A Guide to H.R. 2434: The Putting Jobs and the American Family First Act of 1993

(Archived document, may contain errors)

179

July 6, 1993 A GUIDE TO H.1L 2434: THE irp UFFING JOBS AND THE AMERICAN FAMELY FIRST ACT OF 1"3

INMODUCTION Less than three years after being asked to pay higher taxes as a result of the disastrous 1990 budget deal, American families once again face household belt- tightening as Washington raises taxes in an effort to stem the tide of government red ink. The so-called deficit reduction package, currently working its way through Congress, will by most accounts contain the largest tax increase in Ameri- can history-between $250 billion and $300 billion over the nextfive years. This is twice the size of the tax hike that helped to make George Bush a one-term Presi- dent. Vowing not to repeat such a mistake, a group of nearly fifty lawmakers led by Rod Grams, the Minnesota Republican, and Tim Hutchinson, the Arkansas Re- publican, have introduced a starkly different plan; H.R. 2434, the Putting Jobs and the American Family First Act of '1993. This alternative budget plan not only cuts the deficit in half within five years, it also provides tax cuts for American families as well as tax incentives for investment to stimulate economic growth and job creation. This is not done by raising taxes on other Americans, but by clamping strict controls on the rampant growth of federal spending. After sending another slice of their hard-earned pay to Washington under the Clinton plan, taxpayers will not see real long-term deficit reduction. According to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections, this current plan will produce only a small decline in the deficit during the next five years-from $3 1 O'billion this year to about $250 billion in fiscal 1998. But after that, says the CBO, the deficit will begin to soar again, reaching over $400 billion by 2003. The reason: the plan will have little substantive effect on the rampant growth of federal spending. 7be CBO estimates that the House version of the tax and budget package will allow total federal outlays to climb $338 billion over the next five years, from $1.443 trillion in fiscal year 1993 to $1.781 trillion in fiscal 1998. This growth represents an average annual rate of 4.3 percept peryear-or 63 per- cent faster than the projected mflation rate. The final bill emerging from Congress is not likely to change this growth rate significantly. Whatever the exact shape of the tax bill when it finally comes out of Congress, the measure will not fulfill the four economic policy promises Bill Clinton made during the campaign. He pledged that his Administration would:

Putting Jobs and the American Family First Act of 1993: H.R. 2434

Family Tax Relief $134.6 billion

Economic Growth Incentives -$37.6 billion

Deficit Reduction $461 billion

Total package: $633 billion I Heriap DataChart

1) Cut the deficit in hallf; 2) Provide tax relief to middle-class Americans; 3) Enact measures to spur investment and economic growth; and 4) Put polic 'lies in place that would assure a continuous decline in the deficit. The net effect for American families: real pain and few, if any, real benefits.

A REAL ALTERNATWE: PUT JOBS AND FAMILIES FIRST The Putting Jobs and the American Family First Act of 1993 (H.R. 2434) is based in large measure on a proposal developed last February by the staff of The Heritage Foundation. I H.R. 2434 is a five-year $633 billion package that would: * Cut the deficit in haff by fiscal 1998. # Grant $135 billion in family tax relief. * Provide nearly $38 billion in tax incentives for investment to stimulate econondc growth and job creation. * Control the long-term growth of federal spending, which will put the federal budget on a course toward balance by 2003. To achieve these results, the Grams-Hutchinson plan contains five major policy components. The measure would:

1 Scott A. Hodge, "Putting Families First: A Deficit Reduction and Tax Relief Strategy," Heritage Foundation -Backgrounder No. 927, February 16, 1993.

Cap Annual Spending Growth at 2%v Save: $633 Billion

$1900 Billions of Dollars CBO Basejine Spending Levels 1800 . .............:......................................................... @@: .......................

1700 . .................................................................................. Isa,

. .................................................. 1600

1500 . .............. .. ................... .............. ..... ........... 1 2% Spending Cap Levels

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Billions of Dollars 1993 1994 1985 1996 1997 1998

Total Federal Outlays: CBO March Bowline $1,443.5 $1,501.1 $1,574.1 $1,645A $1,734.5 $1,840.2 Total Federal Outlays: When Limited to 2% Annual Growth 1,443.5 1,472.3 1,501.8 1,531.8 1,562.4 1,593.7

Savings $0.0 $28.8 $72.3 $113.6 $172.1 $246.5

Soume CongmskyW Budget Offim May I & 1993 *Asumes complarce with ft dweborwy gwidrig hmits in ft Budget Erforcement Act two* 1 "5; diso e orary oudays am a@ to V-ow at te wne pace as Haden Wber 19956 SurtVI wb CBO 1 "3 totW spetWing Herftp D=Chart

1) Cap the annual growth of total federal spending at two percent. According to the CBO, baseline federal spending growth (assuming no changes in current law) will average some five percent per year through fiscal 1998, or 1.8 times the inflation rate. Putting Families First caps this annual growth rate at two percent. This would produce $633 billion in total program savings below the baseline growth rate. The table above displays the annual savings resulting from this cap, as calculated by CBO. The two percent cap would be enforced by a sequester. This means there would be automatic across-the-board spending reductions if Congress failed to lower spending sufficiently below the targeted spending levels by making cuts in spe- cific programs. However, the Grams-Hutchinson plan does exempt Social Secu- rity benefits from a sequester.

Use One-Third of Capped Savings for Tax Cuts

Family Tax Cuts $134.6 billion

Pro-Growth Tax Cuts $37.6 billion

Wick Redu09n .$461 billion

Rve-year 11994 1995 1996 1997 1896 Total

Pro Family Tax Cuts 3c $500 per Child Tax Credit $25.50 $26.19 $26.90 $27.62 $28.37 $134.57 Pro4kvwth Tax Cum 3c IRA-Plus Plan (2.70) (1.40) (1.10) 030 1.40 (3.50) K Accelerated Depreciation Plan 0.60 (2.M) (5.90) (4.80) 1.20 (11.60) PC Index Capital Gains and Lower Raft to 15% 0.50 7.50 13.50 15.10 17.10 52.M

