[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 23269-23275]
[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. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:


[[Page 23270]]

       Mr. Pallone moves that the manager 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 the combat zone.
       3. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in 
     the conference report all of the other provisions of the 
     Senate amendment and shall not report back a conference 
     report that includes additional tax benefits not offset by 
     other provisions.
       4. To the maximum extent possible within the scope of 
     conference, the House 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 preceding provisions of 
     this instruction, not later than the second legislative day 
     after adoption of this motion.

  Mr. PALLONE (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 7 of rule XXII, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. 
Dunn) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I offer this motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1308, 
the child tax credit bill. My motion makes five specific instructions 
of the House conferees.
  Mr. Speaker, there would be no reason for us to address this issue 
tonight had the Republicans not deliberately ignored the well-being of 
12 million children in its latest tax law. The omission of a provision 
that would have extended a $400 child tax credit to working families 
making $10,000 to $26,000 a year was neither an accident nor an 
oversight.
  The provision, which had not been included in President Bush's 
initial $726 billion proposal or the House Republicans' $550 billion 
version, was added in the other body by Democratic Senator Blanche 
Lincoln.
  Now, why did this considerably small provision, $3.5 billion out of a 
giant $350 billion tax bill, make the Republicans chopping block? Well, 
anyone who has followed things around the House over the last couple of 
years unfortunately knows the answer to that question: this House, the 
people's House, under the Republican majority, has been turned over to 
the powerful and the privileged. Week in and week out, the Republican 
leadership neglects middle- and lower-income Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans have a chance tonight to begin to rectify 
that image. First, my motion instructs the House conferees to include 
in the conference report a provision in the Senate bill that provides 
immediate payments to the 6.5 million working and military families who 
were initially left out of the Republicans' 2003 tax bill.
  Mr. Speaker, House Democrats are fighting to immediately enact the 
bipartisan Senate-passed bill so we can help the 12 million children 
that Republicans left behind. Now, I think it is outrageous that it has 
been more than 3 months since the Senate overwhelmingly passed a 
measure, 94 to 2, to immediately give an increased child tax credit to 
the millions of children previously left out. If the House Republicans 
truly wanted to fix this injustice, they would have immediately 
approved the Senate measure. My motion simply instructs them to do just 
that, so that we can be fair to these working families and provide them 
the same benefits that many other Americans received this summer.
  Mr. Speaker, the second part of my motion instructs the conferees to 
include in the conference report a provision included in the Senate 
bill 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. The House 
Republican bill contains bad news for the children of the 200,000 men 
and women serving in Iraq or other combat zones. The Republican bill 
leaves in place current law under which families will face tax 
increases because combat pay is not counted for purposes of the child 
tax credit.
  Now, let me give an example of what I mean here. Let us take an E-5 
Sergeant with 6 years of service and two children who is paid $29,000 a 
year. Generally, both of his children would be entitled to the full 
$1,000 tax credit; but if he is over in Iraq for 6 months, his credit 
would drop to $450 under the House bill. Now, how can we take a 
critical benefit away from the family of a soldier who is now over in 
Iraq risking his life?
  Third, Mr. Speaker, the motion instructs the House to include in the 
conference report all of the other provisions of the Senate bill and 
not report back a conference report that includes additional tax 
benefits not offset by other provisions. If my colleagues have noticed, 
in the Senate bill, the $3.5 million for the child tax credit addition 
is fully offset.
  House Republicans, I believe, are exploiting the child tax credit 
provision passed, and even more tax cuts that will saddle our children 
with mountains of debt. The House Republican bill costs more than $80 
billion, while only $3.5 billion is needed to make sure that these 
children and their families are treated fairly; and that is fully 
offset, as I said, in the Senate bill. I think it is based on a Customs 
duty or a Customs tax. In other words, it does not add any money at all 
to the Federal deficit.
  Now, the House action is particularly reckless and irresponsible 
considering the Republicans' tax policies have already produced a 
record $400 billion deficit that continues to climb. I think it is 
almost $500 billion at this point.
  Fourth, Mr. Speaker, to the maximum extent possible within this bill 
in the conference, the House conferees are instructed to include in the 
conference report other tax benefits for military personnel, as well as 
the families of the astronauts who died in the Columbia disaster.
  And the fifth section of the motion instructs conferees to, as soon 
as practicable, after the adoption of this motion, meet in open session 
with the Senate conferees; and the House conferees should then file a 
conference report consistent with this motion no later than 2 
legislative days from today.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. Speaker, this is the 21st motion to instruct that my Democratic 
colleagues and I have brought to this House attempting to bring right 
this wrong. I have personally been here many times to argue this same 
or a similar motion. How many nights will we Democrats have to come to 
this floor to fight for the 12 million children of low-income parents 
who were neglected by the Republicans in their latest tax bill?
  I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I am the father of three children, and I 
received a $1,200 check, $400 for each of the three children. It pains 
me to think, based on my income as a Congressman, that many of my 
constituents who have one, three, or more children were not able to get 
that $400 per child, because they certainly need it a lot more than me.
  This neglect on the part of the Republicans has to come to an end 
this evening. It is simply a question of fairness. How can Republicans 
say it is fair to give a millionaire a tax break, or a Congressman a 
tax break, while giving

