[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19154-19159]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 785, WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF 
   CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN 
                              RESOLUTIONS

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 785 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 785

       Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 
     for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee 
     on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is 
     waived with respect to any resolution reported on the 
     legislative day of September 23, 2004, providing for 
     consideration or disposition of a conference report to 
     accompany the bill (H.R. 1308) to amend the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 to accelerate the increase in the refundability 
     of the child tax credit, and for other purposes.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my neighbor, the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 785 is a same day rule that waives 
clause 6(a) of rule XIII requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule 
on the same day it is reported from the Committee on Rules.
  The rule applies the waiver to a special rule reported on the 
legislative day September 23, 2004, providing for consideration or 
disposition of a conference report to accompany the bill H.R. 1308, the 
Working Families Tax Relief Act.
  This rule today is the first step to permit the House to consider a 
conference report that will infuse our economy with job creating tax 
relief, investment incentives and overall economic growth.
  For well over a year, this body has been debating the relief provided 
by the Working Families Tax Relief Act and, with today's action, we 
once again display our continued commitment to strong economic growth. 
We also demonstrate to American workers, businesses and families that 
this Congress will protect their stability.
  Mr. Speaker, through a series of tax cuts, this Congress has acted to 
create jobs and protect American families. Our strong leadership has 
resulted in the shortest and shallowest recession in our Nation's 
history. A delay in the consideration of this conference report for the 
Working Families Tax Relief Act will put American jobs and families and 
the strength of our economy at risk.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule so we 
may proceed with debate on this time sensitive tax relief package.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my neighbor for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have before us a rule that allows for same day 
consideration of a conference report for H.R. 1308, a bill to extend 
the middle-class tax provisions in the 2001 tax bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that any time the body chooses to 
stray from the regular order of business, it had better be for a darn 
good reason. It had better be to respond to some catastrophic or 
emergency situation.
  Things are dire out there for the 2.7 million Americans who have lost 
their good-paying manufacturing jobs since 2001. These workers live in 
a constant state of emergency and face the catastrophic prospect of 
losing their homes or sending their children to bed with empty 
stomachs. The fact the body has failed to extend unemployment insurance 
for nearly a year is a catastrophic failure, not a catastrophic 
success.
  Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other bills languishing in 
conference committees that certainly warrant emergency consideration. 
What about the transportation bill? Immediate consideration of this 
bill could bring millions of Americans a step closer to getting back to 
work, because it is a job creation bill.
  And what about addressing the WTO tariffs on American exports? Should 
we not take immediate action to clear the path for more of our 
manufacturers to export their goods?
  Mr. Speaker, as you can see, there is no shortage of bills that could 
be justifiably brought to the House floor under martial law, but, 
unfortunately, the bill we have before us today fails to meet that 
standard.
  Although I think everyone here in the House supports extending the 
middle class tax cuts, I do not like running roughshod over the rules 
of the House. What is this emergency? The earliest that any of these 
provisions would expire is December 31.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority has not made its case for taking this 
extraordinary action. The conference report was filed late this 
afternoon. In fact, we do not have any paper on it at all. So that 
makes it impossible for us to even continue with the bill. But for a 
bill that is going to cost nearly $150 billion, the majority owes it to 
us to provide us the time to read it.
  For these reasons, I cannot support the use of a martial law rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there are some points well taken, except we have been 
working 18 months on this legislation in bipartisan fashion in both 
bodies and we now have a conclusion. I also think we have certainly got 
strong opinions as we complete this of Members that will support this 
and Members that will not. I believe it will pass with some bipartisan 
support.
  But also it is important that we have the opportunity that we can get 
our

