[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 93 (Tuesday, July 18, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H6432-H6437]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO GO TO CONFERENCE ON H.R. 4810, MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY RELIEF
RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2000
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 553 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 553
Resolved, That upon receipt of a message from the Senate
transmitting any Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 4810) to
provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 103(a)(1) of
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001,
it shall be in order to consider in the House without
intervention of any point of order a motion offered by the
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means or his designee
to take from the Speaker's table the bill, with any Senate
amendments thereto, to disagree to the Senate amendments, and
to request a conference with the Senate thereon or agree to
any request of the Senate for a conference thereon. The
motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without
intervening motion.
Sec. 2. House Resolution 550 is laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Moakley), the distinguished ranking Member, my good friend, pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 553 provides for consideration of a motion to go
to conference with the Senate on H.R. 4810, the Marriage Tax Penalty
Elimination Reconciliation Act. The motion will be debatable for 1 hour
equally divided between the chairman and the ranking minority Member on
the Committee on Ways and Means.
As my colleagues will recall, the House passed H.R. 4810 last week by
a bipartisan vote of 269 to 159. This vote marked the second time that
the House passed this legislation and the fourth time that it has voted
to provide marriage tax penalty relief in this 106th Congress.
The will of the House is clear, and it is time that we finish the job
and get this bill to the President for his signature. We are almost
there. In fact, the Senate just passed its own version of the marriage
tax penalty relief act by a bipartisan vote of 60 to 39. This
resolution will allow the House to quickly respond to the Senate's
actions by going to conference where the two bodies will negotiate a
final marriage tax penalty elimination act that we can send to the
President, and in doing so, we will give him the chance to make good on
the words he spoke during his State of the Union speech.
During that speech, the President told the American people that we
can make ``vital investments in health care, education, support for
working families and still offer tax cuts to help pay for college, for
retirement, to care for aging parents and to reduce the marriage
penalty. We can do these things without forsaking the path of fiscal
discipline that got us to this point.''
Mr. Speaker, Congress has helped the President meet his challenge. We
have passed legislation to preserve Social Security for future
generations, to provide affordable drug coverage to seniors through
Medicare, to restore our national defense, to invest in education and
to pay down the debt.
We have done all of these things in the context of a balanced budget,
and we are still swimming in surplus cash.
{time} 1715
Meanwhile, 25 million American couples suffer under the unfair
financial burden imposed by the marriage penalty. On average, they pay
$1,400 more in taxes than they would if they were single; skip the
whole marriage thing and just live together. What kind of message is
that for the government to send? Where is the logic in taxing marriage,
one of the most fundamental institutions in our entire society?
Mr. Speaker, $1,400 is real money to American families. Families can
use this income to pay for health care, invest in a child's education
or plan for their retirement. Sound familiar? These are all the things
the President says that government should finance before it provides
tax relief.
Well, why do we not just cut out the middleman, the government, and
let the American people make the decisions about what their needs are
and where their money should be spent?
[[Page H6433]]
Let us stop crippling them financially so they have to lean on the
crutch of government.
Eliminating the marriage penalty will help these families, especially
the middle class and minorities, whom the marriage penalty hits the
very hardest.
Mr. Speaker, the good news is that the Republicans and many Democrats
in Washington actually agree that the marriage penalty is bad policy.
If we in Congress can agree that the marriage tax should be abolished
then there is no reason to delay any longer in reversing this inequity
in the Tax Code. That is why the House Republican leadership is moving
quickly to get this bill to conference and to the President so that he
can sign it.
Today, with the passage of this resolution, we have the opportunity
to show that we can come together in a bipartisan way to achieve
something for the American people that will make a real difference in
their lives. We can end this tax that robs hundreds, if not thousands,
of dollars from some 25 million families each year, and let them keep
their money to spend as they see fit on their priorities.
Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why at this time of peace and
prosperity and budget surpluses that we cannot provide this tax equity
and relief. It is time to end the delays, the excuses and the political
trade-offs. It is time to get the job done.
I hope my colleagues will join me today in moving this issue forward
and I hope the President will be true to his word and take the
opportunity to sign this legislation when we put it on his desk. I urge
a yes vote on the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Pryce), for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, the issue of changing the marriage tax is a very
important one, but thus far my Republican colleagues have turned it
into a political prop. Millions of Americans pay taxes in the higher
income bracket after they get married than they did when they were
single, but Democrats believe we should do something to alleviate that
tax burden, especially on working families with children who are
struggling to pay their bills, who are struggling to educate these
children, and to keep them safe.
