[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10657-10662]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4359, CHILD CREDIT PRESERVATION AND 
                         EXPANSION ACT OF 2004

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 644 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 644

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     4359) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 
     the

[[Page 10658]]

     child tax credit. The bill shall be considered as read for 
     amendment. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Ways and Means; (2) the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered 
     by Representative Rangel of New York or his designee, which 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, 
     shall be considered as read, and shall be separately 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit 
     with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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, H. Res. 644 provides for 1 hour of debate in the House 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  It also provides for consideration of the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the 
resolution, if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or 
his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be separately 
debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and an opponent.
  Finally, the resolution waives all points of order against the 
amendment printed in the report and provides one motion to recommit 
with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, in 2001, Congress passed the Economic Growth and Tax 
Relief Reconciliation Act, which put $1 trillion back into the pockets 
of the American people and led to the strong economic recovery we are 
witnessing today. Without that package, the beating that our economy 
took as a result of September 11 would have been even more disastrous.
  This relief plan expanded the child tax credit initially enacted as 
part of the Tax Relief Act of 1997, increasing it from $400 to $1,000 
over 10 years. The jobs and growth package of 2003 accelerated the 
credit to $1,000 in 2003 and 2004.
  Today's bill, sponsored by my friend, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. 
Porter), addresses the $1,000 tax credit, which is set to snap back to 
$700 in 2005 if we do not act today. In addition, the bill makes the 
child tax credit permanent and raises the eligibility limits on those 
who can claim the credit to include more middle-income parents.
  Finally, the bill accelerates the refundability of the child tax 
credit this year to make it available to more of the Americans who need 
it, low-income families.
  Mr. Speaker, tax relief stimulates economic growth. In 1997, 
unemployment was at 4.9 percent, and the Republican-led Congress passed 
the Balanced Budget Act. Unemployment fell to 4.5 percent in 1998, 4.2 
percent in 1999, and a rock bottom 4 percent in the year 2000.
  In 2001, we passed the Taxpayer Relief Act, putting nearly $1 
trillion back into the hands of American families. And given the 
economic history I will continue with shortly, I am convinced that we 
would have seen unemployment rates fall even farther. But then 
September 11 hit, one of the most tragic days in American history. A 
horrendous loss of life through a murderous act of terrorism; an act 
that cost our economy trillions.
  Unemployment jumped to 5.8 percent in 2002 as millions of Americans 
lost jobs connected to tourism, services, construction, and the list 
goes on and on and on. But we knew what to do. We knew how to respond. 
We knew that simply increasing spending would not lead to long-term 
viability and sustained recovery. Instead, we had to find a way to put 
money into the hands of consumers and businesses so they could make 
