[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19265-19271]
[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. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.

[[Page 19266]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayes). The Clerk will report the 
motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       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:
       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 provision 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 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.
       5. 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 preceeding provisions 
     of this instruction, not later than the second legislative 
     day after adoption of this motion.

                              {time}  0145

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayes). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) and a Member of the majority party 
each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise today to urge conferees on H.R. 1308, the child tax credit 
legislation, to do the right thing and act now to give lower-income 
families the tax refunds they deserve. This Friday, Uncle Sam will drop 
checks in the mail to millions of families who will benefit from the 
child tax credit. However, if the House would simply put an end to 
stalling tactics over the Senate bill and act to extent the child tax 
credit, 4 million additional families would receive a much-needed check 
in the mail, and 2.5 million families would enjoy a larger check than 
they are currently scheduled to receive.
  Earlier this year, this Congress passed a $350 billion tax cut bill 
that failed to provide families of low-income children with a child tax 
credit. The Senate acted in early June to extend the child tax credit 
to include low-income families. The Senate bill was deficit neutral, as 
its costs were offset by other revenues. The House responded to this 
$9.5 billion deficit-neutral Senate bill with a bloated $82 billion 
plan, every dime of which adds to a deficit that is already of 
staggering proportions. Why?
  It is difficult to resist the conclusion that the House leadership 
chose this response to the Senate bill precisely because they knew it 
would be completely unacceptable to the Senate. This is perfect, right? 
Give the illusion of responding to a real problem when in fact the 
response makes the solution even more elusive.
  Now, the House continues to stall, unwilling to give an inch so that 
low-income families can receive the same $1,000 child tax credit other 
families are expecting. We have an opportunity to call off the 
stonewalling and follow the Senate's lead in passing meaningful relief 
for low-income families and we should do it.
  Refusing to take the time before Congress goes on vacation to provide 
low- and middle-income families with a child tax credit is nothing 
short of an assault on the working poor. At the present time, when our 
economy has taken a nose dive and families are forced to cut their 
budgets left and right, it defies logic to engage in such a blatant 
form of class warfare.
  Any Member who thinks it is acceptable to leave town to go on 
vacation and to push off the urgent business of 6.5 million hardworking 
families is sending an unmistakable message about misplaced priorities. 
This kind of attitude may be acceptable in Washington, but it is not 
okay in my district. I am ashamed to return home to Long Island as the 
representative of a Federal Government that has turned a blind eye to 
the needs of the 20,000 families in my district estimated to lose out 
if we deny them their benefits without a fight.
  If this House sees wisdom in giving millionaires alone a $90 billion 
tax break, certainly we can give families making between $10,500 and 
$26,000 a small break. That is $10,500 to $26,000. Yet there is a great 
resistance to offsetting the cost of extending the child tax credit by 
reducing the dividend and capital gains relief flowing to millionaires 
by a remarkably trivial amount.
  We were sent to Congress by people we represent to make choices. When 
the original conferees excluded families making from $10,500 to $26,000 
from sharing in the benefit of the expanded tax credit, they had 
several options available to them. The cost of extending the child tax 
credit to these families is $3.5 billion, or one percent of the total 
cost of the bill. Surely somewhere in the remaining 99 percent of the 
bill, the conferees could have found $3.5 billion in adjustments, but 
they chose not to. Instead, they chose to remain within the $350 
billion limit of the bill, arbitrary and illusory as it is, by telling 
these families, these working poor, that it was more important to 
assist millionaires than it was to assist them. That is the choice they 
made.
  The tax cut is cleverly referred to as the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief 
Reconciliation Act of 2003. If the real goal of this tax cut bill, as 
stated in its title, is to create jobs and growth, I believe we would 
not be here tonight having this debate. If we were really interested in 
job growth, we would not be so concerned about a negligible decrease in 
the refund going to the wealthiest Americans who hold the largest pool 
of discretionary money and who are probably going to use this tax cut 
to bolster their savings accounts. If we were really interested in job 
growth, we would not hesitate to invest in lower-income working 
families who are going to immediately reinvest the money from the tax 
cuts in the economy.
  Any observer of spending patterns will tell my colleagues that 
putting money into the pockets of those who need it the most will 
provide an immediate and welcome shot of adrenaline to our damaged 
economy.
  Close to 12 million children nationwide and 43,000 children in my 
district stand to benefit from an expansion of the child tax credit to 
lower-income families. If these families receive their checks this 
summer, certainly our economy will benefit from an immediate economic 
stimulus. Their money is not going to go to savings accounts. Rather, 
their money will be reinvested because it will go to families in my 
district just in time to purchase back-to-school supplies for children.
  One need not be a Nobel Laureate in economics to figure this out. If 
we put money in the hands of people who live paycheck to paycheck, and 
certainly families making $20,000 a year live paycheck to paycheck, 
they are going to spend it immediately on the necessities of life. 
Conversely, when we add to the income of those whose discretionary 
income is already generous, their spending and purchasing patterns are 
likely to be affected modestly or not at all. Where is the economic 
benefit? How many jobs will we really create?
  I am here in the wee hours of the morning because I believe that 
Congress must not fail the American people by leaving town without 
extending the child tax credit to low-income families who so 
desperately need it. Earlier I mentioned the failure to provide relief 
to struggling families as emblematic of misplaced priorities. This is 
only the latest in a long line of misplaced priorities, and I find it 
very troubling.
  Our government seems to think it is okay to crack down on low-income 
children in the school lunch program, children and families who make 
less

