[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 27356-27360]
[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. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Becerra moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House in the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 
     1308 be instructed as follows:
       1. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in 
     the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment 
     (not included in the House amendment) that provides immediate 
     payments to taxpayers receiving an additional credit by 
     reason of the bill in the same manner as other taxpayers were 
     entitled to immediate payments under the Jobs and Growth Tax 
     Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.
       2. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in 
     the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment 
     (not included in the House amendment) that provides families 
     of military personnel serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other 
     combat zones a child credit based on the earnings of the 
     individuals serving in the combat zone.
       3. The House conferees shall be instructed to include in 
     the conference report all of the other provisions of the 
     Senate amendment and shall not report back a conference 
     report that includes additional tax benefits not offset by 
     other provisions.
       4. To the maximum extent possible within the scope of 
     conference, the House 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. BECERRA (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 California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me give my colleagues a few numbers and see if we 
can find the connection in these numbers: 25, 161, 6.5 million, zero, 
and 93,500. If it does not seem readily apparent, let me connect the 
dots for my colleagues.
  Twenty-five represents the number of times that this motion that we 
are about to debate has come before this House of Representatives in an 
effort to try to do what the Senate did months ago, which is to try to 
do what the President said he supported, which was to try to give a 
number of working, tax-paying families, many of them military families, 
the same type of child tax benefit that we gave to many other American 
families, those families having already received checks in the mail for 
that child tax credit. Twenty-five times. This is the twenty-fifth time 
we are trying to get the House to do what the Senate did on a vote of 
98 to 2.
  The number 161, that is how many days we have left out all of these 
American families with children from being able to benefit from the 
child tax credit that other American families, neighbors, in fact, of 
many of them, many of them right now, fathers and mothers in our 
military in Afghanistan and Iraq, 161 days they have gone without the 
benefit through the law that was passed 161 days ago, that many of 
their fellow Americans received in the mail.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. Speaker, 6,500,000? That is the number of families in America 
that have been excluded. 6\1/2\ million. Among those 6\1/2\ million 
families you have 12 million children. So we are not talking about 
trying to help one or two of America's families because they were left 
out. When Congress passed and the President signed a tax cut bill that 
cost $350 billion, that excluded the 6\1/2\ million families and their 
12 million children.
  We are talking about quite a few American families throughout this 
country. Among those families, more than 262,000 of the people that I 
am talking about are children of our military personnel who were left 
out. And I should mention of our 200,000 or so men and women in uniform 
who are in Afghanistan and Iraq and throughout this world in combat 
zones, the result of

[[Page 27357]]

