[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 118 (Friday, July 25, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H6825-H6833]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                CHILD TAX CREDIT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2014

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 680, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 4935) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 
improvements to the child tax credit, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Denham). Pursuant to House Resolution 
680, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
by the Committee on Ways and Means, printed in the bill, an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee 
Print 113-54 is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 4935

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Child Tax Credit Improvement 
     Act of 2014''.

     SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN CHILD TAX CREDIT; 
                   INFLATION ADJUSTMENT OF CREDIT AMOUNT AND 
                   PHASEOUT THRESHOLDS IN CHILD TAX CREDIT.

       (a) Elimination of Marriage Penalty.--Section 24(b)(2) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
     ``means--'' and all that follows and inserting ``means 
     $75,000 (twice such amount in the case of a joint return).''.
       (b) Inflation Adjustment of Credit Amount and Phaseout 
     Thresholds.--Section 24 of such Code is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Inflation Adjustment.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any taxable year 
     beginning after 2014, the $1,000 amount in subsection (a) and 
     the $75,000 amount in subsection (b)(2) shall each be 
     increased by an amount equal to--
       ``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable 
     year begins, determined by substituting `calendar year 2013' 
     for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
       ``(2) Rounding.--Any increase determined under paragraph 
     (1) shall be rounded--
       ``(A) in the case of the $1,000 amount in subsection (a), 
     to the nearest multiple of $50, and
       ``(B) in the case of the $75,000 amount in subsection 
     (b)(2), to the nearest multiple of $1,000.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2014.

     SEC. 3. SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER REQUIRED TO CLAIM THE 
                   REFUNDABLE PORTION OF THE CHILD TAX CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 24 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after 
     paragraph (4) the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Identification requirement with respect to 
     taxpayer.--
       ``(A) In general.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any 
     taxpayer for any taxable year unless the taxpayer includes 
     the taxpayer's social security number on the return of tax 
     for such taxable year.
       ``(B) Joint returns.--In the case of a joint return, the 
     requirement of subparagraph (A) shall be treated as met if 
     the social security number of either spouse is included on 
     such return.''.
       (b) Omission Treated as Mathematical or Clerical Error.--
     Subparagraph (I) of section 6213(g)(2) of such Code is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(I) an omission of a correct social security number 
     required under section 24(d)(5) (relating to refundable 
     portion of child tax credit), or a correct TIN required under 
     section 24(e) (relating to child tax credit), to be included 
     on a return,''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (e) of section 24 of 
     such Code is amended by inserting ``With Respect to 
     Qualifying Children'' after ``Identification Requirement'' in 
     the heading thereof.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

       (a) Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Scorecards.--The budgetary 
     effects of this Act shall not be entered on either PAYGO 
     scorecard maintained pursuant to section 4(d) of the 
     Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.
       (b) Senate PAYGO Scorecards.--The budgetary effects of this 
     Act shall not be entered on any PAYGO scorecard maintained 
     for purposes of section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th 
     Congress).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).


                             General Leave

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 4935.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if one thing has been consistent about the Obama 
administration, it is the failure of its economic policies. The 
President's economic policies make it harder for American families to 
get by every day. A record number of Americans are unable to work, and 
those who can find work are unable to secure full-time employment and 
instead are forced to accept only part-time jobs. This last quarter, 
the economy actually shrunk, and real wages--what Americans use to pay 
their mortgages and put their kids through school--are continuing to 
fall.
  Worse yet, the cost of raising a family is only getting more 
expensive. The cost of clothing, food, child care, and schooling all 
continue to climb. According to the Department of Agriculture, since 
1960, the cost of raising a child has increased by about 4.4 percent 
per year. But more recently, since 2004, the cost of children's 
clothing has gone up 89 percent; the cost of food since then 21 
percent; and the cost of child care since 2004 107 percent. And since 
then, the child tax credit has remained unchanged.
  Currently, our Tax Code helps ease some of this burden by providing a 
child tax credit. The credit, which has been around since the 1990s, 
now provides a $1,000 tax credit for each child. Unfortunately, that 
credit is not, and has not, been indexed for inflation. So while the 
cost of raising children continues to rise, the value of the child tax 
credit actually decreases.
  Today's legislation, H.R. 4935, the Child Tax Credit Improvement Act 
of 2014, will fix this problem by indexing the child tax credit to 
inflation. Making a commonsense change like this will ensure that 
families can make every dollar count. The current child tax credit also 
disadvantages those who file jointly compared to those who file as 
single individuals, creating what is known as a marriage penalty. This

[[Page H6826]]

bill would eliminate the marriage penalty embedded in the child tax 
credit, helping millions of families across the country.
  The Family Research Council, which supports this bill, notes the 
importance of the child tax credit. They say:

       This tax credit recognizes the important contribution of 
     the family and children to our country and starts to address 
     a problem with our Tax Code today, the marriage penalty. A 
     fair system of taxation does not penalize marriage and 
     family.

