GOP leaders reinstate adoption tax credit

WASHINGTON—Republican leaders finally took the advice of pro-life lawmakers and advocates Thursday, agreeing not to cut the adoption tax credit.

GOP leaders unveiled the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act a week ago, and to the surprise of many, the 429-page document included language ending the credit that helps families cover the cost of adoptions.

No one but a handful of top-level Republican lawmakers and staffers knew about the exclusion before the release of the landmark bill. Now, blindsided pro-life groups and lawmakers are scrambling to make sure President Donald Trump doesn’t sign off on a tax-code rewrite that discourages adoption.

After vocal pushback from pro-life groups and a collection of pro-life lawmakers, Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, decided to offer an amendment Thursday retaining the adoption credit.

Lawmakers originally defended the move by saying few families use the credit and pro-life advocates hadn’t mentioned it in years, March for Life Action president Tom McClusky told me. “It’s because we never thought somebody would be so stupid to remove it,” he added.

The adoption tax credit provides families up to $13,570 to help offset adoption fees. In 2015, 64,000 families used the credit at a cost to the government of $251 million. Keeping the adoption tax credit would cost the United States $3.8 billion over the next 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. That’s a small amount in an overall tax bill expected to total more than $1 trillion.

This week, Brady justified cutting the credit despite having adopted two children of his own. Not many people use the tax credit, and those that do are already wealthy, he said, noting it’s only available to those who itemize their deductions. Brady claims more families overall would keep more of their money under the proposed bill.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., explained it this way to the Washington Examiner: “Instead of saying, ‘we’ll give you a one-time break if you do something we approve of,’ let’s just give you your money back in the first place.”

The GOP bill would increase the child tax credit to $1,600 a year, up from $1,000. That’s on top of Ryan’s promise that the average middle-class family would save nearly $1,200 on their annual taxes.

Despite supporters’ protests, it’s hard to find evidence the tax credit has increased the U.S. adoption rate. Regardless of the numbers, eliminating a tax credit that encourages adoption created terrible optics for the pro-life GOP, especially since November is National Adoption Month.

Behind the scenes, critics successfully negotiated a balancing act: reinstating the tax deduction without derailing the complex legislative calculus involved in overhauling the U.S. tax code.

On Tuesday, Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., told his colleagues nixing the adoption tax credit would make them hypocrites. He circulated a letter delivered to Brady explaining why it’s smart to reinstate the benefit. Rep. Jody Hice, R-Ga., worked with Franks on the letter and told me it would be a huge disappointment to see a final tax bill without the adoption credit: “We’re a pro-life party as a whole, and I think supporting adoption is an important aspect of it all, so I hope this can be resolved.”

On Tuesday, Republicans passed on a chance to reinstate the benefit. During the second day of the marathon Ways and Means Committee tax bill mark-up, Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill., offered an amendment to reinstate the credit. It failed 23-16 along party lines. Afterward, Davis trolled Republicans on Twitter: “Pro-Life much right?”

But adoption advocates are now breathing a sigh of relief.

“The adoption tax credit has enormous symbolic, practical and humanitarian meaning and purpose,” Franks said after Brady offered the amendment. “I am deeply grateful that it’s been preserved in the tax plan and for all of those who acted to preserve it.”

Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., announces the Conscience Protection Act. Facebook

Standing up for conscience

Pro-life advocates also urged Congress on Wednesday to ensure passage of a bill protecting the conscience rights of healthcare providers.

Tears streamed down Cathy DeCarlo’s face as she recounted her experience as a nurse in New York City. In May 2009, DeCarlo entered an operating room assuming she was there to treat a woman after a miscarriage only to find out the unborn baby was still alive. Her supervisor instructed her to help assist in the abortion or risk disciplinary action. DeCarlo reluctantly followed orders, fearing she would lose her job.

“I watched in horror as the doctor dismembered and removed the baby’s bloody limbs,” she said. “I still have nightmares about that day.”

Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., authored the Conscience Protection Act to make sure something like that never happens again. If passed, the bill would enshrine federal protections for nurses and other healthcare professionals against participating in abortions and provide legal recourse for employees if hospitals continue to coerce them.

Black introduced the bill in January, and she helped include it in the House appropriations package for fiscal year 2018. Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., sponsored companion legislation in the Senate.

The House and Senate must coalesce around an end-of-year spending package, and pro-life lawmakers hope the Conscience Protection Act makes it into the final version.

“Healthcare is about saving life, eradicating disease, mitigating disability—not taking life,” said Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., one of the bill’s original sponsors. “At the very least, healthcare providers should have the right to not be coerced into facilitating abortion.”

The legislation has 124 co-sponsors in the House, including two Democrats—Reps. Dan Lipinski of Illinois and Collin Peterson of Minnesota. The House already approved its appropriations package with the Conscience Protection Act intact, but the Senate has not. The two chambers are still in deep discussions to reconcile the massive government-funding bill before the Dec. 8 deadline.

Lankford told me he’s doubtful the Conscience Protection Act would get a vote as a standalone bill in the Senate, noting the appropriations process is the best option. But he expects to face opposition in the effort: “I mentally can’t understand why there would be opposition by some, but I’m sure there will be.” —E.W.

Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., announces the Conscience Protection Act. Facebook

Gun loophole?

Responding to Sunday’s massacre at a church in Texas, a bipartisan pair of senators introduced legislation this week to make it harder for domestic abusers to obtain firearms. The Sutherland Springs gunman, Devin Patrick Kelley, had previous convictions for domestic violence and should not have been able to legally purchase a gun. The U.S. Air Force, which court-martialed Kelley in 2012, acknowledged this week it failed to file Kelley’s conviction with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Sens. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., unveiled a bill Tuesday to try to ensure all military domestic violence convictions appear in the federal database. The senators noted at a news conference Tuesday that U.S. military branches have only recorded one domestic assault conviction in the NICS system since 2007. “There’s a problem deeper than just the law not being followed,” Flake said. “It’s more of a problem with labeling, how these charges or convictions are labeled, and how they’re recorded.”

Kelley killed 26 people and injured 20 others. Democrats looked at the incident as a launch pad for gun control legislation, but most Republicans aren’t interested. House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., told reporters Tuesday that Kelley should never have had a weapon in the first place and officials need to focus on enforcing laws already on the books before considering new ones. —E.W.

Saying goodbye

Three more longtime Republican lawmakers decided not to run for reelection this week. Reps. Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey, Ted Poe of Texas, and Bob Goodlatte of Virginia added their names to the long list of GOP lawmakers deciding not to run in 2018. LoBiondo, a moderate who has served 12 terms, said in a statement he’s frustrated with the current makeup of Congress. “There is no longer middle ground to honestly debate issues and put forward solutions,” he said. “Those of us who came to Congress to change Washington for the better through good governance are now the outliers.” Poe, who has served seven terms and announced last year he has leukemia, said in his retirement notice he’s in good health today. Poe said he looks forward to spending more time with his grandchildren. Goodlatte, who is in his 12th term and faces a term limit as House Judiciary Committee chairman next year, said in a letter to his supporters that this is a natural “stepping-off point” for him. Nearly two-dozen House lawmakers are vacating their seats in favor of retirement or seeking a new office next year. Democrats would need to pick up 24 seats to retake the House majority in the midterm elections. That’s a tall order but with fewer incumbents to run against, it’s becoming less of a stretch. —E.W.