not having extended the child tax credit expansion to them means that 
many of these men and women in uniform with kids are actually going to 
see a tax increase as a result of the action taken by this House in not 
moving forward to match the Senate on a 98 to 2 vote to provide the 
expanded child tax credit to these 6\1/2\ million families.
  The number zero? I have already mentioned it. That is how much money 
the 6\1/2\ million families are getting at the same time that their 
neighbors and friends were receiving an average of about $600, $615 in 
a child tax credit. Zero.
  The final number I mentioned, $93,500, that is the amount that this 
year many of America's millionaires will receive in reduced taxes as a 
result of the tax cut bill that passed in late May, 161 days ago, in 
tax breaks. Zero for 6\1/2\ million working families. And, by the way, 
these working families are not rich working families. We are talking 
about families that have incomes somewhere between $10,500, let me say 
that again, $10,500 annual salary to about $26,625 annual salary. We 
are not talking about wealthy families, but we are talking about 
working and tax paying and military families that are among those who 
earn between $10,500 and $26,625. 6\1/2\ million families. 12 million 
children within those 6\1/2\ million families.
  The tax bill did give to millionaires in America an average tax cut 
this year of $93,500. In this child tax credit expansion provision, it 
gave zero to those 6\1/2\ million families.
  What many of us have been trying to say in the 24 other times, 
including this, the 25th time we put this motion before the House is 
let us do what the President said we should, let us do what the Senate 
already did, in voting 98 to 2, and let us do what most American 
families thought we had done, until they realized that they did not get 
a check in the mail as well, including our military families.
  Mr. Speaker, let us be just. They work, they pay taxes, and certainly 
for the several hundred thousand of our men and women in uniform who 
have kids, it is the right thing to do.
  Now, it would not be so difficult to talk about this if it were not 
for the fact that within that tax cut bill and within additional 
legislation that has come before this House there have been measures to 
actually expand the scope of the child tax credit to more families. In 
fact, in this House my friends in the majority were willing to expand 
the number of families who could qualify for the tax credit by 
increasing the income limits, so that families with well over $150,000 
could qualify for the child tax credit. Yet, in the same legislation, 
we cannot see how we can just do what we need to do for those families 
that are making somewhere between $10,500 and $26,500. It goes on and 
on and on in terms of the irony that we see here.
  I look back at some of the Tax Code and I think to myself are we 
doing something that is unfair, something that these folks do not 
deserve? Some will say, well, they do not pay that much in income 
taxes. They are getting off and we should not give them money. Well, 
they pay taxes. They do not pay that much income taxes probably due to 
the fact that they do not earn very much income, but they pay payroll 
taxes, they pay sales taxes, they pay property taxes, they pay excise 
taxes. You name it, they pay it.
  And, fortunately, we have a progressive tax structure that says in 
terms of income taxes if you are making $10,500 in a year, in a year, 
not in a month, because some of my colleagues may have misunderstood 
me, in a year, then, by God, I hope we are doing something to make sure 
that the $10,500 does not go to just pay taxes.
  But to deny them, then, the expansion of the child tax credit simply 
because they do not pay enough of a certain type of tax I think is un-
American. But that is where we are. Then I thought to myself, well, do 
we do some things that give others some kind of tax break? Then I 
realized, wait a minute, my father worked for about 40 years in road 
construction, he worked canning tomatoes at Campbells Soups, he worked 
cleaning the hulls of ships, and every day he worked, he ate lunch when 
he had time. As far as I know, he ate lunch with his colleagues, his 
coworkers.
  Well, today if there is someone out in America in the business world 
who decides to go have lunch, and then follow that up with a nice 
dinner, and take out a business associate, and really try to cater to 
that business associate to try to, perhaps, gain some new business, and 
chauffeurs that business associate around in a limousine, and has a 
martini, then takes the associate to a nightclub to enjoy the evening 
and says, you know, we had a really rough night, maybe we should just 
stay at this hotel, all of that can be deducted to the tune of 50 
percent. But somehow we could not find it in our powers within a $350 
billion tax cut bill to give 6\1/2\ million Americans who work and earn 
about $10,500 to $26,500 a tax credit for their kids. The cost of doing 
that? $3\1/2\ billion. $350 billion tax cuts that went mostly to 
wealthy folks. $3\1/2\ billion, 1/100th of the cost of that tax bill 
would have corrected this problem for those 6\1/2\ million families. 
Could not do it.
  We still can. We have not finished the section. That is why we are 
here today. I am hoping the 25th time is the charm and we will get to 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sandlin).
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California (Mr. 
Becerra) for bringing this to our attention.
  Mr. Speaker, this is merely an issue of priorities. If we want to 
stand for our military, if we want to stand for our working families, 
if in this House we want to stand up for the children of America, if 
that is our priority, then we need to thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra) for advancing this motion, and we need to 
support and vote for the Becerra motion to instruct.
  Let us accept the bipartisan, the bipartisan Senate-passed child tax 
credit bill, and let us just get this bill done once and for all. Let 
us tell America what is important to the U.S. House of Representatives 
and that is our working families and that is the children of those 
working families.
  As Members know, Mr. Speaker, right now American working families are 
facing many challenges. We have record job losses in the country, and 
the current administration will be only the second administration in 
the history of this country to show a net loss of jobs during the 
administration. The other administration being the Herbert Hoover 
administration, which certainly is not very comfortable company.
  And those people in America that are lucky enough to have a job face 
challenges of their own. No health insurance, no prescription drugs, 
increasing education costs.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, on the other hand if an American working family, if 
you can call them that, is comprised of millionaires, the current tax 
scheme of the Republican majority may be a benefit to them. But heaven 
help the American worker, Mr. Speaker, if he or she earns between 
$10,500 and $26,625. Because, Mr. Speaker, if you earn over a million a 
year, you will save $93,500 in taxes in 2003 alone, nearly 100 grand. 
But, if you earn between $10,500 and $26,625, you are the target, as my 
colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, of the Republican scheme because you were 
deliberately and purposely excluded from the $350 billion tax law of 
the Republicans. There is no child tax credit for you. That is the 
message.
  Now, who does this affect? The Republicans, under their plan, say no 
child tax credit, no relief, no tax relief to the fighting men and 
women in Iraq, no relief for you, no relief to school teachers, no 
relief to policemen, no relief to firefighters, no relief to first 
responders, no relief to anyone making $10,500 to $26,625 a year. And, 
Mr. Speaker, that is a lot of people in this country. That is probably 
most of the people in my congressional district.
  And it is funny, Mr. Speaker, in these times of challenge, fiscal 
challenges, we have plenty of money for millionaires but none for the 
clerk down at