  In addition, this bill contains strong antifraud provisions to ensure 
that the child tax credit goes to those who are truly deserving. The 
bill would require one parent to submit a Social Security number to 
qualify for the refundable portion of the child tax credit. According 
to a report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, 
the number of filers for the additional child tax credit without a 
Social Security number grew from 62,000 filers--claiming $62 million in 
benefits--in 2000 to 2.3 million filers--claiming $4.2 billion in 
benefits--in 2010.
  This is a commonsense provision that will help safeguard taxpayer 
dollars from fraud and put it in line with other refundable tax 
credits, like the earned income tax credit, which requires a Social 
Security number.
  I hear too many stories about families struggling to afford basic 
necessities to care for their children. It is time we make some simple 
improvements to the child tax credit so it keeps up with the cost of 
raising children.
  Improving the child tax credit would give moms and dads nationwide 
needed relief at a time when their budgets are tight and they are 
forced to make difficult choices about how to spend their money. This 
provision has earned bipartisan support for years, so let's vote 
``yes'' on this opportunity to help American families.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Yesterday on the topic of poverty, Congressman Ryan spoke. Today, he 
and his House Republican colleagues, will vote. Actions speak louder 
than words. And at every turn over the last 3 years, the actions House 
Republicans have taken have cut programs for low- and middle-income 
families.
  Funding for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program--
slashed in the Ryan Republican budget.
  Social services block grants--eliminated.
  Food assistance, Pell higher education grants, job training, and 
housing assistance--dramatically scaled back.
  And extension of unemployment insurance and a raise in the minimum 
wage--both blocked by House Republicans.
  The new Republican rhetoric on poverty is no match for the deeply 
troubling actions they have repeatedly taken, and continue to take with 
this legislation today.
  This bill leads to harm for millions of low- and middle-income 
families and their kids. It completely ignores the need to extend the 
2017 expiration of the expanded refundable portion of the child tax 
credit, which, if allowed to occur, would push 12 million people, 
including 6 million children, into poverty or deeper into poverty, 
according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
  Republicans may say that such an extension could be done later, as 
they claimed in our discussion at the Rules Committee, but that talk 
about future action is made incredulous when Republicans this week add 
another $187 billion to the deficit, bringing the total they have 
passed in unpaid-for tax cuts to more than $700 billion. This comes 
after Republicans have slashed nondefense domestic discretionary 
spending to its lowest level on record as a percentage of GDP.
  In contrast, this bill expands and makes permanent the availability 
of the child tax credit to many new, upper middle-income families whose 
incomes are too high to qualify under current law. Under this 
legislation, a married couple making $160,000 with two kids would get 
an additional $2,200 in their 2018 tax refund, according to the Center 
on Budget and Policy Priorities, while a single mother of two making 
$14,500 would see her refund cut by $1,750.
  But it gets still worse.
  Republicans this week inserted a provision into this legislation 
requiring recipients of the child tax credit to provide their Social 
Security number, a change that could lead to the loss of this credit 
for families of 5 million children, 4 million of whom are U.S. 
citizens. In all, 400,000 veterans and Armed Forces families will lose 
all or part of their credit. That is the reason that the U.S. 
Conference of Catholic Bishops opposes this requirement, because it is 
deeply flawed and would leave millions of families with children 
behind.
  Ben Franklin once said:

       Well done is better than well said.

  Today it is even truer that well said cannot obscure what is 
harmfully done.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I feel compelled to correct the record here. The opponents make a 
false claim that somehow this bill eliminates benefits for millions of 
low-income families, and that is just wrong because the provision he is 
talking about is, frankly, the failure of the Obama administration to 
make that provision permanent. The provision he refers to does not 
expire until 2017. So what they are saying is, in a word, ``nonsense.''
  At this time, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that Ms. Jenkins control 
the remainder of the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and 
thank him for his leadership on this particular issue.
  We are a Nation that is struggling to make ends meet. The rising cost 
of everyday essentials, such as gas, groceries, and electricity, all 
continue to rise, while household incomes remain stagnant.
  There is no need to compound these problems with a Tax Code that 
punishes working parents by making it hard for them to keep up with the 
rising costs of raising a family.
  The child tax credit was originally enacted in 1997 to ease the 
financial burden on families. Over time, the original credit amount was 
eventually increased and made partially refundable to help more 
families. However, since being expanded to $1,000 back in 2004, the 
child tax credit has failed to keep pace with costs.
  Kids are expensive: diapers and car seats, haircuts, toothbrushes, 
books, clothes, and even sporting equipment. A recent study by the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture estimated that for a middle-income couple, it 
will cost over $240,000 to raise a child until 18 years of age.
  I did the calculation for a middle-income two-parent household with 
three kids. According to the USDA calculator, the average household 
will spend $3,500 on food, $4,000 on transportation, $1,600 on 
clothing, and nearly $7,000 on child care and education for a total of 
over $30,000 annually.
  Contributing the most to these rising costs are items such as 
spending on education and child care. In fact, since 2000, the cost of 
child care has increased twice as fast as the median income of families 
with children.
  The Child Tax Credit Improvement Act, which is before us today, 
indexes the credit and the limitations to inflation to help parents 
keep more of their hard-earned money to use for the mounting expenses 
of parenting.
  In addition to indexing the credit and limits to inflation, the bill 
also eliminates the marriage penalty by increasing the joint filing 
phaseout threshold to exactly double that of single filers. Removing 
marriage penalties and indexing for inflation have become a recognized 
part of our tax system.
  The lack of indexing of a particular provision to inflation means 
that a provision is worth less to taxpayers every year. In the case of 
the child tax credit, this means working low and middle class families.
  This legislation essentially removes the annual hidden tax placed on 
these families and recognizes that $1 of income in 1998 and in 2004 is 
not the same as $1 of income in 2014.

[[Page H6827]]

  Similar tax credits that Congress has smartly indexed to inflation 
include the adoption tax credit, the earned income tax credit, and 
education tax credit. All of these tax credits make it easier on 
working families to put money aside and save for the future.
  Increasing the phaseout level is a family-friendly change that 
greatly simplifies the code for middle class parents currently forced 
to perform a complicated computation and increases the fairness across 
the Code.
  It also includes an antifraud provision championed by Congressman Sam 
Johnson, seeking to curtail tax fraud by requiring a Social Security 
number to be eligible for this tax credit. It is a simple principle 
also supported by Democrat United States Senator Claire McCaskill. 
Simply put, if you are breaking the law by working illegally in our 
country, you should not be getting a tax benefit for it.
  This is sensible legislation that will help hardworking families keep 
more of their paychecks and help pay for the rising costs of raising a 
family. A vote for this bill will give Americans more freedom to save 
their own money and help struggling families who are just trying to get 
by.
  I urge everyone to support H.R. 4935, the Child Tax Credit 
Improvement Act of 2014, because when working families succeed, the 
Nation's economy succeeds.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to hear the debate. 
I wonder if the gentlewoman believes the analogy she made in terms of 
the cost of living applies to the minimum wage as well, and if she 
does, I would ask her to urge her leadership to bring the minimum wage 
bill to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, which takes from 
those who have little in order to give to those who have more.
  For many working families, the child tax credit helps parents keep 
their children and themselves out of poverty. It is a program that 
Ronald Reagan liked, it is a program that works, and it is a program 
that we ought to reform and expand.
  Sadly, this Republican bill would allow provisions that most directly 
support low-income working parents to expire, while expanding the 
credit to families making up to three times what an average household 
brings home--how perverse, how predictable.
  It will do so by adding $115 billion to our deficit. In a time of 
economic recovery, Mr. Speaker, we should be doing the opposite, 
providing a leg up for struggling families while paying for what we 
buy.
  Members on both sides of the aisle agree that the right way to do 
this is comprehensive tax reform. The chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee, Mr. Camp--again, I commend him for putting on the floor--or 
putting on the table at least--a comprehensive tax reform bill.
  He showed courage and good sense. That was done just a few months 
ago. It showed the difficult choices that are necessary. This bill 
makes no choices. It just borrows more and puts us more in debt while 
hurting families.
  I don't agree with all of what was in Mr. Camp's bill, but it was a 
starting point that, through a bipartisan process of amendment, could 
provide a path to where we all know we need to go. This bill shirks 
that responsibility.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 20 seconds to the 
gentleman from Maryland.

