Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 12 (Thursday, February 10, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 12 (Thursday, February 10, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H281-H291]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H281]]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6, MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY RELIEF ACT

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 419 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 419

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6) to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the marriage
penalty by providing that the income tax rate bracket
amounts, and the amount of the standard deduction, for joint
returns shall be twice the amounts applicable to unmarried
individuals. The bill shall be considered as read for
amendment. The amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways
and Means now printed in the bill shall be considered as
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto
to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) two
hours of debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means; (2) the further amendment
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution, if offered by Representative Rangel or his
designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any
point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be
separately debatable for one hour equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.

{time} 1030

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Pryce) is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Moakley), the ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules,
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of
debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 419 is a structured rule providing for
the consideration of H.R. 6, the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of
2000. Under this rule, which is a typical rule for the consideration of
tax legislation, the House will have 2 hours of general debate, equally
divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
After general debate, it will be in order to consider a substitute
amendment offered by the minority which is printed in the Committee on
Rules report. This substitute will be debatable for 1 hour.
Finally, the rule permits the minority to offer a motion to recommit,
with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, as taxpayers across America receive their W-2 forms in
the mail and prepare for the dreaded annual ritual of filling out tax
forms and writing checks to the government, thousands of newlyweds
across the Nation will be in for a very rude awakening. If they tied
the knot in 1999, they may be surprised and outraged to find that their
tax bill has increased by hundreds or even thousands of dollars.
Hopefully, these couples have not cashed and spent the wedding checks
they received from Grandpa Joe and Aunt Lucy, because they still have
to pay Uncle Sam. That is right, Mr. Speaker, the Federal government
thinks marriage is cause for a tax increase.
We should not really be surprised. After all, there is not much that
government does not tax. But it is hard to find a good reason to tax
marriage and penalize the most fundamental institution in our society.
Still, each year 42 million working Americans pay higher taxes simply
because they are married. This is fundamentally unfair and
discriminatory. Despite a robust economy, most families find that to
make ends meet, both spouses must work.
Under our current Tax Code, working couples are pushed into a higher
tax bracket because the income of the second wage-earner, often the
wife, is taxed at a much higher rate. Because of the marriage penalty,
21 million families pay an average of $1,400 more in taxes than they
would if they were single and living together.
We do not think it is fair or responsible to increase taxes on
married couples, especially when marriage is often a precursor to added
financial responsibilities such as owning a home or having children.
This policy is without logic.
The Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act will bring fairness to the Tax
Code by doubling the standard deduction for married couples, expanding
the 15 percent bracket so more of a couple's income is taxed at a lower
rate, and increasing the amount that low-income couples can earn and
still be eligible for the earned income tax credit. H.R. 6 provides
relief to all couples suffering from the marriage penalty tax. That
means lower taxes for almost 59,000 couples in my district alone.
My Democratic friends on the other side of the aisle say that they
are for marriage penalty relief, but all the Democrats on the Committee
on Ways and Means voted against this bill. The Clinton administration
is issuing veto threats.
The Democrats make budget process arguments against marriage penalty
relief, claiming concern about our surplus and social security. Yet,
they know full well that by the time this legislation is approved by
the Senate and ready to be sent to the President, our budget will be
approved. Be assured, as long as Republicans keep control of Congress,
our budget will be balanced.
Since earning the majority, Republicans have kept our promises and
reached our budget goals, and there is no turning back now. Moreover,
since it was the Republican majority who forced the White House and the
Democrats to keep their hands out of the social security trust funds,
my Democratic friends can rest easy knowing that we will continue to
guard it faithfully.
Mr. Speaker, let us keep our eye on the ball. This debate is about a
fundamentally unfair tax that discriminates against and discourages and
punishes marriage. Shame on us if we cannot do this one thing to
correct this blatant inequity in our tax system.
The fact is that the government is currently taking in more money
than it needs to operate. That is what a budget surplus is. It is a big
enough surplus that we can give some of it back to the people who
earned it. What better place to start than by correcting an inequity in
the Tax Code that affects 42 million Americans? I just cannot
understand why my Democratic colleagues are so intent on pulling out
all the stops to thwart this commonsense and very fair policy.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to either defend the marriage penalty or
eliminate it, no more excuses. I hope all my colleagues will support
this fair rule so we can move on to a full debate on the Marriage Tax
Penalty Relief Act. I hope in the end all of my colleagues will vote in
support of marriage and basic fairness by passing this long overdue
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just about everybody agrees we should get rid of the
marriage tax. We just disagree on how to do it. Democrats want to
target marriage tax cuts to working families, the people that really
need it. We want to make sure we fix social security and Medicare, as
well as implement the plan to pay off the marriage tax penalty.
Republicans, on the other hand, have a marriage tax bill that gives
half of the benefits to people who pay no marriage penalty in the first
place, and most of those benefits go to the top 25 percent of wage-
earners. Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, it does nothing to strengthen social
security or Medicare.
Mr. Speaker, I am no tax lawyer, but I do know that if we increase
the standard deduction without adjusting the alternative minimum tax,
we end up just doing about nothing. By the year 2010, 47 percent of the
people with two children will receive no relief whatsoever under this
Republican bill. It is a tax by any other name, but it will cost just
the same.
In effect, Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues are giving people
money in the form of a marriage tax repeal and taking it away again in
the form of alternative minimum taxes. As a result, millions of
American families would see no net reduction of the marriage penalty
tax whatsoever; that is,

[[Page H282]]

Mr. Speaker, unless they are very, very rich and they do not pay any
marriage penalty at all.
Mr. Speaker, once again, my Republican colleagues are willing to
spend billions of dollars of social security surplus making the rich
even richer but just doing nothing for anybody else. That is why this
Republican bill will do for millions of American families, especially
those with children, absolutely nothing.
A large number of Americans earn too little to see this bill's
benefits. For that reason, my Democratic colleagues are offering our
version of the marriage tax relief, one that does more for middle- and
low-income families but costs a whole lot less.
This Democratic bill makes tax cuts contingent upon implementing
plans to shore up Medicare, to shore up social security, and pay down
the debt. This Democratic bill really does eliminate the marriage
penalty for millions and millions of American families. It also costs
half as much as the Republican bill, and ensures that Medicare and
social security are protected. I just cannot imagine why anybody would
oppose it.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the Republican bill is in direct violation
of the budget law, which says, in effect, we just cannot spend money
before we know how much money we can spend. This tax break for the rich
is just the first installment of the $800 billion tax strategy that was
so resoundingly rejected last year. This year, they have carved it up
into three pieces. They have cut it up into $2 billion chunks, so just
think of it as that great tax break, but only on the installment plan.
Either way, Mr. Speaker, it is the same bad ideas, carved up and served
to us once again, and it still threatens our social security system.
Mr. Speaker, the American people opposed this idea last year, and it
just has not gotten any better. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this
bill and support the Democratic alternative.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Kuykendall).
Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of this
rule and the legislation. The marriage tax is one of those things in
government that just does not make any sense. Today we have a chance to
correct this situation and pass responsible tax relief for millions of
working couples who pay higher taxes simply because they chose to be
married.
We need to celebrate this institution of marriage, not tax it. Why
should couples have to pay more to government because they decide to
spend their lives married together? That is just unfair.
Since my first day in Congress, we have debated what to do with the
surplus. Some said tax cuts. I have strongly supported paying down the
debt. I have introduced a resolution to pay down the debt by 2015 or
earlier. But if we pass responsible, targeted tax cuts, we can
accomplish both.
Cutting the marriage tax is responsible tax relief. I am proud to be
fighting for the end of the marriage penalty while still making sure we
pay off this national debt. This is the kind of fiscal responsibility
the American people want. It is the kind of relief 25 million working
couples deserve. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
legislation.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and
Means and the sponsor of the Democratic version of the tax bill.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, when the President recommended relief for
the marriage penalty, everybody in the House understood and agreed that
we should do it. Then the President asked the Republican leaders to
please come over to see which areas of the budget they could agree to.
If they were serious about taking care of that, they would have raised
that issue.
Probably the President would have said that they can take care of
this problem with one-third of the amount of money that they intended;
but they are not really concerned just with the penalty, they are
concerned with a substantial tax cut.
If the Republicans were serious, they would have said, let us go to
our Democratic colleagues. And we would have said, being the
politicians that we are, we do not think the President was as generous
as he should have been. We would have increased the amount. We would
have given more benefits, even to people who had no penalty.
But do Members know what we would have done? We would have said, let
us have a budget first. Let us see what we are going to do with
Medicare. Let us see what we are going to do with social security and
paying down the national debt. Then we would have come in with a
generous bill that is our substitute to take care of the penalty, and
not just to reward those who are already fortunate in the high-income
brackets that have no marriage penalty.
We will have an opportunity to do this, but it is really strange. In
the last year when they came up, I say to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), with the $792 billion tax bill, our
Republican friends were not nearly as irresponsible as the gentleman
would have them to appear, because they knew ahead of time it was going
to be vetoed. So they love the country, they just love gimmicks.
So this time they made certain that the President was going to veto
the bill. They made certain that they had no budget to make them
accountable in the bill. They made certain that they went to the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules and had him fold into
this and waive all of the budget restrictions, and then they came to
the floor and they said, we want to take care of the problem.
Well, guess what, this is not for married people. They could have
gone to Hallmark if they wanted to do something for Valentine's Day.
But to use the Tax Code without hearings, without negotiations, without
discussion, that is a bit much.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from California, the
distinguished, intelligent, and intellectual chair of the Committee on
Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his somewhat
thoughtful remarks and assessment of me.
I would like to say that there have been a wide range of bills that
the President guaranteed that he was going to veto. I remember very
well the welfare reform bill. He did in fact twice veto it, but he then
signed that measure. I remember the Education Flexibility Act. He said
that he was going to veto that measure. He in fact ended up signing it.
There were several other measures that he talked about vetoing: the
national ballistic missile defense bill; he signed it. He can sign this
one, too.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