Rmienues Lost hvfn All Tax Cuts $22.90 $29.59 $33.40 $38.22. $4&07 $172.17

Note: Amounts in pwvdhem denote inueases in rejenum HerkW DauChan

2) Give every working family in America a $500 tax credit for each child. The plan uses $135 billion of the savings obtained from the cap to provide a $500 per child non-refundable tax credit for every American family. The plan in- dexes the credit to the inflation rate, raising its value to roughly $560 after five years. There are some 51 million American children eligible for such a tax credit. At $500 per child, the first-year revenue loss to the Treasury due to the credit would be about $25.5 billion. By fiscal 1998, indexation would push this revenue loss to an estimated $28.4 billion. This portion of H.R. 2434 would not increase the defi- cit however, because the plan more than offsets these lost revenues with the reduc- tions in government spending. Family tax relief is the centerpiece of this plan. Based upon Census Bureau data, Heritage Foundation analysts have calculated the total dollar value of a $500 per child tax credit for every state and congressional district. The appendix to this paper displays these data. The average congressional district contains about 117,000 children. Thus a $500 tax credit would bring some $58.68 million per year into the average congressional district in fandly tax relief. @Def it @Reductl 6 1 billio

3) Spur investment and real family wage growth through pro- growth tax cuts. The plan dedicates nearly $38 billion of the savings over five years from the cap to fund tax cuts that will generate the new private investment needed to in- crease the productivity of American workers, and thereby boost real wage growth. - As-indicated in-the -table-on page 4, there are -three key-components to the -4oonomicgiowth- portion of the.pJan. Rach-0-these has been "scored" on the basis of a static economic model-the type of model used by federal budget es- timators' 2 The net revenue loss of these three measures is some $38 billion over five years. But as with the family tax cut, the revenues lost to the Treasury from these tax cuts are offset by the equal reduction in federal spending, making this portion of the plan also deficit neutral.

Tax Cut #1: Expand Individual Retirement Accounts in what is called a "back- ended' 'IRA plan. Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) reduce the tax bias gainst savings by either deferring taxes on income placed into the special accounts or by making the interest from such accounts tax-exempt. Unfortunately, the 1986 Tax Reform Act sharply restricted the amount of tax-deferred income that families could place in such accounts. Lawmakers can undo this mistake, without increasing the budget deficit, by enacting a "back-ended" version of the IRA which makes interest tax-exempt. Such a reform would boost savings and also increase the pool of funds available for productive new investments. This element of the plan raises $3.5 billion in revenues over five years.

Tax Cut #2: Enact a neutral cost recovery plan for capital investments. Called the Investment Tax Incentive Act of 1993 (H.R. 539), this proposal was introduced earlier this year by Representative Nick Smith, the hfichigan Republican. Smith's proposal would index the depreciation schedules for business investments to inflation. Such a change in the tax code would effectively give businesses the present-value equivalent of immediate expensing of any major investment in new plants or equipment. This element of the plan is estimated by Congress's Joint Committee on Taxa- tion to raise some $11.6 billion over five years.

2 Many experts believe that reducing the tax rate on savings and investment would so stimulate economic growth that overall federal tax revenues would rise. Thus, according to these analysts, tax cuts on investments and savings would help reduce the deficit. However, this view is not shared by the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Tax Comirtittee of the Congress. According to the economic models employed by these organizations, such tax cuts will "lose" money for the Treasury. Thus, these tax cuts must be "paid for" by either increases in taxes elsewhere or via spending cuts. While Heritage analysts disagree with this latter view, CBO revenue loss estimates are being assumed fbr the purposes of this plan.

Tax Cut #3: Index the capital gains tax to the rate of inflation and lower the maximum rate to 15 percent for both individuals and corporations. Currently the top rate is 28 percent and it would rise to 30.8 percent if the Senate version of the Clinton package becomes law. This element of the Putting Families First plan is estimated by the Joint Com- mittee on Taxation to lose nearly $53 billion in revenues to the Treasury over five years. to cutting -savin -4)...r: Apply, Ining.$461 billion-& hese4oto.. . gs the deficit in half by riscal 1998. The plan dedicates the remaining $461 billion of savings achieved by the spend- ing cap to cut the deficit by more than half in five years. This means the fiscal 1998 deficit will fall from roughly $360 billion, the current baseline projection, to roughly $161 billion. By contrast, the Clinton plan is estimated to lower the deficit to $250 billion in fiscal 1998.

Long-Term Deficit Impact of Putting Families First vs. Clinton Budget Plan

l3illions of Dollars

Clinton Budget Plan 400 .................................................... Ddicits (CBO) ............ .....

FM Year Clinton Deficit 300 ........... $250 billion ...................... ....................................

200 ........................ ........................... Raing Families First ..... Plan Deficits (H.R. 2434)

100 ......... Fifti Y ............................... ......................... KIL 2434 Deficit: $161 billion

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Use Remaining Two Thirds of Savings for Deficit Reduction

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Rve-Vear Mons of Dollars Total

COD Baseline Deficit Eed ates $286.70 $284.40 $290.00 $321.70 $359.70 $1,439.40

Less: Ssidnp Used for Deficit A P rkir im n -5.90 -42.71 -80.20 -133.78 - I 98A3 -461.03

Equals: Putting Faudlios First Estimated Deficits $280.60 $241.69 $209.80 $187.92 $161.27 $1.06147 ear Heritap D ="__C@t 6

If the two percent annual spending cap were extended for an additional five years, the federal budget would be in near balance by fiscal 2003. This compares with the CBO's projected baseline deficit of $655 billion for that year, and the $431 billion CBO estimate for the deficit produced by the Clinton budget plan in fiscal 2003. 5) Create a bi-partisan commission to identify the specific savings to comply with the two percent cap. the Grams-flutchinsonvian-is that it would create a bi- partisan commission to identify the policy changes necessary to meet the two per- cent annual spending caps. Such a commission would be modeled on the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. Supporters of the Grams-Hutchinson plan recognize that few lawmakers are willing to back specific spending cuts even if these cuts lead to reducing the deficit or to tax relief. This is because lawmakers face severe political pressure if they vote for a program cut. For example, until the creation of the Base Closing Commission, Congress had been unable to close a single obsolete military base since 1977. But the recommendations generated by the Commission will lead to the eventual closure of over 100 facilities with the minimum amount of political pain. This is possible because the Commission is an independent body, largely free of political pressure, and Congress and the President must either approve or reject the Commission's recommendations in their entirety. Members of Congress thus acquire significant political protection from the fallout accompanying a vote to close a base. The Grams-Hutchinson spending reduction commission would give similar protection for domestic program cuts. It would also allow sensible, balanced cuts to be achieved, rather than cuts that are distorted by pressure from powerful com- mittees and interest groups. The commission would be made up of forty Members of Congress (twenty Representatives and twenty Senators), with an equal number of Democrats and Republicans. The plan also establishes an advisory council com- posed of 150 private citizens to assist commission members. Twenty citizens would be selected at random by the Internal Revenue Service, and the remaining citizens would be appointed by the majority and minority leaders in the respective houses of Congress. The commission would have six months to develop its reconiniendations, at which point Congress would have seven legislative days to vote up or down on the package, without amendment. If Congress failed to approve the commission's recommendations, or to take any other actions that would keep spending within the cap limitations, an across- the-board sequester would take effect to lower spending to the required level. So- cial Security benefits, however, would be exempt from the sequester.