  Mr. HOYER. This bill, this bill shirks that responsibility, adds $115 
billion to the deficit, and will make the children of low-income 
working parents less economically secure--how sad.
  Reject this bill. Vote ``no.''
  Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield as much time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a 
distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for 
yielding.
  I would also like to thank Chairman Camp for including in this bill 
my commonsense measure to require tax filers to provide their Social 
Security number in order to claim the $1,000 refundable child tax 
credit, formerly known as the additional child tax credit.
  My measure would save $24.5 billion. Now, that is real money. Sadly, 
there has been a lot of misinformation about this commonsense measure. 
I would like to clear that up.
  First, this is basically a benefit check handed out by the IRS. 
Second, this measure is based on the good work of the Treasury 
Inspector General for Tax Administration.
  Right now, the IRS is providing this refundable child tax credit to 
those who are here illegally, but don't take my word for it. This is 
what the IG said about the refundable tax credit:

       Although the law prohibits aliens residing without 
     authorization in the United States from receiving most 
     Federal public benefits, an increasing number of these 
     individuals are filing tax returns claiming the additional 
     child tax credit, ACTC.

  Notice the IG refers to this as a public benefit. The IG also points 
to an increase in the number of illegal immigrants claiming this 
benefit. I would add that some are claiming children who don't even 
live here.
  Third, and even more troubling in light of the border crisis, is that 
the IG says this credit can encourage individuals to come illegally to 
the United States.
  The last thing we need is to continue to encourage folks from Central 
America to make the dangerous and life-threatening trek to Texas.
  Accordingly, the IG has recommended the IRS require Social Security 
numbers. Why is that? Because Social Security numbers are provided to 
those who can legally be in the United States.
  Additionally, this credit is based on earned income, income that 
should be earned by those who have Social Security numbers, period.
  Fourth, it is not just Republicans who have expressed concern and the 
need to take action, but also Democrats--yes, Democrats--about the IG's 
work. For instance, following the 2011 IG report, Democrat Senator 
Claire McCaskill from Missouri demanded answers from the IRS and, more 
importantly, vowed to end payments to individuals without Social 
Security numbers.
  Also, then-Finance chairman and Democrat Senator Max Baucus from 
Montana, along with other Finance Committee members, fired off a letter 
expressing serious concern to Treasury and the IRS.
  Fifth, requiring tax filers to include their Social Security numbers 
for the $1,000 refundable child tax credit is a longstanding 
commonsense idea. For instance, the IRS requires Social Security 
numbers for the earned income tax credit, a similar refundable credit 
for low-income families.
  Congress included this antifraud measure in the 1996 welfare reform 
law signed by Democrat President Bill Clinton. Democrats, such as then-
Senator Joe Biden, Senator Harry Reid, and Congressman Steny Hoyer, 
voted for that law.
  Now, let me ask: Do Democrats now oppose requiring Social Security 
numbers for the earned income tax credit?
  In 2008, 215 House Democrats voted for the Economic Stimulus Act of 
2008, which provided tax rebates to individuals and children. Guess 
what? That bill also required Social Security numbers. Do Democrats now 
regret supporting that policy back in 2008?
  What is going on here is that President Obama and his Democrat allies 
in Congress are now playing politics with taxpayer dollars. It is wrong 
and irresponsible. There is no policy reason for this opposition.
  Bottom line, my measure is about protecting the hard-earned taxpayer 
dollars of Americans, especially those who are struggling to make ends 
meet in this economy.
  It is time to stop playing politics with this. It is time to stand up 
for the American taxpayer.
  I thank the chairman again for working with me on this important 
taxpayer measure.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I say to my friend from Texas, this isn't politics. This is 5 million 
children, and the estimate is that 4 million are citizens of the United 
States.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

[[Page H6828]]

