since he offered a specific criticism with reference to 
members of the Armed Forces. Let me again delineate what we passed. I 
made no such articulation nor claim about combat soldiers and, of 
course, Mr. Speaker, our men and women in uniform go into action 
without the designation Democrat nor Republican, they are Americans; 
and I made no assertion as to the relative status, the tax-exempt 
status of combat pay.
  Let me, however, articulate for my friend, Mr. Speaker, and all those 
who join us in this debate tonight exactly what it is we have passed 
time and again in this House in terms of tax fairness for members of 
the Armed Forces included in these provisions: capital gains tax relief 
on home sales; tax-free death gratuity payments; tax-free dependent 
care assistance for members of the military. Again, I would remind my 
friends, Mr. Speaker, that these provisions provide $806 million of tax 
relief to members of the Armed Forces over the upcoming 11 years.
  Again, there is something that has been a glaring omission when we 
come to discussing tax rates for those who do not pay income taxes. 
Again, Mr. Speaker, I am haunted by the assertion of my friend who 
sponsors this motion to instruct who speaks of a mother in the Fourth 
Congressional District of Arkansas, if memory serves, I believe, 
earning around $15,000 a year. According to the Tax Foundation, if she 
were a single mother with two children as the head of the household, 
she would receive a refundable earned income tax

[[Page 19049]]