[[Page 27358]]

the drugstore. We can give $93,500 for 1 year to the millionaire but 
nothing to the man fighting in Iraq or the woman fighting in Iraq.
  And what is funny, in a way, Mr. Speaker, is the administration has 
admitted this. You know Ari Fleischer, if you remember him, he was the 
White House Press Secretary when this went to conference initially, 
this is what he had to say: ``Everybody was aware in the conference of 
what was in and what was out. So that was all very well known to the 
conferees and the White House.''
  Now, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Fleischer told the truth. No wonder he is out 
of the White House. They could not stand that candor anymore. Now, the 
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means summarized the Republican 
attitude best when he said in response to a question regarding this 
matter, he said, quote, ``There are worse things than it not 
happening.'' Now, that charming statement was echoed by the majority 
leader when he stated bluntly in regard to the passage of the Senate 
child tax credit, ``Ain't gonna happen.'' Now, this was entirely 
consistent with his previous opinions, of course. Earlier he said there 
is a lot of things more important than that. There are a lot of things 
more important than that? Like what? I mean, like what, Mr. Leader?
  Mr. Speaker, under the Republican plan, as you know, over 12 million 
children are left with no benefits, none; 178,000 of those kids are 
children in farming families; 567,000 are children of nurses and 
orderlies; 337,000 are children of school teachers charged with 
educating our kids.
  And, Mr. Speaker, embarrassingly, the Republican plan hits minority 
children in particular by leaving out 2.4 million African American 
children and 4.1 million Hispanic children. Leaves them out.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we need to get our priorities straight and decide 
who we are standing for. If we can help out millionaires, and that is 
not always a bad thing, but if we can help out millionaires and we have 
the $93,000 to give to a millionaire in 2003 alone, then we have enough 
money for a child tax credit to working men and women in this country, 
especially to our military.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Becerra motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Becerra). And I just listened to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sandlin) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) is going to speak later.
  I was reminded, as I see what this House has continued to do, to deny 
the child tax credit to the working families, to the families who have 
children, but families who are working families, I thought a lot about 
a meeting I had about a month ago in Akron in my district, where I met 
with 25 families who had loved ones, sons, daughters, husbands, wives, 
nieces, nephews, whatever in Iraq. We talked a lot about shared 
sacrifice.

