Jim Cooper

Mr. COOPER

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Chairman, if it is just a little bit of paperwork, if it is not much hassle, if it is easy to comply with precertification, then I would suggest that the gentleman from Oklahoma in the next Congress apply the same rulings and regulations to all of the other taxpayers in this country. I think the gentleman will find that these paperwork requirements are indeed burdensome, unfair, and are indeed insensitive to the working poor, the folks we should be trying to help in this Congress, as they lift themselves out of poverty, using a Republican-borne program which has helped millions of Americans and their families escape the poverty trap, and it does so by allowing them to avoid the punitive marginal tax rates that the working poor face.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Oklahoma has been quite unfair in his characterization, first in the nature of the amendment. We drafted this with the advice of the Parliamentarian as the only way to affect this important area in the bill without being subject to a point of order. I think the gentleman really thinks a more explicit amendment would have been subject to a point of order, which is exactly what the gentleman from Oklahoma would have preferred. Second point, picking on poor people. If my colleague is going to do it, at least be fair about it. Remember, under this bill we would still allow $25 million to be spent to implement the IRS precertification. Remember, again, that even the IRS has admitted that their prior efforts have gone too far because they, IRS, on their own initiative has delayed and canceled their program because even they have realized they were insensitive to the needs of these families. Another mischaracterization, the program was put into place, as I recall, years ago before my time by a Republican President, and I think it was Richard Nixon, because he and many Americans realized the detrimental effect of a high marginal rate of taxation. As a person works and moves out of poverty, they are subject to an extraordinarily high and punitive tax rate. The EITC is designed to bring that back to a decent, bearable level for these hardworking families. So it is basically a Republican program we are talking about here. No one wants it to be abused. But I would suggest to the gentleman that there are other, fairer ways to police this program, and guess what, this and prior Congresses have already thought up several of them because, guess what, the study that the gentleman cited about waste or abuse in the program is from a 1999 study, and this Congress has already implemented several reforms to improve administration of this program. No study has been conducted since 1999. So let us at least find out the true facts before we jump to conclusions, especially when at the same time we are jumping on the backs of the poor. This is an important opportunity to balance IRS enforcement, to allow the IRS to go where the money really is. As I mentioned, the average recipient in my district, at least of this money, gets $1,500. There are many other places the IRS could go to really retrieve big dollars for the taxpayer. The IRS has listed them. We are allowing $75 million to go help the IRS in these efforts while we still preserve $25 million for this precertification program. So if the gentleman were more careful with his facts and more sensitive to the needs of the working poor, he would not simply dismiss this as a public assistance program. This is an example, if my colleague wants to use it, of compassionate conservatism, but unfortunately in this Congress we are seeing very little compassion. Let us have some compassion for the working poor, and this amendment is an opportunity to show it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the amendment that I am offering tonight along with the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) is to decrease funding for very ill-considered and heavy-handed IRS enforcement effort that tries to precertify working poor families for the earned income tax credit or the EITC. The amendment we are proposing will reduce funding by $75 million for the IRS's precertification proposal and it would in turn increase funding by $75 million for investigation and audit of large and mid- size corporations. The amendment would continue to allow $25 million for implementation of the precertification program. I certainly understand the Treasury's concerns about high error rates associated with the EITC. And as a proponent of good government, I am eager to reduce any waste, fraud or abuse in government. But