[[Page 23271]]

nothing to millions of working families. It is time for the Republican 
majority to join us in passing this motion to instruct conferees so we 
can finally resolve this injustice, an injustice that should have been 
rectified many months ago.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion. The House has 
considered similar motion on 14 different occasions in the last month. 
And just as those previously, this motion will deny millions of 
families the relief we have already proposed by broadening coverage 
under the child tax credit.
  Earlier this year, the House passed House bill 1308, the All American 
Tax Relief Act. This very important legislation includes increasing the 
child tax credit through the end of the decade. We all agree on 
expanding the refundability of the child tax credit. On a bipartisan 
basis, we want to broaden the child credit's availability to more 
families. This is one reason why H.R. 1308 not only increased the child 
credit to $1,000, but also eliminated the marriage penalty in the child 
credit. We also agree that those serving this Nation in uniform should 
receive tax relief, including the increases in the child credit. That 
is included in House resolution 1308. We differ, however, on how to 
achieve these goals.
  This vote is not about denying a refundable tax credit to certain 
families. It is about helping more working families get tax relief for 
a longer period of time. A vote for this Democrat motion would reduce 
the child credit to 2 years instead of maintaining the credit at $1,000 
and making it permanent over the decade.
  Who realistically believes we should allow the credit to revert to 
$700 a year in just 2 years?
  A vote for this motion would eliminate the possibility of more 
married couples with children receiving the child credit. A vote for 
this motion would deny tax relief to members of the Armed Forces. Much 
of the cost of the House bill goes toward maintaining the child credit 
at $1,000 until 2010.
  I hope no one will hide behind the rhetoric of deficit reduction. The 
fact is we should insist on keeping our provisions in the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not want to belabor matters that have been 
exhaustively debated day, after day, after day on the floor on the many 
occasions that I referenced. I think it is important for folks to 
realize that all of these provisions are included in House Resolution 
1308, that the House of Representatives has passed that piece of 
legislation, stands behind it and the other provisions included in that 
legislation, and vote no on this motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague on the other side, and I have 
heard this so many times now. With respect, the notion that the 
Republicans have already passed a bill that is much broader belies the 
fact that they are not willing to move in the conference to do 
anything. This conference has not even met on this bill. I know this 
gentlewoman is well-intentioned but she suggests that somehow the House 
Republicans have passed a better bill, well, what good is a House-
passed bill versus a Senate-passed bill in any case, unless there is 
actually a conference, and there is an effort to try to come together 
and pass a bill that will go to the President?
  There has been absolutely no effort on the part of the House 
Republicans to meet in conference or to try to come to any kind of an 
agreement with the other body, so that we would have a bill that is 
finally passed. And the suggestion that somehow we are going to include 
all of these other tax measures in additional tax cuts, that is not 
possible under the circumstances. We know that that will simply 
increase the deficit. It will cost a lot more. And the reality is if we 
are going to do anything, the only thing we could possibly do at this 
point would be to pass the Senate version, and they are not willing to 