{time} 1045

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Columbus, Ohio (Ms.
Pryce) for yielding me this time. I appreciate her leadership on this
very, very important measure.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that by a very strong, bipartisan
vote, we are going to pass this measure today. As my dear friend from
New York (Mr. Rangel) knows, there are Democrats who have joined in
support of this measure and there are reasons for that, because it is
very clear that we are going to end one of the most illogical and
unfair aspects of the Tax Code.
Even in an election year, we ought to be able to agree on some very
basic principles that we all know that the American people share. One
of these simple concepts is that married people should not pay more in
taxes simply because they are married. That is what this debate comes
down to.
The Republican marriage penalty tax relief bill helps low- and
middle-income working families, particularly women and minorities who
bear a disproportionate share of that unfair burden.
The American people support tax relief like this bill today. They
very much want us to deal with some effort to pay down this huge
national debt that we have and, of course, we are all

[[Page H283]]

well aware of the fact that they want us to ensure retirement security.
Republicans are moving forward, I am happy to say, on all three of
those. However, we cannot hold this marriage penalty tax relief bill
hostage to a massive, all encompassing budget deal and negotiations
that some will try to derail so that they can call this a do-nothing
Congress.
We have gotten to the point where we have a chance to help middle-
income wage earners who are struggling to make ends meet, who on
average we see a $1,400 loss for them because of this penalty. We know
very well, and my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), up
in the Committee on Rules when we were discussing this measure made it
clear that this bill does not in any way threaten protecting Social
Security or our quest for paying down the debt.
We have a very fair rule here. It is a structured rule which allows
for the consideration of the Minority substitute, and we will have a
motion to recommit. At the same time, it is also a very fair bill; and
I hope we will be able to see, as I predict, a strong bipartisan vote.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from New York, my very good
friend the ranking minority member, and I want him to stay in that
position for many years to come.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I will be a minority for a long time but not
in this House.
I joined the gentleman in supporting the rule because he was fair
enough to allow us to do the right thing in the substitute, but one of
the arguments against our bill is that it provides no relief because we
say Social Security, Medicare and paying down the national debt. I do
not know why the gentleman's people do not want to do that first, but
they will be given an opportunity to do all four of them and take care
of the marriage penalty.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his contribution, and
I can only infer that he is reaffirming the statement that he made
upstairs that, in fact, our bill does make sure that we pay down Social
Security and work on debt reduction.
Mr. RANGEL. And take care of the rich at the same time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Tauscher).
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, as a supporter of eliminating the
marriage penalty tax, I am very disappointed in the way the Republican
leadership has brought this issue to the floor today. It is like Ronald
Reagan said over a decade ago, here they go again. Only this Republican
leadership can take a consensus issue, such as the marriage penalty tax
cut, and politicize it to the point of failure.
The marriage penalty, as my colleague from California said, is
illogical and unfair; but it is wrong to fix it in an illogical and
unfair way. It is irresponsible for the Republican leadership to bring
this kind of tax cut measure to the floor outside of the context of the
entire budget. If we are to be fiscally responsible and maintain our
balanced budget and the era of surpluses, we cannot make these kinds of
decisions in a vacuum.
Mr. Speaker, American working families need tax relief. A couple on
their wedding day should not be handed a tax bill from the Federal
Government, and in my district in the East Bay Area of San Francisco
more than 65,000 working families pay a marriage penalty. This is the
money they should be spending on educating their children, providing
health care for their families, or saving for their retirement.
Bringing this bill to this floor in this way is wrong. I urge my
colleagues to support the Democratic alternative and vote no on this
bill.
Mrs. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), who
has done so much hard work on this bill.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution and in
support of the bill. Three years ago I received a letter from two of my
constituents, Sharon Mallory and Darryl Pierce, and they wrote to me
how they both were workers in the Ford electronics plant making about
$9.00 an hour, certainly not what any of us would think of as rich.
Sharon went on to explain they cannot afford to get married because she
would forfeit her $900 tax refund and have to pay $2,800 in taxes when
they were married.
She closed her letter saying Darryl and I would very much like to be
married, and I must say it broke our hearts when we found out we cannot
afford it. We hope some day the government will allow us to get married
by not penalizing us.
Today we are taking a gigantic step forward to fulfill Sharon
Mallory's wish to remove this penalty that the government imposes on
people who want to get married and who are married in this country of
ours.
The gentlewoman who preceded me pointed out that she had 65,000 in
her district, couples who are married subject to the marriage penalty.
The Democratic substitute she urged us to pass would do nothing. It is
scored as zero tax relief for those 65,000 couples. It is a paper
tiger. It does actually nothing to allow them to have that tax relief.
I will include in the Record the Heritage study from which that
65,000 number was drawn so that people can see all of the districts in
this Congress and how many Americans are affected by it.
Let me urge my colleagues to support this resolution and support the
bill because of what it does. It provides tax relief to married couples
who own their homes. The Democrat substitute provides no tax relief for
the marriage penalty if one owns a home and itemizes. It provides up to
$1,400 in tax relief by doubling the standard deduction and widening
the 15 percent bracket, the two ways that the marriage penalty hits
most people in this country.
This bill is an easy bill to pass. At a time when we have $1.8
trillion in surplus in our budget, this would use up just one-tenth of
that, to do what is right; to allow people like Sharon Mallory to
finally pursue their dream to get married, live in happiness and not
fear that the government will punish them simply because they are
married.
I would urge all of my colleagues on the Democratic side, on the
Republican side, pass this bill. Let it move forward to the Senate so
we can get it to the President and he can sign it and we can have real
relief for married couples in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a listing by district of the
number of couples affected by the marriage penalty.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
couples
State and Congressional Name of Party affected by
District Representative marriage
penalty
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama:
1.......................... Sonny Callahan.... R 56,747
2.......................... Terry Everett..... R 63,679
3.......................... Bob Riley......... R 60,392
4.......................... Robert Aderholt... R 63,664
5.......................... Robert E. Cramer.. D 66,356
6.......................... Spencer Bachus.... R 66,486
7.......................... Earl F. Hilliard.. D 47,632
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 424,956
============
Alaska:
At large................... Don Young......... R 66,876
============
Arizona:
1.......................... Matt Salmon....... R 65,373
2.......................... Ed Pastor......... D 49,832
3.......................... Bob Stump......... R 57,504
4.......................... John B. Shadegg... R 68,699
5.......................... Jim Kolbe......... R 58,902
6.......................... J.D. Hayworth..... R 52,429
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 352,738
============
Arkansas:
1.......................... Marion Berry...... D 50,565
2.......................... Vic Snyder........ D 55,159
3.......................... Asa Hutchinson.... R 54,625
4.......................... Jay Dickey........ R 47,327
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 207,677
============
California:
1.......................... Mike Thompson..... D 52,954
2.......................... Wally Herger...... R 47,553
3.......................... Doug Ose.......... R 55,096
4.......................... John T. Doolittle. R 57,132
5.......................... Robert T. Matsui.. D 48,251
6.......................... Lynn C. Woolsey... D 58,003
7.......................... George Miller..... D 57,185
8.......................... Nancy Pelosi...... D 40,473
9.......................... Barbara Lee....... D 43,471
10......................... Ellen O. Tauscher. D 65,228
11......................... Richard W. Pombo.. R 51,854
12......................... Tom Lantos........ D 59,616
13......................... Fortney Stark..... D 63,214
14......................... Anna G. Eshoo..... D 59,229
15......................... Tom Campbell...... R 64,206
16......................... Zoe Lofgren....... D 54,939
17......................... Sam Farr.......... D 53,078
18......................... Gary Condit....... D 51,952
19......................... George P. R 52,576
Radanovich.
20......................... Calvin M. Dooley.. D 44,298
21......................... William M. Thomas. R 51,876
22......................... Lois Capps........ D 51,174
23......................... Elton Gallegly.... R 59,320
24......................... Brad Sherman...... D 61,438
25......................... Howard P. McKeon.. R 60,273
26......................... Howard L. Berman.. D 49,377
27......................... James E. Rogan.... R 54,160
28......................... David Dreier...... R 59,070
29......................... Henry A. Waxman... D 42,606
30......................... Xavier Becerra.... D 44,685
31......................... Matthew G. D 47,275
Martinez.
32......................... Julian C. Dixon... D 45,198
33......................... Lucille Roybal- D 38,069
Allard.
34......................... Grace F. D 52,281
Napolitano.

