[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 95 (Thursday, July 20, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H6606-H6618]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4810, MARRIAGE TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT
OF 2000
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 559 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 559
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany 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. All points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration are waived.
The conference report shall be considered as read.
Sec. 2. House Resolution 556 is laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barr of Georgia). The gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Pryce) is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the
Committee on Rules, my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Moakley), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for
purposes of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 559 provides for the consideration of
the conference report on H.R. 4810, the Marriage Tax Penalty
Elimination Reconciliation Act of 2000. The rule waives all points of
order against the conference report and its consideration, and it
provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.
Mr. Speaker, we have certainly heard a lot of debate about the
marriage penalty over the past week. Actually, the Republican majority
has been working to address this inequity in our Tax Code for the past
couple of years, and today's vote marks the fifth time that the House
will vote to provide marriage penalty relief during the 106th Congress.
Let us hope that this oft-repeated debate has resonated at the other
end of Pennsylvania Avenue, because it is time once again to put the
ball in the President's court. Today's vote will send a stand-alone
marriage tax penalty elimination bill to the President's desk for his
signature.
We have heard some excuses as to why the President cannot sign this
bill. Some argue that this tax relief favors only the rich, but that is
just not true. The fact is that this bill helps anyone who is married,
regardless of income, and the people who suffer most under the marriage
penalty tax are the middle class.
That is right, the adverse effects of the marriage penalty are
concentrated on families with income between $20,000 and $75,000. I am
sure these folks would be surprised to learn that they are considered
as rich. So let us get past the tired old ``tax cuts for the rich''
rhetoric. Let us do something novel and focus on the policy of the
marriage penalty and debate its merits.
The marriage tax penalty is pretty simple to understand. It forces
married individuals to pay more in taxes than they would have to pay if
they stayed single. So we should ask ourselves, is there any merit to
taxing marriage? Is there an acceptable rationale to increasing taxes
on individuals based solely on their marital status? Do we want the
government to send a message that ``You will pay a steep fee to get
married, but you can avoid this financial burden if you just stay
single and live with that significant other?''
If the answer to these questions is no, then why the resistance to
elimination of this punitive tax? And if we can agree that the policy
has no merit, then how can we give relief to only some married people
and not to others? Is it possible to be too fair?
In my mind, if it is wrong to increase taxes on one couple because
they are married, then we should not apply a tax penalty to any couple
based on their marital status. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that our
only option in the face of this perverse discriminatory tax is to
eliminate it entirely.
There are other arguments against passing this legislation. Some of
my colleagues claim that the Republicans do not have their priorities
straight because we are putting tax cuts above all else. But again,
these accusations ignore the facts. I am pleased to remind my
colleagues, Congress has already, already passed legislation to wall
off both the social security and Medicare trust funds, already provided
affordable, voluntary prescription drug coverage to seniors through
Medicare, and already has paid down the national
[[Page H6607]]
debt. We have also passed appropriation bills that invest more in
education, biomedical research, veterans' health care, among many other
priority programs.
In fact, while we would never know it from listening to some of the
rhetoric, spending on discretionary programs will actually be increased
this year. So it is just not true to say that tax cuts are gobbling up
resources or stealing funds from needed programs.
The problem is that most of my Democratic colleagues just cannot
stand the thought of loosening their grip on Americans' money. I do not
know how big the surplus has to be for all of us to feel that it is
safe to give some of it back to the American people.
Let me put what we are doing into context. The Clinton administration
has been making great hay in the last week about ``the Republicans'
reckless attempts to provide relief from the marriage penalty and death
tax.''
{time} 1030
Earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office announced that
next year's surplus will be $268 billion. Of this $268 billion, only 2
percent will be used to correct the marriage penalty and the death tax,
only 2 percent, while 83 percent will be devoted to debt reduction
under the Republican proposal. Is it really so reckless to give 2
percent of the surplus back to the people who earned it?
Mr. Speaker, marriage is a sacred fundamental institution in our
society that teaches our children about love, family, commitment, and
honor. It should not be used as another cheap excuse to nickel and dime
the American people.
Today we have an opportunity to set a wrong right and eliminate the
marriage tax penalty. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing,
support this rule and the conference report so we can give 25 million
American families a little bit of their financial freedom back.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Pryce) for yielding me the customary time; and I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues are at it again. They have
taken a perfectly good idea to cut marriage taxes and twisted it into
another convoluted program to help the rich and do very little for the
rest.
This conference report, Mr. Speaker, could have made a real
difference in the lives of millions and millions of working Americans,
especially working Americans with children. But this conference report
could have also included Democratic proposals to cut their taxes by
enough to help them in their struggle to raise their children. But, Mr.
Speaker, it did not.
