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

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 12 (Thursday, February 10, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H291-H330]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY RELIEF ACT OF 2000

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 419, I call up
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,
and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 419, the bill
is considered read for amendment.
The text of H.R. 6 is as follows:

H.R. 6

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Marriage
Tax Elimination Act of 1999''.
(b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly
provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is
expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a
section or other provision, the reference shall be considered
to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
(c) Section 15 Not To Apply.--No amendment made by section
2 shall be treated as a change in a rate of tax for purposes
of section 15 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 .

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN INDIVIDUAL INCOME
TAX RATES.

(a) General Rule.--Section 1 (relating to tax imposed) is
amended by striking subsections (a) through (e) and inserting
the following:
``(a) Married Individuals Filing Joint Returns and
Surviving Spouses.--There is hereby imposed on the taxable
income of--
``(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703)
who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under
section 6013, and

[[Page H292]]

``(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),
a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

The tax is:e income is:
15% of taxable income..................................................
$7,725, plus 28% of the excess over $51,500............................
$28,277, plus 31% of the excess over $124,900..........................
$70,313, plus 36% of the excess over $260,500..........................
$180,401, plus 39.6% of the excess over $566,300.......................

``(b) Heads of Households.--There is hereby imposed on the
taxable income of every head of a household (as defined in
section 2(b)) a tax determined in accordance with the
following table:

The tax is:e income is:
15% of taxable income..................................................
$5,182.50, plus 28% of the excess over $34,550.........................
$20,470.50, plus 31% of the excess over $89,150........................
$37,598, plus 36% of the excess over $144,400..........................
$87,548, plus 39.6% of the excess over $283,150........................

``(c) Other Individuals.--There is hereby imposed on the
taxable income of every individual (other than an individual
to whom subsection (a) or (b) applies) a tax determined in
accordance with the following table:

The tax is:e income is:
15% of taxable income..................................................
$3,862.50, plus 28% of the excess over $25,750.........................
$14,138.50, plus 31% of the excess over $62,450........................
$35,156.50, plus 36% of the excess over $130,250.......................
$90,200.50, plus 39.6% of the excess over $283,150.....................

``(d) Estates and Trusts.--There is hereby imposed on the
taxable income of--
``(1) every estate, and
``(2) every trust,
taxable under this subsection a tax determined in accordance
with the following table:

The tax is:e income is:
15% of taxable income..................................................
$262.50, plus 28% of the excess over $1,750............................
$906.50, plus 31% of the excess over $4,050............................
$1,573, plus 36% of the excess over $6,200.............................
$2,383, plus 39.6% of the excess over $8,450.''........................

(b) Inflation Adjustment To Apply in Determining Rates for
2000.--Subsection (f) of section 1 is amended--
(1) by striking ``1993'' in paragraph (1) and inserting
``1999'',
(2) by striking ``1992'' in paragraph (3)(B) and inserting
``1998'', and
(3) by striking paragraph (7).
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) The following provisions are each amended by striking
``1992'' and inserting ``1998'' each place it appears:
(A) Section 25A(h).
(B) Section 32(j)(1)(B).
(C) Section 41(e)(5)(C).
(D) Section 59(j)(2)(B).
(E) Section 63(c)(4)(B).
(F) Section 68(b)(2)(B).
(G) Section 135(b)(2)(B)(ii).
(H) Section 151(d)(4).
(I) Section 220(g)(2).
(J) Section 221(g)(1)(B).
(K) Section 512(d)(2)(B).
(L) Section 513(h)(2)(C)(ii).
(M) Section 685(c)(3)(B).
(N) Section 877(a)(2).
(O) Section 911(b)(2)(D)(ii)(II).
(P) Section 2032A(a)(3)(B).
(Q) Section 2503(b)(2)(B).
(R) Section 2631(c)(1)(B).
(S) Section 4001(e)(1)(B).
(T) Section 4261(e)(4)(A)(ii).
(U) Section 6039F(d).
(V) Section 6323(i)(4)(B).
(W) Section 6601(j)(3)(B).
(X) Section 7430(c)(1).
(2) Subclause (II) of section 42(h)(6)(G)(i) is amended by
striking ``1987'' and inserting ``1998''.
(3) Subparagraph (B) of section 132(f)(6) is amended by
inserting before the period ``, determined by substituting
`calendar year 1992' for `calendar year 1998' in subparagraph
(B) thereof ''.
(4) Sections 468B(b)(1), 511(b)(1), 641(a), 641(d)(2)(A),
and 685(d) are each amended by striking ``section 1(e)'' each
place it appears and inserting ``section 1(d)''.
(5) Sections 1(f)(2) and 904(b)(3)(E)(ii) are each amended
by striking ``(d), or (e)'' and inserting ``or (d)''.
(6) Paragraph (1) of section 1(f) is amended by striking
``(d), and (e)'' and inserting ``and (d)''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1999.

SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN STANDARD
DEDUCTION.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 63(c) (relating
to standard deduction) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Basic standard deduction.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), the basic standard deduction is--
``(A) $8,600 in the case of--
``(i) a joint return, or
``(ii) a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),
``(B) $6,350 in the case of a head of household (as defined
in section 2(b)), or
``(C) $4,300 in any other case.''
(b) Technical Amendments.--
(1) Paragraph (4) of section 63(c) is amended to read as
follows:
``(4) Adjustments for inflation.--In the case of any
taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 1999, each
dollar amount contained in paragraph (2) or (5) or subsection
(f) shall be increased by an amount equal to--
``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable
year begins.''
(2) Subparagraph (A) of section 63(c)(5) is amended by
striking ``$500'' and inserting ``$700''.
(3) Subsection (f) of section 63 is amended by striking
``$600'' each place it appears and inserting ``$850'' and by
striking ``$750'' in paragraph (3) and inserting ``$1,050''.
(4) Subparagraph (B) of section 1(f)(6) is amended by
striking ``subsection (c)(4) of section 63 (as it applies to
subsections (c)(5)(A) and (f) of such section)'' and
inserting ``section 63(c)(4)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
1999.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment printed in the bill is
adopted.
The text of H.R. 6, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 6

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, ETC.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Marriage
Tax Penalty Relief Act of 2000''.
(b) Section 15 Not To Apply.--No amendment made by this Act
shall be treated as a change in a rate of tax for purposes of
section 15 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN STANDARD
DEDUCTION.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 63(c) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to standard
deduction) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$5,000'' in subparagraph (A) and
inserting ``200 percent of the dollar amount in effect under
subparagraph (C) for the taxable year'',
(2) by adding ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B),
(3) by striking ``in the case of'' and all that follows in
subparagraph (C) and inserting ``in any other case.'', and
(4) by striking subparagraph (D).
(b) Technical Amendments.--
(1) Subparagraph (B) of section 1(f )(6) of such Code is
amended by striking ``(other than with'' and all that follows
through ``shall be applied'' and inserting ``(other than with
respect to sections 63(c)(4) and 151(d)(4)(A)) shall be
applied''.
(2) Paragraph (4) of section 63(c) of such Code is amended
by adding at the end the following flush sentence:
``The preceding sentence shall not apply to the amount
referred to in paragraph (2)(A).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.

SEC. 3. PHASEOUT OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN 15-PERCENT BRACKET;
REPEAL OF REDUCTION OF REFUNDABLE TAX CREDITS.

(a) In General.--Subsection (f ) of section 1 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to adjustments in tax
tables so that inflation will not result in tax increases) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) Phaseout of marriage penalty in 15-percent bracket.--
``(A) In general.--With respect to taxable years beginning
after December 31, 2002, in prescribing the tables under
paragraph (1)--
``(i) the maximum taxable income in the lowest rate bracket
in the table contained in subsection (a) (and the minimum
taxable income in the next higher taxable income bracket in
such table) shall be the applicable percentage of the maximum
taxable income in the lowest rate bracket in the table
contained in subsection (c) (after any other adjustment under
this subsection), and
``(ii) the comparable taxable income amounts in the table
contained in subsection (d) shall be \1/2\ of the amounts
determined under clause (i).
``(B) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), the applicable percentage shall be determined in
accordance with the following table:

``For taxable years be-
ginning in The applicable
calendar year-- percentage is--
2003.......................................................170.3
2004.......................................................173.8
2005.......................................................183.5
2006.......................................................184.3
2007.......................................................187.9
2008 and thereafter.......................................200.0.

``(C) Rounding.--If any amount determined under
subparagraph (A)(i) is not a multiple of $50, such amount
shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $50.''.
(b) Repeal of Reduction of Refundable Tax Credits.--
(1) Subsection (d) of section 24 of such Code is amended by
striking paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraph (3) as
paragraph (2).
(2) Section 32 of such Code is amended by striking
subsection (h).
(c) Technical Amendments.--
(1) Subparagraph (A) of section 1(f )(2) of such Code is
amended by inserting ``except as provided in paragraph (8),''
before ``by increasing''.
(2) The heading for subsection (f ) of section 1 of such
Code is amended by inserting ``Phaseout of Marriage Penalty
in 15-Percent Bracket;'' before ``Adjustments''.

[[Page H293]]

(d) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided by paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2002.
(2) Repeal of reduction of refundable tax credits.--The
amendments made by subsection (b) shall apply to taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2001.

SEC. 4. MARRIAGE PENALTY RELIEF FOR EARNED INCOME CREDIT.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 32(b) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to percentages and
amounts) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Amounts.--The earned'' and inserting
``Amounts.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the
earned'', and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) Joint returns.--In the case of a joint return, the
phaseout amount determined under subparagraph (A) shall be
increased by $2,000.''.
(b) Inflation Adjustment.--Paragraph (1)(B) of section 32(
j) of such Code (relating to inflation adjustments) is
amended to read as follows:
``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f )(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable
year begins, determined--
``(i) in the case of amounts in subsections (b)(2)(A) and
(i)(1), by substituting `calendar year 1995' for `calendar
year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof, and
``(ii) in the case of the $2,000 amount in subsection
(b)(2)(B), by substituting `calendar year 2000' for `calendar
year 1992' in subparagraph (B) of such section 1.''.
(c) Rounding.--Section 32( j)(2)(A) of such Code (relating
to rounding) is amended by striking ``subsection (b)(2)'' and
inserting ``subsection (b)(2)(A) (after being increased under
subparagraph (B) thereof)''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 2 hours of debate on the bill, as
amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed
in House Report 106-495 if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel), or his designee, which shall be considered read and debatable
for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an
opponent.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel) each will control 1 hour.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).

General Leave

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 6.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, to open the debate on our side, I yield 4
minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the distinguished
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, when a man and a woman exchange the vows of
marriage, they traditionally promise to their spouse that they will be
there for richer or for poorer. Unfortunately, for too many years, our
government has wanted to make these married couples poorer. Over 25
million married couples have to pay extra taxes, just because they are
married.
Well, today we have the opportunity to give a Valentine's Day gift to
these 50 million, hard-working American families.
The Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act is another piece of our common
sense agenda that enjoys strong support of Americans around this
country. This is because most Americans understand that it is
ridiculous for our government to penalize married people.
This is not just about tax cuts; it is about fairness. I know of a
young couple in my home State of Illinois, Peggy and Patrick Allgeier.
Peggy is an elementary school teacher and Patrick is an assistant
football coach at a small college. These fine young people have
committed their lives to teaching. They have committed their lives to
helping young people. Last July, in a wedding ceremony, they committed
their lives to each other; but they also committed about $1,500 of
their salary back to the Federal Government because they decided to get
married.
Because of that wedding, Peggy and Patrick now face the risk of being
penalized by our Tax Code. This is absurd. We should be helping young
married couples, not forcing them to pay extra taxes.
Some have argued that the marriage penalty is no big deal. They think
that if Americans itemize, they should be penalized. They think that if
an American owns a house, he or she ought to be penalized. They say
that if an American scrapes and saves to obtain the American dream,
they ought to be penalized. Well, I think these people are wrong.
In my district alone, over 65,000 couples are hit by the marriage
penalty tax every year. These couples pay an average of $1,400 in extra
taxes simply because they are married. We need a fairer Tax Code. We
need a Tax Code that does not punish married couples. We need a Tax
Code that recognizes that working families need help. They need to buy
braces for the kids; they need to be able to pay the insurance on the
car and the home. They need to do the things that every American,
whether one itemizes on one's income tax or not, needs to do. They do
not need the Federal Government picking their pocket and taking money
out of their home account just because they are married.
I encourage all of my colleagues here to vote yes on the Marriage Tax
Penalty Relief bill today.
Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle said this is an
extreme bill. It is an extreme practice to do this, extreme tax cuts.
Well, folks, I think it is extreme too. I think it is an extremely good
idea, and we ought to do it as extremely quickly as possible because
the American people think that they need to have the marriage penalty
relief. They think that this is extremely fair, and they would like to
have it passed today.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I agree with the Speaker that this is a serious problem that we face.
The President of the United States agrees, and God knows if the
majority wanted to take care of this and not want a political issue
that was going to be vetoed, they would have reached out to the
Democrats, they would have reached out to the President, they would
have had hearings, and we would have targeted the relief.
Why did they pile on so many tax cuts that were totally unrelated to
the marriage penalty? Why did they make certain that the President was
going to veto this because they completely ignored the budget process?
They have so violated their own budget rules that in order for this
issue to come to the floor, they have to waive the regular rules, just
to bring it on the floor. They have no budget to deal with Social
Security, no budget to deal with Medicare, no budget to deal with the
national debt; but they intend to take this $1.8 trillion tax cut and
feed it to the House piece by piece.
It would seem to me that it is not too late for us to decide what
issues are important enough for us to work together on. We voted for
the rule. We supported the rule because it gives us an opportunity to
get a bill that the President will sign, a bill that really deals with
the penalty and not with just a broad tax cut. The President said he
will veto this because there is no provisions made for anything that
deals with the budget. So I know that the Republicans want to have a
political gimmick for Valentine's Day, and that is what this is all
about; but it is not too late for us to work together. It is not too
late for us to take care of the marriage penalty. It is not too late
for us to take care of Social Security, Medicare, affordable drugs, to
do something for education.
Let us all work together. There are enough things for us to argue
about come November; but I think the American people would want us to
start working together, not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as
the House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, no one discussed this bill with me or any of the members
of the committee that are not in the majority party. We have had no
hearings, the President's bill was never discussed. Our input was never
asked for. It is not too late for beginning to get something productive
in this year, this last year of the session.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today the Congress is launching into a debate to do the
right thing, to correct the terrible wrong in

[[Page H294]]

the Tax Code that is called the marriage penalty that penalizes
Americans simply because they got married. That is truly wrong, and we
should all be proud to have the opportunity to correct this injustice.
Indeed, the fundamental principle of doing what is right has driven
the Republican agenda since we got into the majority in 1995. We have
worked to fix what was wrong and to do what was right.
It was right to make Congress live under the laws that apply to
everyone else, and we did that. It was right to balance the budget so
that we do not leave greater debt to our children and their children,
and we did that. It was right to strengthen Medicare so that older
Americans could have more confidence that their bills will be paid, and
we did that. It was right to give families the child tax credit so that
today, every family gets $500 per child. For a family with 2 children,
that is $1,000 a year. We did that, and it was right.
It was right to give tax breaks for higher education, and it was
right to eliminate the capital gains tax on the sale of houses. It was
right to fix the broken welfare system so Americans could discover
independence, the freedom of work, and the power of responsibility. We
did that. It was right to reform the IRS, to shift the burden of proof
to the government, and to do so much more; and we did that. It was
right to expand educational opportunity for schoolchildren and give
more flexibility to parents and to teachers, and we did that.

{time} 1215

It was right to stop the raid on social security on the trust fund
and to protect every dime of the social security surplus from being
spent on other programs, and we did that.
Today, Mr. Speaker, it is right to fix the marriage tax penalty. I
hope all of my colleagues will stand with American families today and
fix this once and for all, and not simply use the crutch of every
excuse that can be manufactured.
For my entire career in Congress I have fought for the marriage tax
penalty. Unfortunately, last year President Clinton vetoed our marriage
penalty relief. It would have helped 25 million couples, but it was
vetoed. Just 2 weeks ago the President stood in this room, right here,
and told the Nation that he would finally join with us to fix the
marriage tax penalty, and he got resounding applause.
So today we are back at it again. I hope President Clinton and Vice
President Gore this time will embrace this good bipartisan bill,
because there are 26 Democrat cosponsors. The American people support
it, Representatives and Senators from both parties support it, and
there is no excuse why it should not be done now.
Despite all this support, I have a feeling we are still hearing
excuses from the Democrats why we cannot do it, for whatever reason.
They may say that we should not also help stay-at-home moms and dads.
They call this the marriage bonus. Their plan actually denies relief to
child-caring parents. That is wrong. So we do help, and that is right.
Raising a child is the single most important job in the world. Those
who forego careers and outside work activities to stay and rear those
children need help, too.
We are right to provide families with that relief. Even President
Clinton says we should help these parents. He said it not long ago in
his State of the Union Address here in this Chamber. Why do the
Democrat leaders not agree? Why do they fight us on this?
Democrats also complain that this is too much tax relief, but again,
they are wrong. Fixing the marriage penalty takes less than 1 penny out
of every dollar of Federal revenues. Is that too much to fix this
wrong, one penny? Their position is extreme.
Then they say the timing is not right. Wrong again. We should fix the
marriage penalty right now. Married couples should not have to wait one
day longer to be treated fairly by the Tax Code.
Then they say, oh, it helps the wealthy. They mean those who itemize.
Their plan only takes care of those who take the standard deduction. We
think the marriage penalty should be fixed for those who itemize, too,
and want to deduct the interest on their home mortgages and the taxes
on their houses, because almost half of the people that are helped by
this are in that category, and they are in the 15 percent bracket.
Almost 25 million married couples pay an average of $1,400 in higher
taxes each year, $1,400 each year just because they are married. The
Tax Code is tough enough on Americans as it is, but it should not
create this penalty.
Let us work together and give millions of married couples the
fairness they deserve. We do that. Our plan is fair. It is right. It is
broad-based. It helps lower- and middle-income taxpayers, and all
married couples.
It comes down to a matter of principle. The fact that married couples
pay more in taxes just because they are married is simply immoral. It
is unfair. It is not right. It is unjust. It should be corrected. All
of our colleagues should join me in voting for this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Matsui), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York, the
ranking Democrat, for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, Democrats favor relief on the marriage penalty. In fact,
when the President spoke, more Democrats stood up quicker than the
Republicans stood up during the State of the Union message.
The President, in his budget that he gave us last week, has relief
for the marriage penalty. In fact, Members on both sides of the aisle
in a couple of hours will be able to vote on the substitute offered by
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), which will deal with the
problem of the marriage penalty.
The problem with this bill, talking about extreme, is that this bill
really is not a marriage penalty relief bill. It is in name only. It is
kind of like the Trojan horse. It does not really exist. The
Republicans will have to admit, maybe they will not want to talk about
it, but over half the relief in this bill of $182 billion, one-half of
the bill of the gentleman from New York, $182 billion, that goes to
people who do not even have a marriage penalty. So how can Members call
this really a marriage penalty bill?
There are a lot of problems with this bill, because we did not have a
hearing, we did not have discussions. Nobody talked to the President or
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or any Democrat on this piece
of legislation. It was just kind of put together at the last minute.
All of a sudden, we are voting for it a week later on the floor of the
House of Representatives.
But bear in mind, this is unbelievable but it is true, somebody who
makes $50,000 a year will get major relief from the marriage penalty of
$149 a year, about $10 a month. But if you make $100,000 a year, you
are going to get about $1,000 a month. That is what is extreme. It is
not about the marriage penalty, this is about tax relief and
redistribution to wealthy Americans.
In addition, it is going to create a lot more complexity in the code,
because people who make $50,000 then will have to file what is known as
the alternative minimum tax.
But the real problem with this bill is we have no budget. Because we
have no budget, what is going to happen is these little tax bills that
are moving through the House right now, $180 billion here, $200 billion
there, all of a sudden it is going to affect our ability to fix
Medicare and social security, the two most pressing problems in America
today.
It would be wonderful if the Republicans would have come to the floor
today with a social security relief package, but they have spent most
of their time playing the blame game. If we just had a bill to deal
with social security first, because that is what we need to do. Social
security and Medicare should be dealt with before we deal with tax
provisions, because we are using, we are using the so-called budget
surplus that may or may not be there.
I urge a strong no vote on this extreme bill that is in name only
called the marriage penalty, and vote for the substitute offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), which really deals with the
problems of average, middle-class Americans that are suffering from the
marriage penalty.

[[Page H295]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Without
objection, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) claims time on the
majority side.
There was no objection.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, if he votes against this
bill, 340,000 married couples in the Fifth Congressional District of
California, one-half of whom are homeowners and itemizers, will not get
relief from the marriage penalty. The gentleman may be able to explain
that to them, but I sure cannot.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington
(Ms. Dunn), who has been a real leader in her effort to eliminate the
marriage penalty.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
To respond to the gentleman who preceded me, the Joint Committee on
Taxation has rated the Democrat plan at providing zero in relief for
the marriage penalty over the next 5 years.
Mr. Speaker, let us take a close look at what happens with the
marriage penalty. A young couple is thinking about marrying. Each of
them already has a job. They bring in an income and pay income tax on
that income.
They decide to marry. As they file together, instead of separately,
the way they were doing before, all of a sudden the joint incomes push
that lower-income earner into the higher-income spouse's upper tax
bracket. Therefore, they end up paying taxes on a larger amount in a
higher bracket. That is the penalty.
The penalty on average is about $1,400 per year per couple. I think
it is about time that we end this penalty. Uncle Sam should not be able
to say, with this ring I thee tax. This is exactly the case for the
7,200 married couples in my district that I represent in the State of
Washington, and for 25 million working couples around this Nation. We
were overtaxing them.
We understand that the rewards that come with working can be
abundant, and we also understand that this new economy is being driven
in large part by women, because women are starting businesses at twice
the rate of men. These are enterprising women. They want to use their
talents, as they should. But they are also having to balance the
demands of work and family.
I will tell the Members right now, Mr. Speaker, 70 percent of mothers
are out there now in the work force. I think they deserve a little
relief, but $1,400 so they can work, than if they were staying home, it
is not fair. Republicans believe that that $1,400 can be spent a lot
more wisely by a couple at home, so we want to redirect that dollar
back into the couples' pockets so they can spend it on a washer, a
dryer, the kids' education, a family vacation in the great Pacific
Northwest.
Republicans also believe in choice. We think it is very important
that the Tax Code neither discourages nor encourages people as to what
they do with their lives, whether they go back to work or they stay
home and choose to be at home raising their children. That is what I
did for about 8 years before I returned to the work force, and nobody
can tell me that work at home raising a family is not hard work. That
is why we are looking at this. Both families should receive benefits,
whether they are staying in the home working and raising children, or
going out into the work force.
Our marriage penalty tax relief provides just that, equal treatment
for married women, so they can make the choice as to whether they work
or they stay at home and raise their children. I think we have a great
opportunity today to help women reach their goals, whether it be
pursuing a successful career or raising their little ones.
We hear a lot of talk about whether the President will veto this bill
or not. I think he will sign this bill. I have great faith in him. Even
though Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers sent him a letter
advising him to veto the marriage penalty, I think he will see the
fairness. I think as he really listens to the voices of folks that I
and my colleagues represent all over this Nation, that he will sign
this bill.
The President has a bill. I think there are some problems with his
bill. For example, in the President's plan, he says that he will decide
when the time is right for marriage penalty relief. Under the House
proposal, a couple earning a combined income of $60,000 would receive
just about $750 more dollars in relief than under the President's plan,
because it is a very narrow plan. It would help 16 million fewer
couples than our bill does.
I think if we get behind this bill, the fairness of it, and folks
write to the President and say, let us go for this, I think the
President will be very wise and sign this fair bill.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I favor a tax cut, but one that is fiscally responsible,
that does not undermine the fiscal discipline that has brought
unprecedented prosperity to our Nation. This proposal that the
Republicans are peddling does not meet that test.
First of all, it is a first chapter in a book, but the Republicans
will not tell us the rest of the book, the other chapters. We all
learned long ago, do not buy a book according to the first chapter.
Secondly, the first chapter has a false title. Most of the reductions
of taxes in this bill, most of them have nothing to do with the
marriage penalty.
Third, this first chapter does not even tell the story. The cost for
the first 10 years would be $182 billion. In the second 10, it would
explode by an additional $300 billion. And if we include the AMT
adjustment that that side says it wants to make, it would be an
additional $47 billion a year.
Look at this chart. If Members look at the 20-year projection, we are
talking about $700 billion. What does that mean for Medicare? What does
that mean for social security? They peddled the argument that our
marriage penalty provision, our proposal, brings no relief. That is
wrong. The only reason CBO might say that is because we say we first
have to adjust and we have to take care of social security and
Medicare. Once we do that, our marriage penalty provides relief. They
have the cart before the horse. They have this before social security
and Medicare relief.
They talk about a valentine, and they have a red chart, a red poster
over there. That is not a valentine, that is a veto. The gentlewoman
from Washington (Ms. Dunn) should not be misguided, the President is
going to veto this with red ink, because that is what they would lead
to without thinking through where all of this leads, without telling us
what is the rest of their plan.

{time} 1230

The American people, they want some straight talk. They want some
fiscal responsibility and they want some bipartisan effort, and this
bill fails on all accounts.
Vote for the substitute and vote against this bill.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the previous speaker, that my friend, if
he votes against this bill, 61,000 married couples, one half of whom
are itemizers, from the 12th Congressional District of Michigan, will
not get relief from the marriage tax penalty.
The gentleman may be able to explain that to them, but I sure cannot.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Camp), a real leader in the effort to eliminate the marriage tax
penalty.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6. I am proud today that we
are able to step forward and fix a glaring inequity in our Tax Code.
Twenty-five million American couples pay more in taxes simply because
they walk to the altar and say, I do. At an average of $1,400 a couple,
the marriage penalty makes it much tougher for families, for millions
of families, to make their car payments or save that little bit extra
for college down the road.
In my district in Michigan alone, there are 106,000 people paying
higher taxes just because they are married.
I was pleased to see the President agree with us and call for
marriage penalty relief this year. His plan is a good start, but it is
really not enough. I think it is better to hit the marriage

[[Page H296]]

penalty head on instead of the President's approach, which picks and
chooses which families get relief and which families do not.
The President's proposal would not mean a dime for a working couple
earning $30,000 each, who scrimped and saved to buy their home last
year. Why would they not benefit from the President's plan? Because
they itemize their taxes and fill out longer forms. That just does not
make any sense at all.
Our proposal on the other hand helps everyone who faces a marriage
penalty, whether they happen to own their home or not, whether they
itemize or not. If they pay the penalty, our legislation will help
them. I believe that American families are overtaxed. American families
today pay twice the taxes they did just in 1985, and over 38 percent of
the typical family's income goes to taxes.
The $3 trillion surplus over the next 10 years that we see really
means that taxpayers have made a substantial overpayment. Let us make a
start at returning some of that overpayment and fixing one of the
strangest and most inequitable features of our Tax Code. I urge a yes
vote on H.R. 6.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Frost), a distinguished Member of the House.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, more than 6 months ago, the Republicans passed the crown
jewel of the Republican agenda, tax breaks for the wealthiest, costing
nearly $1 trillion of the surplus.
As Yogi Berra once said, it is deja vu all over again, because today
Republicans are once again pushing a plan that risks Social Security
and Medicare by squandering the surplus on a massive tax break.
True, they have tried to disguise it this year, but to quote The
Washington Post, the Republican tax package, quote, ``has little, if
anything, to do with marriage. The label is a gloss for a generalized
tax cut mainly for the better-off.''
Indeed, today Republicans try to take the first $200 billion step
toward their goal of spending the surplus. Next they will take another
couple of hundred billion for more tax breaks for the wealthiest and
then another couple hundred billion dollars and then another couple
hundred billion dollars.
Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase a distinguished former Member of Congress,
$200 billion here, $200 billion there and pretty soon we are talking
about real money. Pretty soon, Mr. Speaker, Republicans will have
squandered the entire surplus and, with it, our historic opportunity to
strengthen Social Security and Medicare.
Mr. Speaker, I support the Democratic substitute because I want to
provide honest marriage penalty relief to the 61,197 married couples in
my district. I also want to protect the Social Security and Medicare
benefits enjoyed by 72,240 of my constituents, and to reduce my
constituents' $8.4 billion share of the Federal debt.
I am proud today to support a Democratic plan that provides more tax
relief for married couples who suffer under the current system and that
also protects Social Security, Medicare, and our other national
priorities.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting the
Republican plan and supporting the responsible Democratic alternative.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the previous speaker that if he votes
against this bill, 61,000 married couples, one half of whom are
itemizers in the 24th Congressional District of Texas, will not get
relief from the marriage tax penalty. We need fairness. We can explain
it. I am sure the gentleman cannot.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. English), who has been a real leader in our effort to bring
fairness to the Tax Code by eliminating the marriage tax penalty.
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Marriage
Tax Penalty Relief Act. Let us be clear what this is about today. The
other side says it is for marriage penalty tax reform, but they have
opposed it every time it has come up for a vote. They have opposed it
today in its purest form when the reform benefits 25 million couples,
especially in the middle- and lower-income brackets.
We have heard all kinds of excuses from them: It is not the right
flavor of reform. There have been no hearings. It will hurt Social
Security and Medicare. It is politics, this from the politics free zone
on the other side of the aisle.
We have heard the beltway excuses. Now let us look at the facts.
Thanks to the Republican majority, we have already walled off the
revenue for Social Security and Medicare. The fact is that under this
bill, one dime of the real surplus outside of Social Security and
Medicare, just one dime, will be spent to help those who are unfairly
penalized simply because they say, I do.
Just 13 days ago, the President stood before us in this very chamber
proclaiming that he was for this reform; but this week he is
threatening a veto. And the other side of the aisle said they are for
it, but today we have heard the excuses.
Mr. Speaker, if not now, then when is the appropriate time to use one
dime of the real surplus to provide significant tax relief for married
couples, including 52,000 couples in my district in western
Pennsylvania?
Let us be clear on this. This vote will define forever who is for
solving this problem and who is against reform. If one is for reform,
vote for the bill.
Let us understand what is really going on here. Those who are opposed
to this commonsense tax reform do not want to pass this because they
would rather spend the money on their priorities rather than allow
married couples to spend the money they earn.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of providing real
marriage penalty relief to middle class families. I also rise in
opposition to a Republican tax scheme which goes far beyond the
marriage penalty. Their irresponsibility jeopardizes Social Security
and leaves nothing to strengthen Medicare.
Marriage penalty relief is the right thing to do. Married couples
should not find themselves penalized because both need to work. The Tax
Code has penalized marriage for too long and any tax cut proposal
should attack this problem. That means acting within the framework of a
balanced budget that will pay down the debt, protect Social Security,
strengthen Medicare, and make needed investments in education. These
are the priorities of the American people. Hardworking Americans,
Democrats, independents, and even Republicans have sent us this message
loud and clear.
The only people who do not seem to be listening are the Republican
leaders in this Congress. If they were listening, they would hear the
families out, those who say do the right thing. Instead, Republicans
come to this floor with a massive tax bill that not only squanders the
surplus, it fails to provide true marriage penalty relief.
In fact, over 70 percent of the tax relief in their bill goes to the
wealthiest Americans, most of whom do not even pay a marriage penalty.
Meanwhile, families that need relief the most would receive less than
41 cents a day. Democrats support real marriage penalty relief that
targets those who need it most. Our plan provides more tax relief to
low- and moderate-income Americans who work hard for their paycheck
each and every day and deserve to keep more of their money. It would
ensure that more working families can take advantage of the earned
income tax credit.
One hundred thousand of my constituents in my district, those on
Social Security, will be hurt by this Republican bill, and the
Democratic alternative would cover both those who are suffering from
the marriage penalty and those who are on Social Security. We should
not be fooled by the numbers that are being brought up on the other
side. The Democratic proposal would cover both.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the previous speaker that if she votes
against H.R. 6, 56,000 married couples, one half of whom are itemizers
in the 3rd Congressional District of Connecticut, will not get relief
from the marriage tax penalty.
The gentlewoman may be able to explain that to them, but I sure
cannot.