  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, in H.R. 4935, the Child Tax Credit 
Improvement Act of 2014, Republicans are offering a bill that claims to 
help families but actually does great harm to low-income families with 
children.
  It is really quite a surprising piece of legislation, actually, 
because it is a backdoor pay increase for Congressmen and Congresswomen 
who have children. We don't give ourselves any kind of cost-of-living 
increase, but this is a backdoor pay increase put forward by the 
Republicans.
  Under this bill, couples making between $150,000 and $205,000 would 
be newly eligible for the child tax credit. So that is all of us, 
folks. Thank the Republicans for this.
  This bill does not, however, make permanent a key provision made to 
the law in 2009 that is set to expire in 2017. This improvement 
expanded the refundable portion of the tax credit for millions of 
hardworking, low-income Americans. Under H.R. 4935, families making 
minimum wage would lose a portion of their tax credit in 2018. This 
means that a single mother in South Lake Union, Seattle, working full-
time, making $14,500 a year, struggling to support two children, will 
lose $1,725 in 2018.
  In addition, this bill requires one of the taxpayers claiming the 
child tax credit to have a Social Security number. This provision will 
harm millions of American kids who are United States citizens living in 
immigrant families. These children and their families will be cut off 
from crucial tax relief if this becomes law. That is why the United 
States Conference of Catholic Bishops opposes this bill's Social 
Security number requirement. They recognize what you are doing. You are 
going after people at the bottom to give a pay increase to Congressmen. 
Vote ``no.''
  Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Washington for recognizing that 
this does put more money back in the pockets of hardworking Americans, 
but I just want to correct the record that this is in no way, shape, or 
form a tax increase.
  There certainly have been a lot of inaccuracies and highly misleading 
statements from the other side of the aisle about this bill this 
morning. This bill does not end the credit for low-income working 
families. It is not a tax increase on them. It certainly does not cast 
millions of children deeper into poverty.
  The tax provision in this bill originated from the stimulus bill. It 
was extended back in 2013 for 5 additional years. So it is not 
currently expiring, and it will not expire until 2018.
  All H.R. 4935 does is it keeps that in place and does not even 
address that particular provision. It does not call for ending that 
provision. It does not call for reducing or altering that provision. 
Rather, this bill deals with the immediate concern, and that is the 
erosion of the value of the child tax credit for every family 
struggling today.
  So following this absurd logic from the other side, every single bill 
and amendment that comes to the House floor that fails to address or 
does not extend their provision is a tax increase.
  This bill before us today will have and deserves bipartisan support. 
It is unfortunate that some have resorted to recycled talking points 
and outright falsehoods to conjure up some reason to oppose the bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  What you say is totally wrong. You make permanent under your 
provision a child tax credit for a couple making $160,000, while you do 
not make permanent the refundable tax credit for families making much, 
much, much less. That is a fact.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is reminded to direct his 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel).
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. To the Chair, I ask that perhaps we can ask someone from 
the majority as to whether or not the accusation made by the ranking 
member of the Ways and Means is correct.
  To the Chair, I ask that the attention of the majority be given to 
the speaker at this time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Levin has said that this change in the law and to 
remove the marriage penalty allows people making between $150,000 and 
$205,000 to become eligible for the tax credit. It also says that a 
family making $160,000 a year would receive a new tax cut of $2,200.
  It just seems to me that the majority in this House is not going to 
allow this to stand unchallenged, and I would hope that either those 
that are controlling the time or the staff have enough interest to 
protect the integrity of the Ways and Means Committee to say that these 
child tax credits are for the working people that need the assistance 
that they can't get except through the Tax Code.
  If we are going to go near a trillion dollars in extending tax 
credits and extending our national debt, we certainly shouldn't do this 
for the benefit of the higher-income middle class people. So please 
don't let this debate close without hearing an answer as to why in the 
world would we extend the deficit for the benefit of people that are 
making up to $200,000 a year to receive benefits for child credits.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Again, the Chair will remind all Members to 
direct their remarks to the Chair.
  Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the distinguished chairman of the 
Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us actually evens the playing 
field. If two people are single and have children at the income levels 
the previous speaker just mentioned, they get the credit. Under current 
law, if they are married, they don't get the credit.
  So what this bill does is actually extends the benefit that goes to 
singles to married people. We do away with what is called the marriage 
penalty.
  I don't know why the other side is opposed to people getting married, 
but what is really important about this credit is that it helps middle 
class families who have seen the credit erode over the years as the 
cost of food, clothing, housing, and schooling have gone up.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Doggett), another member of our committee.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, across America, there are many young 
couples devoting time to determining the name of their newborn--a happy 
experience--but I can tell you there is no couple in America that 
devotes more time to selecting names than our Republican colleagues.
  Much of this session, that name-making has been about naming post 
offices, because if they weren't naming post offices and beginning to 
rename post offices, they would run out of excuses for doing nothing on 
the great challenges that our country faces. But the essence of 
Republican name-making creativity is directed toward bills like this. 
They are so good at applying names to their bills and so sorry at what 
goes in the bills.
  Today's Child Tax Credit Improvement Act only lacks the fact that it 
represents no improvement for the working poor. It neither improves the 
child tax credit nor improves the lives of millions of children living 
at or near poverty.
  Under this bill, a single mom with two children who works full-time 
at the minimum wage loses almost $2,000 a year. This bill does deserve 
a name. I think the best one would be the ``Pushing More People Into 
Poverty Act,'' since its net effect is to push 12 million people, 
including 6 million children, right into poverty or deeper into it. 
That includes 400,000 veteran and Armed Forces families who would lose 
all or part of their child tax credit.
  The Republicans may curse Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty on this big 
anniversary for it, but they continue to wage a war on those in 
poverty, especially America's most needy children.
  A leading advocacy group, First Focus Campaign for Children, reports 
that our Federal investment in our children has fallen 60 percent 
faster than overall Federal spending. This analysis shows that small 
children are

[[Page H6829]]

the big losers in the Federal budget battle because their voices aren't 
heard the loudest.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. DOGGETT. We know that every single dollar that these Republicans 
add to the national debt--and they propose to add about a trillion 
dollars to the national debt with these unpaid tax breaks--every one of 
those dollars is another trillion dollars of excuses when it is time to 
renew the Child Health Insurance Program next year, or CHIP; when it is 
time to invest in early education and Head Start; and when it is time 
to invest in preventing child abuse, strengthening our adoption system, 
and having a family-nurse partnership to work with these young 
families. Those are the excuses, while one House Republican group calls 
all of these welfare.
  Let's vote for children and against this act.
  Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am just puzzled by this logic that the minority is concerned about 
a provision that expires in 4 years. They are worried about that today, 
but yet they are not worried about the loss of buying power for 
hardworking American families starting next year. They are willing to 
give up helping families next year, and they want to debate an issue 
that we aren't going to even address for another 4 years.
  As it relates to their charge that this in some way helps the 
wealthy, I would like to point out that a foundational principle of the 
Tax Code is that it should be, at worst, neutral toward the decision to 
get married. It should not be a deterrent. Certainly, it should not 
make taxpayers worse off merely by making the decision to marry and 
start a family. Marriage is beneficial to society and something that we 
have and should continue to encourage.
  Removing the marriage penalty is about one thing, and that is 
fairness. This is especially true for today's two-earner households 
where both spouses have to work just in order to make ends meet.
  Congress has had the wisdom to remove the marriage penalties from 
many other parts of the Tax Code, including the standard deduction. A 
deduction for married couples is twice the amount for single filers, 
and in tax brackets the income range of 10 to 15 percent brackets for 
couples is twice that of individuals, as it should be.