[[Page 19267]]

than $23,000 a year, while Congress refuses to address the issue of 
offshore tax havens. It is ludicrous to spend time taking sandwiches 
away from low-income children while continuing to allow large 
corporations a free pass on offshore tax havens costing taxpayers 
billions of dollars a year.
  Similarly, it makes no sense to devote government resources to crack 
down on filers of the earned income tax credit who earn less than 
$33,000 per year, while we are giving millionaires billions of dollars 
in tax breaks; and it is certainly counterintuitive to keep a child tax 
credit out of the hands of working families who will use it to care for 
the immediate needs of their family and boost our economy. This is more 
class warfare; and if we have any decency as a Nation, we will see to 
it that it stops.
  President Bush has urged us to do right by these families, and I urge 
my colleagues to do the same. We should put an end to these delaying 
tactics and deliver immediate tax relief to our Nation's neediest 
children.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the motion to instruct, and 
I claim the time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) is 
recognized.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The hour is indeed late, Mr. Speaker. The majority of Americans, save 
a few insomniacs, are, in the words of my 3-year-old daughter, fast 
asleep. In fact, I see the yawns being stifled by staff members that 
have put in a good, long legislative day here today. I do not expect to 
use the entirety of the time allotted to me.
  I want to applaud the gentleman from New York. I certainly share the 
gentleman's stated desire, at least the stated desire tonight to reduce 
the tax burden on working families in America. I wish the gentleman 
would have had his vote in favor of tax relief earlier, but that is 
another debate for another day.
  When we think about the average worker's day in a couple of hours and 
the amount of taxes that that individual will have to have put forth, 
let me just give you a quick example. When the electric alarm clock 
goes off in a couple of hours, whether you hit the snooze button or 
turn it off, you are paying an electricity tax. When you get up and 
brush your teeth and take a shower, you are paying a water tax. If you 
drive to the convenience store to get your cup of coffee, you are 
paying a sales tax. When you drive on to work, you are paying a 
gasoline tax. If you use the phone during the day, you pay a phone tax. 
Obviously the day's work, you are paying an income tax, as well as a 
payroll tax.
  When you get home, and thankfully about two-thirds of Americans 
actually own their own home, you of course pay a property tax.
  When you kiss your spouse good night, you think that is free. Not so 
says Uncle Sam and the Internal Revenue Code because there is a 
marriage tax, and then if you build and you save and you invest and you 
risk and you sweat and you survive and you have a family business, yes, 
there is Uncle Sam at death's door taking up to half of your family 
business in something called the death tax.
  So I share the gentleman's idea that the average working family in 
America is overtaxed, and there are a number of ways that we have tried 
in this Congress, in fact over the past couple of Congresses, to ease 
that burden, that heavy tax burden on America's working families.
  The reason that I stand in opposition to the motion being offered by 
the other side proffered by the gentleman from New York is that the 
motion is deficient in several respects.
  First of all, the motion that is offered by the gentleman from New 
York allows the child credit to drop from $1,000 to $700 shortly at the 
end of 2004. As a result, many of those low- and middle-income families 
that the gentleman talked about will receive a smaller child tax credit 
right after, as it turns out, next November's elections.
  The House-passed bill that is currently awaiting a conference, and I 
would say to the gentleman I do not share the pessimism expressed here 
on the House floor because if he reads some of the publications, it 
appears that House and Senate conferees are beginning to work and move 
this package forward, but at least the House-passed version ensures 
that the child credit remains at the $1,000 level throughout the 
decade; and I would say simply to all Members of the House, if it is 
good policy now, if it is good policy through 2004, surely it is good 
policy beyond 2004. That is one reason that I strongly oppose this 
motion to instruct.
  Secondly, the motion being offered by the gentleman from New York 
does not eliminate the marriage penalty in the child credit until the 
year 2010, and even then under this motion only does that for one 
measly, meager year. Under the Democratic motion, millions of children 
will be denied the child credit simply because their parents are 
married, and we are talking about those on the socioeconomic scale that 
we have been encouraging the institution of marriage. So on the one 
hand we are encouraging them to enter into a state of matrimony. At the 
same time we say, but there is a penalty, again a marriage penalty for 
those of you single parents coming together who have children because 
we are denying you at least under the Democratic alternative this child 
credit through the marriage penalty.
  So for those two reasons and others that perhaps we will have a 
chance to discuss later I think the gentleman's motion should fail.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0200

