Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 222) to approve the settlement of the water rights claims of the Zuni Indian Tribe in Apache County, Arizona, and for other purposes, and for consideration of the bill (S. 273) to provide for the expeditious completion of the acquisition of land owned by the State of Wyoming within the boundaries of Grand Teton National Park, and for other purposes.
Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
June 5, 2003 • 3:26 PM
View full timeline
Introduced in House
June 4, 2003
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 108-140, by Mr. Hastings (WA).
June 4, 2003
S. 222 shall be debatable 40 minutes equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources. Waives all points of order against consideration of S.222. Provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions, for S. 222. The rule further provides that S. 273 shall be debatable for 40 minutes equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources. Waives all points of order against consideration of S. 273. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit,
June 4, 2003 • 9:25 PM
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 57.
June 4, 2003
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H5012-5022)
June 5, 2003 • 1:51 PM
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 258.
June 5, 2003 • 1:52 PM
On ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 220 - 194 (Roll no. 244).
June 5, 2003 • 3:19 PM
Passed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 229 - 175 (Roll no. 245).(text: CR H5012)
June 5, 2003 • 3:26 PM
On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 229 - 175 (Roll no. 245). (text: CR H5012)
June 5, 2003 • 3:26 PM
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
June 5, 2003 • 3:26 PM
Voting History
2 votes recorded • Roll call available
Floor Debate
23 membersWhat members said about H.Res. 258 on the floor
AS
JPM
JK
BCDH+18
Floor Debate
23 membersWhat members said about H.Res. 258 on the floor
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 227: H. Res. 159. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable vote on…
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 227: H. Res. 159. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable vote on rollcall No. 228: H. Res. 195. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 229: H.R. 1465. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 230: S. 222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 231: S. 273. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 232: S. 763. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 233: H. Amdt. to H. J. Res. 4. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 234: Final passage of H. J. Res. 4. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 235: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 231. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 236: on agreeing to H. Res. 257. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 237: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 238: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 201. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 239: H.R. 1954. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 240: H. Amdt. 154 to H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 241: Motion to Recommit to H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 242: final passage of H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 243: On Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res. 256. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 244: H. Res. 258. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 245: H. Res. 258. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 246: on passage of H.R. 1474. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 247: S. 222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 248: S. 273. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 249: H.R. 1610. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 250: H. Con Res. 162. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 251: S. 763. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 252: H. Res. 263 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 253: H. Res. 263 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 254: H. Amdt. 159 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 255: Passage of H.R 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 256: H. Res. 252: Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 257: On ordering the previous question for H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 258: On agreeing to the rule for H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 259: On passage of H. Con. Res. 110. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 260: On passage of H.R. 1320. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 261: H.R. 2350. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 262: H. Amdt. 5 to H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 263: H. Amdt. 4 to H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 264: On passage of H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 265: H. Res. 269 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 266: H. Res. 269 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 268: H. Amdt.
168 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 269: H. Amdt. 169 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 270: H. Amdt. 170 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 271: Motion to Recommit to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 272: Passage of H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 273: H. Res. 270 to H.R 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 274: Rule for H.R. 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 275: Motion to Instruct Conferees H.R. 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 276: H.R. 2254. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 277: H. Con. Res. 220. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 278: S. 703. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 279: H. Res. 276. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 280: H. Res. 171. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 281: Passage of H.R. 658. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 282: S. 342. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 283: Passage of S. Con. Res. 43. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 284: Previous Question to H. Res. 281. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 285: H. Res. 281 to H.R 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 286: Approving the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 287: H. Amdt. 171 to H.R. 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 288: Passage of H.R. 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 289: H. Res. 283 to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 290: H. Res. 283 to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 291: H. Amdt. 172 to H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 292: Motion to Recommit H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 293: Passage of H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 294: Kind amendment to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 295: On motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 296: On final passage to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 297: H. Res. 264. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 298: H. Res. 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 299: H. Con. Res. 209. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 300: Passage of H.R. 2465. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 301: Previous Question to H. Res. 293. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 302: Agreeing to H. Res. 293. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 303: Passage of H.R. 923. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 304: H.R. 1460. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 305: On sustaining the ruling of the chair on H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 306: Sustain ruling of the chair on H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 307: H. Amdt. 176 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 308: H. Amdt. 183 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 309: H. Amdt. 188 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 310: Passage of H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 311: Passage to H.R. 1416. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 312: S. 858. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 313: H.R. 2474. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 314: H. J. Res. 49. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 315: H. Con. Res. 49. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 316: H. Res. 199. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 317: H. Res. 294. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 318: On the Hastings amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 319: On the Kucinich amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 320: On the Lee amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 321: H. Res. 299 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 322: H. Res. 299 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 323: H. Res. 297 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 324: Ordering the previous question on H. Res. 298. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 325: Passage of H.R. 2559. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 326: Passage of H. Res. 277. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 327: On approval of the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 328: H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 330: H. Amdt.
197 to H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 331: Motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 332: Final passage of H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 333: On passage of H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, this morning during the debate on the Check 21 open rule, I warned this body that…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, this morning during the debate on the Check 21 open rule, I warned this body that open rules are a rarity, an endangered species, if you will. Well, here we are about to consider not an open rule but a closed rule on two noncontroversial bills. But what do you expect? This is the norm. This is business as usual in this House.
I also want this Chamber and the American people to remember this moment, because it is historic. This also is a rarity here. We finally have seen a tax cut that the Republicans do not like. In the dead of night, faced with the decision of either providing tax relief for 12 million working families or giving a tax cut to Donald Trump, the Republicans chose Donald Trump and left the children out in the cold.
And who exactly is left behind by this glaring omission? Nearly one in five children of our active duty military. These families are only making around $27,000 a year. They did not
have the good fortune to be born with the last name of ``Gates'' or ``Buffett'' or ``Cheney.'' But they are trying to make a living, and they are doing so by serving their country. These are children of people who are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the Republicans, in their greed and zeal for tax cuts for their rich friends, decided these families do not need any tax relief.
Now, of course, Republicans claim that they provide tax relief only for people who pay income tax, but we all know people pay more than just income tax. There is a payroll tax. There is property tax. There is a sales tax. But the Republicans in their warped thought process consider payroll tax relief and child tax credit a new form of welfare. We heard this argument earlier this morning, and it is outrageous; and quite frankly, it is insulting to these hardworking Americans.
As we all know, this could not be farther from the truth. It is the Republicans who encourage welfare in the Tax Code by giving tax breaks to corporations that flee this country for tax havens in other countries. Their disingenuous argument does not fly with the American people.
Mr. Speaker, the legislative process in this body is broken. There is no excuse for the majority's actions. We are here today to reconsider two bills that should have been passed under suspension of the rules. The bills are not controversial, but the majority's actions are.
As we all know, on Tuesday three bills were defeated under suspension of the rules. House Democrats using one of the few procedural tools at our disposal, voted against these bills, not on their merits but to express our frustration that the House leadership refuses to allow for consideration of a bill that would give our working families the tax relief that they deserve.
So today is also payback day. I think it is shameful and spiteful; and it is, unfortunately, very typical around here. They will not say it on the other side of the aisle, so I am going to say it right here now.
What is the payback? Among other things, showing disrespect for one of the finest individuals ever to grace the halls of Congress. The one bill that was defeated on Tuesday that is not on today's schedule is the bill to name a Federal building in Indianapolis for former Senator Birch Bayh. We should be naming multiple courthouses in this country for Birch Bayh.
Their tactics will not work. We are not going to be intimidated. We are going to keep talking about the issues that matter to working Americans, and issues like tax fairness are high among them. If the Republicans were serious about tax relief and if they were serious about their support for working families, they would schedule a vote to reinstate this provision. That is what we are fighting for. That is what we are asking for. But they will not, because they are not serious about this. They are merely providing lip service, telling Americans what they want to hear while padding the pockets of their wealthy friends.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of this debate on the rule I will ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to provide for the consideration of the Rangel-Davis-DeLauro bill to help the people the Republicans would rather leave behind.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
(Mrs. Jones of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
(Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an article that appeared in USA Today on this day that says, ``Military Kids Get Slighted on Tax Credit.''