So far, my Republican colleagues have charted out a series of bills
that do a lot more to help the rich get richer than they do help
working families get shoes on their kids. Meanwhile, my Republican
colleagues have rejected Democratic bills that would actually help
middle-income working families by increasing the standard deduction for
married couples until it is twice that of a single person. Our bills
would also change the alternative minimum tax so that all promised
taxes would actually take effect. That way working families would get
the help they need rather than a lot of posturing just before a
convention.
Mr. Speaker, I think this bill would be better named the Philadelphia
Story, because it is a lot more about the Republican Convention in
Philadelphia than it is about helping working American people, and this
is a part of the pattern. Almost a year ago my Republican colleagues
tried to enact a trillion dollar package of tax cuts, primarily for the
rich, that would have endangered Social Security and do just about
nothing for the everyday Americans.
Now they are foisting that package on us once again, Mr. Speaker, and
this time it is in increments; but if one reassembles it, if one puts
it all together, the result is the same.
According to the Citizens for Tax Justice, the Republican plan gives
the richest 1 percent of Americans an average of a tax cut of $23,119.
Meanwhile, it gives families with incomes of $30,000 only $131. That
does not sound like equity to me, Mr. Speaker.
I think it is time my Republican colleagues stop writing bills to
make the rich richer and started writing bills to help everyone else.
This conference is a great place to start.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Weller), my distinguished colleague, a gentleman who
has put so much time and effort in this Marriage Penalty Relief Act, a
gentleman who has brought two people and made them household names to
the American public, Shad and Michelle, and we will hear about them
now.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Pryce), my good friend, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Moakley), for the opportunity to address this House.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of eliminating the marriage tax
penalty. I rise in strong support of the House and Senate going to
conference and sending to the President this week legislation that
wipes out what I consider to be the most unfair tax of all.
We have often asked from the well of the House a pretty simple, basic
question. That is, is it right, is it fair that under our Tax Code 25
million married working couples pay higher taxes just because they are
married? Is it right, is it fair, that 25 million married working
couples pay on average $1,400 in higher taxes just because they are
married? And today, the only way to avoid that marriage tax penalty
when both the man and the women that are in the workforce is either not
get married or get divorced.
It is wrong that under our Tax Code one pays higher taxes just
because they are married.
I was so proud of this House just this past week when we passed and
sent to the Senate legislation which wiped out the American tax penalty
for 25 million couples. This afternoon, the Senate by a vote of 61 to
38, an overwhelming vote, including Democrats joining with Republicans,
voted to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Of course, the bills are a
little bit different. We have to work out the differences. The bottom
line is we want to eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
Let me give an example of a couple from the district that I represent
in the south side of Chicago in the south suburbs who suffer the
marriage tax penalty. This is Michelle and Shad Hallihan. They are two
public school teachers. They live just outside Joliet, Illinois. Shad
teaches at Joliet High School. Michelle teaches at Manhattan Junior
High. They suffer about $1,000 in marriage tax penalty. Their combined
income is about $62,000. They are homeowners, and I would point out
that since we introduced the bill to eliminate the marriage tax penalty
a year and a half ago Shad and Michelle have since had a little baby.
If the Democrats have their way, this child will probably be out of
college before we eliminate the marriage tax penalty because there is
always an excuse not to do it today.
The bottom line is, for Michelle and Shad Hallihan and for their new
little baby Ben, $1,400, the average marriage tax penalty, is real
money. In the Joliet area, $1,400 is 3 months of day care at a local
child care center for little Ben. $1,400 is 3,000 diapers for little
Ben. $1,400 is one year's tuition at a community college called Joliet
Junior College in Joliet, Illinois. It is a washer and dryer for their
home.
Our legislation that passed the House of Representatives will help
people like Michelle and Shad Hallihan. The Democrats talk about their
alternative. It would leave Michelle and Shad Hallihan out. They would
still be stuck with the marriage tax penalty.
Under our legislation, which passed the House of Representatives with
the vote of every Republican and also 48 Democrats who broke with their
leadership to support the elimination of the marriage tax penalty, we
helped couples, two public school teachers like Shad and Michelle
Hallihan.