the Treasury's proposal will create, probably, an even more burdensome bureaucracy than they realize, and it is a clumsy and heavy-handed attack on the poor. Even the IRS realizes this because in a recent announcement they decided to delay and decrease their precertification program. EITC compliance accounts for about 3 percent of the estimated total taxes that go uncollected, about 3 percent. But in contrast, according to the General Accounting Office, individuals who under report business income on their taxes are defrauding the government by about $40 billion a year or about 12 percent of uncollected taxes, more than the cost of the entire EITC program. Yet, guess what? There is no major effort to target these taxpayers even though it is a much larger amount. I suggest we follow the Willie Sutton rule, the famous bank robber, who when asked why he robbed banks, he said, ``That's where the money is.'' Instead, the IRS has requested a 68.5 percent increase in EITC enforcement while barely increasing their other enforcement efforts. In my mind, this represents a gross misallocation of resources, especially in view of declining overall tax enforcement by the IRS. I am willing to bet that the administrative costs of precertification will far outstrip any potential savings, especially if the IRS goes forward with the plans to eventually expand the precertification process to as many as two million taxpayers. That is why our amendment would direct $75 million toward much more sensible and cost-effective compliance efforts, where the money is, toward auditing and investigating mid-size and large corporations. Because according to the IRS, 7,000 corporations that should be audited every year are not. This translates into a direct loss to the Treasury of $6.5 billion a year in tax revenues. Moreover, according to a recent report by former IRS Commissioner Rossotti, the IRS lacks the resources to carry out nearly a third of the corporate audits it should be accomplishing each year. So why is the administration focusing on the few dollars of poor working families under the EITC and not on the big dollars of these companies? Why is the U.S. Government trying to make this vital tax credit so hard to claim? I am afraid the real IRS motive may not be just a desire to curb waste, fraud and abuse. It may be gross insensitivity to the needs of working poor families, simple hard- heartedness and lack of compassion for these hard-pressed American families. In the national metropolitan area which makes up the heart of my congressional district, approximately 14 percent of my constituents rely on the EITC every year, receiving a credit of about $1,500. In total, this credit puts about $87 million a year into these families and into the national economy. Nationally, the EITC is directly responsible for lifting some four million people every year above the poverty line, including two million children. Precertification programs, as proposed by the IRS, will discourage many of these families from even applying for the EITC. Under the precertification proposal, the IRS now says it will now want to prove that children claimed under the credit have been living with the claiming taxpayer for the required six months. The practical obstacles posed by this requirement are mind boggling. Although the IRS would allow a landlord or property manager to submit an affidavit, what landlords would testify on penalty of perjury to the intimate living arrangements of their tenants? Neighbors and relatives who are, in fact, in the best position to know these arrangements, are forbidden under the IRS approach from providing supporting documentation. I also object to the discriminatory treatment of lower income tax payers that would result from precertification. For those subject to the process of precertification, this effectively means a 100 percent chance of audit in advance of even filing your tax return. No other taxpayers in America face a comparable burden. Why is the IRS not also demanding precertification for taxpayers claiming credits for dependent care expenses, educational expenses, or charitable contributions? There is significant evidence that these credits are a widespread source of exaggeration and noncompliance and abuse, yet no one is requiring these other taxpayers to file receipts in advance for day care expenses or donations of such things as used automobiles or clothing. I fear that rather than reducing errors, the IRS proposal would, in fact, intimidate people into not using the EITC at all, and that would be a severe injustice to these people. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. COOPER