[[Page H284]]

35......................... Maxine Waters..... D 41,664
36......................... Steven T. R 58,266
Kuykendall.
37......................... Juanita Millender- D 42,068
McDonald.
38......................... Steve Horn........ R 48,899
39......................... Edward Royce...... R 62,958
40......................... Jerry Lewis....... R 49,590
41......................... Gary G. Miller.... R 59,081
42......................... George E. Brown... D 51,363
43......................... Ken Calvert....... R 54,878
44......................... Mary Bono......... R 46,014
45......................... Dana Rohrabacher.. R 59,579
46......................... Loretta Sanchez... D 50,574
47......................... Christopher Cox... R 63,022
48......................... Ron Packard....... R 58,781
49......................... Brian P. Bilbray.. R 45,508
50......................... Bob Filner........ D 47,013
51......................... Randy Cunningham.. R 60,052
52......................... Duncan L. Hunter.. R 55,739
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 2,752,159
============
Colorado:
1.......................... Diana DeGette..... D 60,530
2.......................... Mark Udall........ D 79,685
3.......................... Scott McInnis..... R 69,766
4.......................... Bob Schaffer...... R 74,522
5.......................... Joel Hefley....... R 77,528
6.......................... Thomas G. Tancredo R 82,547
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 444,578
============
Connecticut:
1.......................... John B. Larson.... D 54,847
2.......................... Sam Gejdenson..... D 58,551
3.......................... Rosa L. DeLauro... D 55,985
4.......................... Christopher Shays. R 55,234
5.......................... James H. Maloney.. D 60,893
6.......................... Nancy L. Johnson.. R 61,796
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 347,306
============
Delaware:
At large................... Michael N. Castle. R 74,120
============
District of Columbia:
At large................... Eleanor Holmes D 27,117
Norton.
============
Florida:
1.......................... Joe Scarborough... R 53,832
2.......................... F. Allen Boyd..... D 52,640
3.......................... Corrine Brown..... D 44,474
4.......................... Tillie K. Fowler.. R 56,876
5.......................... Karen L. Thurman.. D 41,900
6.......................... Cliff Stearns..... R 52,391
7.......................... John L. Mica...... R 57,202
8.......................... Bill McCollum..... R 57,798
9.......................... Michael Bilrakis.. R 53,928
10......................... C.W. Bill Young... R 48,921
11......................... Jim Davis......... D 53,627
12......................... Charles T. Canady. R 52,052
13......................... Dan Miller........ R 46,602
14......................... Porter J. Goss.... R 48,989
15......................... David Weldon...... R 53,180
16......................... Mark Foley........ R 51,021
17......................... Carrie P. Meek.... D 44,037
18......................... Ileana Ros- R 50,461
Lehtinen.
19......................... Robert Wexler..... D 50,921
20......................... Peter Deutsch..... D 57,696
21......................... Lincoln Diaz- R 60,076
Balart.
22......................... E. Clay Shaw...... R 42,810
23......................... Alcee L. Hastings. D 45,189
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 1,176,623
============
Georgia:
1.......................... Jack Kingston..... R 62,397
2.......................... Sanford D. Bishop. D 52,397
3.......................... Michael Collins... R 72,108
4.......................... Cynthia McKinney.. D 75,447
5.......................... John Lewis........ D 50,963
6.......................... Johnny Isakson.... R 78,795
7.......................... Bob Barr.......... R 70,617
8.......................... Saxby Chambliss... R 67,271
9.......................... Nathan Deal....... R 72,202
10......................... Charles W. Norwood R 66,424
11......................... John Linder....... R 59,903
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 728,525
============
Hawaii:
1.......................... Neil Abercrombie.. D 54,265
2.......................... Patsy T. Mink..... D 52,150
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 106,415
============
Idaho:
1.......................... Helen P. Chenoweth R 65,242
2.......................... Michael K. Simpson R 64,468
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 129,710
============
Illinois:
1.......................... Bobby L. Rush..... D 42,961
2.......................... Jessie L. Jackson. D 50,527
3.......................... William O. D 60,032
Lipinski.
4.......................... Luis V. Gutierrez. D 42,680
5.......................... Rod R. Blagojevich D 54,712
6.......................... Henry J. Hyde..... R 68,046
7.......................... Danny K. Davis.... D 40,467
8.......................... Philip M. Crane... R 70,832
9.......................... Janice D. D 52,160
Schakowsky.
10......................... John Edward Porter R 65,845
11......................... Jerry Weller...... R 59,536
12......................... Jerry F. Costello. D 52,835
13......................... Judy Biggert...... R 69,312
14......................... J. Dennis Hastert. R 65,185
15......................... Thomas W. Ewing... R 57,007
16......................... Donald A. Manzullo R 65,058
17......................... Lane Evans........ D 57,063
18......................... Ray LaHood........ R 60,551
19......................... David D. Phelps... D 55,528
20......................... John Shimkus...... R 58,859
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 1,149,198
============
Indiana:
1.......................... Peter J. Visclosky D 54,601
2.......................... David M. McIntosh. R 59,333
3.......................... Timothy J. Roemer. D 60,672
4.......................... Mark E. Souder.... R 65,246
5.......................... Stephen E. Buyer.. R 62,127
6.......................... Dan Burton........ R 69,809
7.......................... Edward A. Pease... R 59,986
8.......................... John N. Hostettler R 58,083
9.......................... Baron P. Hill..... D 62,425
10......................... Julia Carson...... R 53,742
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 606,022
============
Iowa:
1.......................... James A. Leach.... R 58,552
2.......................... Jim Nussle........ R 58,340
3.......................... Leonard L. Boswell D 58,234
4.......................... Greg Ganske....... R 62,044
5.......................... Tom Latham........ R 59,672
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 296,842
============
Kansas:
1.......................... Jerry Moran....... R 66,213
2.......................... Jim Ryun.......... R 61,861
3.......................... Dennis Moore...... D 66,789
4.......................... Todd Tiahrt....... R 65,041
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 259,904
============
Kentucky:
1.......................... Edward Whitfield.. R 60,879
2.......................... Ron Lewis......... R 65,790
3.......................... Anne M. Northup... R 61,624
4.......................... Ken Lucas......... D 64,722
5.......................... Harold Rogers..... R 44,065
6.......................... Ernest L. Fletcher R 66,491
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 363,572
============
Louisiana:
1.......................... David Vitter...... R 53,084
2.......................... William J. D 39,319
Jefferson.
3.......................... W. J. Tauzin...... R 47,785
4.......................... Jim McCrery....... R 37,683
5.......................... John Cooksey...... R 49,974
6.......................... Richard H. Baker.. R 51,502
7.......................... Christopher John.. D 44,996
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 324,343
============
Maine:
1.......................... Thomas H. Allen... D 69,013
2.......................... John Elias D 59,729
Baldacci.
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 128,832
============
Maryland:
1.......................... Wayne T. Gilchrest R 69,668
2.......................... Robert L. Ehrlich. R 71502
3.......................... Benjamin L. Cardin D 66,851
4.......................... Albert R. Wynn.... D 70,749
5.......................... Steny H. Hoyer.... D 74,288
6.......................... Roscoe G. Bartlett R 72,357
7.......................... Elijah Cummings... D 51,329
8.......................... Constance A. R 75,518
Morella.
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 552,262
============
Massachusetts:
1.......................... John W. Olver..... D 60,207
2.......................... Richard E. Neal... D 61,386
3.......................... James P. McGovern. D 64,300
4.......................... Barney Frank...... D 62,483
5.......................... Martin T. Meehan.. D 65,488
6.......................... John F. Tierney... D 65,995
7.......................... Edward J. Markey.. D 63,757
8.......................... Michael E. Capuano D 43,087
9.......................... John Joseph D 60,190
Moakley.
10......................... William D. D 62,821
Delahunt.
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 609,713
============
Michigan:
1.......................... Bart T. Stupak.... D 53,222
2.......................... Peter Hoekstra.... R 59,111
3.......................... Vernon J. Ehlers.. R 59,536
4.......................... Dave Camp......... R 53,291
5.......................... James A. Barcia... D 53,465
6.......................... Fred S. Upton..... R 57,296
7.......................... Nick Smith........ R 57,423
8.......................... Debbie Stabenow... E 58,359
9.......................... Dale E. Kildee.... D 54,543
10......................... David E. Bonior... D 60,939
11......................... Joseph Knollenberg R 65,479
12......................... Sander M. Levin... D 61,086
13......................... Lynn N. Rivers.... D 57,471
14......................... John Convers...... D 42,361
15......................... Carolyn C. D 30,136
Kilpatrick.
16......................... John D. Dingell... D 56,966
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 800,682
============
Minnesota:
1.......................... Gil Gutknecht..... R 70,187
2.......................... David Minge....... D 71,909
3.......................... Jim Ramstad....... r 79,333
4.......................... Bruce F. Vento.... D 64,889
5.......................... Martin Olav Sabo.. D 56,730
6.......................... William P. Luther. D 80,846
7.......................... Collin C. Peterson D 64,693
8.......................... James L. Oberstar. D 62,008
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 550,595
============
Mississippi:
1.......................... Roger F. Wicker... R 50,951
2.......................... Bennie G. Thompson D 37,268
3.......................... Charles Pickering. R 47,423
4.......................... Ronnie Shows...... R 42,555
5.......................... Gene Taylor....... D 43,989
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 222,187
============
Missouri:
1.......................... William Clay...... D 52,961
2.......................... James M. Talent... R 73,164
3.......................... Richard A. D 65,094
Gephardt.
4.......................... Ike Skelton....... D 65,282
5.......................... Karen McCarthy.... D 60,731
6.......................... Pat Danner........ D 68,240
7.......................... Roy Blunt......... R 63,563
8.......................... Jo Ann Emerson.... R 58,008
9.......................... Kenny C. Hulshof.. R 66,013
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 573,057
============
Montana:
At large................... Rick Hill......... R 89,169
============
Nebraska:
1.......................... Doug Bereuter..... R 58,135
2.......................... Lee Terry......... R 58,122
3.......................... Bill Barrett...... R 58,336
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 174,593
============
Nevada:
1 Shelley.................. Berkley........... D 69,837
2 James A.................. Gibbons........... R 76,304
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 146,142
============
New Hampshire:
1.......................... John E. Sununu.... R 69,881
2.......................... Charles F. Bass... R 69,792
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 139,673
============
New Jersey:
1.......................... Robert E. Andrews. D 59,742
2.......................... Frank A.J. R 58,821
LoBiondo.
3.......................... Jim Saxton........ R 63,735
4.......................... Christopher H. R 61,098
Smith.
5.......................... Marge Roukema..... R 70,011
6.......................... Frank Pallone..... D 64,052
7.......................... Bob Franks........ R 70,515
8.......................... William Pascrell.. D 61,959
9.......................... Steven R. Rothman. D 62,157
10......................... Donald M. Payne... D 51,445
11......................... Rodney P. R 72,605
Frelinghuysen.
12......................... Rush D. Holt...... D 69,953
13......................... Robert Menendez... D 52,022
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 818,116
============
New Mexico:
1.......................... Heather Wilson.... R 51,894
2.......................... Joe Skeen......... R 44,780
3.......................... Tom Udall......... D 46,764
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 143,438
============
New York:
1.......................... Michael P. Forbes. D 56,134
2.......................... Rick A. Lazio..... R 58,406
3.......................... Peter T. King..... R 60,425
4.......................... Carolyn McCarthy.. D 56,679
5.......................... Gary L. Ackerman.. D 57,264
6.......................... Gregory M. Meeks.. D 49,452
7.......................... Joseph Crowley.... D 45,888
8.......................... Jerrold L. Nadler. D 36,726
9.......................... Anthony D. Weiner. D 47,039
10......................... Edolphus Towns.... D 35,208
11......................... Major R. Owens.... D 41,454
12......................... Nydia M. Velazquez D 36,971
13......................... Vito Fossella..... R 49,174
14......................... Carolyn B. Maloney D 41,628
15......................... Charles B. Rangel. D 29,900
16......................... Jose E. Serrano... D 27,496