do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pallone) for yielding me time. And I appreciate his tenacity for 
bringing this out here for what I think is the 22nd time to make a 
point. Now, the next few days we are going to work on an $87 billion 
bill for Iraq. The President has said we have to give him this money. 
If we do not give it to him, we are not patriotic. Anybody who wants to 
quibble about it or ask questions or raise any concerns, is clearly not 
patriotic and not supporting the troops.
  Well, let me tell you something, this child tax credit does not go to 
a family whose father or mother is serving in Iraq today making 
$29,000. Now, my colleague honestly said, a Congressman gets it, a 
Congressman gets it, but a sergeant serving in Iraq, getting shot at 
from every corner, his wife is back home someplace at Ft. Hood or 
whatever taking care of kids, and they do not get it.
  Now, I know there are going to be a lot of people out here puffing 
out their chest and talking about how much they have cared about the 
troops and how much they care about winning the war and all the rest, 
they are going to talk about a bill that will have money in it to build 
schools in Iraq and to put the electric lights on in Iraq and fix up 
the water system and the sewage system. But for kids of the soldiers, 
there is no money.
  Now, if that is considered fair by the Republicans, I certainly hope 
they can explain it to the troops when they come home, how it was that 
we could spend billions of dollars fixing up Iraq, but we could not 
give money to the wife or the stay-at-home person who is taking care of 
some military kids, some money to provide better day care or better 
child care for them.
  It is so unfair on the face of it, I do not know how you can have the 
gall to stand up here and say that you care. If you do not care about 
the kids, what are the fathers over there fighting for, or what are the 
mothers over from fighting for? They are fighting for their children 
and their future. And you are saying because you do not make enough 
money, you are not going to get it. If you make enough, like a 
Congressman, you make whatever we make, you get it. But if you only 
make $29,000, I guess you are not worth it or your kids are not worth 
it.
  I do not know how they explain that. It makes no sense in human 
terms. It may make some budgetary sense when you drive the country $500 
billion in debt in one year, I guess you got to cut somewhere, so let 
us cut the kids that belong to some sergeant or some lance corporal in 
the Marines or some chief petty officer in the United States Navy. They 
do not need it, because we got to buy this other stuff, whatever it is, 
in Iraq.
  That is what is wrong with this bill and has been wrong from the very 
start. The people at the bottom, who need it most, do not get it. And 
they knew that when they came out of the Committee on Ways and Means 
that my distinguished colleague from Washington and I both sit on. They 
knew it. They knew they were not going to get this money, and they just 
glossed it over and said, well, we do not have to worry about that. 
Well, somebody has to worry about the sergeant's kids, and, boy, it 
better be the United States Congress that does it.
  I urge the adoption of the motion.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to respond to the point of the 
military families not receiving child credit.
  The House-passed bill, H.R. 1308, does not deny the child credit to 
military families. Military families, including those who are deployed 
abroad, are already receiving a refundable child tax credit, and they 
will continue to receive a refundable child credit under the House-
passed bill.
  The Democrat motion to instruct would only increase the refundable 
child tax credit to some military families, by allowing them to take 
into account income that is currently tax free when they compute their 
refundable credit if they are in a combat zone.

