Travel Related Industries Protection Act of 2003

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 270 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), 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.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 270.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 270 is a customary rule relating to the consideration of an amendment to the Senate amendments to H.R. 1308, the Tax Relief, Simplification, and Equity Act of 2003. The rule allows the House to proceed with consideration of legislation providing tax relief to millions of American workers and families.

Upon adoption of this resolution, the House will have agreed to the disposition of the Senate amendments.

Mr. Speaker, when I return to my district each week, my constituents tell me they want me to do two things: create jobs and cut taxes. Thanks to the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act and the Jobs Growth Tax Relief Act, Congress is doing just that, and taxpayers in my district and all across America now have greater control over more of their hard-earned dollars, providing greater incentive for savings and investment and expanding job opportunities.

Today's legislation is another important step in our ongoing efforts to create greater fairness in the Tax Code for working families. In fact, upon adoption, it will be retitled the All-American Tax Relief Act in recognition of the fact that it puts even more money back into the hands of more Americans.

Mr. Speaker, much of what we are debating today we have debated and supported before. Many of the important measures in H.R. 1308 have passed this body or the other body over the last few years. For instance, the House passed its version of H.R. 1308 by voice vote under suspension in March of this year.

Last week the Senate took up H.R. 1308 with revised and added provisions, including an accelerated increase in the refundability of the child tax credit currently scheduled to take place in 2005.

While the House language contains the same provision, it has the added benefit of ensuring that the child tax credit remains at $1,000 through 2010, unlike the Senate amendment that offers only the $1,000 tax credit during taxable years 2003 and 2004. Simply put, the House language provides more and longer-lasting benefits for families at all income levels. And it does not take it away in just a couple of years.

This bill will eliminate the marriage penalty and the child tax credit even sooner, by raising the phaseout for married couples from $110,000 to $150,000. This is a fundamental issue of fairness. Working men and women should not face a higher tax burden simply because they choose to get married and raise a family.

The House bill is more responsive to more Americans than the other body's version in other ways. It honors the men and women of our Armed Forces with over $800 million in tax relief over 11 years. This includes capital gains tax relief on home sales, tax-free death gratuity payments, and tax-free dependent care assistance for members of the military. Our men and women in uniform protect our country and ensure our security every day and deserve sensible tax relief for their hard work and sacrifice.

Also, the bill will suspend the tax-exempt status of terrorist organizations, a provision that passed both the House and the other body in 2002. In short, Mr. Speaker, this bill will achieve even greater parity and fairness in the Tax Code. That is something I know my constituents and working Americans all over the country want, need, and deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I expect that in the course of this debate, we will hear a great deal about procedural terminology, but this vote is actually quite simple. A ``yes'' vote means greater fairness in the Tax Code and more tax relief for American workers, families, and children. A ``no'' vote stops that relief from moving forward and hurts the very people I know many of my colleagues eagerly want to assist.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In listening to the ranking member's remarks, I would first say, to my recollection of the law, no Member of Congress would be eligible for this program. Number two, I want at least the voters of my district and the people of New York to know that while we have listened to class warfare and tax cuts, I know those New Yorkers that make $100,000 in their income, or even as much as $150,000, if you are a fireman or you are a cop, you are a teacher, you are a salesman and work in a store, I know you are not rich. I know you are middle America. And I know that as we look at fair tax relief, it is not just helping the poor or the class warfare message of the rich. We are trying to make sure we take care of the middle class, and we know that $150,000 combined income could be a middle-class income.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Sometimes we get lost here a little bit about the result of the 2003 tax cuts. In 2003, 91 million taxpayers will receive on average a tax cut of $1,126 under the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003. Sixty-eight million women will see their taxes decline on average by $1,338. Forty- five million married couples will receive an average tax cut of $1,786. Thirty-four million families with children will benefit from an average tax cut of $1,549, and 6 million single women with children will receive an average tax cut of $558. Twelve million elderly taxpayers will receive an average tax cut of $1,401. Twenty-three million small business owners will receive tax cuts averaging $2,209, and 3 million individuals and families will have their income tax liability completely eliminated by this act.

Now, today, we are going to do even more, because unlike some of the debate here, let us not kid ourselves, the other body sent a bill that does something for us from now until next election. That is 2004. That is when the child tax credit ends.

This bill today, when we vote it up or down, it is going to go to 2010. A $1,000 child tax credit is scheduled to sunset in 2005. It will gradually increase back to $1,000 in 2010. In this bill, it puts it up right up front, now to 2010, a $1,000 tax credit. It eliminates the marriage penalty on the child credit. It accelerates the increase to the refundable child credit. It provides tax relief and enhances tax fairness for members of the Armed Forces. It suspends the tax-exempt status of designated terrorist organizations. It provides tax relief for astronauts who die in space missions.

