Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4359) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the child tax credit.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 644, I call up the bill (H.R. 4359) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the child tax credit, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of legislation to permanently extend the child tax credit to millions of hardworking American families. H.R. 4359, the Child Credit Preservation and Expansion Act of 2004, will prevent 30 million American families from being hit with a tax increase next year. The bill before us today will make the $1,000 child credit permanent while enhancing the credit for low-income families, middle-income families, married couples and our military families. As the economy continues to grow, it is important that Congress stand in firm support of policies that strengthen families.

The current credit is a product of the 2001 tax law, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, which increased the tax credit to $600 per child through 2004, eventually raising it to $1,000 per child by 2010. This tax relief was accelerated in last year's Jobs and Growth tax relief bill which made the $1,000 credit available to families immediately for 2003 and 2004. Today's bill would make this level of relief permanent and enhances the credit by making it more available to lower-income, middle-income and military families.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to making the $1,000 credit permanent, H.R. 4359 also provides for several other tax benefits that Members on both sides of the aisle have sought. The bill increases the level of refundability to 15 percent of earned income above $10,750, a year earlier than provided under current law. Soldiers in combat areas and their families will receive additional support because the bill allows combat pay to be treated as earned income for the credit's refundability. Further, this bill would permanently prevent the child credit from being lost to the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Congress must not allow taxes to be increased on American families just as our economy gets going. This tax credit is good for the American family and good for the American soldier. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means and chairman of the Trade Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).

(Mr. BROWN of South Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means and chairman of the Subcommittee on Health.

(Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the Subcommittee on Human Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

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

Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers at this time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

We have the right to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, this legislation makes the child tax credit permanent and enhances it. Without this credit, without action, this credit will decline by $300 or it will raise taxes on families next year if we do not take action.

The enhancements in this legislation increase the level of refundability to 15 percent of earned income at those income levels above $10,750 and it raises that 1 year earlier than under current law.

Our military families have enhanced benefits as a result of this legislation because combat pay is treated as earned income for refundability, and we permanently prevent the child credit from being lost to AMT.

Let me just say something about the Alternative Minimum Tax. A couple of weeks ago, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle offered an amendment to define the Alternative Minimum Tax to define middle-income taxpayers exactly the same way we have defined them in this legislation. So the enhancement of this credit for those middle-income families is important, but it is something that those on the other side proposed just 2 weeks ago.

Let me lastly say that this is really about strengthening families, and it is interesting to hear the argument on the other side for those who feel that if the government loses money, somehow that is a problem for families. What we say is, no, this money is earned by those families in America and across the country, and if we can do whatever we can to have them keep more of their hard-earned money, that ultimately means not only would their families be doing better, but our economy will do better, and if the economy does better, our government will do better.

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

Mr. Speaker, Members should oppose this substitute for three simple reasons:

First, just like the sponsors' substitute last week on permanence of the 10 percent bracket, this substitute is only temporary. It is not permanent tax relief. The substitute would cut the child credit in half after 2010, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Here is what that means. The benefits to the lowest income families would disappear. The benefits for our military personnel and their families would disappear. The AMT will gobble up the tax credits, which will drop to $500 per child in 2011 for families.

Second, the substitute does not eliminate the marriage penalty and the child credit, and it does not expand access to the credit for middle-income families. By contrast, our bill, H.R. 4359, will provide the full tax credit to married couples with up to $250,000 in income and for single parents with up to $125,000 in income.

The substitute's advocates are opposed to providing help to these families. And this is really a mystery, since the Democrats were willing to provide these same families with tax relief three separate times in the last 3 weeks. Two of their recent substitutes to other tax bills would have granted AMT relief both to married couples and people in the 10 percent bracket regardless of their income. The Rangel substitute on AMT relief exempted couples with up to $250,000 adjusted gross income, and single taxpayers with up to $125,000 in adjusted gross income from the AMT.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would submit my friends on the other side simply are not being consistent. They continue to change their definition of middle-class families to suit whatever needs they see at the time.

Finally, a tax increase is used to fund this bill, a 2.75 percent new tax on entrepreneurs. Seventy-five percent of the tax filers that this new tax will strike have business income. The Democrats' approach would raise taxes on small business owners and investors

and undermine the economic growth that tax relief has delivered.