[[Page 19155]]

work done today, because otherwise my belief is that many would ask 
that we vote tomorrow, which, if we complete our work today, would keep 
an orderly fashion of having our work done and Members also back into 
their districts.
  So, as we move forward, it is my hope that we have a vote on the 
rule, and that the body will consider that we move forward with the 
opportunity of reviewing the conference report that was put together in 
a bipartisan fashion in both the other body and this body.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from New York for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an extraordinary process that we use when we 
consider a bill the same day it is reported out. One of the concerns I 
have about the process is that I want to make sure the Members 
understand exactly what is in the bill that they are asking to be 
considered and the process that it went through.
  I think it is important to point out that the underlying bill that we 
are talking about contains many important changes in the Tax Code that 
are supported on both sides of the aisle. There is no question that 
Democrats support an extension of the 10 percent bracket provision, 
child credits and marriage penalty relief, and certainly Alternative 
Minimum Tax relief, where more and more of our constituents are falling 
within the Alternative Minimum Tax, and extension of the so-called 
extenders, the research and others that would otherwise expire. That is 
without question. And there has been bipartisan efforts to try to make 
sure that those provisions in the Code are extended or made permanent.
  But this is where the bipartisanship ends, because there has not been 
an effort made to do this in a way that is in the best interests of the 
taxpayers of this country.
  Our only opportunity to raise these issues will be on the rules that 
are going to be presented today. My friend from New York will explain 
later the previous question votes we are going to ask to be taken, 
because that is going to be our only opportunity to raise the faults 
that are in the underlying bill, because, as I said, the substantive 
provisions are provisions that are supported by both Democrats and 
Republicans.
  The first problem is that these are just temporary changes. We do not 
make them permanent. As my friend from New York pointed out, we have 
until the end of this year on most of these provisions. Some of the 
provisions are extended for a year, some for 2 years, some for a little 
bit longer, but none of them are made permanent. So, once again, we are 
not really confronting the issue of making this predictable for the 
taxpayers of this country.
  But the more serious faults that will be raised by the previous 
questions deal with the fact that despite the efforts that we have made 
in a bipartisan opportunity to pay for these tax cuts so we do not add 
to the $400 billion annual deficit, we have offered ways to pay for 
these tax changes. The underlying bill is scored to add another $150 
billion to the deficit of this country. Where does this end?
  Give us an opportunity to give proposals to offset the cost so that 
we are not adding to the red ink of the Nation. We should have that 
opportunity, and I think we could do that with a strong bipartisan vote 
in this body.
  The second problem, Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, is that we did not 
correct a major problem with the Earned Income Tax Credit and to a 
certain degree with the refundable child credit, and that is we are not 
treating our military fairly.
  We all talk in our districts and here on the floor about the 
tremendous sacrifices being made by the men and women who are in harm's 
way serving our military in Iraq and Afghanistan. They put their lives 
on the line for us every day, and we are thankful. But we should show 
it by deeds. We have pointed out that because of the tax treatment of 
military pay, our men and women who are in harm's way will not get the 
full relief provided under this bill. That is wrong.
  The conferees from the other body made a suggestion that would have 
fixed this, one which is supported by the Democrats in this body. It is 
hard to believe that you get a more favorable tax treatment in the 
military if you serve in the United States than if you serve in Iraq. 
That is just wrong, and we should fix it.
  But instead of accepting the reasonable offer made by the Members 
from the other body, because of the House position of the Republicans, 
we have a very small, temporary fix for 1 year that will not provide 
the full relief to our military, which is kind of complicated, quite 
frankly, adding to the complexity of the Code without fixing the 
problem.
  That is wrong, and we should take care of that now. If there is an 
urgency, the urgency should be with our military and to make sure we do 
not discriminate against them.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to point out to my 
colleagues, yes, we will not have a lot of time to consider this bill. 
It was just reported out today. There are a lot of good provisions in 
this bill. But, once again, it is a missed opportunity. It is a missed 
opportunity for fiscal responsibility, it is a missed opportunity to 
correct a problem with our military pay, and I hope that you will 
support the request made by the gentlewoman from New York in regards to 
the previous questions so we can fix these errors.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that it is not a missed opportunity for those 
millions of taxpayers who are going to be assisted by this. While I 
respect my colleague from Maryland, I think there is a couple of things 
we need to look at to set the record straight. I was prepared to do it 
as we do the rule on the legislation, but maybe now is a good time.
  This bill provides nearly $200 million in assistance for our 
military. This bill has 23 annual extenders for tax provisions that we 
have worked on in the past. It is going to address child tax credit 
that we have passed overwhelmingly in this House in a bipartisan 
provision. It is going to address the marriage penalty, which this 
House has, again, done in overwhelming provisions in past votes.
  We have a 10 percent bracket, which is there. Without passage of the 
legislation, the bracket would start to fade until it is totally 
removed from the Tax Code, and that would affect 73 million families 
who will be paying higher income taxes next year. Over the next 10 
years, these families will pay out a total of $2,400 more in taxes. 
That is a bill that this House has passed in previous times.
  When we look at the AMT relief which was created more than 30 years 
ago as a way to prevent high income taxpayers from avoiding income tax 
payments, something happened, and the failure to index AMT for 
inflation has resulted in millions of Americans paying for this onerous 
double tax.