                              {time}  1145

  We are asking for that same parity to be afforded in the child tax 
credit.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz), another distinguished member of our 
committee.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, this legislation has been described by the 
Republican majority as an extension--an improvement--of the child tax 
credit, important to many American families, but the fact is this bill 
is deeply flawed. At a cost of nearly $100 billion, it increases the 
child tax credit for those with higher incomes while failing to extend 
needed relief for lower-income families.
  Consider the consequences.
  A single mother, with two children, working full time at minimum 
wage, earns just $14,500 annually. She will see a tax increase of 
$1,725. A lance corporal in the Marine Corps, with 2 years of service, 
married, with two children, earns about $23,000 a year in base pay. 
This family will see its taxes go up by $750. Yet those with higher 
incomes, including Members of Congress, who earn $174,000, and who have 
two children, will receive a tax cut of $1,600. Then in a hastily added 
provision, a child who is a legal resident or is a U.S. citizen and 
whose parent uses an individual tax ID number rather than a Social 
Security number will be denied the child tax credit no matter what the 
level of income.
  As a result of this legislation, 6 million children will fall into--
or deeper into--poverty. In my own home State of Pennsylvania, families 
making less than $40,000 a year will see their taxes increase by an 
average of $456, while families making more than $100,000 will see 
their taxes cut by $685.
  This bill ignores these harmful consequences. It will hurt too many 
hardworking families and children in our Nation. It is wrong. It is a 
bill that is fiscally irresponsible, and it is morally reprehensible. I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), another member of our committee.
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I join with dozens of 
religious, child, tax, and poverty organizations to strongly oppose 
H.R. 4935 because it would push an estimated 12 million people, 
including 6 million children, into deeper poverty.
  The child tax credit is one of the most effective tax benefits for 
families with children and is a shining example of smart Federal 
investment. The credit encourages work, raises millions of children 
from poverty, and helps grow economies and support businesses.
  Rather than strengthening this antipoverty program, the bill will 
take away--eviscerate, wipe out--benefits for the most vulnerable 
Americans, denying financial assistance for basic necessities, like 
rent and food, and eliminating an average of $1,800 from low-wage 
families per year.
  The child tax credit was designed to help hardworking, low-income 
families meet the needs of their children, but this child tax credit 
bill harms these families and threatens the well-being of millions of 
American children. In reality, the bill does exactly the opposite of 
what the child tax credit was designed to do. In essence, you could 
really call it the ``Reverse Robin Hood Child Tax Credit'' bill--take 
from the poor, benefit the more affluent.
  I urge that we vote ``no.''
  Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the child tax credit, 
and I support expanding and strengthening the child tax credit.
  The problem is this bill does just the opposite for the most needy 
families with kids in the United States. They don't get a tax cut under 
this bill. In fact, they get deliberately left behind because this bill 
fails to extend a critical improvement to the tax credit that is only 
currently temporary in law, and they don't extend that.
  I heard the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee earlier blaming 
that on the President, once again, as if the President made our 
Republican colleagues not include that provision in their bill. 
Extending the child tax credit is in the President's budget. Extending 
the child tax credit is in the House Democratic budget. Extending that 
child tax credit enhancement is not in the House Republican budget, and 
that is why it is not here today.
  What is the impact of this?
  The impact is to hurt our low-income families with kids. As Mr. Levin 
pointed out earlier, it is really ironic that, just yesterday, the 
chairman of the Budget Committee gave a big talk in Washington about 
how he wanted to ``start a conversation about poverty'' and ``help 
families get ahead.'' That was yesterday. Those were words. Here we are 
on the floor of the House today with an actual deed, an actual act--a 
vote that will put 12 million more Americans into poverty or deeper 
into poverty, 6 million of them children.
  The President in his budget extends those benefits--those tax 
strengthening, tax-cut provisions--and pays for them by getting rid of 
some of the big tax breaks for corporations. The Republican approach 
has been just the opposite. In the last 6 weeks, they have permanently 
extended tax breaks for big corporations, but today, when it comes to 
the kids, they leave them behind. They don't extend those enhancements.
  Who are these individuals? Let me point out to our colleagues the 
folks who are being left behind:
  A single mother of two, working full-time at minimum wage, will lose 
a tax credit of $1,725. This is an individual who is making about 
$15,000 a year. These are the people we are trying to help with the 
child tax credit. Yes, we would love to expand it, but not at the 
expense of this single mom. Who else

[[Page H6830]]