This same tax-and-tax again approach has been rejected twice this May by substantial margins in this House and should be rejected again.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments and appreciate much of the work we have done together on the Subcommittee on Human Resources.

I would say, just a couple of weeks ago the other side of the aisle set their own definition of middle class when they offered an amendment on the floor to expand AMT to include ``more middle class families'' and exempt

them from the AMT, which is exactly the same levels we have tried to incorporate in this bill. We have changed this bill to include those families. We are working together to try to strengthen families in America and try to help families with the incredible costs and burdens of raising children today. So I think we can all agree it is those families that need help.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter), the sponsor of the base bill, H.R. 4359.

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

I certainly appreciate the gentleman's view of history. I would just point out that he forgot to mention that the previous administration signed the largest tax increase in history, which actually started to begin the economic decline that occurred at the end of the last administration.

I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that what we are trying to do here in terms of helping middle-class families is exactly the same definition that my friends on the other side used 2 weeks ago in their attempts to change the AMT to make that more beneficial.

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

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

Let me just say that my friend's view of this whole economy and budget process is very different, because while his party was in control, the budget was not balanced for two generations. It took our party to gain the majority to actually bring some fiscal sanity to the process.

I would just say that what we are debating here today, though, is whether we are going to extend the child tax credit permanently and whether we are going to do that in a way to help more low-income families, more middle-class families and more military families. The base bill does that.

The substitute regrettably raises taxes on small businesses and entrepreneurs. That is exactly the wrong thing to do as we begin to see job creation come again; 1.2 million jobs since October of last year have been created as a result of the tax relief that we have passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say that I urge Members to reject the substitute because it does not make the child tax credit permanent, it ends in 2010, and we need to make that tax relief permanent.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), chairman of the full Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the Rangel substitute for three reasons: the Rangel substitute does not make the $1,000 tax credit permanent. The Rangel substitute will cut the $1,000 child tax credit in 2011 in half,

according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. The result: millions of low-income families and military families will face a hefty tax increase. In addition, more than 1 million more taxpayers would fall victim to the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The second reason to reject the Rangel substitute is that it does not include tax relief for middle-class families in the way of the child tax credit. In the Democrat substitute to the AMT bill, it was the Democrats who defined middle-class families as single parents earning $125,000 a year and married couples earning $250,000 a year. This substitute would deny the full credit to families in those ranges. As a result, this substitute does not give the full tax credit to families defined by my friends on the other side as middle class.

Thirdly, the Rangel substitute raises taxes on small businesses and entrepreneurs. The Democrat alternative creates a new tax that will hit approximately 200,000 individual tax returns. Seventy-five percent of those have business income, the same small business community that we have been working so hard to bring back. The House has rejected similar tax increases twice in the last 3 weeks.

I urge my colleagues to believe in parents, believe in families, believe in children, reject the Rangel substitute, and vote for H.R. 4359.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important we understand what the issue is here today and where there is a difference. It is not a question of extending the child credit; we favor its extension. It is not a question of accelerating the 15 percent refundability; Democrats support it and urged it before. It is not a question relating to military families; we Democrats have been urging that before and support it now.

So what is the issue here? It is interesting that my colleague from Michigan does not discuss either of the two

major issues. Somehow by using the term ``families,'' there is the notion that major issues can be avoided, that major issues can be skirted, that major issues can somehow be covered up by the use of the term ``families.'' We are not going to let that happen. Whoever is listening must learn the difference here.

Part of it relates, and now I am talking about the differences between the substitute and this bill, to low-income working families. The substitute would provide more benefits because for working families the threshold was indexed. We want to de-index it. That will help 2.5 million working families. We also want to increase the benefit for every family by indexing the credit.

I also now want to point out two additional major differences. This is not only an extension, this is a new tax break. This is not only an extension of this credit, this is a new tax cut. And for whom? It is a tax cut not really only for families earning $110,000 because they receive some of the benefits of the present system. For example, it goes up to $120,000, $130,000, et cetera. For a family of two with $135,000, they get 375 bucks for each child.