credit of $3,823. Her total check under earned income tax credits from 
Uncle Sam would be $4,273. Tax refunds as a percent of her income upon 
which she pays no income tax would be 28.5 percent, and the percent of 
her payroll tax that would be erased through the earned income tax 
credit, 186 percent. Again, the compelling omission.
  We have already reached out to those who do not pay income taxes. We 
do so again, but my friends on the left find fault that we have 
enlarged this to include two-earner households because again we do not 
believe you put a price tag on the heads of children, not only those 
facing tough times economically but, yes, those who both are working. 
They likewise, those families, should deserve the child tax credit. We 
have expanded it, made it constant; and in stark contrast to the 
Democratic alternative, it remains constant. It does not drop down 
after the election of 2004. Important points to keep in mind, country 
music sloganeering notwithstanding.
  Vote ``no'' on this motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  If I might quickly address the gentleman from Arizona's remarks, I do 
not understand what the problem is. Why is he arguing against this when 
the House has already passed this motion to instruct? The President 
says he likes it. In fact, the President's press secretary, White House 
Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, quote, he the President wants to sign 
this legislation. Hopes that Congress will get it to him quickly. He 
believes that what the Senate has done is the right thing to do, a good 
thing to do, and he wants to sign it. President Bush's press secretary 
from June 9, 1 month ago or so. And the GOP Senators like it, 94 to 2. 
It was a bipartisan vote.
  To the other matter that he keeps bringing up, he tries to tell us 
that folks who earn $26,625 a year do not pay income taxes. Yes, they 
pay income taxes; and yes, they pay sales taxes and property taxes and 
gas taxes and the list of taxes goes on. Please tell me one time when 
the gas tax, the sales tax, the property tax has been cut. We are 
talking about people that are trying to do the right thing and stay off 
welfare and work in the jobs with no benefits. If you earn $80,000 a 
year and you have got three children at home, in about 2 weeks you are 
getting a check for $1,200. If you earn $26,000 a year and are a 
policeman, a fireman, a schoolteacher or serve in the United States 
military and you have got three children at home, guess what you are 
getting week after next? Zero. Not a dime. There is nothing fair about 
this. The President has said so and the Republicans in the Senate have 
said so. It is time for the Republican leadership in the House to step 
up to the plate, put partisanship aside, and do what is right by these 
6.5 million working families.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Alexander), a member of the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition, a good 
conservative Democrat who I am proud to call my colleague.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to read just a portion of a letter that I 
sent out today to my constituents. It is entitled, ``The Checks Are in 
the Mail, At Least for Some":
  ``That's what I was told today when I asked when people would start 
getting the $400 checks created by the recent tax cut that I supported 
and helped pass in Congress. I asked because I know that these checks 
are an important part of the economic stimulus package that my 
colleagues and I created.
  ``However, while I am happy with the fact that many families will 
soon be receiving these checks, I am not totally satisfied. I am not 
satisfied because in the last-minute negotiations between the House and 
Senate, low-income families were left out of the tax bill.
  ``That is why we offer to extend the tax credit to families who are 
currently being left out. To make that goal simpler to achieve, I urged 
my colleagues to accept a nearly identical Senate bill which 
accomplishes the same thing. It passed the Senate with overwhelming 
bipartisan support. The President has urged its passage. Now it is time 
for the House to get on board and do the same.
  ``There is no excuse for inaction, no excuse to leave out one out of 
four families in Louisiana that are today looking at an empty mailbox 