The article referred to is as follows:
[From USA Today, June 5, 2003]
Study: Military Kids Slighted on Tax Credit
Parents earn too little to qualify for the provision
(By William M. Welch)
Washington.--Nearly one in five children of active-duty
U.S. military families won't benefit from the increased tax
credit signed last week by President Bush because their
parents earn too little to qualify, a study being released
today concludes.
The finding by the Children's Defense Fund, a liberal
advocacy group, comes as Bush and Republican congressional
leaders are under increasing fire for agreeing to omit
working poor families from the increased child credit
included in the $350 billion, 10-year tax cut plan and aid
for states.
Those military families would have received a check of up
to $400 per child under a provision that the Senate added to
the bill. But that ``refundable'' credit to families who pay
little or no federal income tax, but do pay payroll taxers,
was deleted in final negotiations between Bush and Republican
leader of Congress.
Families who have children and earn more than about $27,000
a year are due to receive checks next month of up to $400 per
child, as an advance on an increase in the credit from $600
to $1,000.
The group said 250,000 of the 1.4 million children in
active-duty military families will not qualify for the
benefit because of the omission.
An additional 750,000 children denied the benefit have
parents who are military veterans, the fund concluded. It
based its findings on latest U.S. Census data.
Democrats, liberal groups and some moderate Republicans in
Congress are trying to build pressure on Bush and GOP leaders
to pass legislation quickly extending the credit, to those
families that were left out.
Democrats immediately invoked U.S. troops still in Iraq as
a political justification for another bill expanding the
credit.
``Thousands of military personnel, people who put their
lives on the line for our country, won't receive the child
credit unless we correct the child credit unless we correct
the bill,'' Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., said.
The $3.5 billion cost would be paid for by cracking down on
business tax avoidance schemes under the Democrats' proposal.
They said fast action was needed to assure 12 million low-
income families are able to receive a check when the
government begins mailing them to more affluent families
starting July 1.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Minority
Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., were negotiating a possible
agreement that would permit the Senate to vote, perhaps this
week, on competing proposals aimed at providing just such a
remedy to the working poor.
Republican leaders of the House of Representatives are
resisting the move. They say Bush didn't propose giving the
added credit to the working poor as part of his original
economic stimulus plan, and that sending tax refunds to
people who pay no federal income tax may be bad policy.
``This is something that has been blown out of
proportion,'' said Rep. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, who is on the
tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. ``It was not part of
the original bill, nor was it part of the bill in the House.
. . . We never debated it. . . . It is a new idea, and it is
one we ought to think about.''
In another effort to build pressure, a coalition of liberal
groups today begins airing TV ads in Washington blasting Bush
for leaving the working poor out of the child credit benefit
increase.
The Center for Community Change is buying a relatively
modest amount of airtime, but it is encouraging hundreds of
like-minded groups to air the same ad in other cites.
The ad shows two children: one too poor to qualify for the
increased credit and another, whose parents make more money,
who receives it. ``President Bush chose the most fortunate to
get the most,'' an announcer says.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
(Mr. EMANUEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on the other side?
Mr. Speaker, how many speakers does the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) have to discuss this issue?
Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman want to use some of his time now?
Mr. Speaker, we have used up several speakers. I think for balance, if one of the gentleman's speakers is here, they could go.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Speaker, if it was such a good idea, number one, why did you remove it? Number two, I do not recall us ever having voted on this in the House. It was inserted in the Senate. Let us be accurate.
That is outrageous.
Let me say for the record what I am outraged at what is in the paper today, that nearly one in five children of U.S. military families will not benefit from the increased tax credit signed by President Bush.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Georgia his tax package is about welfare for the rich. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to see if anyone on the other side wants to respond. We are waiting.
Mr. Speaker, I guess we are not going to get an answer to that question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining 30 seconds. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can help millions of children and working families. We have heard the other side defend the indefensible.
Mr. Speaker, if they do not want to help millions of working families, they should at least have the guts to go on record as voting no instead of hiding behind procedures. So let this House work its will. Let us have a little democracy in this Chamber. Vote on the previous question so we can bring up the Rangel bill and literally help millions of children in this country.
Working Families Tax Credit Act of 2003--Summary of H.R. 2286, June 4,
2003
Republicans have left moderate-income families behind in
their zeal to cut taxes on millionaires, contrary to their
``leave no child behind'' rhetoric.
H.R. 2286 helps moderate-income working families and is
revenue neutral.
provisions
Provides Child Credit to More Working Families: Lowers to
$7,500 (from $10,500) the amount of the wages a family must
have before refundability of the child credit begins. This is
identical to a provision that was included in the house
Democratic alternative on the economic stimulus legislation.
The credit would be allowed for approximately 19 million
additional children by reason of this change.
Increases Benefit for Working Families: Increases partial
refundability from 10 percent of wages to 15 percent of
wages. Again, this is identical to a provision that was
included in the Democratic alternative. This would result in
an average credit increase of over $300 per child.
Helps Families of Soldiers in Combat: Allows refundability
for families of soldiers in combat zones even though combat
wages are not taxed.
Speeds up Marriage Penalty Relief for Lower Income Working
Couples: Makes effective immediately the marriage penalty
relief in the Earned Income Tax Credit that was provided in
the 2001 tax cut. This is the only marriage penalty relief
not accelerated in the recently enacted tax bill.
Does Not Increase the Deficit: Closes corporate loopholes:
prohibits tax shelters, and taxes corporations that move
headquarters offshore (expatriates).
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and description 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, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I wanted to say to my colleagues in the House, I certainly intend to stay on the subject matter of this rule equally as much as all the…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I wanted to say to my colleagues in the House, I certainly intend to stay on the subject matter of this rule equally as much as all the Democrats who have been speaking at least.
I want to talk to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about this child tax refundable credit which they are so indignant about. Because I want to remind them, you all had nothing to do with putting it on the books, nothing. We were glad that you like it because it was a Republican idea, but every single one of you, every single one of your speakers has voted against it.
Mr. Speaker, I want to help you a little bit out here and just kind of remind you so far we have heard from the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), all good folks. However, they have all voted against this refundable tax credit, May 16, 2001, when the Republicans put it on the books. I do not know what you were thinking.
This thing that you were pretending to champion, you voted against. It was a Republican idea. Where were you when the battle was being fought? I am going to review a little bit of history, and let me say to this, you all are looking around stunned which I understand.
I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Reclaiming my time, let me jog the gentleman's memory. Here is what the situation was, and the gentleman is a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules and has lots of bills that pass through his desk, so I will not hold you responsible for knowing everything.
Prior to 2001, the child tax credit was $500 per child. It was passed under a Republican bill and, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) pointed out, it was signed by President Clinton. So you can claim a little bipartisanship there, even though that was passed by Republican votes when it was in the House, but prior to 2001 the child tax credit was $500. The credit was not refundable for most families. However, for a family with three kids or more, the credit was refundable; and it was not offset by the earned income tax credit. That was prior to 2001.
Now enter President Bush and the 2001 tax cut. Under that, the proposal was to increase the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000. The credit was $600 for the year 2003, and it was scheduled to reach $1,000 per child in 2010. That law made the child tax credit partially refundable for all families with children, not just those who had three kids or more.
Now, we had the vote on that May 16, 2001, and I have got the Roll Call from that, and at that time every one of you all voted against it. As a matter of fact, 197 Democrats voted against this.
So, Mr. Speaker, when the Democrats come out here looking for some rhetoric, and the big rhetoric of the Democratic party this year really that has been led by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is, we could have torn that statue down a lot cheaper.
I know a lot of folks are against the war. And then it was, well, the plan is not working when we were going up the Euphrates. And then as soon as they tore down the statue, I know a lot of folks on the left, and I want to say not all the members of the Democrat party but a lot of folks on the left were disturbed that a 23-year-old Marine corporal who was in theater had the audacity of hanging an American flag on a Saddam Hussein statue. Of course, he was denounced in the liberal, left-wing community for doing that.