gets left behind? It would be an Army private E-1--married, one child. 
They are going to lose $229 in their child tax credit because this 
Republican bill refuses to extend those enhancements.
  Mr. Speaker, yes, let's strengthen it, but not at the expense of 
those most vulnerable families. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I am just amazed by the other side's doing 
time travel 4 years into the future when a lot of hardworking families 
are struggling every day--right now--to deal with this economy, and 
that needs to be the focus of this debate.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas, 
Chairman Brady, a fine member of the House Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the 
leadership of Congresswoman Jenkins' on such an important issue for 
families.
  We have two young boys. It is expensive raising kids--it just is--all 
across America. I don't care what you make or where you live. This is 
about making it a little easier to raise your children.
  You have heard today that everyone is for the child tax credit 
except, of course, when they have to vote for the tax credit. Then you 
hear every excuse in the world.
  Let's look at what this bill does:
  First, it makes permanent this child tax credit so people can count 
on it. It is indexed for inflation, so that means, when your dollar 
buys less and less, you shouldn't be punished by Uncle Sam because 
inflation is going up. It is so families can more closely keep up with 
the real costs of raising their kids. It eliminates the marriage 
penalty so Uncle Sam doesn't punish you--so the Federal Government 
doesn't punish you--simply because you are married and are raising your 
children. We think it is important that married couples who are 
struggling to raise families aren't punished by Uncle Sam, and it makes 
sure more Americans can take advantage of this.
  Here is what it doesn't do:
  It doesn't include the same failed stimulus programs the White House 
brought down upon America. As you know, we were promised the economy 
would be roaring. America normally bounces back from tough economic 
times, but not this time. This is the worst economic recovery in more 
than half a century.
  To President Obama's unfortunate example, the worst economic recovery 
in this President's lifetime is his economic recovery. We are missing 
almost $1.5 trillion out of our economy. We are missing jobs for 5.8 
million people. To put that in perspective, if the President had, like 
an average President, just led a C-grade type of recovery, everyone 
looking for work in 44 States could have a job today.
  Also, as a result of this very weak recovery, do you know what a 
family of four in America is missing each month from its wages? $1,120. 
That is $1,120 that should be in a family's pocketbook to pay the rent 
or utilities or food or all of that. It is missing today because of 
this poor recovery. Some people say let's stay the course and do more 
of it. This bill says, no, let's change course and get people back to 
work, and let's help them raise their children.
  The final point I would make is of this provision, including the key 
antifraud provision by Congressman Sam Johnson of Texas. What we know 
is that billions of dollars each year are being sent to people whose 
children don't exist. Their children don't exist. Some of the children 
live outside the country. Others aren't eligible for this at all. Yet 
Washington sends them a check--your hard-earned tax dollars. They are 
people who don't deserve this. Congressman Johnson's provision says you 
will actually give us the Social Security number--an accurate one--of 
that child you are seeking the help for so that we make sure the money 
goes to those who are eligible for it.
  I don't understand sort of the pro-fraud lawmakers who say we don't 
need to do this, and we don't need to save those dollars. The truth is, 
for as hard as you work for your money--for the dollars that are out of 
your paycheck each week or each month--and for what you pay on April 
15, your money should go to help people who deserve the help, not to 
children who don't exist, not to families who don't exist. This is a 
critical part. It saves billions of dollars.
  Let's help families raise their children. Let's help our tax dollars 
go to the people who actually need them, and let's save some money for 
Uncle Sam. This bill deserves our support.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley), another member of our committee.
  Mr. CROWLEY. I thank my friend, Mr. Levin, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, when I go home, I often hear people who are 
disillusioned with politics in America. Some even say that they don't 
really see a difference between Democrats and Republicans.
  Today, my Republican colleagues are demonstrating just how 
significant the differences really are between Republicans and 
Democrats, especially when it comes to who is looking out for corporate 
America and who is looking out for hardworking, middle class America.
  This bill claims to do a lot of things, but what it really does is 
shifts the tax burden away from large multinational corporations and 
puts it on the backs of working families with children.
  Now, they are going to tell you that they are fighting fraud, but 
that is not what this bill is about today.
  If my Republican colleagues wanted to crack down on fraud, they would 
have joined with Democrats in closing loopholes that provide tax breaks 
to large companies that shift American jobs overseas, but they haven't 
done that. They would also join Democrats in cracking down on 
multinational corporations that avoid paying their fair share of taxes 
by simply changing the address of a headquarters to a post office box 
on the Cayman Islands.
  I will tell you, if middle class Americans could change their post 
office boxes to the Cayman Islands, my Republican colleagues would have 
a bill on the floor to stop that, but they don't have that luxury.

                              {time}  1200

  Hardworking Americans can't change their address to a Cayman Island 
address, so they are just flat out of luck.
  Where is the outrage from our Republican colleagues, from my friends, 
on these abuses?
  Well, ladies and gentlemen, there simply isn't any outrage. In fact, 
the House has taken more than a dozen votes to end these abusive 
practices, and the majority of my Republican colleagues have opposed 
each and every one of them.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. CROWLEY. The contrast between Republicans and Democrats could 
never be more clearer than it is right now. Republicans continue to 
want to protect corporate America, and Democrats want to protect, 
average, hardworking middle class Americans. That is the clear 
distinction, once again being demonstrated by this bill on the floor.
  Vote ``no'' on this bill. It is time to tell our Republican 
colleagues to put the interests of the middle class before corporate 
American interests.
  Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition against this 
cruel half-measure by the House Republican majority.
  The bill is a boon for upper middle class families, but failing to 
extend the child tax credit expansion for lower-income families means 
12 million Americans will be plunged deeper in poverty. That includes 
six million children, infants, and toddlers. It also includes 400,000 
veterans and members of the armed services, men and women who are 
giving their lives and sacrificing their families for this Nation.
  Yesterday, in an article, Bob Woodson, the president of the Center 
For Neighborhood Enterprise and, I might add, a mentor for Chairman 
Paul Ryan, my Republican colleague, he told The Wall Street Journal 
that we cannot and should not--and this is a quote--``should not 
generalize about poor people. There are the deserving poor, and there 
are the undeserving poor.''
  I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in this Republican 
majority, you tell me which are the infants

[[Page H6831]]