So this really goes beyond the present system, one that provides some relief for families up to $150,000 and in some cases beyond, depending on the number of children. Now, what this is, is a new tax break that goes beyond the $150,000, beyond $200,000, beyond $250,000, beyond in some cases $300,000. This is not a tax break mainly for middle-income families. It is a tax break for Members of Congress who have kids 17 and under. Do we need that tax break? I do not think so. I do not think so.

Under the tax legislation that was passed before, the very wealthy families have already received an ample tax break. And if the first chart would be brought forth, I want to refer to it. This is for family household incomes 200 to $500,000: $7,430, this has been the average tax cut in earlier years. And what this bill would do would be to add 2,000 bucks to it. That is what this bill does. Do not call it just an extension. That is point one.

So when I hear, as I heard earlier today, this is for families to buy diapers, to buy toys, to buy a swing, no. I am in favor of providing, and so are Democrats, the extension for families who clearly need it. I am not in favor of a new tax break for families who clearly do not need it, 250,000 bucks a year.

Stand up and say that you are providing a tax break for them. Stand up and say you are providing a tax break for the Members of Congress with kids 17 and under. What this is, is an example of imbalance of priorities and, indeed, of perspective. And to make it worse, you do not pay for it.

I ask that the second chart be brought forth. And I want everybody to understand what the Republican majority is doing here. This tax cut, the way they have tailored it, the estimate is it is going to cost about $228 billion. Of that, close to $70 billion is because of your new tax break. My gosh, you do not even pay for the child credit that makes really good sense. Okay. Should you not at least pay for a tax break for families making 250 and 300,000 bucks a year? That is not just fiscal irresponsibility; that is fiscal madness.

So that is why I rise today and urge support for the substitute and urge that people vote with some perspective, with some sense of priorities, and vote against the Republican majority bill.

It is not going to pass the Senate. I do not even know how you make it in order in the Senate. If this bill had come out of the Committee on Ways and Means, as I understand the rules, there had to be a waiver by rules in order for us to consider it today because it does not come within any budget.

So what we are doing today is in a sense going through the motions, and I am in favor of making clear to low- and increasing numbers of low-income families the need for a child credit. I am in favor of making clear an extension of the child credit for middle-income families in this country. It does not make any sense to dig a deeper fiscal hole for families making 200, 250, $300,000 a year.

I close with this and everybody take notice: what you are doing by giving a tax break to a relatively small number of families, not all of whom but many of whom are earning 175,000, 200,000, $200,000 a year, what you are doing is, in essence, putting a tax on all of the families of America, if not next year, in the future, because they are going to have to pay for the interest on this deep, deep deficit. And you are just adding to it.

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

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

I want to point out to the gentleman from Illinois that over 2 million children in Illinois will receive more of a benefit from the Democratic substitute than from the Republican bill and only the very wealthiest 4 percent of the families in Illinois will receive any of the new tax cut that goes beyond the extension of the present system.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), an active member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want anyone to be misled by the gentleman from Nevada. The $250,000 figure related to the Alternative Minimum Tax, not to the child credit. The AMT was never intended to apply, except to the very wealthy, and we want to make sure it does not. They have not stepped up to the plate on it.

Also, I want to point out that 400,000 children in Nevada will benefit more from the Democratic substitute than the Republican bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the active and distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina that about 800,000 children in South Carolina will benefit more from the Democratic alternative than the Republican bill, and that less than 3 percent of the families in the gentleman's State would benefit from the additional $70 billion in tax cuts in the Republican bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege and pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I just want to say to the gentleman, this is not about tax relief for people who need money to buy hamburgers or books. You add $60 billion, $8 billion, $70 billion to the debt, in large part for families making $200,000, $250,000.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is left?

Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman ready to close?

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), our very distinguished colleague.

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

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and myself, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a very distinguished colleague and member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Do not keep repeating a big fib. The AMT was not supposed to cover except a small minority of the taxpayers. We did not define a certain amount as middle class. It is not in that legislation.