                              {time}  1445

  As a result, by 2010, one in three American taxpayers will be hid in 
the shadow of the AMT tax. Both in the 2001 and 2003 growth packages, 
Congress worked to ensure the new tax cuts would not force more 
taxpayers into the AMT trap. Yet, the provisions preventing millions of 
middle-class Americans from being hit with the AMT will expire at the 
end of this year. This is why the legislation is so critical, to 
prevent these Americans from being hit with the unsuspected tax.
  So when we look at this legislation, when the House is scheduled to 
adjourn on October 1, and we look at this House that may extend itself 
a few days in closing, we need to also keep on track moving legislation 
that is ready for the body to consider.
  I would also say that when we look at this, which was provided for, 
the paying of this, in the House-crafted budget that was adopted by 
this body, the extension of family tax relief is already provided for 
in the House-passed budget resolution. That resolution would

[[Page 19156]]

cut the deficit in half over 5 years without raising taxes, so this 
bill is paid for.
  The second aspect is the Democrats have agreed to extending the child 
tax credit, the 10 percent bracket, and the marriage penalty relief. 
However, to accomplish the offsets, they want means of more than $130 
billion in either tax hikes or spending cuts. The Democrats are not 
prepared to make the tough choices regarding which taxes to increase or 
which programs to cut. We are going to talk about a procedural 
provision of whether we adopt this rule to consider same-day or not 
versus the aspect of an alternative, which I welcome as they bring 
their legislation before the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, to my distinguished friend from New York, I 
was at the tax conference last night, and I would just like to yield 
him enough time to respond. Did he say that this $147 billion bill is 
paid for? No, I do not think so. I do not think he said that.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman asking me if I would 
yield on his time?
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the gentleman whether or not 
he said to this body that this bill, this tax cut bill, which he gave 
all the virtues of what it does for the middle class and all of the 
corporations with the extenders, did he imply that this does not throw 
us $147 billion further into deficit?
  Mr. REYNOLDS. No, I will give the gentleman exactly what I said, if 
the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds.)
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I said the extension of the family tax 
relief is already provided for in the House-passed budget resolution. 
That resolution would cut the deficit in half over 5 years without 
raising taxes. I believe that the previous speaker on the minority 
side, the gentleman from Maryland, made a statement that he felt that 
it was not paid for.
  Mr. RANGEL. Well, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, but let 
me join in with the gentleman from Maryland because, clearly, those of 
us that work on the committee know that there are a lot of virtues in 
this bill. True, we have a couple of poison pills in there that relate 
to unfair treatment of the young people who are married, who have kids, 
who are doing combat duty, and also by having the index on who is 
eligible for the refundable tax credit, having it move from 10,000 to 
70,000; we exclude some 9.2 million children. Those are the poison 
pills that I think that a lot of Members are willing to swallow for the 
good that is in the bill.
  But one of the most important things that Americans are missing and 
the majority does not hear about is who pays for these tax cuts. All 
tax cuts for working individuals have merit, but this bill, according 
to the Joint Committee on Taxation, will cost us $149 billion. We tried 
as Democrats in the conference to take the loopholes, to bring the tax 
savings and to bring the revenues to make this revenue-neutral so that 
we could have the benefits without the deficit. But what happened last 
night was that the Republicans said they wanted to save these revenue 
raises. They want to save these corporate loopholes for the next tax 
bill, which they call the jobs bill, which I call the offshore jobs 
bill, but the next bill, some call the FSC bill, but whatever they call 
this bill, they want to have that paid for as opposed to this bill.