CONCLUSION The Grams-Hutchinson Putting Jobs and the Ametican Family First Act of 1993 (H.R. 2434) is a sound alternative to the tax and spend plan now moving through Congress. H.R. 2434 offers taxpayers the prospects of real long-term deficit reduction, tax relief rather than tax hikes, and economic growth rather than economic stagnation. Those lawmakers now supporting a record tax increase should be prepared to explain to American families why a huge tax increase, caus- igg severe. belt-tightening b every household, is preferable to a plan that requires Y. only modest belt-tightening by the federal government. ...

Scott A. Hodge Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs

APPENDIX

Based on Census Bureau data, Heritage Foundation scholars have calculated the total value of a $500 per-child tax credit for each state and congressional dis- trict. -...NAtion4jly;there;are.near1y 51 millionrChildren eligible for such a credit. Thus in the first year of-the plan, nearly $25.5 billion -wou'ld'be returned to American families. These results are summarized in the first table in this appendix. While the number of children in each congressional district varies greatly, the average district has 117,000 children. At $500 per child, this means the average district will receive some $58.7 million in family tax relief each year. The second table lists the congressional districts by state. Included in the table are: the num- ber of eligible children in the district, the total amount of money the district will receive in family tax relief, and the name of the member representing the district. Heritage analysts also have calculated the value of a $500 per-child tax credit for every county in the U.S. These data are available upon request.

VALUE OF $500 PER-CE[ILD TAX CREDIT PER STATE

Number of Children Eligible Total State Value of state for Credit M/Child Tax Credit AJabama 794,974 $397,487,000 Alaska 149,189 $74,594,6W Arizona -750,145 $37-5,07Z500 Arkansas .349,625 $174,81Z500 California 6,183,054 '$3,091,527,000 Colorado 717,733 $358.&)6,500 Connecticut 660,326 $330,163,000 Delaware 141,345 $70,67Z500 Florida 2,285,513 $1,14Z756,500 Georgia 1,36Z740 $681,370,000 Hawaii 243,574 $121,787,000 Idaho 254,810 $127,405,000 Illinois z41Z256 $1,206,128,000 Indiana 1,231,494 $615,747,000 Iowa 607,356 $303,678,000 Kansas 559,570 $279,785,000 Kentucky 709,846 $354,923,000 Louisiana 831,962 $415,981,000 Maine 261,961 $130,980,500 Maryland 1,013,579 $506,789,500 Massachusetts 1,157,175 $578,587,600 Michigan 1,974,515 $987,257,500 Minnesota 1,006,189 $503,094,51M Mississippi 490,563 $245,281 = Missouri 1,066,310 $533,155,000 Montano 173,817 $86,908,500 Nebraska 365,813 $18Z906,5M Nevada 249,224 $124,612000 New Hampshire 254,262 $127,131,000 New Jersey 11574,560 $787,280,000 New Mexico 317,778 $158,889,000 New York 3,381,525 $1,690,76Z500 North Carolina 1,313,678 $65&839,000 North Dakota 143,817 $71,908,5W Ohio Z273,457 $1,136,728,5w Oklahoma 646,613 $323,306,500 Oregon 597,002 $298,501,000 Pennsylvania 2,32ZBOB $1,161,404,000 Rhode Island 19Z523 $96.261= South Carolina 71&859 $369,429.5W South Dakota 156,070 $7&035,000 Tennessee 947,350 $473,675,000 Texas 3,614,317 $1,807,158,5W Utah 544,063 $27ZO31 = Vermont 124,330 $62165,000 Virginia 1,28Z705 $641,35Z500 Washington 1,053,287 $526,643,500 West Virginia 324,0341 $16ZO17,000 Wisconsin 1,08Z3021 $541,151,000 jWyomlng 114,0461 $57,023,000 Total 50,984,0" $26,492,022,000

Heritage Foundation 10 Data Source: U.S. Census

VALUE OF $500 PER-CUMD TAX CREDIT BY-CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Number of Children Eligible Total Dollar Congressional for $500 Tax Value of Credit State District Name of Member Party Credit Per District ALABAMA AL District I S. Callahan R 113,674 $56,837,000.0 AL District 2 T. Everett R 119,103 359,551,500.0 AL IDistrict 3 G'. Browder D -1 12,V90 $56,045,000.0 AL District 4 T. Bevill D 113,252 $56,626,000.0 AL District 5 R. Cramer D 119,396 $59,698,000.0 AL District 6 S. Bachus R 120,050 $60,025,000.0 AL District 7 E. Hilliard D 97,409 $48,704,500.0 --TD ALASKA R AK Single District Young 149,1891 $74,594,500.0

ARKANSAS AR District I B. Lambert D 108,922 $54,461,000.0 AR District 2 R. Thornton D 122,203 $61,101,500.0 AR District 3 T. Hutchinson R 119,447 $59,723,500.0 AR District 4 J. Dickey R 107,975 $53,987,500.0

ARMONA AZ District I S. Coppersmith D 128,800 $64,400,000.0 AZ District 2 E. Pastor D 121,408 $60,704,000.0 AZ District 3 B. Stump R 124,693 $62,346,500.0 AZ District 4 J. Kyl R 127,(Y70 $63,535,000.0 AZ District 5 JJ. Kolbe R 116,957 $58,478,500.0 AZ District 6 K. English Dt 131,217 $65,608,500.0 CALIFORNIA CA District I D. Hamburg D 122,746 $61,373,000.0 CA District 2 W. Herger R 113,046 $56,523,000.0 CA District 3 V. Fazio D 123,031 $61,515,500.0 CA District 4 J. Doolittle R 126,640 $63,320,000.0 CA District 5 R. Matsui D 110,893 $55,446,500.0 CA I District 6 L. Woolsey D 113,638 $56,819,000.0 CA District 7 G. Miller D 126,473 $63,236,500.0 CA District 8 N. Pelosi D 70,109 $35,054,500.0 CA District 9 R. Dellums D 93,284 $46,642,000.0 CA District 10 W. Baker R 129,594 $64,797,000.0 CA District I I R. Pombo, R 125,812 $62,906,000.0 CA District 12 T. Lantos D 105,678 $52,839,000.0 CA District 13 P. Stark D 130,767 $65,383,500.0 CA District 14 A. Eshoo D 103,289 $51,644,500.0 CA District 15 N. Mineta D 116,962 $58,431,000.0 CA District 16 D. Edwards D 132,585 1 $66,292,500.0

Heritage Foundation Source: U.S. Census

VALUE OF $500 PER-CMLD TAX CREDIT BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Number of Children Eligible Total Dollar Congressional for $500 Tax Value of Credit State District Name of Member Party Credit Per District CA 113istrict-17 ..S. Farr D 123,475 $61,737,500.0. CA 113istrict 18 G. Condit D 133,536 $66,768,000.0. CA District 19 '..R. Lehman D 123,650 $61,825,000.0 CA District'20 C. Dooley ..D- 149,888 .359,944,000.0 CA District 21 W. Thomas R 130,982 $65,491,000.0 CA District 22 M. Huffington R 107,792 $53,896,000.0 CA District 23 E. Gallegly R 137,226 $68,613,000.0 CA District 24 A. Beilenson D 110,108 $55,054,000.0 CA District 25 B. McKeon R 139,018 $69,509,000.0 CA District 26 H. Berman D 120,955 $60,477,500.0 CA District 27 C. Moorhead R 102,936 $51,468,000.0 CA District 28 D. Dreier R 132,227 $66,113,500.0 CA District 29 H. Waxman D 62,282 $31,141,000.0 CA District 30 X. Becerra D 103,014 $51,507,000.0 CA District 31 M. Martinez D 123,865 $61,932,500.0 CA District 32 J. Dixon D 95,176 $47,588,000.0 CA District 33 L. Roybal-Allard D 119,873 $59,936,500.0 CA District 34 E. Torres D 140,397 $70,198,500.0 CA I District 35 M. Waters D 115,862 $57,931,000.0 CA District 36 J. Hannan D 98,532 $49,266,000.0 CA District 37 W. Tucker D 130,704 $65,352,000.0 CA District 38 S. Horn R 107,150 $53,575,000.0 CA District 39 E. Royce R 127,239 $63,619,500.0 CA I District 40 J. Lewis R 133,231 $66,615,500.0 CA District 41 J. Kim R 146,259 $73,129,500.0 CA District 42 G. Brown D 149,579 $74,789,500.0 CA District 43 K. Calvert R 145,308 $72,654,000.0 CA District 44 A. McCandless R 121,488 $60,744,000.0 CA District 45 D. Rohrabacher R 104,976 $52,488,000.0 CA District 46 R. Doman R 126,718 $63,359,000.0 CA District 47 C. Cox R 118,986 $59,493,000.0 CA District 48 R. Packard R 128,593 $64,296,500.0 CA District 49 L.Schenk D 77,629 $38,814,500.0 CA District 50 B. Filner D 124,918 $62,459,000.0 CA 1 District -51 ..R. Cunningham R 125,803 $62,901,500-0. CA District 52 D. Hunter R 129,23 .0

COLORADO CO District I P. Schroeder D 88,797 $44,398,500.0 CO District 2 D. Skaggs D 125,591 $62,795,500.0 CO District 3 S. McInnis R 112,773 $56,386,500.0 CO District 4 W. Allard R 125,9821 $62,991,000.0 CO District 5 JJ. Hefley R 134,5331 $67,266,500.0 C C C C C C

Heritage Foundation 12 Source: U.S. Census

VALUE OF $500 PER-CHELD TAX CREDIT BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Number o! Children Eligible Total Dollar Congressional for $500 Tax Value of Credit State District Name of Member Partv Credit Per District CO District 6 D Schaefer R 130,057 $65,028,500.0

CONNECTICUT, CT District I B. Kennelly D 102,938 $51,469,000.0 CT District 2 S. Gejdenson D 113,513 $56,756,500.0 CT District 3 R. DeLauro D 105,205 $52,602,500.0 CT District 4 C. Shays R 105,084 $52,542,000.0 CT District 5 G. Franks R 118,891 $59,445,500.0 CT District 6 N. Johnson R 114,695 $57,347,500.0

DELAWARE DE Single District 1M. Castle R 141,3451 $70,672,500.0

FLORIDA FL District I E. Hutto D 109,548 $54,774,000.0 FL District 2 P. Peterson D 107,020 $53,510,000.0 FL District 3 C. Brown D 101,452 $50,726,000.0 FL District 4 T. Fowler R 111,760 $55,880,000.0 FL District 5 K. Thurman D 80,865 $40,432,500.0 FL District 6 C. Steams R 112,575 $56,287,500.0 FL District 7 J. Mica R 112,760 $56,380,000.0 FL District 8 B. McCollum R 109,316 $54,658,000.0 FL District 9 M. Bilirakis R 100,739 $50,369,500.0 FL District 10 B. Young R 81,114 $40,557,000.0 FL District I I S. Gibbons D 99,247 $49,623,500.0 FL District 12 C. Canady R 111,093 $.55,546,500.0 FL District 13 D. Miller R 81,249 $40,624,500.0 FL District 14 P. Goss R 87,548 $43,774,000.0. FL District 15 J. Bacchus D 103,841 $51,920,500.0 FL District 16 T. Lewis R 98,647 $49,323,500.0 FL District 17 C. Meek D 106,864 $53,432,000.0 FL District 18 1. Ros-Lochtinen R 86,211 $43,105,500.0 FL District 19 H. Johnston D 92,597 $46,298,500.0 Fl, District 20 P. Deutsch D 110,086 $55,043,000.0 FL District 21 L. Diaz-Balart R 116,117 $58,058,500.0 FL District 22 C. Shaw R 60,815 $30,407,500.0 FL District 23 A. Hastings D 104,049 $52,024,500.0

GEORGIA A District I Kingston R 122,283 $61,1-41,5 .0 .GA District 2 S. Bishop D 104,4261 $52,213,000.0 GA District 3 M. Collins R 139,4977' 169 7 41 1500.0 @ C C cc

Heritage Foundation 13 Source: U.S. Census

VALUE OF $500 PER-CIIILD TAX CREDIT BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Number of Children Eligible Total Dollar Congressional for $500 Tax Value of Credit State District - Name of Member Party Credit Per District GA District 4 J. Linder R 129,266 $64,633,000.0 GA District 5 J. Lewis D 94,211 $47,105,500.0 GA District 6 N. Gingrich ..R 140;581 $70,290,500.0. GA I'District7 B.-Darden D .130,921 $65,460,500.0. GA District 8 R. Rowland D 125,801 $62,900,500.0 GA District 9 N. Deal D 126,747 $63,373,500.0 GA District 1 0 D.Johnson D 125,151 $62,575,500.0 GA District I I C. McKinney D 123,866 $61,933,000.0

IIAWAII Hi District I IN. Abercrombie D 109,4221 $54,711,000.0 HI District 2 P. Mink D 134,1521 $67,07 '000.0

IDAHO ID District I IL. LaRocco, D 118,777 $59,388,500.0 ID District 2 M. Crapo R 136,033 $68,016,500.0

ILLINOIS U, District I B. Rush D 95,356 $47,678,000.0 R. District 2 M. Reynolds D 121,042 $60,521,000.0 EL District 3 W. Lipinski D 118,598 $59,299,000.0 IL District 4 L. Gutierrez D 126,128 $63,064,000.0 IL District 5 D. Rostenkowski D 91,122 $45,561,000.0 EL District 6 H. Hyde R 128,942 $64,471,000.0 EL District 7 C. Collins D 89,497 $44,748,500.0 EL District 8 P. Crane R 143,836 $71,918,000.0 EL District 9 S. Yates D 85,522 $42,761,000.0 EL District 10 J. Port" R 136,265 $68,132,500.0 IL District I I G. Sangmeister D 134,625 $67,312,500.0 IL District 12 J. Costello D 111,498 $55,749,000.0 IL District 13 H. Fawell R 153,095 $76,547,500.0 11L District 14 D. Hastert R 148,156 $74,078,000.0 EL District 15 T. Ewing R 114,626 $57,313,000.0 EL District 16 D. Manzullo R 138,310 $69,155,000.0 EL District 17 L. Evans D 116,759 $58,379,500.0 U, District 18 R. Michel R 125,803 $62,901,500.0 EL IDistrict 19 G. Poshard D 111,607 $55,903,500.0 M District 20 R. Durbin D 121,469 $60,734,500.0

INDIANA IN District I P. Visclosky D 122,042 $61,021,000.0 IN District 2 P. Sharp D 113,343 $56,671,500.0 IN District 3 T. Roemer D 126,646 $63,323,000.0 IN District 4 J. Long D 139,472 $69,736,000.0 Heritage Foundation 14 Source: U.S. Census

VALUE OF $500 PER-CHELD TAX CREDIT-BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Number of Children Eligible Total Dollar Congressional for $500 Tax Value of Credit State District Name of Member Party Credit Per District IN District 5 S. Buyer R 129,730 $64,865,000.0 IN District 6 D. Burton R 136,850 $68,425,000.0 IN District 7 J.'Myers R 118,142 $59,071,000.0 IN District F.-McC loskey D .110,531 -.355,265,500.0 IN District 9 L. Hamilton D 127,494 $63,747,000.0 IN District 10 A. Jacobs D 107,244 $53,622,000.0

IOWA LA District I J. Leach R 120,912 $60,456,000.0 IA District 2 J. Nussle R 123,116 $61,558,000.0 1A District 3 J. Lightfoot R 114,686 $57,343,000.0 1A District 4 N. Smith D 122,366 $61,183,000.0 1A District 5 F. Grandy R 126,2761 $63,138,000.0

KANSAS KS District I P. Roberts R 139,906 $69,953,000.0 KS District 2 1. Slatteq D 133,063 $66,531,500.0 KS District 3 J. Meyers R 143,155 $71,577,500.0 KS District 4 D. Glickman D 143,446 $71,723,000.0

KENTUCKY KY District I T. Barlow D 115,600 $57,800,000.0 KY District 2 W. Natcher D 130,520 $65,260,000.0 KY District 3 R. Mazzoli D 114,065 $57,032,500.0 KY District 4 J. Bunning R 130,811 $65,405,500.0 KY I District 5 1H. Rogers R 102,384 _2000.0 KY I District 6 Is. Baesler D 116,466 $58,233,000.0

LOUISIANA LA District I B. Livingston R 126,576 $63,288,000.0 LA District 2 W. Jefferson D 97,472 $48,736,000.0 LA District 3 B. Tauzin D 133,014 $66,507,000.0 LA District 4 C. Fields D 94,613 $47,306,500.0 LA District 5 J. McCrery R 120,161 $60,080,500.0 LA District 6 R. Baker R 130,151 $65,075,500.0 LA District 7 J. Hayes D 129,975 $64,987,500.0

MAINE ME District I T. Andrews D 138,694 $69,347,000.0 ME District 2 0. Snowe R 123,267 $61,633,500.0 District I Tw MARYLAND JMD Gilchrest R 124,5961 $62,298,000.0

Heritage Foundaflon 15 Source: U.S. Census

VALUE OF $500 PER-CHE1,D TAX'CREDIT BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Number of Children Eligible Total Dollar Congressional for $500 Tax Value of Credit State District Name of Member Partv Credit Per District MD District 2 H. Bentley R 128,59 $64,314,500.0 MD District 3 B. Cardin D 118,927 $59,463,500.0 MD District 4 A.Wynn' D 135,163 $67,581,500.0 MD District 5 S. -Hoyer D- 137,313 $68,656,500.0 MD District 6 R. Bartlett R 134,421 $67,210,500.0 MD Distri t 7 K. Mfume D 100,258 $50,129,000.0 MD District 8 C. Morelia R 134,272 $67,136,000.0

MASSACHUSETTS MA District I J. Olver D 120,493 $60,246,500.0 MA District 2 R. Neal D 122,431 $61,215,500.0 MA District 3 P. Blute R 124,635 $62,317,500.0 MA District 4 B. Frank D 124,181 $62,090,500.0 MA District 5 M. Meehan D 131,771 $65,885,500.0 MA District 6 P. Torkildsen R 120,030 $60,015,000.0 MA District 7 E. Markey D 104,850 $52,425,000.0 MA District 8 J. Kennedy D 76,909 $38,454,500.0 MA District 9 J. Moakley D 110,202 $55,101,000.0 MA I District 10 ..G. Studds D 1 121,673 $60,836,500.0

AUCHIGAN MI District I B. Stupak D 123,674 $61,837,000.0 Mi District 2 P. Hoekstra, R 139,178 $69,589,000.0 MI District 3 P. Henry R 141,691 $70,845,500.0 MI District 4 D. Camp R 123,960 $61,980,000.0 MI District 5 J. Barcia D 125,287 $62,643,500.0 MI District 6 F Upton R 122,483 $61,241,500.0 MI District 7 N. Smith R 129,213 $64,6W,500.0 MI District 8 B. Caff D 128,640 $64,320,000.0 MI District 9 D. Kildee D 123,633 $61,816,500.0 MI District 10 T. Bonior D 132,291 $66,145,500.0 MI District 11 J. Knollenberg R 129,916 $64,958,000.0 MI District- 12 S. Levin D 125,130 $62,565,000.0 MI District 13 W. Ford D 120,923 $60,461,500.0 NU District 14 J. Conyers D 105,042 $52,521,000.0 MI District 15 B. Collins D 76,987 $38,493,500.0 MI District 16 J. Dingell D 126,467 $63,233,500.0

AHNNESOTA MN District I T. Penny D 131,1401 $65,570,000.0 MN District 2 D. Minge D 1 137,4131 $68,706,500.0 MN District 3 1 Ramstad R 139,540 $69,770,000.0 MN District 4 B. Vento D 112,7041 $56,352,000.0 WIN I District 5 M. Sabo D 84,516 -8, .0 Heritage Foundation 16 Source: U.S. Census

VALUE OF $500 PER-CHILD TAX CREDIT BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

I Number of Partv Children Eligible Total Dollar Congressional for $500 Tax Value of Credit State District Name of Member Credit Per District MN District 6 R. Grams R 152,285 $76,142,500.0 MN District 7 C. Peterson D 125,776 $62,888,000.0 MN District 8 J. Oberstar D 122;815 $61,407,500.0

MISSISSEPPI MS District I J. Whitten D 104,698 $52,349,000.0 MS District 2 B. Thompson D 94,968 $42,494,000.0 MS District 3 G.V. Montgomery D 102,165 $51,082,500.0 MS District 4 M. Parker D 95,119 $47,559,500.0. MS I District 5 IG. Taylor D 103,6131 $51,806,500.0

AUSSOURI MO District I ..B. Clay D 103,360 $51,680,000.0 MO District 2 J. Talent R 139,320 $69,660,000.0 MO District 3 R. Gephardt D 122,582 $61,291,000.0 MO District 4 1. Skelton D 121,289 $60,644,500.0 MO District 5 A. Wheat D 109,403 $54,701,500.0 MO District 6 P. Danner D 125,479 $62,739,500.0 MO District 7 M. Hancock R 112,250 $56,125,000.0 MO District 8 B. Emerson R 105,3761 $52,688,000.0 MO District 9 H. Volkmer D 127,2511 $63,625,500.0 1 MONTANA MT Single District 1P. Williams D= 173,81 00.0

NEBRASKA NE District I D. Bereuter R 118,784 $59,392,000.0 NE District 2 P. Hoagland D 126,081 $63,040,500.0 NE District 3 B. Barrett R 120,948 $60,474,000.0

NEVADA NV District I J. Bilbray D 117,892 $58,946,000.0 NV District 2 B. Vucanovich R 131,332 $65,666,000.0

NEW HANWSIIIRE NH District I 1W. Zeliff R 126,250 $63,125,000.0 NH District 2 D. Swett 128,012 $64,006,000.0

NEWJERSEY NJ District I R. Andrews D 131,4731 $65,736,500.0 NJ District 2 W. Hughes D 120,682 $60,341,000.0 NJ District 3 J. Saxton R 132,885 $66,442, L0q---0A NJ District 4 C. Smith R 126,517 $63,258 500 0

Heritage Foundation 17 Source: U.S. Census

VALUE OF $500 PER-CHIID TAX CREDIT BY'CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Number of Children Eligible Total Dollar Congressional for $500 Tax Value of Credit State District Name of Member Partv Credit Per District NJ District 5 M. Roukema R 135,438 $67,719,000.0 NJ District 6 F. Pallone D 116,615 $58,307,500.0 NJ District7 B.'Frankg R 120,660 $60,330,000.0 NJ District'S - H. Klein D -.113,915 - -$56,907,500.0 NJ District 9 R. Torricelli D 103,197 $51,598,500.0 NJ District 10 D. Payne D 107,949 $53,974,500.0 NJ I District I I D. Gallo R 131,205 $65,602,500.0 NJ IDistfict 12 R. Zimmer R 132,994 $66,497,000.0 NJ I District 13 JR. Menendez D 101,1301 $50,565,000.0 NEW MEXICO NM District I S. Schiff R 105,265 $52,632,500.0 NM District 2 J. Skeen R 104,330 $52,165,000.0 NM District 3 B. Richardson D 108,183 $54,091,500.0

NEW YORK NY District I G. Hochbrueckner D 135,183 $67,591,500.0 NY District 2 R. Lazio R 129,745 $64,872,500.0 NY District 3 P. King R 119,573 $59,786,500.0 NY District 4 D. Levy R 120,051 $60,025,500.0 NY District 5 G. Ackerman D 110,619 $55,309,500.0 NY I District 6 F. Flake D 121,036 $60,518,000.0 NY District 7 T. Manton D 87,200 $43,600,000.0 NY District 8 J. Nadler D 67,101 $33,550,500.0 NY District 9 C. Schumer D 96,236 $48,118,000.0 NY District 10 E. Towns D 94,448 $47,224,000.0 NY District I I M. Owens D 114,764 $57,382,000.0 NY District 12 N. Velazquez D 90,416 $45,208,000.0 NY District 13 S. Molinari R 111,675 $55,837,500.0 NY District 14 C. Maloney D 55,139 $27,569,500.0 NY District 15 C. Rangel D 1 72,898 $36,449,000.0 NY District 16 J. Serrano D 86,064 $43,032,000.0 NY District 17 E. Engel D 98,573 $49,286,500.0 NY District 18 N. Lowey D 102,831 $51,415,500.0 NY District 19 H. Fish R 125,966 $62,983,000.0 NY District 20 B. Gilman R 132,789 $66,394,500.0 NY District 21 M. McNulty D 1 109,583 $54,791,500.0 NY District 22 G. Solomon R 130,121 $65,060,500.0 NY District 23 S. Boehlert R 118,598 $59,299,000.0 NY District 24 J. McHugh R 125,618 $62,809,000.0 NY District 25 J. Walsh R 122,940 $61,470,000.0 NY District 26 M. Hinchey D 1 111,672 $55,836,000.0 NY District 27 B. Paxon R 131,959 $65,979,500.0 NY District 28 L. Slaughter D 113,064 $56,532,000.0 NY District 29 1 J. LaFalce D 114,7931 $57,396,500.01 Heritage Foundation 18 Source: U.S. Census

VALUE OF $500 -PER-CHILD TAX CREDIT BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Number of Children Eligible Total Dollar Congressional for $500 Tax Value of Credit State District Name of Member Party Credit Per District NY District 30 J. Quinn R 109,410 $54,705,000.0 NY District 31 A. Houghton R 121,460 $60,730,000.0

INORTH"CAROLINA NC District I E. Clayton D 96,554 $48,277,000.0 NC District 2 T. Valentine D 109,460 $54,730,000.0 NC District 3 M. Lancaster D 112,308 $56,154,000.0 NC District 4 D. Price D 109,887 $54,943,500.0 NC District 5 S. Neal D 104,722 $52,361,000.0 NC District 6 H. Coble R 112,001 $56,000,500.0 NC District 7 C. Rose D 109,228 $54,614,000.0 NC District 8 B. Hefner D 122,080 $61,040,000.0 NC District 9 A. McMillan R 119,541 $59,770,500.0 NC I District 10 C. Ballenger R 116,159 $58,079,500.0 NC District I I C. Taylor R 98,439 $49,219,500.0 NC District 12 M. Watt D 103,299 $51,649,500.0

NORTH DAKOTA le District Pomeroy D 143,8171 $7 908,500.0 + OHIO OH District I D. Mann D 109,905 $54,952,500.0 OH District 2 R. Portman R 135,699 $67,849,500.0 OH District 3 T. Hall D 112,778 $56,389,000.0 OH District 4 M. Oxley R 128,690 $64,345,000.0 OH District 5 P. Gillmor R 140,327 $70,163,500.0 OH District 6 T. Strickland D 108,952 $54,476,000.0 OH District 7 D. Hobson R 125,077 $62,538,500.0 OH District 8 J. Boehner R 134,512 $67,256,000.0 OH District 9 M. Kaptur D 119,605 $59,802,500.0 OH District 10 M. Hoke R 112,416 $56,208,000.0 OH District I I L. Stokes D 96,039 $48,019,500.0 OH District 12 J. Kasich R 121.438 $60,719,000.0 OH District 13 S. Brown D 136,823 $68,411,500.0 OH District 14 T. Sawyer D 110,941 $55,470,500.0 OH District 15 D. Pryce R 110,933 $55,466,500.0 OH I District 16 R. Regula R 122,852 $61,426,000.0 OH District 17 J. Traficant D 110,379 $55,189,500.0 OH District 18 D. Applegate D 115,297 $57,648,500.0 OH District 19 E. Fingerhut D 120,794 $60,397,000.0

OKLAHOMA OK District I iJ. Inhofe I R 111,381 $55,690,500.0 OK District 2 Mike Synar I D 1 105,5301 $52,765,000.0 Heritage Foundation 19 Source: U.S. Census

VALUE OF $500 PER-CHILD TAX CREDIT BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

I Number of 'Children Eligible Total Dollar Congressional for $500 Tax Value of Credit State District Name of Member Party Credit Per District OK District 3 B. Brewster D 96,490 $48,245,000.0 OK District 4 D. McCurdy D 115,166 $57,583,000.0 OK District 5 E. Istook, R 112,486 $56,243,000.0 OK District,6 G.-Engfish D. --105.560 $5Z780,000.0

OREGON OR District I E. Furse D 127,047 $63,523,500.0 OR District 2 B. Smith R 118,125 $59,062,500.0 OR District 3 R. Wyden D 113,746 $56,873,000.0 OR District 4 P. DeFazio D 114,544 $57,272,000.0 OR District 5 M. Kopetski I D 123,5401 $61,770,000.0

PENNSYLVANIA PA District I T. Foglietta D 88,848 $44,424,000.0 PA District 2 L. Blackwell D 85,821 $42,910,500.0 PA District 3 R. Borski D 106,807 $53,403,500.0 PA District 4 R. Klink D 111,621 $55,810,500.0 PA District 5 W. Clinger R 108,707 $54,353,500.0 PA District 6 T. Holden D 112,535 $56,267,500.0 PA District 7 C. Weldon R 115,823 $57,911,500.0 PA District 8 J. Greenwood R 135,796 $67,898,000.0 PA District 9 B. Shuster R 115,463 $57,731,500.0 PA District 10 J. McDade R 114,727 $57,363,500.0 PA District I I P. Kanjorski D 105,331 $52,665,500.0 PA District 12 J. Murtha D 106,002 $53,001,000.0 PA District 13 M. Mezvinsky D 120,212 $60,106,000.0 PA District 14 W. Coyne D 87,209 $43,604,500.0 PA IDistrict 15 P. McHale D 116,209 $58,104,500.0 PA District 16 R. Walker R 131,402 $65,701,000.0 PA District 17 G. Gekas R 121,411 $60,705,500.0 PA District 18 R. Santorum R 100,642 $50,321,000.0 PA District 19 W. Goodling R 120,968 $60,484,000.0 PA I District 20 A. Murphy D 104,146 $52,073,000.0 PA District 21 IT. Ridge R 1 113,1281 $56,564,000.0

RHODE ISLAND RI District I R. Machtley R 94,175 $47,087,500.0 RI District 2 J. Reed D 98,348 $49,174,000.0

SOUTH CAROLINA SC District I A. Ravenel R 125,873 $62,936,500.0 SC District 2 F. Spence R 123,075 $61,537,500.0 SC District 3 B. Derrick D 119,370 $59,685,000.0 SC District 4 B. Inglis R 120,170 $60,085,000.0 Heritage Foundation 20 Source: U.S. Census