This conference report includes the Republican version of the
marriage relief. The Republican version does a lot more for the rich
people than it does for everyone else, and all one has to do is really
look at the bill to discover that.
Some of these richest people who will get the benefits in this bill
do not even pay a marriage penalty in the first place. As has become
the norm, the Republican bills and now the Republican conference report
do far more for those in the upper classes in our economy than they do
for anyone else, and all in order to have something to talk about in
Philadelphia at the Republican convention.
Mr. Speaker, this issue affects millions of Americans and should be
decided carefully, should be decided deliberately, not rushed to a vote
in order to be finished in time so they can parade it out in the
Republican convention.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, it is a fiscal disaster. My Republican
colleagues may say this bill is less expensive than before, but that is
not true. By moving the effective date of the 15 percent bracket
change, this conference report is dramatically more expensive. It will
cost $89 billion over 5 years; and unless my Republican colleagues plan
to end the tax cuts by the year 2004, it will cost $250 billion over
the next 10 years.
This enormous cost, Mr. Speaker, to benefit primarily rich families,
will be born on the backs of the baby boomers while hoping that
Medicare and Social Security will not fall apart just when they need
it.
To make matters worse, Mr. Speaker, this bill does a great disservice
to working families who make up to $30,000 a year. Those people,
despite all their hard work, will not see much of a change in their
EITC benefits because the Republican leadership decided against it.
This conference report is irresponsible. This conference report is
short-sighted. It is very politically motivated. It could have given
help to a lot of people, a lot of people who really need it. But it did
not do so.
Mr. Speaker, this conference report does nearly nothing to help the
middle- and lower-income working families to take care of their
children. It is yet another expensive Republican scheme to help the
richest American families. Mr. Speaker, it really should be in the
trash can and not on the stage at the Republican convention.
This process is a sham. The report is a sham. The American people
deserve better. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes
to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), who has
worked so hard to champion the cause to bring this legislation to
fruition.
(Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and in
strong support of our efforts to eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
Many of us over the last several years have asked a very basic,
fundamental question, that is, is it right, is it fair that, under our
Tax Code, a married working couple, where both a husband and wife are
in the workforce, that they pay higher taxes just because they are
married? Is it right that 25 million married working couples, 50
million taxpayers pay on average $1,400 more in higher taxes just
because they are married?
We call that $1,400 the marriage tax penalty. It affects married
couples who, because they have two incomes, they are forced to file
jointly, they are pushed into a higher tax bracket, and they pay higher
taxes. It is a marriage tax penalty, and it is wrong.
Let me introduce to the House some constituents of mine, Michelle and
Shad Hallihan, two public school teachers from a community of
Manhattan, just south of Joliet, Illinois. Shad is a teacher at Joliet
High School, Michelle at Manhattan Junior High. Their combined income
is about $62,000. They are middle-class teachers. They are homeowners.
Of course, since they were married, they have since had a child, little
Ben. Remember their family. Someone new in their lives, and they are so
proud of little Ben here who is growing very quickly.
Their marriage tax penalty is about $1,000 a year that they pay just
because they are married. I think it is a fair question, is it right,
is it fair that Shad and Michelle Hallihan, two public school teachers
who work very hard every day, have a new little boy in their lives,
have to pay higher taxes, send money to Washington just because they
are married?
I am proud to say this conference report before it eliminates the
marriage tax penalty that good people, hard-working middle-class people
like Shad and Michelle Hallihan, pay every year because they are
married.
Under our conference report, we help those who itemize their taxes as
well as those who do not.
Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle say that, if one is
middle class and one itemizes one's taxes usually because one is a
homeowner or one gives money to one's institutions of faith or church
or synagogue or charity, one is rich and one does not deserve marriage
tax relief.
Well, Republicans and, fortunately, 48 Democrats believe we should
help the middle-class homeowners who give money to charity. They are
not rich; they work hard. Shad and Michelle Hallihan make $62,000 a
year. They itemize their taxes.
Now, we help those who do not itemize their taxes in this conference
by doubling the standard deduction. That is used by those who do not
itemize their taxes. We double that for joint filers to twice that as
singles.
For those who are itemizers, like Michelle and Shad Hallihan and
little
[[Page H6608]]
Ben who are homeowners, so they are forced to itemize, we widen the 15
percent bracket. That is the basic tax bracket that affects everybody.
We widen that so joint filers, married couples like Shad and Michelle
with two incomes can earn twice as much as a single filer and be in the
same tax bracket, the same 15 percent tax bracket.
What I think is most exciting about this bill, not only do we help
middle-class families who are homeowners and give money to church and
charity who itemize those taxes as well as those who do not is that it
is effective this year.