  So what I am saying is that it is close to election, and everybody 
wants to vote for a tax cut. The Republicans have so carefully and 
cynically, on the eve of an election, planned several tax cuts and make 
other tax cuts permanent in order to try to get the Democrats to vote 
no, not because we are against the tax cuts but because we have some 
sense of responsibility as citizens and legislators to believe in what 
Republicans used to believe in, and that is a balanced budget. I am too 
old to think it would happen in my lifetime, but as the Republicans put 
raising the debt ceiling on the back burner, as they put the size of 
the deficit spending on the back burner, all Americans should know 
that, as we enjoy this day of tax cuts that the gentleman from New York 
talked about, that our children will be paying for these for decades to 
come.
  So I will suggest to my colleagues, it has to stop somewhere. We have 
a responsibility as legislators to try to leave a world better than the 
one that we inherited. We cannot do this with a $200 billion war. We 
cannot do this by denying benefits to those low-income people who are 
fighting this war, who are in combat, and we cannot do it by leaving a 
legacy to our children and our grandchildren that they will have to 
pay.
  I thank the gentleman from New York for responding. He may think we 
have paid for this in a big budget, but they sure did not pay for it 
last night.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, upon reflection and in listening to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member 
of the Committee on Ways and Means and one who is the senior member of 
the New York delegation, I agree with him that we should phase out and 
change the AMT tax, and I have watched him advocate a lot of other 
things. A few times I have not seen him want to pay for it except for 
raising taxes.
  But the thing I heard most out of the debate was not about helping 
the American family put more money back into their pockets, not about 
the middle class, which some of the politicians outside this body would 
talk about middle-class warfare and all of the other type of class war 
discussion.
  Today, if we are allowed to start the debate on this bill, we will 
begin to help the middle class because, otherwise, if the Congress does 
not act, families will face a tax increase next year. For example, next 
year, the $1,000 child tax credit drops to $700 per child. The 10 
percent bracket will apply to less than an individual's income, and the 
marriage penalty provision will provide less relief for couples.
  I did not hear the aspect of a debate over how we get it done out of 
the distinguished ranking member. What I heard was the Democrats may 
look bad however they vote versus a decision of whether you are going 
to help the middle class today with a tax cut or whether you are going 
to raise taxes by not getting the job done. I hope we will pass this 
same-day rule so we can bring the legislation to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  This is a sad day for this body, and a sad day for the country in 
many ways, I think. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and others 
have touched on it. I have not spoken on the floor in a long time on 
very much, but I heard the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) talk 
about tax increases.
  What we are afraid to say today is that we are actually raising taxes 
on people who earn less than $11,000 a year. As hard as it is to 
believe that Republicans, who tout themselves as tax-cutters over and 
over and over and over again to the point that they would even call 
some of us to accept a round of tax cuts, fully aware that they will 
increase the budget deficit by $150 billion; they could not find it in 
their hearts to find $4.3 billion over 5 years to 9.2 million of the 
poorest children in this country whose parents, I might add, work every 
day. They do not sit around waiting on a check, I say to my colleagues; 
they work just like you and I do, and all they ask is for the same 
ability to avoid a tax increase.
  So I would say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) and his 
friends, you are raising taxes as you would accuse us of doing, on 
people who earn $11,000 a year or less.
  But I say to my Democratic colleagues, we should not be so saddened 
by this, because you will remember that the President has had a change 
of

[[Page 19157]]