[[Page 23272]]

  I think it is important to also bring up that in our provision, H.R. 
1308, that we provide additional tax relief for members of the Armed 
Services including capital gains tax relief on home sales, tax free 
death gratuity payments, and of course, tax free dependent care 
assistance which is child care assistance, and that these provisions 
provide $806 million of tax relief to people who are members of the 
Armed Forces over the next 11 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Matheson).
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, here we are at the end of September, and I 
find it pretty remarkable we are still talking about this.
  I am convinced that most people in this country expect us to come 
back here and get something done. I really do. When I meet with my 
constituents back home, there may be this issue that they care about or 
that issue they care about, but at the end of the day, they are looking 
for people to come back here and try to get something done.
  I supported H.R. 1308, the House passed-bill. I supported that. I 
also recognize that the United States Senate voted 94 to 2, 94 to 2, to 
fix this one problem. If we want to talk about the art of what is 
possible, and to get something done, then we ought to support this 
motion we are talking about right now.
  Let us talk about what is fair. Let us talk about what is right, and 
let us try to get something done. We are talking about folks in a 
lower-income situation. This was in the bill when the House and the 
Senate were first negotiating this tax cut package this last spring. It 
was taken out, $3.5 billion, which in the grand scheme of the overall 
cost of the bill was 1 percent, but it was taken out.
  But it is a pretty important $3.5 billion, pretty important to those 
families of all those kids. It is really important. It is so important, 
in fact, that 94 out of 96 senators thought so and voted to fix this 
problem. What I do not understand is, we come over here to the House of 
Representatives and this breaks down into a partisan issue. I do not 
get it. It sure was not partisan in the United States Senate. 
Everybody, just about everybody other than two, sure felt it was the 
right thing to do. So I would encourage all of us to take a little bit 
of a step back from the rhetoric, a little bit of a step back from 
trying to pursue what may be the ultimate and perfect piece of 
legislation in some people's eyes.
  Let us get away from looking at the art of perfection, and let us 
look at the art of what is possible. There is no question that if the 
House of Representatives passes this measure and agrees to go to 
conference with the Senate to move this package for these kids that are 
in that income bracket of 10 to $26,000, that it is going to get done. 
We can get something done around here.
  As I said at the start of my comments, I think that is what people in 
this country are looking for. They are looking for this Congress to 
make some progress, get something done. I encourage passage of this 
motion.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out, again, I listened to what 
the gentlewoman said in response to the gentleman from her home State, 
and it just seems like it is the same pattern, it seems like it is the 
same pattern every time we bring up this motion where my colleagues on 
the Republican side of the aisle, and again I am not saying they are 
not well-intentioned, but they keep talking about the House bill as a 
sort of panacea because of the fact that it has all these other tax 
cuts, which I think add up to something like $80 billion in additional 
debt that is not paid for.
  And my colleague from Utah made a very good point when he said we 
should be talking not about pie in the sky, but what is possible. And I 
think that my Republican colleagues know full well that there is 
absolutely no way that an $80 billion-deficit-creating bill is going to 
pass the other body and go to the President.

                              {time}  1415

  That is not going to happen. This can be fixed. This problem can be 
fixed with the addition of simply $3.5 billion which is in the Senate 
bill, which is what my motion asks that be enacted, is fully offset I 
think primarily with some provisions with Customs duties. That is what 
is possible.
  It is not possible to talk about an $80 billion package, and what is 
happening essentially is that the Republicans in the House are using 
this as a ruse. They have no intention of ever passing this $80 billion 
bill. If they did, they would have the conference meet, which it has 
not. It has not met, and I keep saying that over and over again. They 
are in the majority. The Democrats are in the minority. They control 
whether or not the conference is going to meet and what kind of a bill 
is going to pass. Oftentimes they do not even consult with us; but in 
this case, the conference has not even met.
  So what I keep hearing from my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle about the House version, as if it is somehow out there and is 
going to become law or is something they are working on, there is no 
truth to that whatever.
  I just wanted to point out, this is what the Republican leader, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), said back in June. He said, ``To me 
it is a little difficult to give tax relief to people who do not pay 
income tax.'' There are so many speakers, so many Members on the 
Republican side that have made it quite clear over and over again that 
they have no intention of moving the legislation. Here are some quotes 
that were made by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) June 10: ``Ain't 
going to happen,'' regarding the Senate-passed child tax credit bill.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) says in The Wall Street 
Journal June 13: ``There are worse things than the child tax credit 
bill not happening.''
  Let us see what else we have here. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Blunt), the conference leader on the Republican side, June 1: ``We will 
let the conference take as long as it takes.''
  The conference has not even met.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and neighbor from New Jersey 
for highlighting this issue and all the good work he does, and let me 
just pick up on the last point he was making about whether these child 
tax credit benefits should go to families that, in the words of some in 
this Chamber, do not pay taxes.
  I would think that it would be embarrassing to the authors of the 
rule that resulted in this bill that 250,000 children of active duty 
servicemen and -women would not be eligible for this. We have heard 
this before, and at risk of repeating some of what the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) has said, I really want to emphasize this. I 
mean, the Children's Defense Fund and others point out that hundreds of 
thousands of children of teachers, nurses, farmers would be left 
behind.
  It really gets at the heart of what these tax cuts are. They are not 
to stimulate the economy. They are not to inject some fairness in a 
very complicated tax code. Quite simply, they are to provide some 
benefits to the upper-income segments of American society in some 
misguided hope that will trickle down to benefit the families of 
teachers and nurses and farmers and servicemen and -women. It does not 
work that way.
  178,000 children of farming families, 567,000 children of nurses or 
hospital orderlies, 337,000 children of teachers are calculated to be 
left out in this child tax credit. The rationale given by the leaders 
on the other side of the aisle for preventing these families from 
receiving the expanded child tax credit was that the total cost of the 
tax legislation could not exceed $350 billion over 10 years. 
Adjustments had to be made. Adjustments had to be made. So