wondering when their economic incentive check will arrive from 
Washington.
  ``Those in leadership who are blocking tax relief for these deserving 
families say they won't pass this measure unless they get an even 
larger tax cut for the wealthy. That is wrong.
  ``They say those working families do not deserve tax relief because 
they don't pay enough in taxes. But those hardworking taxpayers have 
money taken out of their paychecks, too, and they deserve the same tax 
relief as anyone else.''
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I do welcome my friend from Louisiana to this House and 
the 108th Congress. I look forward to working with him in a spirit of 
bipartisanship. I thank him for his first vote for tax relief and again 
would point out the four letters that my friends on the left just 
cannot bring themselves to mention tonight, EITC, earned income tax 
credit.
  My friend from Arkansas either cited another example or gave a 
different total than I thought I initially heard about his constituent. 
Earning $25,000 a year, let me review what that constituent, who is 
paying no income tax, receives through the earned income tax credit 
according to the Tax Foundation. That person, that head of household 
with two kids earning $25,000, the tax liability before the credit is 
$885. After the child tax credit, the $1,000 per child, there is no tax 
liability. The remaining refundable child tax credit, $565. The 
refundable earned income tax credit, $1,717. The total check from Uncle 
Sam to that person, the head of household with two kids earning $25,000 
under the earned income tax credit, is $2,282. The percent of the 
payroll tax erased for that head of household is some 60 percent.
  What we are saying, Mr. Speaker, is simply an acknowledgment that our 
friends who are not paying income tax are indeed working Americans, and 
I find it ironic tonight that the earned income tax credit has been 
avoided by my friends on the left as if it were a plague. Why would 
that be, Mr. Speaker? I welcome the chance to certainly champion this 
program for working Americans, and I certainly hope that in the many 
mailings my friends on the left send out, they might inform their low-
income constituents of the programs that already exist that can avail 
them of thousands of dollars. The glowing and glaring omission tonight 
in this motion to instruct is that my friends on the left do not even 
champion a program they once stood foursquare behind. They have instant 
amnesia. It is curious, but it is not unknown in politics.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  If I could make just one quick point. The gentleman from Arizona 
likes to keep referring to his friends on the left. From where the 
Speaker stands tonight, we would actually be on the right.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sandlin), a fellow Blue Dog, a good member of the Blue Dog Coalition 
and someone that I think will help us and hopefully help the gentleman 
from Arizona understand why he needs to support this as his President 
has asked, our President has asked, and as the Senate voted 94 to 2 in 
a bipartisan way to pass.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, speaking from the center, it is an issue of 
priorities. We have to ask ourselves in this House, who do we stand 
for? Who do we stand for in this House?
  Mr. Speaker, as we are well aware by now, last month the other body 
voted 94 to 2 to immediately give an increased child tax credit to the 
12 million children of 6.5 million working

[[Page 19050]]

families. They voted to do that immediately. The time is long overdue 
for the House to likewise pass the language included in the bill passed 
by the Senate. As the nearly unanimous vote in the other body 
indicates, this issue enjoys broad bipartisan support. Leave it to the 
House Republican leadership to turn a popular, bipartisan effort 
benefiting children into an unnecessary, nasty battle. It is not 
difficult to figure out the priorities of the Republican Party. All you 
have to do is follow the money. The Republicans somehow managed to find 
room in their tax bill for people with an income over $1 million.
  Now, is that not special? Tax filers who make over $1 million per 
year will receive an average tax cut in 2003 in that 1 year, an average 
tax cut of $93,500 for the year.