and the toddlers who are the deserving poor and those infants and 
toddlers who are the undeserving poor?
  This is not right. I have always been a strong supporter of the child 
tax credit. Research has shown that this sort of income support for 
parents, it boosts employment, increases earnings and income, reduces 
poverty, and improves kids' school performance.
  I have worked hard to pass the expansion of the child tax credit in 
the recovery act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I have long called for the lowering of the eligibility 
threshold to zero, so that more families in need could benefit. But, 
like so much else from this majority, this bill unnecessarily leaves 
working families who are struggling behind. I cannot, in good 
conscience support it, nor should any of my colleagues support it.
  Oppose this cruel, cruel elimination of a child tax credit for 
deserving families.
  Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and will be 
prepared to close.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, let me thank our ranking member 
for yielding and for your tremendous support on so many issues that 
affect working men and women, the middle class, the working poor, and 
the poor. Thank you.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4935, which is 
the so-called Child Tax Credit Improvement Act of 2014.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not an improvement at all. This bill fails to 
make permanent a key child tax credit improvement for working families 
earning as little as $3,000 a year. Instead, this bill permanently 
extends it to higher income families.
  A permanent child tax credit must address the needs of all families, 
but especially the ones who earn the least. Extending a permanent child 
tax credit that helps wealthy families while failing to make permanent 
the credit for those living in poverty is just not fair. It is un-
American.
  This failure would have a devastating impact on more than 5 million 
families that are already struggling to make ends meet and who need the 
credits the most.
  The President clearly understands this.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.
  Ms. LEE of California. In the Statement of Administration Policy, it 
is clear that the President understands this. Actually, he understands 
that this also not only affects the 5 million families, it cuts it for 
an additional 6 million families. And so I am very pleased that the 
White House has advised that they do not support this and, hopefully, a 
veto threat would come if it ever got that far.
  Now, yesterday, I might say, Chairman Ryan--and I have to remind us 
that he rolled out his plan to reduce poverty. Yet, today we see this 
bill, which would increase poverty.
  I am not sure what is going on, Mr. Speaker. We are here to protect 
all families, particularly those living in poverty. Why in the world 
would we try, or the Republicans, at least, try to put a compassionate 
voice and face on such draconian policies?
  The rhetoric of yesterday, as it relates to the Ryan rollout of the 
antipoverty program, is totally inconsistent with the reality of what 
we are dealing with and seeing today.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  So under the Republican approach here, they make permanent a child 
tax credit for families making $150- to $205,000, while refusing to do 
the same, a refundable tax credit for 12 million people, including 6 
million kids, and 400,000 veterans and their families, and they make 
permanent cutting off another 5 million kids. The estimate is 4 million 
of them are American citizens.
  This is why the Statement of Administration Policy says this: ``If 
the President were presented with H.R. 4935, his senior advisers would 
recommend that he veto the bill.''
  What the Republicans are doing, making permanent a tax cut for 
families making $150- to $205,000 while refusing to do that for 
families making much less, this takes the mask off of their rhetoric 
about poverty. It takes off that mask.
  Vote ``no.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
One goal of tax policy is to strengthen the economy so that there are 
more jobs and bigger paychecks for American families. Today, we have an 
opportunity to put more money in the pockets of hardworking families.
  This commonsense bill reforms the child tax credit so that it can 
keep up with the rising cost of living, and eliminates the current 
marriage tax penalty.
  I have a letter of support that says it best, and I quote:

       Representative Jenkins' bill indexes the credit and income 
     limits for inflation. Inflation erodes the value and 
     purchasing power of the U.S. dollar and, as a result, a 
     dollar is worth less today than it was years ago. This 
     important piece of legislation adjusts the credit for 
     inflation to ensure that the value of the credit continues to 
     maintain its value.
       We know that family and marriage is beneficial to society, 
     and the Federal Government ought to promote economic policies 
     that allow families to thrive. This tax credit recognizes the 
     important contribution of the family and children to our 
     country and starts to address a problem with our Tax Code 
     today, the marriage penalty. A fair system of taxation does 
     not penalize marriage and family.

  With that, I would ask the body to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4935, the 
Child Tax Credit Improvement Act of 2014, to honor families with 
children.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, this 
Republican-led House has recently been in the habit of passing 
extraordinarily expensive corporate and business tax provisions, making 
each permanent.
  However, we are here today to follow a completely different track. 
Today, we will leave countless single mothers and fathers, struggling 
to support a family, without the certainty we rushed to provide 
corporations.
  Honestly, I'm dumbfounded by this. I'm dumbfounded and frustrated by 
a Majority that can find it in their hearts to make corporate 
provisions like R&D--which I support--permanent, but can't find that 
same heart for hardworking Americans.
  It is truly disgraceful.
  While there are a few good provisions in the bill before us, we are 
leaving the most vulnerable taxpayers out in the cold. Literally. 
Parents will have to choose between heating their home in the dead of 
winter and putting food on the table for their kids when we take 
roughly $1,700 out of their pockets.
  Kids are not cheap and this bill doesn't come close to addressing the 
price of raising healthy, successful children. As a working mom, I 
understand the struggle to raise a family. And I'm one of the lucky 
ones.
  Many of my constituents--and constituents of each one of us here 
today--aren't so lucky. These aren't lazy people, expecting a 
government handout, but hardworking parents.
  I cannot support a bill to increase poverty across the country.
  On top of all this, at the eleventh hour, the Majority tossed in a 
devastating amendment to this bill. An amendment that denies millions 
of children a tax benefit their parents deserve and have paid for. 
Parents who have worked long hours and paid their fair share of federal 
taxes will no longer be able to claim the refundable child tax credit. 
Seriously? You are going to pull the rug out from under struggling 
families? You have got to be kidding me.
  If we can pass permanent tax law for corporations, we can certainly 
tackle permanent policy for people straining to make ends meet.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about H.R. 4935, The 
Child Tax Credit Improvement Act of 2014.
  The Child Tax Credit Improvement Act indexes the credit and the 
limitations to inflation to help parents keep more of their hard earned 
money to use for the mounting expenses of parenting. Under the bill, 
the amount of the child tax credit would be indexed for inflation and 
the marriage penalty would be eliminated by increasing the joint filing 
phase-out threshold to exactly double that of single filers.
  A product of the 1997 Tax Act, the Child Tax Credit complements the 
Earned Income Tax Credit and helps to further buttress the case that 
the road to prosperity winds through the tax code by reducing poverty, 
encouraging work, and strengthening families with children.