Do not repeat it. It is not true. This is a child credit. You are adding on to an extension $70 billion in large part, substantial part, for very high-income families beyond $250,000. This is not the AMT; this is the child credit. Get off your big fib.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Look, the 10 percent applied across the board, and so much of it went to families other than the very wealthy. So much of this proposal of yours goes to families that are very wealthy. That is the difference.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), one of the cosponsors of the substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I want to say respectfully to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), what the majority's bill does, adding a new tax cut, gives a tax cut to Members in the gentleman's position, not to families who are struggling to find money to buy books or buy hamburgers; and to dig a deeper hole for that reason is a mistake.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

I have no idea what the gentleman was referring to. No idea.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

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

The issue is not extension of the child credit. We favor it. Nor taking into account the needs of military families. We are very much for it.

There is a difference and a big difference. Why should we create a new tax program here? Why? Why for families making $300,000, $250,000? Are they the families in need? And is it right to do so when we add $70 billion to the deficit? The answer, I say to my chairman, pay for it. Pay for it.

You say it is not permanent and yet you say you are going to grow out of the deficit. Okay. If you are right, our proposal is permanent. If you are wrong, as you have been before, in some years we will take another look. Do not raise, I hope again in your remarks, even though when you have a message, you keep after it even if it is wrong, the AMT illustration. It is simply not correct. We do not use the term ``middle class'' in our AMT proposal. What we say is the AMT should be used for the same purpose as it was intended, for very wealthy families, and we are consistent because we say do not add a new child credit, a new tax break for very wealthy families when you are digging another $70 billion in the hole.

That is not fiscally responsible, as I said before. It is fiscal insanity. Do not raise children when your kids and my grandkids, if not my children, would pay for your irresponsibility, adding $70 billion to the already huge pile of debt. It is red enough. Do not add to it.

I urge that we vote for this responsible substitute and that we vote ``no'' against a very irresponsible, unneeded, additional tax credit that is in their proposal.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, how historic it would be if we could get back to the idea that tax bills would come out of the tax-writing committee. Every bill that has been coming to the floor has been without the benefit of Republicans and Democrats having an opportunity to evaluate the legislation, to improve on the legislation. At least at a time when our Nation has this polarized war on our hands, would that we could say in the tax-writing committee, we are working together to improve the economy and that we also support our troops, we support Social Security, we support Medicare.

But this is not the case.

There is no basic difference in the thrust of the Republican bill and the Democratic bill. They just would like to make certain that the benefits would go up to people making $329,000. There is no basic difference. They would drive us into debt some $228 billion, because they do not attempt to pay for it.

There is no basic difference, because we are just more concerned with those in the lower income, while they have this fetish, this desire, that no matter how much it costs, they have to make these special appeals to those that have so much.

It would have been that if we were working together, then we could find some equitable solution.

Somewhere on the Republican side, somewhere there is somebody that believes that we should not go deeper into debt. I do not know who it is, I have not met anybody, but there has to be someone that believes that, with the $500 billion in the tax bills we have had.

It would seem to me that the basic principle should include two things: One, this is a time of war. We are spending $4 billion a month because the President has been ordained to bring peace and democracy to this part of the world. He does not know, and neither does Secretary Rumsfeld know, how many months it is going to take in order to pay this cost, not just in human resources, but in dollars.

We have spent over $150 billion, and we are going deeper and deeper in debt. As has been pointed out, we have to pay the interest on that debt. We do not know what it is, besides prescription drugs, that we are going to have to give up. How many schools do we have to give up? How many Social Security payments do we have to give up?

Do we have any obligation at all to legislate today with some consideration for our kids and our grandkids? I do not think so. You have a Committee on the Budget, I guess, because you want to have one. But what impact does it have on the trillions of dollars that we have gone into debt because we want to show the world that we have a fetish in order to give the tax credits and the tax benefits to the top percentage of those people who have such high incomes.

How embarrassed you should be to be able to tell one of your friends and constituents, have I got a surprise for you. I got on the floor of the House and I said, If you make $329,000 a year, net, and you have four kids, I was thinking about you. I was thinking about you on Memorial Day. I was thinking about you when they were looking for more troops to send to Iraq. I was thinking about you and wondering how could I get you to be patriotic enough to know that you can make a sacrifice? But how did it turn out? I am giving you $4,000 to let you know that as Republicans, we care.

You may get some Democrats to support you because they do not want to be against any child credit. But if they only knew how much their children and their grandchildren would be paying for this credit in a nonpolitical year, we would not be doing it, and no responsible Republican would be doing something like this.