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

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time. As I began the debate, are House Republicans compassionate? Unwittingly they have proven for the 93rd day they are not, because they will not even agree with their President or with the Republican majority in the Senate to govern, to do the right thing for our Nation's children. I would urge this House to vote yes on the motion to instruct. It is a vote on compassion. It is a vote on whether we care, and this is the chance to prove it. For the second time tonight, the Republican majority in the House has proved they do not have any compassion. First we debated the earned income tax credit, now this one. Vote yes on this motion to instruct.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who has been not only a leader on this issue, but on so many issues in this House of Representatives. Where the gentleman gets his energy, I do not know, but I am proud of him.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Georgia for her remarks. I appreciate her contribution to this debate. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) for his remarks.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the great State of Georgia (Ms. Majette) who has been a real leader on these issues, in fact, on all issues having to do with protecting our Nation's children.

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

Mr. COOPER

Mr. COOPER. Madam Speaker, subject to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 1308, the Child Tax Credit bill. The form of the motion is as follows: Madam Speaker, I move that the managers on the part of the House in the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1308 be instructed as follows: Number one, the House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment (not included in the House amendment) that provides immediate payments to taxpayers receiving an additional credit by reason of the bill in the same manner as other taxpayers were entitled to immediate payments under the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. Number two, the House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report the provision of the Senate amendment (again not included in the House amendment) that provides families of military personnel serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other combat zones around the world, a child tax credit based on the earnings of the individuals who are serving in the combat zone. Number three, the House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report all of the other provisions of the Senate amendment and shall not report back a conference report that includes additional tax benefits which are not offset by other provisions. Number four, to the maximum extent possible within the scope of the conference, the House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report other tax benefits for military personnel and the families of the astronauts who died in the Columbia shuttle disaster. Number five, and finally, the House conferees shall, as soon as practicable after the adoption of this motion, meet in open session with Senate conferees, and the House conferees shall file a conference report consistent with the preceding provisions of this instruction, not later than the second legislative day after adoption of this motion.

Mr. COOPER

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, because of a very small group of Republican leaders, they are preventing this House from helping 12 million poor children around America. I would like to give my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the rank-and-file Republicans, the benefit of the doubt. I do not believe that their heart is in this fight. I believe they are being compelled by their leaders to do the wrong thing. It is still not too late to do the right thing. The checks are being mailed out today to the rich families in America, and Members know it was a mistake made also 2 months ago to prevent the other families in America from also getting help. That is not just my opinion. Our President, George Bush, called once again yesterday to help these children. President Bush is trying to be a compassionate conservative, but the other side of the aisle is not letting him do that. He has been calling for this 2 months now. Let us listen to our President. It is not just our President; the other body, by a vote of 94-2 has voted to do the right thing. But too often we see in the House younger Members, Republicans, compelled in some cases to do the wrong thing. It happened last week when Member after Member came to this House to say that the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means had done the right thing; when, thankfully, that same chairman came to the House floor this week to admit that he had done the wrong thing. Do not support Republican leaders when they are asking you to do the wrong thing. Be the compassionate conservatives you claim to be. Help these 12 million poor children. It is not quite too late; but 2 months have passed, 2 months of waiting, 2 months of hurt for these families. These people work hard every day. They pay their fair share of taxes. Let us give them their fair share of tax help. Do the right thing today and vote for this motion to instruct.

Mr. COOPER

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, this was a very important week in the House of Representatives. Hopefully we learned a lesson of bipartisan cooperation last night with the historic victory on the drug reimportation bill; and hopefully we also learned the dangers of arrogance, anger, and insensitivity when a House chairman had to apologize to this House. I hope that we apply these lessons to the child care tax credit today. We need to help the 12 million poor children waiting for that assistance. The Senate has voted 94-2 to help these children. The White House is for it. Only a small group in the House Republican leadership is opposing it. People of goodwill on both sides of the aisle want this relief to be granted today. Where is compassionate conservative? As one of the House Republican leaders said, ``It ain't going to happen.'' Mr. Speaker, this House needs to get relief to these 12 million poor children.

Mr. COOPER

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my sincerest congratulations to the American Political Science Association on the 50th anniversary of its Congressional Fellowship Program. I am also personally deeply grateful to the APSA for the privilege of working with one of the program's most talented fellows this year, Dr. Frances Lee of Case Western Reserve University. Frances has been a true delight and an invaluable asset to my office. Both my staff and I feel honored to have had a chance to benefit from her many-faceted intelligence, her unstinting hard work, and her ever- cheerful demeanor. In her short time with us, she has worked on several projects of both local and national impact that are of special importance to my constituents back in the Fifth District. For example, Frances took principal responsibility in preparing a comment letter to the Internal Revenue Service, protesting its ``pre- certification'' proposal for recipients of the Earned Income Tax Credit. This credit provides approximately $89 million in refunds to the hard-working families of my district each year, and its benefit to my constituents cannot be overstated. Frances worked with both local and national community groups and advocates to help raise awareness of the IRS proposal, which would have imposed an onerous bureaucratic burden on EITC beneficiaries by requiring them to ``register'' for this credit in advance. Frances meticulously researched the details of the IRS plan and crafted a well-written and persuasive letter urging the IRS to reconsider the impact of its proposal. Her efforts have drawn not only attention from the media but the interest of community groups in Nashville, who are now working with our office to make free tax assistance more readily available in our community. I cannot thank her enough for what her work will do to help ensure that my constituents continue to receive the tax credits they have earned through their hard work. In addition to this effort, Frances provided our office with valuable assistance and advice on issues as varied as diversity in media ownership, prescription drugs and Medicare and social security. She also worked on projects critical to local economic development and charity. Both my staff and I will miss Frances deeply, and on behalf of my staff, I wish her the very best in all of her future endeavors. And to the APSA for granting us the opportunity to work with Frances, I again offer my sincerest thanks.