As I pointed out earlier, Shad and Michelle are homeowners. They also
have a baby and, of course, they give money to church and charity. So
that means they itemize their taxes. Under our proposal, we double the
standard deduction to twice that for single people, under our proposal.
That helps those who do not itemize, but if we are going to help people
like Michelle and Shad Hallihan, we have to help itemizers. That means
we need to widen the tax bracket so in the 15 percent bracket two joint
filers, a couple with two incomes, have to be able to earn twice as
much as what a single person can earn in that tax bracket.
Under our proposal, in the 15 percent tax bracket, we widen it so
that two-
[[Page H6434]]
earner households can earn twice as much. That will help Shad and
Michelle Hallihan.
I would point out that the proposal that the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) talked about would not help those who
itemize. And think about it. Most middle-class families who itemize
their taxes itemize because they own a home or they give money to
church and charity.
We as Members of Congress can all think of our neighbors back home,
middle-class working families who pursue the American dream; they buy a
home and because of their mortgage interest costs and because of their
property taxes, they itemize their taxes.
The Democrats say if one itemizes their taxes, they are rich so they
should continue to suffer the marriage tax penalty.
Now, Michelle and Shad make $62,000 a year. Back in the south suburbs
of Chicago, that is kind of a middle-class working family. Under the
Democrat definition of rich, they are rich making $62,000 a year.
Mr. Speaker, our goal is to make the Tax Code more fair. When I am in
the south side of Chicago at a steel workers hall in the Tenth Ward or
a legion post in Joliet or at a local iron workers hall in La Salle or
a Chamber of Commerce function or coffee shop, people tell me theirs
taxes are too high but they also point out that the Tax Code is unfair.
That is why we should help people like Michelle and Shad Hallihan. Let
us eliminate the marriage tax penalty. Let us go to conference.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the strong bipartisan votes for marriage tax penalty
relief in both bodies demonstrate the will of Congress and the people
that we represent. It is time to see if the President will join us by
enacting this legislation. It is time to do the right thing. I urge a
yes vote on this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. ARCHER. Pursuant to House Resolution 553, I move to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4810) to provide for reconciliation
pursuant to section 103(a)(1) of the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2001, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree
to the Senate amendment, and agree to a conference with the Senate.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution
553, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there is not a great deal to say about this. This is a
customary motion to go to conference with the Senate. I understand that
the minority has a motion to instruct which is debatable for 1 hour.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think we did debate this issue when the bill was
before us and the chairman is correct, we do have a motion to instruct
that we would like to offer at the appropriate time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 553, the previous question is ordered.
The question is the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Archer).
The motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Cardin
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees on
the bill H.R. 4810.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Cardin moves that the managers on the part of the House
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the Senate amendments to the bill H.R. 4810 be instructed,
to the maximum extent permitted within the scope of
conference--
(1) to maximize the amount of marriage penalty relief
provided to middle and low income taxpayers,
(2) to minimize the additional marriage bonuses provided to
taxpayers already receiving marriage bonuses under current
law, and
(3) to resolve the differences in effective dates and
phase-in amounts in a way which takes into account fiscal
responsibility.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 7(b) of rule XXII, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Archer) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
{time} 1730
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct makes it very clear that the
conferees should try to resolve the differences between the two bodies
so that the maximum amount of relief goes to those who need the relief,
those that are of low- and middle income, rather than going to the
higher income taxpayers.
Secondly, it points out what we believe to be a major problem with
the legislation that was passed by this body, and that is the
legislation that was passed by this body cost about $180 billion, of
which about 50 percent of that relief went to individuals who actually
had a marriage bonus; that is, their taxes were actually less as a
result of them being married. They were able to take advantage of lower
rates because the husband and wife filed a joint return. That happens
frequently, where one of the spouses has the majority of the income.
What we are suggesting to the conferees is that we agree that we
should try to deal with those that have the penalty; therefore, we
should minimize the amount of tax relief that goes to those who are
already receiving a bonus. Let us put the relief to those that are
actually paying the penalty rather than putting the relief to those who
are already getting a bonus for being married.