I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Let me say to my friend from Tennessee, that is why I said not all the Democrats but a lot of folks on the left denounced the fact that that flag was hung.
I would also point out that you were not one of them.
Reclaiming my time, I will yield further to you in just one second.
I am very pleased that you all are listening. Let me do this, because I am being generous here, but my ranking member of the Committee on Rules says that maybe we should do this a little bit more on your time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
I am glad that not only does the gentleman listen to fine speeches like mine, but he also reads the paper, which is very good.
I suspect it is probably The New York Times or The Washington Post.
Let me just say this, does that article point out that my colleagues voted against phasing in the tax cut, the refundability, in 2001? That is all I want to say.
What I would love to hear from our Democrat colleagues, Mr. Speaker, who are saying I voted against this tax cut and a tax cut which was a jobs bill, took 3 million working families off the tax roll, 3 million, and I understand they wanted them on. We thought it would be helpful for the working families of America to get off the tax roll. The reality is they voted against it. They wanted to keep them on. I understand that. I just wish they would acknowledge in the year 2001 that they voted against the child tax refundability clause, and I have the vote in my hand; and I can submit it for the Record, Mr. Speaker, and do that.
If my colleagues want to be helpful, what they ought to do on some of these tax bills that are aimed at creating jobs is say, hey, we want to amend the bill and we will do this. We will do this in a spirit of a democratic, small D, democratic House and process. We are going to vote for the bill if we put in some of their ideas, because this is the way it really should work, the best of their party and the best of our party combined together to put out just the best thoughts and do what is right for working families.
Let me point out that a family of four making $11,000 a year pays no income tax, pays about $842 in payroll taxes and receives $4,140 under the earned income tax credit. We think that is good. We think it also would be helpful, though, if my colleagues could join us in making these child tax credits permanent because their idea that they are concerned about now might have some merits. Why do they not join us in saying we are going to make these child tax credits permanent? We are not going to do a bait and switch, when in the year 2011 they are gone.
While we are at it, because we all know that a family of mom and dad have great potential for stability, why do we not end the marriage tax penalty together? Again, I throw out an olive branch to my colleagues, could they join us in making the marriage tax penalty permanent? That would be very helpful for the working poor. There are so many things that we could do together.
Another idea is the 10 percent tax bracket, the 10 percent rate. Could my colleagues join us in making that permanent? These are all things that could help the working poor.
We are not going to say we have the franchise on helping the working poor just because we voted to take 3 million off the payrolls and my colleagues voted against it. We are saying maybe they can join us on the next job creation package and come up with something that is in the best interest of all of us.
I would love to yield to the gentleman from Tennessee, but we are getting to the point we have got a lot of Members who want to go ahead and have a vote, and I am a little concerned about that.
Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me say this. Our objective is to get people working, and that was the real goal of this to get folks working.
Let me say this to my friend from Tennessee: if the gentleman wants to join us in making the child tax credit permanent; the marriage tax penalty, eliminate it permanently; the 10 percent tax credit, make that permanent, he and I need to get together because I think we can move the ball down the road, and that is all we want to do.
I am just saying that the planned, orchestrated campaign of the Democrat Party to denounce something that they all voted against in the year 2002, I just wish the speakers would say I voted against this in 2001, but it is a great idea and now I am mad that the Republicans are not doing it this way; I want it done even though I did not share any of the burden by being responsible and voting for it.
I want to end with this. There are a lot of differences between the Democrat and the Republican parties. They seem to be the group of frivolous lawsuits and starving trial lawyers. We are the party of tort reform, ending frivolous medical liabilities, making health care affordable and accessible. They seem to like unemployment checks and government handouts. We like paychecks, jobs and opportunities.
They like welfare and low expectations. We like welfare reform, jobs.
Mr. Speaker, here is the situation with welfare reform, Mr. Speaker. We passed welfare reform at a time when there were 14 million people on welfare. At that time, we were called all kinds of names, and they were saying it was heartless and we were mean-spirited and everything else and that these folks were unable to help themselves. What is interesting is in 1996 when we passed welfare reform, we had 14 million people on welfare. Today, that number is down to 5 million people, too high; but we need to continue working on that. The 9 million people are now tax paying, working, enjoying the opportunity, sharing in the American Dream. They are glad that we passed welfare reform.
There is a component in this that the Democrats are proposing which is simply welfare, and I think there may be some merit in that. I have no trouble at all in a healthy discussion on tinkering with welfare reform. This is good for everybody, but what our tax package was about was creating jobs, and we are going to continue to be the party of welfare reform, jobs and opportunity.
Committee on Ways and Means
child credit refundability fact sheet
What was the child credit prior to 2001?
Prior to 2001, the child credit was $500 per eligible
child. The credit was not refundable for most families.
However, for families with 3 or more eligible children, the
credit was refundable to the extent the family had payroll
tax liability that was not offset by the Earned Income Credit
(EIC).
How was the child credit expanded in 2001?
The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of
2001 significantly expanded the child credit in two important
ways.
(1) The law gradually increased the credit from $500 to
$1,000. The credit was $600 for 2003 and was scheduled to
reach $1,000 in 2010.
(2) The law made the child credit partially refundable for
all families with children--not just those with 3 or more
children. The credit is now refundable by an amount equal to
10 percent of the family's earned income in excess of
$10,000. The $10,000 threshold is indexed annually for
inflation (it is $10,500 for 2003), and the 10 percent
refundability rate will increase to 15 percent in 2005.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 258, I call up the Senate bill (S. 273) to provide for the expeditious completion of the acquisition of land owned by the State of Wyoming within the…
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 258, I call up the Senate bill (S. 273) to provide for the expeditious completion of the acquisition of land owned by the State of Wyoming within the boundaries of Grand Teton National Park, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, having already debated this bill, I urge its adoption.
I rise in support of S. 273, and ask that this body support its passage.
The Grand Teton National Park Land Exchange Act was introduced by Senator Thomas, co-sponsored by Senator Enzi, and is supported by all five elected Wyoming state officials, the National Park Service and the local communities.
The measure passed the Senate on April 3, 2003, under unanimous consent.
This bill presents a very unique opportunity with regards to federal land management in our National Parks that will greatly benefit the American public as well as Wymoning school children.
The Jackson Valley has a history as colorful and amazing as the Grand Tetons that rise nearly 14,000 feet above the glacial lakes at their base.
The first visitors to the Grand Tetons and the Jackson Valley were the Shoshone, Crow, Blackfoot, and Gros Ventre Indian tribes who treated the area as a summer hunting ground and sacred area.
Later, in the 1800's, many fur trappers visited this consecrated ground, and were stunned by its raw beauty and diverse ecosystem. In 1807 even John Colter, who had separated from the Lewis and Clark expedition, explored the area and returned with far fetched tales of geysers, hot springs, and mountains that touched the sky.
It was years before his supposed hallucinations were indeed found to be true. From 1824-1840 the Grand Tetons were the central rendezvous site for mountain men all across the west, swapping tall tales and pelts. The Green River Rendezvous continues to this very day.
After the area was settled at the turn of the century, the town of Jackson elected a Town Mayor and City Council entirely comprised of women . . . showing just how intelligent the people of Wyoming were, and are, to this very day. This was the first All-Female town government in our Nation's history. This, of course, occurred in my home state of Wyoming, the Equality State.
Grand Teton National Park was later established by Congress on February 29, 1929, to protect the natural resources of the Teton range and the Jackson area's unique beauty.
On March 15, 1943, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt established the Jackson Hole National Monument adjacent to the Park.
Grand Teton National Park was expanded to its present size by Congress on September 14, 1950, to include a portion of the land from the Jackson Hole National Monument.
The Park currently encompasses approximately 310,000 acres of wilderness and some of the most amazing scenery to be found in any corner of the world.
However, when Wyoming received its statehood in 1890, sections of land were set aside for school revenue purposes. All income from these lands--rents, grazing fees, sales or other sources--is placed in a special trust fund for the benefit of students in the state.
