Search Form
First, enter a politician or zip code
Now, choose a category

Public Statements

Child Credit Preservation and Expansion Act of 2004

Location: Washington, DC

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.



Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and myself, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as follows:

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. Levin:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:


(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) ADJUSTMENT OF CREDIT AMOUNT FOR INFLATION.-Section 24 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
"(g) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT .-In the case of any taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 2005, the $1,000 amount contained in subsection (a) shall be increased by an amount equal to-
"(1) such dollar amount, multiplied by
"(2) 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 2004' for 'calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof. Any increase determined under the preceding sentence shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $50.".

(c) RESTORATION OF $10,000 THRESHOLD FOR REFUNDABLE PORTION OF CREDIT.-Subsection (d) of section 24 of such Code is amended by striking paragraph (3).

(d) 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)".

(e) COMBAT PAY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN DETERMINING REFUNDABLE PORTION OF CREDIT.-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.".

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

(g) 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.


(a) IN GENERAL.-Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
"(j) ADDITIONAL TAX ON HIGH INCOME TAXPAYERS.-In the case of taxable years beginning in calendar year 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, or 2010, the amount determined under subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d), as the case may be, shall be increased by 2.75 percent of so much of adjusted gross income as exceeds $1,000,000 in the case of individuals to whom subsection (a) applies ($500,000 in any other case)."

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendment made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2004.


(a) IN GENERAL.-Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1 of this Act and any other provision of law, title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall take effect in the form as originally enacted unless Congress meets the requirements of subsection (b).

(b) REQUIREMENTS.-Congress meets the requirements of this subsection if-
(1) before September 1, 2010, Congress has enacted comprehensive Federal budget legislation, and
(2) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget certifies in September of 2010 that such legislation-
(A) will result in a balanced Federal budget by fiscal year 2014, determined by taking in to account the costs of the foregoing provisions of this Act and without taking into account the receipts and disbursements of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds, and
(B) will substantially reduce the United States Government's reliance on Foreign central bank purchases of its debt obligations.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 644, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and a Member opposed each will control 30 minutes.


Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I just wanted to touch base on this amendment and speak against the substitute.

The reason I want to do that is because the substitute actually increases taxes on small businesses in order to get to their tax credit. But more importantly, the tax credit is not a permanent fix. What we believe the young families need today is a permanent child tax credit so they can count on this for many years to come.

I am a father of four. I spend a lot of my time in the carpool line. In fact, I just left the House immediately after the last vote to drive my son to a Little League game. And after this last vote, I am going to drive back to the Little League game, and that is not untypical of working parents today. Parents are juggling money trying to raise these children. And often you think it is time for mom and dad to get a little relaxation. Well, they cannot do that because they have to put the money into new tires or a new dryer, children's braces, whatever.

This makes it helpful and affordable for families, who are often in the sandwich generation somewhere between having dependent children and dependent parents. I believe that the Camp bill, the Thomas bill, the Ways and Means Committee mark in its present form is a good bill.

I think that the Democrats have raised a lot of good points, and I share a lot of their concerns about our growing debt. I think it is time we start bringing that up, and I am glad that they are doing it. But I also feel when you reduce taxes, you put it back in the pocket of those who earn it, and they are going to go out and buy more hamburgers or clothes, more CDs. And when they do, small businesses are going to react. They are going to expand their inventory and hire more people, and it is going to be an extremely important multiplier to the economic engine of our society. Or as ADAM SMITH said, It is the invisible hand at work. We want to cut the budget, but we should not start with taking more money out of the taxpayers' pocket. We should start by overseeing some of these Federal Government programs and eliminating some of them.

Skip to top
Back to top