Mr. COOPER

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute today to CommanderIM Steven J. Fuqua, who is retiring this summer from the United States Navy after 20 distinguished years of service. Commander Fuqua is a native of my district, from Nashville, Tennessee. During his career, Commander Fuqua held some of the most demanding jobs in the United States Navy and fulfilled these duties superbly. He has served as the chief engineer on a nuclear submarine, an extraordinarily challenging job that requires unstinting, 24-hour attention. He has also served as the Executive Officer on many missions, including one around-the-world deployment aboard the USS Batfish in 1997. In honor of his distinguished service, Commander Fuqua has been awarded the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal with three gold stars, and the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal with gold star. Long-time friend and fellow naval officer Scott Potter said of Commander Fuqua, ``If you had to name a prototype naval officer, Steve would be it.'' Commander Fuqua holds a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from Tennessee Technological University and a Masters in Mechanical Engineering from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA. After receiving his commission from Officer Candidate School in 1984, he entered the elite Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program and completed the course of instruction at the Naval Nuclear Power School in Orlando, Florida and Nuclear Prototype Training at the Prototype in Idaho Falls, Idaho. He also completed the Submarine Officer Advanced Course at the Naval Submarine Base in New London, Connecticut. Commander Fuqua's initial sea tour assignment was aboard the USS Billfish (SSN 676) from 1986 to 1989, where he served as Main Propulsion Assistant and Combat Systems Officer. In 1992, Commander Fuqua reported aboard the USS Key West (SSN 772) as Engineer Officer. During this tour, the ship completed a Mediterranean deployment, a Southern deployment and a Selected Restricted Availability (SRA). From 1995 to 1997, he was assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) working for C4I Integration Support Activity (CISA), a defense support activity of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command & Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence. In 1997, following completion of the Prospective Executive Officer course in New London, Connecticut, he reported for duty as Executive Officer of the USS Batfish (SSN 681). Following completion of a six- month around-the-world deployment, the USS Batfish changed homeports from New London, Connecticut to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Commander Fuqua detached from the USS Batfish in 1999 following the ship's inactivation and reported for duty to the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations (N77), where he served as Submarine Communications Requirements Officer from 1999 until 2002. In May 2003, Commander Fuqua reported to Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) where he is assigned to the Undersea Weapons Program Office of the International Programs Division. He now lives in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife Kathi, their three sons, Steven, 14, Matthew, 12, and Tyler, 9, and their daughter, Megan, who is 4. On behalf of the citizens of the Fifth Congressional District of Tennessee, I salute Commander Fuqua for his outstanding career and for his service to our Nation. We are proud to claim him as a native son. I wish him well in his retirement and in all his future endeavors.

Mr. COOPER

Mr. COOPER. Madam Speaker, today is the day that our seniors have been waiting for for many, many years, the day that we will pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Unfortunately, the real debate took place last night upstairs in an attic room in this building in the dark of night, literally starting after midnight, from 1 to 4 a.m., burglar hours, not lawmaker hours. In that debate, they foreclosed real debate on this floor today. They allowed only two bills to be considered, the Republican plan which is deeply flawed, which will end Medicare as we know it, and another plan which is too large to fit within the budget window. I supported the Dooley alternative, a much more sensible piece of legislation. Our seniors deserve better, much better than will be done for them on this House floor today.