                              {time}  1945

  And I heard a lot from the President about sacrifice and shared 
sacrifices in this country. When you look at it with this war in Iraq 
tied to what the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) is trying to 
do tonight, to help those children in working families who are not 
making a lot of money, but in working families get some piece of the 
pie, you realize that this shared sacrifice that the President is 
asking about is a very limited shared sacrifice. The sacrifice in this 
country, it is not in the ``leave no millionaires behind'' program. 
They are getting $93,000 back in their taxes.
  The people making sacrifices in this country are the service men and 
women in Iraq; the families of the service men and women in Iraq; the 
veterans who are getting their veterans benefits, education and health 
care benefits cut because of the leave no millionaires behind program 
that George Bush has implemented; the students who are not getting the 
education funding; the seniors who are not getting the prescription 
drug benefit they should have; and now, ultimately, children in 
working-class families whose families are making 10 or 15 or $20,000. 
Those are the people who, unfortunately, are sacrificing in this shared 
sacrifice program of the President.
  So we are subscribing to the leave no millionaire behind program 
where the average millionaire gets about $93,000 back in their taxes. 
Half of my constituents, half of Ohioans get zero back in their taxes. 
These children of working families who are not making a lot of money 
get zero. So when I hear the President talk about sacrifice, the men 
and women in Iraq, the families of the men and women in Iraq who are 
dealing with the anguish and their anxiety of having their loved ones 
in Iraq and are dealing with budget and financial problems as a result, 
and especially those children that President Bush just has somehow lost 
his focus on, makes this motion to instruct from the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra) so very, very important.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Becerra motion to instruct.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me take a few moments to comment on the past speakers. First, I 
would like to fill in the gaps in the history that was rendered earlier 
here.
  My information says that this is the 17th motion to instruct, not the 
25th. We will see. We will have to look into the Congressional Record 
to find that out. Nevertheless, I get a great sense of deja vu right 
now. But all joking aside, Mr. Speaker, one thing that the speakers who 
just spoke failed to mention was that on June 12 of this year, the 
House did pass legislation making the child tax credit immediately 
refundable going back this year for these families in question.
  So one gets the impression from having listened to these speakers 
that we did not do anything, that we did not pass anything. That is not 
true.
  What this motion to instruct is encouraging is passage of an inferior 
tax bill from the Senate. What do I mean when I say inferior, Mr. 
Speaker? They want the child tax credit to go up to $1,000 for these 
families and then they want to take it away after the next election. It 
will go up for this year. It will go up for next year, and then the 
bill that they are advocating to take it away after the next election.
  The bill we passed on this floor not only gives these families the 
full $1,000-per-child tax credit this year, next year but also for the 
rest of the decade. On top of that, Mr. Speaker, we also do away with 
the marriage tax penalty, which the bill they are advocating does not 
address. So I just want to fill in the full story as to what is 
occurring here.
  Now, the other issue that we are hearing about is that we are not 
doing anything for the military, the kids whose parent are in the 
military. Now, the most recent history on this issue goes back to about 
1 hour ago when we just passed a bill unanimously off the floor of this 
House to give $1.2 billion in tax cuts to our men and women in uniform 
who are serving and fighting for us overseas. We just passed the 
Military Tax Fairness Act probably not even an hour ago off of this 
floor, and it is now going to the President's desk to be signed into 
law. So to suggest that the men and women in the military are all of 
the sudden being left out of tax relief is just not true, it is not 
accurate; and an hour ago we just fixed those problems. So that is an 
issue I just also thought would be important to fill in the gaps of the 
historical rendition that we have been hearing today.
  Now, as to the issue of, and this is an accuracy that I think needs 
to be pointed out, as to the issue of whether or not these families are 
paying the taxes and they deserve the tax credit or not, these 
families, mind you, Mr. Speaker, do not pay Federal taxes. Their FICA 
taxes are offset by the earned income credit. They do not pay income 
taxes. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the bill the House passed on June 12 
did give these families, regardless of the fact that they do not pay 
FICA taxes which are offset by the EIC or income taxes, a cash benefit 
or bonus in

[[Page 27359]]