We are getting the job done, Mr. Speaker. America knows it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I were not here when some of the tax- and-spend left kept spending us through an oblivion of deficits. We were here after 9-11 when we faced terrible tragedy in our country which has caused us to address the war on terrorism, to rebuild our cities, to address some of the complications of an economy that has slowed down.

I do not mind that the debate that America hears is whether we have a bigger central government that spends more of their money on programs that the government figures out; or whether the economy began moving because middle America and the poor of America had more money in their pockets to make their decisions what they wanted to do with that money, whether they wanted to pay off a consumer loan, whether they wanted to pay tuition, whether they wanted to use it just to help have some opportunity for their child, their mother, or father.

The decision that voters are going to make down the road is whether they want a smaller government that allows people to make more decisions on their hard-earned money, money out of their pocket; or whether they need more money in the downtown central government in Washington, D.C., or some government bureaucrat trying to figure out some way to help them out.

I am going to tell the Members, we have started on a tax cut. I read earlier the millions of Americans who are going to benefit across the board. We are now in a situation where we are going to watch.

Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle had every nay and say

about what is going to happen with the economy. I do not know, they do not know. But by 2004, in that fourth quarter, we are going to find out whether the economy of consumer goods began moving, confidence of investors began moving, and whether America started to see a resolve from a terrible tragedy of 9-11; to see, as the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) said, in the third and fourth quarters of 2000 when it slowed down, if it moved.

If it does move, there are going to be more Republicans on this side of the aisle; if it does not, maybe there will be a little less. But the conviction of the majority is, people have an opportunity and a right to have more money in their pockets for them to decide how to spend it, not Washington.

The only proven way to restrict government spending is to reduce revenues. Tightening the purse strings but providing much-needed tax relief is the only way to get money back in the hands of hardworking Americans and out of Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, only a week ago I do not think the gentleman was advocating any tax cuts. But I just want to remind our colleagues that are both here and throughout the offices that in fiscal year 2004, in the adopted budget resolution, language was included for the first time limiting the amount of revenue reductions in the Senate to a deficit impact of $350 billion.

The House articulated its clear reservations to this maneuver because all revenue measures must originate in the House; we retained our right to develop more measures to reduce the tax burden on the American people.

So the options for the Committee on Rules, they could, one, accept the Senate proposals as a whole imposing offset requirements; two, call up an entirely new House bill, starting the process anew, with likely substitutes, in essence dragging out the process that would take the ability to move, and I am not sure whether the gentleman knows for sure we have a quorum tomorrow; and, three, we could stipulate the House prerogative to provide tax relief with a comprehensive proposal that has broad policy support.

Why should the House impose offsets when our own budget made room for a proposal just like this, the one I have outlined that does so much for working families across the country?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there are any rubber stamps in that package.

Mr. Speaker, in this short time, it is 4:34, daylight, we will have an opportunity to have our colleagues come in, and they are going to vote yes and they will do a tax cut that varies on the All-American Tax Relief Act of 2003, or they will vote no and say all those press releases I put out last week wanting to move expeditiously on this, they do not really matter because now it is before us.

Well, it is here. And I must say both the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), and others from the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Rules found a solution to meet what seemed to be Republican and Democrats wanting to expedite this bill. And so we took the House resolution with a Senate amendment. The Senate amendment we have disposed with, the House coming back quickly with the amendments to go to the other body. And it is going to be done today. It is not going to be done tomorrow. It is not going to be done next week. We have an opportunity to do it right now.

And while we are listening to all of this, some of them on procedure, I just want to remind the esteemed whip that I think we have been debating the merits of this bill for an hour; and some agree, some do not. Pretty soon we will put it up, 4:35, and take a look at how it ends. But I want to remind my colleagues that this bill, as amended, and sent back to the Senate will increase the child credit for $1,000 for an eligible child through 2010; not for some slick promise of 2003 and 2004, and then it slides back after the next election. It is straightforward, straight up, right until 2010. It eliminates the marriage penalty on child credit. It accelerates the increase in the refundable child credit. It provides tax relief and enhances tax fairness for members of the Armed Forces. It suspends the tax-exempt status of designated terrorist organizations and provides tax relief for astronauts who die on space missions.

Those pieces of legislation, as they were before us or the other body, have been dealt with in the last several months and years by this body or the other body. So when we get done here with this debate, we are going to have an opportunity, yes or no. If you vote yes, you are going to give America that tax cut. If not, you are going to find some way to wrangle out of it with a press release. But what I heard was everybody wanted to get underway and make this happen. The Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Rules is giving this honorable body that action today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if the ranking member would consider, I have one speaker to close. And if he would like to close, then I will do that and yield to the majority leader. If he has more speakers, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, am I to be recognized?