Lastly, we would point out that we have to resolve the effective
dates and phase-in amounts in a way that takes into account fiscal
responsibility. I would hope that all of us would agree that that is
one of the issues that we would hope our conferees would resolve.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the motion to instruct that has been presented by the
minority I am sure is taken in good faith, but I would say to the
minority that it is the responsibility of our conferees to defend the
House bill. When we go into conference with the Senate, that is what it
is about, and we will measure up to our responsibility to defend the
House bill.
The motion to instruct goes beyond that. It is primarily general in
its content; it will bring about nothing in the conference, but it will
attempt to prevent us from being able to accelerate the day when the
marriage penalty relief will take effect, which many of us would like
to consider. We believe that having to wait a full 6 years before it is
fully vested is perhaps too long a period of time, and we may well want
to consider accelerating that relief. But if this motion to instruct
were binding, which it is not, it would prevent us from doing that. I
cannot embrace it because I would be embracing something that would, on
paper, at least, appear to limit our ability to do what is in the best
interests of the people in this conference.
So I must reluctantly oppose this motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me just point out what the motion to instruct says.
In regards to the effective dates and phase-in amounts, we suggest that
it be done in a fiscally responsible way. I do not know why any Member
of this body would oppose the conference committee acting in a fiscally
responsible way. That is part of our responsibility here.
However, the main point of the motion to instruct, the main point is,
yes, we want to help those people who are being penalized because they
are married. Because they have a basically
[[Page H6435]]
equivalent or similar income, they are paying a higher tax rate than
they would if they were two individuals. Approximately half of our
married couples are affected by the marriage penalty; about 50 percent
fall into that category.
The problem is that the legislation that passed this body provides an
equal amount of relief to every person who is married, regardless of
whether they are in the penalty position or the bonus position. So the
motion to instruct simply says to the conferees, target the relief to
those that are penalized by their marital status. Use the tax relief in
the most cost-effective way.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that this body would agree with this motion
to instruct. If we are able to do that, then I think we can have a
strong bipartisan vote and get a bill not only that will come out of
conference and will pass this body and the other body, but will also be
signed by the President. It is for those reasons that this motion to
instruct is offered.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would simply explain to the Members that this motion to instruct is
actually an oxymoron, because on the one hand it says, within the scope
of conference, limit the marriage bonus; and yet there is no difference
between the Senate and the House bill in that regard. It is not
possible for us to change what they call the marriage bonus.
But I happen to be unabashedly proud that within this legislation, in
both the Senate and the House bill, and within the scope of conference
it cannot be changed, a provision that helps stay-at-home moms and
dads. They need economic help and relief as they rear their children. I
do not walk away from that. That is a very positive part of both the
Senate bill and the House bill, which the minority would like to undo
and take away.
So this cannot be changed in conference within the scope of
conference, and the minority understands that. I do not know why they
put that the way they did in this motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just point out that the other body gave a more generous
provision in regards to the bonuses; and, therefore, it is within the
scope of the conference.
But, Mr. Speaker, I think the key point here, and what we are trying
to do by this motion to instruct, is target the relief to those who pay
the penalty and to try to work out a bill that could be signed into law
that will provide relief to our taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to yield back my time; however, I do not
know whether the gentleman from Texas has any other speakers or not.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Maryland
that I would be prepared to yield back as well; however, I have a very
strong request from the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), who has
been a big sponsor of this legislation to be able to speak, so I hope
the gentleman from Maryland would indulge us in that regard.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I was going to yield time for closing to the
gentleman from Illinois from our side; but instead, I will reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield up to 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Weller).
(Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, let me just briefly address my friend from
Maryland's motion to instruct. He talks about our legislation as to
whether or not it should be fiscally responsible. It is fiscally
responsible. We use that surplus tax revenue and use that to bring
fairness to the Tax Code.
He says that we should delay implementation of the marriage tax
relief, and I believe that would hurt those low-income and moderate-
income and middle-income families that we want to help, so we do not
want to delay that. So I am concerned about that idea.
Then he also talks about those who do not suffer the marriage tax
penalty, whether or not they should receive any relief. The chairman
pointed out the stay-at-home moms, people like my sister, Pat, who took
a few years out of the workforce to be home with her children, so she
could be home with the kids before they were old enough to go to
school. I admire people who do that, and we do not mind helping them.