[[Page H285]]

17......................... Eliot L. Engel.... D 41,920
18......................... Nita M. Lowey..... D 54,017
19......................... Sue W. Kelly...... R 57,614
20......................... Benjamin A. Gilman R 57,598
21......................... Michael R. McNulty D 51,222
22......................... John E. Sweeney... R 56,962
23......................... Sherwood L. R 50,888
Boehlert.
24......................... John M. McHugh.... R 48,853
25......................... James T. Walsh.... R 52,646
26......................... Maurice D. Hinchey D 49,540
27......................... Thomas M. Reynolds R 57,236
28......................... Louise McIntosh D 50,919
Slaughter.
29......................... John J. LaFalce... D 51,423
30......................... Jack Quinn........ R 49,607
31......................... Amo Houghton...... R 50,785
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 1,511,164
============
North Carolina:
1.......................... Eva M. Clayton.... D 48,949
2.......................... Bob Etheridge..... D 60,176
3.......................... Walter B. Jones... R 57,783
4.......................... David E. Price.... D 61,042
5.......................... Richard M. Burr... R 60,785
6.......................... Howard Coble...... R 66,220
7.......................... Mike McIntyre..... D 51,564
8.......................... Robin Hayes....... R 60,232
9.......................... Sue Myrick........ R 64,916
10......................... Cass Ballenger.... R 67,439
11......................... Charles H. Taylor. R 55,897
12......................... Melvin Watt....... D 52,299
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 707,393
============
North Dakota:
At large................... Earl Pomeroy...... D 65,182
============
Ohio:
1.......................... Steven J. Chabot.. R 50,439
2.......................... Rob Portman....... R 62,646
3.......................... Tony P. Hall...... D 57,172
4.......................... Michael G. Oxley.. R 59,341
5.......................... Paul E. Gillmor... R 63,245
6.......................... Ted Strickland.... D 49,998
7.......................... David L. Hobson... R 60,415
8.......................... John A. Boehner... R 62,222
9.......................... Marcy Kaptur...... D 54,612
10......................... Dennis J. Kucinich D 55,071
11......................... Stephanie Tubbs D 44,387
Jones.
12......................... John R. Kasich.... R 59,563
13......................... Sherrod Brown..... D 61,469
14......................... Thomas C. Sawyer.. D 55,252
15......................... Deborah Pryce..... R 58,779
16......................... Ralph Regula...... R 58,058
17......................... James A. Traficant D 52,108
18......................... Robert W. Ney..... R 52,652
19......................... Steven C. R 61,903
LaTourette.
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 1,079,332
============
Oklahoma:
1.......................... Steve Largent..... R 53,858
2.......................... Tom A. Coburn..... R 49,086
3.......................... Wes Watkins....... R 47,053
4.......................... J.C. Watts........ R 53,316
5.......................... Ernest J. Istook.. R 55,193
6.......................... Frank D. Lucas.... R 50,503
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 309,010
============
Oregon:
1.......................... David Wu.......... D 70,770
2.......................... Greg Walden....... R 65,455
3.......................... Earl Blumenauer... D 63,342
4.......................... Peter A. DeFazio.. D 62,608
5.......................... Darlene Hooley.... D 67,115
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 329,289
============
Pennsylvania:
1.......................... Robert A. Brady... D 36,631
2.......................... Chaka Fattah...... D 40,398
3.......................... Robert A. Borski.. D 49,023
4.......................... Ron Klink......... D 52,612
5.......................... John E. Peterson.. R 50,461
6.......................... Tim Holden........ D 57,582
7.......................... Curt Weldon....... R 59,674
8.......................... James C. Greenwood R 64,507
9.......................... Bud Shuster....... R 55,538
10......................... Don Sherwood...... R 54,417
11......................... Paul E. Kanjorski. D 53,044
12......................... John P. Murtha.... D 47,161
13......................... Joseph M. Hoeffel. D 62,089
14......................... William J. Coyne.. D 45,161
15......................... Patrick J. Toomey. R 58,875
16......................... Joseph R. Pitts... R 59,764
17......................... George W. Gekas... R 61,723
18......................... Michael F. Doyle.. D 53,671
19......................... William F. R 63,076
Goodling.
20......................... Frank Mascara..... D 50,277
21......................... Philip S. English. R 52,227
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 1,127,911
============
Rhode Island:
1.......................... Patrick J. Kennedy D 51,692
2.......................... Robert Weygand.... D 51,668
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 103,359
============
South Carolina:
1.......................... Marshall Sanford.. R 58,552
2.......................... Floyd Spence...... R 59,118
3.......................... Lindsey O. Graham. R 59,576
4.......................... Jim DeMint........ R 60,935
5.......................... John M. Spratt.... D 58,110
6.......................... James E. Clyburn.. D 48,504
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 344,794
============
South Dakota:
At large................... John R. Thune..... R 75,114
------------
Tennessee:
1.......................... William L. Jenkins R 57,951
2.......................... John J. Duncan.... R 58,189
3.......................... Zachary P. Wamp... R 55,895
4.......................... Van Hilleary...... R 56,884
5.......................... Bob Clement....... D 56,284
6.......................... Bart Gordon....... D 64,216
7.......................... Ed Bryant......... R 61,121
8.......................... John S. Tanner.... D 56,686
9.......................... Harold E. Ford.... D 46,087
------------
State total.............. .................. ...... 513,314
============
Texas:
1.......................... Max Sandlin....... D 55,082
2.......................... Jim Turner........ D 50,867
3.......................... Sam Johnson....... R 73,236
4.......................... Ralph M. Hall..... D 63,380
5.......................... Pete Sessions..... R 54,773
6.......................... Joe L. Barton..... R 76,230
7.......................... Bill Archer....... R 68,594
8.......................... Kevin Brady....... R 64,704
9.......................... Nicholas V. D 57,677
Lampson.
10......................... Lloyd Doggett..... D 58,612
11......................... Chet Edwards...... D 57,320
12......................... Kay Granger....... R 60,536
13......................... William M. R 55,869
Thornberry.
14......................... Ron Paul.......... R 57,103
15......................... Ruben Hinojosa.... D 47,947
16......................... Silvestre Reyes... D 50,584
17......................... Charles W. D 57,649
Stenholm.
18......................... Sheila Jackson-Lee D 48,709
19......................... Larry Combest..... R 63,088
20......................... Charles A. D 51,273
Gonzalez.
21......................... Lamar S. Smith.... R 65,899
22......................... Tom DeLay......... R 67,804
23......................... Henry Bonilla..... R 53,225
24......................... Martin Frost...... D 61,197
25......................... Kenneth E. Bentsen D 61,337
26......................... Richard K. Armey.. R 74,098
27......................... Solomon P. Ortiz.. D 50,820
28......................... Cira D. Rodriguez. D 52,293
29......................... Gene Green........ D 46,253
30......................... Eddie Bernice D 52,880
Johnson.
------------
State total.............. ................ 1,759,038
============
Utah:
1.......................... James V. Hansen... R 70,952
2.......................... Merrill Cook...... R 71,856
3.......................... Christopher Cannon R 67,264
------------
State total.............. ................ 210,073