                              {time}  2300

  We have plenty of money for the millionaires. At the same time, 
during conference committee negotiations between the House and Senate, 
House conferees intentionally and knowingly dropped child tax credit 
relief at the last minute, for working families who earn between 
$10,500 and $26,625 per year. They just cut them out, said they get 
nothing, zero, nada, zilch.
  And what is funny about it is, they admitted it. Just listen to what 
Ari Fleischer said, the White House press secretary. He said 
``Everybody was aware in the conference of what was in and what was 
out; so that was very well known to all the conferees, including the 
White House.'' He told the truth. No wonder he is out of the White 
House. He is not over there anymore. They cannot take that kind of 
candor.
  The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means summarized the 
Republicans' attitude best when he said in response to a question 
regarding the passage of an accelerated increase, ``There are worse 
things than its not happening.''
  Now this charming sentiment was echoed by the majority leader when he 
stated bluntly in regards to passage of the Senate child credit, 
``Ain't going to happen.'' Of course, this was entirely consistent with 
his previous opinions. Earlier he had said ``There's a lot of things 
more important than that.''
  This week, on July 25, the Treasury Department will begin sending out 
millions of checks for the expanded child tax credit provided in the 
new law, just as the House adjourns. However, the 6.5 million hard-
working families, including the children of the 200,000 military 
families currently serving in Iraq and other combat zones, will get no 
check or a significantly smaller check than would be provided under the 
Senate bill because of the opposition of the House Republicans.
  Again, the Republican majority leader said, ``There's a lot of things 
more important than that.''
  My question is, like what, Mr. Leader? Like what? What is more 
important than that? Like what? What is the answer? It is outrageous 
that the Republican leadership is determined to leave town until 
September without enacting tax relief for working families.
  In 13 States 20 percent or more of families would be helped by 
expanding the child tax credit, as the other body has proposed. In my 
home State of Texas, the bipartisan child credit bill passed by the 
other body would benefit 23 percent of working families in Texas.
  Conversely, the Republican bill disproportionately penalizes the 
people who can afford it least, black and Hispanic children; 2.4 
million black children, one in five, and 4.1 million Hispanic children, 
one in three, are penalized. Two hundred and sixty thousand children 
from families of active military will lose at least some of the credit 
under the Republican bill. The children of the folks fighting in Iraq 
will lose the benefits. That is outrageous. That is misplaced 
priorities, Mr. Speaker. That is just flat-out wrong.
  Strengthening our Nation means investing in all of our children and 
making opportunities available to all people and especially to our 
working families in America. There are not many things more important 
than that, regardless of what the majority leader says.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I should note, Mr. Speaker, as you occupy the role of speaker pro 
tempore, you are a newcomer to the Congress from the great State of 
Arizona, and we welcome you as well; and I appreciate your presiding 
this evening.
  I want to thank my friend from Texas, who in addition to being a very 
capable legislator, is a very accomplished attorney. And certainly we 
saw tonight part of his legislative domain because when one does not 
have the facts on his side, it is important to argue atmospherics. And 
we all heard about the genuine intent of the Republican Party and all 
of these interesting perceptions out there that I guess, from the 
school of politics, perceptions outweigh reality.
  But then again, Mr. Speaker, it is my assertion that we owe the 
American people the facts. And the fact is, what this House passed is 
much more comprehensive, what our Democrat friends offer is much more 
restrictive.
  We have heard no refutation of this fact, and it is as follows: The 
Democrat motion to instruct allows the child credit to drop from $1,000 
to $700 immediately following the 2004 election. That is a curious 
alleged improvement in the bill. The Democrat motion to instruct does 
not eliminate the marriage penalty in the child credit until 2010, and 
even then it only does so for 1 year. We have heard no refutation of 
that.
  The House-passed bill does not deny the child credit to military 
families, and indeed as I have delineated time and again, the House-
passed bill provides more tax relief to military families because it 
includes $806 million of military tax benefits.
  What else have we done in H.R. 1308, the bill that is assailed as 
opportunities for the wealthy, as we hear that sad and shop-worn 
sloganeering of the politics of envy? What we have done in this bill 
is, we increased the child credit to $1,000 per eligible child through 
2010. That provision alone provides $57.3 billion of tax relief over 11 
years.
  We have eliminated the marriage penalty in the child credit. We 
accelerated the increase in the refundable child credit. We provide tax 
relief and enhanced tax fairness, as I delineated, for members of the 
Armed Forces. We suspend the tax exempt status of designated terrorist 
organizations, and we provided tax relief for the estates and the 
families of those brave astronauts who have perished on space missions. 
This is included therein.
  And actually we expanded the child tax credit to include children 
across the board socioeconomically. We do not believe in attacking any 
children.
  And again what we have not heard from my friends on the other side 
tonight, whether they stand in the center or to my left or to my far 
left, what we have not heard tonight are the letters EITC, earned 
income tax credit, something that ordinarily I thought my friends would 
champion, but tonight they do not talk about it. Why? Because we are 
sending money to those hard-working folks who do not pay income taxes, 
moneys that will already be supplemented under the far more generous 
and expansive child credit than we have offered in H.R. 1308.
  So again, Mr. Speaker, failing the refutation of these salient 
points, whatever sloganeering about our friend Ari Fleischer, who at 
one point in time was our Committee on Ways and Means press secretary 
on the majority side, who is not here to speak for himself tonight, 
whatever incantations or imaginations as to the motives of the majority 
party, that is certainly very interesting in terms of interpretive 
oratory, but it brings nothing to bear on tonight's debate.
  The fact remains when we review what they offer, it is inadequate. It 
is bait and switch. And it peddles the shop-worn sloganeering of the 
politics of envy, reason enough to reject this motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Might I just simply respond by saying this, that the gentleman from 
Arizona likes to talk about how while we