  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume, and I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri and 
commend him for being here with us this evening. This is certainly a 
very important subject and it deserves full and complete debate.
  He is quite right that the subject of our votes on the tax bills that 
have come before us is a matter for discussion at another time. I would 
say simply that I would be delighted to vote for a tax cut package that 
is properly targeted to the families that need it the most and is not 
obscured by a package that provides tax relief to people who need it 
the least.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in strong support of this motion. I want to thank my 
colleague from New York, as well as my other colleagues who are here 
this evening. I think the test of this issue is the staying power on 
the issue, and I have been here most nights for the last week and a 
half.
  I might say that the preponderance of the discourse and the 
preponderance of the effort to address the issue of the child tax 
credit has come from the Democratic side of the aisle. We are committed 
to making sure that those hard-working, albeit low-wage income people, 
people who make between $15,500 a year and $26,625 a year, that these 
folks in fact do get the benefit of a child tax credit, a benefit that 
was in the tax bill and yanked out in the middle of the night in order 
to provide a dividend tax cut to 184,000 millionaires, providing them 
with a $93,000 tax break.
  If my colleague from Missouri was so enthusiastic about making sure 
this was $1,000, we could have done it in the first go-round of this 
effort. But that $350 billion piece had to be held inviolate because 
the Senate would not accept anything else, so these vulnerable people 
were yanked out in the middle of the night. And, in fact, it was not 
much, 1 percent. One percent is what we were talking about, $3.5 
billion to people who were making $93,000 a year in a tax cut. My 
colleagues could have done it then but decided not to.
  So what did you do? You came up with this construct for $82 billion 
because you knew the Senate was not

[[Page 19268]]