smart economic decisions that would begin to rebuild our economy.
  So we enacted tax relief. We passed the Jobs and Growth Act to spur 
spending by American businesses. And after unemployment hit 6 percent 
in 2003, we saw the positive effects of these cumulative tax cuts begin 
to take effect. Beginning last November, unemployment steadily began to 
decrease. So we passed more tax cuts to speed up the process. And you 
know what happened? Unemployment continued to fall, all the way to 5.6 
percent.
  Now, some people say that is not good enough. During the so-called 
tech boom, unemployment was as low as 4 percent. Well, you know what? I 
agree with them, we must do better. We should always strive to do 
better. One person unemployed is one too many. And today's bill will do 
exactly that. It will put $200 billion directly into the hands of 
American families, families who also happen to be consumers. And every 
dollar they spend, whether on a package of diapers, a tank of gas, or a 
car payment, they will be supporting America's jobs.
  At the end of the day, that is what this debate is all about, 
American jobs. It is all about the cumulative effect of a Republican 
revolution that started in 1994 and led to strong and steady growth in 
spite of the horrors of September 11.
  Beginning 3 weeks ago, we continued our commitment to strengthening 
the economy by preventing job-destroying tax hikes, passing permanent 
extensions of the new 10 percent tax bracket, wiping out the punitive 
marriage penalty, and relieving many families of the burdensome and 
unfair Alternative Minimum Tax.
  Now we have before us the Child Tax Preservation and Expansion Act of 
2004. Once again, this bill will make permanent the $1,000 child tax 
credit, preventing an unfair and unreasonable tax increase of $600 on 
30 million taxpayers with 49 million children. After 2010, this bill 
will prevent a tax hike of $1,100 on 34 million taxpayers with 59 
million children.
  Finally, the bill helps our soldiers serving in combat by allowing 
nontaxable combat pay to be taken into account when calculating the 
refundable portion of the child tax credit. Currently, such pay is 
excluded from the calculation when calculating eligibility for the 
credit, thereby depriving thousands of our soldiers of a portion of the 
credit.
  When we accelerated the child tax credit in 2003, 25 million families 
received checks totaling $14 billion. That is right, $14 billion was 
given back to consumers to pump into the economy. Imagine what a 
typical family can do with that kind of money, and $400 is what each 
typical family would get, a family with one child.
  This bill is an opportunity for parents to spend money on their 
children, whether it is for a vacation, for an education, for diapers, 
for groceries, for a swingset. Whatever they want, they will have the 
money, and they can make the decisions. And it will also make our 
workforce more competitive because we will have that many more jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, do we support tax relief for families, tax relief that 
will enable us to save for our children's education, finance a new 
house, pay for other activities that will continue to strengthen the 
economy? I do. I think the answer is a clear yes.
  A ``yes'' vote on this rule and the underlying bill is a vote in 
favor of American families and a vote to spur more economic growth, so 
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government's financial house is in disarray. 
In 2001, the Federal Government had historic surpluses in the trillions 
of dollars. In 2004, those surpluses are gone, replaced by huge 
deficits.
  Last night, by a very small margin, the House of Representatives 
passed a budget with a deficit of $367 billion. Let me repeat that: a 
deficit of $367 billion. The hole we are in keeps getting deeper and 
deeper and deeper.