Mr. Speaker, I want to know if I can be recognized.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As I listened here, I kind of got the same confusion of when I listened to some of my colleagues on the debate when we just did some tax relief not long ago. Class warfare, this is all for the rich. I reminded my colleagues that I come from kind of a small town in upstate New York, and the debate occurred with my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) from Harlem, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules from Grand Prairie. None of them are really rich communities, and I cited that the tax bill the House Republicans moved forward on the floor after the adoption of the rule and then later passed took a family of four to make 40,000 bucks in my district and took their tax relief from $1,785 they had to pay down to about $40. I think that is real tax relief. I do not think $40,000 is rich.

When I look at the legislation, I watch the press releases all over America say let us get on with it. We are on with it. Today we are either going to vote ``yes,'' and I think it is going to be bipartisan, we are going to vote ``yes'' and send it to the Senate, or we are going to vote ``no.''

But I want to remind some of my colleagues when we get the light of day on this tax bill that was sent to us by the Senate there a couple of things we might have made an improvement on as House Republicans because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle might argue that the Republican tax

relief plans rob Peter to pay Paul, in other words, tax cuts for the rich. However, the Senate proposed offsets, Customs user fee extensions. I would argue this is robbing Peter to pay Paul because if you are raising taxes on those who actually pay them in order to subsidize tax refunds for those who share in no income tax liability whatsoever, it is fiscally and fundamentally unsound.

The only proven way to restrict government spending is to reduce revenues. Tightening the purse strings by providing much needed tax relief is the only way to get money back to hardworking Americans, no matter how wealthy or poor they are. Get it out of Washington and back in the pockets of American taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This vote is actually quite simple. A ``yes'' vote means greater fairness in the Tax Code and a mere tax relief for American workers families and children. A ``no'' vote stops that relief from moving forward and hurts the very people I know many of my colleagues eagerly want to assist.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on this resolution at the end of the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, we should thank the heavens that we have got such an honest person like the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). They do not make people like that anymore.

The gentleman from Georgia who spoke so eloquently about the welfare bill that we are talking about today, and those who made these nasty, disparaging remarks and left the floor, this is honesty. This is the United States of America.

I wondered why, why would these good people, albeit Republicans, why would they drop a provision that only costs $3.5 billion that would help 12 million kids and 6.5 million working families? It is because in their minds if one is not an investor, one is on welfare.

Do we get where they are finally coming from? Have Members listened to the debate? They said refundable tax credits. That is not a tax credit. You can work every day, you can pay Social Security taxes, you can pay Medicare, you can raise your family, you can join the Army, you can fight in Iraq. But guess what, look into the Republican book and see how you are listed. As a hardworking American, as a mother and father concerned about their children, someone struggling every day to make ends meet, to pay the rent, to pay the mortgage, to pay the tuition? No. Look under welfare.

Then, of course, if we really want to find out who they think deserves tax relief, look at the hardworking people who get their dividends every day while they are at the clubhouse. Look at those that clip the coupons. These are the people, as they would say, who pay taxes; and they are the ones who get relief.

But when they said that they will never, never, never give welfare to these families, the President of the United States said, enough is enough. We got a bipartisan agreement. True, it is $10 billion. Swallow it, go home. But they said, no, no. No welfare.

Let us give them an offer that they have to refuse. For $3.5 billion, they are asking this hardworking family to pay back, for this, $82 billion. I do not know how this would work, whether the family gets $100 a year. But I do know one thing, that this deficit that they keep building on day after day, month after month, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said they will be coming back, but each time they borrow money to give tax cuts to the coupon-clippers and those who get the dividends, they are asking the kids and the grandkids that we are trying to help today to pay for it. But $82 billion for $3.5 billion? That is so shameful.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, it is my understanding that the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means has the opportunity to be recognized for 1 hour debate, and I want to know whether that was included in his request, which I understand from the Parliamentarian the gentleman is entitled to, to discuss this issue.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I remove my reservation of objection.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, could the Parliamentarian or the Speaker tell me, does the eloquent statement made by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means mean that he did not intend to use the hour of debate that he has?

No, I made a parliamentary inquiry. I was not objecting to the previous question. I asked whether or not what the gentleman said meant that he did not intend to debate.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the managers on the part of the House in the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1308 be instructed as follows:

One, the House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment that is not included in the House amendment that provides immediate payment to taxpayers receiving an additional credit by reason of the bill in the same manner as other taxpayers were entitled to immediate payment under the Jobs and Growth Tax Reconciliation Act of 2003.

Two, the House conferees be instructed to include in the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment, that is not included in the House amendment, that provides families of the 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.

Three, the House conferees be instructed to include in the conference report all of the other provisions of the Senate amendment and shall report back a conference report that includes additional tax benefits not offset by other provisions.