The establishment of these school sections pre-dates the creation of most national parks or monuments within our state boundaries, creating several state in-holdings within federal land masses, such as in Grand Teton National Park.
Currently over 1406 acres of state surface and mineral acres are held by the state of Wyoming in isolated plots within Grand Teton National Park.
This legislation would allow the State of Wyoming to trade or sell these precious state lands locked up inside the Park to the federal government in exchange for other federal lands, minerals or appropriated dollars, or a combination of all three, to address Wyoming's public school funding needs.
Further, the American public can consolidate under National Park Service management the lands within Grand Teton National Park's borders and protect them from future development pressures placed upon the state for the benefit of our schoolchildren.
It is a win-win scenario for everyone involved.
Within 90 days after this bill is signed into law, the land would be valued through agreement by the Wyoming Governor and the Secretary of the Interior. If there is no agreement, an appraisal process will be set up to determine the value of the lands or minerals in question to ensure fairness to all parties.
There will also be an appeals process to further ensure fairness to both the Federal Government and the state of Wyoming.
Within 180 days after the state land value is determined, the Interior Secretary, in consultation with the Governor, shall determine an exchange of federal assets of equal value for the state lands.
This body has an incredible opportunity to allow the consolidation of lands within Grand Teton National Park borders, and to allow the state of Wyoming to capture fair value for their property to benefit all Wyoming school children.
I respectfully request that the members of this body support the Grand Teton National Park Land Exchange Act.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 258 and ask for its immediate consideration. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30…
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 258 and ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to 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. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 258 is a closed rule providing for the consideration of two measures, S. 222, the Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act, and S. 273, the Grand Teton National Park Land Exchange Act.
The rule provides that S. 222 shall be debatable in the House for 40 minutes, equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Resources. The rule also waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides one motion to recommit, with or without instruction.
The rule further provides that S. 273 shall be debatable in the House for 40 minutes, equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Resources.
Finally, the rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, both of the bills covered by this rule were considered by the House under suspension of the rules on June 3. Neither bill was adopted, having failed to receive the required two-thirds of the votes cast, but each bill was supported by a clear majority in the House.
The Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act approves a settlement of the water rights claims of the Zuni Indian Tribe in Apache County, Arizona. The bill resolves all of the claims of the Zuni Tribe to water rights in the Little Colorado River basin and elsewhere in Arizona. The bill also provides resources to restore riparian wetlands to the Zuni Heaven Reservation that are of great religious and cultural significance to the tribe and its members.
The Grand Teton National Park Land Exchange Act provides for the acquisition of land owned by the State of Wyoming within the boundaries of the Grand Teton National Park. These lands, rich in wildlife habitat, will be exchanged for other Federal lands or assets of equal value. In turn, the State will be able to acquire lands that have greater potential to generate revenue for public schools, ensuring that the State of Wyoming meets its constitutional mandate to maximize revenues from its school trust lands.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we are forced to take up the valuable time of the House to consider for a second time this week two measures that have been previously approved by a solid majority in this House. The measures have been fully debated.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and pass the underlying bills without further delay.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The issue, of course, we are discussing is the rule for the two suspension bills that we, unfortunately, had majority vote earlier this week but, unfortunately, did not have the two-thirds. But we may have, counting myself, two speakers between now and the time we close.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
(Mr. KINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As I pointed out earlier, this is a rule on two suspensions that were unfortunately defeated earlier this week that deal with serious matters in the southwestern part of the United States, at least one of them does.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) to speak on one of these matters.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, this is a rule on two suspension bills that were, unfortunately, not passed earlier this week. They are very important bills to those areas that are affected.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the chart that the distinguished majority leader discussed earlier today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
Show 8 more
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, the two bills that are being considered here today were great suspension bills that were on the Journal a couple of days ago.…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, the two bills that are being considered here today were great suspension bills that were on the Journal a couple of days ago. However, Democrats, in an effort to voice our concern about leaving behind millions of Americans who are low-income families, voted against those suspension bills.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, to borrow a recent popular phrase, I am shocked and awed by the consummate arrogance, fiscal irresponsibility, and candid lack of compassion of the Republican lawmakers of this body.
I have been on the floor many times in the past several months expressing my outrage at the unfairness and untimeliness of the various GOP tax plans, and once again I find myself at the podium in a state of disbelief about the efforts of the self-proclaimed ``compassionate conservative party'' to exclude some of the neediest families in our Nation from tax relief in the tax bill that was signed into law last week.
In an administration that has claimed to want to leave no child behind, we are now realizing that, indeed, 12 million of them were left behind, and 521,000 in my State.
In a time where special attention is being given to our brave men and women of our Armed Forces who served so well in Iraq, I think it is inappropriate to see how these last-minute shenanigans have actually left many of them out. The majority of our military members are in the pay grades of E5 and below. These are the sergeants, petty officers, lance corporals, specialists, and airmen, whose round-the-clock efforts made the military victory in Iraq swift and decisive. But an E5 with 6 years in service makes just $24,000. His family is left behind.
Mr. Speaker, to borrow a recent popular phrase, I am shocked and awed by the consummate arrogance, fiscal irresponsibility, and candid lack of compassion of the Republican lawmakers of this body. I have been on this floor many times in the past several months expressing my outrage at the unfairness and untimeliness of the various GOP tax plans, and I again find myself at the podium in a state of disbelief about the self- proclaimed ``compassionate conservative' party's efforts to exclude some of the neediest families in our Nation from tax relief in the tax bill that was signed into law last week.
In an administration that has claimed to want to ``Leave no Child Behind,'' we are to realizing that there will indeed be children left behind--12 million of them in fact; 527,000 in my State of Ohio.
In a time where special attention is being given to our brave men and women of the Armed Forces who served so well in Iraq, I think it is appropriate to note how the last minute shenanigans of Republican lawmakers to strip out a provision of their tax bill that would have ensured that families making between $10,500 to $26,000 would get the full child tax credit other taxpayers get, will affect our military personnel.
The majority of our military members are in the pay grades of E-5 and below. These are the sergeants, the petty officers, the lance corporals, specialists, and airmen whose round the clock efforts made the military victory in Iraq swift and decisive. But an E-5 with 6 years in the service makes just $24,000 in base pay per year. An E-2 just new to the military makes just $15,840 in base pay. And these are just some of the millions of family members who will suffer, and their children will suffer, their spouses will suffer, because of the back door wrangling by Republicans to give even more money to the wealthiest of American taxpayers.
Mr. Rangel has introduced a fair and responsible alternative to address this injustice, but I am afraid it will be to little avail. Rather than focus on the important issues facing our Nation, the Republican leadership seems intent to focus on solutions in search of problems--such as this week's constitutional amendment to flag desecration. I haven't been made aware that flag desecration is a problem in this country--but every week when I return to my congressional district, I am made keenly aware that the economic health of our country is a problem. Unfortunately, ti seems to be a problem some Members of this body choose to ignore.
Mr. Speaker, my, my, my, what a heated debate we are having today. I came to the well to talk about what this debate is all about. A lot has been left out by those Members on the other side of the…
Mr. Speaker, my, my, my, what a heated debate we are having today. I came to the well to talk about what this debate is all about. A lot has been left out by those Members on the other side of the aisle because they are afraid for the truth to surface, so I wanted to bring the real facts about what is going on here.
The child tax credit provision in this new tax law is refundable, and it is refundable to the extent 10 percent of earned income in excess of $10,500, people that make $10,500 get a refundable tax rebate. In 2005, the 10 percent rate goes up to 15 percent.
What this fight is over is there was a provision in the Senate that basically said they wanted to accelerate that 2 years, and we may want to do that in the proper way under regular order; but what the Democrats are angry about is that we did not accelerate that spending increase; and thanks to the tax relief passed by Republican Congresses over the last 8 years, 13 million American families have had their entire income tax liability eliminated, eliminated.