[[Page 10659]]

  Today, we are considering a measure to make permanent child tax 
credits. The question is not whether hard-working parents should have 
tax credits for each of their children. We all agree that they should. 
The question is whether we are going to do it in a responsible way. Are 
we going to target tax relief to the middle-class families who need it 
most, or are we going to give yet another tax break to people who do 
not need it? Are we going to add to the mounting Federal debt, or are 
we going to do the right thing and pay for these tax breaks?
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, once again the Republicans have chosen to 
extend tax cuts for the wealthy without paying for them.

                              {time}  1430

  As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) pointed out earlier today, 
the Republican leadership is giving tax breaks to Members of Congress 
on the same day that they are freezing education funding for military 
children and freezing the most important military housing improvement 
program in American history. It is outrageous. The priorities are all 
messed up.
  The Republican scheme would charge the entire $228 billion cost to 
the country's maxed-out credit card to be paid for by the very children 
the Republicans claim they want to help. By contrast, the Democratic 
alternative pays for the entire cost of the child tax credits and is 
targeted to the people who need it most.
  Mr. Speaker, more should be done to help the children and families 
who are struggling to get by. H.R. 4359 does not focus the help where 
it is needed most. The lowest-income families, earning less than 
$10,750, are not helped by this bill at all. In fact, about 70 percent 
of the tax credits in this bill go to tax filers in the top 20 percent 
of income earners.
  This means that a family with a parent working full time for minimum 
wage, and that is $10,300 a year, would get absolutely nothing from 
this bill. But two-child families earning up to $250,000 would get an 
extra $20,000 in tax breaks over the next 10 years.
  Advocates for children and fiscal responsibility alike have expressed 
their outrage that H.R. 4359 gives the majority of the benefit to 
wealthier families and adds $228 billion to the national debt that 
children will have to pay for. The Washington Post called this bill 
``bad social policy, bad tax policy and bad fiscal policy.''
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the Republican bill and 
support the Rangel substitute so working families get the help they 
need and so their children will not be the ones stuck with the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Linder), my good friend from the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Pryce) for yielding me this time in support of H. Res. 644, the rule 
providing for the consideration of H.R. 4359, the Child Credit 
Preservation and Expansion Act of 2004.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a modified closed rule which provides that the 
minority will be able to bring an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to the House floor for consideration by the full House. In 
this respect, H. Res. 644 is in line with the recent history and 
tradition of the House when debating tax legislation on the floor.
  I urge the House to approve this rule in order to give the House the 
opportunity to consider the merits of the underlying legislation.
  With this in mind, I want to commend the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. 
Porter) for bringing H.R. 4359 to the floor today. This bill 
permanently extends the full $1,000 child tax credit that the Congress 
and the Bush administration were able to enact in 2001 and 2003.
  Failure to get this proposal signed into law means that in 2005 an 
estimated 34 million families, with approximately 59 million more 
children, face higher taxes, as the credit is lowered to $700, and 
eventually sinks to $500 in 2011.
  Moving this bill into law will make crystal clear to the American 
people that President Bush and the Republican Congress are committed to 
protecting the tax relief that we were able to enact in 2001 and 2003. 
Anything less than that represents a tax hike. And clearly, based on 
recent economic reports, a tax hike is exactly what our economy does 
not need as it continues to grow.
  In fact, as Treasury Secretary Snow stated this week, effective 
monetary and fiscal policies, ``of which the President's tax cuts are a 
part,'' are enabling the economy to perform very well. This President 
and this Congress understood that by reducing the tax burden and 
improving economic incentives, we can boost economic growth and 
increase the flow of resources into production. That is what has 
occurred by following the Republican tax relief plan. By removing the 
heavy burden of government from the backs of small businesses and 
families, we are creating more economic activity which means more jobs 
for all Americans and ultimately more revenues to the Treasury.
  We need to permanently extend this tax credit for American families, 
and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in 
supporting this bill's passage and enactment into law.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule 
so we may proceed to consider the underlying legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), a champion of this cause.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud co-sponsor of H.R. 
4359. Last year, this House increased the child tax credit by $400 per 
child. This increase from $600 to $1,000 per child has benefited 
families across the country.
  Under current law, however, the child tax credit is scheduled to 
decrease to $700 per child in 2005, increase to $800 in 2009, return to 
$1,000 in 2010, and fall to $500 in 2011.
  Mr. Speaker, if parents are to take advantage of this tax credit to 
purchase new clothes, school supplies, or a new computer for their 
child, or to invest in their child's future, they need to know that 
these tax cuts are not here today and gone tomorrow.
  This legislation corrects the problem in existing law and makes the 
$1,000 child tax credit permanent. When the underlying legislation we 
are considering today becomes law, parents will know from year to year 
the amount of money they have for their children.
  The President's jobs and growth plan has helped to get our economy 
back on track. Over 500,000 jobs have been created in just the last 2 
months. We must continue the tax cuts we passed last year to benefit 
American families and the American economy.
  This bill is another step forward. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this rule and in supporting the underlying legislation.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Speaker, we are here today in the name of American 
families, to support our children and to support our children's future 
educational opportunities. I am not only a father, but a former 
teacher. This is about more than a tax credit. This is about working to 
expand relief to a greater number of families and to make sure those 
families who already benefit from the child tax credit continue to be 
able to do so and are not forced to face a tax increase next year.
  In my home State of New Jersey, 1.4 million children benefit from the 
child tax credit; 1.4 million children in New Jersey benefit from the 
child tax credit, and over 100,000 of those children live in the 
congressional district I have the privilege of representing.
  I want to be able to look their parents in the eye and tell them I am 
doing everything in my power to help them save for their children's 
future, their children's college fund. I want to tell them that even 
more children will benefit in the upcoming years. I want to be able to, 
in good faith, promise them that no matter what, we will help

[[Page 10660]]