Four, to the maximum extent possible within the scope of the 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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, in the interests of saving time, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 1308 and H.R. 1307, both passed by the Senate, be considered and accepted by the House, and that way we can send the bill immediately to the President and we can get out of here early, without amendment, of course.

I am sorry. I cannot hear what the Speaker is saying.

Not for unanimous consent, without objection from the chairman of the distinguished Committee on Ways and Means? He does not object.

I am correct? I can do it? What is it?

Mr. Speaker, if I ask for unanimous consent and no one objects, would the Parliamentarian tell me why I cannot be recognized?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) does not say anything, Mr. Speaker, then there is no objection. So, I have unanimous consent until such time as he objects.

Well, could I ask unanimous consent that the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means be given an opportunity to instruct the Speaker that he has no objection to accepting the Senate bill as passed?

Well, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means knows that we will not allow parliamentary obstacles to move this bill that the Senate has passed in a bipartisan way and that the President has supported it. Now, I know a lot of time and money has gone into building up this $82 billion, but since the distinguished chairman has said that he wants to move this bill swiftly and the initial bill only cost $3.5 billion, if we knock off the $72 billion put on the Senate bill, it would seem to me, even with a little help from the Parliamentarian, that we could expedite this bill by not instructing the conferees to do anything which the chairman already has indicated he does not intend to do but, rather, to just have it pass as is. I do not know why we cannot do this. But I will get the Parliamentarian and get together with the chairman and see what we can do to expedite this.

Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the sovereign State of California (Mr. Matsui), the distinguished senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California, nobody wants to dispute anything we say?

Then Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Well, just a minute. If the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) needs 30 seconds in order to get a response to his question, notwithstanding the fact that the majority is not using their time, I will be glad to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.

(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), the distinguished former Ambassador.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to close the debate on this issue, hoping that perhaps the conferees would have an opportunity to review what has been done by the Senate and what has been done by the House, and to recognize this all started with us trying to help 6.5 million families and 12 million kids.

Why this was dropped by the majority, this provision that was in the Senate bill, I do not know. Why it was so vigorously resisted by the Republican leadership I do not know. Why they continuously referred to giving assistance to hardworking people throughout the United States and our military people as being welfare, I do not know.

Why they do not understand that a stronger America, a productive America, an increase in the purchasing power not just for those who clip coupons but for those who work every day, that have to buy clothes for their kids and pay for prescription drugs and pay rent, these are the things that really spur the economy.

It would just seem to me that somewhere we could find some type of compassion, to say we made a mistake, we left it out. And even for political reasons to be able to say, since the Senate has reached some type of bipartisan agreement, we looked it over, the President wants us to get relief out there as fast as we can; it is $6.5 billion more than we expected, but we will accept it.

What went into the thinking when people said, this is not going to happen? There are a lot of other things that are more important than that. The President can suggest, but he cannot vote. Then all of a sudden someone said, oh, no, we have to find some way politically that we can vote for it but make certain that it never sees the light of day. What can we possibly do to get a positive vote on this but to make certain that the Senate cannot accept it?

I was not privy to what happened, but one thing is clear: That other body knocked down the President's request from a tax cut for $726 billion. When they got finished with that, they knocked down the House tax cut from $550 billion to $350 billion. So it appears as though the Senate is very, very concerned about the size of the deficit.

Now, I know that that does not concern us in the House. I am glad to see the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget that is here, because God knows he picked the wrong time to head the Committee on the Budget. They just threw that away. But things change, and maybe we will see better days.

But if they really wanted to find out what is it that they could do to politically irritate the Senate and to have them reverse themselves on the child credit, some demon could have whispered in their ear, Why don't you increase the deficit more? And they would say, yes, why not double it?

So we would come out in the House with a $20 billion, go to conference and adjust it, and it will be $15 billion. But then they said, but if you do that, you still would have a child credit bill. We want to make certain that when the majority leader says that it is not going to happen, it is not going to happen.

So then they said, Why not increase it to $30 billion, $40 billion, $50 billion, $80 billion? Bingo. The House will accede to the President's request and consider the legislation for giving child tax credits to working people by increasing the deficit by $82 billion. See how they like that.

See how the bleeding hearts like that? You really want to help the working families?

Well, this is what the deal is: We will give the working families a break today, but when it comes time to pay down the deficit, those kids are going to pay and they are going to pay big time. That is the decision that you are leaving to the Senate. It is shameful because I do not doubt the dedication of members of the other party. You just have a different way of looking at government. You really believe that government should be so small that we will reduce the revenue so low that we will starve each and every program that we believe in.