going to accept it, and it was the majority leader of this House who 
said, ``Ain't nothing gonna get done on this issue.'' And it was the 
Wall Street Journal who had an editorial that commended the majority 
leader and said, Amen, you did the right thing by making sure that this 
issue would go nowhere, because the Senate would not accept $82 
billion.
  The other body voted 94 to 2 to address this issue, to redress it, 
and to say we made a mistake, let us address it and make sure that when 
those checks go out on this Friday that this group of people, these 6.5 
million families, these 12 million children get the benefit of a child 
tax credit. Because as much as the other side of the aisle would like 
to say that they do not pay taxes, they pay property taxes, they pay 
sales taxes, they pay payroll taxes, and they work and live paycheck to 
paycheck. They know what it is to pay taxes. We should walk in their 
shoes.
  Mr. Speaker, we ought to be able to say that they are entitled to a 
child tax credit the way 25 million other people are, and 184,000 
millionaires who are going to get $93,000 a year. In that group of 
people excluded, I might add, are 200,000 military families, 42,000 
families where there are Head Start teachers, 900,000 kids who are in 
Head Start programs. These are the people who are being excluded from 
the child tax credit. It is wrong. We ought to do the right thing and 
provide this kind of assistance to people.
  I would just say that in fact we voted on this motion to instruct on 
June 12, 205 to 201 on a bipartisan vote. We voted to do this, to take 
up what the other body had done. It was the chairman of the Committee 
on Ways and Means the other night who said it was not a binding 
resolution; we do not have to worry about it. It does not make any 
difference what the majority did in this body.
  All we are asking for is that we have a chance to take up what the 
other body did. We are talking about not a lot of money for people, on 
average $276. That means potentially health insurance, it means school 
supplies, it means clothes for kids going back to school. These people 
deserve it. This is an issue of values. It is an issue of morals.
  And I say to the President of the United States, who wanted to get 
this done, who said let us take up what the Senate did, that since his 
leadership in the House and the Senate have abdicated their leadership 
responsibilities, take on this issue, use your moral authority and do 
what is right by hard-working American families. Bring justice to these 
families. They deserve it. Let us give them that.
  Mr. Speaker, we will continue on this floor every night on this 
issue.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  What I would say to my colleague and friend from Connecticut is that 
we have had a number of recorded votes on this issue. And the 
gentlewoman is correct that on the first occasion that the motion was 
considered it did in fact pass by a narrow margin. We have had five 
subsequent votes, if memory serves, and on each of those occasions the 
motion did not pass.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HULSHOF. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that that is 
right, it did not pass, because some people who did vote for it were 
persuaded by one reason or another, and I will not comment on the 
nature of the persuasion, but they were persuaded to vote otherwise. 
Their first instinct was to vote what they believed was the right thing 
to do. Subsequently it has become a different issue, especially when 
the majority leader said, ``Ain't nothing gonna happen.''
  Mr. HULSHOF. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, actually what the 
majority leader said was, when asked will the House take up the Senate 
bill, the majority leader then made the statement the gentlewoman 
suggests, and that was that, no, the House would not take up the 
identical language in the Senate bill. In fact, the House passed H.R. 
1308, the All American Tax Relief Act of 2003, which was an amendment 