opinion on a variety of issues. When Enron and WorldCom collapsed, the 
President initially opposed any changes to ensure that the big 
corporate cheaters who robbed pension-holders and shareholders and 
workers of their savings, he initially said no to reform. And then he 
flip-flopped; he said yes.
  When the Homeland Security Department was offered as an idea, Mr. 
Speaker, the President initially opposed that, and then he flip-flopped 
in favor of the right thing to do and decided to support it. When the 
9/11 Commission idea was offered by many Members, including Tim Roemer, 
as an idea to help America atone and reconcile, he said, no way, and 
then he flip-flopped and said we should create one. When the 9/11 
Commission made recommendations about how to change the intelligence 
structure in this country, the President said no way will we have a 
central director of intelligence or one with budgetary authority, and 
thank God, he flip-flopped.
  So I say to my friend, and I would ask my friend, and he is a friend 
of the President, give us one more flip-flop. There is still an 
opportunity to not raise taxes on people earning $11,000 a year or 
less, Mr. Speaker, 9.2 million children, $4.3 billion over 5 years.
  If all of us just decide to give up one project in our districts from 
all the pork we pass in this Congress, we can probably accommodate it.
  Mr. Speaker, one more flip-flop is all we ask for: $4.3 billion over 
5 years. You have my support, and I promise you I will not call you a 
flip-flopper on this one if you will just do it for the kids.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I hope my colleague will take the opportunity to brief himself on the 
income tax savings for middle-income families, a Joint Economic 
Committee study done by the gentleman from New Jersey (Vice Chairman 
Saxton) of the Joint Economic Committee of the Congress; possibly that 
will provide him some assistance on some of the points that he has 
made.
  The impending tax increases, unless Congress takes action, the 
following tax increases will automatically occur. I want all of my 
colleagues from all walks of life to look at what actually is at risk 
here if this legislation is not passed before we adjourn. The impending 
tax increases, unless Congress takes action, the following increases 
will automatically occur: In 2005, the child tax credit will decrease 
from $1,000 to $700.
  The standard deduction for couples as a percentage of the standard 
deduction for singles will decrease from 200 percent to 174 percent, 
reinstating the marriage penalty. The top end of the 15 percent 
marginal income tax bracket for couples as a percentage of the top end 
for singles will decrease from 200 percent to 174 percent, reinstating 
the marriage penalty.
  The 10 percent marginal income tax bracket will contract from 
covering the first $7,000 of income for singles and $14,000 for joint 
filers to covering only the first $6,000 of income for singles and 
$12,000 for joint filers.
  The bonus depreciation will decrease from 50 percent to 30 percent.
  The exemption of the alternative minimum tax will decrease from 
$40,250 to $33,750, Mr. Speaker, for single filers, and from $58,000 to 
$45,000 for married couples filing jointly.
  In 2006, the section 179 small business expensing cap will decrease 
from $100,000 to $25,000, and the definition of small business will 
decrease from $400,000 to $200,000.
  In 2009, the personal capital gains rate will increase from 15 
percent to 20 percent. Dividends will no longer be taxed on the 
personal capital gains rate, thereby increasing the double taxation of 
dividends by as much as 62 percent.
  In 2011, the marginal income tax rates will increase as follows: 35 
percent bracket will increase to 39.6 percent; 33 percent bracket will 
increase to 36 percent; 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; 
the 25 percent bracket will increase to 28 percent; and the 10 percent 
bracket will increase to 15 percent.
  The child tax credit will decrease from $1,000 to $500. The annual 
education IRA contribution limit will decrease from $2,000 to $500.
  The standard deduction for couples as a percentage of the standard 
deduction for singles will decrease from 200 percent to 167 percent, 
reinstating the marriage penalty. The top end of the 15 percent 
marginal income tax bracket for couples as a percentage of the top end 
for singles will decrease from 200 percent to 167 percent, reinstating 
the marriage penalty.

