Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to The Most Reverend Robert J. Carlson on his installation as the fifth bishop of the Diocese of Saginaw.

During this penitential and traditionally solemn season of Lent, this is by contrast a day of celebration and reason to give thanks for God's many blessings.

We are thankful that the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, led Bishop Carlson to Saginaw, and we are grateful to Bishop Carlson for saying yes to that call.

God has chosen Bishop Carlson to come to Saginaw. By giving us a new bishop, God has revealed a powerful sign that we are not alone in this journey. As we prepare for the Easter celebration, we pray that God will act through Bishop Carlson to change our hearts and help us be more faithful servants.

Bishop Carlson has been a strong advocate for the underserved. We are called to serve the poor and defend the weak from the strong. In that respect, I also appreciate Bishop Carlson's strong support for life, from the beginning until its natural end. We hope that Bishop Carlson's example of faith in God will inspire not just Catholics but people of all faiths and even non-religious backgrounds to seek the Truth.

As the members of the community of believers in Saginaw, we offer our prayers and congratulations to Bishop Carlson as he starts his ministry in mid-Michigan.

For the many Catholics I represent in Michigan's Fourth Congressional District, may God lead and guide you and the Saginaw Diocese to do His will.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the distinguished service of Ambassador Michael Kergin, a man who has done much to advance the combined interests of Canada and the United States of America.

Mr. Kergin has spent the better part of the last 4 decades in public service. His experience has served him not only well at home but also here. He has served the American people very well.

When our Nation was attacked by terrorists on September 11, 2001, I knew we had a friend in Michael Kergin and in Canada. Standing shoulder to shoulder, our two countries moved forward to battle against those who sought to disrupt the free and democratic world.

Having served as chairman of the former Select Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Infrastructure and Border Security, I have always been especially thankful that Ambassador Kergin was a constant source of goodwill and great insight as we secured our shared border while protecting our economies and the hundreds of thousands of jobs dependent on North American trade.

Together, we were able to secure a new working agreement, implement new tactics, utilize advanced technology and biometrics, and integrate border teams, all in order to strengthen border security without straining our friendship. The delicacy of such strategic initiatives and the relative ease with which they were accomplished is a testament to the skills Ambassador Kergin has always employed to ensure our historic friendship with our northern border remains sound.

As I am sure his services will be missed in Canada, on a personal note, they will also be missed in America.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Shaw for leading this important effort to highlight the problems facing the current Social Security system.

Since the creation of the Social Security program, older Americans continue to count on guaranteed benefits to support them in their retirement. Social Security benefits must be there for every American who pays into the system. The President and the Republican Congress are committed to making sure Social Security is there for the worker who retires, is there for the widow who needs that extra source of income, and is there for the disabled who need that helping hand each month. I want to make sure these benefits continue for future generations of Americans.

To ensure the continued solvency of the Social Security program Congress and the President must fact the facts that by 2018--less than 15 years from now the program will begin to pay out more in benefits than it currently collects. The outlays will be more than the revenues coming in. How can my Democratic friends ignore this reality? Fifty- five years ago, there were 16 workers for every one Social Security beneficiary. Today, there are three workers for every one beneficiary. The numbers don't improve from here on out. If we postpone the inevitable and do nothing to reform the current system, today's worker will be left with a Social Security program that has nothing to pay out. While some policymakers

may hope that a magic wand miraculously rescues the current system from future bankruptcy, the reality is that Congress and the President must work together now, make necessary reforms, and save Social Security. That is what we were elected to do--make decisions and implement policies that help Americans now and in the future. To not do so is frankly irresponsible.

My Democratic colleagues argue that we don't need to do anything to reform Social Security. Many suggest that the magic elixir for Social Security is repealing the sensible tax cuts Congress and the President signed into law over the past four years and stashing the money in the Social Security Trust Fund. Tax increases will not rescue Social Security. This approach, which they have used to fund every one of their policy proposals, will restrain the economic growth we have experienced over the past several years. Since the Republican Congress passed the 2001 Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Act, the U.S. economy has rebounded, millions of new jobs have been created, and business investment is the best its been in seven years. Repealing these tax cuts will hurt the U.S. economy and in turn, do nothing to save Social Security.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put every idea and all the options on the table so we can begin to examine how to preserve and protect Social Security for today's seniors and future beneficiaries.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to men of the 2nd Battalion 7th Marines (2/7) that have recently returned from their tour of duty in Iraq. Specifically, I would like to honor Corporal Justin Perez, Lance Corporal Andrew Kingscott, Lance Corporal Justin Sebring, and Lance Corporal Ben Gunderson, of my district, for their outstanding service in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

These proud Marines exemplify the honor and tradition that the Marine Corps stands for. These men have offered their lives for an idea greater than any one of us as individuals--the right of all God's children to live in freedom. Through their courage, the flame of freedom has been lit; through their bravery its warmth and light continue to shine on America; and through their courage its rays of hope and opportunity now reach a nation of people. Their actions laid the groundwork for a safe and democratic Iraq, which will ultimately make the United States and the world a safer place.