[[Page 23273]]

these nurses, orderlies, servicemen and -women, farmers, teachers are 
categorized as adjustments or, more to the point, their children are 
somehow less worthy and adjusted out of this.
  Other tax analysts have noted that the cost of the tax credit 
provision of what we are talking about here with the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and this child tax correction, the cost of this 
correction is less than 3 percent of the total cost of the dividend and 
capital gains provisions. It did not take much of an adjustment to fix 
this, but I guess adjustments had to be made.
  At a time when American families are struggling to make ends meet, at 
a time when if we really want to stimulate the economy we would put 
money in the hands of people who need it most and, therefore, would 
spend it the quickest, at a time when families of Reservists and other 
military personnel are facing financial difficulty, at a time when jobs 
continue to be lost throughout the country at an alarming rate, what 
could be more important than helping America's families by putting a 
few extra dollars in their pockets?
  I thank my colleague from the neighboring district in New Jersey for 
yielding me the time.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to call attention again to the fact that the 
Republican majority simply does not want to deal with this issue and 
that is why we have had no conference, and the easiest way to point 
that out is to make reference to an article in Roll Call, the Hill 
newspaper, dated September 10.
  At that time, in that article, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, essentially 
said that he was not going to work out the differences between the 
separate House and Senate bills and did not want to be bothered dealing 
with the issue. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) was sent a 
letter from his counterpart in the Senate, Senator Grassley, who is the 
chairman of the finance committee; and in that letter, Mr. Grassley 
basically said that he wanted to work out the differences between the 
two Houses on the bill.
  In the Roll Call article, Chairman Grassley is quoted as saying, ``I 
suppose I could call a conference meeting but I am not going to do that 
unless it is going to be productive, and right now it does not look 
like it would be.'' Mr. Grassley is saying that because the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thomas) has simply been uncooperative and does not 
want the conference to meet because he does not want a bill.
  My motion tonight instructs both the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas) and his colleagues in the House Republican leadership to stop 
their delaying tactics and to finally sit down with Chairman Grassley. 
If we look at the motion, it actually calls for certain actions to take 
place with regard to the conference.
  Mr. Speaker, my Democratic colleagues and I are clearly not the only 
ones frustrated. Chairman Grassley expressed his frustration again in 
that Roll Call article when he stated, ``The Democrats will not let it 
be dead and I do not blame them. If I was them and the majority party 
was not doing something about it, I would certainly make an issue of 
it, too.''
  So again, Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times we are supposed 
to come down here on the floor and keep making the point that this is 
not only an important matter, but this is a matter that deserves the 
attention of the Republican leadership, and so far there has been 
certainly no indication that the Republican leadership seeks to address 
this. The only time we hear anything from the Republican side is when 
we make a motion and my colleagues on the other side come down here to 
oppose it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). The Chair would remind 
Members it is inappropriate to quote communications from Senators in 
the context of this debate.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this matter; 
but as I listened to this debate, I decided to make a few comments.
  There is waste in the private sector, just like there is waste in the 
public sector; but the waste in the private sector pales in comparison 
to the waste that is in the public sector. So it has been proven all 
over the world that the more money that can be left in the private 
sector, in whatever country, the better off everyone is, the better off 
especially the poor and low-income people are because more jobs are 
created, the lower prices are; and so all over this world it has been 
proven that the more money government takes, either legally or 
illegally or corruptly, that the people who are hurt the most are the 
poor and working people of that particular country. In every country 
where we have been able to keep the amount of the GDP that the 
government takes to a relatively small amount, the better off everyone 
is, especially the poor and lower-income people.
  I am probably one of the least partisan Members of this Congress. I 
have been here 15 years. I do not think I have ever mentioned the word 
``Republican'' and ``Democrat'' in any speech that I have ever given, 
but I mentioned to the gentlewoman from Washington State a while ago an 
article I read a couple of years ago in the Atlantic Monthly magazine, 
and David Brooks wrote an article, and he compared Montgomery County, 
Maryland, one of the wealthiest counties in this country, which went 68 
percent for Vice President Gore to Franklin County, Pennsylvania, 70 
miles to the north which went 68 percent for President Bush. What he 
said was it is just exactly the opposite of the image the media tries 
to portray or some of those on the other side who participate in what I 
think has actually been described as class warfare.
  This author, Mr. Brooks, said that when he went to Franklin County, 
Pennsylvania, he tried to find a meal that cost more than $20, he could 
not. The Cracker Barrel was the most expensive restaurant. He said the 
death of Dale Earnhart in Franklin County, Pennsylvania, was a big 
event. In Montgomery County, Maryland, they did not even know who Dale 
Earnhart was.
  What I am saying to my colleague is the most liberal areas in this 
country are always the wealthiest areas, and if they want to talk about 
class warfare, let us talk about it. Our party is very much a middle-
income, particularly even lower-middle-income party, and the easier 
people get money the more liberal they are politically. It is just like 
a kid. If one gives a kid a $20 bill, it burns a hole in his pocket 
until he spends it. If he has to go out and earn it, he is a little 
more careful with the way he spends it; and our party, the Republican 
Party, we have some people with money but they are almost always people 
who started with nothing or very little and who made some money.
  That is what we are trying to do with these tax cuts. We are trying 
to give people an opportunity to better themselves, and the people who 
get the bulk of the tax breaks that we came up with are almost entirely 
in the middle-income levels of our society. So we get pretty tired of 
hearing all this class warfare that is going on on the other side, when 
9 out of the 10 wealthiest contributors politically in this country are 
to the Democratic Party. That was in an article in the Roll Call 
newspaper today. So if they want to play class warfare, we can play it; 
but we should not have that on this floor.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, I respect my colleague who just spoke, but I just I cannot 
believe his suggestion that somehow the Democrats are committing class 
warfare. I mean, it seems to me that what the Republicans have done 
with regard to this child tax credit is the classic example of class 
warfare or class discrimination on the side of the wealthy.