to the Senate version.
  But I want to say just a couple of things regarding the comments that 
have been made. The House passed a budget, the Senate did as well. The 
two Chambers reconciled that budget number, and it was the Senate, of 
course, that drew the line in the sand, as it were, and said no more 
tax relief over $350 billion. And so what I think needs to be pointed 
out is that I think as a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, as 
we began to mark up the bill and move it through the committee process 
and bring it to the House floor, I cannot recall ever the discussion 
being that we needed to have this refundable child credit for low-
income wage earners. It was only as an amendment on the Senate side, 
and then ultimately, of course, again with that $350 billion figure, 
they were unable to get it done. So, then, we come back and go through 
the legislative process again, and again I remain optimistic that the 
two bodies can get together.
  What I want to say, though, specifically regarding this continued 
mantra about the amount of taxes that all Americans pay, as I stated at 
the outset, I continue to believe that all Americans are overburdened 
with State and Federal and local taxes. But what I would say to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut or the gentleman or anyone else that 
wishes to make this point, we do not have the authority to bring down 
the property tax rates in the State of Connecticut. There are some 
States that do not have an income tax and, in fact, draw revenue based 
entirely upon a sales tax. That is not within the purview of Congress. 
That is left up to the discretion of States legislatures.
  We had a recent referendum in my hometown of Columbia, Missouri, 
whether we should raise the property tax levy for the school districts. 
We decided as a community that, yes, we should. That is not something, 
then, that we should collect taxes from someone from the Hamptons, that 
happens to be in the First Congressional District of the gentleman from 
New York, to suddenly help redistribute that Federal income tax money 
to pay for this school referendum that we had at the local level.
  I will say this regarding the property tax. Back in 1975, the earned 
income tax credit was enacted. At that time in 1975 it was a temporary 
program to return a portion of the Social Security taxes that were paid 
by lower-income taxpayers. It was made permanent in 1978. In 1990, the 
program had become a major component of Federal efforts to reduce 
poverty. Now it is the largest anti-poverty entitlement program.
  My friends on the other side talk about this child credit provision, 
this $3.5 billion over 10-year provision. Actually it is a 2-year 
provision, and yet every year, every single tax year, income taxpayers 
collectively put $30 billion of income tax monies into the earned 
income tax credit for those wage earners on the low-income wage scale, 
$30 billion for some 19 million Americans, at least tax filers, every 
year through the earned income tax credit.
  Now, yes, we all work hard, we play by the rules, and those 
individuals that contribute to Social Security, it did a wonderful 
thing that we have a national retirement system that if you work 40 
quarters that entitles you then to Social Security benefits. And that, 
too, payroll taxes are these dedicated taxes that finance Social 
Security and Medicare. I think it should be pointed out that Social 
Security offers a progressive benefit structure that is by design more 
beneficial to low-income workers.
  And lastly, in many instances, the combination of the earned income 
credit and the current law child credit more than completely offsets 
this payroll tax liability. And so I think that this Congress has 
spoken on many occasions as far as the expansion of the earned income 
tax credit.
  I think the child credit, again, is something that we have discussed. 
I think that the motion to instruct is deficient and would urge a 
``no'' vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 19269]]