When we pass this legislation and put it on the President's desk
today, the President will have an opportunity if he signs it into law
to help married couples, 25 million married working couples this
year. Because I would point out that doubling the standard deduction,
which helps those who do not itemize, and widening the 15 percent tax
bracket, which helps those who do itemize, such as homeowners and those
that give money to church and charity, that they will receive marriage
tax relief this year, because this legislation is effective January 1
of 2000.
Think about that when my friends on the other side of the aisle and
Bill Clinton and Al Gore raised taxes in 1993. They made their tax
increase retroactive, which meant they went back in the tax year and
took one's money. Well, this year we have an opportunity to give
marriage tax relief this year, which means we go back to January 1 of
this year.
If one is married, one of 25 million married working couples who
suffer the marriage tax penalty, one is going to see marriage tax
relief this year in tax year 2000. That is a great opportunity. If one
believes in fairness in the Tax Code as we do, it is time to make the
Tax Code more fair and more simple. We want to eliminate the marriage
tax penalty.
Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle have been making lots
of excuses. They really do not want to eliminate the marriage tax
penalty, because they would much rather spend Shad and Michelle's
money. They believe it is better spent here in Washington than Shad and
Michelle Hallihan can spend it back in Joliet, Illinois.
Think about it. The average marriage tax penalty for good, hard-
working middle-class married couples like Shad and Michelle Hallihan,
$1,400. $1,400 is 1 year's tuition at Joliet Community College, our
local community college. It is 3 months of day care for little Ben at a
local child care center in Joliet, Illinois. It is a washer and dryer
for their home. It is 3,000 diapers for little Ben.
The marriage tax penalty of $1,400 is really money for real people.
Let us do the right thing. Let us pass this rule. Let us pass this
legislation. Let us wipe out the marriage tax penalty for 25 million
married working couples.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like a wallet-sized picture of Shad and Michelle
and Ben, because I am going to miss them on my August vacation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we will miss Shad and Michelle. But, Mr. Speaker, this
is a customary rule for the consideration of a conference report, and I
hope my colleagues will support it.
The conference report on the Marriage Tax Penalty Elimination Act has
been crafted in the true spirit of compromise, not just between the
House and Senate negotiators, but also in an effort to accommodate the
President's views.
We have heard the White House's message. They want a smaller tax cut.
So we have pared back this legislation. What Republicans hope is that
the White House now hears our message and that of the American people
who are clamoring for a fair, simpler Tax Code.
The inequities and illogical provisions in our Tax Code are too
numerous to count. But today we have a chance to provide some fairness
by eliminating one of its most egregious provisions. We can do it in a
fiscally responsible manner. There is no excuse why at this time of
peace, prosperity, and budget surpluses that we cannot give a little
bit back to the American people who are doing the work to keep this
economy going and feeding the Government's coffers with their own hard-
earned cash.
We in Washington love to take credit for the booming economy and the
budget surplus, but the kudos should go to the American people who are
driving the success. It is time to temper the Government's greed, and
what better place to start than by supporting America's families. Let
us end the marriage tax.
I urge a yes vote on the resolution and the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Boehlert).
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the distinguished
gentlewoman for yielding me this time, because this is a very important
subject; and I want to give a perspective that comes from my district
in beautiful upstate New York.
Shortly, on August 4, a young man that I am very familiar with, Jake
Smith, who just graduated from Syracuse University's School of
Architecture, fulfilled his dream and got a degree and will be getting
married. He is marrying a young lady, Kristin Elmer, who is a teacher.
The two of them have fallen in love, are getting married. One of the
things they did not want to factor in was the possibility that their
tax obligation would increase simply because they are getting married.
This is designed to correct and eliminate that inequity. That story
is replicated thousands of times over, not just in my home county of
Oneida, but in my 23rd Congressional District of New York where there
are 55,000 people who are in similar situations.
Then one multiplies that by 435 and go across the country, and one
can see this really has a significant impact. We are talking about
providing meaningful tax relief to 25 million Americans. More than
that, it expands those who are eligible for the lowest rate of
taxation, the 15 percent bracket. I think that is very important.
{time} 1045
So I am, for all the right reasons, very enthusiastic in my support
of this bill. It does the right thing for the right reasons. In America
we should be encouraging those who decide to take the vows and not
providing disincentives for getting married.