[[Page 19051]]

want to provide a $1,000 child tax credit for those who earn less than 
$26,625 a year, he constantly reminds us that it falls back to $700 in 
2004. Guess why? Because that is exactly what your bill does that 
passed, H.R. 2. It falls back to $700 in 2004, and we are here trying 
to help these working families who earn less than $26,625 a year.
  You are here fighting that. We know if we tried to extend it to do 
more than your bill does for all the wealthy folks, you would certainly 
fight it even more. So let us make sure that we do not confuse the 
facts here. We are simply trying to provide those who earn between 
$10,500 and $26,625, the same playing field, the same parity, the same 
tax cut that will be received by those who earn over $26,625 a year.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Matheson), a fellow Blue Dog member, a good conservative 
Democrat, someone who is here to speak on behalf of the 62,000 working 
families in Utah who have fallen through the cracks under this 
concocted plan by the Republican national leadership, someone who is 
here to try to make sense out of this for us.

                              {time}  2310

  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arkansas for 
yielding me time and raising this issue tonight. It has indeed been an 
interesting discussion.
  When I was elected to Congress, I thought I was coming back here to 
get things done, and I think that a lot of people in this country would 
like to see us make progress on issues. So when I look at issues, I try 
to approach what I call ``what is possible.''
  There are a lot of points of view around here, not just a Democratic 
and a Republican point of view. There are a lot of points of view that 
different people have about what is a perfect piece of legislation, and 
I do not know if any of us have ever seen a perfect piece of 
legislation come through. But tonight I suggest again that we ought to 
think about what is possible.
  I supported the $300 billion tax cut, and, quite frankly, I supported 
H.R. 1308 as well. But I am also trying to be realistic about what we 
can do to get some tax relief through for these particular families we 
have been talking with in that lower income range.
  The United States Senate has spoken in a profoundly bipartisan way 
with a 94 to 2 vote. If we really want to make progress, it may not be 
perfect for my friend from Arizona, it probably is not perfect for a 
lot of folks in this body, but if we want to make progress in terms of 
providing some relief for these folks, this is the opportunity that I 
think is before us today.
  I think as we have had this discussion about what is in the tax bill 
and what is not in the tax bill and who said what, we have missed the 
bigger picture, and the bigger picture is this economy is not doing 
well right now, and the reason why we looked at a tax cut in the first 
place was because we know we have got to take steps to stimulate this 
economy.
  A lot of people are hurting out there. It has been going on for a 
long time. This week, we are going to see a bunch of checks mailed out, 
and it is my sincere hope that those checks are going to have a 
stimulative effect on this economy and we are going to see economic 
growth result from that.
  I would submit that in the context of those checks going out right 
now, it only highlights the omission, the omission of this group from 
$10,000 to $26,000 in annual income, this group that was included, 
quite frankly, in H.R. 1308, and is actually included, at least after 
2005, in the original House bill we passed, and then in conference 
committee it got taken out.
  So whether the Earned Income Tax Credit is part of a benefit to those 
folks in that income range, I do not dispute that. It is. It is an 
important program. It is something that has bipartisan support. The 
question is, do those families deserve some piece of additional relief, 
as has been handed out to other families in this country? I would 
suggest that they do.
  So, in closing, I just want to suggest again, let us look for the art 
of the possible. This may not be a perfect tax bill, but let us look at 
the art of the possible. I saw a 94 to 2 result on the other side of 
the Hill. That is a pretty good indicator to me, that if the House of 
Representatives would pass similar legislation that that could go to 
the President's desk and be signed into law, and these low-income 
families, these folks who are working families, who work hard every 
day, would receive some tax benefit as well.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me thank my neighbor from Utah, first of all, for 
both of his votes on tax relief. That is perhaps the most compelling 
testimony we have received tonight.
  It is a bit curious that we diverge on what is possible. I believe, 
and perhaps this is a point where those who embrace the Keynesian 
theory of economics can actually agree with those of us who 
characterize ourselves as supply-siders, at a time of economic downturn 
it is important to provide tax relief. Indeed, we have accepted that as 
an article of faith for those working families eligible for the Earned 
Income Tax Credit, and, indeed, as I can point out again from the Tax 
Foundation, with the child tax credit, a $30,000 head-of-household with 
two kids is going to get over $1,000 back under previously existing 
law. That money is going to go back to help those folks.
  Now, listen: I do not believe you gauge the art of what is possible 
on votes in the other body. I will leave atmospherics to the pundits 
and the Sunday morning shows. To me, what is possible is what is passed 
by a bipartisan majority, of which my friend from Utah was a part on 
two occasions. So, again, it is curious to note this motion to 
instruct.
  Now, my friend from Arkansas offered some selective criticism. If you 
listen carefully to his critique, he spoke of the original tax bill. Of 
course, what we have done in H.R. 1308 is to expand and maintain the 
$1,000 level; not sunsetting it, but increasing it and taking it 
across-the-board for the next decade, the upcoming decade, to make sure 
it is there.
  What they offer in their motion to instruct is to go back to $700 
after the 2004 election. He had no critique or criticism of H.R. 1308, 
he was just silent on that, as he has been about the Earned Income Tax 
Credit.
  Mr. Speaker, as we review this, the art of what is possible, and good 
folks can disagree, but I would maintain in this House that the art of 
what is possible can be achieved and that the greatest number of people 
can be helped to the greatest extent by this House maintaining its 
original position, not to accept a motion to instruct that is in fact a 
retreat from what has already been done in terms of promoting economic 
growth and allowing all Americans to keep their hard-earned money. That 
is what we have to deal with.
  That is why it is important, and why tomorrow I know my colleagues 
will join me in voting no on this Democrat motion to instruct. Why take 
three steps backwards, when we can take a giant leap forward for all 
American families.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before I go any further, I would just like to make one 
point. The gentleman from Arizona likes to point out and thank all 
these conservative Democrats who have appeared here tonight for their 
support of various tax cuts over recent years, which demonstrates to me 
that the conservative Democrats that have appeared tonight on behalf of 
these working families that are being left out of the child tax credit, 
it appears to me that these are common sense, bipartisan Members, and 
it looks like to me it would be something that the gentleman from 
Arizona would stop and think, well, wait a minute, you know, these are 
folks that agreed with us, and now they do not. It looks like a light 
would come on and he would recognize that this is an act of fairness.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Scott),