Some of those programs will not go away by legislation. You cannot kill Social Security by privatization. You cannot kill Medicare by vouchers. You cannot kill Medicaid by block grant. But there is one thing, whether you are a bleeding heart, a liberal, a Democrat or a moderate Republican, if the money is not there, then the leader is right, it is not going to happen. And let me tell you, every bit of taxes that we reduce here, that tax comes up somewhere. It comes up when Governors try to say, well, maybe we can fill up the gap, but politically they cannot. They have a limit on how much taxes they can raise, how much money they can borrow. And then it gets down to the cities, and, God knows, I know it. We got a good mayor, trying to do all of the things that the Congress has said in terms of homeland security, but we are closing fire departments, we are closing clinics, we are closing libraries. And while you are cutting taxes here, guess what we are doing in the great city of New York with the working people?

They are not getting welfare. They are working every day. They have got kids, but they are paying more for buses, for subways, for buying food and clothing, for day care, everything. They are paying more, including paying for Social Security and Medicare expenses.

So I know a lot of you think that these working people that we are trying to protect are welfare recipients. You do not pay taxes, you do not get tax relief. Well, they deserve some relief. They are entitled when we are giving the people back, those who pay taxes, God knows who makes America great, except those people who work every day, hoping that life will get better for them and a lot better for their kids.

And so if you want to say that that is not the Congress' responsibility, leave it to the United Jewish Appeal, leave it to Catholic Charities, leave it to the Protestants Council, but leave us out as the Federal Government. Let local and State government do it.

If you believe that, then what you do is starve the great reserves of this country. And if you cannot kill the programs legislatively, you kill them by not having the money there. So what you are saying is that one day when you accomplish your purpose, we will be paying more in interest on the trillions of dollars that we have borrowed than we will be able to pay for the programs that America has been so proud of.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, while this bill purports to give low-income people a tax break, it also gives Members of Congress a tax break. We see that there is an additional tax break for people who earn $150,000 a year. Who earns $150,000 a year? Members of the United States Congress. It is very generous of them in the majority to do that.

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about what is at stake on the House floor today. At the conclusion of this debate, there will be an important procedural vote known as the previous question. If we defeat it, then the child tax credit bill and the Armed Forces tax assistance bill can become law tomorrow, and military and working families will get immediate relief. Those two bills are here, at the Speaker's table, already passed by the Senate and ready to be signed by the President, but only if Republicans will stand up to their leadership. On the other hand, if Republicans vote for the previous question, then those bills will not become law anytime soon, if at all, and millions of military and working families will not receive immediate tax relief.

To quote President Kennedy: ``To govern is to choose.'' When Republicans vote on the previous question today, Americans will know whether they choose tax relief for working and military families or party loyalty to the House Republican leadership that is blocking it.

Mr. Speaker, since George W. Bush took office, Republicans have successfully enacted their economic plan. It consists of not just one, but two budget-busting tax giveaways for the richest few. I call these bills part I and part II of the Bush Pioneers Enrichment Act because they shower expensive tax breaks on the wealthiest few, people like that small, elite group of rich Bush Pioneers who funded the 2000 Bush campaign.

But where is the country after these Republican tax giveaways? Some 3 million Americans have lost their jobs. And just today the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office increased this year's deficit projection to $400 billion, the largest single-year deficit in this Nation's history. All in all, Americans are still suffering from the second Bush recession and the third Republican recession in the last 20 years. So I suspect that we will hear a lot of clever Republican rhetoric today. We will hear them swear that this latest Republican tax bill will finally boost the economy. They will claim that they are simply trying to improve on the bipartisan bill which the Senate passed overwhelmingly last week. But as John Adams once said, Mr. Speaker, facts are stubborn things. Even poll-tested Republican rhetoric cannot change those facts.

And the facts today are straightforward. House Republicans are the sole remaining obstacle to immediate tax relief for millions of working and military families who pay taxes. Unless House Republicans stand up to the Republican leadership today, then the families of 12 million children, 1 million of whom live in military families, will not get the immediate tax relief they need and they deserve.

Here is why, Mr. Speaker. When Republicans wrote part II of the Pioneers Enrichment Act last month, they denied the child tax credit to these hardworking, tax-paying families. The reason was simple: so that they could spend even more on tax breaks for the wealthiest few. As a result, millionaires got a tax break of $93,500, which

is just shy of the $100,000 in campaign contributions necessary to qualify as a Bush Pioneer, while millions of military and working families got stiffed. Republicans gave $100,000 in tax breaks to those making $1 million a year, but they call it welfare when Democrats try to give $150 in tax relief to the military families who need it most to feed and clothe their children. This is shameful, Mr. Speaker. And if Republicans are not ashamed, then I am ashamed for them.

Fortunately, the Senate has overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan, fiscally responsible bill to fix this one especially shameful feature of the Bush Pioneers Enrichment Act. And the White House says the President wants to sign it immediately. But many Republicans do not believe these working and military families deserve immediate tax relief, despite the fact that they work hard and pay taxes. So the Republican leadership is using their power to stop the full House from voting on the bipartisan Senate-passed bill which could become law tomorrow.