[[Page 23274]]

  I started out this debate by pointing out that I, as a Member of 
Congress, who makes, I guess, about $150,000 a year, received a check 
back in June or July for $1,200 from my three children, and I am making 
$150,000 a year; and at the same time, the person who is making between 
$10,000 and $29,000 or whatever the figure is, does not get the child 
tax credit because of the Republicans' unwillingness to provide it to 
them in this massive tax cut bill that they passed.
  If it is class warfare, it is class warfare on the Republican side 
because they want to give the money to wealthy people or certainly 
higher-income people and not give it to the working person who is 
making between $10 and $20-some-plus thousand dollars a year. I have no 
idea how my colleagues can justify that and say somehow that is class 
warfare unless it is class warfare to help the wealthy on the 
Republican part.

                              {time}  1430

  I have heard again and again, maybe not so much tonight but on other 
occasions, this idea on the part of the Republicans that we should not 
give these people that are making between $10,000 and $20,000 a year 
this additional tax credit because they do not pay enough taxes. And 
again, on the Democratic side, we have made the point that the parents 
of these children do indeed pay taxes, with 7.65 percent of their 
earnings going to pay for Social Security and Medicare.
  An analysis released earlier this year by The New York Times found 
that families with pretax incomes of $20,319 pay more than $2,800 in 
total taxes. That is 14 percent of their income. We are talking about 
working people. We are talking about the very same people that my 
colleague on the Republican side seems to suggest that he represents or 
is trying to help. These are not people that are not working or sitting 
around, these are working people.
  Why should I, as a Congressman, or any of my colleagues get the extra 
$1,200 and not give it to these people? It is simply unfair. I think 
the Democrats are simply saying, let us be fair. Let us not 
discriminate against working people who happen to be at the lower end 
of the income spectrum.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think it has been an interesting discussion this afternoon. I am 
glad that we had this discussion. I have listened to what the gentleman 
from New Jersey has said, and some of it has merit, but some of it, I 
believe, is a flawed argument.
  We have included in our proposal, which passed the House by a vote of 
224 to 201 several months ago, H.R. 1308, all the elements of the 
gentleman's proposal, but our bill is far better and far superior, and 
that is what has been kept out of this debate.
  Our bill increases the child credit to $1,000 per eligible child 
through the year 2010. The Democrat bill ensures that the child tax 
credit stays at the same level only through 2005, and then it reverts 
back to $700. Our bill eliminates the marriage penalty in the tax 
credit. It raises the phase-out threshold for marriage couples. His 
bill creates a marriage penalty for married couples because it keeps 
the income levels below what our bill does.
  Our bill accelerates the increase in the refundable child tax credit 
so that the 15 percent rate takes effect in 2003 instead of having to 
wait until 2005. His bill requires that the rate schedule be phased in 
and not become 15 percent until 2005.
  In sum, Mr. Speaker, we passed a very, very good bill. We passed a 
bill with some Democrat support. This selecting out of a provision of 
our bill, which covers a number of very, very important topics, like 
providing tax relief and enhancing tax fairness for members of the 
Armed Forces, like suspending the tax-exempt status of designated 
terrorist organizations, like providing tax relief for astronauts who 