============
Vermont:
At large................... Bernard Sanders... I 63,836
============
Virginia:
1.......................... Herbert H. Bateman R 60,412
2.......................... Owen B. Pickett... D 56,458
3.......................... Robert C. Scott... D 46,775
4.......................... Norman Sisisky.... D 58,346
5.......................... Virgil H. Goode... I 58,049
6.......................... Robert W. R 56,414
Goodlatte.
7.......................... Thomas J. Bliley.. R 63,630
8.......................... James P. Moran.... D 58,895
9.......................... Rick Boucher...... D 50,101
10......................... Frank R. Wolf..... R 67,527
11......................... Thomas M. Davis... R 66,604
------------
State total.............. ................ 643,209
============
Washington:
1.......................... Jay Inslee........ D 70,815
2.......................... Jack Metcalf...... R 62,611
3.......................... Brian Baird....... D 60,905
4.......................... Richard Hastings.. R 61,191
5.......................... George R. R 58,153
Nethercutt.
6.......................... Norman D. Dicks... D 55,419
7.......................... Jim McDermott..... D 53,387
8.......................... Jennifer Dunn..... R 72,796
9.......................... Adam Smith........ D 63,984
------------
State total.............. ................ 559,262
============
West Virginia:
1.......................... Alan B. Mollohan.. D 48,062
2.......................... Robert E. Wise.... D 49,983
3.......................... Nick J. Rahall.... D 39,340
------------
State total.............. ................ 137,385
============
Wisconsin:
1.......................... Paul Ryan......... R 61,060
2.......................... Tammy Baldwin..... D 63,731
3.......................... Ron Kind.......... D 60,875
4.......................... Gerald D. Kleczka. D 61,583
5.......................... Thomas M. Barrett. D 47,411
6.......................... Thomas E. Petri... R 62,599
7.......................... David R. Obey..... D 60,802
8.......................... Mark Green........ R 61,753
9.......................... F. James R 69,085
Sensenbrenner.
------------
State total.............. ................ 548,859
============
Wyoming:
At large................... Barbara Cubin..... R 45,336
============
US Total....................... ................ 25,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, when Republicans and Democrats support basically the
same idea, the people expect us to come together and get together.
Instead, the Republicans have drafted their bill in secret, as if this
were a one-party state. If we look at their bill, it immediately
becomes clear why. Half the benefit in their bill goes to couples who
pay no marriage penalty.
Are we fixing the marriage penalty or giving a marriage bonus to rich
couples who have no children? The stock market is already doing quite
fine by them.
Even the rich would not object if we bring in millions of low- and
moderate-income Americans who do pay the marriage penalty but get
nothing under the Republican bill. These are the lost couples. They are
the ones who where they both work, they have kids, they cannot get the
earned income tax credit and now they will not qualify for the
Republicans' marriage penalty relief.
When the Republicans finish trooping to the floor, slice by slice,
with their tax cuts, they are going to find out that the American
people can add and it still adds up to $700 billion plus, most of it
going to the rich.
We are not here to support Donald Trump and whoever the next Ivana
may be. Americans rich enough to need a prenuptial agreement are not
demanding marriage penalty relief. Give the relief to struggling
working families with kids who need it and get nothing under the
Republican bill.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is, couples should not be
punished by the government for making that decision to get married. Yet
the current Tax Code pushes those married couples filing jointly into
higher tax brackets. The bottom line is, this is wrong.
I strongly support this Marriage Tax Elimination Act. It provides
relief from the marriage penalty. This unfair tax is keeping parents
from doing all they want to do for their children. In many cases, it is
requiring both parents to work full time when one of

[[Page H286]]

them may prefer to work part time and spend more time with their
children.
Right now, married couples pay an average of $1,400 a year more in
taxes every year, every year. Frankly, over a decade, that money could
go towards a family car or a college education or a down payment on a
new home or better health care coverage or for retirement savings. It
is their money. It is time to end the marriage penalty.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member on the Committee on the
Budget.
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Moakley) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, Members should know that if they vote for this rule,
they vote to violate the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. They vote to
discard the discipline that has brought us from $290 billion deficits
to $125 billion surpluses.
For 25 years, section 303, black letter law of the Congressional
Budget Act, has wisely provided that Congress shall not take up major
tax cuts of this magnitude or for that matter major spending increases
without first adopting a budget resolution. That has been the procedure
for 25 years, and for good reason. It requires to take something of
this magnitude and put it in the framework of a budget and face it off
against competing alternatives.
By not doing that, the result today will be, if we pass this bill,
pass this rule, a bill that will drain $182 billion off of a surplus of
about $800 billion. Twenty-five percent of the surplus will be disposed
of today in one fell swoop without considering other things that we
could have done for it.
Now, the rule serves a purpose. It is not some arcane rule. It says,
do not do something of this magnitude, either on the tax side or the
spending side, in isolation. Do it comprehensively. Consider other
alternatives. Do it and see what the trade-offs of doing it are.
I want to defang the marital penalty as much as anybody else. I will
gladly vote to do it, but we can vote for it by voting to double the
standard deduction, cost about $44.8 billion, and then do something
else. The families who are faced with this so-called marital penalty
will soon be faced with the AMT, the alternative minimum tax. We never
meant for them to be confronted with the AMT. That problem can be
fixed, too. The cost is $32.8 billion, a total of $77 billion. Then
there is $105 billion left over.
For that $105 billion, we can do Medicare prescription drug coverage
per the President's proposal over the next 10 years, or we can go to
the President's proposals for tax cuts this year and we have a whole
list of things to do. We can expand tuition tax credits. We can provide
for school construction bond subsidies. We can fix the EITC. We can
expand the child care tax credit. Surely that is pro middle-income
family, working families. We can add to the long-term care tax credit,
a tax credit of $3,000; and we still have enough left over to do the
President's proposed retirement savings account.
All of this can be done in addition to fixing the marital penalty and
also fixing the AMT. That is what is wrong. That is what is out of
place with this rule. It violates the Congressional Budget Act. It
requires us to do something in isolation ad hoc, and what this will
lead to is ragged results.
Lots of stuff left on the cutting room floor that has not been fairly
considered. There is a better way of doing this. I am for the marital
penalty correction but I am for doing it in the proper way.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a member of the
Committee on Ways and Means, the author of much of this tax relief
provision and America's greatest champion for marriage penalty relief.
(Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, we have often asked over the last several
years, is it right, is it fair, that under our Tax Code, 25 million
married working couples on average pay $1,400 more in higher taxes just
because they are married?