[[Page H297]]

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Lewis), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and a leader in
our effort to bring fairness to the Tax Code by eliminating the
marriage tax penalty.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, there are some issues we discuss
in Congress where both sides of the aisle can agree. The importance of
marriage, I am convinced, is near the top of that list. That is why I
am surprised by this debate today.
We have an opportunity to wipe out a tax problem that otherwise
penalizes married couples. We are helping married couples who are
building families, pursuing the American dream of homeownership, and
couples that contribute to our economy so that they and their families
have a safe and prosperous country to live in.
My friends on the other side of the aisle, however, say that this
bill gives those families too much. They are talking about families
where the husband and wife are just starting out; the ones that can
barely afford the new starter house, the ones that sacrifice in order
for one parent to stay home so that their children have the best
possibility for beginning in life.
The Democrat side says those families do not need a break. They get
too many breaks in the Tax Code already. I encourage my friends to talk
to those families, and I doubt they would agree.
Mr. Speaker, is the idea of a tax cut that upsetting to some of the
Democrats? I guess they did not get the title as tax and spend
Democrats for nothing.
Are some in this body more concerned with maintaining a perfect
scoreboard for raising taxes on Americans than helping struggling new
families? We have a projected surplus of over $3 trillion. Is the need
to feed their spending habit so strong that they cannot spare a small
part of that to really fix this Tax Code problem?
Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope not. I encourage my colleagues to
support the married couples and vote yes for H.R. 6.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is so unfair to use political labels like tax and
spend. We are very anxious to work with the majority to get a budget
and to get this thing done right, but if they just want a political
issue they have it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
McDermott).
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I want to support and will support the
Democratic substitute which provides an honest marriage tax penalty
relief for 53,000 of my people, but it also protects the 81,000 who get
Medicare and Social Security in my district.
Rather than do that out here, we have come to Alice in Wonderland. I
saw the Speaker of the House come out here and tear up the budget
process. He said, let us pass a tax package before we even have a
hearing on the Committee on the Budget, on which I sit.
What is even more curious is that the marriage tax penalty was in the
Contract on America. For 5 years, the other side has not dealt with it,
and suddenly it comes here.
In 1997, in the Committee on Ways and Means, I offered the amendment
which is the Democratic substitute. All the Democrats voted for it and
all the Republicans voted against, because they were going to give a
tax break to the businesses.
Now we come out here, and we want to do this at top speed. It has to
be done today in the House so it can be done in the Senate on, what,
Tuesday, Wednesday, so that the ad campaign, including the Valentines
that are going to be sent to all the married people in this country,
will get there with it, with a ``we sent it to them.''
Now I can see a PR campaign when I see it. It has nothing to do with
legislation, the President is right to veto it, until we have a budget
and we decide what we are going to do with Social Security and what we
are going to do with Medicare.
To be making tax cuts without having one single discussion in here
about what we are going to do to protect Social Security or protect
Medicare or pay down the debt, they come out here the first thing and
say let us send a valentine to everybody because it is an election
year.

{time} 1245

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, did I understand, then, that 3 years ago
every Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means voted to implement
100 percent of the contract of America marriage penalty relief, and the
Republicans rejected it and did not think it was the appropriate
priority?
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I could not believe it, but that is what
happened. I saw it with my own eyes. It was my amendment. The gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) and I put the bill in last year.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, this candy is
about 2 years too late, is it not?
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I guess better late than never. But it
ought to be in the context of what kind of budget we are putting
together. What are they doing with Social Security? What are they doing
with Medicare? Why do they have to send valentines before they get down
to the serious work here?
The American people expect us to be serious about protecting Medicare
and about protecting Social Security and talking about a prescription
drug program. Now, my colleagues and I, we have the FEHBP; and if we
have to get the prescription filled, it costs $12, and we get a 90-day
supply. My mother and a lot of other 90-year-olds in this country have
to go out and pay retail. What my colleagues want to do is send this
valentine totally unrelated to what is going on in the budget.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
McDermott), the previous speaker, that if he votes against H.R. 6,
53,000 married couples, and half of whom are itemizers in the Seventh
Congressional District of Washington, will not get relief in the
marriage tax penalty. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
Mr. Speaker, this effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty has
been a bipartisan effort.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the great
State of Ohio (Mr. Traficant), who has been a leader in the effort to
eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, all politicians in America promote family
values. They are good political buzz words. But the truth is, in
America, family values happen to mean higher taxes for married people,
period. But it does not stop there. Our Tax Code is so screwed up, it
also rewards dependency, subsidizes illegitimacy, promotes sexual
promiscuity, denies and inhibits achievement and work, while all the
time supposedly promoting family values.
It has become so perverse in America, even marital sex is overtaxed
by our policies. It is no wonder the American people are taxed off. It
is no wonder America has so many common law homes and marriages and
unwed mothers and kids on our street without guidance, nor stability. I
am going to vote for this bill.
I want to yield back all the broken homes in America that have been
the result of all of the family value rhetoric we hear from Washington
politicians.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. McNulty), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel), the Democratic leader, for yielding me the time.
Well, here we go again. My friends on the other side of the aisle
want to give away surplus revenue before the surpluses even
materialize.
I support marriage penalty tax relief. I will save the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Weller), my friend on the other side of the aisle, the
time and trouble of citing the statistics in my district. There are
51,222 married couples in my district, and they would get relief under
the Rangel substitute which I intend to support.
But I would also point out that more than twice as many people,
112,262 constituents in my district receive Social

[[Page H298]]

Security and Medicare benefits; and they will not get protection under
the Republican bill.
We have had 30 years of deficit spending. There is enough blame to go
around for all of that and the tremendous national debt that has
resulted. Now we have an era of surpluses, and we are going to decide
what to do with the extra money.
But what is the size of the surplus? I am amused by all these
guesstimates. Six months ago, the CBO said that it was going to be a
trillion dollars, and we all started to divvy up that money. Then a few
weeks ago, because of this robust economy that we are experiencing,
they revised that figure and said it was going to be almost double
that, $1.9 trillion. We all got excited about that until I picked up
the New York Times and read an article by Bob Reischauer called the
``Amazing Vanishing Budget Surplus.''
As I went through his article, which I thought was pretty well
thought out, and he took away the Social Security portion of that
surplus, which is the bulk of the surplus, and moderately revised down
some of the over-optimistic assumptions. He concluded that our 10-year
budget surplus could actually be as low as $100 billion. Now, I can
understand people thinking that it will be more than that, and I am
among that number. But do we really think it is going to be 20 times
that?
We all say that we are in favor of saving Social Security, saving
Medicare, providing prescription drugs for the elderly, and paying down
the national debt. We all say that. But if we do that, what, if any,
money will be left? I think Bob Reischauer's projection is low. But
what if he is right? Let us take that as an example. This one bill, I
would say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), this one bill
would put us $82 billion in deficit. Just this one bill!
So I support the Rangel substitute. I will vote against this
irresponsible bill, and I will say to the gentleman from Illinois, I
know how many married couples are in my district. I am going to protect
them and the seniors.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty), the
previous speaker, that if he votes against H.R. 6, 51,000 married
couples, half of whom are itemizers in the 21st Congressional District
of New York, will not get relief from the marriage tax penalty. We
protected social security. We are paying down the debt. Let us end the
marriage tax penalty.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Portman) who has been a real leader in our effort to make the Tax
Code more fair by eliminating the marriage tax penalty.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for
yielding me this time. I appreciate his efforts to bring marriage
penalty relief to the floor today. He has been a real champion on this
issue. I also commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) for
moving it through the Committee on Ways and Means.
Let me just start by saying that we have a non-Social Security budget
surplus projected that is over $2 trillion. The marriage penalty we are
talking about today is about one dime out of the dollar of that non-
Social Security budget surplus. To say that we cannot take care of
paying down the debt, to say that we cannot take care of Social
Security and Medicare in that context is just not right. We can. We can
do that, and we can take care of this unfairness in the Tax Code.
This is a good bill because 25 million couples out there pay, on
average, about $1,400 on average more than people who are in their
situation but not married. That is just unfair. That may not be much
money by Washington standards; but in my district, that is a lot of
money. That means about 63,000 couples in the second district of Ohio
have more money to save for their own retirement, more money to save
for their kids' education, more money to make a down payment on a car
or a home. Frankly, it is just not fair. This is their money. This part
of the code has to be changed.
I have heard some of my friends from the other side of the aisle say
today, well, our bill is more targeted. We want to target it more.
Well, if you target it, two things happen.
Number one, people who deserve the benefit, who deserve to get
outside of the marriage penalty do not get it. This includes, yes,
people who itemize, people who own their own homes. Yes, it includes
stay-at-home moms. It even includes some folks that they say they would
like to help. Because if they target it and be too specific and refine
it too much, they are going to miss some people who need the help.
The second thing that happens is in order to target it and refine it
the way that Democrats would like to do they add enormous complexity to
the Tax Code. Now, I hope all of us will focus on that today. We are
doing this, not only in a way that provides relief to people who are
being penalized by this unfair part of our Tax Code, but we are doing
it in a way that is as simple as possible so we are not adding
tremendous complexity to the Tax Code. My colleagues have to add that
complexity if they try to target and try to social engineer too much
with this proposal.
So I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, let us
ask the couples in our districts, do they want to get outside of this
unfair marriage penalty. The answer will be a resounding yes.
We have an opportunity to do it today. Let us join together and pass
real marriage penalty relief, and I urge everyone to vote yes on final
passage.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
(Mr. COYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, marriage penalty relief is an important
issue, and I am glad that the House is considering the legislation
today. Most of us have supported marriage penalty relief for many, many
years. That being said, however, I do not think that the current
version of H.R. 6 is helpful.
The President's budget addresses the problem in a more fiscally
responsible fashion, and I commend him for making his proposal. It
would increase the standard deduction for two-earner households to
double the amount of the standard deduction for single filers. Since
most married couples claim the standard deduction and pay taxes at the
15 percent marginal rate, this provision would eliminate the marriage
penalty for most families across the country.
Like the President's proposal, the Democratic alternative that will
be offered today would target marriage penalty relief to the families
that need it most in the country. Unlike the version of H.R. 6 that was
reported out of the Committee on Ways and Means, the Democratic
alternative ensures that the alternative minimum tax will not prevent
married couples from receiving marriage penalty relief. Consequently,
we should support the Democratic alternative that will be offered later
today. I believe that this proposal would do the most to help married
couples that we represent.
Mr. Speaker, I support the Democratic substitute because I want to
provide honest marriage penalty relief to the 45,160 married couples
that are in the 14th Congressional District in Pennsylvania. But I also
want to protect the Social Security and Medicare benefits enjoyed by
110,656 of my constituents and to reduce my constituents' $8.4 billion
share of the Federal debt.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne),
the previous speaker, that if he votes against H.R. 6, 45,000 married
couples, one-half of whom are itemizers in the 14th Congressional
District of Pennsylvania will not get relief in the marriage tax
penalty. Let us bring about fairness. Let us eliminate the marriage tax
penalty.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Nussle), who has been a real leader in our effort to bring
fairness to the Tax Code by eliminating the marriage tax penalty.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for
yielding me this time.
Targeted tax cuts, that is what the Democrats are offering here
today. Targeted tax cuts. Here is the target, folks, right here,
target, zero. That is

[[Page H299]]

the target. They hit it as they have every year that they were in
power. Every year that they controlled this House of Representatives,
they came up with a zero with regard to reducing taxes. No, taxes went
up during their control.
Taxes are going down under Republican control. That is why we are
here today to talk about tax fairness, to talk about a time in our
history where we have finally balanced the budget, where we have
finally started to reduce the national debt, where we have finally
taken the Social Security Trust Fund away from the big spenders.
We have an opportunity today to find one small area of the Tax Code
and say, for the 300,000 married couples in Iowa, as an example, it is
time to put fairness into the Tax Code.
What do the Democrats say? We would like to, but. Well, ``We would
like to cut taxes but'' sounds a lot like we would like to reform
welfare but, and voted against it. We would like to stop robbing the
trust fund of Social Security, but we really would like to spend it;
and they did. That sounds a lot like we would like to balance the
budget but never were able to during the time they controlled the House
of Representatives. It sounds like a lot of excuses from a party who
could never quite get a plan put together.
The minority leader came to the floor and said he does not like our
plan. Well, it is high time that he came up with a plan that did
something. The President at least came forward with a budget that wants
to cut taxes. He raised taxes, too. That is another story; we will get
into it. But at least he is trying.
From the Democrats in the House, we have got a plan. It is targeted
at zero. It is such a big goose egg, we need to vote against the plan,
if that is what my colleagues want to call it, to target taxpayers the
way the Democrats have and let us give tax relief the way the
Republicans are doing it.

{time} 1300

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
say shame on the gentleman who just spoke. The only reason his side
gets the goose egg is because the joint committee said that they would
do nothing with Social Security, do nothing with Medicare, and do
nothing to pay down the national debt. And we are prepared to say yes
it will be zero in tax cuts until we fulfill that responsibility. The
gentleman knows it, and I know he knows it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cardin), a senior member from the committee.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, the marriage penalty is wrong, we all acknowledge that.
Persons should not have to pay additional taxes because they get
married. It is wrong for someone who lives in the Third Congressional
District in Maryland, it is wrong whatever Congressional District
someone lives in.
But let us explore why we have a marriage penalty in the Tax Code. In
the 1940s, Congress felt it important to reward marriage by having the
joint tax return. That allowed couples who got married to get a
marriage bonus; that is they paid less taxes when they were married
than they would if they filed two single returns. It was a good policy
in the 1940s.
In the 1960s, we heard from single taxpayers who were outraged that
they had to pay such higher taxes. So the Congress provided relief in
the 1960s for the singles, creating a larger marriage penalty. That was
wrong to create a marriage penalty. And of course with the economic
circumstances, and more and more spouses working and having comparable
income, we now have a marriage penalty. We should do something about
it.
But recognize at least that half the people that are married are
receiving a bonus because they are married. So why do I oppose the
Republican bill? I oppose it first because it spends $180 billion to
provide $80 billion of relief. That does not make good sense. Why are
we spending an extra $100 billion that goes to the people who are
receiving already a bonus for being married? That is not right. That
money we need for Medicare, we need for Social Security; and we need to
reduce the national debt.
As my Republican friends have told us, this is the first of a series
of tax bills that will spend over a trillion dollars, which jeopardizes
our ability to maintain our economic progress.
My good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), who keeps
on mentioning our statistics, I hope he will be at least honest in
presenting this information and point out that his bill does not
provide any additional relief until 2003. That is the first year that
this bill helps the person who itemizes their tax returns. And this
bill does not fully implement that until 2008. So there is going to be
no difference between an approach that deals with an itemized deduction
or one that deals with spreading the brackets until at least that year.
Let us be honest with our citizens as to the difference here.
What I would hope we would do is be committed to a budget. Yes, we
are upset because there is no budget today. We do not know how this all
fits together. Let me just give my colleagues one example, if I might.
Let us take a Member of Congress, who happens to be married and where
the spouse does not work, and one who is single. Today, the married
Congressman pays $4,300 less in taxes because he is married.
What the Republican bill would do when fully implemented in 2008 is
provide an additional $1,400 of tax relief for that Member of Congress.
I do not think that is right. Let us target the money to the people
that are paying the penalty. That is what we should be working together
to do. I urge my colleagues to work together to solve the problem.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
say to my friend, the previous speaker, that if he votes against H.R.
6, 60,000 married couples, one-half of whom are itemizers in the Third
Congressional District of Maryland, will not get relief from the
marriage tax penalty. This has been a bipartisan effort.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms.
Danner), who has been a real leader, in fact the lead Democrat
cosponsor of H.R. 6.
Ms. DANNER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that my home State of Missouri
recognizes the benefits of allowing married couples to file either
jointly or separately.
Missouri is known as the ``Show Me State,'' and I think we serve as a
shining example of the fact that we can have a tax that is fair and
equitable to all married couples. I think the Federal Government
should, indeed must, emulate my State in providing long overdue tax
relief.
There is an old saying, ``Death and taxes are both certain, but death
isn't annual.'' Let us each pledge to bring an end to this unfair and
costly tax burden which is annually placed on married couples. I can
certainly think of no better gift this Congress can give the American
taxpayers as we close in on Valentine's Day than to vote on H.R. 6, the
Marriage Penalty Relief Act of 2000.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Cardin), asked a rhetorical question, and I want to answer it. He
asked why are we spending an additional $100 billion in this bill that
does not go to anyone who is in a marriage penalty?
Well, I say to the gentleman from Maryland and my other colleagues,
because it is payback time. Those dollars go to the wealthiest in this
country who are contributors to my fellow Republicans, who are
supporters. They are the exact people who gave $70 million to George W.
Bush in his effort to be President of the United States. That is what
this is all about.
We have had over 20 Republican speakers today talk about this H.R. 6
marriage penalty bill, but only one, one, had the honesty to come
forward in his remarks and state that, yes, there is a bulk of benefits
for the most wealthy in this country.
Let me refer my colleagues to this chart. I have taken the liberty of
retitling the bill to what it really and actually is, and that is the
Tax Fraud Act of Year 2000.
Mr. Speaker, when the bill was before the committee we asked some
very

[[Page H300]]

pointed questions to the Republican staff. And, surprisingly, we found
out that over 50 percent of the benefits in this bill go to people who
do not even pay a marriage penalty. So to Patty and Pat in the
Speaker's district who just got married, I think it is incumbent on the
Speaker and the rest of us to tell Patty and Pat that half of this is
going to be who are not suffering the marriage penalty.
Where does all this money go? The Republicans in this bill increase
the size of the 15 percent tax bracket. And, surprisingly, 84.1 percent
of those benefits go to those taxpayers in this country who are earning
over $75,000. On this particular chart we show the 10-year cost of the
bill: $182 billion. In the blue shows the dollars that are going for
the marriage tax penalty. That is what we are being told the bill is
all about.
But I have to tell my colleagues a little deep dirty secret the
Republicans do not want us to learn about, and that is that 105 go to
other than marriage tax penalty payers. In fact, here again, 84.1
percent of the increase goes to those who earn over $75,000 a year.
So let us be honest in this portrayal. Later in the debate we will
have the opportunity to vote for a real, a real live marriage penalty
bill, and that is one that goes to those who pay the penalty, not the
50 percent who do not pay the penalty who today earn a marriage bonus.
And, yes, Patty and Pat from the Speaker's district, along with
61,582 of my constituents will get relief from the Democratic
substitute and the marriage penalty, but it also recognizes that
constituents in my district, like Sid and Doris, 99,234 other seniors,
will have a shooting shot later in this session to make sure there are
some dollars left to resolve problems like modernizing Medicare,
providing a meaningful drug benefit, and saving Social Security. I
challenge my colleagues to address this question.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
say to my friend, the previous speaker, that if he votes against H.R.
6, 62,000 married couples, half of whom are itemizers in the 4th
Congressional District of Wisconsin, will not get relief from the
marriage tax penalty. Yes, we want to help stay-at-home moms and dads
who own their homes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Knollenberg).
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time, and I rise to support H.R. 6, the Marriage Tax Penalty
Relief Act of 2000.
This says it all, though. I have heard a lot of rhetoric, obviously
from both sides, but this placard, this sign, says it all: Zero. And I
think that when we look at the budget surpluses that we produce by
refining government, that are projected as far as the eye can see, how
can we really truly deny giving back to the American people what is
theirs?
The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has been talked about,
and, yes, that is part of the problem with the Democratic substitute.
Because what it does is it provides no relief. None. Under the
Democratic plan, the Democratic substitute, the provisions do not go
into effect until, get this, a Social Security certification, a
Medicare certification, and public debt elimination. Until the middle
of this century, 2050, to get all three of those out of the way.
That tells me that the Democratic body really does not want relief.
They want all the lights to be green before they start across down. And
we know that is an improbability.
I would say this: Let us pass this legislation and give the American
couples a Valentine gift they deserve.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
just reiterate that saying it over and over again does not make it
right. We have a bill that takes care of the problem and the other side
knows it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs.
Thurman), a member of our Committee on Ways and Means.
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
First, I want to address this issue that the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Weller) keeps bringing up. Our information in numbers is exactly
the same as his, but under the Democratic substitute, when signed in
law, because it will be the one signed into law, it will provide a
marriage penalty relief to 43,900. And I want to also let the gentleman
know, because this is a very high number for us in Florida, I want to
protect the Social Security and Medicare benefits enjoyed by 188,821
recipients in my area.
Just as importantly, if we take care of Medicare, if we take care of
Social Security, and we pay down the debt, that same married couple
will be the recipient of those programs as well in the future.
But if my colleagues do not want to believe me, let us go to an
outside group. In The Washington Post, dated February 3, 2000, the
title of an article, ``Fattening the Marriage Bonus.''
The article says, ``The House Ways and Means Committee yesterday
approved a bill to ease the so-called marriage penalty. The bill,
however, has little, if anything, to do with marriage. The label is a
gloss for a generalized tax cut mainly for the better-off. The bill is
structured in such a way that as much as half of the benefits go to the
families who do not even incur the supposed penalty but receive a
marriage bonus under the law; their taxes are already less than they
would be if they were single.
``The Republican-backed bill is backloaded so that its true cost is
masked. The estimate is $182 billion over 10 years, but by the 10th
year the annual cost would be $28 billion and likely higher if, as
expected, Congress also eases the alternative minimum tax. The
measure,'' and this is important, ``would thus consume by itself about
one-fourth of the surplus in other than Social Security funds projected
by the Congressional Budget Offices in the most realistic of its
forecasts, and even that forecast was rosy, in that CBO was forced by
the accounting conventions to ignore several hundred billions of
dollars in cost that everyone understands the government will incur.
``The main provision in the bill, accounting for well over half,'' as
was displayed by our last speaker, ``would benefit only taxpayers in
the highest quarter of the income distribution. The President,'' which
is where the Democratic substitute has been looked at, ``would propose
in next week's budget a tax cut limited to middle- and lower-income
families that do pay a marriage penalty. It would cost only about a
fourth as much as the Republican bill. Secretary Summers rightly warned
in a letter this week that he would not recommend the President sign
the Republican bill.''
So the only true bill on this floor is the Democratic one. It is the
only one that will give a Valentine.

{time} 1315

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend, the previous
speaker, that if he votes against H.R. 6, 42,000 married couples, one-
half of whom are itemizers in the 5th Congressional District of
Florida, that they will not get relief from the marriage tax penalty.
We protect Social Security. We are paying down the debt. No more
excuses. Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam
Johnson), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and Means, a real
leader in the effort to make the Tax Code fair.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we are talking over here on
this side about delaying any relief for married families for up to 10
years. Marriage is a cherished institution in America, and we should
promote it, not discourage it.
Today we are going to do just that. Right now married couples pay
more in taxes than two single people living together, and that is just
not right. Washington has got to stop it, penalizing the cornerstone of
our society, the American family. We should encourage marriage, not
penalize it.
Do my colleagues know what we are doing? We are really restoring
family, children, and the American dream. Democrat allies labeled
marriage penalty relief as risky last year, and the President vetoed
it. Last week, all the Democrats voted against it in the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Today, they are trying to fool us and the American people into
thinking that

[[Page H301]]

they are for marriage penalty relief. Do not believe them. They do not
have a plan that provides for even $1 of guaranteed marriage penalty
relief, and this is a shame.
In my district alone, this bill will end the marriage penalty for
over 150,000 Americans. The President and his Democrat friends should
stop playing election-year politics. A vote for this bill is a vote for
America. It is a vote for American families.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, well, leave it to the House Republicans to
convert an issue that enjoys such broad bipartisan support into a
totally contrived election-year ploy. Had they the slightest interest
in correcting the marriage penalty in a timely way, it would have
already been done.
In 1997, the Democrats proposed to implement fully the Contract on
America provisions, which they so widely ballyhooed all over this
country, to put them into effect immediately. But Republicans had other
priorities, other special interest priorities.
The ``American dream`` about which the last speaker spoke in fact,
that is the title they put on their bill regarding the marriage penalty
to implement the Contract with America. They called it the ``American
Dream Restoration Act.'' But they dropped that provision when Democrats
offered it in the Ways and Means Committee as an alternative to other
special interest priorities.
Last year we had the same thing happen. We proposed more marriage
penalty tax relief than Republicans did. But they had their own
priorities. They had that special interest provision to provide a tax
subsidy for chicken manure. And they had a whole lot of other special
interest tax breaks. They were not interested in coming together and
cooperating in a bipartisan way to really do something about the
marriage penalty.
We now have a new millennium. But, unfortunately, we do not have a
new era of cooperation from this House leadership. If we had that, the
American families, about which they are expressing such concern about
today, would have already had the relief in place, instead of waiting
for Valentine's Day.
Now, we also know that this bill cannot pass the truth in packaging
standards. Over half of the relief in this so-called marriage penalty
tax relief goes to families that do not experience any marriage tax
penalty. The sponsors of this bill have never been able to refute that
point. In fact, it is a central purpose of their bill. What that means
is that over half the relief goes to families that already enjoy an
advantage over people who are filing as a single taxpayer under the Tax
Code.
I have been blessed with 31 years of marriage to a great woman, my
parents over 55 years of marriage. It is a great institution. But I do
not see any reason why I need to discriminate against a family that is
not as fortunate as I am.
The victim of domestic abuse, the widow who is out there, what do
they get out of this great valentine? They do not even get a stale
candy wrapper, not one penny. There is no reason why the 50 million
American families that are single-parent families, most headed by
single women, many of them facing much greater struggles than my family
has faced, trying to be a sole provider, trying to care for a family,
why they should be discriminated against.
By providing an additional bonus to those taxpayers who already enjoy
a bonus or advantage under the Tax Code, this bill actually
discriminates against single individuals.
And finally, the most comprehensive discrimination is imposed on our
children both of those families who incur and those who do not incur a
marriage penalty; it imposes on them a new penalty and that is to share
a greater burden of the national debt.
We need to do what the nonpartisan Concord Coalition said yesterday,
``giving away chocolates rather than giving away the surplus would be
the most appropriate way to celebrate Valentine's Day.''
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
say to my friend, the previous speaker, that if he votes against H.R.
6, 59,000 married couples, one-half of whom are itemizers, in the 10th
Congressional District of Texas will not get relief from the marriage
tax penalty.
I would also note that my friend from Texas voted against last year's
effort to wipe out the marriage tax penalty.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cox) a real leader in the effort to make the Tax Code fair by
eliminating the marriage tax penalty.
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard that it was important to reduce the
marriage penalty a few years ago but we cannot do it this year. We have
heard that we should be bipartisan, and yet every Republican is in
favor of this and 38 Democrats, not a single bit of bipartisanship in
the opposition.
From 1913 until 1948, there was no discrimination against married
people or against singles. The Tax Code treated them the same way no
matter what. The reason we got a marriage penalty is that back then
when the prejudice was in favor of working men, Congress decided to
give a protection to working men who did not live in community
properties States who could not income split. So now what we have is
not just discrimination against married couples, but explicitly we have
discrimination against working women.
Back when we got the income Tax Code, women did not work, about three
percent of the labor force. That has dramatically changed. From 1947 to
1997, there was a 100 percent increase in the number of working women.
We need to pass this legislation because discrimination is at stake.
We would not get rid of the court system, the Civil Rights Act, or the
EEOC because it was spending money. Vote for this bill because it is
the right thing to do.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it has been pointed out that the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Weller) has 92,571 constituents who are Social Security
beneficiaries. And certainly, if they are just going to go after giving
tax relief, they really do not care anything about them and those on
Medicare.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, let me talk about the impact of the alternative minimum
tax on this bill. Because, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer)
knows, I have been speaking out about this for the past few years, and
it is time to eliminate the alternative minimum tax. It no longer
performs the function it was intended to and, in my view, has perverse
consequences in the tax system.
Now, laying that aside, let me tell my colleagues that I had a call
this week from a Republican interest group asking me to support this
bill. The rationale was the statistic that they were offering that
suggested that 61,386 married couples in my district were affected by
the marriage penalty.
When I asked how many would not get any benefit from the Republican
bill because of the alternative minimum tax, they did not know; and
they did not know because they did not care. They saw this then and
they see this today as a purely political issue.
Now, is the AMT a minor flaw in this bill? Absolutely not. It would
cost $65 billion to fix the problem. To put it another way, the
Republican bill promised about $250 billion of tax relief and, by
sleight of hand, uses the AMT to take back $65 billion, or 26 percent
of the benefit.
This is not a small problem. It is a known problem. It is a fixable
problem. But in this legislation that they are offering, it is not
fixed.
Now, we hear that this will be taken care of in the future. Sounds a
little bit like the Popeye character, Whimpy, promising to buy someone
a hamburger next week if only on this day we will buy him one.
If there is a problem, then fix the way we do in the Democratic
proposal. If their side keeps promising a pig in a poke, eventually the
public is going to demand a look in the bag.
Now, I had a few other callers in support of fixing this tax penalty;
and I

[[Page H302]]

agreed with them, and that is why I am going to vote for the Democratic
alternative. When I asked some of them why they were flirting with the
Republican penalty bill, where half the money does not even go to
fixing the marriage penalty but to making a single penalty in current
law worse, it is written so that the more children they have the less
likely they are to get any marriage penalty relief, they do not know
what is in the fine print.
So if they are so concerned about children, why did they not take the
money they were using to increase marriage bonuses and use it to solve
the AMT problem with families with children? They have the money. It is
right in their own bill.
So for tens of thousands of American families, the only thing the
Republican bill gives them is a requirement that they are going to have
to fill out two tax forms instead of one, the regular tax form and a
50-line alternative minimum tax form. Now, that truly is a penalty on
the Republican side for being married and having children.
These would be serious problems if this was a serious bill, but it is
an election year and we know that it is not, as many of the bills that
will follow also I think will be based on. Hopefully, we are going to
have a chance this year to fix some real problems.
Now, I want to ask the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) a
question as I conclude as he leaps to the floor to call attention to
the number of people in my district that I have already cited. I would
ask if he would state the number of families in my district who are
being deceived by using the AMT to take back the tax cut they are
promising?
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
say to my friend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the
previous speaker, that if he votes against H.R. 6, 61,000 married
couples, one-half of whom are itemizers in the 2nd Congressional
District of Massachusetts, they will not get relief from the marriage
tax penalty.
I would also note that my friend from Massachusetts voted against the
outright repeal of the alternative minimum tax this past year.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
McIntosh), one of the real leaders in the effort to bring fairness to
the Tax Code and one of the authors of Weller-McIntosh.
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership
in bringing this bill to the floor today.
Today is a great day for freedom. It is an even greater day for our
families in America. I hope the American people are listening to this
debate because it is a debate about priorities. It is a debate about
who will truly fight for families versus those who want to fight for
higher taxes.
The other side of this debate say they are for marriage penalty
relief. But watch what they do, not what they say.
Let me quickly compare these two proposals. The Democrats' plan gives
zero dollars in tax relief. There it is on the chart. And that is from
a nonpartisan joint committee on tax assessment of the two bills. Zero,
zip, nada, nothing to families in their bill. They do not want us to
know that, so they scream about other issues.
The GOP gives $182 billion in tax relief, one-tenth of the projected
surplus over the next 10 years. The Republican plan will give couples
up to $1,400 in tax relief, and it is a plan that applies to all
married couples who pay taxes.
Not so for the Democrat alternative. They do not want moms who stay
at home to have a benefit under this bill. That is the bottom line when
they say people are getting tax relief who should not. It is the moms
who are sacrificing, not following their career who choose to stay home
and take care of their children. Our bill says give them the same
marriage tax relief.
Democrats do not want to give tax relief to people who own a home and
itemize. If they are a homeowner, they get zero tax relief under the
Democrats' bill. If they are a homeowner and they itemize, they get
relief from the marriage tax penalty under our bill.
This morning I heard a Democrat from one of their think tanks say,
any family that makes over $50,000, that is $25,000 for the husband and
$25,000 for the wife, they are wealthy and they do not deserve relief
from the marriage penalty.
Not so under the Republican bill. All families who pay taxes in
America will get relief.
This is a true Valentine's gift. It is more like the Hope Diamond on
the Republican side. I am proud to support it.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of that Joint Committee on Taxation report
and it says, yes, that there is zero under the Democratic plan. If the
Republicans have no budget, if the Republicans do nothing for Social
Security, if the Republicans do nothing to pay down the national debt,
then there will be absolutely nothing under our plan.
We are assuming at some point that the Republicans will work with the
President and work with us and do those things and then relief is
there. It is as simple as that. The report is available. It is called
the Joint Committee on Taxation.
None of the people in the district of the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Weller) will get any benefit from the Republican or the Democratic
plan until we come together and work together.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Green).
(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)

{time} 1330

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today wanting to
support a reform of the marriage tax penalty. It is wrong that we would
punish people for being married, and that is why I would hope that we
could support a bill that would be bipartisan. But what we have today
is the Republican bill that is really a Trojan horse. I heard it
referred to as the Hope Diamond, but it is really a Trojan horse,
because half of those benefits in this bill go to people not subject to
the marriage tax penalty right now. Let me repeat that, half the
benefits of this bill go to the people who do not have any marriage tax
penalty.
That is what is wrong with this bill. It is irresponsible in size and
cost, the GOP bill, its willingness to neglect the long-term needs of
our country, Social Security, Medicare, paying down our debt, and even
national defense. Later this year we will hear about how they want to
do stuff for national defense. Well, you cannot give away the store now
and expect to pay for it later.
$182 billion would use the surplus in addressing American's
priorities by paying down the national debt, Social Security and
Medicare. Let me say as a Member of Congress, I would benefit. Like my
colleague from Texas, I have a working spouse in Texas who is a
schoolteacher. I would benefit from the Republican bill. But it is
wrong to do that for the income level we have. It ought to go to the
people who really need it, and that is what is wrong with this bill. So
Members of Congress should really vote against it, because it benefits
us too much.
Half the benefits, again, will go to the taxpayers who have no
marriage tax penalty. According to the Citizens for Tax Justice, the
Republican bill would give the lion's share of the tax cut to higher
income families. Two-thirds of the tax relief would go to 30 percent of
the married couples with incomes over $75,000 due to the large tax
bracket.
Let me also say we have a Democratic plan that scales it down and
really addresses marriage tax relief. Understand, it works with the
alternative minimum tax, so it does not give you with one hand and take
it away with another. Their bill does.
Over the last few months I have had a chance to do town hall
meetings. We were out for 2 months. We did a newsletter. I know I am
going to hear in a few minutes from my Republican colleague about how
many people will not benefit. Let me tell you, I have 322,000 taxpayers
in my district who pay into Social Security, and they want it there 30
and 40 years from now instead of giving away the store now. I have
55,000 recipients on Social Security and Medicare now. They want that
benefit now, not given away in a tax cut that is irresponsible.
We sent out a newsletter, and let me talk about it. Mr. Barrera from
southeast Houston, ``It is so important that you remember, we need to
pay down the debt, strengthen Social Security, a

[[Page H303]]

prescription drug benefit, fund education, and then give me a tax
cut.'' That is from southeast Houston.
We have a young lady from north side Houston, Ms. Kubala. She said,
``You need to show more concern for the not-so-rich people instead of
catering to the rich.'' I do not think that I have a better statement
than my constituent for this bill today.
We have a gentleman from the North Shore area of northeast Houston.
``It isn't that we do not want a tax cut, but there are other things
more important.''
Mr. Speaker, I cannot say it better than my own constituents.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the previous speaker, my friend, if you
vote against H.R. 6, 92,000 married people in the Twenty-ninth
Congressional District of Texas will not get relief from the marriage
tax penalty. One-half of them are itemizers. No more excuses. Let us
bring fairness to the Tax Code.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
McInnis), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me the
time.
You know, I get it. I was at the airport not long ago and I met a
young mother, her name was Carrie. She has four children, the oldest of
which is six. She asked me about the marriage penalty. I think we all
agree, it is unfair. The previous speaker from the Democratic side just
said it was unfair.
I told her it is unfair. She said, ``Do you think it will pass?'' I
said, ``Sure, it is going to pass. It makes so much sense, the
Democrats are going to join with us.''
But, old stupid me. Stupid me. I forgot you guys who are worried
about election year politics. Forget the merits of getting rid of an
unfair tax like the marriage tax penalty. Forget that. It is all about
election year politics, and you know it is about election year
politics.
There are 30 or 40 of you over there on the Democratic side that have
enough guts to stand up and vote for this bill based on its merit, vote
on it based on the fact that it is unfair. But the rest of you like to
use red herring, Social Security, in fact.
Why do you not just get up here and tell it like it is? It is
election year politics. We would not dare want the Republicans to get
credit for being fair to the American people. We have got to continue
our bash against them. Stand up and vote on the merits, not on election
year politics.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, the most important thing that the public needs to know
about this so-called marriage tax penalty is that it undermines our
serious efforts to pay down the national debt, to save Social Security
and to provide for Medicare.
This bill will explode in 10 years. It costs $182 billion and will
consume over one-fourth of the non-Social Security surplus. We are
trying to save Medicare.
This is a pre-Valentines Day stunt. The institution being threatened
is not the institution of marriage, it is the institution of Social
Security. Let me assure you lovers are not sitting around saying
``Honey, we better not get married because of the marriage tax
penalty.'' But I assure you people on Social Security and people soon
to be on Social Security are worried that we do not take some serious
action to save Social Security.
Now, I agree, we ought to address concerns about the marriage tax
penalty for those folks who do pay that tax. But this bill does not do
that.
Let me tell you what is wrong with the Republican so-called marriage
tax penalty bill. First of all, it is another gimmick to give tax
relief for the very rich. Two-thirds of the benefit go to the top one-
fourth of taxpayers, those people already well off and, moreover, they
are doing very well in today's economy. They do not need a tax break.
Second, half of the relief goes to people who are not even paying the
marriage tax. What is that all about?
Third, many of families with children who need a marriage tax break
will not get it under this plan.
Clearly they are not addressing the target. On the other hand, you
have the targeted Democratic approach. We double the standard deduction
and adjust the earned income tax credit, and, as a result, we can
provide targeted tax relief from the marriage penalty for those
families who genuinely need it. There are 70,000 people in my district,
as you will hear, who will benefit if we give targeted tax relief. I
want to do that. I do not want to give a bloated Valentine's gift to
the very rich who do not need it.
Mr. Speaker, it should be well recognized by now, this is part of a
big tax cut for the rich that the Republicans and George Bush are
pushing. It is not a good idea. We should reject it, save Medicare,
save Social Security, and pay down the debt.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
(Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support on this long
overdue reform. At last we are going beyond the rhetoric of family
values and doing something real to make our Nation truly a place where
hardworking American families can have a job and raise a family and own
a home. We should not be taxing marriage. Let us stop this
discrimination.
I have got to tell you that I think it is only the first step towards
what I would hope would be major tax reform, but we have got to deal
with this now. We have put it off for too long. It is a testament to
the complexity of our Tax Code today.
There are over 25 million couples, that is 40 percent of all married
couples, who pay an average of $1,400 in extra taxes because they are
married. That adds up to more than 70,000 people in my own district.
But $1,400 a year is real money. So what we are saying is do not make
any mistake about it; we are talking about real money that will mean
money in the bank for these families within the next 2 years. Let us do
it.
May I just add that the numbers are confusing, but look at the CBO
numbers, the Congressional Budget Office numbers.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a math question for my colleagues
today: If the Republican marriage tax proposal spends $182 billion and
the Democratic plan is $89 billion, which one leaves more money to
invest in our children? You do not have to know new math to prove that
the Democratic bill provides relief for working families, while saving
$93 billion to invest in the needs of our children.
For example, if we adopt the Democratic plan, $25 billion could go to
the States to improve child care, another $25 billion could be invested
in children's health programs, and another $25 billion could be used
for family services, with money left over to expand the Earned Income
Tax Credit.
Mr. Speaker, I want to provide honest marriage tax penalty relief to
the 58,003 married couples in my district, and I also want to protect
the Social Security and Medicare benefits enjoyed by 95,424 of my
constituents and to reduce my constituents' $8.4 billion share of the
Federal debt, but, Mr. Speaker, let us give working families the
assistance they really need. Let us give them tax relief. Let us help
them take care of their children. Tax relief any other way just does
not add up.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Fowler).
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the
Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of 2000. There are almost 57,000
couples in my district in Florida alone who pay higher Federal taxes
simply because they are married. Because women are often the second
income source for married couples, this unfair tax has a
disproportionate impact on them. When a woman accepts a marriage
proposal, that does not mean an automatic pay cut. What could be more
unfair, more immoral really, than taxing someone just because they fell
in love?

[[Page H304]]

As a gift to the American people this Valentine's Day, it is time to
get rid of tax penalties against married couples once and for all.
Again, I would like to pledge my strong support for the Marriage Tax
Penalty Relief Act, and I will continue to work with my fellow
Republicans to eliminate unfair taxation.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Missouri (Ms. McCarthy).
(Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New
York for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6. It is untimely, it is
unlawful, it is unfair, and it is unaffordable. It is also
irresponsible and punitive tax policy.
It is untimely and unlawful because Section 303 of the Congressional
Budget Act, the law of the land for 25 years, prohibits a tax cut of
this magnitude before Congress adopts a budget resolution. We hope that
resolution will establish a framework for using the surplus to extend
the solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
It is unfair because 60 percent of all married couples will not
benefit from it. In fact, middle class families with children will find
their taxes increasing because this measure forces them to pay the
alternative minimum tax.
It is not affordable. It consumes one-fourth of the anticipated
surplus, keeping us from paying off the national debt, thus
jeopardizing the strong economy we now enjoy.
It is irresponsible tax policy because it fails to address the
marriage bonus and further distorts tax fairness. Under this measure,
two-thirds of the total tax relief will go to wealthy taxpayers.
The gentleman from Illinois is going to point out that nearly 60,000
married couples in my district will benefit from your tax scheme, but
that is only 30 percent of the married people in my district. Sixty
percent will not benefit, and many of them will face a tax increase.
The valentine we should be sending American families is one which
provides fiscal security by using any surplus to pay down our publicly
held debt and make Social Security and Medicare solvent. Then construct
a tax relief package that helps working families. I want to protect the
Social Security and Medicare benefits enjoyed by nearly 100,000 of my
constituents.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Foley), a respected Member of Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, frankly, I am stunned that anyone would have
a problem with this bill. The bill does three basic things, two of
which the President himself has embraced. One, it expands the Earned
Income Tax Credit; and, two, it doubles the standard deduction for
married taxpayers. The only thing that the bill does do that the
President's does not is offer relief to those married couples who do
not qualify for the earned income tax credit and who do not take the
standard deduction because they itemize instead.

{time} 1345

Well, Mr. President, many couples itemize because they struggle to
buy a home for themselves and their children, and they continue to
struggle to maintain that home.
I realize that President and Mrs. Clinton have only recently become
homeowners, so they probably do not realize yet just how much of a
financial sacrifice most American homeowners make to provide that home.
In fact, The New York Times recently reported that Mrs. Clinton was
quoted as saying, ``I am stunned to discover the tax burden faced by
State residents.''
Well, Mr. President and Mrs. Clinton, welcome to the real world.
Those taxes and homeowner mortgages are exactly why many married
taxpayers itemize on their tax forms and will never benefit from the
President's proposal.
So here is my hope. Now that the President and Mrs. Clinton are
finally homeowners, I hope that they will recover from their stunning
encounter with high taxes in time to realize that married homeowners
deserve a break too and support our fine bill.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New
York for his leadership, and I thank the Chairman of the Committee on
Ways and Means. Frankly, I believe if H.R. 6 is passed, Mr. Speaker, we
will have a sad Valentine's Day.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 6, the Marriage Tax Relief Act.
America's hard-working families deserve relief from the marriage
penalty burden. However, I cannot in good conscience support a bill
that provides no relief for millions of families with children and
offers big tax breaks for wealthy couples. If we look here, we will see
by the year 2010, almost 60 percent of America's families with two
children will be denied relief under the Republican bill. Mr. Speaker,
H.R. 6 grants tax breaks averaging approximately $1,000 per year to
couples earning more than $70,000.
I have a good friend in my district, Mr. Booker Morris, and we talk
frequently about targeted tax breaks. I support that, but not without a
budget that establishes priorities.
In plain English, H.R. 6 is fiscally irresponsible. I will not
support a large tax cut that eviscerates the surplus as included in
this bill. We owe it to American families to ensure a framework that
supports and secures Social Security and Medicare as well as pay down
the national debt, as well as establish priorities like health care and
education and fighting HIV/AIDS. This bill commits $182 billion over 10
years and as well, it takes away from Social Security and Medicare.
In summary, I am opposed to H.R. 6 because it is too expensive. It
drains estimated surpluses. Middle-income families with children do not
receive adequate tax relief. Half of the tax relief goes to those who
currently do not pay any marriage penalty, and 70 percent of the
projected tax cut goes to help the top quarter of income earners.
Mr. Speaker, I support the Democratic substitute because I want in my
district to provide honest marriage penalty relief to the 48,209
married couples in my district. I want to work for them, but I also
want to protect the Social Security and Medicare benefits enjoyed by
81,696 of my constituents. As well, I do not want them to have to
suffer the $8.4 billion share of the Federal debt.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6, the Marriage Tax Relief
Act. America's hard working families deserve relief from the marriage
penalty burden; however, I cannot with good conscience support a bill
that provides no relief for millions of families with children and
offers big tax breaks for wealthy couples. Specifically, H.R. 6 grants
tax breaks averaging approximately $1,000 per year to couples earning
more than $70,000 disregarding whether or not they pay a marriage
penalty.
In plain English, H.R. 6 is fiscally irresponsible. I will not
support a large tax cut that eviscerates the surplus as included in
this bill. We owe it to American families to ensure that a framework is
firmly in place that preserves Social Security and Medicare, as well
as, pay down our national debt before spending our surplus. This bill
is the first of many installments in the Republican tax cut plan. It
commits $182 billion of the estimated surpluses earned throughout the
next 10 years, before bolstering Social Security and Medicare and
paying down the national debt.
The most disturbing aspect of this bill slowly phases in a widening
of the 15% tax bracket. The widening of the 15% bracket offers nothing
to couples already in this bracket. For example, a married couple
without children in the year 2000 would be in the 15% tax bracket up to
an income of $56,800. The irony of this measure is that nearly more
than half of all married couples are below this income level and would
not derive any benefit from this bill. Moreover, the Citizens for Tax
Justice predict that two-thirds of the tax relief will go to married
couples with incomes in excess of $75,000, in most part due to the
widening 15% tax bracket change.
In addition, using the Alternative Minimum Tax to reduce the overall
cost of this bill is unwise. Couples with children claiming large State
and local

[[Page H305]]

tax deductions may be denied tax relief, while those couples without
children and residing in States with low State and local tax burdens
will receive the bulk of the benefit. This is due to the fact that
personal exemptions and State and local deductions are not used against
the minimum tax.
In summary, I along with my fellow Democratic colleagues oppose H.R.
6 because:
(1) it is too expensive;
(2) it drains estimated surpluses over the years without first
strengthening Social Security and Medicare and paying down the debt;
(3) middle income families with children do not receive adequate tax
relief;
(4) half of the tax relief goes to those who currently do not pay any
marriage penalty, while, those with higher incomes benefit
disproportionately than those with lower income; and
(5) 70% of the projected tax cut benefit goes to the top quarter of
income earners.
I encourage us all to support an alternative bill that:
(1) assures that Social Security, Medicare, and debt reduction are a
primary concern;
(2) provides additional relief for lower income working couples; and
(3) allows for more relief for couples who claim the standard
deduction.
Specifically, the Democratic alternative will:
(1) increase the standard deduction for married couples filing
jointly by doubling the standard deduction for couples from the single
filer level and exempting the Alternative Minimum Tax;
(2) increase the beginning and ending income phaseout levels to
$2,000 for married couples claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit in
2001 and a permanent $2,500 increase beginning in 2002; and
(3) takes real action to extend Social Security Solvency until 2050,
as well as, Medicare solvency to 2030, and seeks to eliminate the
estimated public debt by 2013.
This alternative bill is just and fair to all Americans and urges our
support.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill.
All I can tell my colleagues is what I saw in practicing medicine for
15 years before coming here to the Congress. I had patients who lived
together out of wedlock, many of whom said they did so because their
taxes would go up if they got married. Now, I have examined the
Democratic substitute and amongst other things, it provides no marriage
penalty relief until the public debt is paid off.
I would like to quote from Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor,
and I believe someone who would be properly labeled a liberal Democrat.
He said, ``It would be one thing if the born-again, fiscally austere
Democrats were speaking out of strong conviction backed by sound ideas.
But the conviction is paper thin. Eliminating the national debt has not
been a plank of any Democratic economic program in living memory, and
most Democrats who are now talking greatly about its importance have
never uttered the words, `eliminate the debt,' before.''
Robert Reich, thank you for speaking the truth.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman).
(Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to no one when it comes to
dedication to eliminating the national debt. Robert Reich and no one
else on the liberal side was in my district when that is the issue that
led me here to the United States Congress.
There is perhaps no part of our Tax Code that has been the subject of
more confusion and misnomers than the so-called marriage penalty.
When I began working as a CPA back in the Ice Age, there were fewer
two-earner families, and we were told to urge clients to get married to
reduce their taxes, to try to get married by December 31 to reduce
their taxes for a particular year. Today, roughly half the couples get
a marriage bonus. They pay lower taxes because they are married and
would pay more if they were merely cohabiting. But half the couples are
paying a marriage penalty, and that is why I have been intensely
dedicated to eliminating that marriage penalty.
However, the Republican proposal is so poorly drafted and so
misleadingly titled. Over half the benefits go to couples that are not
paying a marriage penalty, but are instead getting a marriage bonus,
and three-quarters of the benefits go to the top one-quarter wealthiest
families.
This is as sneaky as a Valentine's suitor who has a little area on
his finger where his ring has been removed. This is using the marriage
penalty as an excuse to provide tax relief for upper-income families,
half of whom are already enjoying a marriage bonus. This bill makes a
mockery of those who have fought with us against the marriage penalty,
and the process that brings this bill to the floor makes a mockery of
fiscal responsibility when it comes to the floor before we have a
budget resolution and before we have placed it in context.
We need to defeat this bill.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), another respected member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
(Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the esteemed Chairman of the
Committee on Ways and Means. What is the name of the song, My Funny
Valentine. The opposition would be funny if it were not so sad.
Here we are with a historic opportunity. Mr. Speaker, 30 Members have
joined with the majority on a bipartisan basis to offer much-needed
relief from the marriage penalty to restore fairness to taxation, and
what we get are the clever arguments from the same folks who wanted to
redefine the word ``is.''
Now they want to redefine the word ``rich.'' A couple, perhaps both
schoolteachers, both earning $25,000 a year, in the minds of the
minority, congratulations, they are rich. Therefore, they do not
deserve relief from the marriage penalty. Friends, we have a historic
opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I would extend my hand in partnership to the minority to
restore fairness rather than trickery, rather than clever arguments,
rather than the footnote of subparagraph B, real marriage relief
penalty. I ask them to join us in passing this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The Chair would
advise the House that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) has 17\3/4\
minutes remaining; the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has 9\3/4\
minutes remaining.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in
allowing me to speak on this presentation.
Just 3 months ago, this Congress left Washington, having passed a
budget that none of us could take pride in, a budget filled with
gimmicks, so-called emergency spending, and special interest earmarks.
Now we are starting off this new session on the same track of fiscal
irresponsibility and unresponsiveness to what Americans tell us are the
real issues. The one difference is that instead of a single massive tax
cut along the lines that the America public turned a cold shoulder to
last year and is still being proposed by Republican front runner
Governor Bush, the majority in Congress is pursuing a piecemeal
strategy of the same thing. They are offering last year's rejected tax
bill, only repackaged in a few smaller chunks.
Today's so-called marriage tax reform is the first piece. Instead of
targeting tax relief to the people who need it most, this bill is
replete with other special-interest provisions that will cost almost
$200 billion over the next 10 years. Only half the proposed tax
benefits go to the tax filers who currently pay the marriage penalty.
Ironically, this bill does nothing to address the growing problems of
working families being forced to pay the alternative minimum tax.
In short, the majority's approach is to spend more money than we need
or

[[Page H306]]

can afford in order to help people who need it the least, while it
shortchanges those most in need: the working poor and lower-income
families who have seen their incomes actually fall by about 10 percent.
The Democratic alternative takes a different approach. It is targeted
towards those people who need help the most. It doubles the standard
deduction, adjusts the AMT so that families will receive the full
benefit of the standard deduction, and addresses the marriage penalty
and the earned income tax credit, providing greater relief for the
working poor and, therefore, poor families. Not only targeting will
help those who need it the most, it will save money, money that we can
use to pay down the debt, protect Social Security and Medicare, and
fund what my constituency tells me are their priorities: education,
environmental protection, and prescription drug benefits.
I hope we can start working together today to make our tax system
fairer and help those who need it the most.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Collins), a respected Member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of legislation which eliminates the
marriage penalty. To do so is just basic tax policy fairness. The code
should not take more from those who are married just because they are
married.
While the bill before us provides important tax relief, it needs
improvement; and later this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I will offer an
amendment under unanimous consent that will strengthen the legislation
by ensuring that we provide relief from the marriage penalty this year.
As we know, the current language calls for a standard deduction for
married couples beginning next year, the tax year 2001. But, Mr.
Speaker, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the Federal
Government will collect more taxes and revenues this year than we
anticipated; so therefore I think we should share those unexpected
revenues with the people that work so hard for them.
Another point that I would like to bring out, Mr. Speaker, is the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) mentioned the alternative
minimum tax. It is a problem. It has been a problem for a number of
years, and we have tried to address this problem in the past. This bill
does have a provision that will partially correct the alternative
minimum tax problem for those who will be affected by the changes in
the Tax Code. The administration has also offered a proposal that would
eliminate probably about one-half of those over the next 10 years that
will be affected by the alternative minimum tax. One-half is not
enough. As the gentleman from Massachusetts said, we need to repeal the
alternative minimum tax provisions of law.
I hope this House will support me in my unanimous consent request to
offer an amendment later this afternoon.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, under current law, many working
married couples end up paying more in taxes than they would if they
were single, but married couples with a one-wage earner often get a
bonus by paying less to the Federal Government than they would if they
were single.
While Members on both sides of the aisle agree that America's working
couples need to keep as much money in the house as they can, but we
must ask at what cost. Mr. Speaker, the Republican bill costs $50.7
billion over 5 years, $182.3 billion over 10 years. Two-thirds of the
total tax relief will go to the 30 percent of married couples with
incomes over $75,000.

{time} 1400

In my district, the Seventh District of Illinois, that equals to
about 7,000 families out of about 130,000 total.
Mr. Speaker, I have over 30,000 families with an average income of
less than $20,000 a year. The substitute offered by the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel) will benefit those families making $50,000, but
it will also benefit families claiming the earned income tax credit, as
well as increase the standard deduction for joint filers to twice the
level of single filers.
This is a more comprehensive bill, a less expensive bill, and it is
truly a bill for more of America's families. Therefore, I urge support
for the Rangel substitute.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6.
Mr. Speaker, Americans pay more in taxes today (as a percentage of
the gross domestic product) than they have at any time since the Second
World War. As disturbing as that fact may be, it is even more
disturbing that according to the Congressional Research Service, over
the next ten years, the average household will pay in taxes $5,307 more
than government needs. The high tax burden on American families is
simply unnecessary and too heavy.
One of the most unfair taxes if the Marriage Penalty Tax. The
marriage penalty forces two-earner, middle-income couples into higher
tax brackets than if they filed as individuals. As a result, over 25
million American couples, including over 146,000 couples in the State
of Nevada alone, pay an average of $1,400 more in federal taxes simply
because they are married.
Today, we have the opportunity to reduce this stifling tax burden and
to correct a grave inequity in our current tax code. Today we can pass
the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act.
The Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act will provide over the next decade
$180 billion in marriage penalty relief to more than 25 million
couples, including millions of America's middle class families which
are hit hardest by this unfair tax burden.
Taxes are a big reason why families feel so stressed. For example,
the average family in my state had to work until May 14th last year
just to pay their tax bill. That means Nevadans spend the first four
months of last year working for the government.
Many American families pay more in taxes than they spend on food,
clothing, and housing combined. Under these burdensome circumstances,
how can a family possibly hope to save for retirement or college?
American families need a break, and they deserve a tax code which
doesn't punish them for choosing marriage, especially in this day and
age when divorce rates are at an all time high.
Mr. Speaker, the marriage tax penalty is simply unfair. As a Congress
and as a nation, we should encourage marriage--not tax it. By providing
marriage penalty tax relief, we can correct a gross inequity in the tax
code and enable more of America's families to save money for their
retirement, a computer, a home, or their children's education.
Support the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act and give American
families a real chance to make their dreams come true.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Herger), a respected member of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, when a couple stands at the alter and says ``I do,''
they are not agreeing to higher taxes. On tax day, April 15, 25 million
American couples, including 47,000 within my own district in northern
California, will pay up to $1,400 more in taxes than they would if they
were single. That is wrong, it is anti-marriage, and 85 percent of
Americans say it should be fixed.
What does $1,400 mean for married couples? Those couples could use
that extra money for 4 months of a car payment, a year's worth of
diapers, a computer for their children, or even a donation to their
favorite charity. The IRS should not be allowed to continue taking this
tax overpayment, instead of giving it back to its rightful owners,
hard-working American families.
No one should be opposing this. It is an issue that transcends party
politics. I urge Members from across the aisle and the President to
work with us to make marriage penalty relief a reality for families
this year.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, we need to reduce the marriage penalty, and do it this
year, but to vote this week for this irresponsible Republican proposal
would be a huge mistake.
About half of the married couples in this country pay a marriage
penalty,

[[Page H307]]

but the other half get a marriage bonus. The Republican plan is not
directed just at those who pay the marriage penalty, it is a grab bag
of goodies weighted to the top one-quarter percent of income earners.
It would make it much harder for us to pay down the national debt, to
provide a prescription drug benefit for seniors, to improve our
schools, or to strengthen social security and Medicare.
The Democratic alternative doubles the standard deduction for married
couples, expands the earned income tax credit, and, unlike the
Republican plan, protects families from the harmful effects of the
alternative minimum tax.
The Republican bill is estimated to cost $182 billion over 10 years.
The Democratic alternative would provide $95 billion of tax relief
targeted more precisely to reduce the marriage penalty and to those
middle-income taxpayers who need relief the most. Real marriage penalty
relief and true fiscal discipline are only available in the Democratic
alternative.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are
straining out gnats and swallowing camels. Tax cuts are for those who
pay taxes.
For the last 3 years, we have gotten our country's financial house in
order and eliminated the deficit. Since last year, we no longer spend
our social security trust fund money. We are looking at surpluses of $3
trillion to $4 trillion in the next 10 years, We are taking $2 trillion
and paying down debt.
Whether we have $1 or $2 trillion left, we want a tax cut, and we
want to deal with tax fairness. It is wrong for married people to pay
more than single people.
And then to complain about the AMT tax as denying some people the
benefit? It is the Democrats' tax. They, my colleagues, in the last
minute are more concerned for the AMT, and it is like being the captain
of the Titanic and finally noticing the iceberg. It was there a long
time ago. Deal with it. It is a separate issue.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
(Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise as an original cosponsor in favor of this act and
in favor of removing the tax penalty. I do so for a very simple reason,
because this type of action would value family, would value marriage,
would value simplicity, and it would value education.
Let me give an example. If someone is a teacher, a husband, and the
wife is working making the same wage, $30,000, as a carpenter, they
make $60,000 a year, this might put $1,400 back in their pockets. In
Indiana, that $1,400 could go to pay the entire tuition, almost, at
Indiana University at South Bend.
So for working families, both spouses working hard to make a
difference for their children, this could make a big difference in
their lives. I am proud to be an original cosponsor to put this value
on families and tax simplicity, where families will be able to find it
and file it and take advantage of it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise as a proud original cosponsor of H.R. 6, the
Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of 2000. It simply does not make sense
that the Tax Code makes it more expensive to be married than to be
single. The government should not punish married working couples by
taking more of their hard-earned money in taxes than an identical
couple living outside of marriage.
For more than thirty years, our tax laws have punished married
couples when both spouses work. For no other reason than the decision
to be joined in marriage, more than 21 million couples a year are
penalized. They pay more in taxes than they would if they were single.
Not only is the marriage penalty unfair, it's wrong that our Tax Code
punishes society's most basic institution. In fact, there are 67
different laws in the Tax Code targeting couples, just because they are
married. These laws are egregious and unfair. We should reward, not
punish, the value of family and the institution of marriage.
In my district in Northern Indiana, more than 60,000 couples are
penalized by the marriage penalty. These Hoosiers do not pay just a
little bit more in taxes; they paid an average of $1,400 apiece.
Instead of having the choice to invest this money for their future or
use it for everyday expenses, they are forced to hand over this hard-
earned money to the IRS. That is money that could be better used to
save for a child's college education, purchase a family computer, or
make the mortgage payments for their home.
Whether it is in a church or in a courtroom, couples usually have to
pay some kind of fee for the marriage ceremony. But while it may cost
money to get married, it should not cost money to be married. Rather,
we need to establish policies that encourage marriage and encourage
good, strong, healthy families that are absolutely critical for vibrant
societies. The pressures on working families are enough without this
disincentive on the tax books.
Over the past three years, we have successfully enacted meaningful
IRS reform legislation that tames tax collectors and shifts the burden
of proof from the taxpayer back to the IRS, reinforcing that an
American is innocent until proven guilty with the IRS. We have also
established a taxpayer advocate and provided worthwhile relief for low-
and middle-income families, students, farmers and retired Americans.
Now Congress must eliminate this marriage tax to help the two-parent
family, not punish it. Therefore, I will vote to eliminate the marriage
penalty and strongly encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 6.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am certain that newspapers around this country have
been able to see through what is a Valentine's Day gimmick.
The truth of the matter is that even in our local Washington Post,
the editorials would indicate that we are not talking about relieving
the marriage penalty. Democrats, Republicans, the President, we all
want to do it. The problem that we have, and we will be showing the
chart from the Joint Committee on Taxation, is that the majority would
have us to do this to take care of a tax problem that they see that
those in the higher incomes are paying too much taxes, but it has
nothing to do with the marriage penalty. They would pay $182 billion to
take care of people who pay less than that because they are married,
and they should, but at the same time, they would do this without
bringing a budget to the House floor.
So once they find out that the President needs a budget, needs to
take care of social security, needs to take care of Medicare, wants to
pay down the national debt, if they decide not to do any of these
things, then they are saying they do not want relief from the marriage
penalty.
Let me say it again. Unless they agree to work out something with the
President to avoid the veto, which would include drafting a budget that
takes into consideration shoring up Medicare, shoring up social
security to pay down the debt, if they travel in the other way, if they
break the rules of the House, if they get waivers from the House, if
they bring it to the floor and say that they are not going to do any of
those things, then they know there is going to be a veto.
Why ask for a veto? Why not work this out with the Democrats? Why not
work it out with the President of the United States? Why does it have
to be a camel's head in the tent for a $1.8 trillion tax cut given to
us in dribbles and drabs when what we can do is to see what we can do
to fix the roof while the sun is shining; do those things that a great
country should be doing while we have the surplus; take care of this
social security, which all of us have beneficiaries of in our
districts; make sure that we have affordable prescription drugs for our
elderly; make certain that the Medicare system works for our aged; and
pay down the national debt, so that the billions of dollars that we are
paying in interest can be eliminated so that we can do more things for
education, more opportunities for job training, and close that gap
between those who have nothing, and not even hope, and those who have
been the recipients of a very great economy?
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that as we reject the Republican plan that
has worked outside of a nonexistent budget, that we will have an
opportunity in the substitute that would follow to really target the
money where it could really relieve the pain of the penalty of getting
married and paying more taxes, but at the same time we will be giving

[[Page H308]]

assurances to Americans that we have a budget where they know how this
fits in, that it is not the same 800-pound, $792 billion gorilla they
could not get off the ground last year, it is not the George W. $1.8
trillion tax cut, it is not the camel trying to get the tax cut head in
terms of the tent, as we try to take care of our national obligations.
We have to be able to say that we are going to do all of those
things, social security, Medicare, pay down the debt, and then, of
course, we can join across the aisle working with the President and
taking care of the marriage penalty.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that, if we can possibly defeat the Republican
plan, I hope that we can join together on the substitute, which will be
signed into law.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, the issue before us today is a fundamental question,
should the Internal Revenue Service tax the institution of marriage,
not the other issues that were spoken about earlier.
The answer to that is no. In my district alone, 54,000 couples will
feel the pain of paying higher taxes, just because they are married,
than single people. This is an issue beyond just money, it is an issue
of fairness and what is right in America. Americans know what is fair
and what is not fair, and this marriage penalty is not fair.
This marriage penalty is also anti-woman. Presently, the Tax Code
taxes the income of a second wage-earner, usually the wife, at a much
higher rate than if she were taxed as a single person. That is wrong.
We should not let some antiquated budget law get in the way of equality
for working moms.
Finally, the marriage tax penalty punishes working couples by pushing
them into a higher tax bracket. Of these couples, middle-aged families
and seniors are hit the hardest.
Mr. Speaker, let us do the right thing. Let us pass this and move on.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, we have just received, on our side, a brand new bulletin
called the White House Bulletin. It provides in it that ``The White
House reveals the Democrat 2000 Agenda.'' It is entitled ``Families
First, the 2000 Democrat Agenda.'' The ink on this is not even dry at
this particular point, and already we are seeing the marriage penalty
being defended.
We are hearing a lot about budgets. What about the family budget? I
have four kids. All of them are married, all of them have kids, all of
them have mortgages, all of them have health insurance to pay. All of
them have all of the expenses and all of the payments that we would
expect to have all across this country. All of them are getting
penalized because they are married, and paying higher taxes because
they are married. That is wrong.
It is like the earnings penalty. We should not penalize earning under
social security. We are going to start with a hearing next week, and we
are going to have this done, and it is going to be done with a great
deal of bipartisan support.
Already we have seen bipartisan support for the marriage penalty
elimination. We have had speakers on both sides of the aisle get up.

{time} 1415

We do not have to have everything exactly the way the President wants
it in order to support it. The Democrats are going to have their shot
twice for bills that they can put up, but when these bills go down, do
not vote against the Marriage Penalty Elimination Act. This is a very
important piece of legislation.
We have the best crack at changing it; but if that fails, join with
us and work together; and we will eliminate this evil tax that we have,
the marriage penalty tax. It must be done away with, and I urge all
Members to vote on final passage of this bill.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, there are 65,000 couples in the
congressional district that I represent who are married and who are
paying a total of $91 million per year as a fine simply because they
are married and working. That is indefensible. I cannot see how any
Member of Congress can defend a tax that penalizes people just because
they get married.
The government should be fostering marriage. It should not be taxing
it.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Cook).
Mr. COOK. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the leadership and the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Archer) for bringing marriage penalty relief
legislation to the floor early in this session of Congress.
This burdensome tax that punishes so many Americans for getting
married is nothing more than ridiculous. Working women and minorities
are suffering most from this tax, as they often earn less than their
white male counterparts. This is unfair.
The 65 provisions in our current Tax Code that penalize marriage
discriminate against the very institution that we should be trying to
preserve. Over 70,000 married couples in my district, more than 210,000
couples in my home State of Utah, and millions nationwide, are affected
by the marriage penalty. Regardless of whether both spouses work, the
marriage penalty relief will help families by reducing their tax
liability and giving them back some of their hard earned money.
I hope the President will join our efforts to help families by
signing this bill into law.
The government should not be taking economic advantage of those who
do the right thing, get married and work to provide for their families.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Fossella).
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Archer) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, like the speakers before, let me indicate that there are
49,174 married couples in Staten Island, Brooklyn, who will benefit
from this marriage penalty relief bill. That is 49,174 families who are
going to have more money to spend on their education, on their home, on
their cars. Essentially, they will have the freedom to spend that money
as they see fit, and not the folks here in Washington.
I heard a lot of rhetoric today about the wealthy, the rich. The
facts are, under this bill a New York City fire fighter, who is married
to a New York City teacher, I do not think they can be characterized as
wealthy, they would benefit to the tune of over $1,500 under this bill.
Again, that is a fire fighter married to a school teacher. That is the
so-called wealthy and the rich who will benefit under this bill.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is essentially about righting a wrong and
providing freedom to the American people to spend their tax money as
they see fit, and for those who want to engage in class warfare I
suggest they go back home to Staten Island and all across the country
and tell those teachers and fire fighters that they are too wealthy to
receive their money back.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to another respected
Member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn).
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas
(Chairman Archer) and his committee for the hard work they have done on
this issue and others.
Mr. Speaker, as we have heard today, our Tax Code unfairly punishes
married couples by forcing them into a higher tax bracket and therefore
causing them to pay more taxes than if they had filed separately.
We have already heard that this marriage penalty forces over 25
million families to pay an average of between $1,400 and $1,500 a year
in taxes more. This is simply unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, what we have before us today is simply an issue of
fairness. It is unconscionable that our Tax Code punishes couples for
choosing to get married and to have a family. Today we have an
opportunity to eliminate the marriage penalty, and in my mind it is
simply the right thing to do and we need to do it now.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois

[[Page H309]]

(Mr. Weller), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and Means,
one of the lead sponsors of this legislation.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Archer), for the long-time leadership that he has given on the
issue of eliminating the marriage tax penalty in his time and tenure in
the House and on the Committee on Ways and Means.
Over the last several years, many of us have been asking a pretty
fundamental question, and that is, is it right, is it fair, that under
our Tax Code that 25 million married working couples on average pay
$1,400 more in higher taxes just because they are married?
In fact, in my home State of Illinois, 1.1 million married working
couples, almost 120,000 married people in the south side of Chicago and
the south suburbs that I represent, suffer the marriage tax penalty.
Of course, we know that the marriage tax penalty is created when a
man and woman get married. Two single people when they marry they file
jointly and their combined income pushes them into a higher tax
bracket, creating the marriage tax penalty. Some say that the $1,400
average marriage tax penalty is just a drop in the bucket, it is no big
deal, let us keep that money here in Washington and spend it here, but
for the folks back home the $1,400 is real money for real people.
$1,400 is one year's tuition for a nursing student at a community
college in Illinois. It is 3 months of day care in Joliet. It is a
washer and a dryer for a home. It is real money for real people.
We want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty for everyone. If we
look at who suffers the marriage tax penalty of those 25 million
people, one-half of them do not itemize their taxes. The other one-half
do. Many middle class families itemize their taxes because they are
homeowners or they give money to the church or the charity or their
synagogue.
We need to help everyone who suffers the marriage tax penalty. And I
am proud that the bill that we have before us under the leadership of
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), H.R. 6, legislation which has
almost 240 cosponsors, a bipartisan bill, Democrats and Republicans
working together. And I am proud that almost 30 Democrats have joined
with us in an effort to eliminate the marriage tax penalty and help
married couples who suffer the marriage tax penalty in three ways. For
those who itemize, such as homeowners and those who give to charity, we
widen the 15 percent bracket. That helps 42 million married couples.
We also help over 9 million couples by doubling the standard
deduction for those who do not itemize; and for the working poor, those
who benefit and are helped by the earned income credit we address the
marriage penalty and eligibility for those who suffer the marriage
penalty under the earned income credit.
Over the last several years, I have pointed to a young couple that
came to me asking for help from the marriage tax penalty. This is Shad
and Michelle Hallihan, two public school teachers. They have a combined
income of $61,000.
Under the Democrat definition of rich, these two public school
teachers from Joliet, Illinois, are rich because they make $61,000.
Well, they suffer the average marriage tax penalty. Of course, under
the Democrat plan they would not have much relief. We provide relief by
widening the 15 percent bracket and essentially wipe out the marriage
tax penalty.
Michelle, who just is the proud mother as Shad is the proud father,
just had a baby and they point out by wiping out their marriage tax
penalty they have extra money equivalent to about 3,000 diapers for
their newborn baby. The marriage tax penalty is real money for real
people.
Now, the Democrat leadership has offered a lot of excuses, and why
not, to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. In fact, they say we have
to do all of these other things. Tough luck if one suffers the marriage
tax penalty. Maybe in 10 years we will take care of it. Well, that is
the difference.
The Joint Committee on Taxation was asked to score, to determine how
much marriage tax relief was in the bipartisan proposal or the Democrat
leadership plan. Of course, over 10 years we provide about $182 billion
in marriage tax relief. Without this, that means those married couples
still pay $182 billion in higher taxes because they are married.
Under the Democrat plan, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee
on Taxation, married couples get zero relief.
Mr. Speaker, let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. It is all
about fairness. Let us help everyone who suffers the marriage tax
penalty. Let us vote down the Democrat substitute and support H.R. 6.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, the marriage penalty is one of the most
unfair tax burdens the Federal Government places on American people
today. Under the current Tax Code, the marriage penalty taxes the
incomes of a married couple at a much higher rate than that of an
unmarried cohabitating couple. The most onerous thing about the tax
penalty is that it punishes working women and lower income couples with
children.
In essence, it taxes the income of the second wage earner, typically
the wife, at a much higher rate than if she were filing only
individually.
A married couple pays an average of $1,400 per year more than an
unmarried couple with the same income under the current Tax Code. That
money could be going toward paying bills, putting a down payment on a
car or a house, saving for college tuition for their children.
We have a chance today, Mr. Speaker, to do the right thing. By ending
the marriage penalty, we will help the middle class; we will help their
families lead better lives.
I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 6.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a highly respected member of the Committee
on Ways and Means.
(Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not first
about tax relief. It is first about tax fairness. It is also about
relief, but this is primarily a matter of fairness.
This bill does two very simple things. It gives a married couple
double the deduction that a single person would get. A single person
would get a deduction and the married couple gets twice the deduction,
but it does something even more important than that because the
deductibility issue is really relatively minor in determining how much
taxes one pays.
The exciting thing that this bill does is to double the 15 percent
bracket for married couples. That means when my kids make the economic
sacrifice--and I am proud they are but it is a big sacrifice--to stay
home with their kids and live on one salary, when they start going back
into the workforce because they do not want their skills to get too
rusty, when they start going back into the workforce in order to
balance their responsibility to their kids and their responsibility to
the economic strength of the household, they want to go back in sooner
rather than later but part time, not full time.
When we let them get popped up into a 28 percent bracket at $43,000,
we end up taxing their income so heavily that their husband says, ``oh,
honey, do not go to work. Between the expenses of work and what it will
do to us in taxes, it is better not to work outside our home.
We are educating women in America to higher standards than we have at
any other time in our history. They need to be able to enter the
workforce and we need them in the workforce, but they need to be able
to enter when their kids are capable of standing on their own two feet,
and they need to be able to slide in part time, 10 hours, 20 hours, 30
hours.
We do not want a Tax Code that makes it, frankly, not worth it to
work. We want a Tax Code that says they are going to get the same 15
percent bracket on their earnings that their husband gets on his
earnings. That is why fairness matters. It is about economic
opportunity. It is about using the best of one's abilities for
themselves, their family and our Nation. That is why this bill matters
so much. Tax fairness for families strengthens families and children.

[[Page H310]]

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by Mr. Rangel and against the politically-motivated Republican marriage
penalty tax proposal. The Democratic alternative is fiscally
responsible and uses the surplus in a fiscally responsible manner to
strengthen Social Security and Medicare and pay off the entire national
debt by 2013; all while ensuring that those truly in need of tax relief
receive it.
The marriage tax penalty occurs when both spouses earn approximately
equal incomes. The Democratic substitute spends less of the budget
surplus and provides true marriage penalty relief. The marriage penalty
relief in the Democratic alternative is $89.1 billion over ten years.
It provides for an increase in the standard deduction for married
couples filing jointly to twice the level for single filers and an
exemption from the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Further, it grants
couples a $2,000 increase in the beginning and ending income phaseout
levels for families claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) in
2001 and a permanent $2,500 increase starting in 2002.
The marriage penalty occurs in cases where a couple may pay more
taxes because they file jointly than they would as two single people.
Because the rate brackets and standard deduction for joint filers are
not twice as large as those for single filers, some couples find that
some of their income is taxed at a higher rate. Alternatively, if a
couple has very different incomes, or only one spouse works, the couple
gets a ``marriage bonus.'' A recent Treasury Department study estimated
that roughly 48 percent of couples pay a marriage penalty and 42
percent get a marriage bonus.
As drafted, H.R. 6 would give the lion's share of its tax cuts to
higher-income families, including those who currently suffer no
marriage tax penalty. The average tax cut for families with incomes
less than $50,000 would be about $149 per year, while families with
higher incomes would get an average tax cut of nearly $1000 per year.
Further, once fully phased in, nearly 70 percent of the benefit will be
enjoyed by couples earning more than $70,000 annually, even if they
suffered no marriage penalty under existing law.
More importantly, under the Republican plan, nearly half of America's
families with two children would receive nothing or less than the tax
relief promised. This results because the Republican plan will likely
force an increasing number of middle-class families with children to
pay the AMT. The AMT tax was designed to ensure that wealthy taxpayers
could not avoid income taxes through excessive use of preferences such
as credits and deductions. It is structured in a way that, if the
Republican bill passes, would require more families to be subject to
the AMT.
The Majority's plan is designed to re-create the trillion dollar tax
cut bill of 1999, using all of the projected surplus, at the expense of
investments in Social Security and Medicare, and paying down the
national debt. As the U.S. just set the record for its longest economic
expansion, why risk this economic prosperity by abandoning the fiscal
restraint that is helping propel this economy. As a senior member of
the House Budget Committee, I know we can provide tax relief for those
married couples who need it while using the vast majority of the
surplus to pay down the $3.7 trillion public debt and bolster Social
Security and Medicare--the two pillars of retirement security--for
future generations.
H.R. 6 undermines Social Security and Medicare, sacrificing our
elderly and working families and could lead us down the road to budget
deficits. The Republican plan is a rash gamble that foolishly
disregards the need to save Social Security and Medicare by refusing to
place this tax measure in the context of a comprehensive budget plan.
In addition to jeopardizing our investment in Social Security and
Medicare, the Republican proposal could cost us this opportunity to pay
down the national debt which today approaches $5 trillion.
Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Speaker, today, Congress will pass a bill to
eliminate the marriage penalty affecting over 25 million Americans. In
Montana alone, 89,169 families suffer from the $1400 penalty where they
are required to file a joint return.
Repealing the marriage penalty leaves about $125 million in Montana's
economy every year. Overall, it puts $182.3 billion back into the
nation's economy over the next 10 years.
The Marriage Elimination Act is fair because, by doubling the
standard deduction for joint returns, widening the 15 percent tax
bracket for joint filers to twice single returns, and increasing the
Earned Income Tax Credit by raising the ``phased-out'' limit by $2000,
it will treat married couples the same as single people.
Today's families are suffering from increasing demands and burdensome
taxes. Eliminating the marriage penalty allows them to spend this money
as they wish. The extra $1400 could mean several months of child care,
several car payments, or a semester of tuition at a community college.
It puts money immediately back in to Montana's economy which we can
all benefit from. The debate over this issue is essentially who should
come first--already burdened taxpayers, or the government. Those of us
supporting the measure say taxpayers should come first.
The bill is good for families, good for taxpayers, and good for our
economy.
I commend my colleagues for passing this bill and prioritizing
taxpayers over the government.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the substitute amendment
and in opposition to the underlying bill, H.R. 6. Unfortunately, the
debate here today is less about the merits of marriage tax penalty
relief than it is about the timing of this legislation and the best way
to provide such relief. We all agree that married couples should not be
subjected to increased tax burdens as a cost of their union. But H.R.
6--at a projected cost of $182 billion over ten years--does much more
than simply relieve the additional tax burden that some families pay.
Under our current tax law, many married couples receive a ``marriage
bonus,'' meaning they pay less tax than two single people with the same
income, while others pay a ``marriage penalty.'' More than half of the
tax cuts in H.R. 6 go to people who don't pay a marriage penalty and in
fact, to many who presently receive a bonus. That is because most of
the relief provided by H.R. 6 is not marriage penalty relief; it is an
expansion of lower tax brackets to include higher income people, so
two-thirds of the benefits in H.R. 6 go to the top one-fourth of
taxpayers.
H.R. 6 is not the way to provide marriage penalty relief. I will be
pleased to support legislation--like the substitute before us--that
provides real marriage penalty relief in a responsible way. I urge my
colleagues to work toward that goal.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
eliminating the Marriage Tax Penalty. Our tax code punishes married
couples when it should encourage families to stay together and help
them prosper. I am a co-sponsor of H.R. 6 in its original form and have
consistently supported the repeal of this egregious provision of our
tax code.
The original text of H.R. 6, however, was dramatically different from
the bill we consider today. The bill we consider today is bloated and
costly, while the original bill contained true marriage tax penalty
relief for those who need it most. I will cast my vote in support of
this bill today, but I do so only with the expectation that its
considerable flaws will be remedied in the Senate.
I am also disappointed in the process surrounding the consideration
of this bill. Tax relief for working families is long overdue. However,
it would be more prudent for Congress to consider tax relief as part of
the larger budget framework. Eliminating the estate and marriage
penalty taxes, as well as reducing the burden of the capital gains tax
and providing education tax credits, are important priorities. These
tax cuts should comprise 25 percent of a fiscally responsible budget--a
budget that also puts aside 50 percent of the surplus to reduce the
debt and 25 percent for investments such as national defense and
education.
I urge my colleagues not to lose sight of our responsibility of
ensuring that current economic prosperity continues long into the
future. We have a commitment to our children and grandchildren, and the
only way to truly fulfill that commitment is through debt reduction as
a result of responsible budgeting.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on marriage penalty
tax relief today because I am out of the country on official business.
While I support a targeted elimination of the marriage penalty, I am
opposed to H.R. 6. It's cliche, but true in this case nonetheless, that
the devil is in the details.
Let's get beyond the rhetoric of this issue and take a look at the
details. The plan offered by the Republicans skews its benefits to the
wealthiest Americans, including some who aren't even subject to a
marriage penalty. In fact, once the tax cuts contained in H.R. 6 are
fully phased in, two-thirds of the benefits go to the top quarter of
income earners.
It is also important to recognize that the bill is very expensive,
costing $182 billion over 10 years. Therefore, in order to make up the
lost revenue, Republicans will be forced to rely on projected budget
surpluses that may never materialize. In a little noticed section of
his prepared testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, CBO Director
Dan Crippen noted that if the economy slows and entitlement programs
such as Medicare and Medicaid grow faster than expected, ``the on-
budget surpluses that CBO is projecting in its baseline would never
emerge. Instead, the on-budget deficit would rise to more than $290
billion a year by the end of the decade.''
If this projection came to pass, Congress would be forced to pay for
H.R. 6 by drastically cutting services and programs Americans consider
essential, dipping into Social Security surpluses, or once again
running budget deficits.

[[Page H311]]

Instead of H.R. 6, which goes far beyond marriage penalty relief, I
support the substitute proposal offered by my Democratic colleagues.
The Rangel substitute provides the same, or larger, benefits for middle
and lower-income Americans but does not shower tax breaks on those who
don't need them. In addition, it ensures that Medicare, Social
Security, and debt reduction come first by delaying implementation of
the tax relief until these critical issues are addressed.
I think the Washington Post was dead-on when they recently
editorialized about H.R. 6 by saying, ``The bill, however, has little
if anything to do with marriage. The label is a gloss for a generalized
tax cut mainly for the better off. The bill is structured in such a way
that as much as half the benefit could go to families who don't even
incur the supposed penalty but receive a marriage `bonus' under the
law.''
Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, marriage penalty relief is an important
issue, and I am glad that the House is considering such legislation. I
have supported marriage penalty relief for years. That being said,
however, I am concerned about both the timing and the content of the
legislation currently before us.
I am concerned that the House is considering a major tax bill before
it has even begun to draft its fiscal year 2001 budget. The legislation
before us today would cut taxes by $180 billion over the next 10 years.
That is not an insignificant amount. While addressing the marriage
penalty should be one of Congress' top priorities, there are other
important decisions that Congress must make which will have substantial
fiscal impact. Recognizing the need for Congress to set tax and
spending decisions in a thoughtful, comprehensive manner, Congress
passed the Budget Act more than 25 years ago. This legislation has
provided a helpful process and sensible rules for making such
decisions. I believe that it should be adhered to.
Last week the Ways and Means Committee marked up this legislation.
This week it is on the floor. And yet, the House has not yet passed its
FY 2001 budget resolution. In fact, the House Budget Committee has not
yet even marked up this resolution. What other tax cuts will we pass
this year? Would enactment of this legislation preclude consideration
of other tax cuts? Would it stop us from taking action to preserve
Social Security? Would enactment of this legislation prevent us from
creating a Medicare prescription drug benefit? Would it keep us from
paying down the national debt? We simply don't know. We may be able to
do all of these things this year, but we just don't know yet--because
we haven't even begun drafting the budget. Consequently, I object to
consideration of this legislation now.
I also have concerns about the content of this legislation.
I have concerns about the bill before us today because it does not
target marriage penalty relief to the families that need relief the
most. Consequently, the bill would lose a great deal of revenue while
not providing a proportionate amount of help to the households that we
should be helping. It does not seem like the best way to fix the
marriage penalty problem.
I believe that the President's budget addresses the problem in a more
fiscally responsible fashion, and I commend him for his proposal. It
would increase the standard deduction for two-earner households to
double the amount of the standard deduction for single filers. Since
most married couples claim the standard deduction and pay taxes at the
15 percent marginal rate, this provision would eliminate the marriage
penalty for most families.
Like the President's proposal, the Democratic alternative that will
be offered today would target marriage penalty relief to the families
that need it the most. This plan would also ensure that married couples
actually receive the marriage penalty relief that Congress wants them
to receive. Unlike the version of H.R. 6 that was reported out of the
Ways and Means Committee, the Democratic alternative ensures that the
alternative minimum tax will not prevent married couples from receiving
marriage penalty relief. Consequently, I will support the Democratic
alternative that will be offered today. I believe that this proposal
would do the most to help married couples in my district.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, Americans are slapped with extra taxes on
everything from earning a work bonus, to buying a house, and are even
taxed upon death. There is a tax designed for every stage of life, but
perhaps the most immoral tax of all is the marriage tax.
Over 28 million Americans pay an average of $1,400 extra in taxes
each year simply because they are married. The marriage penalty
punishes millions of married couples, almost 425,000 of them in my home
State of Alabama, who file their income taxes jointly by pushing them
into higher tax brackets.
When the marriage tax first appeared in the tax code in 1969, most
families had only one bread winner, and the tax provision was actually
designed to give a tax cut, or a so-called ``marriage bonus'' to one-
income families. But the government ignored the eventual tax burden on
families. Instead of dismantling this tax, the government continued to
collect extra taxes from those who chose marriage, making it harder to
raise their families. This current tax code makes it more expensive for
couples to marry, immorally discouraging the most sacred of
institutions--marriage.
Congress is making strides to right the wrong of government's
financially abusive punishment of marriage, the foundation on which
strong families are built. To address this concern, I am proud to
cosponsor the Marriage Tax Elimination Act, offered by the gentleman
from Illinois, to eliminate the marriage penalty.
Congressman Weller's proposal would significantly reduce the average
$1,400 in additional taxes per year that married couples pay than if
they remained single. Additionally, while I agree with those who
believe we should recognize the economic empowerment that can be
achieved by returning money from Washington bureaucrats to working
families, I also believe we should also recognize the moral empowerment
of proposals which can strengthen an institution essential to our
cultural and National well-being, the Family.
I urge my colleagues to join me in co-sponsoring the Marriage Tax
Elimination Act.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce I will vote for
this legislation even though I have serious reservations about many of
its details. I will vote for this bill because I support providing
relief from the burden of taxation on North Carolina's families.
Let me be clear that the Democratic substitute to this bill is far
superior legislation, and I proudly voted for it. But that alternative
has failed and the question falls to passage or defeat of H.R. 6.
Despite my concerns about the cost of this bill and the distribution
of its benefits, I support passage of H.R. 6 to move the legislative
process forward toward a balanced, compromise solution that provides
real relief from the marriage penalty for married couples in North
Carolina. I reserve the right to vote against the final version of H.R.
6 if it comes back from the Senate with its severe flaws still intact.
And I support the right of the president to veto this legislation if it
threatens our ability to honor our commitments to Social Security,
Medicare and debt reduction and our priorities of education, law
enforcement, and agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, I call on the Majority Leadership in this House to work
in a bipartisan manner to achieve our shared goals of meaningful relief
from the marriage tax penalty for our nation's families.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6, a bill that
under the guise of marriage penalty relief advances a tax plan that is
skewed toward high income earners, leaves inadequate resources for
working family tax relief, and makes a debt reduction a second tier
priority. Members who want to address the marriage penalty while
maintaining fiscal responsibility should vote for the Rangel substitute
and against H.R. 6.
If H.R. 6 were only concerned with providing targeted tax relief to
married couples who are penalized by the current code, the bill would
pass with unanimous support. Unfortunately, the majority has brought
forward a $200 billion bill in which half the benefits go to people who
receive a marriage bonus, and two thirds of the benefits go to people
earning more than $75,000. By grossly inflating the costs of marriage
penalty relief, the majority is jeopardizing other needed tax relief
for working families and impeding our effort to pay down the debt.
The greatest gift Congress could give to married couples and to all
the American people is to pay down the debt. H.R. 6, however, lays
claim to more than $200 billion of the projected budget surplus before
this session of Congress has dedicated even one dollar to debt
reduction. Paying down debt should be our first priority, not our last.
The improved budget outlook will allow Congress and the President to
enact targeted tax cuts within a fiscally responsible framework. By
considering H.R. 6 outside the context of the overall budget, however,
the majority is draining resources from other working family tax relief
including tax cuts to help pay for college, to encourage retirement
savings, and to increase the affordability of health care. I support
marriage penalty relief, but we should do so in a way that leaves room
to address the core pocketbook issues that working families face.
In sum, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Rangel
substitute and to oppose H.R. 6.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am very reluctant to vote for
this bill--but I will.
I am reluctant because this is not the best time for this bill, and
this is not the best bill for the job.
It's not the right time because under the Budget Act, a tax bill like
this--or a spending bill, for that matter--should not be considered at
all until after Congress has passed an overall budget resolution to
establish priorities

[[Page H312]]

among revenue measures and appropriations bills. That is the rule,
because that is the prudent way to set our fiscal policy. I agree with
the Concord Coalition that we should follow that rule, which is why I
voted against the Republican leadership's motion to waive that rule so
this bill could be taken up today.
And this is not the best bill for the job because in some areas it
does too little, and in others it does too much.
It does too little because it does not adjust the Alternative Minimum
Tax. That means it leaves many middle-income families unprotected from
having most of the promised benefits of the bill taken away. The
Democratic substitute would have adjusted the Alternative Minimum Tax,
which is one of the reasons I voted for that better bill.
The Republican leadership's bill does too much in another area.
Because it is not carefully targeted, it does not just apply to people
who pay a penalty because they are married. Instead, a large part of
the total benefits under the bill would go to married people whose
taxes already are lower than they would be if they were single. In
other words, if this bill were to become law as it now stands a primary
result would not be to lessen marriage ``penalties'' but to increase
marriage ``bonuses.''
And, by going beyond what's needed to end marriage ``penalties'' the
bill--if it were to become law--would go too far in reducing the
surplus funds that will be needed to bolster Social Security and
Medicare.
Those are the reasons for my reluctance to vote for this bill. They
are strong reasons--in fact, if voting for the bill today would mean
that it would be law tomorrow, I would vote against it. But that isn't
the case, fortunately. This is the start, not the end of the process--
and I will reluctantly vote for the bill because I favor eliminating
the marriage penalty and having the House pass this bill is the only
way we can try to do that this year.
Under the Constitution, all tax bills must start here, in the House.
And during the course of today's debate it's become clear that this is
the only tax bill dealing with the marriage penalty that the Republican
leadership will allow the House to consider this year.
For them, it's their way or no way. But that's not the end of the
story, fortunately. From here the bill must go to the other body, where
it can be improved, and any final bill must go to the President for
signature or veto.
So, because I do think the marriage penalty should be ended, I will
vote for this flawed and unsatisfactory bill in order to send it to the
other body. I hope that there it will be improved. If it is changed, it
will have to come back to us here in the House. If that happens, and it
is improved to the point that it merits becoming law--meaning that it
will deserve the President's signature--I will vote for it again,
without reluctance. If it is changed but falls short of being
appropriate for signature into law, I will not support it.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong
support for H.R. 6, the Marriage Penalty Tax Relief Act of 2000. As an
original co-sponsor of this bill, I am pleased to stand here today to
urge my colleagues to vote in support of the sanctity of marriage and
in turn, divorce this burdensome tax.
66,604 hard-working married couples in my district, the eleventh
district of Virginia and over 21 million loving couples across the
nation are unfairly penalized by our Tax Code system simply because
they chose to make a life time commitment to each other and walk down
the aisle. On average, the words, ``I do'' carry the high price tag of
$1,400 a year. Is it right to place such an unfair financial burden on
the shoulders of two wage earner working families? No, but our current
tax system requires that married couples file joint tax returns based
on the combined income of the husband and wife. When both the husband
and the wife work, the secondary earner is, in effect, taxed at the top
rate of the primary earner. As a consequence, a married couple could
pay more than they would if each spouse were taxed as a single wage
earner.
We need the Marriage Penalty Tax Relief Act of 2000 to eliminate this
financial deterrent to marriage. H.R. 6 would provides $182.3 billion
in tax relief over 10 years, by raising the standard deduction for
married couples filing jointly so that it is equal to twice the
standard deduction single filers. It also expands the lowest tax
bracket (15%) to twice that of the corresponding bracket for single
filers. To help low income working families, the plan increases the
Earned Income Credit (EIC), making more couple eligible for EIC
assistance.
I would like to commend Representative Jerry Weller for taking the
initiative to introduce this vital tax relief bill. And I applaud my
fellow members of the Republican Leadership and the 236 co-sponsors of
this bill on both sides of the aisle, for their support for making the
tax system fair for married couples a priority. Let's eliminate this
penalty and give families financial freedom to make a down payment for
their first home, save for a car or their child's college education. I
strongly urge all of my colleagues to give married couples the best
gift they could possibly receive from Congress for Valentine's Day,
freedom from this punishing tax.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government taxes work,
savings, investment, risk taking, creativity, ingenuity,
entrepreneurship--even death. You name it, Washington taxes it, and
sometimes Washington taxes it twice or three times.
So it is not all that surprising that the Federal Government taxes
marriage. And today we have an opportunity to right that wrong.
But let's not forget what we are and what we aren't talking about. We
aren't talking about tax cuts for the rich. We are talking about tax
cuts for women.
The simple truth is that the marriage tax disproportionately affects
women. Marriage taxes can impose a nearly 50 percent marginal tax rate
on second earners, most of whom are wives and mothers. And the hardest
hit by the marriage penalty are those couples who each earn between
$20,000 and $30,000 a year.
Ask those couples if they are rich, as they try to provide for their
children's education, pay off the mortgage on their house, and juggle
all of life's challenges.
Despite what the other side may say, H.R. 6 gives the most benefits
to these middle class families. That should be enough to get the
support of all my colleagues.
But the President says that his plan is the right way to give
marriage penalty relief. Well, let's talk about what his plan does--it
creates another inequity. His plan increases the standard deduction for
two-income married couples to double that of single filers only if both
couples work. If a woman decides to stay home to start a family, this
deduction does not apply and her taxes are higher.
This is wrong. How can we penalize anyone for staying at home to
raise their children?
We can't.
The Republican plan ensures that all married filers receive marriage
penalty relief, whether one parent stays at home with the children or
if both parents go to work.
H.R. 6 is the right way to give millions of Americans, including more
than 69,000 in my own district, real marriage penalty relief. I urge my
colleagues to support H.R. 6, and to support all American families.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act which will abolish the unfair marriage
tax penalty by raising the standard deduction for married couples
filing jointly so that it is equal to twice the standard deduction for
single fliers. It also expands the lowest tax bracket at fifteen
percent to twice that of single filers.
If you vote ``yes'' to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, fifty
million married taxpayers will gain from doubling the standard
deduction, and six million senior citizens will benefit from this
provision. Another six million taxpayers will no longer have to
itemize, which greatly simplifies the tax process, and taxpayers will
save $66.2 billion over ten years.
On the other hand, if you vote ``no,'' you will be taking an average
of $1,400 out of the pockets and bank accounts of our nation's
hardworking families.
If you vote ``no,'' you will be rejecting legislation that benefits
the middle class, particularly women. Not only do women early just 74%
of what men earn, but under the marriage tax penalty, the second wage
earner is taxed at a higher rate. This is the ultimate double-whammy.
If you vote ``no,'' you will singlehandedly take much needed tax
relief away from more than 61,000 couples in my district and almost 1
million couples in my state who already pay more than their fair share
of taxes--just because they are married.
And finally, if you vote ``no,'' you will send a clear message to our
nation's children--that the sanctity of marriage is not to be
respected--it instead is to be taxed by Uncle Sam.
Do not punish couples because they have found happiness, have made a
lasting commitment to each other, and have gotten married. Cast your
vote for the American family today and vote to help do away with the
marriage tax penalty.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6, the
Marriage Tax Elimination Act of 1999, because it is designed to provide
significant tax relief to over 21 million married couples. According to
a recent report by the Heritage Foundation, there are currently 53,928
married couples in my district who are affected by the marriage
penalty. This year we have the chance to do the right thing and help
numerous families by eliminating the marriage penalty.
Our current tax code punishes working couples who file jointly by
pushing them into a higher tax bracket. The marriage penalty taxes the
income of the second wage earner--often the woman's salary--at a much
higher rate than if she were taxed only as an individual. Not only does
the marriage penalty financially

[[Page H313]]

penalize married couples, it also discourages single people from
getting married.
This bill will provide $182.3 billion in marriage penalty tax relief
over 10 years by allowing the average dual-income family to keep $1,400
more of their money each year. These savings can make a significant
difference to many families. Families will be using this extra money to
improve their current lifestyle, secure their future or save for their
children's education. Most importantly, it would encourage single
people in love to join not only their lives together but their 1040
forms!
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6, the
Marriage Tax Elimination Act and I urge my colleagues to support this
worthy, long overdue, legislation.
I became a cosponsor of this legislation because I believe the
marriage penalty is the most indefensible thing about our Nation's
current Tax Code.
The current Tax Code punishes married couples where both partners
work by driving them into a higher tax bracket. The marriage penalty
taxes the income of the second wage earner at a much higher rate than
if they were taxed as an individual. Since this second earner is
usually the wife, the marriage penalty is unfairly biased against
female taxpayers.
Moreover, by prohibiting married couples from filing combined returns
whereby each spouse is taxed using the same rate applicable to an
unmarried individual, the Tax Code penalizes marriage and encourages
couples to live together without a formal legal commitment to each
other.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 42 percent of
married couples incurred a marriage penalty in 1996, and that more than
21 million couples paid an average of $1,400 in additional taxes. The
CBO further found that those most severely affected by the penalty were
those couples with near equal salaries and those receiving the earned
income tax credit.
This aspect of the Tax Code simply does not make sense. It
discourages marriage, is unfair to female taxpayers, and
disproportionately affects the working and middle class populations who
are struggling to make ends meet. For these reasons this marriage
penalty needs to be repealed.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, just three months ago, this Congress
left Washington, having passed a budget none of us could take pride in,
a budget filled with gimmicks, so-called emergency spending and special
interest earmarks. Now we are starting off this new session on the same
track of fiscal irresponsibility and unresponsiveness to real issues.
The one difference is that, instead of a single massive tax cut along
the lines of that rejected by the American public last year and still
proposed by the Republican front-runner, the majority in Congress is
pursuing a piecemeal strategy. They are offering last year's rejected
tax bill, only repackaged in smaller chunks.
Today's so-called marriage tax reform is the first piece. Instead of
targeting tax relief to the people who need it most, this bill is
replete with other special interest provisions that will cost almost
$200 billion over the next ten years. Only about half the proposed tax
benefit goes to tax filers who currently pay a marriage penalty. Even
less relief goes to those most in need, since about 70 percent of the
benefits will go to couples earning more than $70,000 per year.
Ironically, this bill does nothing to address the growing problems of
working families being forced to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax.
In short, the majority's approach is to spend more money than we need
or can afford in order to help the people who need help the least,
while it shortchanges those who need help the most--the working poor
and lower income families, who have seen their income fallen by about 9
percent.
The Democratic alternative takes a different approach. It is targeted
toward the people who most need help. It doubles the standard
deduction, adjusts the AMT so that families will receive the full
benefit of the standard deduction, and addresses the marriage penalty
in the EITC, providing greater relief for the working poor and near-
poor families. Not only will targeting aid this way help those who need
it most, it will save money--money that we can use to pay down the
debt, protect Social Security and Medicare, and fund what my
constituents tell me are their priorities: education, environmental
protection and prescription drug benefits. This is what the American
people want, what is needed in my district, and above all, something
could be accomplished in a heartbeat with no partisan rancor.
I hope we can start working together today to make our tax system
fairer and to help people who need it most.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss H.R. 6, the Marriage
Penalty Relief Act of 2000. The bill is the right thing to do for many
reasons and I will support its passage. This bill will provide needed
tax relief for married couples by reducing the marriage tax penalty
while strengthening the financial resources of the American family and
fostering economic prosperity into the 21st century.
Currently, forty-two million married taxpayers, including almost
67,000 families in my district, will gain from the standard deduction
increases in this bill; the average tax cut for married couples
provided by the bill would be nearly $500 per year--money that will go
a long way toward paying for food, housing, and clothes for their
children; and the bill will significantly help low- and middle-income
working families.
I will be voting for this legislation; however, I will be doing so
with strong reservations. I have deep concerns that this Congress has
yet to act on a budget resolution this year and, as such, we have no
knowledge how this legislation will fit into our other collective
commitments to extend the solvency of Social Security and Medicare and
reduce our national debt. Congress should first pass a budget
resolution that puts into place a framework to strengthen Social
Security and Medicare and pay down the debt before enacting a big tax
cut--in stages or all at once--that spends the surplus.
That is why I will also be voting for the substitute bill and the
motion to recommit. The substitute not only takes a large step toward
eliminating the marriage penalty, it does so after we have developed a
budget that certifies the solvency of Social Security and Medicare and
after we have developed a budget that provides for debt repayment by
the year 2013. The motion to recommit provides that we first establish
a budget that ensures all of our priorities are met--solvency of Social
Security and Medicare, repayment of our national debt, and tax cuts.
Although the majority claims to support retiring the publicly held
debt, they have begun the session by scheduling several tax bills
funded by the projected budget surplus without giving any consideration
to the impact that the bills will have on the ability to retire this
debt. Although each of these bills will have a relatively modest cost
when considered in isolation, the total costs of these bills will be
nearly as much as the vetoed tax bill, and could even be more
expensive.
I caution my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, that this
marriage penalty bill reported by the Ways and Means Committee will
consume most, if not all, of the resources that will be available for
tax cuts without jeopardizing our commitment to paying down the debt
and strengthening Social Security and Medicare. I caution my colleagues
that if this marriage penalty bill is enacted, it may be difficult to
enact additional tax cuts that Congress considers--estate tax relief,
tax credits for health insurance and education, and Alternative Minimum
Tax (AMT) reform.
We can and should cut taxes. But any tax cut must be in the context
of a fiscally responsible budget that eliminates the publicly held
debt, strengthens Social Security and Medicare, and addresses our other
priorities. While I will be supporting this legislation, I am doing so
to move the process forward and to correct a wrong in our tax code.
I hope this Congress considers carefully this bill's cost in the
larger context of the federal budget and I hope the Senate will take on
this important issue in a responsible manner that places these other
priorities in context.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, the United States Tax Code discourages
marriage. No amount of fancy accounting or political rhetoric can
dispute this fact. Today's vote will assist in relieving a tax burden
felt by more than 74 thousand couples in my eastern Colorado district.
Statewide, 444,578 Colorado couples are affected by marriage tax
penalties--penalties in place just for being married.
Mr. Speaker, the current tax law punishes married couples who file
income taxes jointly by pushing them into higher tax brackets. The
marriage penalty taxes a portion of combined income at higher rates
than if each salary were taxed individually.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the federal income tax
system imposes a marriage tax penalty on nearly fifty million
Americans. Further, Mr. Speaker, the marriage tax penalty discourages
hard work by penalizing dual-income married couples more than other
individuals. It is unfair and inappropriate for the federal government
to impose an additional income tax penalty on married individuals.
Mr. Speaker, I submit House Joint Resolution 99-1055, passed by the
Colorado General Assembly, for today's Record. Colorado's resolution
urges the United States Congress to enact legislation eliminating the
federal marriage tax penalty. In addition to their recommendation, the
President of the United States of America called for marriage tax
penalty relief in his final State of the Union Address.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the president, the Members of the Colorado
General Assembly, and the millions of Americans who are calling for the
elimination of the federal marriage tax penalty. I urge my colleagues
to join me in voting to eliminate these anti-family, anti-American tax
provisions.

[[Page H314]]

House Joint Resolution 99-1055

Whereas, The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the
federal income tax system imposes a marriage tax penalty on
twenty-three million Americans; and
Whereas, The marriage tax penalty discourages hard work by
penalizing dual income married couples more than any other
individuals; and
Whereas, Under the federal income tax system, married
individuals have smaller standard deductions, earlier loss of
itemized deductions and personal exemptions, a smaller
capital loss deduction, and a double loss of IRA deductions
when compared to single individuals; and
Whereas, The marriage tax penalty has a severe impact on
the working poor; and
Whereas, It is unfair and inappropriate for the federal
government to impose an additional income tax penalty on
married individuals; and
Whereas, Several bills to eliminate the federal marriage
tax penalty are presently pending before the United States
Congress; and
Whereas, The elimination of the federal marriage tax
penalty is an important step in creating a fairer and simpler
federal income tax system; now, therefore,
Be It Resolved by the House of Representatives of the
Sixty-second General Assembly of the State of Colorado, the
Senate concurring herein:
That we, the members of the General Assembly, urge the
United States Congress to enact legislation eliminating the
federal marriage tax penalty.
Be It Further Resolved, That copies of this Joint
Resolution be sent to each member of the Colorado
congressional delegation and to Charles O. Rossotti,
Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a proud cosponsor and strong
supporter of the measure before us to provide urgent relief to families
suffering from the unfair marriage tax penalty.
About 25 million married couples currently pay an average of $1,400
more in taxes than they would as single taxpayers. in my own
congressional district alone, almost 160,000 taxpayers pay higher taxes
simply because they are married. That is simply wrong.
Consider what $1,400 a year would mean to a family struggling to make
car or mortgage payments, to buy groceries and clothes for their kids,
or to save for their child's college education. If we don't believe
marriage penalty tax relief will make a difference in the lives of real
families, then we are severely out of a touch.
And significantly, the bill will provide relief to both taxpayers who
itemize deductions and those who fill out a simplified tax form. It
helps two-earner couples and couples in which only one spouse earns an
income. I am stunned by those who believe the families who make
sacrifices so one parent can stay home with the children do not deserve
relief.
I had hoped when I heard the President's State of the Union Address
that marriage penalty relief would be a bipartisan effort in this
session. But as near as I can tell, some have decided it is ``too
soon'' to provide this fairness. When is it too soon to stop an
injustice?
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support real relief for real
families, right now.
Mr. PHELPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to fulfill a commitment to my
constituents but also to express my disappointment with the way in
which this House is ignoring our established budget process. I also
want to strongly caution my colleagues against continuing down this
road of piecemeal tax cuts which threaten to devour our entire surplus
before they can be evaluated in the overall budget context.
Early in my tenure I made a commitment to those who sent me to
Washington to support an issue of great importance to them, marriage
penalty relief. At the time, H.R. 6 was the primary vehicle for
eliminating the marriage penalty, and I agreed to co-sponsor the bill.
I do not believe this bill is perfect, and I do not support the timing
of this vote, which flies in the face of reasonable budget decision-
making. However, I believe in keeping promises to my constituents, and
today I will honor my commitment by voting in favor of H.R. 6.
Over 25 million married couples, including 55,000 in my congressional
district, experience the marriage penalty when they pay their taxes
each year. Our current tax code punishes many married couples by
pushing them into a higher tax bracket and taxing the second wage-
earner's income at a higher rate. I do not believe our tax code should
discriminate against any group, and we certainly should not cause
couples to make marriage decisions based on the tax implications of
their choice. Furthermore, marriage is often a precursor to new
financial obligations, such as buying a home, deciding to start a
family, and beginning to save for a child's education. We should by no
means make it harder for couples to meet these obligations.
Last year, I voted against the massive, irresponsible Republican tax
cut package. Since then, I have consistently assured my constituents
they would have my support if certain elements of that bill, such as
elimination of the marriage penalty of phase-out of the estate tax,
were considered alone. Today, I will honor that promise, but I do so
reluctantly for the following reasons.
It is incredibly irresponsible to consider H.R. 6 as one of the first
orders for business of this new legislative session, before any
consideration of a budget resolution. I think every member of this
House agrees that we can and should provide tax relief to the American
people this year. But we should not be making these decisions in a
vacuum, while we remain completely blind to their ultimate impact on
the overall budget picture.
As we debate this bill today, none of us knows what it will mean to
our ability to pay down the debt, shore up Social Security and
Medicare, provide a prescription drug benefit or pay for vital programs
like health care, veterans benefits, agriculture, defense and
education. Today's vote sets a dangerous precedent, and I worry that
the Republican leadership has started down a dangerous course of
passing last year's failed tax cut package in a series of small pieces
which mask their overall impact on the budget and impede our ability to
address other priorities.
Although I am prepared to ultimately support H.R. 6, I will first
vote for the Democratic substitute and the motion to recommit, both of
which I believe would enable us to provide common-sense tax relief
without jeopardizing our other goals. I have been a strong advocate for
debt reduction since joining this body, and I continue to believe a
significant portion of any surplus must be set aside for this purpose.
Eliminating our nation's debt is, in fact, the best tax cut we can
possibly give to our constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad today to fulfill a commitment to my
constituents by supporting the elimination of the marriage penalty. But
I sincerely hope that today's vote is not an indication of the way in
which the Republican leadership plans to deal with all tax legislation
this year.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6 and
in support of real marriage penalty tax relief that will benefit
married couples. The bill we are considering today is flawed in several
ways--both in terms of policy and in terms of process. Instead, I will
support the Rangel substitute amendment that will provide real relief
for married couples and will also allow us to continue working to
extend the solvency of both Social Security and Medicare and to pay
down the debt.
I will vote for the Rangel Substitute because it accomplishes the
right things--an increase in the standard deduction for joint filers to
twice that of single filers, an increase in the income level at which
the Earned Income Tax Credit is phased out and a provision to ensure
that Congress extends the solvency of Social Security until 2050 and
Medicare until 2030, and eliminates the debt by 2013. The Rangel
substitute will allow us to continue to work on the issues important to
all Americans--a prescription drug benefit for Medicare, a strong,
comprehensive Patients' Bill of Rights, a continuation of the greatest
economic expansion in the history of this country, and targeted tax
relief. The Republican Leadership's bill we are debating today places
all of these priorities at risk.
H.R. 6 is flawed because the bill targets the wrong people and it
places the potential surplus at risk. The most expensive provision of
this bill would only affect one out of four married couples. Once fully
phased in, this provision will cost $30 billion each year. However, the
beneficiaries of this provision are not penalized by the marriage tax
but, instead, receive what is known as a marriage bonus. H.R. 6 does
not provide the relief needed by the middle- and low-income couples
that are penalized by the Tax Code. My constituents deserve the best
marriage penalty tax relief possible, relief that is not provided by
H.R. 6.
Moreover, H.R. 6 irresponsibly taps the potential budget surplus
without consideration of the budgetary impacts. This bill isn't even
paid for! Where will the money come from? It will come from the current
efforts to pay down the debt, to extend the solvency of Medicare and
Social Security and to provide a comprehensive prescription drug
benefit. The bill's $182 billion price tag--which will undoubtedly
increase as adjustments are made to the alternative minimum tax and
other tax provisions--is too costly to blindly rush through Congress,
especially as we are just now beginning to consider the budget for the
next fiscal year. Congress should be working to provide real,
responsible marriage penalty tax reform that targets middle- and low-
income married couples.
H.R. 6 is also flawed because of the process under which we are
considering this bill today. President Clinton released his budget only
two days ago, Congress has yet to complete hearings on his proposed
budget and the House Budget Committee has not begun to work on a budget
resolution. Besides being irresponsible, consideration of this bill
violates the rules of the House. It is a violation of House rules to
consider tax or spending measures before Congress considers a budget
resolution. In order to consider this bill

[[Page H315]]

today, the Republican leadership forced a vote to waive this rule, Why?
Not in the name of true reform, but so they could grandstand on
Valentine's Day.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, the legislation which we are considering
today has little to do with helping struggling married couples and a
great deal to do with politics. For years now, we have been subjected
to partisan calls to deal with the so-called ``marriage tax penalty.''
We have heard stories about couples who have considered divorce, or
even been divorced, because they had a tax burden that was so
inequitable. I don't know about my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle, but most people that I know do not make the decision whether to
enter into--or not enter into--marriage vows simply because of the tax
implications of marriage. Matrimony has many consequences, but tax
consequences are probably not the major concern.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there has been very little cool
thoughtful consideration of the policies that we are considering here
today. It is abundantly clear that the version of the legislation
supported by our colleagues on the other side of aisle has much to do
with an agenda to benefit the wealthy and little to do with making our
tax system fairer for married couples. Approximately half of the tax
benefits this legislation provides will go to tax filers that currently
pay NO marriage penalty, and the bulk of the benefits will go to the
top quarter of income earners.
The Democratic alternative being presented by our colleague, the
gentleman from New York, Mr. Rangel, provides more genuine tax relief
for working families who do pay a ``marriage tax penalty.'' I urge my
colleagues to support the Rangel substitute.
Mr. Speaker, The Washington Post (June 16, 1998) published an
excellent article by Albert B. Crenshaw entitled ``Congress Tackles
Marriage Tax Penalty: Experts Doubt That Debate will Yield Lasting
Solution to Perennial Inequity.'' That article was particularly
insightful on this complex issue. I am submitting the article for the
Record at this point, and I urge my colleagues to read it. This careful
and thoughtful analysis provides a much-needed counterpoint.

[From the Washington Post, June 16, 1998]

Congress Tackles Marriage Tax Penalty--Experts Doubt That Debate Will
Yield Lasting Solution to Perennial Inequity

(By Albert B. Crenshaw)

As House Republicans rally around a proposal to eliminate
the tax code's ``marriage penalty,'' some experts are
skeptical that this latest round of debate on a long-
discussed issue will lead to a lasting solution.
The penalty, which causes some married couples to pay
higher income taxes than they would as single people, has
been a problem for as long as there has been a federal income
tax.
Over the years it has sparked repeated, and largely
unsuccessful, efforts by Congress to craft a solution
equitable to both married couples and singles. The repeated
failure of these efforts has led some experts to say it's
impossible to create a tax law that would cause all married
couples with the same income to pay the same tax, that would
treat taxpayers the same regardless of their marital status
and that would at the same time would remain progressive.
The key element that leads to the marriage penalty is the
progressive nature of the nation's tax code. As income rises,
it is taxed at higher rates, also known as brackets. When two
people marry, their income is added together, so instead of,
say, two singles in the 15 percent bracket, they become a
married couple partly in the 15 percent bracket and partly in
the 28 percent bracket.
For example, a single man earning $25,000 annually and a
single woman earning $25,000 would each be in the 15 percent
bracket. If they marry, however, their annual income becomes
$50,000 and some of it is taxed at 28 percent. For married
couples filing jointly, that higher bracket starts at
$42,350.
While the tax code penalizes married couples with similar
incomes, it benefits couples in which one spouse earns most
or all of the income.
For example, a single woman earning $50,000 annually is
taxed at the 28 percent rate for slightly less than half her
income, while the rest is taxed at 15 percent. If she marries
a man with no income, $42,350 of her income is taxed at 15
percent, and less than $8,000 at 28 percent.
For lower-income workers, the effect can be even more
dramatic because of the earned income tax credit, a credit
designed to ease the tax burden on low-income working
families. For example, the Congressional Budget Office last
year found that two single parents earning $11,000 each would
have no income tax liability and each would receive a $2,150
refund under the EITC. If they married, they would owe $765
in tax and receive only $1,368 under the EITC. The credit
would wipe out their tax liability, but their refund would be
only $603.
Thus this couple would lose $3,701, or 16.8 percent of
their income, by virtue of being married.
The CBO study found that about 42 percent of couples paid a
marriage penalty in 1996, 51 percent paid less than they
would have as singles--a marriage ``bonus''--and 6 percent
were unaffected. In other words, 21 million couples paid an
average of $1,400 in additional taxes because they were
married, while 25 million got a tax benefit--to the tune of
an average $1,300--because of their marital status. In total,
penalties added up to $29 billion, and bonuses to $33
billion.
Since World War II, tax policy has veered from greatly
benefiting married couples to helping out singles to today's
hodgepodge of rules that benefit some married couples and
penalize others.
The CBO noted that ``marriage penalties and bonuses are not
deliberately intended to punish or reward marriage. Rather
they are the result of a delicate balance among disparate
goals of the federal income tax system.''
Some scholars have found bonuses and penalties in the code
going back to 1914, but the modern dispute dates from 1930.
At that time, taxes were levied on individuals, and single or
married people paid at the same rates. This benefited couples
in which spouses had similar incomes and penalized those in
which one earned much more than the other.
In community-property states, however, state law required
that couples share all income equally. Taxpayers in those
states had begun dividing their income equally for tax
purposes as well, and in 1930 the Supreme Court upheld that
strategy.
This resulted in couples in different states being taxed at
different rates, depending on whether they lived in a
community-property or common-law state. In 1948, to remedy
this, Congress began allowing all couples to, in effect,
equally divide their income.
This, in turn, meant that singles paid more tax on the same
income than married couples. By 1970, a single person with
$20,000 in income was paying $5,328 in tax compared with
$3,750 for a married couple--a 42 percent penalty for the
single person.
Congress limited the differential to 20 percent beginning
in 1971, and in 1981 it added a two-earner deduction of up to
$3,000. This cut the penalty for couples affected by the
penalty but boosted the bonus for others. The Tax Reform Act
of 1986 repealed the two-earner credit but also sharply
reduced the number of tax brackets, from 15 to two--at 15
percent and 28 percent--and thus also reduced the marriage
penalty. The addition of new brackets in 1990 and 1993
boosted the number to five, and the issue began heating up
again.
____

Here is an example of the marriage penalty, with the
husband and wife earning equal salaries . . .

A MARRIAGE PENALTY, A BONUS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If filing as a single
-------------------------- Filing as a
Husband Wife couple
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted gross income............ $37,500 $37,500 $75,000
Less personal exemptions......... 2,550 2,550 5,100
Less standard deduction.......... 4,000 4,000 6,700
Equals taxable income............ 30,950 30,950 63,200
At 15 percent................ 24,000 24,000 40,100
At 28 percent................ 6,950 6,950 23,100
Tax liability.................... 5,546 5,546 12,483
Marriage penalty................. ........... ........... $1,391

. . . and of the marriage bonus,
with only one spouse as the sole
breadwinner.

Adjusted gross income............ $0 $75,000 $75,000
Less personal exemptions......... 2,550 2,550 5,100
Less standard deduction.......... 4,000 4,000 6,700
Equals taxable income............ 0 68,450 63,200
At 15 percent................ 0 24,000 63,200
At 28 percent................ 0 34,150 40,000
At 31 percent................ 0 10,300 23,100
Tax liability.................... 0 16,355 12,483
Marriage bonus................... ........... ........... $3,872
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCE: Congressional Budget Office.

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 6, the
Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of 2000. The Republicans will
characterize those who oppose their bill as opposing tax relief for
working families. This is not true. I support targeted tax relief for
working families. However, any tax legislation must be enacted
prudently and must be structured to target the right population. The
bill before us today is far from prudent. I oppose H.R. 6 because of
the process chosen by the GOP; the bill is misleading; and the
Democrats have offered a better alternative.
Targeted marriage tax penalty relief should be an issue that everyone
can support. So it was surprising to learn that Ways & Means Democrats
were left out of the whole process. The leadership developed this bill
without any consultation from Democrats. If real legislation is going
to pass the second session of the 106th Congress, then we must work in
a bipartisan fashion. It seems that my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle prefer to politicize legislation rather than produce policy
that will actually help the citizens we serve.
This bill puts the cart before the horse. There is no budget in place
in which to examine this bill in an overall framework for this year's
spending. To explain my point, the average American worker should not
go out and purchase a brand new car without knowing how much is needed
for their other expenses. The worker would end up with bounced checks
and nothing left for food and medical expenses. This is exactly what
the Republicans intend to do with this tax bill. Congress does not know
how much is needed for our other spending priorities. It is fiscally
irresponsible to spend money without an overall budget in place.

[[Page H316]]

Without a budget, last year's mantra to save Social Security and
Medicare has been completely ignored. I am committed to saving Social
Security for current and future retirees. I am also committed to saving
Medicare--and enhancing its benefits--for current and future retirees.
The American worker is entitled to both of these benefits in their
golden years. I will not participate in a negligent Congress whose
behavior could eliminate these two programs.
A vote on H.R. 6 today does not allow Congress to prioritize our
spending. So not only does this bill fail to ensure solvency for
Medicare and Social Security, it prohibits us from other spending needs
such as improving our schools, providing a Medicare prescription drug
benefit, and making health care available to the 11 million children
currently without it.
This bill needs to target tax relief for those who need it most.
Unfortunately, the GOP proposal actually helps wealthy Americans, not
simply those facing a tax penalty due to marriage. There are nearly as
many families that receive ``marriage bonuses'' as receive marriage
penalties in the U.S. As much as half of the $182 billion in tax relief
in the GOP bill will go to families who receive the bonus and are not
hurt by the marriage penalty. This bill's costliest provision,
expanding the 15% tax bracket, only benefits taxpayers in the top
quarter of the income distribution. This accounts for 65% of the plan's
total cost, or nearly $100 billion. The bill's title implies that it
helps those who are faced with a marriage penalty when it truthfully
benefits the wealthy.
Finally, I cannot support this reckless tax cut when the Democrats
have offered a safer, more responsible option. First and foremost, our
bill uses the projected surplus to extend the solvency of Medicare to
2030 and the solvency of Social Security to 2050. The American worker
has told us time and time again that extending these programs is a
priority. I've listened to my constituents and I encourage my GOP
colleagues to do the same.
The Democratic substitute bill is not only more responsible than the
Republican plan, it is also less costly and targeted to those who need
it most. Our plan costs $89 billion over 10 years; one needn't be an
economist to know that this is much more affordable than the $182
billion Republican price tag. Low-income married couples face a
marriage penalty in the earned income tax credit. The Democratic
substitute would reduce those penalties by increasing the income level
at which the credit begins to phase out by $2,000 in 2001 and by $2,500
in 2002 and thereafter. It would also repeal the current reduction in
the EITC and refundable child credit by the amount of the minimum tax.
Again, the Democratic substitute would provide greater tax relief for
these taxpayers than would the Republican bill.
We shouldn't even be debating marriage tax penalty today. This is not
the right time or the right product through which to achieve a
reasonable tax cut. It is ludicrous to take a piecemeal approach to any
tax reform package. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers has urged
President Clinton to veto this bill. We need to oppose H.R. 6, go back
to the drawing board, establish a budget and bring responsible tax
relief legislation to the floor for a vote.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, it is time we give 25 million married
Americans a break--a tax break, that is.
Under our current tax code, working, married couples are pushed into
a higher tax bracket than single working Americans. And worse yet, the
Marriage Penalty Tax impacts the second wage earner in a family--
usually a woman--so, she is taxed at a much higher rate just because
she is married!
Is this fair?
Of course not, and that's why Congress must try yet again to repeal
the Marriage Penalty Tax, an unfair tax burden on 25 million American
families.
Mr. Speaker, this is sensible tax relief for the middle class, and a
$1400 tax cut for these hardworking Americans will be put to good use.
Indeed, $1400 in the pockets of millions of married couples can be used
on important family obligations like tuition for college, a home
computer, renovating a kitchen and paying family bills, or investing
for retirement security.
Mr. Speaker, 818,116 married couples in my home state of new Jersey
would benefit directly if we repeal the Marriage Penalty Tax--72,605 in
my District alone, New Jersey's Eleventh.
Each one of them deserve relief from the Marriage Penalty Tax and New
Jersey's married couples deserve to know that they are paying only
their fair share to Uncle Sam--nothing more.
Let's repeal the Marriage Penalty Tax and restore fairness to our tax
code for America's married couples.
And let's get this Marriage Penalty Tax revenue, unfairly collected
by the Federal government, out of the hands of Washington bureaucrats
and into the pockets of America's married couples where it rightfully
belongs.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6 and I am proud to
be a cosponsor of this bill.
More than 20 million American married couples pay higher taxes than
they would if they were single. The ``tax'' on marriage in our system
averages nearly $1400 per couple. This $1400 could be used by couples
to save for college or retirement, make several months of car payments,
pay for braces or piano lessons. Unfortunately, some in this chamber
believe that Washington knows better how to use $1400 than a husband
and a wife.
Numerous statistical evidence is available that children are far less
at risk for academic and behavioral problems when raised in a two-
parent family. But built into our Tax Code is a disincentive for
families to stick together.
The marriage penalty in the Tax Code is more likely and larger in
those households where both marriage partners have incomes that are
nearly equal. In 1995, 72 percent of working age couples had both
individuals in paid employment. 12 percent of couples with incomes
below $20,000 had penalties in 1996; 44 percent of couples with incomes
between $20,000 and $50,000 had marriage penalties; and 54 percent of
those with incomes over $50,000 had penalties.
It is time that the Federal Tax Code support marriage, and not
penalize it. I urge the adoption of the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief
Act.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this
important legislation to end the unfair taxation of married couples and
provide real tax relief for working families. The marriage tax penalty
is one of the shining examples of stupidity and injustice in our overly
complex and injustice tax code.
Mr. Speaker, this tax hits real people, real hard. It punishes
working couples by pushing them into a higher tax bracket. It taxes the
income of the second wage earner--typically a working woman--at a
higher rate than if she were taxed as an individual. It impacts middle
class couples the most, with the greatest marriage tax penalties
falling on those families where the higher earning spouse makes between
$20,000 and $75,000 per year.
Overall, some 42 million working Americans pay higher taxes simply
because they are married. On average, each couple pays $1400 more every
year to the federal government simply because they are married. In my
Florida district alone, over 46,000 couples are hit by this ridiculous
marriage tax penalty. Let me tell you about how this tax affects some
of them in real terms.
I had an opportunity when this issue first gained prominence, to meet
in my district with 20 working women from Bradenton, Sarasota, and
Venice. Their number one concern was marriage tax penalty relief. Why?
Because this is not some obscure issue, these women knew what an extra
$1400 a year meant to their family budget. It's a new computer, it's
the yearly grocery bill, it's a semester at community college, or maybe
it's a much needed family vacation.
Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues here talk about wanting to expand
government subsidies and programs for health care or daycare. Let me
say to them, if you are serious about helping working families, then
let's start by letting these families keep $1400 of their own hard-
earned money each year and use it towards a year of health care
premiums or several months of day care. Let these families make their
own choices and meet their own needs without having to beg for their
own money back from Washington bureaucrats.
My district in Florida also has a large population of senior
citizens. Most people don't think of the marriage tax penalty hurting
seniors, but it does depending on how they receive income, and not just
the ones who are already married. A not uncommon situation is that two
widowed seniors meet each other in a retirement community, find new
love, and want to remarry. The marriage tax penalty actually
discourages them from remarrying. Our truly bizarre tax code says to
this senior couple that they are better off economically if they just
live together without getting married! I find this tax to be repugnant.
Mr. Speaker, a tax that penalizes people for falling in love and
getting married is an outrage. We have a chance today to get rid of it.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill and provide real tax
relief and fairness to 46,000 working couples in my district and 21
million families nationwide.
Mr. RILEY. Mr. Speaker, there's not a good reason why married couples
in my home State of Alabama should pay higher Federal income taxes than
if they were single and just living together.
But this is what is happening to more than 60,00 married couples in
my district alone and 25 million nation-wide because of the Marriage
Tax Penalty.
As our Federal tax law stands now, the average married couple in
America pays an additional $1,400 a year on their tax bill. That is
absurd.
Mr. Speaker, $1,400 is a lot of money to most folks in Alabama, and
not an amount

[[Page H317]]

they're happy doing without just because they are married. You can pay
a few house payments with $1,400, or a semester's worth of tuition and
books for college. Those are real life expenses, and not just numbers
on charts and graphs over at the Internal Revenue Service.
The institution of marriage should be sacred, not taxable.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act
and put an end to this unfair and irresponsible tax.
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that a popular tax relief
proposal, the so-called marriage tax penalty relief bill, is coming up
for a vote today. Unlike President Clinton, I believe that we can
achieve our budget and tax objectives simultaneously in this booming
economy. If we keep reigning in new federal spending and waste, fraud
and abuse in existing programs, we can provide this long overdue tax
relief--and more--while protecting Social Security, Medicare and
retiring the public debt.
H.R. 6 is needed to make a down payment on eliminating the marriage
tax penalty which roughly 67,439 couples in my congressional district
alone pay Uncle Sam each year. A marriage tax penalty happens when a
married couple pays more taxes by filing jointly than they would if
each spouse could file as a single person. The bottom line is that the
tax code punishes millions of couples by pushing them into higher tax
brackets, and middle income American families are hit the hardest.
Why should a man and a woman be forced to pay higher taxes simply for
being married? Since President Clinton vetoed the marriage tax penalty
relief package last fall, I am glad that we have started this process
early this year in the hope we can get a bill which President Clinton
will sign. After all, just two weeks ago he said he favored marriage
tax penalty relief. He should work with us to give hardworking
Americans a break.
Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak about the tax
code's Marriage Penalty. This is a fundamentally unbalanced, unfair,
and discriminatory section of the tax code.
For far too long, we have treated married couples as if they were an
opportunity for the government to tax more. In particular, for the
young newly married couple, this penalty means an average of fourteen
hundred dollars a year in confiscated income. Assuming a couple
invested this fourteen hundred dollars in an IRA that earned a ten
percent interest rate, at the end of thirty years they would have two
hundred and sixty-six thousand dollars for retirement. A ten percent
return is the historic rate.
In Idaho alone, one hundred and twenty-nine thousand married couples
are affected by this discriminatory tax. The standard of living and the
median income are below the national average. Unemployment rates are
above the national average. Marriage Tax relief would provide
substantive relief for the one hundred and twenty-nine thousand couples
in Idaho who are disparately impacted by this tax.
Mr. Speaker, equality before the laws is a principle enshrined within
our Constitution. In 1919, we gave married couples two votes instead of
one. It's time we treated hard-working married couples as two people
instead of one person and two-thirds of another person.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6, the
Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act.
The Republican-sponsored Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act provides
$182 billion in tax relief over the next 10 years. Since hundreds of
billions of dollars is hard to comprehend, let me explain how that
translates to our constituents.
In my Congressional district, over 140,000 taxpayers are penalized by
the tax code simply because they are married. In Illinois, 1.1 million
couples, or 2.2 million taxpayers are hit with a marriage penalty.
Nationwide, there are some 50 million individuals paying a marriage
penalty. On average, these couples each earn between $20,000 and
$30,000--hardly a princely sum. The bill before us today will provide
roughly $1,400 in tax relief to every family faced with a marriage
penalty.
I have long argued that the tax code is immoral because it penalizes
those values we pass along to our children. We encourage our children
to get married and start a family and to save their money for the
proverbial rainy day. Unfortunately, once they marry, they're
immediately punished by the tax code that charges them more than when
they were single. And don't get me started on capital gains taxes and
estate taxes punishing savings and investments for the future.
While most of us in Washington have publicly supported marriage tax
penalty relief, I am amazed that our Democrat colleagues are opposing
our bill and that the President has threatened to veto the measure. I
hear that my friend Mr. Rangel, a Member of our Ways and Means
Committee, calls our plan a gimmick. He is opposing our bill because it
is being ``rushed'' through Congress before we have a budget. We rush
emergency spending measures through this body on a regular basis. I ask
my colleagues--why is it wrong to rush this much needed tax refund to
hard-working Americans? Especially since President Clinton vetoed our
tax bill last year which would have provided relief from the marriage
tax penalty.
I understand that our Democrat friends have their own version of what
they call marriage tax penalty relief. Unfortunately, their plan
provides only a fraction of the relief of H.R. 6, while making the tax
code much more complicated in the process. Perhaps all that was rushed
was the drafting of their bill.
I urge my colleagues to reject the Democrat amendment and to support
H.R. 6 so that we can quickly provide this much needed tax relief to
Americans.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today to express his
support for H.R. 6, the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of 2000, of
which he is a cosponsor. This bill will have a positive effect, in
particular, on middle and lower income married couples.
At the outset, this Member would like to thank both the main sponsor
of H.R. 6 from Illinois [Rep. Weller] and the distinguished Chairman of
the House Ways and Means Committee from Texas [Mr. Archer], for their
instrumental role in bringing H.R. 6 to the floor of the House today.
While there are many reasons to support H.R. 6, this Member will
enumerate two reasons. First, H.R. 6 takes a significant step toward
eliminating the current marriage penalty in the Internal Revenue Code.
Second, H.R. 6 follows the principle that the Federal income tax code
should be marriage-neutral.
1. First, H.R. 6 will help eliminate the marriage penalty in the
Internal Revenue Code in two ways. It will increase the standard
deduction for married couples to double the standard deduction for
singles. In addition, H.R. 6 will increase the amount of couples'
income subject to the lowest 15 percent marginal tax rate.
2. Second, this bill will help the Internal Revenue Code become more
marriage-neutral. Currently, many married couples pay more Federal
income tax than they would as two unmarried singles. The Internal
Revenue Code should not be a consideration when individuals discuss
their future marital status.
Therefore, for these reasons, and many others, this Member urges his
colleagues to support the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of 2000.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, as families across the country start to
think about filing their taxes, there is a flaw in our tax code that
unfairly punishes millions of married couples. In the state of Florida
alone, more than 1 million married couples pay an average of $1,400 per
year more in taxes than they would pay if they are unmarried. This
burdensome tax is especially unfair to working women, whose income is
often cut in half by the higher tax rates caused by the marriage
penalty.
Under the current tax code, a married couple pays more taxes by
filing jointly than they would if each spouse filed as a single person.
The marriage tax penalty exists because the standard deduction for
couples ($7,350) is $1,450 less than double the standard deduction for
singles ($4,400 + $4,400 = $8,800).
In essence, the tax code punishes millions of couples by pushing them
into higher tax brackets. The marriage penalty taxes the income of the
second wage earner--often the wife's salary--at a much higher rate than
if the salary were taxed only as an individual.
For example, an individual earning $30,500 would be taxed at 15
percent. But a working couple with incomes of $30,500 each are taxed at
28 percent on their combined income of $61,000--costing the couple
almost $1,400 more in taxes because they are forced into a higher tax
bracket.
This year, the House of Representatives wants to provide American
couples real relief from the marriage tax penalty. I support H.R. 6,
the Marriage Tax Relief Act of 2000, which will provide more than 50
million American couples with $182.3 billion dollars in tax relief.
Under this plan, lower and middle income couples--those earning between
$20,000 and $70,000--receive the greatest relief.
H.R. 6 would increase the standard deduction for joint returns to
twice that of single filers, increase the width of the lowest tax
bracket for joint returns to twice that of single returns, and raise
the phaseout limit on the earned income tax credit (EITC) by $2,000 for
married couples. The increase in the standard deduction and the
increased phaseout limit for the EITC would be effective next year. The
increase in the 15% tax bracket would be phased in over 6 years
starting in 2003. Furthermore, H.R. 6 helps both families who itemize
their deductions, like homeowners, and those who do not itemize.
President Clinton, who vetoed the marriage penalty last year as part
of Congress' overall tax relief plan, recently proposed a smaller plan
that provides $45 billion over the next 10 years. His plan would double
the standard deduction over 10 years, as opposed to next

[[Page H318]]

year, and does not expand the 15% tax bracket like Congress' plan does.
Under the President's marriage tax relief plan, only families who do
not itemize their taxes would benefit. Simply put, Congress will
provide working couples with four times more relief than the
President's plan, dramatically easing the unfair tax burden on American
families.
For working families, an extra $1,400 a year could mean a new
computer to help children with their education, child care for three
months, or a contribution to retirement savings. Over a decade, that
money would pay for a family car, a college education, or the down
payment on a new home.
Of all the challenges married couples face in providing for their
children, the U.S. tax code should not be one of them. I believe
families--not Washington bureaucrats--know best how to spend the money
they have earned. It is time to eliminate the marriage tax penalty and
help strengthen the building block of or society--the American family.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, consistent with the position of many of my
colleagues, I firmly believe that the marriage tax penalty ought to be
alleviated. It is an unfair burden on many married couples and
families. Also, given the level of suffering that has rocked my
district, I would like nothing more than to have additional resources
remain in the pockets of my constituents.
During the rebuilding process--in the aftermath of destruction from
Hurricanes Dennis, Floyd and Irene--every dollar counts. This is
especially the case for low-income families.
However, Mr. Speaker, I am disturbed because this bill has many flaws
and it is ill-timed.
As a body, we have yet to agree to a budget resolution for Fiscal
Year 2001. Thus, size of any budget surplus remains to be determined.
As a body we have not yet done what we know Americans want us to do: to
reduce the debt, protect Social Security and Medicare first.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 is projected to have a net cost of $182 million
over the next ten years. This bill is far too costly and designed to
help those couples with no penalty and high incomes. The cost of H.R. 6
is too high, especially when many working families will not even
benefit from these proposed tax cuts. The cost of this bill is too
high, especially when, as a result of the structure of this
legislation, many couples currently unaffected by the marriage penalty
will receive tax reductions. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support
the Democratic alternative.
What is true is that Democrats and Republicans alike are committed to
alleviating the marriage tax penalty. The President also shares this
commitment. Where we differ is on how much this tax cut should be, how
universal in nature, and when this bill should be considered.
The bill we are currently considering will prevent other needed tax
cuts, prevent resources from being allocated to Medicare, Social
Security, child care and other family needs.
I strongly feel that the Democratic alternative to H.R. 6 is
effective and will achieve our overall goal of providing Americans
across this nation the relief that they so desperately need. It is a
more responsible approach in that it reduces the ``marriage penalty''
by $89 million over 10 years; this is about half of what is requested
in H.R. 6. More importantly, Mr. Speaker, the substitute makes the tax
reduction contingent on certification that the Social Security trust
fund will remain solvent until 2050, certification that the Medicare
trust fund will remain solvent until 2030, and certification that the
publicly held national debt is projected to be eliminated by 2013. I
ask my colleagues to vote responsibly by supporting the Rangel
substitute.
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the
125,000 married people in the Second District of Kansas who are
adversely affected by the marriage tax penalty.
Kansas couples have been penalized just for walking down the aisle
and saying, ``I do.''
As I've traveled across my district over the past three years and
held town meetings, each individual I have explained this penalty to
has said it is wrong. They are right, it is wrong, and today I can tell
them that we finally did something about it.
Returning $1,000 to the average working couple in Kansas will make a
real difference in their lives. It may allow them to save for their
children's college education, take a family vacation or make long
overdue home improvements. More importantly, returning this tax
overpayment will allow them to spend their money in a way that will
most benefit their families.
Mr. Speaker, we can look forward to as much as $1.8 billion in non-
Social Security budget surpluses over the next 10 years. This bill will
give back just 10% of the total projected non-Social Security surplus.
I think we can say with confidence that the federal government is in a
sound financial position to return some of the taxpayers hard-earned
money.
A yes vote on this important bill is not only fiscally sound, it will
end the unfair practice of taxing the marriage license, and will put in
place a tax policy that encourages marriage and families. Vote yes on
the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of legislation to repeal
the marriage tax penalty. Marriage is one of the most sacred
institutions and serves as a strong foundation for stable families.
However, our convoluted federal tax code doesn't see marriage as an
institution worthy of praise, but rather as a convenient way to provide
additional revenue for federal coffers.
The Treasury Department estimates that 25 million couples in the
United States have to pay an average of $1,400 more on their income
taxes every year, than they would if they could file as individuals. In
essence, the federal tax code punishes millions of married couples by
pushing them into higher tax brackets. The marriage penalty taxes the
income of the family's second wage earner at a much higher rate than if
the salary were taxed only as an individual.
This unfair assessment on marriage is nothing new, but it is becoming
a larger problem. The share of dual-earner married couples has risen
from 48 to 60 percent since 1969, and this percentage is only expected
to rise in the future.
Even the President recommended reducing the marriage penalty in his
final State of the Union Address, not once, but twice. I earnestly hope
that the new millennium will see the beginning of the end for this
unfair assault on married taxpayers.
We have tried for years to eliminate the marriage penalty. In fact,
it was a key provision in last year's Republican tax plan, which was
vetoed by the President. It is past time to get the job done, and I ask
my colleagues to support the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of 2000.
Our plan would increase the standard deduction claimed by couples who
do not itemize income tax deductions to double the amount of the
standard deduction for single taxpayers beginning in 2001. Unlike the
President's proposal, we also would provide relief for the millions of
families that do itemize their taxes.
By reducing the marriage penalty we can continue to expand the
benefits of our current strong economy to an even greater percentage of
the American people. I believe the lifting of this unfair marriage tax
penalty is a matter of fundamental tax fairness and will improve the
lives of many working families by allowing them to keep more of their
hard-earned paychecks.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, critics of the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief
Act are calling it irresponsible. I rise today to offer what I believe
is truly irresponsible.
Mr. Speaker, the past thirty years of taxing hard-working married
couples is irresponsible. Over-taxing American families at an average
of $1400 annually is irresponsible. Penalizing 25 million families
annually is irresponsible. Penalizing 58,781 families in my Southern
California district is irresponsible. Placing an unnecessary tax burden
on our working men and women who devote their lives to each other in
marriage is blatantly irresponsible.
Mr. Speaker, critics are calling eliminating the Marriage Tax Penalty
reckless. Mr. Speaker, this is not reckless. Punishing working married
couples is reckless. American families paying more in taxes than for
food, clothing, shelter and transportation combined--is unequivocally
reckless. Eliminating the marriage tax penalty for only a quarter of
the affected families as the President's plan would do is reckless.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and
provide meaningful tax relief for all of our working families. Failure
to do so is irresponsible. Failure to honor our most valued
institution--the family--is reckless. Let's not lose this opportunity
to affirm the American family and provide meaningful tax relief.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). All time for
general debate has expired.