die on space missions, and like increasing the child tax credit to all 
people, including the ones he wishes to serve, and doing it far more 
quickly and for a greater length of time.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``no'' vote on this motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and again, while I respect the arguments that my colleague from 
Washington is making on the Republican side, I really think it is the 
wrong argument to suggest that their bill includes ours and goes 
further.
  The bottom line, and we have made this point over and over again, the 
Democrats are being realistic about what can be passed. This initiative 
began because there was a realization, after the Republican tax package 
passed, that these 12 million children at a lower income level were 
left out.
  The other body made a valiant effort to say, okay, let us pass a bill 
that addresses this, that makes sure they get the credit, that their 
parents get the credit, that spends the $3.5 billion that is necessary 
but does not add anything to the deficit by having it fully paid. Now, 
for the Republicans to come back and say, oh, well, that is all fine, 
but we will go further and come up with an $80 billion package that 
will do a lot more is just a ruse, because they know the other body 
will never pass this. It is just another budget buster that is not paid 
for that will never go anywhere.
  And the proof of that is that they have absolutely refused to even 
convene a conference. The chairman of the House Committee on Ways and 
Means has made it clear he has no intention of ever convening the 
conference, which is really an outrage.
  It is an outrage we are here on the House floor, again this evening, 
talking about the exclusion of these 12 million children. It is an 
outrage we are forced to bring up another motion to instruct conferees 
on an issue that should have been resolved 3 month ago. It is an 
outrage that the House and Senate Republicans, who took less than a 
week to reconcile differences between these two giant $500 billion tax 
bills, cannot seem to come to an agreement on a much smaller bill to 
simply expand the tax credit to the parents of children earning between 
$10,000 and $26,000.
  It is an outrage that my Republican colleagues seem content to leave 
Washington, yes, it is another day, we are leaving for another week 
without resolving this injustice. And, Mr. Speaker, it is an outrage 
that President Bush, who last month advised House Republicans to pass 
this child tax credit legislation and send it to him so he can sign it, 
now sits silently as congressional Republicans do nothing. I have not 
heard anything from the President. His silence is an indication of his 
true intention. A very good indication, I think, that he is not truly 
looking to pass this legislation either.
  And, finally, Mr. Speaker, I think it is outrageous not one 
Republican on the other side comes down here and talks about this other 
than when the Democrats bring it up, and they come down to oppose our 
motion to instruct. I do not know how many times I am going to have to 
join my Democratic colleagues here on the floor to point out the unfair 
treatment these hard-working American families received with the 
passage of the Republican tax bill.
  All we are asking for, Mr. Speaker, is fairness. How can Republicans 
say it is fair to give a millionaire a tax break of more than $90,000, 
or a Congressman like myself a tax break, while giving nothing to 
millions of working families? I do not think we should leave this city 
until this injustice is corrected, and we will certainly be back again 
to make the point.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). All time has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

[[Page 23275]]

  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________