{time} 1100

Clearly the folks back home in the south side of Chicago and the
south suburbs that I have the privilege of representing say it is just
wrong, it is unfair that married working couples pay more just because
they are married. $1,400 in Illinois, it is 1 year's tuition for a
nursing student at Joliet Junior college. It is 3 months of day care.
It is a washer and dryer to take care of the kids' clothes.
Let me point out what causes the marriage tax penalty. The marriage
tax penalty, I have got a machinist and a schoolteacher, $31,000 in
income or $31,500 of income each. While the machinist stays single, he
is in the 15 percent tax bracket; the same with the schoolteacher. But
they chose to get married. Because when they are married, they file
jointly, they are pushed into the 28 percent tax bracket, causing
almost $1,400 in marriage tax penalty.
We want to help couples like the machinist and schoolteacher, people
who pay the marriage tax penalty. We do that in several ways. Of
course, if my colleagues listen to the folks in the bipartisan Joint
Committee on Taxation, they point out that one-half of those who suffer
the marriage tax penalty, and there is 1.1 million married couples
suffering the marriage tax penalty in Illinois, one-half of them
itemize their taxes, and one-half of them do not.
If we are going to wipe out the marriage tax penalty for everyone and
be fair about it, we have to help both. Of course, that means that
those who do not itemize, we double the standard deduction, which helps
wipe out their marriage tax penalty.
For those who do itemize, and if one itemizes, one is probably a
homeowner. Most middle-class families pursue the American dream. That
is why they itemize as a homeowner or give to their church or charity
or synagogue or they have student loan expenses. We help them by
widening the 15 percent bracket. We also help the working poor by
increasing the income eligibility for their earned income credit,
erasing that marriage penalty as well.
My Democratic friends have a substitute. They claim it just helps
those who do not itemize. That is all they want to help. If one is a
homeowner, tough. But under the Democrat's substitute, according to the
bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, the Democrat plan is phony. It
is phony. It is a sham. According to Joint Committee on Taxation, the
Democrat substitute they are going to offer today provides zero, nada,
nothing in marriage tax relief. It is designed never to work.
Mr. Speaker, we want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. People
often point out that next week is Valentine's Day. When one thinks
about it, for 25 million married working couples, what better gift to
give them than bipartisan support that helps everyone who suffers the
marriage tax penalty, those who do not itemize as well as homeowners
and those who give to church and charity as well as the working poor.
Let us wipe out the marriage tax penalty for everyone. It is all
about fairness in the Tax Code. Not just give relief to a handful, but
let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty for everyone.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Minority Leader of the
Democratic Party.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, it may seem to some people watching this
debate today that we have heard it before. Last year, Republicans tried
to sell their trillion dollar tax cut to the American people. They had
town hall meetings. They had a road tour across America to pump up
grassroots support.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the Majority Leader, was on a
television show and said this, ``We believe that public opinion is
going to come out strong for this package as it is better understood.
And we believe the President will respond to that.''
Well, the more the American people heard, the less they liked it. In
fact, by the time Republicans returned to Washington in September, we
did not

[[Page H287]]

hear a peep about the reckless plan to spend the budget surplus on an
irresponsible tax cut. They have never tried once to override the
President's veto of this risky and unpopular plan. It seems to me at
least there would be a try, an attempt to override the veto if it is so
popular and needed.
So now the Republicans have a new strategy. They are taking the same
chocolate cake they tried to devour in a single setting last summer and
dividing it into six pieces to eat one at a time. Well, they are not
fooling anyone. They have twisted and contorted the legislative process
into nothing more than a marketing scheme designed to make last year's
unpopular tax cut more palatable.
It is bad enough that we are voting today on a costly tax cut with no
committee hearings and no budget. But even worse, we are squandering a
golden opportunity for future generations.
We should, instead, be using the opportunity of a surplus to extend
the life of Social Security and Medicare. We need to pay off the entire
national debt by the year 2013. We should be considering tax cuts only
as a part of a package that achieves all of these goals. Democrats
support a marriage penalty tax cut. But it needs to be a tax cut that
fixes the problem, not a back door means to enact a trillion dollar tax
cut in cuts and pieces and bits.
Nearly half of the relief of the Republican bill goes to people other
than those that are penalized by the marriage penalty. Our alternative
is targeted to the middle-class families who really need it, married
couples that are currently penalized by the current surplus. We do not
squander the surplus with our tax cut; we fix the problem.
Instead of engaging in a tax cut feeding frenzy, Republicans should
first put together a budget that meets the needs of working families.
They need to come up with a budget plan to assure all Americans that
they do not plan on passing tax cuts that, taken together, are the size
of Governor Bush's massive and irresponsible $1.8 trillion tax cut
plan.
We need tax cuts that help all middle-class families, that reward
work, support education, assist with long-term care, and support
marriage. But before we do that, we need to come up with a budget plan
that strengthens Social Security and Medicare first and that pays off
the national debt by 2013. Anything less threatens our prosperity and
risks our future.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes
to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), a member of the
Committee on Rules and a champion for marriage penalty relief.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from
Columbus, Ohio (Ms. Pryce), for yielding me this time.
I rise in support of this very fair rule as well as the underlying
bill. It turns out we have got about 49,000 married, tax-paying couples
in my district in southwest Florida; and they understand and appreciate
very well why we are here today. Also, I think we have 230 of my House
colleagues, presumably tax paying, Republican and Democrat, who
understand it very well, too.
We know that one of the most pernicious aspects of our current Tax
Code is the way in which it financially punishes men and women who
choose to get married. Today we will take a direct, firm, and
appropriate step to right a wrong.
I am puzzled to hear friends from the other side of the aisle
disparage this fine work product. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Moakley) says it is not enough relief. But we just had the Joint
Committee on Taxation say that the substitute that his team has come up
with provides zero relief, no dollar relief. I invite the gentleman
from Massachusetts to join us because we have more relief than zero.
Maybe we do not have enough. If the gentleman wishes to lead us further
into more tax cuts, I will be right there by his side.
But it seems that, around here at least, that bipartisanship may be
in the eye of the beholder. Just last week, I recall the House
entertained a motion to instruct on patient protection legislation,
which we are all interested in, billed by its champions as a great
bipartisan achievement when we all voted for that. It was. Yet today,
our Democratic friends spin themselves into a tight circle trying to
justify why they cannot support this modest but necessary and fair
bipartisan tax step towards tax fairness.
Well, we are going to hear a lot about process; we always do. We are
going to hear a lot about class warfare rhetoric today; we already
have, and we will hear more. But we will not hear a compelling argument
about this modest and sensible bill because there just is not one.
The facts, more than 21 million couples are forced to shell out, on
average, $1,400 more than if they had chosen to remain single and not
get married. That is a penalty, a financial penalty. Working women are
particularly hit hard in this process, as one can figure.
Although President Clinton has consistently fought our efforts to
provide Americans with significant tax relief, even he has finally
woken up to the need for a little fairness for married couples, at
least he said so in his State of the Union address. Obviously, it
remains to be seen whether he will live up to his word and sign this
bill.
While I am discouraged by the negative partisan attacks on H.R. 6 by
some, I remain hopeful that, in the end, they will put aside election-
year politics and join with the vast majority of Americans who support
reforming the marriage penalty. This is substantive legislation. It
corrects an obvious wrong. It is fair play, and fair play is something
that all Americans want and ask us for no matter what their party
affiliation.
I wish everybody a happy Valentine's Day. I urge a vote ``yes'' on
the rule and on the bill.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us all to
understand that both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans,
favor marriage tax penalty relief. But the truth is, bringing this bill
to the floor at this time is not only a violation of the Congressional
Budget Act, section 303, but it is totally contrary to common sense and
it is fiscally irresponsible.
It defies common sense to bring a bill to the floor that is a major
tax cut before we have even drawn up the budget. Every city council,
every school board, every State legislature that adopts an
appropriations act or tax cut first adopts a budget. To think today
that we would come to this floor and act on a major tax bill before the
Congress has even adopted a budget is simply irresponsible. It violates
the basic rules that every American family understands.
Every American family understands that it is important to have a
family budget. They know that sitting around the kitchen table and
deciding what they are going to be able to spend for the year, what
their income is going to be, is important before they embark upon a
spending plan. Every family understands that when one creates a budget,
everybody in the family needs to try to buy into it.
This bill comes to the floor without any hearings, without any
consultation with the White House, without any consultation with the
Democratic side of the Congress.
Every American family understands that one needs to pay off one's
debts first when one establishes one's budget. We have a $5.7 trillion
national debt. That ought to be the priority. We ought to be sure we
are going to deal with that before we pass major tax relief. Every
family understands one does not spend money that one does not have.
One man on the other side of the aisle this morning said we had a
$1.8 trillion surplus. Well, that is only true if one assumes that we
are going to stay with the spending levels that we have in the year
2000. I suspect we will probably see inflation causing some of our
spending to go up.
For all of these reasons, we need to be sure that we oppose this rule
and oppose this legislation.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes
to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the chairman
of the policy committee for the Republican conference.
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, we are all in favor of eliminating the marriage
penalty is what I understand from listening to the debate. The only
objection