Specifically, they have brought up their plan as a motion to concur in the Senate amendments with a House amendment, a very boring title. In plain English, that means they are using a parliamentary maneuver to rig the rules to prevent Democrats from offering an alternative, or the motion to recommit that is guaranteed in the House rules. The Republican leadership's rule is so restrictive that it does not allow the House any general debate on the Republicans' $82 billion tax plan. But make no mistake, the Republican leadership's actions on the House floor today will have a very real consequence.

Simply put, they are holding hostage immediate tax relief for 6.5 million working families. They are using this bill to give high-income families a new tax break that is worth nearly six times as much as the tax credit for low-income families. They are taking a $3.5 billion problem that they created and they are using it to spend $82 billion of the Social Security trust fund to drive America even deeper into debt, raising the debt tax on all Americans. All of this, Mr. Speaker, means that this spendthrift House Republican plan will not pass the Senate and everybody knows it. Let me say that again. What we are voting on today will not pass the Senate and everyone knows it. So this is a meaningless gesture that will simply delay for days and weeks and maybe even months the tax relief that the Republicans claim that they want to offer to working families. If the Republican leadership wins today, then millions of working and military families will lose because they will not get the immediate tax relief that they desperately need.

As a result, there is just one question on the floor today: Do you want to give to military and working families at least a fraction of the tax cuts that Republicans have given the millionaires, the Bush Pioneers and others of the wealthy? If the answer is ``no,'' then proudly explain why these hardworking, tax-paying families do not deserve tax relief. But if the answer is ``yes,'' then there is only one way to do it. Stand up to the House Republican leadership and vote against the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, then I will offer an amendment to the rule to allow the House to pass both the bipartisan child tax credit bill and the Armed Forces tax fairness bill, both of which are here at the Speaker's table and both of which have already passed the Senate.

As I said before, Mr. Speaker, those are the facts; and that is the choice House Republicans face today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), one of the most conservative Members on the Democratic side.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, what rule are you stating?

Mr. Speaker, would the Chair be kind enough to read the provision, because I have never heard of this ruling given from the Chair before. I would be very grateful if the Chair could read it to the House.

Do we have the rules book handy?

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to be clear. So what the gentleman is saying is the Members who are standing in the well right now----

The ones who are in the well with 914878724867, they are out of order for advising the country what the size of the debt is?

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. I have to ask, because I am a little confused, I will not refer directly to the Members at this point, but I am confused, Mr. Speaker, because the rule, I have my rule book, it says, ``The Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and in the case of disturbances or disorderly conduct in the galleries or in the lobby, may cause the same to be cleared.''

This seems to relate to decorum in the galleries or in the lobby. I do not read the rule to relate to matters on the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), one of our very respected new members.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I do not have any additional time, but I wish I had time to question the last speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the distinguished ranking member.

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I have one speaker and then I will close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, does the gentleman----

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans face a choice. They can do the right thing by passing the Senate bill, giving 12 million children and their working families immediate tax relief, or they can do the wrong thing by continuing to explode the deficit with a bill that the other body will never accept.

I urge Members to do the right thing and vote ``no'' on the previous question. Do the right thing for working families. Do the right thing for military families. It is not hard. Just do the right thing. If the Republicans tried it, Mr. Speaker, they might find they actually liked it. Come on in, Democrats say, the water is just fine; the water is warm.

If the previous question is defeated, we will immediately take from the Speaker's table H.R. 1307 and H.R. 1308, the Senate-passed version of the Armed Forces Tax Fairness bill and the child tax credit. This House will pass them unanimously and send them to the President for his signature. This is it. No games, no delay. Just immediate tax relief for working and military families that is completely paid for.

Mr. Speaker, these bills are at the Speaker's table. What is the choice? Do Republicans want to pass the bills, or do they want to kill the bills? Will they ever choose the right thing? Democrats await their answers. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, the rubber-stamp Congress is in session. Last night, they came up to the Committee on Rules. Nobody even bothered to come up and talk about the bill. They had an order from the President. Ari Fleischer said, the President says, pass it so he can sign it. So they had the little meeting up there and rifled it down here, with no hearings in the Committee on Ways and Means, not one single minute of debate in a hearing where we could listen to anybody give any opinion about what this bill does. But all of them came with their rubber stamps.

Let me tell the Members, if they go for what they put out there, the chairman has put out there, the President is going to be real mad, because the President does not like that bill. He likes the one that the Senate passed. So hold rubber stamps on the one for the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and save it for the one for the President.