Their character is measured not only by their efforts in the field; it is measured by the hope they brought to the oppressed, the freedom they brought to the terrorized, and the bravery and fortitude with which they completed their mission. I am honored today to recognize Corporal Justin Perez, Lance Corporal Andrew Kingscott, Lance Corporal Justin Sebring, and Lance Corporal Ben Gunderson for their exemplary service on behalf of their country, and thank them for their work.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying conference report, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.

This bill is urgently needed and long overdue. We must send this bill to the President as soon as possible. Each month that goes by means another tax increase on American manufacturers and another job being pushed overseas. Right now the World Trade Organization is slapping 12 percent tariffs on dozens of American products. These tariffs are directly impacting the bottom line of my industries in my home State of Michigan like glass, agriculture, and paper. When a company's bottom line is hit, a family's bottom line is hit.

The conference report underlying this rule will end the WTO sanctions and enact meaningful reform and simplification of a tax structure that has not seen change in decades. Not only will this legislation repeal the 12 percent tariffs, but it will give U.S.-based manufacturers a 3 percent rate cut that will allow them to better compete with their foreign counterparts and give them the flexibility to start hiring again.

I want to remind my colleagues that the United States has the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. While Ireland is at 12.5 percent, Korea at 29.7, Britain at 30 percent, the United States businesses are saddled with a 35 percent tax rate. We lead the world in terms of productivity and efficiency, but we need to begin to erase the serious disadvantages the tax code places on American companies. Our workers and entrepreneurs can compete with anyone, but it is time we stop asking them to do it with one hand tied behind their backs.

Mr. Speaker, these tariffs are punishing our small businesses and manufacturers. We need to end the sanctions immediately. This bill is about helping American farmers, manufacturers, small business owners, and relieving the United States from its dependence on foreign sources of oil.

I urge support for the rule and support for the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I also want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), majority leader, for his long record of leadership on foster care issues as well as on this particular legislation today.

This time of year I often get asked: What am I proud to have accomplished as a Member of Congress? And I am sure many of my colleagues get the same question. For me it is an easy question to answer. It is our work on adoption issues and moving children in foster care into safe, permanent, loving homes.

Together we have accomplished a lot for abandoned children, and today we can do even more. It is odd to think that after years of work on this issue, bringing regularity to international adoptions, providing greater incentives to adopt older and special needs children, helping new parents with the enormous financial cost to giving a young child a new lease on life, that something as simple as a State boundary line is delaying kids from finding true happiness and the unconditional love of a mother and father.

H.R. 4504, the Safe and Timely Interstate Placement Act of 2004, is a bipartisan piece of legislation that will expedite the safe placement of foster and adoptive children into permanent homes across State lines. Currently, these placements take more than 1 year longer than placements within a State's borders. We should not, and cannot, allow that to continue.

This legislation takes a commonsense approach to helping our Nation's foster children. It sets reasonable deadlines for completing and responding to interstate home studies and provides financial incentives for meeting those deadlines.

It also ensures children are protected by requiring all States to follow Federal criminal background check procedures for perspective foster and adoptive parents.

This is good policy. It will help children find the family they deserve. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4504.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1057) to repeal the sunset of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 with respect to the expansion of the adoption credit and adoption assistance programs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1057, a bill to make permanent the adoption tax credit and assistance programs contained within the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act, which we passed in 2001.

The importance of the Adoption Tax Relief Guarantee Act could not be clearer: helping abandoned children find safe, loving, permanent homes. Three years ago, we took a giant step forward. Our failure to act today would be an equally giant step backward.

The adoption tax credits were originally limited to 10 years. No child should have limits placed on their hopes, dreams, and opportunities for the future, and no loving parent willing to take a child in should be denied due to the financial burdens imposed by the adoption process. By voting in favor of H.R. 1057, we will eliminate the sunset and will make adoptions easier for all families for generations to come.