I would also point out in the Democrat alternative that the House
voted down just this past week, they provided a similar proportion of
relief to those who do not suffer the marriage tax penalty. So I would
point out their proposal did the same thing.
Last, they talk about low- and moderate-income families. The bottom
line is, their proposal would not help low- and moderate-income
families who happen to be homeowners. We believe if you are a homeowner
and itemize your taxes, you should receive relief as well.
Mr. Speaker, I have often come to the floor of this House, along with
many of my colleagues, and asked a very basic and fundamental question,
and that is, is it right, is it fair, that under our Tax Code a married
working couple, a husband and wife with two incomes, pay higher taxes
under our Tax Code just because they are married; higher taxes than an
identical working couple who choose not to marry, who choose to live
together outside of marriage, who actually save money by not
participating in marriage. I think it is wrong that 25 million married
working couples, on average, pay $1,400 more in higher taxes just
because they are married.
I have with me a photo of Shad and Michelle Hallihan. They are two
public school teachers from Joliet, Illinois. They suffer the marriage
tax penalty. Their income is about $62,000 a year, their salary as
teachers. Shad is at Joliet High School, and Michelle is at Manhattan
Junior High. They are at similar incomes, but if they chose to stay
single and just live together, they would save about $1,000 in taxes;
but they chose to get married. Under our Tax Code, they pay higher
taxes.
I would point out that under our legislation, the only way we can
eliminate that $1,000 marriage tax penalty for Shad and Michelle
Hallihan of the Joliet area is if we help those who itemize their
taxes, because Michelle and Shad Hallihan, of course they have a little
baby, Ben, who is in his first year, but they also happen to be
homeowners. Like most middle-class families who itemize their taxes,
they are homeowners. Because their combined property taxes and mortgage
interest are more than the standard deduction, they itemize.
Mr. Speaker, the only way we can help those who happen to be
homeowners, those who give to their institutions of faith and charity,
marriage tax relief, is if we widen the tax bracket.
Under our legislation, we double the standard deduction for those who
do not itemize, wiping out the marriage tax penalty for, I think, about
9 million couples.
But in order to help all 25 million married working couples who
suffer the marriage tax penalty, we have to help those who itemize as
well. Under our legislation, we widen the 15 percent tax bracket so
people like Michelle and Shad Hallihan can earn twice as much and stay
in the 15 percent tax bracket, the lowest bracket. Under our
legislation, we wipe out the marriage tax penalty for people like
Michelle and Shad Hallihan who make about $62,000 a year.
Think about it: $1,400, the average marriage tax penalty, that is a
washer and a dryer. In Joliet, Illinois, for people like them, that is
3 months of day care for little Ben at a local day care center; it is a
year's tuition at Joliet Junior College if Shad and Michelle would like
to go back to school.
The bottom line is, in this Congress, we want to help our schools, we
want to strengthen Medicare and Social Security, we want to pay down
the national debt, and we are making tremendous progress on that
agenda; but we also want to make the Tax Code more fair, so that if a
husband and wife choose to get married and choose to both be in the
workforce, they do not pay higher taxes.
Our legislation accomplishes that goal, and we have come so far in
this campaign to eliminate the marriage tax penalty over the last
several years. We have an opportunity, with a strong bipartisan vote,
and I would point out that the legislation we passed out of the House
this past week was supported by every House Republican, and
[[Page H6436]]
I was pleased to say that 48 Democrats broke with their leadership and
joined to make it a strong bipartisan vote to eliminate the marriage
tax penalty. That was a great accomplishment for this House, that
Democrats and Republicans came together.
My hope is that by the end of this week when we send to the President
legislation that wipes out the marriage tax penalty for 25 million
married working couples, that the President will join with us. I hope
we can make it a bipartisan effort. I urge a bipartisan ``yes'' vote.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland for his leadership, and I thank the chairman
for his leadership, along with the ranking member, on the issues that
really bear on both our investment in this Nation and a return of the
American public's investment in the Federal Government back to them.
It saddens me to come to the floor of the House to have to argue
against some of the very attractive pictures of young families with
children, and that is not the direction that any of us are going. My
district is a district that is enormously diverse and really has a
large number of young families buying new homes and raising their
children. I am very proud of the 18th Congressional District and some
of the prosperity that we have gained and some of the opportunities for
young families to get their first home.