[[Page H288]]

that some colleagues raise is that this is not the right time to do it.
It is too soon. We have only been trying to repeal the marriage penalty
since 1981. We have not had enough hearings on it, only in successive
Congresses going back decades.
We should pay off the national debt first. There are a number of
reasons we should continue to discriminate apparently, but nothing in
my view is more important than eliminating this horrible discrimination
now.
From 1913 to 1948, we did not discriminate in our Tax Code. We began
discriminating in the Tax Code to protect working men who did not live
in community property States, because people in community property
States could income-split and reduce their rate of tax, and those
working men in other States could not do it. Their wives did not work
according to the way that the Congress looked at it. As a matter of
fact, back when we adopted our income tax code, less than 3 percent of
women worked. But in the second half of the 20th century, we watched
those numbers change dramatically. By 1997, the number of working women
was 100 percent greater than what it had been in 1947.
Today the marriage penalty is not just a tax on marriage. It is a tax
explicitly on working women. Even more so, it is a tax on African-
American working women because a greater proportion of African-American
women are employed full time than the rest of the labor force, than the
rest of the female population.
So would we say that it is too expensive to have an Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, it is too expensive to have a Civil Rights Act,
it is too expensive to enforce the laws against discrimination? I do
not think so.
As a matter of fact, it is not a question of how to spend tax dollars
that we are discussing today; it is a question of how to collect it. We
ought to collect it fairly without discriminating against people
similarly situated just because one person who we personally tax more
happens to be a working woman and the other person is not.
We should repeal the marriage tax penalty as soon as possible, and we
should do so for a very simple reason: it is the right thing to do.

{time} 1115

It is fair. It eliminates discrimination.
I applaud the leadership of the Congress for bringing this forward. I
applaud those of my Democratic and Republican colleagues who are
finally willing to make this important step forward. I expect we will
be able to succeed today. I expect we will strike this blow for
fairness, for working women above all, for families, and ultimately for
respect and integrity for our government.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking member of the Committee on
Agriculture.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I will probably not take all the time, but I do take this time to
rise strongly in opposition to this rule. And I do so for the same
basic reasons that I have done it year in and year out for several
years now, and which I used to be joined in by my colleagues on the
majority side of the aisle, those who would stand up and decry the
Committee on the Budget waiving the budget rules and bringing a bill to
the floor of the House before we followed the regular order.
Now, I have not changed. I still feel very strongly that we should
follow the regular order at this day and age, in this time, on this
day. I ask my friends on the other side why they have, particularly the
last two speakers that I have served with for a long time, why have
they changed their minds and suddenly are perfectly willing to bring a
rule to the floor of the House that waives all budget considerations? I
will let them answer that question.
We should establish a comprehensive fiscally responsible budget
framework before considering tax legislation or any other spending
legislation. We can and should cut taxes. There is no question about
that, especially the marriage tax. But I would submit that if we are
going to stand in the well of the House and talk all day about fixing
the marriage tax, that we should confine our comments to the bill. Fix
the marriage tax penalty, which is about half of the bill before us
today by the majority. Fix that. I agree to that. Who could possibly
stand on the floor of the House and say they could be opposed to that?
But any tax cut must be in the context of a fiscally responsible
budget, I believe, and we believe, the Blue Dogs believe, that
eliminates the publicly-held debt, strengthens Social Security and
Medicare, and addresses other priorities, such as defense. I happen to
believe the best tax cut we can give married couples is paying down the
debt. That is a personal belief that I have. We can argue and debate
that, hopefully in the context of future legislation.
The budget framework put forward by the Blue Dogs last year
demonstrated how tax relief can be provided within a fiscally
responsible budget. The Republican leadership bill that is brought
forward today has failed to put forward a comprehensive plan of how
that plan will fit within the overall framework that we need to be
talking about. The majority knows it and I know it. And no explanation
can move that away from the very fact that it is.
It is fiscally irresponsible, in my opinion, to vote on legislation
cutting taxes before we know whether or not there will be sufficient
revenue to cut those taxes. It is important for all of us to remember
that these tax cuts we are talking about today will occur in the second
5 years. Who among us can predict accurately what is going to be the
surplus, the economic conditions in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010? Who
can predict that?
Have we stopped for a moment to ask ourselves what will happen if
these projections turn out to be wrong and we have spent them? Our
children and grandchildren will pay dearly for our mistakes.
Is it too much to ask of the majority today to live under the rules
that we have talked about living under for as long as the 21 years I
have been here; to have the open and honest debate of the actual
numbers and fit it within a framework that will keep the economic
recovery that we are now in year 7 of, the longest single standing
economic recovery period or expansion period in the history of our
country?
I say again, speaking on the rule, that I cannot believe my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who I have stood with so
many times when we asked to live by the budget rules, that today they
are saying it is okay to waive them so that we can have a Valentine
present. I do not believe it. I cannot believe.
I hope my colleagues will change their minds, vote down the rule,
send it back to the Committee on Ways and Means, let the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kasich) and the Committee on the Budget bring forth a budget,
let us have a debate on this, and then fit the marriage tax penalty
relief into that confines, which the Blue Dogs believe can be done; and
I know everybody in this body believes can be done.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio
for yielding me this time, and I am pleased to rise today in support of
adoption of this rule and ultimate passage of the bill.
I have come to Congress with a firm belief that we need to be
responsible in our budget efforts and that we need to take aggressive
steps toward a process in paying down the national debt. But this issue
does not wait. Fairness does not wait for another day.
We have for too long penalized those who have chosen to be married in
this country. We have chosen for too long to penalize those whose
families suffer. In Kansas alone, 61,000 people in my Congressional
District are impacted by this unfair penalty, this unfair Tax Code. And
of that, it happens to impact those of very modest and middle-class
incomes. The people who are impacted in Kansas earn between $20,000 and
$75,000. We are talking about $1,400, on the average, that they pay
more simply because they chose to be married and to have families.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and encourage its
adoption and encourage today, later in the day, that we end this
unfairness that has existed too long in the Tax Code.

[[Page H289]]

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire on behalf of my colleague and
myself how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 8 minutes remaining; and the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cox), for his, I believe, genuine concern about women in the work
force, particularly African-American women. I would hope that his
concern for that population of the work force would extend beyond this
bill and he would also look to help provide them relief, as well as all
throughout the American family, as we seek to fund dollars for after-
school programs and ways to keep guns out of schools and out of the
hands of criminals and the mentally ill.
I want to see action on this front, like many of my colleagues do.
And I applaud the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) who has been a
stalwart on this issue. But I think it is important to note that, as
many of my colleagues have, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm)
did so eloquently just a few minutes ago, that as a cosponsor of this
bill I did it believing that we would present this with an overall
plan, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) said it so well
also; that we would have a budget on the table and we would have
decisions made about how we were going to ensure the solvency of Social
Security and Medicare.
I say all of this as a member of the younger generation of America,
and as one who is 14 weeks away from taking his own marriage vows. I
certainly have a personal stake in the outcome of this. But we watch
day in and day out on CNN and CNBC as large publicly-traded companies
have to update their earnings and have to inform their shareholders
that they might not meet the expectations that the company might have
set for themselves.
We have set some pretty lofty surplus numbers for the Nation over the
next 5 to 10 to 15 years. I have a concern, as I am sure all of us,
about whether or not we will actually reach those projections. If we
do, God bless us; and we will have money to give away, to pay down the
debt, and do all the things we believe is in the best interest of the
people. I cannot imagine a company in America that would give out end-
of-the-year bonuses in January, which is essentially what we are doing.
I cannot imagine a family in America sitting around a dinner table and
talking about their October and November vacation trips in January
based on projections that the company that the husband works for or the
wife is going to do far better than they might expect.
I support tax cuts, but only after we are able to ensure that we can
pay down the debt, secure the long-term solvency of the Social Security
and Medicare and do what is right for the American people.
I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle do the right thing
today.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes
to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Toomey).
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule
and of H.R. 6. I think the case for supporting this bill is really very
straightforward.
First of all, let us bear in mind, taxes are at an all time postwar
record high. When taxpayers are paying more than it takes to fund the
biggest Federal Government in history, when taxpayers are paying more
than it takes to also pay all the Social Security benefits for the next
10 years and a $2 trillion surplus above and beyond that, which is
going to be used to either reform Social Security or pay down debt,
when taxpayers have already paid down $350 billion in debt just over
the last 3 years and will continue to do so each year, when taxpayers
are paying for all of that and still there is another trillion dollars
that is going to come into the Federal Government from these taxpayers,
it is obvious to me that taxes are simply too high.
Meanwhile, we have an IRS Tax Code that is terribly unfair. It is
ridiculously complicated. It is downright immoral in its treatment of
married couples. Today we have a wonderful opportunity to do two
things: To relieve some of that tax burden on our working families, and
to rid the Tax Code of one of its most ridiculous features, punishing
couples for choosing to get married. It is senseless. It is immoral.
We have an opportunity to change that today. I urge my colleagues to
vote yes on the rule and vote yes on H.R. 6 so we can accomplish that
today.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Boyd).
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, as I was walking over here a few minutes ago to speak, I
passed the Triangle, and I saw all the props out there for the press
conference after this vote on this piece of legislation today, with the
valentine and the chart that said the majority party was going to give,
or is going to give the American families a Valentine's present.
It made me think about a friend back home who says there are two
kinds of folks in this world, the show horses and there are work
horses. I think in this particular instance, it is obvious which
category the majority party is falling in.
And why do I say that? I say that because we have a very closely
balanced Congress here in terms of Democrat and Republican. We have a
Democrat in the White House. There are ways to get things accomplished,
and that is to sit down and work with the President and work with the
minority party in the House. And you can accomplish something good for
the American people.
In this case, we have started a partisan fight. We all know how those
end up. They will end up with nothing happening, and as a result, I
think that what we have today is just an act by the show horse team for
political purposes.
Mr. Speaker, there are many Democrats that want tax relief. We all
know that the marriage penalty exists. We need to deal with the
deduction issue. We need to deal with bracket creep. We also have some
other inequities in this country, the estate tax, the most unfair tax
that exists in our code; the Social Security earnings limit needs to be
dealt with.
We also have some other issues that need to be addressed by this
surplus, and that is Social Security and Medicare reform. Debt
reduction should be the cornerstone of any plan that deals with our
surplus, defense priorities, veterans and military retirees, a major,
major problem that has to be dealt with.
Mr. Speaker, we have budget rules in place. We have budget rules in
place for good reasons, because we need to develop these kinds of
legislation in context of the big picture, and that is why we should
not be waiving these rules.
We should develop a budget that we all can agree upon. We did in
1997, we can do it in again in the year 2000 and do something good for
the American people.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from the great State of Nebraska
(Mr. Terry).
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I accept the challenge from my colleagues
from the other side of the aisle to do the right thing, and the right
thing is supporting this rule. It is voting to eliminate the marriage
tax penalty. I will help the 52,000 married couples in your district
and the 58,000 in my district.

