[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 112 (Friday, July 25, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9931-S9932]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            CHILD TAX CREDIT

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to express my dismay about the 
failure to provide the child tax credit to millions of low-income 
Americans. In this regard, I join my colleague, Senator Johnson, and 
applaud his efforts to try today, through unanimous consent, to resolve 
that at least we will as a Congress commit ourselves to give the 
benefit to low-income families which many other families in America are 
about to enjoy.
  Yesterday, the Internal Revenue Service began mailing out the first 
batch of advance $400 checks to middle and upper-income American 
families who are receiving the child tax credit. The President was at a 
mailing facility to get a visual of these checks going out. That is 
good news for these families. But certainly low-income Americans have 
the same needs; in fact, one might argue even more compelling needs for 
help and assistance to raise their children.
  Mr. President, 6.5 million low-income families will not receive a 
check today. They will be left out. Even though this body acted 
prudently to give them the opportunity, the House, in May, dropped the 
provisions and did not respond with an appropriate bill.
  On June 5, nearly 2 months ago, this Senate, in a bipartisan manner, 
passed legislation that would provide for the refundability of these 
tax credits and in effect give the credit to low-income families. I 
commend all of the individual Senators who have led the way both on the 
Finance Committee and, in particular, Senator Lincoln of Arkansas, who 
has been advocating strenuously for this very fair and very prudent 
approach.
  The House, on the other hand, passed an expansive $82 billion tax cut 
package surrounding this child tax care credit. As a result, they 
politicized and essentially frustrated the obvious and the compelling 
need to help these low-income families.
  The President has called for the passage of this act, but frankly, 
other than appearing yesterday at a mailing facility, he has not done a 
great deal to force the House to pass this very simple, very necessary 
measure.
  I hope we can make progress on this. This tax credit for child care 
is an important benefit for all of our families and, as I said before, 
very important for low-income Americans. They are struggling and with 
both parents working two jobs to make ends meet. These are the working 
Americans who are doing difficult work and working very hard. They 
deserve the same kind of assistance to raise their children we are 
providing for middle and upper-income Americans.
  This is a question of fairness, certainly. It is unfair, in my view, 
that we would provide benefits for certain children--ironically, some 
of the most affluent children--and not provide similar benefits for 
low-income families with children. It is just patently unfair. Also, it 
is part of an emerging pattern of indifference, and worse, towards low-
income Americans.
  There is the issue of the Earned-Income Tax Credit. This has been an 
enormously successful program. It has, in my State of Rhode Island 
alone, provided $90 million to over 57,000 families in the year 2001, 
giving them additional help based upon their work. Recall now, this is 
the Earned-Income Tax Credit; you have to be working, you have to 
qualify by accumulating income to get the tax credit.
  This is one of those very ingenious mechanisms which help lift 
families and children out of poverty, and it has done so with 
remarkable success. It has been a tax provision supported by both sides 
of the aisle enthusiastically for several decades. But now the IRS has 
announced its intention to require elaborate precertification for EITC 
eligibility for about 45,000, as they term it, high-risk households. 
Generally these are households in which grandparents or single fathers 
are raising children.
  But perhaps of more concern to me is that there are plans to expand 
this precertification process to 2 million households in the year 2004 
and to 5 million households within 3 years. This is a move that 
President Bush clearly supports, because he requested $100 million in 
additional funds for the fiscal year 2004 budget for this so-called 
compliance initiative.
  If we were to propose an elaborate precertification for middle-income 
and upper-income tax advantages, there would be howls of protest. We 
would rush to this floor crying foul, accusing the IRS of overreaching 
and meddling with burdensome impacts upon taxpayers. But that is 
exactly what, in my view, is happening to low-income families in the 
budget proposal of the President for this precertification.
  Again, I note the President has requested $100 million for additional 
funds to supposedly precertify families qualifying for a tax advantage 
under the Earned-Income Tax Credit. Just yesterday we couldn't afford, 
according to the vote, $100 million for improved transit security in 
the United States. That suggests to me the wrong, and perverse, if you 
will, priorities. If we are spending $100 million to try to force low-
income families to come up with documentation to qualify for a tax cut 
but we can't find the money to protect the subways and the trains and 
the buses in the United States, that suggests something askew in our 
policies and our priorities.
  I think what the pre-certification does, frankly, and maybe 
intentionally, will dissuade some individuals who qualify for the EITC 
from coming forward and applying for it. They might not understand the 
new precertification. They might have to pay for tax advice to do it 
appropriately. And one other point: the IRS has the authority to 
release all this documentation to the Department of Justice and other 
Federal agencies at their discretion, which might cause some people 
concerns about privacy.
  This is something that, again, if we proposed it for middle- or 
upper-income Americans, you could not hear yourself think because of 
the howls of protest in this body. Indeed, back in 1998 we passed the 
Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act because of 
supposed taxpayer harassment inflicted upon middle- and upper-income 
Americans by the IRS. It seems when it comes to low-income Americans 
who work and who qualify for the EITC, harassment isn't a problem when 
it comes to proposals by the administration.

  I am also disappointed that in line with this attack against low-
income Americans is the inability of this body and the other body to 
pass a long-term unemployment compensation benefit that will really 
take care of all the Americans who are suffering because of an economy 
that is functioning poorly--and that is being polite--at this

[[Page S9932]]

moment. Unemployment in June was up to 6.4 percent, and those numbers 
don't even include the 4.5 million underemployed individuals, those who 
are working part time, looking for full-time employment but struggling 
to get by on part-time jobs. At least 1.3 million of these 4.5 million 
are in that category of looking for long-term, full-time employment but 
having to settle for something part-time. Yet they are excluded from 
our unemployment compensation provisions.
  In addition, we will shortly be looking at new rules by the 
Department of Labor with regard to the Fair Labor Standards Act that 
relax overtime protection. We are also encountering proposals to 
increase the TANF requirements from 30 hours to 40 hours per week. 
Here, at a time when there are so many Americans struggling to find a 
job, struggling to find a few hours of part-time work, we are proposing 
to increase the number of work hours under the TANF Program. I think 
this approach to TANF will be another impact on the low-income children 
of this country because it will necessarily require mothers to spend 
less time with their children. Again, this is another example of a 
policy that is not good for the economy and it is certainly not good 
for children.
  Then we are looking at Head Start proposals and AmeriCorps proposals, 
as Senator Stevens just indicated, that are shortchanging so many 
people, particularly young people in this country. Again, I hope we can 
very quickly resolve this issue with respect to the child tax credit, 
the underlying point of my remarks today. There are 6.5 million wage 
earners who are working, contributing to our economy, and trying with 
all their might to raise their children. Today we are ignoring the 
plight of all of those 6.5 million people. I hope our indifference will 
end very quickly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 10 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________