The gentleman from Texas brings up who are these people. I would like to show my colleagues one. Here is a married couple earning $30,000 with three children. Before the 2001 law, that they voted against, this married couple would be paying a marginal rate of 15 percent, which means their income tax liability is over $1,000 and their payroll tax liability is $2,160. Before the 2001 law, they would get a $1,500 credit, and they would get an earned income tax credit of $782, which means that their income tax liability was zero. They still had a payroll tax liability; but because of EITC, the payment from the government was zero.
So after 2001, this same family would have an income tax liability of $688, $2,160 from their payroll tax liability; but they get $1,800 in a child tax credit, and they get a $992 earned income tax credit, which means that their income tax liability is still zero, but their payroll tax liability goes down to $48.
After this law that the President passed that they voted against, that the President signed a week ago, this same family is going to have an income tax liability of $525, payroll tax liability of $2,160, but they get a child tax credit of $2,475, and they get an earned income tax credit of $992, which actually helps them pay not only for their payroll taxes; it reimburses them for their payroll taxes. They pay no income taxes. They actually get a check for $782.
A check from the American taxpayers. No tax liability, but they get to put $782 in their pocket.
Now, let us take a single mother that makes $20,000 and has two children. They are going through the same thing. What has happened to her is she gets a check of over $1,000. Over $1,000. She pays no payroll taxes, she pays no income taxes, and she gets a check for $1,000. They voted against that. They voted against that.
Now they want to come and tell the American people they are all tax relievers. Now all of a sudden they are tax relievers, and they want to give more tax relief to the taxpaying public and to people that do not have a tax liability.
They fail to----
Mr. Speaker, may I have order?
Mr. Speaker, what has happened here is they also do not want to mention that in the bill signed by the President last week we raised by 10 percent and added more people to the rolls that do not pay income taxes. So this notion that we are not taking care of the poor working families of this country are completely false; and, most importantly, they voted against it. We passed it without their votes, moved forward, gave tax relief to poor working families in this country; and we will continue to do so.
When the Senate does something, we always take it into consideration and we will move forward. I would just remind the Members of this House that we have now almost a trillion dollars left in the budget to do more tax relief for the American people, and we are coming back. We are going to have at least two if not three more tax relief packages for the American people. Because we feel very strongly that we need jobs in this country, we need economic growth in this country, and American families need to keep more of their hard-earned money
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 258, I call up the Senate bill (S. 222) to approve the settlement of the water rights claims of the Zuni Indian Tribe in Apache County, Arizona, and for…
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 258, I call up the Senate bill (S. 222) to approve the settlement of the water rights claims of the Zuni Indian Tribe in Apache County, Arizona, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in order for my colleagues to get home and be a little more efficient, we have had discussions on this bill. I think that both sides are now ready to vote on it in agreement. I urge adoption.
S. 222, authored by Senator Jon Kyl and identical to legislation introduced by me and Congressman J.D. Hayworth of Arizona, would resolve water rights claims and litigation in the Little Colorado River basin. I would like to commend the commitment and persistence of Senator Kyl on this important settlement. I would also like to recognize the patience and perseverance of the Zuni Tribe.
The Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2003 would codify the settlement of the Zuni Indian Tribe's water rights for its religious lands in northeastern Arizona. Congress first recognized the importance of these lands in 1984 when it created the Zuni Heaven Reservation. While land issues were addressed in 1984, water rights remained in question until Sen. Kyl's intervention.
Uncertainty existed in several of the rural towns upstream from the newly-created Zuni Heaven. These small communities upstream from this Reservation have now been fully-appropriated. A resolution was reached that avoided costly litigation. Parties included the Zuni Tribe, the United States on behalf of the Zuni Tribe, the State of Arizona, including the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, the Arizona State Land Department, and the Arizona State Parks Board, as well as the major water users in this area; negotiations were conducted for many years to produce an acceptable agreement for all parties.
This legislation would provide the Zuni Tribe with the resources and protections necessary to acquire water rights from willing sellers. In addition, this legislation will restore and protect the wetland environment that previously existed on Zuni Heaven.
In return, the Zuni Tribe will grandfather existing water uses and waive claims against many future water uses in the Little Colorado River Basin. This legislation exemplifies that the Zuni Tribe can achieve its needs for the Zuni Heaven Reservation and avoid a disruption to local water users and industry. The United States will also avoid costly litigation and satisfy its trust responsibilities to the Zuni Tribe.
This legislation provides much needed assurances to all settlement participants and is the result of four years of good faith negotiations.
I would like to identify and commend the work of the parties to the Zuni Settlement. The parties consist of rural communities in the First District of Arizona, including the City of St. Johns, the Town of Eagar and the Town of Springerville. In addition, the State of Arizona, specifically, the Arizona Game and Fish Department, the State Land Department and the Arizona State Parks Board, Salt River Project, Tucson Electric Power Company, St. Johns Irrigation and Ditch Company, the Lyman Water Company and the Round Valley Water Users' Association.
It is now up to this body to take the final step in making this settlement a reality. I ask
my colleagues to pass this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the very real concerns of the Zuni tribe and its children. This bill would provide critical access to the Little Colorado River Basin to allow the Zuni Indian Tribe…
Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the very real concerns of the Zuni tribe and its children.
This bill would provide critical access to the Little Colorado River Basin to allow the Zuni Indian Tribe acquisition of surface water rights and development of groundwater. The acquisition of water rights and associated lands are vital to the Zuni Indian Tribe's future economic development; and, along those same lines, the child tax credit is critical in helping low-income families, including Zunis, achieve some level of economic security.
This bill secures tribal rights to assured water supplies for present and future generations, while at the same time providing for the sound management of an increasingly scarce resource. Because of the importance and sacredness all forms and sources of water, all prayers and songs of the three major components of the Zuni religion contain language asking for rain and snow to ensure that all crops have enough water to finish their life paths to provide sustenance for their Zuni children. Likewise, enduring access to the child tax credit will help Zuni families provide economic sustenance to their children.
By now, the whole Nation knows what happened 2 weeks ago. They know that a tax credit which would have helped nearly 12 million children from 6.5 million low-income families, including Zuni families, was secretly eliminated by the administration and the gentleman from Texas' (Mr. DeLay) Republican majority.
These families, these Zuni families earn between $10,500 and $26,625 per year, families who really need this tax cut and, yes, they do pay taxes and they are important.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said we have more important matters. These Zuni children are important. In Arizona, 138,000 families with children, 21 percent of the families in the State, are not helped by the child tax credit increase because of the Republicans' last-minute actions. 403,000 Arizona children would be eligible if the child tax credit were made fully refundable, with an additional $259,000 million in credit going to families in the State.
This House ought to be about the working families in this country, those who are Zunis and those who are not. We promised them a child tax credit, and this majority removed it to provide the opportunity for $93,000 in tax cuts to the richest 184,000 millionaires in the country.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?
I just want to ask the gentleman if he will yield for a quick question.
I understand.
. . .
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. And since I could not get the gentleman from Texas to answer a simple question for me, maybe I can pose a question to his colleagues and see if we can get an answer.
It appears in fact that the Senate has come to some agreement; that the Senate has said on a bipartisan basis that we need to address the fact that 12 million children were left out of the equation; that they were supposed to be able to have the benefit of a $400 tax credit, these 6.5 million families. The Senate has come to an agreement with about a $10 billion package.
I want to get an answer from the Republican side of the aisle as to whether or not they will bring up the Senate package for us to be able to deliberate and help those 12 million children and those 6.5 million households. The Senate has done it; we ought to be able to do it here and to address that issue.
If we can, we would like to get an answer to that question.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion for the previous question so that we might have the opportunity to amend a rule and to bring to the House legislation that would bring some equity to the…
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion for the previous question so that we might have the opportunity to amend a rule and to bring to the House legislation that would bring some equity to the recently passed tax bill.
I do not think many Members of the House knew that those that were making the decision would deliberately exclude the benefit of the child tax credit for people making less than $26,000. I refuse to believe that people can be so callous that they would deliberately try to make adjustments to a tax bill that was geared to, as the leadership would say, those who pay the taxes, and exclude the privilege and the opportunity for people to get credit that are in low income merely because they do not pay ``the taxes.''