  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  There has been some discussion of what the majority leader did or did 
not say. One thing he was widely quoted as saying with respect to this 
issue is, he said there were a lot of other things that were much more 
important for this House to deal with than by expanding this credit. 
And I think that statement speaks volumes with respect to the order or 
the level of priority with which the majority treats this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have noticed in 
reviewing the Congressional Record of my remarks earlier that the 
otherwise very talented people who transcribe do seem to have limited 
southern proficiency, which I think you would appreciate.
  This is the second time, Mr. Speaker, that I have stayed up well past 
my bedtime to speak on the floor on a motion to instruct conferees on 
the child tax credit. I cannot recall having stayed up this late this 
often since I was in college, and it is not because I believe that 
insomniacs in my district watch C-SPAN. I am staying up tonight, as I 
stayed up last week, because I think it is important that we adopt a 
child tax credit.

                              {time}  0215

  The gentlewoman from Connecticut spoke a few minutes ago about people 
being prevailed upon, not voting their instincts. I was very reluctant 
to vote against the bill, even the bill that came before us, the $82 
billion bill. I certainly knew that we could not afford it. We are 
digging a deep deficit hole that is going to drag down our economy for 
the foreseeable future and is going to destroy our ability to do the 
things that really will help working- and middle-class families, like 
providing a decent education, like reforming our health care system 
which is just not working for most families and is not working for 
American business, like making sure that Social Security and the 
Medicare system are solvent, particularly when my generation starts to 
retire.
  But of all the tax cuts that this House has passed, the only one that 
helped working- and middle-class families was this one. That is why it 
is the only one that I really wanted to vote for, and now we know it is 
the only one that the majority did not really mean. They did not really 
mean this tax cut when they voted for it. They put the price tag of $82 
billion on it to sabotage the tax credit, to make sure it would not 
really pass. They knew the Senate would not go along. They knew that 
they would simply dog it when it came time to confer and try to work 
out a compromise, they would not agree to any kind of compromise, and 
this would simply die. And they tell the working- and middle-class 
families who would benefit from the child tax credit that they had 
voted for it, but somehow nothing had happened. In fact, the conference 
committee, as I understand it, has never even met, has yet to meet.
  The gentleman from Missouri has spoken eloquently of the need for 
this tax credit; but he should talk to his own party's leaders because 
they have said publicly, for attribution, on the record, that this is 
not a priority for them. As the gentlewoman from Connecticut pointed 
out earlier, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal said that 
they intentionally made the price tag as big as it was to sabotage it, 
to kill it, and to make sure that it would not really pass. And 
certainly if there is one publication in the country that knows the 
real intentions of the Republican leadership of this House, it is the 
editorial board of the Wall Street Journal. It is hard to imagine that 
any writer for the editorial board, for the editorial page of the Wall 
Street Journal, does not have Tom DeLay and Bill Thomas on their speed 
dial. They know exactly what the leadership of this House intended by 
the package that came before the House and by the vote. It was intended 
to kill the bill. It was a stunningly cynical maneuver.
  Anyone who has ever watched a hospital show, a doctor show, knows 
what code blue is. They know what it is for a patient to code. But many 
hospitals have, or have had in the past, what they call privately light 
code blue. That is when their patient is in their final illness. There 
is a decision not to resuscitate the patient, not to take extraordinary 
efforts to keep the patient alive. The patient has agreed to that, the 
patient's family understands that, but for the peace of mind of the 
patient's family when the time comes, they still rush around, they 
still look frantic, they just do not do anything extraordinary to 
resuscitate the patient. They let nature take its course, and, for 
whatever reason, the patient's family feels a little better about it 
rather than simply thinking that their loved one is being allowed to 
die.
  We have seen code blue. We have seen the extraordinary efforts that 
the leadership of this House goes through to pass the tax cuts that 
they really mean, the ones they intend to happen, they want to happen, 
the ones that help the investor class rather than the middle class. The 
inheritance tax, I am sorry, which you call the death tax, or the cut 
on the taxes on dividend income, we have seen the extraordinary effort, 
the rushing around, the moving of heaven and Earth to get those passed. 
But not this. Not this. This has been at most light code blue. There 
has been a little bit of activity, a vote on the floor; but it is very 
clear that they have not meant this. They have not even met. The 
conference committee has not even met.
  This is the tax credit that should happen. This is a tax cut that 
should happen, that will help working- and middle-class families. Let 
us hope that working- and middle-class families, the ones who would 
benefit from the child tax credit, will see the difference between how 
the majority acts when they want to pass a tax cut and how they act 
when they do not.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Before the gentleman leaves the floor, let me pose a hypothetical to 
him because I certainly respect the fact as a newly minted Member of 
Congress and having to agonize over some of these votes and I think the 
gentleman was sincere talking about weighing these various tax cut 
options. The hypothetical I would put to him, if there were in a 
conference between House and Senate a compromise that would actually 
increase the child credit to $1,000 per eligible child and maybe make 
that extension for a 5-year period of time rather than a 10-year period 
of time and if this hypothetical conference also would eliminate the 
marriage penalty in the child credit, would the gentleman from North 
Carolina be so inclined to support such a compromise?
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HULSHOF. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. The problem with that is that we know 
that the Senate is not going to do it. There are several problems with 
that. The first is we simply know the Senate is not going to do it. I 
wanted to vote for that entire tax package. I wanted to make it 
permanent. I wanted to extend it down for the people who had been left 
out, shamefully. It was shameful to leave them out before. I wanted to 
extend it down the income scale to reach them. I wanted to extend it 
up. I think that the folks who would have gotten the expanded child tax 
credit slightly higher up the income scale are still the middle class. 
It is usually two working parents, working hard, trying to make a life 
for themselves and for their families. I would like for them to have 
gotten it. If I could write the tax laws, I would like for working- and 
middle-class families to get this tax cut and for it to be permanent.
  But I also know, one, we are digging a massive hole. We are digging a 
hole that may take a generation to dig out of. It is going to be a drag 
on the economy. It is going to eventually certainly, not just 
eventually, probably already affecting interest rates, and it is going 
to destroy our Nation's ability to deal with the challenges that we 
will face, the challenges of education. We are cutting back on basic 
research; we