the American family in the best and worst times of the economy.
  This bill will allow me and all of us to do just that. The Child 
Credit Preservation and Expansion Act of 2004 makes the child tax 
credit permanent at $1,000 a child. If Democrats had their way, this 
credit would decline and then vanish in the year 2010. We will not let 
that happen. This bill allows a greater number of families to benefit 
nationwide. In addition to the 1 million families already receiving 
relief in New Jersey, additional families will become eligible for the 
credit. A greater number of joint filers and single parents will be 
able to use this money to save for their children's education and build 
for their future.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important to know we put as much money as possible 
into the hands of American parents to be able to provide for their 
kids. Every dollar we allow them to save is a dollar toward a better 
life for their kids. A vote today to help American children is what we 
need to do. Vote today to make the child tax credit permanent.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the previous speaker that we do 
not have any problem, in fact we support and we have been a champion of 
the child tax credit. What we have a problem with is the fact that they 
do not want to pay for it. What we have a problem with is the other 
side of the aisle is adding $228 billion to the debt that is being 
passed on to our kids.
  Mr. Speaker, how does the other side go home and say I am helping 
children and families of our country when essentially they are just 
adding to the national debt? That is irresponsible. This is the most 
fiscally irresponsible Congress, this is the most fiscally 
irresponsible President in the history of our country. It is great to 
get up and talk about tax relief, it is great to get up and do all of 
these wonderful press releases, but when it is not paid for, it is just 
added to the debt. That is wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I wish we would have an opportunity to work together on issues that 
impact all of our families across the Nation. Mr. Speaker, whenever I 
am in my congressional district in Houston, young mothers come up to me 
about their needs as relates to child care.
  In fact, we could estimate the number of young mothers, single 
parents and of course families who are in need of child care is 
probably growing exponentially on a continuum. Our children are in need 
of care.
  It is unfortunate that we would extend this child tax credit and make 
it permanent and add $228 billion as part of the increasing deficit, 
and we do nothing to expand the actual resources that go into child 
care.
  I am a proponent of a tax credit; but I believe it should be paid 
for, and it also has to be reasonable, given to those who can utilize 
it because they have no other resources. While we are spending $228 
billion by putting us further in debt, we are actually not creating 
child care facilities that can help the thousands upon thousands and 
millions of parents around the Nation who in fact do not have the 
ability to have children in their homes, but need the actual facilities 
which are in fact decreasing by the day because they do not have the 
resources.
  So if my message is anything today it is that, one, child care should 
be bipartisan; and the tax credit should work, meaning it should be 
paid for. The income level should not be extended; low-income parents 
should be included and embraced. And then we need to answer the 
question when these parents come up to us in our congressional 
district, where can they go to take their children? Where are the child 
care facilities and where are the resources to support the child care 
facilities, and those that are both licensed and good and careful and 
caring for the children, and provide educational resources? Where are 
the dollars for Head Start that is a form of child care as we have seen 
the number of grown people who are products of Head Start? We are 
decreasing Head Start. Yet we go $228 billion in debt rather than 
provide a tax credit that the Rangel substitute provides that answers 
all of our concerns.
  I am disappointed this is not a bipartisan effort because I want the 
message from the United States Congress to be that we have concerns 
about child care and the needs that parents have in this particular 
credit.
  In particular, as a woman who faced that question on a daily basis in 
raising her own children, and I know men have as well, it is a 
disappointment that we cannot be unified around this particular 
question. I ask my colleagues to support the Rangel substitute, I ask 
that we not go into debt, and I state that our number one question is 
to provide child care facilities, in urban and rural areas, where 
families can actually take advantage of them. Our job is not yet 
finished on that need!

                              {time}  1445

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, how many times have we heard tax breaks 
for the rich in this body? Maybe their liberal Democratic base can 
believe it, but the American people are not stupid.
  They said the marriage penalty was a tax break for the rich. There 
should be a reward for people that get married, not a disincentive. Yet 
my colleagues said, oh, it's a tax break for the rich.
  Tax breaks for the family and the children, that is for the rich. 
Most Americans have children in this community and those that do not, 
adopt, like myself; and it is not just a tax break for the rich. But 
any tax relief for a working family, to my liberal colleagues on the 
other side, is a tax break for the rich. The American people are not 
stupid, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I invite Members to look up www.dsausa.org. This is 
their Web page. It stands for Democrat Socialists of America, DSA. Look 
what their 12-point agenda is. They talk about how they work with and 
they laud the Progressive Caucus, 58 Members of the House in the 
Progressive Caucus along with the Democrat Socialists of America. Their 
own Web page lists 12 points.
  They want government control of health care; they sure tried to do 
that. They want government control of education; they have sure tried 
to do that. They want unions over small business. That is where they 
get their campaign money. They have sure done that.
  They want the highest taxes possible. That is why any tax relief is 
for the rich only, because they want the justification to raise yours 
and my taxes, any working family.
  And they want to cut defense by 50 percent; they have sure tried 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, a man once called Abraham Lincoln two-faced. He said, do 
you think if I had two faces I would use this one. My colleagues on the 
other side say it is only tax breaks for the rich, but they have never 
seen a tax increase that they do not like. Also, if you look at the 13 
appropriations committees, and I serve on the Committee on 
Appropriations, there is not a single one except for Defense that they 
do not want to increase, and increase the debt.
  We just had a budget that limits spending. Most of my colleagues on 
that side of the aisle voted against it because they want to increase 
spending. They want to increase the debt. Yet they say, oh, don't vote 
for a tax break for the rich because it gives money to working families 
for children.
  Yes, Abraham Lincoln was right. There are two faces on some people.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I would like to respond to the gentleman from California, if I may. I 
very rarely agree with anything he says.
  I do agree with one thing he said and that is, the American people 
are not stupid. I would just like to say to him that the American 
people can add and they can subtract. The unpaid-for tax cuts, many of 
them for the wealthiest