                              {time}  1500

  The estate tax using the stepped-up basis will return with a 60 
percent maximum rate, including surtax, and a $1 million exemption 
after years of decreasing estate tax rates, increasing exemptions, and 
one year using the more fair carry-over basis to calculate the tax due. 
The annual IRA contribution limit will decrease from 5,000 to a post-
2008 inflation of 2,000.
  So we can see that if Congress takes action, we will help all 
taxpayers that are paying taxes to put money back in their pocket 
versus having it in the government. As we consider whether we have a 
same-day, I again urge the adoption of this rule so we can consider the 
underlying legislation in the next rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the answer of the gentleman, and I 
just want to engage him in a brief colloquy. That was an answer to a 
question I did not ask.
  I simply asked the question, why are we raising taxes on families 
earning $11,000 a year or less? When given the opportunity to cut taxes 
for them in the form of a child tax credit beginning in 2005, you chose 
and your side chose not to extend the tax cuts to them, $4.3 billion 
over 5 years. I am using only your language. In essence, you are 
raising taxes on people who earn $11,000 a year or less.
  Now, if the gentleman would answer that question, I am probably going 
to vote for the bill. I just do not know why we cannot add an 
additional $4.3 billion. What is $4.3 billion amongst friends when you 
are spending all that you are spending for everybody else? The poorest 
families in the country, 9.2 million children, it is $4.3 billion over 
5 years. My understanding, I was not there, but every press report says 
that the Republican leadership in the House did not support the 
Republican chairman of the finance committee in the Senate.
  All of this is big talk to the people at home. What it means is we 
are raising taxes on people who earn $11,000. So if you are watching, 
if you can afford a TV or you know somebody that earns $11,000 a year, 
they are raising taxes on you this afternoon.
  I would yield to my friend, I would ask him why are you raising taxes 
on people who earn $11,000 a year or less in this country?
  I would not want to answer it either. So I say to my friend, I hope 
in light of the litany of things I mentioned with my friend, the 
President, we need one more flip-flop. One more flip-flop can save 
monies for families earning $11,000 a year or less. I am blessed. I am 
not in that category. Those of you who support things we have supported 
in the Congress and friends we have outside of it, we are not in that 
category. But for those who are, we are raising taxes this evening in 
this Congress on behalf of people who earn $11,000 a year or less who 
work day in and day out.
  I would not want to defend it either. And the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Reynolds) is my friend. I do not blame him. I would not want to 
defend it either.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to this gentleman and any others coming 
to the Committee on Rules if we get consideration of the same-day so we 
can hear any amendments that they would like to discuss. But as we well 
know, a conference report is not amendable, so it will be an up or down 
vote.
  I do not know many taxpayers that are $11,000 that have to pay an 
income tax that we are considering. I thought

[[Page 19158]]

