Child Credit Preservation and Expansion Act of 2004

CHILD CREDIT PRESERVATION AND EXPANSION ACT OF 2004 -- (House of Representatives - May 20, 2004)

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 644, I call up the bill (H.R. 4359) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the child tax credit, and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 644, the bill is considered read for amendment.

The text of H.R. 4359 is as follows:

H.R. 4359
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 Credit Preservation and Expansion Act of 2004".

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN CHILD TAX CREDIT.

(a) IN GENERAL.-Subsection (a) of section 24 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to child tax credit) is amended to read as follows:
"(a) ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT.-There shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year with respect to each qualifying child of the taxpayer an amount equal to $1,000.".

(b) INCREASE IN PHASEOUT THRESHOLDS.-Paragraph (2) of section 24(b) of such Code is amended to read as follows:
"(2) THRESHOLD AMOUNT.-For purposes of paragraph (1), the term 'threshold amount' means $125,000 ($250,000 in the case of a joint return).".

(c) ACCELERATION OF INCREASE IN REFUNDABLE PORTION OF CREDIT.-Clause (i) of section 24(d)(1)(B) of such Code is amended by striking "(10 percent in the case of taxable years beginning before January 1, 2005)".

(d) COMBAT PAY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.-Paragraph (1) of section 24(d) of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: "For purposes of subparagraph (B), any amount excluded from gross income by reason of section 112 shall be treated as earned income which is taken into account in computing taxable income for the taxable year.".

(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2003.

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF SUNSET.
Title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall not apply to the provisions of, and amendments made by, sections 201 and 203 of such Act.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

To be sure we are clear, this is a bill to make the child tax credit permanent, to extend it to include families that were not part of the legislation before, those families that are high-income earners.

The other part of this that we have to talk about is the fact that it is $22 billion worth of costs without paying for it.

The first part everyone will agree on. Child tax credit, let us go with it. Second part, increase it or expand it to include families who are among the highest-income earners in this country, we could debate that, but let us do it fiscally responsibly.

The third part, to not pay for it, is the irresponsible part of this legislation.

If my colleagues want to do something to expand the child tax credit at the same time they are making it permanent in the face of what is today a $400 billion deficit for this country, and in the face of, as we have heard other Members say, a $7.2 trillion debt that this Nation has on which we pay close to a quarter of a trillion dollars a year simply in interest, does nothing to give anyone any additional service or benefit, just paying interest.

[Time: 17:45]

If we did not have that $17.2 trillion debt, that is about $24,000 for each man, woman, and child in this country today; and if we did not have in this fiscal year a more than $400 billion deficit that we face, that adds to that national debt, then perhaps you could easily talk about extending this to the high-income earners and not paying for the cost of it. But that is not the case.

Today, what is the world like? We have men and women, over 100,000 of them, that have not seen their children, in some cases, for more than a year. We have a Social Security System where people are today contributing for their retirement, where every single cent of the Social Security surplus is being spent and more. We have a situation where more than a million and a half Americans in the last 3 ½ years have lost their jobs. And those Americans who have been lucky enough in the last few months to regain a job, are finding they are earning less today than in the job they held previously.

So, then, you have to ask yourself, is this truly the direction we want our country to take? Is this the one problem we have to tackle today, increasing the child tax credit to include high-income earning families in America at a cost of expanding the size of the national debt?

And that is where folks on this side of the aisle break. Because we would love to be able to go back to our districts and say, you know what, we just extended the child tax credit, we made it permanent so you can always count on it being there. But you cannot in good faith do that to people who have sons and daughters in Iraq or in a war where we have no exit strategy, where we have already spent more than $166 billion, again not saying how we are paying for it, and what we are doing is adding to the debt.

One of our colleagues from Nevada came to the floor and spoke eloquently just a moment ago about how he held a newborn child in his arms, and he talked about how that child tax credit will now go to that family because of that child. What he did not say, of course, is that while that child is going to help that family receive, perhaps, if they are lucky enough to qualify, a $1,000 child tax credit, that child is born today with a $2,000 additional debt just from the last four bills that have passed this House in the last month that deal with tax cuts: this child tax credit; the marriage penalty relief; the relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax; and the cut on the 10 percent bottom tax bracket.

If you total all those up and extend them for the 10 years, that is over $1 trillion dollars in cost, unpaid for. So you cannot continue doing this and be realistic, be fiscally responsible, be fair; and we go from there. This is not the way to go. Go with the Democratic substitute.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT