[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.

                          ____________________