We have 6.5 million working families that do pay taxes, albeit those taxes may be perceived by the majority not to be important. But they do pay taxes, and they have lost the benefits of receiving tax credits for their children.
But Mr. Speaker, even worse than that, yesterday we passed the resolution paying honor to those brave men and women that were placed in harm's way as a result of the so-called ``victory'' in Iraq. As I said yesterday, parades are important, saluting the flag is important, having a bumper sticker is important; but how we treat these veterans is even far more important.
I know that Republicans do not know, and Democrats are learning, that as a result of so-called tax benefits given to these people that were in combat, that over 200,000 that served in Iraq will be denied the tax credit for their children. Why? Because the language of the tax law is that they have to have taxable income. Out of the benevolence of our hearts we have said that if they served in combat, they do not have to pay taxes.
I hope Members will consider to speedily bring up my bill so that we can remedy this error that has been made. Nobody thought that by removing tax liability we would be actually taking away the benefit of the child tax credits.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Will the gentleman yield on the tax question?
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the distinguished majority leader would extend the courtesy to his Members and not leave the floor. It is so important when Members have something to say to correct their position that they stay on the floor, not for Democrats but for Republicans as well.
This is a very edifying thing that he said in the well of the House. He is trying to rebut the allegations that we have made that in the last tax bill that the working people in the lower incomes were deliberately left out of the bill. Now, my colleague can go back to last year, the year before last, 10 years from now, but the accusation was made and still stands. The accusation is that the Republican leadership cared more about accelerating tax relief for the wealthiest people than they did for working people.
So let us not come here and mislead and make these statements and walk off the floor. There is a tendency for all of us to be out of order when we see the arrogance, the indifference, and the lack of respect that certain Members, especially those in the leadership, have for those that have to work here each and every day.
Mr. Speaker, I was absent for legislative business last week from June 2, 2003 through June 5, 2003 due to the birth of my son, Charles Wilson Ryan on Friday, May 30, 2003, As a result, I missed…
Mr. Speaker, I was absent for legislative business last week from June 2, 2003 through June 5, 2003 due to the birth of my son, Charles Wilson Ryan on Friday, May 30, 2003, As a result, I missed rollcall votes 227 through 248.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes:
227, H. Res. 159, Expressing the Profound Sorrow on the Occasion of the Death of Irma Rangel;
228, H. Res. 195, Congratulating Sammy Sosa of the Chicago Cubs for hitting 500 Major League Home Runs;
229, H.R. 1465, Designating the facility of the United State Postal Service in Iron Station, North Carolina as the ``General Charles Gabriel Post Office'';
230, S. 222, the Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act;
231, S. 273, the Grand Teton National Park Land Exchange Act;
234, H.J. Res. 4, Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Authorizing the Congress to Prohibit the Physical Desecration of the Flag of the United States;
235, H. Res. 231, Supporting the Goals of Peace Officers Memorial Day;
236. H. Res. 257, Providing for Consideration of H.R. 760, The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act;
237, H. Con. Res. 177, Recognizing and commending the members of the U.S. Armed Forces, and the allies of the United States and their armed forces, who participate in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq and the dedication of military families and countless others for their support;
238, H. Res. 201, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that our Nation's businesses and business owners should be commended for their support of our troops and their families as they serve our country in many ways, especially in these days of increased engagement of our military around the world;
239, H.R. 1954, Armed Forces Naturalization Act;
242, H.R. 760, The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act;
243, H. Res. 256, Providing for the consideration of H.R. 1474, Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act;
244, H. Res. 258, On Ordering the Previous Question for the consideration of S. 222, Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights and Settlement Act and S. 273, Grand Teton National Park Land Exchange Act;
245, H. Res. 258, On Agreeing to the Resolution for the consideration of S. 222, Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act and S. 273, Grand Teton National Park Land Exchange Act;
246, H.R. 1474, Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act;
247, S. 222, Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act;
248, S. 273, Grand Teton National Park Land Exchange Act.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the following rollcall votes:
232, S. 763, Birch Bayh Federal Building and United States Courthouse Designation Act;
233, Substitute Amendment offered by Mr. Watt to H.J. Res. 4, Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Authorizing the Congress to Prohibit the Physical Desecration of the Flag of the United States;
240, Substitute Amendment offered by Mr. Greenwood to H.R. 760, Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act;
241, Motion to Recommit with Instructions to H.R. 760, Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. Speaker, that is a little unfair. I do not think anyone objected to flags being flown and so forth. You make a good point on some of the other things, but…
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Speaker, that is a little unfair. I do not think anyone objected to flags being flown and so forth. You make a good point on some of the other things, but that is a little unfair on the flag.
That is unfair.
Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a quick question?
Mr. Speaker, what is the problem then if my colleagues believe in removing all these taxes, which I think there is a lot of merit to, I am a big tax cutter like the gentleman is? I support those ideas. How is that consistent with the taking 3 million, or I should say up to 12 million, children or removing them from the target of a tax cut which my colleagues did, they voted for it?
. . .
Mr. Speaker, I want you to know I mean no disrespect to you personally or to the institution, but the notion that somehow welfare has any role in this debate is asinine. My colleagues know and we know, as do those watching know, certainly our colleagues in the Senate know, that everyone we are discussing today with regard to this child tax credit are working people.
The welfare reform package that passed this Congress passed before I got here, so it is easy for me to say I would have voted for it, since I was not here. But I can assure my colleagues that my votes since that time are consistent with that.
Now, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) coming down here, but what he did, I think, was to lay out pretty clearly for those on our side and the other side just the difference in priorities. Our priorities differ in great ways from the Republicans. Many of us like tax cuts; my Republican colleagues like tax cuts. We think tax cuts should benefit more people, the Republicans think they should benefit a lesser group of people. No disrespect to you. Do not mean to ridicule my colleagues personally, but there are complete differences in priorities and realities.
The reality is what we are discussing today. People earning $25,000 a year or less make up a good portion of America. Frankly, those of us on this floor, that is a fraction of what we earn year in and year out. And how dare we, as we pass a tax cut bill, how dare we say that we have done enough for people that make $11,000, $12,000, $13,000, $14,000 and $15,000 a year. How dare we say that to their children, when the facts betray everything that you believe and I believe.
Frankly, if these children whom we are denying this tax credit to could vote, they would vote all of us out of office. As many times as we have lied to them about building new schools and putting more teachers in the classrooms, they would fire the President, might have even fired the former President.
So let us be honest. We deny 12 million children a tax credit. No funny math, no Enron accounting, no Arthur Andersen accounting can refute that. We should do better and we can.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 222, the…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 222, the Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2003. This is a unique water rights settlement, carefully designed to protect the Zuni's most sacred site while at the same time preserving access to water supplies for upstream users.
The Zunis are counting on this legislation, as my colleague from Arizona knows, to finally settle critical water questions. I urge my colleagues to support Senate S. 222. I would congratulate the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) on his leadership.
This is a unique water rights settlement, carefully designed to protect the Zuni's most sacred site while at the same time preserving access to water supplies for upstream water users.
Recently, a delegation of Zuni tribal leaders and members visited my office here in Washington. They told me Zuni Heaven, a riparian area along the Little Colorado River, is central to the Zuni religious and cultural traditions and is the place where Zuni deities and ancestors have resided from time immemorial.
This sacred riparian area is the home of the Kachina, one of the highest religious orders in Zuni culture, and was in historical times, a very lust riparian area with willow, cottonwood, cattails, turtles, and waterfowl.
Ever since the 1877 Presidential order reduced the Zuni cultural homelands and established the current Zuni Reservation in New Mexico, the Zuni people have maintained the practice of making a pilgrimage to Zuni Heaven.
Every 4 years, Zunis from western New Mexico trek over 50 miles to Zuni Heaven, located in northeast Arizona, to perform religious ceremonies during the summer solstice. This pilgrimage is very important because it helps sustain and rejuvenate Zuni cultural and religious traditions.
The Zuni Water Rights Settlements will help the Zuni people restore their sacred Zuni Heaven to the way it was as described in ancient historical accounts. Furthermore, it will help them develop wetlands for water plants, birds and other animals so important and necessary in carrying on the Zuni Kachina religion.
