[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.
____________________