Mr. COOPER

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this should be a great day for this country. We should be on the verge of passing a real Medicare prescription drug benefit for our seniors. But, unfortunately, we are not. The Republican majority is rushing through a sham bill in this House in barely 24 hours. They would not let anybody see a copy of this bill until 11:50 p.m. last night. The Committee on Rules' deliberations began at 12:50 a.m. last night and lasted, as has been mentioned, until 4 a.m. What are they afraid of? What are they hiding? And why would they not allow amendments like the Dooley amendment to be offered on this floor? It is my understanding in the other body that Senators Hagel, Ensign, and Clinton will be offering the Dooley approach as a substitute to that legislation. The other body has deliberated on this matter for some 2 weeks in the full light of day so that all senior citizens around this country, all families around this country, could pay attention to the details of this legislation and judge for themselves whether it is good medicine for the American people or not. But not only is the Republican majority hiding the real substance of this bill, they have failed to learn the lessons of past efforts of this House to reform the health care system. Number one, health care legislation that works must not be partisan. This bill is almost an entirely Republican-only bill. That dooms it to failure from the start. Second, real health care reform must not be overly complex. This is one of the most complex bills that seniors could ever imagine facing. The red tape is incredible. And, third, this bill should not be overly burdensome to seniors, but it is. Watch out when your seniors back home realize they have to pay $35 a month for a very questionable benefit. There is a donut hole in coverage, and that is almost too complex to explain in the 2 minutes I am allowed here, but this bill is so inferior to the Dooley bill, which solves these problems in a simple, clear and fair fashion. Under the Dooley bill, there is a zero monthly premium. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. COOPER

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to imagine a starker policy contrast than the one that you are exhibiting right there to show that we were drowning in red ink until 1991, and then we climb up to the surface and can breathe again, and now we are drowning one more time in another sea of red ink.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would take a few questions I would certainly appreciate it, because I would like to have a dialogue with him on these issues. My impression is that most Members of this Congress, most folks back home are probably finishing up their supper, tired after the long day at work; if they are tuned in to C-SPAN, all of them are wondering where is the straight talk about the U.S. economy, where is straight talk about their job and their future, or how long will their unemployment continue to last. People want real information, real facts. So many of the Federal budget numbers are so large that it is hard for the average citizen to comprehend. It is hard for the average Congressman or woman to understand. I know the gentleman from South Carolina has played a long and constructive role in budget debates for many years now, helping, for example, in the Clinton years to build a surplus. If the gentleman would turn to that chart, I think that is a period of real pride in American history. I think the gentleman just passed the chart right there, where we got out of a sea of red ink and actually built up toward a surplus and achieved a surplus in 8 short years, the first time that had been done in some 40 years in American history. So that was a truly significant accomplishment but, unfortunately, it has been largely voided by recent events. I know that the gentleman is a positive and constructive force in this debate, and we try to seek out positive ways that our country can grow and advance. But it is important for us to first realize the predicament we are in. Is my understanding correct that the job performance that we are witnessing right now is the worst in half a century?

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COOPER. So since March 2001, our economy has lost 3.1 million jobs.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes a great point, talking about the 12 million kids who are left out of the tax cut. Right now, as I understand it, this House is considering whether to repair that mistake. The other body in the Senate has voted, I think overwhelmingly, 94-2, to help the 12 million poor children. The question before this House is whether we will take action to correct the mistake, to help the 12 million kids who should have been covered by the tax bill.

Mr. COOPER. The gentleman mentioned a Democratic stimulus package, and if he could elaborate on that, because it is my understanding that the Bush tax cut plan actually has very little stimulus in the short term for our economy, whereas the plan that the gentleman put forward actually had much more of a stimulant effect to help our economy today get out of the ditch. Could the gentleman elaborate?

Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic proposal would have stimulated consumer demand with the rebate program and business investment with the depreciation incentives.