{time} 1745
So I do not believe that any of us who believe that the present
marriage penalty tax format is misdirected can be accused of not
working to support the needs of young families and those married
couples who work so hard for what they have.
But I just came from a hearing, I say to the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Cardin), from discussing the issues of mental health resources for
special needs children. We were actually in a meeting trying to find
out how we could get more resources from this Federal Government, with
the budget caps that we have, with the appropriations fight we are in,
and trying to share the few dollars that we have, and trying to help
those children with special needs, those broken minds where those
parents are struggling to get the resources.
We could not find them. We determined that community health centers,
mental health centers, they are only in about 30 cities in our country,
and we were struggling, what do we do with a parent who comes and says,
I have two suicidal children, not one but two?
That is why this motion to instruct conferees is the right kind of
compromise. I resent accusations that those of us who want to seek an
opportunity to maximize the amount of marriage penalty relief provided
to middle- and low-income families are against giving relief to married
couples, or those of us who say that this effort that is being proposed
by Republicans is too costly.
We do not have enough money for Medicare and social security, we do
not have enough money to be able to provide, and when I say we do not
have enough money, we are not pushing the Medicare benefit for
prescription drugs, which would allow senior citizens to be able to get
prescription drugs. We cannot do all of that and be able to provide for
those very needy families and middle-income families.
So this motion to instruct to minimize the additional marriage
bonuses, to minimize the additional marriage bonuses provided to
taxpayers already receiving marriage bonuses under current law, it
makes a lot of sense.
We have to balance the resources of the Federal government, and who
in the world wants to again see the tragedies of a Columbine because
some youngster is struggling with a mental health need which we did not
see? Who wants to have children who are not immunized in this Nation?
Who wants to go into communities where in fact those young married
couples cannot even get affordable housing because they are priced out
of the market?
The $800 or the $200 that they are getting out of the proposal that
really goes to high-income married couples, to the greater degree, and
has a huge result at the end in terms of how much it is going to cost
us, is not the answer.
So I am supporting this motion to instruct conferees that can resolve
the difference in effective dates and phase-in amounts in a way that
takes into account fiscal responsibility. Yes, we should give marriage
tax penalty relief. I want to do that. But I want to balance it, that
the relief goes to low-income and middle-income, and I want those
families who come to me and say, my children need special services in
their schools, they need a mental health counselor, a school counselor,
a nurse, they need not be like Kip Kinkel, who killed his parents; who,
when was in his classroom in Seattle, was crying out. He was using
profane words, and rather than getting him mental health services or
special needs services, he was sent to the principal for using bad
language. I understand that, because there was no resources that he
could access. What a tragedy. School violence is built up a lot around
the turmoil of our children.
So I would hope that we take this opportunity not to accuse those of
us who support this motion to instruct conferees as being against
giving the marriage tax penalty relief. I believe this is the right
direction to go.
Mr. ARCHER. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the
balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let me just point out what this motion to recommit does.
It is very simple. One, it says maximize relief to low- and middle-
income people. It does not says 100 percent, exclusive, it says to
maximize.
Second, it says minimize the relief to those achieving a bonus. It
does not say zero or no relief, it says give the relief to those who
had the penalty.
Third, it says be fiscally responsible.
Mr. Speaker, there is a chance for us to work in a bipartisan way. I
would urge my colleagues to accept this motion to instruct so the
conferees can work in a bipartisan way, bring a bill out that can pass
this body and the other body and be signed by the President.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. CARDIN. 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.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, following this 15-minute vote on the
motion to instruct, proceedings will resume on H.R. 4866, a motion to
suspend on which the yeas and nays are ordered, as a 5-minute vote.
We will have a 17-minute vote on the motion to instruct, followed by
a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 203,
nays 222, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 408]
YEAS--203
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
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)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
[[Page H6437]]
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
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
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
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
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--222
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
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
Everett
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
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
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)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
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)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--9
Boswell
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Horn
McCollum
McIntosh
Porter
Smith (WA)
Vento
{time} 1812
Messrs. EWING, BONILLA, TANCREDO and GOODLATTE changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay''.
Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. RUSH and Mrs. McCARTHY of New
York changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea''.
So the motion to instruct was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the Chair
appoints the following conferees:
Messrs. ARCHER, ARMEY and RANGEL.
There was no objection.
____________________