[[Page 19270]]

are losing out economically to the rest of the world. We are in a 
desperate competition.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I am going to reclaim my time. I appreciate 
the gentleman going on a rhetorical journey about the appropriations 
bills. I did not mean to put the gentleman on the spot, but I again 
believe that a compromise is, in fact, achievable.
  Just a couple of points, Mr. Speaker, regarding the gentleman and his 
insinuation that Congress has been derelict in dealing with or in 
providing relief for working families. I go back to the year 2001 in 
the previous Congress. That is the first time Congress actually made 
the child tax credit refundable, which we now are talking about 
expanding. Also I would point out that the jobs and growth package 
previously enacted and now signed into law but which originated in our 
Committee on Ways and Means and then considered by this House 
accelerated those income tax rate reductions that are now law. The 
reason that there is more take-home pay in the next month's monthly 
paycheck is because of those accelerated income tax rate reductions, as 
well as doubling the standard deduction for married couples to try to 
at least eliminate to some degree the marriage penalty.
  And so I would take issue with the gentleman's comment that Congress 
has not been doing its work as far as working families with those prior 
examples and again would urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 additional minutes to 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, how does the gentleman 
from Missouri account for the public statements by Tom DeLay that this 
is not a priority for him and embracing the Senate position ``ain't 
going to happen,'' the public statement by Bill Thomas that this is not 
a priority for them, the editorial in the Wall Street Journal that this 
was intentionally made rich so that no tax credit bill would pass at 
all, and how does he explain the fact that the conference committee has 
yet to meet?
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. HULSHOF. I would say to the gentleman that the leadership on our 
side, and he referenced a number of leaders, the very fact that we 
considered on this House floor an expansion of the child credit beyond 
what is included in the Democratic motion to instruct, the All-American 
Tax Relief Act of 2003, H.R. 1308, shows the commitment of leadership 
to move this issue forward.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Is the Wall Street Journal out to lunch 
in saying that that was intentionally made as rich as it was so that 
nothing at all would pass? I do not expect that they have the gentleman 
on their speed dial the way they have Bill Thomas and Tom DeLay.
  Mr. HULSHOF. I would say to the gentleman that at least in some of 
the publications, at least Congress Daily of yesterday that talked 
about that there now is some dialogue between Senate conferees and 
House conferees, again I believe optimistically, and the President of 
the United States has said this is a priority for him, I believe we are 
going to have a compromise reached.
  I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. I celebrate the power of shame.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of 
the motion to instruct conferees on the child tax credit. Time is 
running out for House Republicans to fix this mess. The GOP's 
irresponsible tax law leaves millions of working Americans out in the 
cold. It tells them quite frankly that they are simply not a priority 
for this administration. I am calling upon the conferees to immediately 
adopt the major aspects of the bipartisan Senate-passed child tax bill. 
Working and military families need real tax relief, not lip service. 
Particularly this is the case with the rising unemployment rate and our 
sluggish economy. The simple fact is that the economy continues to 
remain stagnant. The national deficit continues to rise at an 
astronomical rate and the unemployment rate remains at a high 6.4 
percent. There seems to be no end in sight to these economic problems. 
Yet the Republicans continue to give tax cuts and child tax credits to 
the very wealthy in this country.
  I support the Senate-passed child tax credit bill. The bill would 
immediately help 6.5 million hardworking families, including many 
military families. In California, for example, expanding the child tax 
credit would help an additional 21 percent of families. One of the 4 
million families that would greatly benefit from the expansion of the 
child tax credit lives in my district. The Ramirezes are like many 
families across the country that work hard to make ends meet every day 
and play by the rules. Mrs. Ramirez works full-time as a teacher's 
assistant and her husband is a mechanic. Both of them work full-time. 
They are raising five children on an income of $24,000 a year. I spoke 
to Mrs. Ramirez and she told me, quote, that any additional money that 
they would receive through the child tax credit that right now does not 
apply to them would allow her to buy clothes, school supplies and food 
for her five children. Times are hard for her family, she told me, so 
any money that they would receive back in the form of a child tax 
credit would greatly help them make ends meet.
  We must act now to enact the Senate child tax credit bill. Families 
like the Ramirezes need and deserve our help. They need to be a 
priority for this administration. Conferees must adopt the Senate-
passed child tax credit bill to help these families. Republicans should 
stop refusing to provide hardworking families like the Ramirezes with 
any tax relief whatsoever.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the motion to instruct 
conferees on the child tax credit. Let us for once show families like 
the Ramirezes that they matter to this country just as much as the 
millionaire families do.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  What I would say to the gentlewoman from California who just spoke is 
a couple of points. The child credit actually, we phase out for upper-
income individuals.