[[Page H6832]]

  The changes proposed earlier this year by both President Obama and 
Chairman Camp highlight some of the challenges that these programs face 
including the complexity surrounding combining work and child tax 
incentives, definitions of qualifying children, and some of the 
deficiencies these tax benefits have with respect to childless workers.
  But the version of the bill reported by the Ways & Means increases 
the deficit by $114.9 billion. In addition, a provision was added in 
the Rules Committee requiring taxpayers to have a Social Security 
Number to claim the refundable portion of the child tax credit, 
reducing the value of the underlying bill by $24.5 billion.
  As a result, the final version of the bill increases the deficit by 
$90.4 billion.
   I want to continue to work on tax legislation which benefits the 
18th District and enhances the Child Tax Credit, so that the working 
families across this great nation you have advocated for may lift 
themselves out of poverty, and seek the American Dream but this version 
is not an improvement but instead is a step back.
  In fact Mr. Speaker, while I proudly serve on the Judiciary and 
Homeland Security Committees, in April, I hosted a briefing on the 
Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, which demonstrates 
the importance of this provision in helping to fight poverty and 
allowing many Americans in Texas and elsewhere to have a better shot at 
the American Dream.
  This briefing was led by two experts, Elaine Maag from the Urban 
Institute and Margot Crandall-Hollick of the Congressional Research 
Service which was organized, along with two other briefings on 
International Taxation and Retirement Tax provisions, by my Economic 
Policy Counsel, Darrell Rico Doss. And in spite of the fact that it 
took place during recess and we did not serve food--my staff assures me 
that we had an excellent turnout and an even better briefing because of 
Elaine and Margot who addressed a spellbound audience of Hill staff and 
others on the intricacies of the two tax credits.
  Why? Because the Child Tax Credit was significantly expanded by the 
Bush tax cuts, and further expanded, especially for low-income 
taxpayers, by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Many, though 
not all of these expansions were subsequently made permanent by the 
American Taxpayer Relief Act. That expansion of the credit occurred 
under two presidents--illustrating its bipartisan nature.
  But only in this Congress--led by an intransigent GOP Majority would 
this critical poverty-busting tax provision be politicized to the point 
that I suspect the vote will largely be along party lines.
  Today, as the House considers this GOP child tax credit bill which 
does the opposite of what is needed: it would provide permanent tax 
cuts to many affluent families, while letting the Child Tax Credit 
disappear for many low-income working families after 2017.
  After 2017, H.R. 4935 would effectively eliminate the Child Tax 
Credit for 5 million families, while cutting it for 6 million more. A 
single parent with two children working full-time at minimum wage would 
lose her entire tax credit of $1,725.
  Meanwhile, a couple with two children with income of $150,000 would 
receive a Child Tax Credit $2,200 larger than today. In addition, H.R. 
4935 would immediately eliminate the Child Tax Credit for millions of 
American children whose parents immigrated to this country, including 
U.S. citizen children and ``Dreamers,'' and would push many of these 
children into or deeper into poverty.
  Here are the three key features of this GOP child tax credit bill 
(more information about each of these features is below):
  It fails to make permanent a key improvement in the Child Tax Credit 
enacted in 2009 that makes more low-income working families eligible 
for the credit and that will expire in 2017 unless Congress acts.
  It indexes the current maximum credit of $1,000 per child to 
inflation, which benefits only those with incomes high enough to 
receive the maximum benefit.
  It extends the Child Tax Credit up the income scale--on a permanent 
basis--so more families with six-figure incomes will benefit.
  So, today after Rep. Paul Ryan unveiled his so-called ``antipoverty'' 
plan, my Republican colleagues bring up this bill that is estimated to 
result in pushing 12 million people--including 6 million children--into 
or deeper into poverty, by failing to extend the key 2009 Child Tax 
Credit improvement which will expire in 2017.
  First, this bill hurts low-income working families by failing to make 
permanent the key provision enacted in 2009 that made more low- and 
moderate-income working families eligible for the CTC and enlarged the 
CTC for others who had been receiving only a partial credit. This 
provision expires in 2017. If this provision expires on schedule, as 
this GOP bill allows:
  A single mother with two children in Houston who works full time 
throughout the year at the minimum wage and earns $14,500 would lose 
$1,725 in 2018, as her Child Tax Credit would be eliminated.
  Mr. Speaker, about 12 million people including 6 million children in 
2018 will be pushed into, or deeper into, poverty.
  Again, it is hypocritical of House Republicans--who have let 
emergency unemployment insurance expire for more than 3 million 
Americans, refused to provide a permanent fix to the sustainable growth 
rate (SGR) for Medicare payments to doctors, and failed to replace the 
irrational, across-the-board spending cuts imposed by the sequester all 
on arguments over offsets--to bring this bill to the Floor without 
paying for it.
  As I cast my vote this morning the fact is not lost on me--and I am 
sure many other Members in this body--that four months ago the 
Republican Leadership let emergency unemployment insurance expire for 
more than 1.3 million Americans--many at the end of their proverbial 
economic rope.
  Many of these unemployed live in the 18th Congressional District of 
Texas, comprising Houston and outlying areas.
  Mr. Speaker, this is more than irresponsible but recklessness in the 
guise of looking out for families.
  I have to ask a burning question--what happened to deficit reduction?
  However, the choice made by House Republicans to address these 
provisions one by one, while adding their cost to the deficit, 
represents an irresponsible approach that will only make fixing our 
broken tax system harder and put further fiscal strain on federal, 
state, and local programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to vote for children and families--but 
this bill must be paid for--because if they are not--future generations 
will suffer because of the unsustainable debt.
  Let us get back to being fiscally responsible and helping America's 
families by enacting smart, pragmatic tax policy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 680, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage of H.R. 4935 will be followed by 5-minute votes 
on adoption of H. Con. Res. 105, adoption of the motion to instruct on 
H.R. 3230, and the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5081.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237, 
nays 173, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 451]

                               YEAS--237

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)

[[Page H6833]]


     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--173

     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Bishop (UT)
     Campbell
     Capito
     Cicilline
     Clyburn
     Coble
     DesJarlais
     Fleischmann
     Gingrey (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith (VA)
     Heck (WA)
     Honda
     Kingston
     Marchant
     Nunnelee
     Pompeo
     Rigell
     Rogers (MI)
     Tsongas
     Wasserman Schultz
     Yoder

                              {time}  1237

  Ms. WILSON of Florida and Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. PEARCE and GIBSON changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________