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Rangel

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:

Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Rangel:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Marriage Tax Penalty Relief
Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. MARRIAGE PENALTY RELIEF.

(a) Standard Deduction.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (2) of section 63(c) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to standard
deduction) is amended--

[[Page H319]]

(A) by striking ``$5,000'' in subparagraph (A) and
inserting ``twice the dollar amount in effect under
subparagraph (C) for the taxable year'',
(B) by adding ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B),
(C) by striking ``in the case of'' and all that follows in
subparagraph (C) and inserting ``in any other case.'', and
(D) by striking subparagraph (D).
(2) Increase allowed as deduction in determining minimum
tax.--Subparagraph (E) of section 56(b)(1) of such Code is
amended by adding at the end the following new sentence:
``The preceding sentence shall not apply to so much of the
standard deduction under subparagraph (A) of section 63(c)(2)
as exceeds the amount which be such deduction but for the
amendment made by section 2(a)(1) of the Marriage Tax Penalty
Relief Act of 2000.
(3) Technical amendments.--
(A) Subparagraph (B) of section 1(f)(6) of such Code is
amended by striking ``(other than with'' and all that follows
through ``shall be applied'' and inserting ``(other than with
respect to sections 63(c)(4) and 151(d)(4)(A)) shall be
applied''.
(B) Paragraph (4) of section 63(c) of such Code is amended
by adding at the end the following flush sentence:

``The preceding sentence shall not apply to the amount
referred to in paragraph (2)(A).''.
(b) Earned Income Credit.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 32 of such Code
(relating to credit for earned income) is amended by adding
at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Reduction of marriage penalty.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of a joint return, the
phaseout amount under this section shall be such amount
(determined without regard to this paragraph) increased by
$2,500 ($2,000 in the case of taxable years beginning during
2001).
``(B) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any taxable
year beginning in a calendar year after 2002, the $2,500
amount contained in subparagraph (A) shall be increased by an
amount equal to the product of--
``(i) such dollar amount, and
``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable
year begins, determined by substituting `calendar year 2001'
for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.

If any increase determined under the preceding sentence is
not a multiple of $50, such increase shall be rounded to the
next lowest multiple of $50.''.
(2) Repeal of reduction of refundable tax credits.--
(A) Subsection (d) of section 24 of such Code is amended by
striking paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraph (3) as
paragraph (2).
(B) Section 32 of such Code is amended by striking
subsection (h).
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.

SEC. 3. TAX REDUCTIONS CONTINGENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY AND
MEDICARE SOLVENCY CERTIFICATIONS.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, no provision of this Act (or amendment made
thereby) shall take effect until there is--
(1) a social security certification,
(2) a Medicare certification, and
(3) a public debt elimination certification.
(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
(1) Social security solvency certification.--The term
`social security solvency certification' means a
certification by the Board of Trustees of the Social Security
Trust Funds that the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance
Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund
are in actuarial balance until the year 2050.
(2) Medicare solvency certification.--The term `Medicare
solvency certification' means a certification by the Board of
Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund that
such Trust Fund is in actuarial balance until the year 2030.
(3) Public debt elimination certification.--There is a
public debt elimination certification if the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget certifies that, taking into
account the tax reductions made by this Act and other
legislation enacted during calendar year 2000, the national
debt held by the public is projected to be eliminated by the
year 2013.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 419, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and a Member opposed each will
control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, for the last 3 hours we have been extolling
the virtues of eliminating the marriage tax penalty. The most amazing
part of the debate is, we all agree.
I agree with the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson). In
fact, I have introduced legislation that does just that. So that is not
in question before us today.
The President supports it. The Vice President, Al Gore, supports it.
What is the problem with the bill we have before us today?
Mr. Speaker, look at this chart.

{time} 1430

The problem with the bill, and I have taken the liberty of renaming
it, I think it should be really called the tax fraud act of the year
2000, because Republican after Republican has stood up and said the
bill provides marriage penalty tax relief. When the bill was before the
Committee on Ways and Means last week, we asked the Republican
staffers, where do the benefits go? Ms. Paulls, their main staffer,
conceded to all of us that over 50 percent of the benefits in this bill
go to people who do not pay a marriage penalty. They are in a marriage
bonus situation. They are rewarded for being married.
So what is all this rhetoric we are hearing about? Why will not any
of my Republican colleagues respond to this? If they do not have a
decent answer, just say, Because we wanted to do it, that is why.
Well, where does this inequity come from? What the Republicans have
done in this bill, they have added a change in the lowest tax bracket,
the 15 percent tax bracket. By doing that, we found from the Citizens
for Tax Justice that 84 percent of those benefits go to those earning
$75,000 a year or more.
Well, wait a minute. I just heard this is for the poor and moderate,
the couple that just got married, the Hallihans from Illinois who, by
the way, that chart was before the committee last week. Last week their
total income is $50,000. Today it is $61,000. God bless them for the
big increase over the weekend. Eleven grand. Wow, are they on a roll.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the entire bill before us costs $182 billion. The
Democratic substitute resolves the marriage penalty. That costs this
much right here, $76 billion, $77 billion. Plus we also correct another
problem that is going to be upon us, and that is putting people in the
alternative minimum tax. We correct that at this point. My colleagues
do not.
But where does the vast benefit go if it is not going to those who
pay a marriage penalty? It goes to the high income, those making over
$75,000 a year.
As the red portion of the chart shows us, of the total bill before
us, $105 billion goes for increasing the 15 percent bracket. Of this
slice of the pie, of this slice of the pie, 84.1 percent go to the
poor, moderate-income Republicans, making more than $75,000 a year.
I challenge my colleagues in the next hour of debate, respond to
this. Tell the American people why half the benefits go to those who do
not even pay a marriage penalty today.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Archer) is recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South
Dakota (Mr. Thune).
Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that the legislation that the
Democrat substitute, as we are discussing it here today, does not get
the job done. We need to do the right thing for the American people,
and the right thing is to eliminate the marriage penalty in the Tax
Code.
My colleagues just heard in elaborate detail some of the discussion
from the gentlemen on the other side of this issue. But I can tell my
colleagues on behalf of the people that I represent in the State of
South Dakota, I had a gentleman come into my office a couple of weeks
ago, a young couple in their middle thirties, combined income about
$67,000 a year and two kids. He had gone through the calculation to
determine what his marriage penalty would be, and it comes out that he
will pay an additional $1,953 this year in income taxes, Federal income
taxes, for the benefit and privilege of being married. We need to fix
that.
The legislation, as proposed by the House Committee on Ways and Means
and the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer), does that. And it does
not just do it halfway, it does it in its entirety.
This is something that we need to fix. It is a problem that is long
overdue for a solution. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I

[[Page H320]]

think it is high time we correct the inequity in the Tax Code as it
exists today and vote against the Democrat substitute and support the
legislation that came out of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel) for yielding me this time. I want to thank the gentleman
from New York for offering this substitute, because I think it
clarifies the circumstance. We all favor dealing with the marriage
penalty and helping those that have a marriage penalty. But let us
concentrate on the differences between the Democratic motion, the
alternative, and the Republican bill.
The Democratic alternative provides $95 billion of relief. The
Republican bill is twice as expensive. The Republican bill spends $100
billion on those who receive a marriage bonus, that is, they pay less
taxes because they are married, not more. That is wrong.
The Democratic alternative protects the 44 million people who receive
Social Security and Medicare recipients by allowing us to move forward
with reducing debt and protecting Medicare and Social Security.
During general debate, I gave the example of a Member of Congress,
one who is married, and his spouse has no income, versus a single
Member of Congress who is not married. The single person pays $4,300
more in taxes. The married person has a $4,300 marriage bonus today
because that person is married. They pay less taxes. The Republican
bill, we give that individual $1,400 more in tax relief. That is not
right. We should be dealing with the people who pay a penalty.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), the sponsor of the bill,
points to a difference, he says, between our approach and the
Republican approach, talking about those who itemize their tax returns.
But what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) has not said, that
for tax year 2000, for tax year 2001, for tax year 2002, there is no
difference for those who itemize their tax returns. I see he is on the
floor, and perhaps he will clarify that point. Because the Republican
bill does not start to take effect in 2003 as it relates to those who
itemize their deductions and does not get fully implemented until the
year 2008.
Mr. Speaker, let us come together, Democrats and Republicans. We can
do this. The Democrat alternative is one-half as costly. It is focused
to those who are really paying the penalty. It gives us a chance to
come together. The administration supports it. It is an opportunity for
us to really help those who are paying the penalty, not those who are
receiving the bonus. That is what we should be doing. We can come
together on this issue.
I urge my colleagues to support the alternative.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott) from the Committee on Ways and Means.
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I imagine my colleagues sitting in their
offices listening to this, and perhaps the world watching it on C-SPAN,
by now, their eyes have got to be glazed over about what is really
happening here. The real issue of the Democratic alternative is this:
we say that, first, one deals with protecting Social Security, and then
one deals with protecting Medicare, and then one deals with paying down
the debt of this country. When that is done, when one has a budget that
does these things, the next thing one does is look at a tax bill that
relieves the burden of the American taxpayer.
Now, my colleagues have seen here that we on the Democratic side are
giving $95 billion worth of tax relief under the so-called marriage tax
penalty. The chart put up on the other side with a big zero is simply
not the truth. But the big issue here is whether we are going to run
and give tax relief before we deal with Social Security and Medicare
and paying down the debt.
Now, 60 percent of married couples are subject to this tax. Some of
them are getting a benefit already because of the way the structure is.
My colleagues heard $100 billion of what they are spending out of $190
billion tax bill is for people who already are getting a benefit. No
sense in that.
We take the $95 billion and direct it to the people at the bottom who
need it, those people like this couple here whose income has gone up
$11,000 since we were in the committee. They make $60,000. Most of ours
is directed to people below that number. We increase the earned income
tax credit for the working poor.
We passed a bill here pushing people out on to work. We do not want
them on welfare. We all agree it is better to work than be on welfare.
But the earned income tax credit is the way we try and help them when
they are out there making $25,000, $30,000 and a couple of kids.
Now, the other thing that is interesting about this Republican bill
is those of you who get that valentine in the mail, ``You have received
your marriage tax benefit from us, the Republican Party,'' go in your
living room immediately and count your children. If you have more than
two children, you are not getting it. You are not getting it. So just
be real careful about spending this benefit you think you are going to
get because it is fraudulent. It sounds like it is for everybody, and
in fact it is not for everybody.
But what is so awful about it is that my colleagues would do this and
not take care of their own parents, our own parents and our own Social
Security first and then deal with taxes.
Vote for the Democratic alternative.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of
rhetoric and a lot of charts on the floor. I would like to just sort of
set the record straight.
First of all, I am proud of Republican leadership on this issue, and
I am very pleased that my Democrat colleagues now agree that everybody
should get the double deduction. In the original proposal, they were
not going to give it to stay-at-home moms, and now they are giving it
to everybody, and we are giving it to everybody.
But this business of doubling the 15 percent bracket is very, very
important; and there is, in fact, only one group of people who are
going to benefit. If you are over $51,000 in joint income, there is not
going to be any change. You will still be in the 28 percent bracket. If
you are under 43 percent, there will be no change. You will still be in
the 15 percent bracket. But if you are between 43 and 51, you are going
to be able to enjoy a 15 percent bracket which you cannot now.
That is because we are going to let both the mom and the dad have
that 25 percent deduction that a single person has. These are the
families that really need it the most. These are two people earning
under $27,000, who are going to benefit from this, or one earning more
and one earning less.
So it is very important from the point of view from fairness. It
helps primarily middle-income families in America, and I am real proud
of that.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the
previous speaker, is talking about a tax cut, and that should be argued
in a separate bill. But I think the way she expresses it and admits it
has nothing to do with the marriage penalty, it has everything to do
with something else.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the majority as to how many speakers
they have remaining, because the last time I yielded back the balance
of my time, they had a lot of speakers, and I think that the delivery
ought to be more balanced. I have several speakers, but I think the
time difference is on their side. I am trying to determine how many
speakers that they intend to have.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I would say to
the gentleman from New York, we have an unlimited number of speakers on
this side. They are not all on the floor at this time, and I do not
know how many will appear before we conclude this debate, so it is very
difficult to tell right now.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, what is the time allotment?

[[Page H321]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The full time allotted was 30 minutes on
either side. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has 21 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) has 28 minutes
remaining.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, for many reasons, I rise in strong opposition to this
substitute amendment. But perhaps the most important reason is shown in
these charts. Here is the basic H.R. 6 bill. What it does to provide
relief, it doubles the standard deduction for joint filers. It helps
couples that itemize, such as homeowners, widens the 15 percent tax
bracket. That is a big help to middle-income working Americans.
We did not double the 28 percent bracket, the 31 percent bracket, the
33 percent bracket or the 39.6 percent bracket. Those are the brackets
that apply to higher income.

{time} 1445

They were left alone. We doubled the 15 percent bracket. That helps
middle-income working Americans, and increases the phase-out range for
the earned income credit by $2,000. This is real relief from the
marriage penalty.
And also included therein is relief for stay-at-home moms who have
elected to do the most important task in our society and that is to
rear children. The Democrats do not want them to get any help out of
this bill. They call it a marriage bonus. So be it. Call it a marriage
bonus, but, yes, we unabashedly also help the stay-at-home moms.
Now, what is the Democrat substitute, as estimated by the nonpartisan
Joint Tax Committee? There it is, my colleagues. The Joint Tax
Committee estimates that the Democrat substitute delivers zero tax
relief.
Now, why is that? Because they tie it to the condition that before it
can take effect the entire public debt has to be paid off. How long
must married couples wait for relief?
And then they add other conditions; that the Social Security Trust
Fund must be certified as secure until the year 2050. And then they add
another condition; that the Medicare Trust Fund must be certified as
being viable through the year 2030.
All of these things must occur before any of their provisions can
take effect. And so the joint committee says this is zero tax relief.
It does not fix the marriage penalty. It does not fix a single thing.
The plan is just like the old Peanuts comic strip where Charlie Brown
keeps trying to kick the ball, and Lucy keeps yanking the ball away as
he comes through so he never gets to kick it. That is the Democrat
substitute. That is not truth in advertising, and we should not mislead
married couples. We should help them.
Now, even if the plan could take effect, which it cannot under their
own terminology, why is it faulty? Because, number one, itemizers, if
they have any charitable deductions, if they have any home mortgage
interest or taxes on their home, they get no help from the marriage
penalty. They are left out. Only those who do not itemize are helped.
We help the itemizers.
It also has no help for the stay-at-home moms, or dads in those rare
cases where the father stays at home and elects to rear children
instead of having a career. No help, even if it could go into effect.
And yet it creates significant complexities in a code that is already
too complex. We simply take advantage of what is already in the code
without making it more complex.
But under their system people will be asked to fill out additional
worksheets before they can ever fill out their return. That is what
targeting so often means. The last thing we should be doing today is
making it more difficult for people to understand the Tax Code and to
take advantage of it.
So today I say to all my colleagues, make sure and vote for the real
marriage penalty tax relief, the bipartisan bill, H.R. 6, cosponsored
by 26 Democrats. It is the real marriage penalty relief and it is the
real help for the stay-at-home moms. It is not some election year
gimmick that can only take effect in some out years which are totally,
totally uncertain and, which as my colleagues can see, is estimated by
the nonpartisan joint committee as delivering zero tax relief.
Do not let Democrats annul our marriage penalty tax relief.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the difference between H.R. 6 and the Democratic
alternative is that H.R. 6 is going to be vetoed and the Democratic
alternative can be signed into law. When the chairman had his blank
sheet up there saying that this would provide zero, he was the only one
on the other side that admitted that, yes, the Democratic plan and tax
alternative is conditioned.
I would say that the 20 or 30 Democrats who joined with the other
side in trying to remove this penalty must have thought that they would
be working it out in a bipartisan way and not have it fly in the face
of the President's budget. They must have thought that the other side
would not come and bring a tax cut bill to the floor without first
having a budget. They must have thought, as the President would hope,
that in the budget they would say that they wanted to deal with Social
Security, that they wanted to deal with Medicare. They must have
thought that, just being a Republican, that they would say that before
a tax cut they would want to pay down, not eliminate but pay down, on
the national debt.
We are paying hundreds of billions of dollars of interest on the
trillions of dollars that we owe on the national debt. Why should not
the President think, as he gave his State of the Union message, that
the Democrats and Republicans would come together, have a budget, deal
with these issues, so that we can deal with the serious problem of the
marriage penalty.
So basically, if my colleagues want to know the difference, if they
vote for H.R. 6, they are not voting for relief for the marriage
penalty. They are voting for a bill that is going to be vetoed. The
other side knows it and those who vote for it know it. If what we
really want is relief, and we want it in a bipartisan way, we should
not reject the President's hands, we should not reject the hand of the
minority and a bill that really is dealing with problems that go far
beyond the penalty, and take a bill that is targeted for $95 billion
rather than double, take a bill that protects Social Security and
Medicare, take a bill that pays down the debt, and take a bill that the
joint committee says that this can be done, and take a bill that the
President of the United States will sign.
It seems to me that it is very simple for us to decide. If we just
want to vote for a gift for Valentine's Day, that will never become
law, then there is the choice, the blank sheet that the chairman has
shown us. If, on the other hand, we want to reach out in a bipartisan
way and present to the President a bill that he can sign, it is here.
The choice is ours to make.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is right, I am sure the
President would sign the bill, a bill that does nothing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Callahan).
(Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in support of the original bill and against the
substitute.
But I would like to pose a question to both the author of the
substitute as well as the author of the original bill. And that is, in
1993, when we had the largest tax increase in the history of mankind,
we suddenly decided it was all right to retroactively tax people. So
why does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Archer) consider in each of their bills an amendment
that would make this tax relief, under either provision, retroactive to
January 1, 1999?
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would answer the gentleman's question by
saying that the chairman does not talk to Democrats about anything
concerning tax policy.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Well, reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would say to

[[Page H322]]

the gentleman that I am a chairman and I am talking to him right now.
Mr. RANGEL. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I would just
simply say that he and I ought to start working together.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Will the gentleman accept an amendment to his bill to
make it reactive to January 1, 1999, just as the gentleman supported
the retroactiveness of the increasing taxes in 1993?
Mr. RANGEL. If we can find out how much it costs, and make certain we
take care of Social Security, we can work it out together.
Mr. CALLAHAN. That is my point, that I think we should accept, and I
understand an amendment would be out of order but one is going to be
offered anyway, that we should consider the fact that we ought to
retroactively effect this just as they did in 1993 when they created
all these new taxes. We ought to give these people that were impacted,
and that are filing their taxes now, the same opportunity for the
income tax refund this April 15.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would tell my good friend, because I know
he is for accuracy, that he must know that the Dole-Reagan tax cut of
1982, that tax increase, was higher than the 1993.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Weller), the distinguished sponsor of this legislation.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to
address the substitute being offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel). And of course I rise in opposition to the substitute,
with all due respect to my colleague, and rise in support of H.R. 6,
the bipartisan approach to eliminating the marriage tax penalty.
My colleagues, H.R. 6 helps 25 million married working couples, 50
million Americans who today pay higher taxes just because they are
married. We believe to be fair, and eliminating the marriage tax
penalty is a fairness issue, that we should help everybody who suffers
the marriage tax penalty. That is why we double the standard deduction
for those who do not itemize.
I would point out that that benefits 6 million senior citizens. It is
a good idea, and we make it effective immediately. We also help those
who itemize. And the Joint Committee on Taxation tells us that half of
those who suffer the marriage tax penalty do not itemize and the other
half do itemize.
The main reason that many middle class families itemize is because
they are homeowners, or they give to their church or synagogue or
charity, so they itemize their taxes. The Rangel substitute ignores
homeowners and those who give to charity, their church, synagogue, or
temple and itemize.
We should help everybody who suffers the marriage tax penalty if we
truly want to make the Tax Code fair. We do so by doubling the standard
deduction. But I would also point out that widening the tax pack in the
15 percent bracket, helping those who itemize, we will benefit 42
million Americans.
We also help the working poor by addressing the marriage penalty
under the earned income tax credit. And that will benefit 1 million
low-income families who receive higher earned income credit payments,
up to $421 a year more, because we wipe out their marriage tax penalty
as well.
My colleagues, the Joint Committee on Taxation scored. They are the
ones that tell us whether or not there is tax relief in a proposal.
They said they estimate the substitute will not go into effect and thus
there is no revenue impact. And what they mean by that is, the way this
is written, it will never happen. So under the Democrat substitute
there is not going to be any marriage tax relief. It will never happen.

{time} 1500

Under H.R. 6, we begin providing marriage tax relief for the middle
class next year immediately. And my hope is a good number of Democrats
will join with us. I was proud that 30 Democratic Members chose to
cosponsor the bill, joining almost 240 colleagues of this House, a
bipartisan majority, cosponsoring an effort to wipe out the marriage
tax penalty for a majority of those who suffer it.
It is a fairness issue. We should work together. My hope is that, by
the time this legislation reaches the President's desk, it is a stand-
alone bill, there are no extraneous issues. It is a clean marriage tax
elimination proposal that helps 25 million married couples. It deserves
bipartisan support. Let us get it signed into law.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Becerra), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I support the Democratic substitute because I want to
provide honest marriage penalty relief for the more than 44 million
families in my congressional district. But I also want to protect the
Social Security and Medicare benefits that are enjoyed by more than
42,000 of my constituents, as well; and I also want to reduce the more
than $8.4 billion that my constituents must bear of the more than $3.6
trillion in debt that the Federal Government right now holds.
Mr. Speaker, the reason we have problems is because this plan, under
H.R. 6, does nothing on Social Security. It does not strengthen it.
Where is the plan to strengthen Medicare? Where is the plan to reduce
that $3.6 trillion Federal debt? There is no plan because this Congress
yet has to come up with a budget. We have done nothing to come up with
a budget.
We are treating this particular issue on marriage tax penalty like a
child in a candy store. Give the child a dollar, that child is going to
come back with $5 worth of candy to purchase. If we tell the child
about a budget, the child will say, what budget? Congress cannot handle
the budget for all of America's families like a child in a candy store.
In my city of Los Angeles, where more than four out of every five
people in the city make less than $70,000, few of them will benefit,
because 70 percent of the benefits in this particular bill before us,
H.R. 6, goes to those who make more than $70,000. That is not fair.
By 2010, when this fully takes effect, 47 percent of American
families with two children will receive nothing or less than the tax
relief that this bill proposes to give to America's families. That is
not tax relief for America's families.
Let us eliminate the marriage tax penalty for married couples. Let us
all agree to that. But let us do it right, let us do it fairly, and let
us do it responsibly within the framework of a responsible budget. Let
us get our act together. Let us do it the way American families do it,
figure out how much money we have and then figure out how much money we
can spend and invest. But, before that, do not put the cookies and
candy in front of the children because they take it; and at the end of
the day, we will not have the money to pay for it.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the family is the fundamental building block
of American society. No school or social worker can replace it. Without
the family, a child is deprived. Without parents, a child grows up with
a very real disability.
If our families are this important, I do not see how we can possibly
justify penalizing American couples for being married. Marriage is
sacred. It should not be penalized. The marriage penalty tax is unfair.
It harms 25 million American families.
Charging American families $1,400 a year for being married is
unconscionable. Our tax policy should not discourage family formation.
It should encourage family formation. It is time for us to strengthen
our families in this country. Perhaps we cannot make strong families
just by passing laws, but we can remove those laws that tempt families
to split apart.
We should go on record by saying that we believe our moms and dads
should be together, that every child deserves a mom and dad in one
house and have time for their kids. A vote for H.R. 6 is a vote for the
American family.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

[[Page H323]]

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans' risky and irresponsible tax
schemes have more lives than Freddy Krueger, the marauder in the movie
``Nightmare on Elm Street.'' They died in August, and they are back in
February. They just will not die no matter how bad they are.
Last year's monster tax machine, a plan that primarily would have
benefited the wealthiest Americans, is back to haunt us again this
year. The majority has chopped a huge tax bill into smaller bills, and
the marriage penalty bill before us is one of those pieces.
Well, we are not going to stand by while they threaten the American
economy. We are not going to stand by while they strengthen our sacred
compact with seniors, Social Security. We are not going to stand by and
let them turn Valentine's Day into the Valentine's Day Massacre of
America's future.
It is clear, the majority did not learn a thing after last year's tax
debacle. The American people saw right through the Republicans' $792
billion risky tax scheme. They saw that the top 1 percent of American
income earners would have reaped 41 percent, the top 1 percent, 41
percent of the benefits, according to an analysis by Citizens for Tax
Justice.
That unfairness is one reason why President Clinton vetoed that bill.
And that is why, my colleagues, Senator John McCain called it ``a
cornucopia of good deals for special interests and a nightmare for
common citizens.'' That was John McCain. This is a nightmare the
majority apparently wants us to relive today.
Now the majority has even hitched its wagon to the tax plan put out
by presidential candidate George W. Bush. The Bush campaign says its
plan would cost an estimated $483 billion over 5 years. But what it
does not say, my colleagues, is that the Bush tax plan would explode to
$1.8 trillion by fiscal year 2010.
The Bush plan not only would eat up the entire non-Social Security
surplus, it would also raise as much as three-fourths, 75 percent, of
the 10-year projected Social Security surplus, according to the
Citizens for Tax Justice.
We are not the only ones who see the dangers lurking. In Johnstown,
Iowa, on January 16, again Senator McCain commented, ``Governor Bush's
plan has not one penny for Social Security, not one penny for Medicare,
and not one penny for paying down the national debt.''
In one of his television ads, Senator McCain stated, quote, ``There's
one big difference between me and the others: I will not take every
last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit
the wealthy.'' That was Senator McCain.
Neither will we. We have a rare opportunity in our Nation's history,
and we must seize it. Let us use these surpluses to shore up our sacred
promise of Social Security. Let us extend the life of and add
prescription drug benefits to America. And let us pay down our national
debt and keep our economy vibrant for future generations.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, the first of many
that would only squander our budget surpluses.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed at the remarks of the previous
gentleman, inserting presidential political campaign rhetoric into this
debate. It really does not connect to what we are talking about today.
Now, many may be concerned, many may be interested in his comments
about Governor Bush's tax plan. It just so happens it has no
relationship to the debate of the bill that we are talking about today.
I would hope that we could stay on debating this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important
matter of tax fairness. This is not a huge tax package. It is not a
budget buster. It is about tax fairness.
I am disappointed that my Democratic colleagues were against this
provision when it was part of a big bill; but they said they were for
marriage penalty relief, just not in that bill. Now we bring a small
bill, just marriage penalty relief; and they are not for this bill,
even though they say they are for marriage penalty relief.
We are for marriage penalty relief. And we know that by starting this
tax bill now, by the time it winds its way through our slow process, we
will have a budget resolution; and, in that budget resolution, we will
make clear how much we are going to spend, how much we are going to pay
down the national debt, and how much we are going to reserve to reduce
the burden of taxes on the American people.
It was the Republicans that in the last year led the fight for $15
billion add-back to Medicare. Before our committee, the President would
say, oh, there is a problem. Do something about it. But he never would
say how much or where from. And when he sent a bill up here to close
that deficit in our budget, what was in it? A Medicare cut.
So we added back in Medicare. We have reduced the deficit by $140
billion. And the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of
the House, has committed to eliminating the debt by the year 2015. So
we are on track to fulfill our promises to reduce the American
Government's debt to lower taxes on the American people. We are on
track.
Last year we added more money back in education than the President
recommended. We added more money back in education and more money back
in healthcare. Education, health care, the environment. Those were
priorities in our budget. And we did it at the same time we also
reduced the debt and recommended tax cuts.
Now, this is a modest tax cut. And look who it will help. A police
officer and waitress making $30,000 with two kids would get an
additional $718 in benefits under the Republican marriage penalty. This
couple is not rich. They are hard working and they need tax relief. A
schoolteacher and a storm manager making $50,000 a year with two kids
would get $225 under this tax plan, or over 10 years $2,550. That is a
lot toward a kid's college education. They are not rich. They need tax
relief.
I said this earlier when I got up, by doubling the bracket, all we
are doing is helping schoolteachers, waitresses, policemen, store
managers, those kinds of hard-working Americans. And I am proud to do
it.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, is the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson)
saying that she is supporting recommending a tax cut before we have a
budget?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Mrs. Johnson) to answer the question.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely supporting
getting this tax-cutting bill started. Because the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel) knows and I know that our process is such a long and
complicated one that, by the time this bill winds its way through the
Senate and into conference committee, this House and the Senate will
have a budget resolution passed. Because we know we are going to set
aside some money for tax fairness, and we say this is number one on tax
fairness.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.
I think, basically, Mr. Speaker, that the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) may have set the difference that we have
between our approach to this very serious tax problem. We like to have
a budget. We like to take care of the things we have to take care of.
And we like to target relief.