{time} 1130

Americans are overtaxed, and what I hear is we all agree with that.
If it walks or you earn it or you buy it, we tax it. And we also tax
love. We tax marriage. What type of message does that send to the
American public and to our children when we say that this is such a
great institution of marriage and something that we strive to support;
but we will tax it to the tune of about $1,400 per married couple in
the districts of my colleagues and in my district?
It is wrong to tax marriage. It is shameful to tax marriage. I grow
in frustration as I listen to my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle because

[[Page H290]]

what I hear the Democrats speak is, let us keep their money, let us
keep their money for our spending programs for what we want because we
will do it better than they will.
Well, I trust people to keep their own money.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my dear friend, the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), how many speakers she has remaining.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have one speaker remaining, and I
will close.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, the debate this morning is one which is seductive. It is
seductive in the sense that it is very difficult to determine what the
real issue is.
I would submit that the real issue is not whether the marriage tax
penalty ought to be eliminated, what type of a bill is most effective
in accomplishing that, but the real debate is over the timing and our
priorities in terms of the integrity of the budget process.
We have established a budget process here in the U.S. House of
Representatives that places a burden on the Committee on the Budget to
report a budget on the House of Representatives to consider that budget
in the U.S. Senate and the House to get together and adopt a budget for
congressional financial decision-making. As a part of that budget
process, we are not supposed to be considering legislation which has
significant budget consequences unless it is on an emergency basis.
So what is happening here in February of the year 2000, well before
the budget process is advanced, we are considering a bill, which is a
very attractive bill; and that is why I say it is a seductive process
here. This is premature in the year. It is not easy to stand up and say
that something is premature and that we ought to consider it later in
the year when we know how it fits into the budget process. But the
reason that it is important that this message be stated is reflected by
this chart.
This chart shows what has happened when the United States Congress
and when the White House are not acting responsibly. We build an
enormous debt, a debt to $5.8 trillion, $20,000 for each man, woman,
and child in this country. And there is a marriage tax penalty built
into this type of irresponsible spending and debt. We ought to make
sure.
With this type of a debt, it is incumbent upon us in Congress to
avoid the temptation to be importuned for a premature action on
legislation. Our first obligation, I submit, is responsibility. Our
second obligation is to pay down on the debt. Our third obligation is
to provide tax relief to those Americans that are deserving of it. And
our fourth obligation is to emphasize the priority programs for our
Nation.
I submit and I request that my colleagues join me in postponing
action on this very deserving piece of legislation.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the chief deputy
whip.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the
time, and I thank her for bringing this rule to the floor. I encourage
my colleagues to support the rule and to support the bill.
What we have heard here this morning over and over again from the
opponents of the rule, and I assume the opponents of the bill, is we
need to fix the marriage tax and we need to fix it later, we need to
fix the marriage tax and we need to fix it later. The truth is we need
to fix it now.
We are meeting the important financial goals for the future of the
country that we have not met in a long time: balance the budget for the
first time in almost 30 years; we are restoring integrity to the Social
Security trust fund by not spending that trust fund for the first time
in four decades; we are paying down debt in ways that we have not
before. Now, not later, is the time to look for the unfairness in the
Tax Code and begin the hard work of eliminating that unfairness.
Certainly, 10-year projections can be off. In recent months, they
have been off generally to the advantage of making our job easier to
balance the budget, pay down the debt, restore Social Security. They
may be off the other way. We may not have as much surplus out there 10
years from now as anybody thinks we have right now.
But if the surplus is not there, should we first go to American
families and say, we need to continue this unfair system because we do
not have as much extra money as we thought we were going to have in
Washington? We should be saying just the opposite, we are going to work
hard in Washington to spend money more wisely, and we are going to work
hard in Washington to see that working families get a fair Tax Code and
get to keep their money.
This is a vote honoring marriage. It is a vote honoring families. It
is a vote honoring fairness in the Tax Code. I urge my colleagues to
support the rule and later in the day, to cast an important vote for
the future of families in America.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of the time to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) from the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I just wish we were talking about the marriage tax
penalty. We are talking about a budget process, and the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Minge) outlined it, as well.
The backdrop of all of this business about the Tax Code is a $5.7
trillion debt. Said another way, we have spent last year and will this
year over $240 billion in checks on interest.
If my colleagues want to know why the American people are overtaxed,
they are overtaxed because they are paying $240 billion every year in
interest payments. And until we have a budget to know where these
matters fit, these tax cuts that we all support, like the marriage tax
penalty, no sane, rational business person in this country would go
about cutting their income before they knew where they stood and what
is their outgo.
We say, unless they have a creditable framework where we know we are
going to retire debt, where we know we are going to take care of Social
Security and Medicare, where we know, is it a higher priority to cut
taxes on married people like they say they have but which they do not,
but like they say it is to take care of rural health care needs in this
country? If my colleagues believe that, then vote for this rule.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule. It provides for more than 4 hours
of debate on an issue that has already been considered and passed once
in this Congress.
Unfortunately, it was vetoed by the President. But with this rule and
the underlying bill, we have an opportunity to give the President a
second chance at signing marriage penalty relief into law. And I hope
he will.
Now, I have to say that the Democrats' objections based on budget
concerns rings a bit hollow. As the party who oversaw decades of
deficit spending and reigned over an era when the Social Security Trust
Fund was raided to finance big government spending, this newfound
dedication to balanced budgets and debt reduction, while welcome, seems
to be guided by an even stronger desire to deny the American people tax
fairness and tax relief.
We are in no way jeopardizing those goals by promoting legislation
that provides fundamental tax fairness to 42 million Americans and
returns a very small percentage of the people's tax dollars to them in
a time when we expect a $1.82 trillion revenue excess in the next
decade.
If we cannot give tax relief now, when can we? Let us loosen our
clutches on the American taxpayer's money, act in fairness, and let
families have just a little bit of their money back. Let us be straight
with the American people about what we stand for.
I am proud to join my colleagues on this side of the aisle for real
marriage penalty relief. I urge support for the rule and for the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the
resolution.

[[Page H291]]

The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 255,
nays 165, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 12]

YEAS--255

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holt
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moakley
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Udall (NM)
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--165

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Capuano
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Etheridge
Evans
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--14

Berry
Brown (OH)
Capps
DeFazio
Everett
Farr
Fossella
Gekas
Hinojosa
Jefferson
Lofgren
McCollum
Smith (NJ)
Vento

{time} 1202

Mr. JOHN, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, and Ms. BERKLEY changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. BARCIA, SMITH of Washington, BONIOR, and CROWLEY changed
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________