the form of a refundable tax credit to the tune of $1,000. Again, not 
this year and next year, but for the rest of the decade.
  Now, the other issues that have been brought to the floor were more 
general issues about the tax bills. You have heard the things about tax 
cuts for the wealthy and that tax cuts hurt the economy. Let us go back 
into the revision of history that we just heard about the tax law that 
passed earlier this summer.
  Now, it is important to note that two-thirds of the top income tax 
bracket, the people who filed those taxes are not millionaires sitting 
on their yachts sipping champagne. Two-thirds of the top income tax 
bracket are small businesses who are the driving force of job creation 
in this economy. Seventy percent of the jobs we get out of this economy 
come from small businesses. Two-thirds of that tax bracket are small 
businesses. We were taxing small businesses at a tax rate higher than 
what we taxed large corporations in America. So before the last tax 
bill went into place on July 1, we taxed small businesses at a rate of 
about 40 percent, when we taxed IBM and General Motors and Chrysler and 
all these other companies at 35 percent. That was ridiculous.
  Why should we be taxing small businesses in this country who are the 
engine of economic growth and jobs in this country at a higher tax rate 
than we are taxing the largest corporations in America? That is why we 
cut the tax across the board on individual income taxes. That was good. 
That is a good thing to do. It is not a tax cut for people who own 
yachts. It is a tax cut for people who have jobs and provide jobs in 
this economy.
  Now, what has happened since that tax bill passed? Many of the 
speakers have been saying it is driving a hole in the deficit; it is 
actually hurting the economy. That tax bill passed on July 1. The third 
quarter of this economy started on July 1 and ended on September 30. 
What happened immediately after that tax bill passed? The economy grew 
at 7.2 percent. I repeat: during that period, the third quarter, the 
economy grew at 7.2 percent. That is the fastest economic growth 
quarter in this country in 19 years, in 19 years, Mr. Speaker.
  Our economy grew right after this tax cut passed into law in the 
fastest quarterly growth in 19 years. That creates jobs. What happened 
to the deficit at that period, Mr. Speaker? The deficit went down by 
$80 billion. So what we see when that happened was when we cut taxes, 
not only did the economy grow, not only did a lot of wealth that was 
lost in the stock market come back because the stock market grew, but 
because the economy grew because people are going back to work because 
72,000 people got jobs last month, people are paying taxes. The economy 
is growing and more remedies are coming into the Federal Government and 
the deficit is going down.
  So just look at the facts and you can tell that tax relief works, 
that tax relief across the board, especially on small businesses, 
works; and the proof is in the statistics. The economy is growing. It 
is growing very fast. Jobs are being created. Jobs are coming back, and 
people are paying taxes who otherwise were not paying taxes and the 
deficit is going down.
  Now, we have got to keep that going. And the last thing we want to do 
is roll back these tax cuts. What this motion to recommit is suggesting 
to do is pass these tax cuts and then yank them out from under the 
taxpayers after the election. The last thing we want to do in this 
economy is in the year 2005 raise taxes on people. Take the child tax 
credit down by $500 and stop that tax payment to all of these families.
  Mr. Speaker, I think this is the 17th time we have had this motion. 
Whether it is the 17th time or the 25th time, what we are trying to 
accomplish is tax relief. We passed the bill. It is a better bill. That 
is the bill we are trying to get into law. I hope the gentleman who is 
a good guy, who is my friend on the Committee on Ways and Means, would 
join us. If we linked arms, we could get all of these things done and 
make a difference, and these families could have this tax cut for the 
rest of the decade, not just until the next election.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pearce). The gentleman has 13 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Ryan) just said that I agree with, and I just say that he is one of 
those Members that I think does a very good job of crystallizing many 
of the issues. But I have to say we part company in a couple of areas.
  First, there was a bill that was proposed in this House by the 
Republican majority to address the $3.5 billion exclusion of those 6\1/
2\ million families that earn between $10,500 and $26,625. That is very 
true. But to get that $3.5 billion fix, what my friend from Wisconsin 
forgot to mention is we had to swallow an additional $79 billion in tax 
cuts that went unpaid for, that went principally to wealthy 
individuals. That I think is what makes it tough.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Just a point of clarification. The reason that 
costs much more money is because we make those tax cuts permanent 
throughout the decade, and we do not yank them back at the end of the 
election. We actually put these tax cuts, like repealing the marriage 
penalty and the child tax credit, in place for 10 years. That is why 
the bill costs so much more money.
  Mr. BECERRA. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for that point 
of clarification; but again, there was more to the bill than just that. 
It was not just an expansion of the types of tax cuts that would sound 
very appealing to America. There were tax cuts, again, unpaid for that 
went to folks that would benefit to the exclusion of the vast majority 
of Americans because they went principally to wealthy folks or to large 
corporations or to businesses that were not necessarily American-owned 
businesses.
  As a result, it was very difficult for many Members, including 
Republicans, to swallow a tax cut of $82 billion unpaid for to try to 
correct the problem of $3.5 billion. At the time we were being told 
that the budget deficit might reach more than $400 billion. That is why 
the Senate did not take up the House version that would cost $82 
billion and instead did the right thing, did what the President asked, 
passed a bill that provided tax relief to the folks, the 6\1/2\ million 
families that were excluded in the May tax bill, $350 billion tax bill 
that passed.
  So do not put apples with oranges. It does not take $82 billion to 
correct the injustice, the injustice to the 6\1/2\ million families 
that were excluded from the expanded child tax credit. It takes only 
$3.5 billion, which is quite a bit of money when you are running 
deficits.
  It is true, there is better news. The budget deficit is $80 billion 
less than we expected a few months back. So today we are being told the 
budget deficit for fiscal year 2002 was only $370 billion, the largest 
deficit this country has ever had. And that is good because we were 
lucky. It was supposed to be $450 billion. Next year we are told it is 
going to be about 500 billion.
  Whoopee, we should be really happy, I guess, that it is not $450 
billion. So on top of the $350 billion that we have confirmed, that we 
have in budget deficit for the fiscal year, we should add another $82 
billion to correct a $3.5 billion problem for folks that make $10,500 
to $26,500, giving most of the benefits of the $82 billion in tax cuts 
to not those 6\1/2\ million families, because it only costs $3.5 
billion to fix it for these 6\1/2\ million families.
  That is not the kind of math that my 8-year-old is learning, and I 
hope she never learns that kind of math.
  Now, the sunsetting of the $1,000 tax credit that my friend from 
Wisconsin mentioned, that is true. Our bill did sunset it because it 
was your bill that

[[Page 27360]]

sunset it first. In fact, it was the Republican bill that became law 
that sunsets the child tax credit at $1,000 after 2 years.