I extend my compliments to the Zuni people, the State of Arizona, and the non-Indian organizations who participated in the negotiations that resulted in this historic water settlement.
It is unfortunate that we were not able to pass this bill when it first came before the House earlier this week. The Zuni are counting on this legislation to finally settle critical questions about their water rights. We are now able to pass this bill and send it to the President for his signature, and I urge my colleagues to support S. 222.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
Show 11 more
Mr. Speaker, what incredible nonsense we have heard here on the floor of the House this afternoon, this attempt to raise the flag and besmirch Members of this House over their stance on the American…
Mr. Speaker, what incredible nonsense we have heard here on the floor of the House this afternoon, this attempt to raise the flag and besmirch Members of this House over their stance on the American flag practically on the eve of Flag Day.
Let me tell the gentleman (Mr. Kingston), there are two kinds of people today that have the American flag wrapped around them. Some of them are young men and women who come back in coffins with the flag draped around it, who gave their all in the ultimate sacrifice for this country; and all of us honor them, whatever our views about the President's policy. But the other kind of people we do not honor, and it is those who choose to wrap their own bad policies that they cannot defend by stretching the flag around themselves.
What are the merits of the argument about the child tax credit? Who came up with it in the first place? I think the names are Al Gore and Tom Downey, who both served in this body who long ago presented a child tax credit proposal. How did it become law? It eventually became law with the signature of a Democratic President in 1997 when we passed the Balanced Budget Act with the support of a large number of Members on both sides of this aisle, balancing the budget, not busting it as this Republican tax bill would do.
The child tax credit has had strong Democratic support within our caucus and within the Committee on Ways and Means on which I serve, and the only reason any Democrat has voted against that child tax credit on this floor was when it was used, much as the flag has been misused this afternoon, as the reason for voting for a bill that gave most all of the help to the people at the top and none of the people at the bottom.
I am glad that my colleague from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has joined us this afternoon. He has announced to the American people that there are more important things to do than to ensure that the child tax credit is available to people that earn a mere $20,000, $25,000 a year. Who are those people? They are the people that empty the bed pans at the nursing homes. They are the cafeteria workers in our public schools. They are the people that we check out with at the gas station when we go in to pay for our gas. They are people that are sweeping the floors today at the hospitals around America.
Why do those young women and men not have an opportunity to get the same type of child tax credit available to those at the top? They are working. Some of them are working two and three jobs to have a chance to advance out of poverty and share in the American Dream. They respect the flag just as much as the gentleman from Georgia does, but they would also like to share in a little of the American Dream.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. A question was posed and unanswered. We can wait for an answer, if my colleagues have one. Is there no answer to the question?…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. A question was posed and unanswered. We can wait for an answer, if my colleagues have one.
Is there no answer to the question?
Apparently, there is no answer, I tell the gentlewoman from Connecticut, to the question she posed. Let me tell her and my colleagues why.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday syndicated columnist Arianna Huffington, no Democrat and no liberal, and very wealthy, said this in the Los Angeles Times, and I quote: ``A magnetic compass always points north; a moral compass should always point out that heaping billions on the rich while ensuring that one out of six American children do not get a penny is dead wrong.''
Dead wrong. Arianna Huffington. Not the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), not the Democrats, not those fuzzy-headed liberals my Republican colleagues like to talk about, but Arianna Huffington. She continued: ``But that's exactly what congressional Republicans did in pushing through tax cut legislation last month, and that's what President Bush signed off on.'' Arianna Huffington.
Mr. Speaker, America now knows that the GOP's moral compass lies shattered on the conference room floor where the final deals on the Republican tax bill were cut 2 weeks ago.
Why did the majority leader leave the floor? The majority leader left the floor because he used an example just above the $28,000, where he would have been wrong. My colleagues, the moral compass is absent.
There was a report that showed that the policies in 2001 and 2003 are leading to a $44.4 trillion deficit. Who did that? Two people in the Bush administration asked to do that report and OMB. And guess what? They stonewalled the report. Why? Because they did not want the magnitude of the debt tax that we are imposing on every American family known while at the same time, when they had no lobbyist in that hall, those 12 million children, who did not have somebody highly paid to sit in that hallway and say do not cut us, found themselves cut out of the bill that in the still and dark of the night, with no Democrats present, was brought out to this floor, pages and pages of bill, with minutes to review it.
Arianna Huffington is correct. Shame, shame, shame.
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow morning the new unemployment numbers come out, and we are probably close to nearly 3 million people that will have lost their jobs in the last 2 years. We have added $3 trillion…
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow morning the new unemployment numbers come out, and we are probably close to nearly 3 million people that will have lost their jobs in the last 2 years. We have added $3 trillion to the Nation's debt. That has been the end result of this economic plan.
Now, what we are looking for here is 12 million children of working parents to get a tax cut and be treated like the rest of America's children. These are children of working people. Some, as the Children's Defense Fund report shows, are the children of our Armed Forces. They are also children of the law enforcement community, firefighters, first-year teachers, people who work in security in our office buildings across this country, people who work day in and day out putting their hours in and trying to teach their children right from wrong.
What has gone on here is what is wrong with this House today. We came here not just to be votes but to give voice to our values. I know there are good people with good values on the other side of the aisle. There is nothing just in the notion of denying 12 million children, 6\1/2\ million families who work full-time, denying those children who are also America's children a tax cut. We can depreciate the machinery of our corporations, depreciate the value of their machinery; but we cannot appreciate America's children.
I was part of an administration that created and extended the $500- per-child tax credit and gave health insurance to 10 million uninsured children whose parents worked full time.
We balanced the budget. We also provided tax cuts in capital gains, but we balanced the budget. It was in balance with our values. These are not the values we espoused on Memorial Day when we welcomed home our veterans and remembered them for what they had done for this country. This vote should also be remembered.
We can do right. We can correct the wrong, hold our heads up high, not wear this in shame for what it does.
These are 12 million of America's children. Let us do right. Let us remember them as we do every day, trying to do right by our values.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out for my friends on the other side of the aisle that I was prepared, as were my…
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out for my friends on the other side of the aisle that I was prepared, as were my colleagues earlier this week, to vote in favor of this bill and suspension that would protect lands around the Grand Tetons, Wyoming. In fact, my in-laws are homesteaded around the Grand Tetons in Wyoming and I know they were very much in favor of seeing this land preserved for ages to come, including my children and their grandchildren.
We voted to strike it down to make a point, that there are 12 million children who would not be served by the recent tax cut that you imposed upon this country. In fact, in USA Today today, there is an article that says one out of five of those 12 million children who will not be getting a benefit, the families that will get a benefit of the child tax credit, are serving in our military today. Their parents are serving in the military, the same military that brought us the victory and did so much to preserve what this country stands for in the conflict in Iraq.
I have news for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Working people, believe it or not, working people have children. Working people have children. Working people make and made this country what it is today. Do not forget the working people of this country.
Do not forget the working people of this country. They deserve and need a child tax credit just as much as the wealthiest people in this country. They are the men and women who, day in and day out, provide for this country, for the backbone of this country.
It is interesting that there was a move on earlier this week as well and a bill that was supposed to come before us today that would have eliminated comp time as well. This week has been an attack upon the working families of our Nation, and the Republican party should be ashamed of themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this statement for the Record and regret that I could not be present today, Thursday, June 5, 2003, to vote on Roll Call Vote Numbers 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, and…
Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit this statement for the Record and regret that I could not be present today, Thursday, June 5, 2003, to vote on Roll Call Vote Numbers 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, and 248 due to a family medical emergency.