[[Page 10661]]

people of this country, that his party has championed during this last 
month have added $1.2 trillion to the Federal debt that is already 
nearly $7.2 trillion. That is an addition of $4,000 to each American's 
share of the Federal debt. Each citizen's share of the debt would be 
now, with all these tax cuts that they have passed that are not paid 
for, $28,479.
  Most of us on this side of the aisle have absolutely no problem with 
the marriage penalty tax relief provisions and most of the child tax 
credits that are being discussed here today. What we do have a problem 
with is passing the bill on to our kids and our grandkids. That is 
fiscally irresponsible.
  They should listen to one of the great leaders of their own party, 
Senator John McCain of Arizona, who said that the Republican Party used 
to be the party of fiscal responsibility. It used to be the party that 
would want to pay as you go. That is no longer the case. This is the 
most fiscally irresponsible Congress in the history of our country.
  And so to the gentleman who spoke earlier, I would say my problem is 
not so much that we should not provide tax relief to middle-income 
families; my problem is that you are not paying for it and you are 
passing the bill on to my kids and my grandkids, and that is not right.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The Chair would remind Members 
to avoid improper references to the other body.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support 
of this rule and for the underlying bill, the Child Credit Preservation 
and Expansion Act.
  If we do not pass this bill, the child tax credit, which is currently 
$1,000, will go down to $700 next year and then fall to $500 in 2011. 
In other words, if we do not act on this bill, taxes will increase for 
30 million taxpayers.
  This bill makes the $1,000 tax credit permanent and raises the 
eligibility limits for those who can claim the credit to include more 
middle-income parents so that more people can keep more of their own 
money.
  Americans deserve to keep more of their hard-earned money. For many 
families, $1,000 goes a very long way. Parents could invest the money 
for their child's education.
  This bill also helps more of our men and women in uniform become 
eligible to receive the child tax credit. It would allow nontaxable 
combat pay to be taken into account when calculating the refundable 
portion of the tax credit. Currently, combat pay is excluded from 
calculating eligibility for the credit. This bill would allow low-
income families to receive more of the child tax credit and to keep 
more of their own money.
  I wholeheartedly support tax credits; however, I think we all need to 
remember whose money it is in the first place. It is not the government 
giving back its money to the people. It is the American taxpayers' 
money and they should be able to keep more of it, whether it is in the 
form of a tax credit or lower taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, we have all seen firsthand in the past few years how 
much tax cuts have stimulated the economy. The American economy grew at 
a strong annual pace of 4.2 percent during the first quarter of 2004, 
well above the historical average. In fact, economic growth over the 
last three quarters has grown the fastest in nearly 20 years. Tax 
relief has helped drive the economic recovery forward, putting more 
money in the pockets of America's families and creating more jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, as a former businesswoman and realtor before I came to 
Congress, I know firsthand the impact that tax cuts have on businesses. 
And as a mother, I know how far $1,000 can go towards a child's 
education or for immediate needs like food, diapers, clothing, et 
cetera.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support America's families and vote 
``yes'' on the rule and on the underlying bill.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am reminded, my colleague on the other 
side talked about middle income. I listened to the gentleman from 
Missouri that ran for President over and over and over again in the 
1990s, 1991, 1992, 1993, talk about the middle class.
  First of all, we should never use that term. There is no such thing 
as a middle class in this country. There are middle income, there is 
low income. But they play the race card, they play the social card 
every chance they get. Time after time they said, oh, we want tax 
relief for the middle income.
  In 1993, when they had the White House, the House and the Senate, 
what did they do? They raised the highest tax on the middle income in 
the history of this country. They increased the tax on Social Security. 
They took every dime out of the Social Security trust fund. They cut 
the veterans' COLAs, the military COLAs. They gave us the highest gas 
tax possible. And they increased the tax on the middle income.
  When we took the majority in 1994, we reversed those and they said, 
oh, look, the economy. After we reversed that tax, not a single 
Democrat economic structure or tax passed in this House or the other 
body and they said, ``Well, look. Look at the fine economy we had under 
President Clinton.''
  Not one of President Clinton's measures ever passed in this House or 
was signed. So if that is the case, if we reversed that and none of 
their policies went forward since we have had the majority, then how 
can they be responsible for the good economy?
  But, no, they will use every chance they can to say we want middle-
class tax cuts, middle-class tax cuts. But when it comes time to do it, 
they will increase it every time because it increases their power to 
spend on big government.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to answer the gentleman's question. He asked, what did we give 
the American people when the Democrats had the White House and the 
House of Representatives and the United States Senate. We gave the 
American people one of the largest surpluses in the history of this 
country.
  What have they given the American people now that they control the 
White House, House and the Senate? They have given the American people 
the largest deficit in the history of this country.
  There is a clear difference.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, that is the whole idea. When the 
gentleman claims that they gave a surplus, we took away their Social 
Security tax increase. We restored veterans' pay. We restored military 
pay. We put their gas tax into a highway trust fund so we could build 
more. We took away the middle-class tax and we had our budgets to 
balance the budget. We had 9/11 and it has gone up, but their policies 
did not create that surplus. We did away with that tax and it was our 
policies that increased it, not decreased it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just would remind the gentleman again that yesterday he and a 
majority, almost every single member of the Republican Party, voted for 
a budget to increase the national debt to over $8 trillion. That is not 
something I think anyone can be proud of.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for printing in the Congressional Record an 
editorial that appeared in the Washington Post, entitled ``Leave No 
Rich Child Behind'' that refers to the bill we are talking about here 
today.