{time} 1515

The gentlewoman is suggesting that if we give this relief now, that,
sooner or later, the House and the Senate will have a budget.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm), a man who has worked for many, many years on this budget
problem, who may be able to explain this new Republican concept to us.
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I, too, am a little troubled by some of
the rhetoric I have been hearing from my colleagues today that the
Democratic substitute does nothing, objecting to the language of the
Democratic substitute and the motion to recommit making tax relief
contingent on a plan to eliminate the debt and strengthening Social
Security and Medicare.

[[Page H324]]

The simple truth is if the Republican leadership is serious about
eliminating the publicly held debt and strengthening Social Security
and Medicare, the contingency language in the Democratic substitute
will not prevent marriage tax penalty relief from becoming a reality,
or, to my friend from Alabama, having it retroactively applied to this
year, if we can fit it within a budget.
The Speaker and the President have both expressed a desire to pay off
our national debt by 2013. There are several plans to strengthen Social
Security; Kolbe-Stenholm, that of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Smith), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), and Archer-
Shaw.
We could deal with these challenges if the leadership of the House
was willing to work together and make it a priority. The only
explanation for any objection to the contingency language in the
Democratic substitute is that the Republican leadership is not serious
about establishing a plan to eliminate the publicly held debt or
strengthening Social Security and Medicare. That has to be the
conclusion.
Now, I want to provide relief to the 57,000 couples in the 17th
Congressional District of Texas who pay a marriage tax penalty, but I
also care about the 67,000 households in my district who depend upon
Social Security, the 253,000 workers paying into the Social Security
system now who are counting on us to make sure Social Security and
Medicare are there for them when they retire, the 250,000 children
under age 18 who will face a crushing debt burden and higher taxes if
we do not take action now to deal with Social Security and Medicare and
paying off our national debt, and the 107,000 families in my district I
care about with home mortgages who I believe will benefit from lower
interest rates if we reduce our national debt.
I do not understand, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the
gentleman as a fellow Texan, why we continue to have all of the debate
about a tax cut instead of bringing the Social Security question to the
floor of the House and debating it. I do not understand why we spent
all of last year debating a $1 trillion tax cut that did get vetoed, as
it should have gotten vetoed, and, here we go again, same argument,
same debate, same mischaracterization of everybody's position regarding
the issue.
Why can we not deal openly and honestly with Social Security? As the
gentleman knows, I will gladly join with him, as I have joined with
others on his side of the aisle, to work on this question. But the only
conclusion I come to is that is not on the agenda for this year, that
we have to wait. That is why getting a budget first makes a lot more
sense to the American people.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
simply to respond to the gentleman from Texas.
The gentleman clearly knows that whatever budget resolution we adopt
will have plenty of room for this modest tax cut. The gentleman fully
knows that it will not interfere with Medicare, that it will not
interfere with Social Security, that it will not interfere with paying
down the debt. The only way that it could would be if he and his
colleagues want to increase spending $170 billion above current level,
which is in the President's budget. The President spent $4.3 billion a
minute for every minute in his State of the Union address for new
spending. But any budget that we adopt will include plenty of room for
this.
Now, as far as Social Security is concerned, the gentleman is genuine
about Social Security; I am genuine about Social Security. I have laid
forth a plan called the Archer-Shaw plan that would save Social
Security for all time, not just for 50 years, that would get better and
better and better at the end of the next century and the century
beyond, and it can be done for $1.3 trillion of the surplus out of a $3
trillion projected surplus. There is plenty of room.
Now, why have we not considered Social Security? It should not get up
in this debate. It has no connection to this bill. But the gentleman
raised it. It is because there has not been active presidential
leadership.
I have done my best to try to build a bipartisan coalition in the
House. I have developed a plan that has been criticized severely by the
right wing. But there has been no coming together, and the President
has not provided the leadership. I, too, would like to say save that.
But let us talk about this bill, and not about a disconnect that has
nothing to do with this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Nethercutt).
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his good work
on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, it is instructive to think back as to how this
particular unfair tax penalty on marriage got in the code in the first
place. It happened, I am informed, about 30 years ago. And guess who
controlled Congress then? The Democratic Party.
Now we want to take it out in strict fairness to the 58,000-plus
couples in my particular Congressional District who pay an average of
$1,400 more than they otherwise would if they were not married, and now
guess who wants to not take it out, to prevent it from being taken out
of the code? The Democratic Party.
It does not work. You cannot have it both ways. From 1969 until the
Republican Congress took over the House and the Senate, the debt went
up dramatically. Who was in charge then? The Democratic Congress.
So I think it is disingenuous of the Democrats in this House to start
blaming the Republicans for the problems that exist with regard to the
debt and the unfairness in the Tax Code, when in fact it was they that
are responsible for them in the first place. Let us pass this bill
overwhelmingly today.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is really interesting to see my distinguished
chairman asking for the President's leadership on Social Security. He
sure did not ask for any leadership for that $792 billion tax cut, and
I do not hear them asking for leadership, since they are in the
majority, on any other issue.
As a matter of fact, we can talk about the Archer-Shaw plan all we
want. We do not have any legislation that has been submitted to our
committee or to the House floor for consideration. But I guess we are
still waiting for the President to provide leadership for this
legislative body to fix Social Security.
Now the President comes and says he wants to fix the marriage
penalty, but you do not ask for his leadership on that. You go in the
back room and you come out with this tax cut.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I use this time to respond to my good
friend from Texas by saying he made my point, my point in asking that
we have a budget before we discuss tax cuts or spending increases.
It is the fact that the gentleman's very own bill, which he
mentioned, will cost $933 billion over the next 10 years. It would seem
to me, and this is the point I was trying to make, that if we truly are
concerned about the future of Social Security, and you have a good
program, you have one of which I would not talk down about, but it
costs money, and what the gentleman is saying with the bill today is
that it takes priority over the Social Security bill that the gentleman
is advocating. My point is we should have that debate in the context of
priorities.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher).
Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman putting forth
this bill, and I rise today in strong support of this bill.
I stand amazed as we see the minority be very gifted in demagoguery,
to the point I think they could demagogue apple pie if we put that up.
It is also very interesting as we look that there has been a lot of
rhetoric and jargon, we are talking about Social Security and Medicare.
I looked at the number of bills. We have almost 4,000 bills filed,
almost 2,000 by the minority side, and only 49 deal with Social
Security. We bring up one bill that will bring fairness to families and
married couples and they talk about Social Security, when we have 25
percent more bills that deal with Social Security and Medicare and
offer plans to reform them.
So it is very clear that first we have saved Social Security. We put
all the

[[Page H325]]

money aside. Now we want to provide fairness, fairness because a couple
wants to make a committed relationship to their family.
Now we talk about family. What does that mean? What about the spouses
that want to stay home? Our bill gives them that kind of support,
because they make a great sacrifice when they stay home. Your bill does
not do that on the minority side.
The President sent down a budget with one provision called an infant
child credit. He gives $250 a year for an infant. But do you know what
it does? It takes it away after the child is one year old. That is what
he has got in his budget. He kicks him out and says you are on your own
after one year. What kind of values are those? That is not valuing the
American family.
This bill is clearly something that will set straight fairness and
begin the path to fairness in our tax structure and begin to say we are
concerned about the family, and we want to make sure that the message
we have coming out of this House is a message that says you are
important and we want to support you in what you are doing.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Crane), the ranking member on the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished chairman for
yielding me time on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I will be celebrating my 41st wedding anniversary on
Valentine's Day, and am looking forward to that occasion, and my wife
is too, and our seven remaining children are going to be there to
celebrate it with us. It is something that, when I reflect on the
importance of getting some kind of relief in our obscene Tax Code, is
an issue that I struggled with, my wife struggled with, all of our kids
struggled with, and I know you folks over here struggled with the same
thing. It is something we are trying to address.
Mr. Speaker, in my district in the State of Illinois we have the
highest number of married couples that are being burdened with this
marriage penalty tax in the entire State of Illinois. It is over 70,000
couples. That is over 140,000 individuals in my Congressional District.
I do recognize that our distinguished minority leader has only 30,000
couples in his district that are burdened this way, and I asked him if
they had done polling up there, because I questioned whether they are
registered Republicans and not understanding they are taking this hit,
or are they Republicans and Democrats, because maybe we should all
become Democrats.
Mr. RANGEL. If the gentleman would yield, would the gentleman restate
his question?
Mr. CRANE. I was pointing out the gentleman has only 30,000 couples
in his district that are adversely negatively affected by this marriage
penalty. There are 70,000 in mine.
Mr. RANGEL. Would the gentleman explain his point, please?
Mr. CRANE. My only point is has the gentleman checked their
registration, their voter registration?
Mr. RANGEL. No. I only want to do what is right for the people,
regardless of their registration.
Mr. CRANE. I wanted to make sure that these are not just Republicans
taking the hit in the gentleman's district.
Mr. RANGEL. That is a good point.
Mr. CRANE. I think we all, on a bipartisan basis, we all have an
opportunity here to provide much-needed relief to continue to foster
the growth of an institution that is in our national interest and our
community interest. Our families are dependent upon it, and we do not
want to continue to punish people for doing the right thing. As you
know, that hit is primarily on people in the $20,000 to $75,000 income
bracket. That used to be awesome dollars. It is not awesome dollars any
more, and people are struggling and struggling very hard.
So I would urge all of my colleagues, let us get back together again.
Even President Clinton recognized belatedly that there was marriage
penalty tax relief in that big bill that we passed before that he
vetoed.

{time} 1530

So even he came back with a modest move in the right direction. We
will help him continue down that path too. I urge all of my colleagues
to get behind the bill. Vote for H.R. 6.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that I believe
under the rules we have the right to close, and I would encourage the
gentleman to have his last speaker, and then we will have our last
speaker.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
(Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
commend him for his great work on this Democratic alternative.
I urge support of it and rise in opposition to this so-called
valentine for married couples in America, which is more like a
Halloween trick masking yet again another tax break for the high end. I
urge my colleagues to vote yes on the alternative and no on the
Republican proposal.
The timing of this bill is a political stunt for Valentine's Day. It
forces Members to vote on a bill without knowing its relationship to
the overall budget.
The bill is too expensive. Without gimmicks, the true cost would be
in excess of $250 billion. It is a flawed attempt to resurrect the
failed $800 billion tax cut strategy of last session.
The bill will drain projected surpluses that should be used to extend
the solvency of the Social Security and Medicare systems, provide a
prescription drug benefit to the elderly, a Patients Bill of Rights,
education initiatives and an increase in the minimum wage.
It is entirely unclear how the measure's whopping cost will fit into
the budget picture, since the bill is being advanced before
consideration of the FY 2001 budget resolution.
A family with one child and an income of $50,000 would receive at
most $218 in annual tax relief because their taxable income is at the
15% tax rate. If they own their own home and itemize their mortgage
interest deduction they would receive no benefit from the Republican
bill.
Many middle-income families with children will not get any tax relief
because the Republicans ignored the alternative minimum tax (AMT) when
writing their bill.
Once fully phased in, 70% of the benefit of the tax cut goes to the
top quarter of income earners and will cost about $20 billion a year.
Half of the relief goes to those who do not pay any marriage penalty
today.
I support the Democratic Substitute because (1) it protects Social
Security and Medicare first, (2) provides more relief to lower income
working couples, and (3) costs less than half as much as the Republican
bill.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of the time to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), our minority whip.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) is recognized for 6\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel), my dear friend and his committee, as well as
Members on the other side of the aisle for working on this bill.
A few years back, Jim Carey had a movie out that I am sure some of
you heard about, perhaps, and hopefully did not see; but it was called
``Dumb and Dumber.'' We could give the same title to a movie about the
marriage penalty tax. After all, what could possibly be dumber than
telling a schoolteacher and a police officer, for example, that if they
tied the knot, their taxes would be going up. Well, there is one thing
that would be dumber, and that would be to allow this kind of taxpayer
abuse to continue.
The bottom line is that at a time when it has never been more
important to help keep America's families together, the marriage
penalty tax does only one thing, and that is help to pull couples
apart.
That is why so many of us were looking forward to working together to
craft a bipartisan bill, Democrats and Republicans together, to repeal
the marriage penalty once and for all. That is why so many of us were
so disappointed when the product that came out of the committee, H.R.
6, hit this floor.
Instead of bringing Democrats and Republicans together to draft a
sensible proposal to help middle-class couples, the sponsors of H.R. 6
have presented us with something far, far different. With a price tag,
as we have heard throughout the debate this afternoon, of over $182
billion, H.R. 6 is a two-fisted assault on the U.S. Treasury. It would
rob America of the dollars it is going to take to pay down the

[[Page H326]]

debt, to strengthen Social Security, to protect Medicare. But as bad as
all of that is, under H.R. 6, nearly half, half of all families with
two children would receive only a small part of the tax relief that had
been promised them. In many cases, they would receive nothing at all.
What is more, half of the tax breaks provided under H.R. 6 would go
to taxpayers who currently pay no marriage penalty tax today. Let me
repeat that. Half of the $182 billion would go to folks who pay no
marriage penalty tax today. Many of them are in the group of the
highest income earners in our country, the top 25 percent of Americans.
There is only one marriage H.R. 6 would strengthen, Mr. Speaker, and
that is the long-standing romance between the Republican leadership and
those who are most well off in this country.
What is at stake here? What is this really all about, H.R. 6? It is
about taking last year's Republican tax plan, we all remember it, it
was very close to $1 trillion, with a similar plan that Governor Bush
has out there now that is over $1 trillion, it is taking that plan and
cutting it up into little slices, little pieces, hoping the American
people will swallow all of it.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we are not biting and neither are America's
working families. Today, in my congressional district, there are 61,000
couples who are being stuck with the marriage penalty. They deserve
relief, not empty promises. That is why we Democrats have an
alternative which unlike H.R. 6 would pull the plug on the marriage
penalty and provide real tax relief to middle-class families.
Today, I would like to invite my Republican colleagues and friends to
join us in making it the law of the land. Why do we not decide right
here and now to join together, to roll up our sleeves and say in one
strong voice that we believe that marriage is a good thing. What is
more, we should not have to have a law on the books of this country
that discourages it. We could even call it the bipartisan marriage
penalty repeal act of the year 2000. Because what really matters at the
end of the day is not who gets the credit, it is whether families get
the help that they need.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 will not provide it, and we ought to get together
and craft a bipartisan plan that will. I urge my colleagues to think of
what our alternative would do in moving us in that direction. Mr.
Speaker, $95 billion in marriage penalty relief targeted to middle-
income families across this country and working families, and at the
same time it does that, it would protect 44 million Social Security and
Medicare recipients and help us pay down that national debt. We pay
down that national debt, we free up all that interest that is going to
service that debt, and we can take care of the marriage penalty for
middle-income working people, we can deal with strengthening and
protecting Medicare and Social Security; we can have the resources to
deal with our education and health care needs.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for our substitute. It is
the only plan that repeals the marriage penalty, but also allows us to
pay down the debt, protect Social Security, strengthen Medicare.
Mr. Speaker, the marriage penalty is dumb, but H.R. 6 is dumber. I
urge my colleagues to vote against it on final passage.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I must say that as I stand here in the well of this
House of the people that I sense a string of large red herrings being
drawn across the well. There is no connection between what we are doing
here and Social Security or Medicare. Any reasonable person knows that
the surpluses ahead are more than enough to take care of Social
Security and Medicare and leave an awful lot left over. The only thing
that I can think is that the Democrats who want to draw this connection
really want to spend the money. They are following the leadership of
their President when he said last year, we have a surplus; what should
we do with it? We could give some of it back to you, the taxpayers who
sent it here; but who would know if you would spend it right? They
genuinely believe they know how to spend money better than the
taxpayers do by keeping more of their money and spending it on their
own problems. Only that could generate a concern as to whether this
might impact on Social Security or on Medicare.
So let us dismiss that. That is one of the large red herrings.
Then another is, oh, we are going to give too much to the rich.
Another red herring.
Let me read to my colleagues from the distribution table of the joint
committee, the nonpartisan body that advises this Congress. What does
this bill do? For those with $20,000, it will create a 14.4 percent
reduction in taxes. For a family of four with an income of $30,000, it
will create a 93.9 percent reduction in taxes. For a family of four
with $50,000, it will be 7.6 reduction. For a family of four with
$75,000, it will be 10.7. For a family of four with $100,000, it will
be 7.6; and if one has over $200,000, which may get into the rich
category, it will be a reduction of only 2.5 percent.
So who gets the benefit from this bill? These are the official
numbers, not concocted by somebody else who wants to bend statistics.
This is a fair bill. More importantly, it is the right thing to do. And
yes, they say, appropriately, that some of the benefits in this bill
will not go to the people who are suffering from an immediate marriage
penalty; and we are proud of that, because that is relief for the stay-
at-home moms.
They call it a marriage bonus. What do they mean by a marriage bonus?
They mean the child-caring parents who forgo a career, who forgo going
out and making money in the private sector, and they are performing the
most beautiful and the most important role in our society. Yes, we help
them. We are proud of it. They urge it as a defect in the bill. They do
nothing for them. But I say to my colleagues, their substitute does
nothing for anyone. It is a nothing bill. And the joint committee says
it gives no tax relief.
Let us also talk about who bears the marriage penalty burden the
most. The CBO has done a study, and here is what they say: marriage
bonuses occurred most often among married couples with incomes less
than $20,000. I say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), we
help them. We do. I admit it. I am proud of it. And many of them are
stay-at-home moms and stay-at-home dads, and that is a great asset in
this bill, and my colleagues do nothing for them.
What I said is a fact. What we are doing here is providing relief for
all married couples, but we are accentuating the elimination of the
marriage tax penalty, which is wrong.
I am proud of this bill. All of us on a bipartisan basis should vote
for it instead of finding excuses that the time is not right, the
amount is too big, the amount is too small. We do not like this; we do
not like that. This is a good bill and vote against the substitute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 419, the
previous question is ordered on the bill and on the amendment offered
by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. RANGEL. 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 192,
nays 233, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 13]

YEAS--192

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch

[[Page H327]]

Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NAYS--233

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

NOT VOTING--9

Brown (OH)
Capps
DeFazio
Everett
Hinojosa
Jefferson
Lofgren
McCollum
Vento

{time} 1606

Messrs. SMITH of Michigan, OXLEY, LINDER, and RAHALL changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. LANTOS, FORD, and THOMPSON of Mississippi changed their vote
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

request To offer amendment

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to offer an
amendment to change the effective date to the year 2000 to double the
standard deduction for married couples, and add that amendment to this
bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The previous
question has been ordered under the rule. Therefore, no further
amendments are in order and the Chair therefore declines to recognize
the unanimous consent request of the gentleman.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I could not hear the Chair's ruling. The
House is not in order, and I could not hear the Chair's ruling.
Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure the Chair understood my request. I ask
for unanimous consent to offer an amendment to change the effective
date to the year 2000 to double the standard deduction for married
couples under this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair advises the gentleman that the
previous question has been ordered under the rule. Therefore, no
further amendments are in order, and the Chair declines to recognize
the request of the gentleman.

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. COLLINS. Under the advice of the parliamentarian, I was told to
offer this amendment after disposing of the substitute. I do not quite
understand your previous question. Had I been told to offer it prior to
that order, I would have offered it at the end of the previous
substitute prior to the vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise the gentleman that
under the rule, the previous question was ordered from the outset. The
Chair has declined to entertain the unanimous consent request of the
gentleman, which is the Chair's discretionary prerogative.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to suspend the
rules whereby I may offer this amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind the gentleman that
the previous decision of the Chair stands and the Chair will decline
the request of the gentleman.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Hill of Indiana

Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. HILL of Indiana. Yes, in its current form, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Hill of Indiana moves that the bill, H.R. 6, be
recommitted to the Committee on Ways and Means with
instructions to report back promptly to the House, with an
amendment--
(1) which corrects the disparity in the Tax Code affecting
married couples, including those married couples receiving
the EIC, commonly known as the ``marriage penalty'' and
ensures this correction is fully available to middle income
married couples with children, and
(2) which provides that the effectiveness of the tax
reduction contained therein is contingent on a certification
by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, based
on the most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the
budget and any other legislation enacted by the date of the
certification, that:
(a) there is a comprehensive budget framework which
provides resources for debt retirement, strengthening Social
Security and Medicare, tax relief and investing in other
priorities;
(b) a portion of the on-budget surplus is reserved for debt
retirement that is sufficient to put the government on a path
to eliminate the public held debt by 2013 under current
economic and technical projections;
(c) there are protections (comparable to those applicable
to the Social Security Trust Fund surpluses) to ensure that
funds reserved for debt retirement may not be used for any
other purpose, except for adjustments to reflect economic and
technical changes in budget projections.

[[Page H328]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hill) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his
motion.
Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I am a new Member of Congress but I
am a veteran observer of Congress. For 20 years, I have watched this
Congress spend more money than it took in. Year after year, I watched
our government run deficits every year and charge their
irresponsibility to a credit card paid for by the American taxpayers.
The result of all of these years of overspending is a massive
national debt. In 1980, the government had $700 million in debt. Today
our debt is $3.6 trillion. Our debt has become so big that 14 percent
of all the money the government spends is just to cover interest
payments on this debt.
Mr. Speaker, despite what people in Washington believe, we do not
have a large budget surplus. Our surplus is based upon uncertain 10-
year projections. To pass this today is like spending an inheritance we
have not yet received. Committing money that one may or may not have 10
years from now is just bad business.
Any businessman, of which I am one, and businesswoman looking at
government's finances would recommend that before we do anything else
we should reduce our debt burden and pay back what this Congress has
already spent.
Mr. Speaker, there are many good tax relief and spending proposals I
would like to support this year. One of them is a marriage penalty tax
reduction. There are millions of married couples in this country who
pay higher taxes than single people, and I believe this is wrong. I
believe Congress should give tax relief to married couples this year,
but I believe Congress needs to increase defense spending this year, to
boost our national security, continue our efforts to recruit and retain
the most talented and promising soldiers in our armed services.
I believe Congress needs to put priority on keeping the promises we
have made to our veterans, helping our family farms and making our
schools better and safer, but I cannot support these proposals before
Congress commits to acting in a fiscally responsible way. It makes no
sense to pass tax and spending legislation before we have created a
budget framework that guarantees that the taxpayers' money is used in a
responsible way.

{time} 1615

Congress cannot go back to the old ways, and that is what this motion
to recommit guarantees. I am introducing this motion on behalf of the
Blue Dog Coalition. This motion establishes the principle that guides
all of our activities this year.
This motion says that, before we begin debating anything else,
Congress must pledge to pay off the government's publicly held debt of
more than $3.6 trillion over the next 12 years. This motion says that
debt reduction should not be an afterthought in this year's budget
process. It says that the debt reduction should be our guiding
principle.
Now is the time to see if my colleagues across the aisle will commit
to paying off our debts or if they are willing to pass a bill that
could actually increase our debt or force Congress to start borrowing
money from Social Security again just like Congress has done for the
last 30 years.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will get up and say that
the Joint Committee on Taxation has concluded that Democrats oppose tax
relief. That is the same old Washington spin doctoring that has got us
into this mess in the first place.
Democrats will say that our debt is because of Reaganomics. Let me
say that again. The Republicans will say that the Democrats are against
tax relief, and the Democrats on my aisle are going to say that
Reaganomics caused this large debt. This is all a bunch of spin
doctoring; that is all it is.
People are tired of the spin doctors on both sides of the aisle. It
is what got us in this mess in the first place. It really does not
matter who is to blame for saddling our children and grandchildren with
a $3.7 trillion debt. It is time to start getting the government's
fiscal house in order and paying back what this Congress has borrowed.
I challenge everybody in this House to do the right thing for our
children and our grandchildren and commit to paying off the debts that
this government has built up over the last 30 years.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Does the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) rise in opposition to the motion
to recommit?
Mr. WELLER. I do, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Hill) that if he votes against H.R. 6 and for the motion to recommit,
that 62,000 married couples in the 9th Congressional District of
Indiana, one-half of whom are itemizers, that they will not get any
relief, no relief from the marriage tax penalty. That is not something
I hope that he ever wants to explain to those couples back home.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. Mr.
Speaker, over the last several years, many of us have been raising a
pretty fundamental question of fairness in this House; that is, 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? Is that right? Is that fair? Of course not.
Today we have the opportunity to address that issue of fairness. The
motion to recommit fails that fundamental test of fairness because,
according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the motion to recommit,
which is basically identical to what this House has already rejected,
provides zero marriage tax relief.
The average marriage tax penalty is $1,400. I have with me a photo of
Shad and Michelle Hallihan, two public schoolteachers from Joliet,
Illinois. They pay almost the average marriage tax penalty. In the
south suburbs of Chicago which I have the privilege of representing,
$1,400 is a year's tuition in a community college. It is 3 months of
day care. It is a washer and dryer for a home. As Michelle Hallihan has
pointed out to me, she said, ``We just had a newborn baby. Share with
your friends in the Congress that the marriage tax penalty that we send
to Washington would buy over 3,000 diapers for our newborn child.''
It is for couples such as Michelle and Shad Hallihan that we should
eliminate the unfairness of the marriage tax penalty. There are 25
million married working couples such as Michelle and Shad Hallihan.
I am so proud of what we are doing today. Think about it. Democrats
and Republicans today have the opportunity to vote to eliminate and
wipe out the marriage tax penalty, the most unfair consequence of our
Tax Code.
I want to thank the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Danner) and almost
30 other Democrats who have joined in this bipartisan effort to
cosponsor H.R. 6 which we are voting on today. This is a bipartisan
effort.
Democrats and Republicans have been working together for over a year
now and working to eliminate the marriage tax penalty with this
proposal. We help those who itemize by widening the 15 percent bracket.
Let us remember, the motion to recommit, even if it did provide tax
relief, would do nothing to married couples, any kind of help for those
who itemize such as homeowners or those who give money to church or
charity.
So we want to widen that 15 percent tax bracket. That is how
eliminate the marriage tax penalty for Shad and Michelle Hallihan.
We also want to help those who do not itemize by doubling the
standard deduction; and for the working poor, those who benefit from
the earned income tax credit, we address the marriage penalty there as
well. So we help the working poor, we help those married couples who
suffer the marriage tax penalty who happen to be homeowners, and we
also help those who do not itemize.
It is the fair way to do things. That is what this is all about. Do
we want fairness in the tax code, or do we want to do nothing? If my
colleagues want to do nothing, vote yes for the motion to recommit. If
my colleagues want to make the tax code more fair, vote no on the
motion to recommit and yes on H.R. 6.
Let us wipe out the marriage tax penalty. Let us make the tax code

[[Page H329]]

more fair. Let us do it in a bipartisan way.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a
vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of
passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196,
noes 230, not voting 8, as follows:

{time} 1629

announcement by the speaker pro tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington) (during the
vote). The Chair would advise the Members that he is aware that the
panel from Danner to Doyle is not illuminating behind the Chair, but
the Chair has been advised that those votes are indeed being recorded.
Those that are in that panel, from Danner to Doyle, should recheck your
vote on the electronic voting device, but the Chair is advised those
votes are being recorded.

{time} 1639

announcement by the speaker pro tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). The Chair would like to
advise Members one more time that the panel from Danner to Doyle is not
illuminated but the votes indeed are being recorded. And the Chair
would advise those Members on that panel to once again check and see
that their votes are being recorded as they intended them to be
recorded.

[Roll No. 14]

AYES--196

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--230

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

NOT VOTING--8

Brown (OH)
Capps
DeFazio
Everett
Hinojosa
Lofgren
McCollum
Vento

{time} 1641

Mr. LAZIO changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 268,
nays 158, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 15]

YEAS--268

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)

[[Page H330]]

Kasich
Kelly
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
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pascrell
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
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
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stearns
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Udall (CO)
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--158

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Capuano
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Snyder
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wynn

NOT VOTING--9

Brown (OH)
Capps
DeFazio
Everett
Gillmor
Hinojosa
Lofgren
McCollum
Vento

{time} 1649

Mr. DeLAY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read:

``A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
reduce the marriage penalty by providing for adjustments to
the standard deduction, 15-percent rate bracket, and earned
income credit and to repeal the reduction of the refundable
tax credits.''.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________