                              {time}  0230

  In fact, families that have children that are above a certain income 
threshold do not qualify. Their children do not qualify. I think what 
is interesting in all of this debate is night after night when we 
debate this motion to instruct and we talk about trying to provide for 
the children that we are only talking about some of the children; that 
is, children of the successful families do not qualify. But that is 
neither here nor there, but I wanted to set the record straight that as 
she talks about tax cuts for the wealthy regarding a child credit, 
those successful families do not qualify for the child credit.
  What I would say to the gentlewoman, too, who just spoke regarding 
the Ramirez family and the teacher and mechanic with children, under 
existing law, and again this is sort of back of the envelope 
calculations, but under existing law, as I understand it, the Ramirez 
family already is entitled to the refundable child credit; in fact, a 
family with children whose annual income from salaries and wages is 
roughly $25,000. Their Federal income tax liability before the child 
credit is roughly $885. Their tax liability after the child credit is 
zero. In fact, with the refundable child credit, they get an additional 
$565, and part of that of course is refundable. The total check from 
the United States Treasury to the family like the Ramirez family is 
roughly, again back of the envelope calculation, $2,282. That is an 
income supplement that goes to good hard-working families like the 
Ramirez family as described by the previous speaker. So I think that 
they are already benefiting from actions of Congress, specifically the 
refundable child credit from 2001.

[[Page 19271]]

  Again, I would just sum up, Mr. Speaker, and say that the Democratic 
motion to instruct actually allows the child credit to drop from $1,000 
to $700 after the 2004 election. As a result, millions of low- and 
middle-income families will get under their motion a smaller child 
credit. The House-passed bill H.R. 1308 ensures that the child credit 
remains at this $1,000 level that we have decided to be appropriate 
throughout the decade. Again good policy now, good policy next year, 
good policy 5 or 7 or 8 years down the road. The Democratic motion to 
instruct should fail because it does not eliminate the marriage penalty 
in the child credit until the year 2010 and even then just for a year. 
So again under their motion millions of children will be denied the 
child credit because their parents are married. What signal are we 
sending across the country that we say that again if they do the right 
thing, work hard, play by the rules, and then choose to raise their 
family within the institution of marriage but it is going to cost them 
on their bottom line under the Democratic motion that they do not get 
this refundability if, in fact, they choose marriage as the course for 
their family?
  The House-passed bill benefits middle-income families, married 
families, by eliminating the child credit immediately for married 
couples.
  I did want to point out because I know it has been referenced on a 
couple of occasions the House-passed bill does not deny child credit to 
military families. Military families, including those that are deployed 
abroad, are already receiving a refundable credit and will continue to 
receive a refundable credit under the House-passed bill.
  So I think, again, H.R. 1308, which has passed this House, is far 
superior than the Senate version. So I would urge a no vote on the 
motion to instruct. In Washington, DC, Mr. Speaker, pessimists are 
seldom prophets. I happen to believe in the best nature of this 
institution as well as our counterparts on the other side of the 
Capitol. I happen to believe that we will be able to find a good 
workable compromise for all children of working families. So I would 
urge a no vote on the motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  The hour is late; so let me say two quick points. One, as a 
clarification, the House-passed bill does, in fact, deny the child tax 
credit to military families in combat zones. And, secondly, let me say 
that if the majority party were as serious about providing this credit 
to these needy families as they profess to be, then we would be passing 
the Senate bill now. We can get this done before we go home on Friday 
or Saturday or whenever it is we are going to go home. It has already 
passed the Senate 94 to two. It is fair. It provides an immediate 
benefit, and it does not worsen an already staggering deficit situation 
for this country that imperils our ability to provide the kinds of 
services that our people in this country need and deserve out into the 
future.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayes). 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 New York (Mr. Bishop).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. 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.

                          ____________________