the earned income tax credit is a refundable tax credit offered by the 
Federal Government; I know New York has its own EITC, and that rate is 
27.5 of a qualifying taxpayer's Federal EITC in the tax year 2002 and 
that the Federal and State EITC or for the working people that earn low 
or moderate income. So I certainly will continue to listen to my 
colleague, as I always do on his thoughts, both on this as an 
individual, Member to Member, but also anything he would like to bring 
on the floor of the debate when the distinguished Committee on Ways and 
Means will continue in what I believe will be a proper debate.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REYNOLDS. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. FORD. Folks who are enjoying part of this tax credit today, in 
2005 will see that tax cut decrease or eliminated all together. Which, 
if I understand the definition of a tax increase, that indeed is a tax 
increase on people earning $11,000 a year or less.
  So can we at least agree that this is a tax increase on people who 
earn $11,000 a year, on people who work and earn $11,000 a year or less 
in this country?
  I might add, I invite the gentleman to my district, and anyone else 
who may choose to come, and we can hold a town hall meeting, and I will 
amass, unfortunately, a decent-sized group who are affected negatively 
by this.
  I yield back to my colleague for an answer. I used his time, so I 
thank him for the time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. I will bring this debate to a closure.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I just want to know if it is a tax increase.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Then I will not yield so I can complete my question on 
my time. If the gentleman gets time from his ranking member of this 
debate, we will certainly continue.
  Mr. FORD. I apologize to the gentleman.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, in consultation with the Committee on Ways 
and Means and, of course, this is more appropriate on the underlying 
legislation, or I suppose even we could request them on the next rule, 
EIC has been expanded dramatically in this legislation which is going 
to assist in a number of fashions. I am not exactly sure as the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) has outlined a particular part that 
he has talked about on 11,000; but the EIC is expanded just on the 
aspect of making sure that we capture helping low income wage earners 
so that they are not caught in this.
  As I said, in my State, the EITC has been extensively of assistance 
to our poor and low income family wage earners.
  I would hope that we can move forward to a closure of this rule on 
same-day, take a vote on it, see if the body will consider then the 
rule on the underlying legislation, to consider this legislation so 
that all Members will have an opportunity to participate in the debate, 
and then we can have consideration of whether we pass this conference 
report, which has been 18 months in the making. Most of these are 
extenders and legislation that all Members are well aware of.
  We have had strong bipartisan support for this legislation as has 
been considered in this body in the past. Otherwise, as I understand 
it, if we are not able to take this legislation up today, it will cause 
us to be continuing our work tomorrow if we cannot complete our work 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. May 
I inquire if the gentleman does.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am 
prepared to close.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before I yield back my time, I will be asking for a 
``no'' vote on the previous question; and if the previous question is 
defeated, I would offer an amendment that upon its adoption of the 
rule, the Enrolling Clerk is instructed to add language to the 
conference report that does two things:
  First, it directs the Secretary of the Treasury to pay for the cost 
of the bill by rolling back part of the tax breaks for those with 
incomes exceeding a million dollars annually. These millionaires will 
still receive a substantial portion of their tax cuts, but this modest 
rollback covers the cost of this bill for middle-income American 
families.
  Second, it fixes a serious flaw in the conference report that 
negatively affects our military families. Because combat pay is exempt 
from taxation, many low-income military families with children are 
ineligible for the low-income tax credits or the child care tax 
credits. Democrats would change this so that soldiers would be able to 
count combat pay as income when applying for both the child tax credits 
and the earned income tax credit over the next 5 years.
  The majority only wants to provide a 2-year extension of the EITC 
provision. Mr. Speaker, I think most Members want to see the tax breaks 
in this bill extended, particularly the child tax credit. However, many 
of us are very concerned about the legislation's substantial price tag, 
and I think this is a fair and a reasonable way to address that cost.
  I want to stress that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not 
stop consideration of the conference report for the tax bill. But a 
``no'' vote will simply allow the House to amend the rule to make the 
changes necessary to pay for the tax cuts and not increase our already 
bloated deficit. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will 
not allow these changes to be made, will drive up our debt to the tune 
of $149 billion.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can fix the 
conference report and provide tax relief to those who need it most.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, again, I urge a ``no'' vote on the 
previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important for the record as this has had 
substantial debate on the underlying bill of future consideration of 
the next rule. There is only one change to the EIC in this bill which 
is an expansion for military families, in contradiction to some of the 
debate before.
  The bill allows military families to include combat pay in the EIC 
and child credits, and that provision is in the legislation that will 
be considered later if this bill is now passed as a rule before us.
  So to get back to where we are, we have a rule that is requesting 
consideration of this body of a same-day rule that if we pass it today, 
we will continue in being able to do our work on a conference report 
rule to consider the legislation, the underlying bill today. If not, it 
would seem to me, as I understand it from previous briefings before 
coming to the floor, if we are not allowed to continue our work today, 
we will then find ourselves working tomorrow on this legislation 
because we were not able to complete it today.
  So the resolution before us today and the rule is for same-day 
consideration of the legislation that will be the underlying 
legislation rule next. I would hope that we could pass this legislation 
and vote for the previous question so that we can move forward.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, when I was responding to Mr. Ford's 
remarks about those earning under $11,000 per year, I inadvertently 
referred to the EIC, when I meant to refer to the refundable portion of 
the child credit. It is important to note that the bill does not 
increase taxes on anyone and actually increases the refundability of 
the child credit for low-income families.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

[[Page 19159]]



Previous Question for H. Res. 785 Rule Waiving 2/3rds on September 23, 
  2004 for Rule Providing Consideration of H.R. 1308 Child Tax Credit 
                           Conference Report

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       Sec. 2.(a) A concurrent resolution specified in subsection 
     (b) is hereby adopted.
       (b) The concurrent resolution referred to in subsection (a) 
     is a concurrent resolution--
       (1) which has no preamble;
       (2) the title of which is as follows: ``Providing for 
     Corrections to the Enrollment of the Conference Report on the 
     Bill H.R. 1308''; and
       (3) the text of which is as follows:

                         Concurrent Resolution

       Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to take 
     certain actions in the enrollment of H.R. 1308.
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill, H.R. 1308, 
     the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall--strike the 
     language in the bill that terminates the provision in the 
     bill relating to the treatment of combat pay under the earned 
     income tax credit, so as to make that provision permanent.

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 question will be postponed.

                          ____________________