This is election year politicking so you can say you voted for the child credit. Your credibility is so shot on the Republican side, they will not believe it anyway. But having said that, God forbid if they should ask one of your candidates, ``and how do you intend to pay for it?'' And paying for it is just not on the Republican agenda. Borrowing is.

So I hope that people will see their way clear to do not just the right thing by working Americans, to give them a break, especially those that have kids, but do the right thing for the country. Do the right thing for the future. Do the right thing for our kids.

How selfish it is for us to be spending everything, reducing taxes, and knowing one day someone may ask us, granddad, what were you doing when they increased the taxes on me so much? Were you one of those people in the Congress that was a part of this?

I, for one, would be able to say ``no.'' I stood up against them. They have had

the majority temporarily, but, God willing, all of this will change and we can get back to some norm. It is nothing I am looking forward to, being in the majority, because we will have the responsibility to be responsible, and when we give tax breaks and social services and education and homes and make Social Security secure and come up with a decent prescription drug bill, we would say, ``And we have to find the money to pay for it.''

That is the only difference between Republicans and Democrats: We pay for what we want to do.

Mr. Speaker, this substitute, for those who are listening, gives an opportunity for people to do the right thing for working families that deserve some type of tax break for their young kids, that deserve a deduction. Again, the basic difference is do we want to burden the children of the future with the price that we pay for this. We say no.

Can we not think about doing things and providing this type of relief and paying for it? There has to be in this Tax Code that weighs 25 pounds some loopholes that my colleagues can find for the wealthy that you are prepared to say, this is a time of war, this is a time of sacrifice, we just cannot take care of everybody at the same time. Let us start off with those people that work every day. Those families, the kids from the families that are working, that are volunteering, that are in the National Guard, that are in the Reserve, these are the families that really need the help.

When we start getting up there to $300,000 a year, these are not the families from the communities that produce our warriors. It is not me that says that; it is the DOD that says it. The statistics say it. The low- and the middle class are the warriors that are fighting in Iraq. These are the families that deserve the support.

We welcome the fact that our colleagues saw their way clear to make adjustments so that combat pay would not exclude these families from some type of relief. But every time you bring a tax bill, do not drive us deeper and deeper in debt. We support the concept; we just support a better economic basis for the future.

It is so selfish for us to do what we want to do politically this year and leave the burden on the generations thereafter that follow us. As Americans, as Members of Congress, the things that we have to do in terms of national security are not always just guns and planes and the military. It is a sound economic policy so that the future of our great country will not be left in the hands of foreign investors, but in the hands of economists that work with us as Members of Congress to do the responsible thing.

So the reason that we have this substitute is so that we do not deviate from the good intentions of some of our Republican friends, but that we do have a sound economic policy.

Now, my colleagues can talk all they want about the Alternative Minimum Tax. We are not going to attack you on that. You do not have the courage to stand up and talk about the $800 billion it would take to fix it. You are not going to fix it. We tried to give temporary relief. This is designed to create some type of relief for those in the higher income that we say must pay some type of tax. But what you have done is driven the tax burden on these middle-income people, and we tried to give relief.

Let us try not to avoid the fiscal irresponsibility on this bill. Do not talk about the Alternative Minimum Tax. We beg you to bring a bill out to talk about that. Talk about this bill and who gets the relief. And I hope some of the people on the other side of the aisle might say, what does this do to the deficit. Let that be the key question: What is the difference between the bills: Which one is paid for, which one is not paid for, which drives us into the deficit and which one says that we break even because we have closed up loopholes?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for the opportunity to speak and the way he has managed this bill today. It causes us in the House and on the Committee on Ways and Means to wish we could do some of these debates in committee rather than wait for the Committee on Rules to give us a bill that we have to debate on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 644 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 644 provides for 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

It also provides for consideration of the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution, if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.

Finally, the resolution waives all points of order against the amendment printed in the report and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, in 2001, Congress passed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, which put $1 trillion back into the pockets of the American people and led to the strong economic recovery we are witnessing today. Without that package, the beating that our economy took as a result of September 11 would have been even more disastrous.