                [From the Washington Post, May 19, 2004]

                       Leave No Rich Child Behind

       The House Representatives plans to take up a bill this week 
     that would provide new tax breaks to families earning as much 
     as $309,000, while doing next to nothing for those at the low 
     end of the income scale. The bill, which could come up as 
     early as today,

[[Page 10662]]

     is the most egregious part of a House tax-cutting spree that 
     altogether would add more than $500 billion to the deficit 
     over the next 10 years, according to estimates by the Urban 
     Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center.
       The House would not only make permanent the $1,000-per-
     child tax credit enacted as part of the 2001 tax cut but 
     would dramatically increase the income limits for 
     eligibility. Currently, married families with incomes of up 
     to $110,000 receive the full credit; the bill would more than 
     double the income ceiling, to $250,000. Under existing law, 
     families with two children and incomes up to $149,000 receive 
     a partial tax credit; the bill would make that partial credit 
     available to families with two children and income of between 
     $250,000 and $289,000; families with three children would be 
     entitled to the partial credit up to an income of $309,000.
       This is unnecessary, misguided and irresponsible. Families 
     at that income level have already enjoyed significant 
     benefits from the recent tax cuts; they don't need an extra 
     subsidy to help support their children. While tax cut 
     proponents argue that lowering marginal tax rates or cutting 
     dividend and capital gains taxes helps promote economic 
     growth, there is no such claim to be made for the child tax 
     credit. And the increase in the income ceiling would cost $69 
     billion through 2014, $87 billion if you count increased 
     interest payments on the extra debt.
       House Republicans have the gall to propose all this--and 
     many House Democrats don't seem to have the spine to oppose 
     it--while providing almost no extra help for the poorest 
     families. Currently, low-income families who earn more than 
     $10,750 are eligible for a small refundable tax credit. 
     (These are families that pay payroll taxes but don't earn 
     enough to be subject to paying income taxes, so they get a 
     check back from the government.) For example, a married 
     family with two children and an income of $12,000 gets $125 
     per child. The House bill would speed up by one year a 
     planned increase in the size of this credit, giving low-
     income families a one-time average benefit of $150 per child. 
     This remedies--belatedly--last year's mean-spirited omission 
     of these families from the accelerated increase in the child 
     tax credit enjoyed by higher-income taxpayers. The cost of 
     this meager improvement: $1.8 billion.
       For families earning less than $10,750, however, the House 
     bill would do nothing. Thus, a family with a parent working 
     full-time at the minimum wage ($10,300) would get no benefit 
     from the bill. A better-off but still low-income family with 
     two children would get a one-time $300 average tax break 
     ($150 per child). By contrast, two-child families with 
     earnings between $150,000 and $250,000 get $22,000 in extra 
     tax breaks over the next 10 years ($1,000 per child per 
     year). This is bad social policy, bad tax policy, and bad 
     fiscal policy. You'd think they'd be embarrassed, but they're 
     not.

  Let me close, Mr. Speaker, by saying I hope that my colleagues will 
look seriously at the Rangel substitute. We provide a child tax credit, 
but we pay for it. I think that is the fiscally responsible thing to 
do.
  We are now experiencing record deficits. We are going into debt. We 
are passing on to our kids an incredible bill. We need to be more 
responsible in this House. I would urge my colleagues to support the 
Democratic substitute.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  When I vote ``yes'' today, I will be voting for America's hardworking 
families and their children. I will be voting to strengthen the economy 
and support American jobs, Mr. Speaker. I invite my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to join me in voting ``yes'' today on both the rule 
and the underlying bill. I cannot think of a better vote to take than a 
vote for America's children and families, the economy and American 
jobs. It is the right thing to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________