[[Page 19052]]

another fellow member of the fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog 
coalition, a new Member, a shining star in the Democratic Party and a 
voice of reason.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is very kind in his 
introduction. I appreciate that, and I appreciate the time to come to a 
summary.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important, because we probably do 
have several million of our American citizens watching tonight, it is 
very important, you argue the point on our motion to instruct. That is 
not the issue we are here for. The motion to instruct is our only means 
to press the case.
  The issue we are here for is because the House Republican leadership 
is standing in the way of our getting a child tax credit down to those 
folks making between $26,000 a year and $10,500 a year. That is the 
issue here.
  In the remaining moment I have, I would just make this appeal to some 
of my Republican friends to help us tomorrow. We cannot do it unless we 
get a sizeable number of Republicans to help us. I do believe we have 
some Republicans who will do that for us.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not thank my friends on the 
minority side for offering their points of view, including my friend 
from Georgia. I guess this is why we come to this great Chamber and 
debate many differences.
  But, rather than impugn motives, I am simply going to say this: Quite 
to the contrary of what my friends assert, it is the opinion of this 
majority that the money we are talking about belongs to the American 
people, wherever they line up on the socio-economic scale. If you pay 
income taxes, you will receive an income tax reduction, and, if you are 
eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit, as I have pointed out time 
and again tonight, the check has been in the mail for years. That is 
something my friends have not dealt with tonight, and it is something 
that, in the spirit of candor and complete discussion, we should not so 
readily dismiss.
  Indeed, I would ask my friends to embrace H.R. 1308 as they embraced 
the initial tax bill. I thank my friend from Utah for his support of 
both, and I appreciate the spirit in which the debate has been 
conducted.
  I know my friend from Arkansas has the right to close. I will simply 
close for the majority side by saying that we need to reject this 
motion to instruct. We offer a bill that is far more complete for a far 
greater portion of the American people.
  As I have demonstrated time and again tonight, we have provisions 
under the Earned Income Tax Credit to alleviate the needs of those who 
pay no income taxes, and, indeed, under our comprehensive plan of tax 
relief, the numbers of families who pay no income taxes continue to 
grow exponentially.

                              {time}  2320

  If you opt for genuine tax relief, the real article, as some of my 
friends on the minority side have done on both occasions, I would say 
reject the motion to instruct. Embrace the House position. We will 
persuade our friends on the other side of the Capitol and move forward 
with more meaningful tax relief for Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Let me say that I came to this Congress back in 2001 to try to offer 
up some commonsense solutions to the problems confronting this Nation. 
Like many Americans, Mr. Speaker, I am sick and tired of all of the 
partisan bickering that goes on in our Nation's Capital. It should not 
be what makes the Democrats look good or bad or what makes the 
Republicans look good or bad; it ought to be about doing right and 
providing a voice for the people of America, including the 6.5 million 
working families that have been shut out of tax relief.
  We are faced with the Nation's largest deficit in our country this 
year: $455 billion and growing, a deficit that our kids and grandkids 
have to pay for, money that is coming from the Social Security trust 
fund. Yet, the Republican national leadership managed to find a way to 
cut taxes to the tune of $300 billion, but they left out 6.5 million 
working families. They can talk about how these are folks who do not 
pay taxes all night long; but the reality is, we are talking about men 
and women in uniform, policemen, firemen, schoolteachers, folks earning 
up to $26,625 a year. They have children, and they too deserve the same 
tax cut as those who earn much more than that.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask for support and a ``yes'' vote on the motion to 
instruct conferees on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Franks of Arizona). Without objection, 
the previous question is ordered on the motion.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion are postponed.

                          ____________________