Adoptions can be prohibitively expensive. Licensed private adoption agencies charge fees ranging from $4,000 to $30,000. Independent adoptions can cost anywhere from $8,000 to $30,000. If the adoption tax credit is cut, the prior law level of $5,000, many families will not be able to afford adoptions. Money may not be able to buy you love, but in the case of adoptions, it may keep you from it.

There are over 565,000 children in publicly-funded foster care waiting to be adopted. Even more are in the private system. Cutting the adoption tax credit will make it more difficult to move children out of foster care and into permanent homes. With H.R. 1057, we will permanently put the health and safety of children first and give our Nation's foster children a fighting chance. We cannot allow this credit to lapse. Over half a million children are counting on us to finish the job we started over a year ago.

Temporary is not an option for adoption, and it should not be for this tax credit either. I urge my colleagues to support this vital piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I appreciate the gentleman's comments in support of the bill. I would like to say that we have confirmed with the

Committee on the Budget that this legislation does fall within the parameters of the House-passed budget.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the author of this bill who has been a real leader on adoption issues in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).

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

Mr. Speaker, let met just get back to the basics about what this bill is about. In 2001, this Congress passed tax relief which included an increased and enhanced adoption tax credit. This new law will expire. The sunset was included in the law simply to comply with Senate procedural rules. This legislation would repeal that sunset so that the adoption tax credit provisions remain permanent.

If this legislation, H.R. 1057, is not enacted, then the adoption tax credit would be cut from a maximum of $10,000 to zero. Families who adopt special needs children would no longer receive the flat credit. Instead, it would be a much more limited credit.

Also, certain families may be pushed into higher tax brackets. Fewer families will be eligible for the credit altogether. This is important, because not only can adoptions be very, very expensive; as I mentioned earlier, it would mean that many families could not afford adoptions.

I have a letter here that I will include for the record, a statement of administration policy strongly supporting this legislation, recognizing that adoption is a tremendously wonderful way to build families and to provide loving homes for children in need.

This tax relief will help provide the financial relief families need. The home studies and some of the medical checks that are necessary as a result of an adoption can be very, very expensive, and this will help families as they take that very important step.

So the administration supports this legislation and is urging that we have quick action in Congress to reduce the financial burdens that families have when they undertake adoptions by making this important part of the tax relief that we passed in 2001 permanent.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this resolution and submit the letter I previously mentioned.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, September 22, 2004.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 1057--Adoption Tax Relief guarantee act (rep. demint (r) south

carolina and 203 cosponsors)

The Administration strongly supports H.R. 1057, which would

permanently extend the expanded tax relief for adoption

enacted in 2001. Adoption is a wonderful way to build a

family and to provide a loving, permanent home to a child in

need. Making the tax relief for adoptions permanent will

provide financial relief to families taking this important

step.

The President has called on Congress to make provisions of

the 2001 and 2003 tax relief acts permanent to prevent tax

increases from hitting America's families, small businesses,

investors, farmers, and seniors. Tax relief has greatly

helped the economy weather the storms of recent years and

fueled the economic recovery underway today. Making tax

relief permanent will lay the foundation for sustained

economic growth and job creation over the long term and

enable taxpayers to better plan for their future.

The Administration is pleased that the House is acting now

to make tax relief for adoption permanent. The Administration

urges quick action in Congress to reduce the financial burden

of families undertaking adoption by making this important

part of the President's tax relief plan permanent.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of H.R. 1057, the bill just considered.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Modernization Act, which is designed to improve the quality of care and quality of life for the more than 3,000,000 Americans living with ESRD.

Patients with irreversible kidney failure, also known as ESRD, will die unless they receive a kidney transplant or undergo dialysis. Sadly, transplantation is limited due to the shortage of donor organs, so the vast majority of those with ESRD must undergo dialysis, three times a week, in dialysis centers or their homes.

Since Congress first agreed to provide Medicare benefits to patients with kidney disease, the number of Americans in need of dialysis treatments has increased exponentially. Today, the most common cause of kidney failure is diabetes. As rates of obesity and Type II diabetes increase, we face an even greater number of Americans at risk for kidney failure.

Because of Medicare, these patients are able to live longer and healthier lives. As important as the ESRD program is, it has not kept pace with the rest of Medicare. Last year we worked to modernize the Medicare program, yet we did not address some of the most pressing issues within the ESRD Program. The comprehensive bill that we introduce today seeks to resolve those problems.

The ESRD Modernization Act would establish educational programs to improve patient care and quality of life. Under this Act, patients with chronic kidney disease (the precursor to ESRD) would have access to new educational programs to learn more the factors that lead to kidney failure and how to prevent them. ESRD patients would have the opportunity to develop skills to help them manage their disease more effectively. The bill also seeks to help those patients able to continue working while receiving dialysis do so by improving the home dialysis benefit.