VALUE OF $500 -PER-CEMD TAX CREDITOBY-CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Number of Children Eligible Total Dollar Congressional Party for $500 Tax Value of Credit State District Name of Member Credit Per District SC District 5 J. Spratt D 123,159 $61,579,500.0 SC District 6 J. Clyburn D 107,212 $53,606,000.0

'KOTA --=-"SM-T11DA S ngle District Johnson D 156,0701 $78,035,000.0

TENNESSEE TN District I J. Quillen R 95,264 $47,632,000.0 TN District 2 J. Duncan R 100,301 $50,150,500.0. TN District 3 M. Lloyd D 102,979 $51,489,500.0 TN District 4 J. Cooper D 103,305 $51,652,500.0 TN District 5 B. Clement D 98,887 $49,443,500.0 TN District 6 B. Gordon D 123,572 $61,786,000.0 TN District 7 D. Sundquist R 122,627 $61,313,500.0 TN District 8 J. Tanner D 107,556 $53,778,000.0 TN District 9 H. Ford D 92,8591 $46,429,500.0

TEXAS TX District I J. Chapman D 109,825 $54,912,500.0 TX District 2 C. Wilson D 111,673 $55,836,500.0 TX District 3 S.Johnson R 137,856 $68,928,000.0 TX District 4 R. Hall D 125,497 $62,748,500.0 TX District 5 J. Bryant D 109,521 $54,760,500.0 TX District 6 J. Barton R J.",181 $72,090,500.0 TX District 7 B. Archer R 141,271 $70,635,500.0 TX District 8 J. Fields R 140,953 $70,476,500.0 TX District 9 J. Brooks D 120,229 $60,114,500.0 TX I District 10 J.J. Pickle D 108,022 $54,011,000.0 TX District I I C. Edwards D 115,215 $57,607,500.0 TX District 12 -.P. Geren D 121,810 $60,905,000.0 TX District 13 B. Sarpalius D 111,293 $55,646,500.0 TX District 14 G. Laughlin D 118,107 $59,053,500.0 TX District 15 E. de la Garza D 101,446 $50,723,000.0 TX District 16 R. Coleman D 114,942 $57,471,000.0 TX District 17 C. Stenholm D 114,473 $57,236,500.0 TX District 18 C. Washington D 96,391 $48,195,500.0 TX District 19 L. Combest R 130,662 $65,331,000.0 TX District 20 H. Gonzalez D 107,900 $53,950,000.0 TX District 21 L. Smith R 126,067 $63,033,500.0 TX District 22 T. DeLay R 1 143,153 $71,576,500.0 TX District 23 H. Bonilla R 118,630 $59,315,000.0 TX District 24 M. Frost D 133,340 $66,670,000.0 TX District 25 M. Andrews D 129,2781 $649639,000.0 JTX I District 26 R. Armey R 132,7121 $66,356,000.0 1 Heritage Foundation 21 Source: U.S. Census

VALUE OF $500 PER-CHILD TAX CREDIT BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Number of Children Eligible Total Dollar Congressional for $500 Tax Value of Credit State District Name of Member I Partv Credit Per District TX District 27 S. Ortiz D 110,352 $55,176,000.0 TX District 28 F. Tejeda D 114,359 $57,179,500.0 TMX D strict 29 G. Green* D 1-18,470 $59,235,000.0 TX '- District"30- IE*-Johiumn .1-06,699 .-$53,344,500.0

UTAH UT District I J. Hansen R 188,257 $94,128,500.0 UT District 2 K. Shepherd D 173,704 $86,852,000.0 UT District 3 B. Orton D 182,102 $91,051,000.0

VERMONT VT Single District I B. Sanders 1 124,3301 $62,165,000.0

VIRGINIA VA District I H. Bateman R 127,062 $63,531,000.0 VA District 2 0. Pickett D 125,300 $62,650,000.0 VA District 3 R. Scott D 96,735 $48,367,500.0 VA District 4 N. Sisisky D 122,4(Y7 $61,203,500.0 VA District 5 L. Payne D 105,742 $52,871,000.0 VA District 6 B. Goodlatte R 104,819 $52,409,500.0 VA District 7 T. Bliley R 127,941 $63,970,500.0 VA District 8 J. Moran D 100,060 $50,030,000.0 VA District 9 R. Boucher D 98,406 $49,203,000.0 VA I District 10 F. Wolf R 140,525 $70,262,500.0 VA District I I L. Byrne 133,708 $66,854,000.0

WASHINGTON WA District I M. Cantwell D 128,938 $64,469,000.0 WA District 2 A. Swift D 124,859 $62,429,500.0 WA District 3 J. Unsoeld D 122,258 $61,129,000.0 WA District 4 J. Inslee D 119,034 $59,517,000.0 WA District 5 T. Foley D 1 112,770 $56,385,000.0 WA District 6 N. Dicks D 110,063 $55,031,500.0 WA District 7 J. McDermott D 75,747 $37,873,500.0 WA District 8 J. Dunn R 138,841 $69,420,5nn.0 WA District 9 M. Kreidler D 120,777 1 $60,388,500.0

WESTVIRGINIA WV District I A. Mollohan D 108,787 $54,393,500.0 VIV District 2 R. Wise D 113,085 $56,542,500.0 WV District 3 N. Rahall D 102,162 $51,081,000.0

Heritage Foundation 22 Source: U.S. Census

VALUE OF $500 PER-CIIILD TAX CREDIT BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Number of Children Eligible Total Dollar Congressional for $500 Tax Value of Credit State District Name of Member Partv Credit Per District WISCONSIN WI District I P. Barca, D 122,991 $61,495,500.0 WI District 2 S. Klug R 116,526 '$58,263,000.0. W1 District'3-'- -S.,Gunderson R :,-,--124-,436 - $60,718,000.0 W1 District 4 G. Kleczka D 114,365 $57,182,500.0 WI District 5 T. Barrett D 93,267 $46,633,500.0 WI District 6 T. Petri R 125,885 $62,942,500.0 WI District 7 D. Obey D 123,881 $61,940,500.0 WI District 8 T. Roth R 125,731 $62,865,500.0 W1 District 9 1 J. Sensenbrenner R 138,2201 $69,110,000.0

WYOAHNG ngle District 1C. Thomas R 114,0461 $57,023,000.0

Heritage Foundation 23 Source: U.S. Consus

}}

Heritage Foundation Leadership for America

Sign up for Morning Bell Email