Had I been present, I would have voted:
NO on Roll Call Vote Number 243 on Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 256, Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1474) to facilitate check truncation by authorizing substitute checks, to foster innovation in the check collection system without mandating receipt of checks in electronic form, and to improve the overall efficiency of the Nation's payments system, and for other purposes;
NO on Roll Call Vote Number 244 on Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 258, providing for consideration of the bill (S. 222) to approve the settlement of the water rights claims of the Zuni Indian Tribe in Apache County, Arizona, and for other purposes, and for consideration of the bill (S. 273) to provide for the expeditious completion of the acquisition of land owned by the State of Wyoming within the boundaries of Grand Teton National Park, and for other purposes;
NO on Roll Call Vote Number 245 on H. Res. 258, providing for consideration of the bill (S. 222) to approve the settlement of the water rights claims of the Zuni Indian Tribe in Apache County, Arizona, and for other purposes, and for consideration of the bill (S. 273) to provide for the expeditious completion of the acquisition of land owned by the State of Wyoming within the boundaries of Grand Teton National Park, and for other purposes;
AYE on Roll Call Vote Number 246 on H. R. 1474, Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act;
AYE on Roll Call Vote Number 247 on S. 222, Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2003; and
AYE on Roll Call Vote Number 248 on S. 273--Grand Teton National Park Land Exchange Act.
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my Republican colleagues in this House. Why would you, in a fit of anger because you were not able to get the size of the tax cut you wanted, hold poor little…
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my Republican colleagues in this House. Why would you, in a fit of anger because you were not able to get the size of the tax cut you wanted, hold poor little children hostage in order to extract a larger tax cut for those who were already wealthy?
It is a fair question.
In the middle of the night, over one-half million Ohio children were excluded from this benefit. Those are
children who have moms and dads who are working but their incomes are so low that they may not be required to pay income taxes. But let me tell you, they pay property taxes. They pay Social Security/payroll taxes. They pay all kinds of other taxes. Oh, it is very clever of you to say they do not pay income tax.
I am absolutely disgusted with what has happened in this House. CNN reported that the conservative leader of your party, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), brushed aside criticism that the tax bill did not expand the child tax credit and make it available to millions of poor families. But, he said, House Republicans might support doing so if it prodded senators to vote for a broader tax package. In other words, you may be willing to help the poor kids if it means you can get more money for your rich friends. It is as simple as that, as simple as that.
These are just not the rantings of a Democrat. Let me tell you what Senator John McCain said about it. Senator McCain said, My God, what kind of message are we sending when we leave out low-income families, exactly those who are in that category of the enlisted men and women who are fighting for us in Iraq today? It is beyond belief.
And it is beyond belief, but you have got time to redeem yourself. You have got time to change this policy and take care of the kids, 500,000 in Ohio, who need your help.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of heated debate about this issue all morning, but I think there is a basic undisputed fact that frankly should rise above the fray: there was no effort to limit this…
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of heated debate about this issue all morning, but I think there is a basic undisputed fact that frankly should rise above the fray: there was no effort to limit this tax break until the end game of the conference report process, when the administration and those who were shaping the tax cut needed to find $3 billion.
When they needed to do that, they did not search the high end of the bracket; they did not search the offshore loopholes. They went into the pockets of people who need tax relief more than anyone else. That was a choice of priorities. It was a statement that the people who do the hardest work in this country are, frankly, the ones who would be asked to sacrifice first.
I wonder what the people of this country will think, what our constituents will think, when they hear that
under the rules of this House they do not even deserve a vote. I wonder what the people who work every single day will think when they hear that a child tax break for them will be welfare. I wonder what these individuals who bear the brunt of payroll taxes will think when they hear that they do not need a tax credit because they really are not taxpayers. I wonder what the parents in my district, who begin paying taxes in the State of Alabama at $4,000, will think when they hear that they do not need tax relief.
This plan, as we knew from the beginning, strikes the wrong priorities. It leaves out people who are most in need of help, Mr. Speaker. I think that it is incumbent on us as a matter of conscience that we correct this imbalance.
This is the work that we ought to do for the people, that of correcting imbalances where they exist and that of correcting inequities where they exist, and not looking into the pockets of our weakest people to balance our budget.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out to my colleagues that what we are here to debate is the rule as it affects the Zuni tribe of New Mexico and Arizona as it affects the sacred lands and those…
Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out to my colleagues that what we are here to debate is the rule as it affects the Zuni tribe of New Mexico and Arizona as it affects the sacred lands and those lands right now that have no water.
We were able to provide them with enough land in 1984 to establish Zuni Heaven in Arizona, a reservation, and yet without Senator Kyl's intervention we would not have been able to achieve the kind of water that we see the communities in rural Arizona supplying now.
This summer, while we debate separate issues, the Zuni people are hoping to engage in their 4-year migration and trek to their holy lands, to their holy site. So the delay that we imposed 2 days ago, the delay we impose today affects their ability to plan and celebrate this agreement. And there is all kinds of agreement, I think even from both sides, if my colleagues will allow us to get to it. We need to be able to restore the tribe's ability to perform not only the religious duties but the farming and subsistence that they need in order to care for their children.
So when we talk about children today, the Zuni people themselves are waiting to plant their crops and feed their children. They are waiting to take their children to their sacred lands, their wetlands, to teach their children their sacred rights. There will be no more delay if we can get this to a vote. Each day, each hour, each minute we allow to pass, the Zuni people feel there are inequities and that the agreement cannot be reached.
For the record, I want the Zuni people to know that what they see here today does not reflect upon them as a people. There are hours and times, Special Orders available in this House for this issue to be debated. Instead, my colleagues have taken their issue and turned this into a side show.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose a rule that does not allow the House to consider providing working families with the child care credit. The current situation imposes the injury of denying these working…
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose a rule that does not allow the House to consider providing working families with the child care credit. The current situation imposes the injury of denying these working families $400 that they need and then adds the insult of telling these families that they are not taxpayers, so they do not deserve any tax relief. Of course, looking at their paycheck stubs, they see the taxes they are paying.
Allowing corporations to avoid American taxes just by renting a hotel in the Bahamas, $8 billion; allowing millionaires to pay virtually nothing on their dividend income, $80 billion;
eliminating the estate tax even on the largest estates, $138 billion; telling working families that they do not deserve relief and that they are not taxpayers, that is priceless.
There are some things campaign contributions just will not buy. For everything else, there is RepubliCard, accepted at the finest country clubs in the Bahamas. Members will want to get the Deficit Express card, now that the Republican Congress has increased the credit limit to $12 trillion. The Deficit Express card? Do not leave the House without it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because working families should be our priority today, families like Cori's. Cori came to a local Head Start in my district at a low point in her life.…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because working families should be our priority today, families like Cori's. Cori came to a local Head Start in my district at a low point in her life. She was a single parent without any support system and very little money and very little self-esteem. She had just completed a recovery program and was seeking to put her life back together.
Cori went on to volunteer for Head Start, completed an AA degree in early childhood development, and now Cori is a Head Start employee for the past 3 years and wants to get her bachelor's degree. Mr. Speaker, Cori and her two daughters will be denied the child tax credit, while those making more than $1 million a year receive overall tax cuts totalling $93,500.
Our priority today should be, must be, the Rangel-Davis-DeLauro bill, which will expand the child tax credit and marriage penalty relief for lower-income working families. Passing it can be the first step to reversing the wrong done to these hard workers.
Mr. Speaker, on the legislative day of Thursday, June 5, 2003, the House voted on H. Res. 258 that provided for the consideration of S. 222 and S. 273. On House rollcall vote No. 245, I was…
Mr. Speaker, on the legislative day of Thursday, June 5, 2003, the House voted on H. Res. 258 that provided for the consideration of S. 222 and S. 273. On House rollcall vote No. 245, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Bill Text
2 versions available
[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 258 Engrossed in House (EH)]
In the House of Representatives, U.S.,
June 5, 2003.
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order
without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the bill (S.
222) to approve the settlement of the water rights claims of the Zuni Indian
Tribe in Apache County, Arizona, and for other purposes. 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) 40
minutes of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources; and (2) one motion to
recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without
intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the bill (S. 273) to
provide for the expeditious completion of the acquisition of land owned by the
State of Wyoming within the boundaries of Grand Teton National Park, and for
other purposes. 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) 40 minutes of debate on the bill equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Resources; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Attest:
Clerk.