Additionally, the ESRD Modernization Act would ensure the financial stability of the Medicare ESRD program by providing a mechanism for annual updates to the composite rate. Currently, the ESRD Program is the only Medicare Prospective Payment System program that does not have a mechanism to update its payment rates. This Act will provide such a mechanism, consistent with MedPAC's recommendation in its 2000 Report to Congress.

It is time we fix this life-saving program. I urge my colleagues to support this important

piece of legislation so that the Medicare ESRD Program can meet the challenges it faces in the 21st Century.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to set the record straight on the economic outlook in America and in my home State of Michigan. Let us look at the facts. Real GDP has grown 5 percent during the last four quarters, the fastest annual growth in almost 20 years. Inflation remains low, productivity has grown at the fastest 3-year rate in 40 years. Business investment surged 12\1/2\ percent in the last four quarters. Industrial production saw its largest quarterly increase in nearly 4 years during the first quarter of 2004 and increased further in April. Yes, even in Michigan we added 8,300 jobs just last month.

But more important than all of these statistics is that real disposable income is on the rise. That is more money in the hands of moms and dads all across the country who can invest in their family and buy the things they need. More jobs for our workers and more prosperity for our families. Now, that is a record we can be proud of.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Boy Scout Troop 35 in celebration of its 75th Anniversary.

On this day, we look back at the prestigious history of Troop 35. The Troop's dedication to its community is obvious in their planting of trees, in their assisting with snow removal, and in their volunteering to serve refreshments at area events. Even the commitment of the Troop leaders to the Scouts is evident in the Troop's high rate of advancement to the rank of Eagle Scout. For 75 years, Troop 35 has worked tirelessly to positively impact the lives of our youth and better our community.

I am honored today to recognize Boy Scout Troop 35 for its many accomplishments, and to thank the many volunteers, scouts, families, and scoutmasters who have endeavored to make Boy Scout Troop 35 the success it is today.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the Sherman amendment.

I raise a point of order against the Sherman amendment to this bill, H.R. 4567, on the grounds that this amendment violates clause 5(a)(2) of House Rule XXI because it is an amendment proposing a limitation on funds in a general appropriation bill for the administration of a tax or tariff. Specifically, this amendment would prohibit the use of funds provided by the act for processing the importation of any articles from Iran. Processing imports is part of administering a tariff. Therefore, this amendment would limit the funds in a general appropriations bill for the administration of a tax or tariff in violation of clause 5(a)(2) of rule XXI.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4520, the American Jobs Creation Act.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is about creating American jobs and making U.S. manufacturers more competitive in the world marketplace. To accomplish these core objectives we need to pass legislation that reduces the high tax rate U.S. manufacturers are forced to pay. Many would be surprised to learn that the U.S. has the second highest corporate tax burden at 40 percent, of any developed nation, just two percentage points below Japan. While the Republican Congress has done much to lower individual tax rates, it is also important to pass legislation that helps American employers better compete with Irish companies that have a 12.5 percent tax rate, Korean businesses that have a 29.7 percent rate, and British companies that incur a 30 percent tax rate. Although the United States leads the world in terms of productivity and efficiency, we need to begin to erase the serious disadvantages our tax code places on our companies.

By passing this bill today, we will be on our way to stopping another tariff increase imposed by the European Union on U.S. exports. On June 1, the EU increased the retaliatory tariff another percentage point to eight percent on American goods. If Congress fails to address this issue, the EU will continue to tack on another tariff each month until we act. Tariffs on American exports could go as high as 17 percent. Every one of our districts will feel the effects of the EU's actions. Products on the wide-ranging EU sanctions list range from agriculture, iron and steel, timber, textiles, to machinery. Imagine a 17 percent tax on U.S. exports! This would amount to a $4 billion bill that the American people would ultimately pay every time they went to the grocery store or mall.

If we do nothing and let the tariffs grow to the full 17 percent, American companies will not be able to hire new workers, expand operations, make new investments, and remain viable in the marketplace. The bill before us today will make the needed adjustments to our international tax laws plus give our U.S. manufacturers overdue tax relief, and lift the onerous tariffs on American products.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this critically important jobs bill. If you want to help the U.S. manufacturing sector grow and our economy to continue to expand, vote for this bill. By doing nothing, we risk crippling our robust new economy and endanger American job creation.

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 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter).

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 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 ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3473.