All he asks Members to do is to approve; to say, I approve everything George Bush wants. That is what this Congress is about. They do not want any debate. They do not want to talk about how much this debt builds up or anything else; they simply want to be rubber stamps for the President. Boom.

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some confusion here in the rubber-stamp Congress today.

I will quote from an article in Roll Call this morning which explains to me what happened.

It says that the President invited them all down to the White House, and this is from a senior Republican aide: ``Most people in the GOP leadership think it is inappropriate for the White House to bring our bosses down there to discuss congressional business and then not invite any staff to go with them.'' The aide said, ``Members who attend meetings are frustrated by the exclusion of the staff because it leaves them without aides to jog their memories of the sessions later.''

Now it is clear what has happened. The President said pass the Senate bill. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) had on his mind that he had to find all these legislators in Texas, so he had to call up the home security board and he had to call up the FBI, and he got confused and got down in there and told the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, Do anything you want.

Now, here we are coming out here with no debate, and nobody wants to have anybody talk about what the issues here are. They just want to slam another $80 million on this bill, and wind up with what? A dead bill. They know the Senate is going to kill it. They are not as wild and radical as they are. With 74 to 2, this is a conservative Senate; or 94 to 2. I get carried away.

This rubber-stamp Congress is really out of control. They are the gang that cannot shoot straight. They should at least have one meeting on this.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I think that is a good idea.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the article from Roll Call this morning to which I referred earlier.

The article referred to is as follows:

[From Roll Call, June 12. 2003]

Hill Aides Spurned

(By Ethan Wallison)

Republican aides on Capitol Hill are incensed over a new

White House policy to exclude virtually all Congressional

staff from

the semi-regular ``bi-cam'' meetings between President Bush

and the GOP leadership.

The aides contend that they are being kept out of the

meetings even as White House staffers and other senior

officials, such as top Congressional lobbyist David Hobbs,

continue to sit in.

``It does strike one as a little bit arrogant,'' one senior

Senate GOP aide said. But, the aide added, ``I think that's

the way some people at the White House think about

Congressional staff.''

Noting that the meetings focus on the Congressional agenda,

one senior House Republican aide added, ``Most people [in the

GOP leadership] think it's inappropriate for [the White

House] to bring our bosses down there to discuss

Congressional business and then not invite any staff to go

with them.''

The aide said Members who attend the meetings are as

frustrated by the exclusions as the staff, because it leaves

them without aides to help jog their account of the sessions

later.

A White House official denied that there are any ``hard and

fast rules'' about whether Congressional staff can attend the

meetings.

``It comes down to the space that's available in the room

and the topics that are being covered,'' the official said,

adding that the same factors apply to White House staff.

But Congressional sources said they have been told that the

staff directive comes straight from the top and President

Bush, who simply wanted less staff in the meetings.

Under the new guidelines, according to these sources,

Speaker Dennis Hastert's (R-Ill.) top aide, Scott Palmer, and

Lee Rawls, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's chief of

staff, will be permitted to attend the bi-cam sessions.

The new policy appears to be the upshot of a months-long

give-and-take between the White House and the Congressional

GOP leadership on the staff issue. Senior Congressional aides

said the White House has been seeking ways to pare down the

number of aides at the bi-cam meetings, but were finding it

difficult to exclude some Capital Hill staff while allowing

others to continue to attend.

``The figured they couldn't get away with the half-way

approach, so they went all-or-nothing,'' one senior House GOP

aide said.

The same aide said the White House has pledged to pare down

the number of administration officials and staff at the

meetings as well in the weeks ahead. Congressional aides

remain skeptical.

One source noted that even Rawls was among the Capitol Hill

aides who were kept out of the room Tuesday evening, when the

GOP leadership went to the White House to discuss

appropriations. (The spending meeting immediately preceded

the bi-cam session.)

Rawls made the trip to the White House along with Senate

Appropriations Committee Staff Director Jim Morhard and Kevin

Fromer, Hastert's policy director.

All three were forced to wait outside the door to the

meeting, even though Hobbs and Candida Wolff, Vice President

Cheney's legislative affairs director, were allowed to

participate.

Neither Rawls nor Palmer responded to phone calls on

Wednesday.

To be sure, frustrated Congressional aides acknowledge that

the personnel who are allowed into meetings at the White

House reflects Bush's sense of what's appropriate.

Some of the meetings in the past have taken place in the

White House residence, a more intimate setting that provides

less space for visitors, according to a White House official.

But the exclusions have nevertheless fed resentments on

Capitol Hill about what some Congressional Republicans

believe to be the White House's disregard for Congress' role

in shaping the overall agenda.

``It's particularly unhelpful in the same week that [the

White House] cut our legs out from under us on the child tax

credit,'' one senior House GOP aide said.

And some senior GOP aides contend that the shortage of

first-hand accounts has at times had significant practical

consequences, such as misunderstandings about deals and other

arrangements that were sealed behind closed doors.