This relief plan expanded the child tax credit initially enacted as part of the Tax Relief Act of 1997, increasing it from $400 to $1,000 over 10 years. The jobs and growth package of 2003 accelerated the credit to $1,000 in 2003 and 2004.

Today's bill, sponsored by my friend, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter), addresses the $1,000 tax credit, which is set to snap back to $700 in 2005 if we do not act today. In addition, the bill makes the child tax credit permanent and raises the eligibility limits on those who can claim the credit to include more middle-income parents.

Finally, the bill accelerates the refundability of the child tax credit this year to make it available to more of the Americans who need it, low-income families.

Mr. Speaker, tax relief stimulates economic growth. In 1997, unemployment was at 4.9 percent, and the Republican-led Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act. Unemployment fell to 4.5 percent in 1998, 4.2 percent in 1999, and a rock bottom 4 percent in the year 2000.

In 2001, we passed the Taxpayer Relief Act, putting nearly $1 trillion back into the hands of American families. And given the economic history I will continue with shortly, I am convinced that we would have seen unemployment rates fall even farther. But then September 11 hit, one of the most tragic days in American history. A horrendous loss of life through a murderous act of terrorism; an act that cost our economy trillions.

Unemployment jumped to 5.8 percent in 2002 as millions of Americans lost jobs connected to tourism, services, construction, and the list goes on and on and on. But we knew what to do. We knew how to respond. We knew that simply increasing spending would not lead to long-term viability and sustained recovery. Instead, we had to find a way to put money into the hands of consumers and businesses so they could make smart economic decisions that would begin to rebuild our economy.

So we enacted tax relief. We passed the Jobs and Growth Act to spur spending by American businesses. And after unemployment hit 6 percent in 2003, we saw the positive effects of these cumulative tax cuts begin to take effect. Beginning last November, unemployment steadily began to decrease. So we passed more tax cuts to speed up the process. And you know what happened? Unemployment continued to fall, all the way to 5.6 percent.

Now, some people say that is not good enough. During the so-called tech boom, unemployment was as low as 4 percent. Well, you know what? I agree with them, we must do better. We should always strive to do better. One person unemployed is one too many. And today's bill will do exactly that. It will put $200 billion directly into the hands of American families, families who also happen to be consumers. And every dollar they spend, whether on a package of diapers, a tank of gas, or a car payment, they will be supporting America's jobs.

At the end of the day, that is what this debate is all about, American jobs. It is all about the cumulative effect of a Republican revolution that started in 1994 and led to strong and steady growth in spite of the horrors of September 11.

Beginning 3 weeks ago, we continued our commitment to strengthening the economy by preventing job-destroying tax hikes, passing permanent extensions of the new 10 percent tax bracket, wiping out the punitive marriage penalty, and relieving many families of the burdensome and unfair Alternative Minimum Tax.

Now we have before us the Child Tax Preservation and Expansion Act of 2004. Once again, this bill will make permanent the $1,000 child tax credit, preventing an unfair and unreasonable tax increase of $600 on 30 million taxpayers with 49 million children. After 2010, this bill will prevent a tax hike of $1,100 on 34 million taxpayers with 59 million children.

Finally, the bill helps our soldiers serving in combat by allowing nontaxable combat pay to be taken into account when calculating the refundable portion of the child tax credit. Currently, such pay is excluded from the calculation when calculating eligibility for the credit, thereby depriving thousands of our soldiers of a portion of the credit.

When we accelerated the child tax credit in 2003, 25 million families received checks totaling $14 billion. That is right, $14 billion was given back to consumers to pump into the economy. Imagine what a typical family can do with that kind of money, and $400 is what each typical family would get, a family with one child.

This bill is an opportunity for parents to spend money on their children, whether it is for a vacation, for an education, for diapers, for groceries, for a swingset. Whatever they want, they will have the money, and they can make the decisions. And it will also make our workforce more competitive because we will have that many more jobs.

Mr. Speaker, do we support tax relief for families, tax relief that will enable us to save for our children's education, finance a new house, pay for other activities that will continue to strengthen the economy? I do. I think the answer is a clear yes.

A ``yes'' vote on this rule and the underlying bill is a vote in favor of American families and a vote to spur more economic growth, so I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), my good friend from the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), a champion of this cause.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).