                              {time}  2000

  That was not our doing. That was what the Republican majority chose 
to do. It was the decision of the majority to make it sunset, to close 
out, to be yanked away as the gentleman said after 2 years.
  If we could find a way to pay for it, we are willing to extend it, 
but we are not going to continue to give someone today a child tax 
credit of $1,000 who makes over $150,000 and then put the burden of the 
deficit in the budget over the years and years to come on the shoulders 
of the people who did not get anything who are earning $20,000. That is 
unfair. It is, again, giving to Peter the rich at the expense of Paul 
of the modest income. That is not fair.
  Military family tax relief, just about every one of us today, just as 
the gentleman mentioned, voted for that tax relief bill for our 
military families, but why did it not include this provision that we 
are debating right now on the child tax credit? It did a lot of good 
things. That is why a lot of us voted for it, and we have been waiting 
for months for that to get through because the military families have 
been waiting for some of those benefits that are in that bill that 
passed, but why did it exclude this provision which could have put 
money in the pockets of the spouses who are today waiting for their 
spouses to come back from combat in Iraq or Afghanistan? Probably no 
more than $600, $500 for families making $20,000 or less. Why could we 
not have put that in the bill? That again was excluded not by our 
choice.
  I agree, small businessmen and -women do not typically go out on a 
yacht and sip champagne, and I would be willing to join with my 
colleague right now and say that all of those small businessmen and -
women who do not have yachts and sip champagne on those yachts deserve 
to get some tax relief, absolutely, but that is not who we are talking 
about, because the tax relief that was given in the $350 billion tax 
bill of May of this year gives some of those millionaires enough to put 
a good down payment on a yacht. When a person gets $93,500 in tax cuts 
that is enough to put probably, I do not know, I am not sure how much a 
yacht costs, but it is probably enough for a sizeable down payment on a 
yacht.
  Job numbers. Great to see that the economy may be getting better, may 
be getting better, but I hope this is not one of those economic 
recoveries without jobs. A jobless recovery will not do anyone any 
good. We have lost more than 3 million jobs in the last 3 years, and we 
have seen too many American workers lose all of their money through 
Enron-type scandals with their pension funds, and it is time for us to 
do something differently.
  Mr. Speaker, with more than 146,000 jobs in the last quarter gone in 
our payrolls, it is hard for anyone to believe that America is today 
now turning the corner, and when we look at our States, whether it is 
my State of California, which has 880,000 families who were excluded 
from the child tax credit relief by this legislation, by the acts of 
the House majority leadership, or whether it was Wisconsin, which has 
74,000 families that were excluded from relief, among those 143,000 
Wisconsin children, about 11 percent of the families with children 
under 17 in Wisconsin excluded from child tax credit relief as a result 
of the inaction in the House to match the Senate.
  We are seeing families continue to suffer. When we talk about 3 
million people who have already lost their job in the last 3 years, and 
here we have 6\1/2\ million families that are willing to work rather 
than give it up, and say I am going to go on welfare, I can probably 
make just as much on welfare than the $10,500 I make on a yearly basis 
at this job, instead of trying to give them a reward, an incentive to 
continue that, we are saying no to them. Yes, to the guys that make 
over $150,000 to get a child tax credit expansion. Yes, to millionaires 
who get more than $93,500 in tax relief out of the $350 billion tax cut 
bill that went mostly to the wealthy, but no, to these 6\1/2\ million 
families. It just does not make sense.
  Mr. Speaker, I could give my colleagues numbers for every one of the 
50 States in America that has several hundreds of thousands of families 
who will not benefit, who did not benefit from the passage of the tax 
bill that excluded relief in the expansion of the child tax credit, for 
these working, tax paying and, in many cases, military families, but I 
would be repeating what has been said at least 24 other times.
  I believe it is time, Mr. Speaker, that we move and match the Senate, 
and by the same numbers that the Senate did it, by a 98 percent margin 
vote in favor of giving a child tax credit to those 6\1/2\ million 
families, so those 12 million children know they are as wanted in 
America as the other children in America who did qualify for the child 
tax credit expansion, and we can do it without breaking the budget and 
do it in a way that relieves this economy of its doldrums and gets us 
back to work.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we could reach across the 
aisle, work together, pass a bill that would cost only $3.5 billion, 
not $80 billion, match the Senate, get it passed, let the President 
sign what he said he wanted to sign, and then give those families what 
they deserve for a long time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pearce). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BECERRA. 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 will be postponed.

                          ____________________