``When it comes down to implementing an agreement, it's the

staff that has to do that,'' a senior Senate aide said,

citing the appropriations process as one area where such

miscommunication has been a problem.

``It's just frustrating.''

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 270, I move to take from the Speaker's table the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 1308) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to end certain abusive tax practices, to provide tax relief and simplification, and for other purposes, insist on the House amendment, and request a conference with the Senate thereon.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I have requested the hour.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in the 1 hour time I have, I would indicate to my colleagues that based upon the very lively debate that occurred on the rule, I believe the positions have been completely illuminated, and that when I ask for the previous question, the minority has the right to move the motion to instruct.

Having been given the motion to instruct, I would tell my friends that I can live up to almost all of these provisions and intend to do so, and, therefore, any time that this House takes in debating the motion to instruct will be the time that the minority has on the motion to instruct, because the majority intends to move the previous question and indicates that it does not intend to use any of the time on the motion to instruct, and, therefore, the time at which the House adjourns today will be entirely in the hands of the minority.

Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, not withstanding the language of the motion to instruct, which says ``I move that,'' and three of the four provisions that say ``The House conferees shall be instructed to,'' is the gentleman from California correct in understanding that the motion to instruct does not in any way bind or dictate to the conferees?

Mr. Speaker, if in fact the motion to instruct is not binding, I would tell my friends we are ready to accept this motion. I will reserve my time, and whenever you are ready to move the question for a vote, since it is not binding, we are ready to go.

Mr. Speaker, I am on my time. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts now wish to deny me the time that is mine?

I certainly do.

As I was saying, since this motion to instruct is not in any way binding on the conferees, the gentleman from California awaits the awarding of the motion to instruct, and it can either be now and we can vote on it, or you can exhaust your time and we can vote on it. The effect is the same.

Therefore, I reserve the balance of my time until they exhaust theirs or move for a vote.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I told the gentleman from the initial introduction, and I am pleased to respond on his time, that three of the four seem to be somewhat reasonable; and my assumption is that as we go to conference, since it is the Senate that has been significantly concerned about the question of offsets, under the budget which was agreed upon by the House and the Senate, there is ample provision for us to move tax bills that are not required to be offset.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, under the budget agreement, the House is entitled to move tax bills that are not offset or are required to modify the deficit. If the Senate brings, if the Senate brings offsets to the conference to cover the House bill, I am more than willing to look at them.

The answer is, if the Senate brings offsets, I will be happy to look at them.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I asked of the Speaker a parliamentary inquiry which said this is not binding, yet the gentleman continues to pursue a yes or no as to whether or not an unbinding statement will bind me. The answer is, and it will be, if the Senate brings offsets, we will look at them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman from California said, ``This really has nothing to do with working families.''

I will tell the gentleman, it has everything to do with working families. The provision that was offered and accepted on the Senate side, which was included in the Senate bill, was not supported by the authors of that amendment. This measure was never presented to, asked for, or included in the Senate provisions. We are now at a position of examining the Senate's behavior.

The movement for the refundable tax credit from 10 percent to 15 percent is in underlying law. It will occur January 1, 2005. The entire debate is over

whether or not it ought to be accelerated. But what also ends on January 1, 2005 is the $1,000 child credit, because the Senate decided it was more important to create the opportunity so that between now and the elections of 2004, someone can show their compassion for working families. The $57 billion of this proposal says, after the election, will you show your compassion for working families in the year 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, which just happens to correspond to the 6-year term of the Senate.

We thought it might be appropriate if there is compassion between now and November that the people are going to vote. No compassion will be there for the next 6 years as well. I believe one move was politics, the other is policy.

Let us talk about working families. In New York City, a fireman who responded on 9/11 and his wife, a teacher, make about $150,000 together. The Senate in its wisdom said we ought to raise the child credit from $110,000 to $150,000. And if you read the fine print of the Senate proposal, they are going to do that for 1 year, in 2010. Is that politics or policy? The $21 billion of this measure says if it is good enough for the $150,000-a-year joint working family in 2010, it is good enough for the working family today, next year, and every year until 2010.

Do you want politics or do you want policy? Politics is cheap. Policy costs money. We are asking you to put your dollars where your mouth is.

July 9, 2002, as a matter of urgency we sent to the Senate a military tax fairness bill that would provide appropriate changes in the laws for our men and women in uniform. Underscore that: July 9, 2002.

It still languishes over in the Senate. If they really cared about the men and women in uniform, we would have seen that bill-signing ceremony already. We are including that provision in this bill and asking the Senate once again to put policy where their mouth is. If the Senate has provisions in their measure that they want to bring to conference that we did not include, we invite them. But we invited them to a conference that does policy and not politics.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.