Mr. Speaker, I assume there is some relevancy to this particular debate on this particular measure offered by the gentleman from Washington.

But I think we really ought to put this entire debate in perspective. In 1993, with a Democrat President and a Democratically controlled Congress, the largest tax increase in the history of the United States was put in place. There was an opportunity at that time to make adjustments on the Alternative Minimum Tax which would not place us in the position that we are in today. That measure passed this House with all Democratic votes and no Republican votes. That was in the first full year of President Clinton's presidency.

The next year was an off-year election for the House of Representatives and one-third of the United States Senate. The American people, for the first time in 40 years, decided that empty promises and failure to deliver and continuing to assume that by requiring Americans to send a dollar to Washington with bureaucratic waste, fraud and abuse subtracted and the 86 cents, the 82 cents, the 76 cents that was sent back to them on programs that they promised to help them was a failed policy. That produced the first Congress of a Republican majority in 40 years.

Ten years later, Republicans are still in the majority. I do not see any better example of the fundamental choices in which the American people chose our way of dealing with issues versus theirs.

Somehow requiring people to pay taxes when they have children at home, for which the amount we are debating does not even offset inflation over the last decade, of increasing the child deduction, somehow allowing them to keep $1,000 per child so that perhaps a school choice would be different, perhaps an educational or enlightenment trip would be different, so that that child in terms of the $20,000 that is going to be available to someone, have you checked college tuition nowadays? The concept of putting money away for future education can be assisted by this $1,000.

And the real problem to my friends on the other side is to see a dollar of tax revenue lost because they did not get it, they did not get their fingers on it, and they did not create a program in the hopes that someone would vote for them because they were going to give them the money.

What I see is an opportunity for a family to allow that child to be enriched over their lifetime, that, in, fact they do go to college. Anybody knows, and graphs show today, a college education is worth about $4 million over the earning life of that individual. And do you know what you do when you make that much money? You surely know listening to their arguments, because if people make a little bit of money, they pay a lot of taxes.

One of the things Republicans have done in this Tax Code is to drop more people off the tax rolls than they have ever done in the history of the time that they have controlled the House of Representatives.

Now, there is a problem when people do not pay income taxes, because they do not get the benefits of the structure of the income tax, for example, the child tax credit. So they then come to the well and say people who do not pay income taxes should get the benefits, notwithstanding the fact they do not pay income taxes, of the people who pay income taxes. That is an unfair system.

And all we are saying is let us give the American family a little security and assurance. What we do in our proposal is make it $1,000 and make it permanent. What they do is dangle out the opportunity that there may be $1,000. If someone in the executive branch certifies that what this constitutionally independent body can do is okay to do, they turn over fundamental legislative decisions to the executive branch. Does the executive branch certify that we can do it? Yes or no?

That is how desperate these people are, to come up with an angle which allows them to say this is what we are going to offer, with the ability, in fact, to jerk it away and never allow the American family to get the $1,000 child tax credit.

So the choice is pretty simple. Certainty, appropriateness, and the investment where we think that investment does the most good, to the family for them to decide. That is the proposal before us.

The substitute says let us promise something that is not guaranteed, that someone in an entirely different constitutional structure will tell you whether or not you can do it. I think that is why finally in 1994 the American people said we have had enough, we want to go a different way.

And to my friend from Texas talking about a balanced budget under the Clinton administration, to make sure history is accurate, 6 of those 8 years Republicans were in the majority in the House and the Senate. That is how we came out of the deficit. Everybody knows the world's circumstances that we were in. We will get out of the deficit again how? By not hoping that keeping taxpayers poor and government rich will solve the problem, but by making sure that we invest in the future in the American way, let those people spend their own money in ways they think bring the best return. And guess what, jobs are created, productivity is up, more taxes come in, i.e., we have revenue coming in.

The real question of whether or not we are able to grow out of this deficit is whether or not we control spending. Not giving people their own money back to spend, that is not the problem. It is new programs, larger programs, spending, that is the greatest concern.

A pretty fundamental battle here today. Invest in individuals that made America great, provide more fodder for government spending so that these folks can say I gave them something. We want the mother and father to tell the child they gave them something, not the government.