So as I extend greetings to young Mr. Smith and young Miss Elmer upon
their impending wedding, I will be able to do so and to tell them in
very meaningful terms that we are cognizant of their needs and we are
trying to address them.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank once again the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Pryce) for yielding me this time, and I thank my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), a Boston Red
Sox fan, for his indulgence to this New York Yankee fan. This is very
special.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barr of Georgia). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 279,
nays 140, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 417]
YEAS--279
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
[[Page H6609]]
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pascrell
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--140
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berry
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Cardin
Clay
Conyers
Crowley
Davis (FL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kind (WI)
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Snyder
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--15
Baca
Barton
Burton
Campbell
Cooksey
Coyne
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Kilpatrick
Matsui
Radanovich
Roemer
Smith (WA)
Vento
Weldon (PA)
{time} 1110
Messrs. DEUTSCH, CROWLEY, ETHERIDGE, LARSON and MORAN of Virginia
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 417, had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 559, I call up
the conference report on 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.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barr of Georgia). Pursuant to House
Resolution 559, the conference report is considered as having been
read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
July 19, 2000 at page H6582.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. RANGEL. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will State his inquiry.
Mr. RANGEL. My parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, is, when you have
a conference report reported to the House, is it necessary to have a
conference?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is aware that the conference
report was signed by a majority of the managers. That makes it
appropriate to bring the conference report forward.
Mr. RANGEL. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, if a Member of the House of Representatives
was appointed by the Speaker as a conferee, is it necessary that that
conferee be invited to the conference?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All conferees are certainly invited to
participate in the deliberations of the conference. All points of order
have been waived, and it is now appropriate at this time to proceed
with the conference.
Mr. RANGEL. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
When a Member of the House of Representatives is appointed by the
Speaker to a conference, is it necessary that that conferee be notified
where and when the conference is being held?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All persons appointed to the conference
committee are entitled to attend. It is not within the power of the
Chair to order anybody to attend or not attend or be invited to a
particular meeting or not to be invited to a particular meeting.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I do not think I framed my question
correctly. I will try again.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman have further
parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. RANGEL. Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman shall state it.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, when the Speaker of the House of
Representatives appoints a Member of the House of Representatives to
attend a conference between the Members of the House and the Senate, is
it necessary or should it be that that Member that is appointed be
notified as to the time and place of the conference in which the
Speaker appointed him?
{time} 1115
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barr of Georgia). That Member would be
entitled to be notified.
Mr. RANGEL. Now, further parliamentary inquiry.
If a bill is being reported out of a conference and a Member
appointed to that conference had not received any notice at all of the
conference, and, therefore, had no opportunity to discuss the
differences between the House and the Senate bill and certainly no
opportunity to sign the conference report and did not even know there
was a conference being held, can you have a report being made to the
House floor under those circumstances?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. At this point the Chair cannot look beyond
the signatures themselves which were on the conference report. A
majority of
[[Page H6610]]
the signatures of the conferees were on the report. The Chair cannot
look beyond that. Furthermore, all points of order have been waived
against consideration.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have no further inquiries.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the conference report on H.R. 4810.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today, we take the final step toward ending the marriage penalty for
25 million married couples. That is 50 million Americans. Once again,
this can-do Congress is sending common sense legislation to the
President so we can help America's working families make ends meet. And
once again, this Congress is bringing fairness to the Tax Code.
I am proud to say that this marriage penalty relief bill is very
close to the version the House passed with strong bipartisan support
twice this year. In fact, it is better because we have accelerated the
tax relief to married couples so that they can begin to realize a
benefit this year, the year 2000, rather than having to wait under the
original House bill until the year 2003.
The doubling of the standard deduction, the first step in doubling
the 15 percent income tax bracket, and the expansion of the earned
income credit limits will all be effective retroactive to January 1 of
this year. That means that when President Clinton signs this bill,
millions of couples will be helped this year when they file their
estimated taxes and next year during tax time when they report their
tax return for this year. I honestly hope President Clinton will sign
this bill because it meets what he has signaled are his primary
concerns.
First, it is fiscally responsible. The bill's tax relief of $89
billion is less than one-half of 1 percent of the $2.2 trillion non-
Social Security surplus. Less than one-half of 1 percent. Is that too
much to create fairness for families? And it is 64 percent, almost two-
thirds, less than the amount of marriage penalty relief he said he
could support.
Second, it gives the most help to those middle- and lower-income
Americans who are hit hardest by the marriage tax penalty. By doubling
the 15 percent bracket and the EIC income thresholds, we erase the
marriage tax penalty for millions of lower- and middle-income workers.
This is especially important to working women whose incomes are often
taxed at extremely high marginal rates, some as high as 50 percent, by
this penalty.
Finally, this bill is part of an overall budget framework that
protects Social Security and Medicare, pays down the debt by 2013 or
sooner, and maintains fiscal discipline and our balanced budget.
Because of these actions, the President should see he now has every
reason to sign this bill. If only for a brief moment, I hope he can and
will put politics aside and place the needs of 25 million married
couples above the needs of politicians and political campaigns. This is
a kitchen table issue for families trying to make ends meet. The
American people overwhelmingly support this bill, and we can do this
right now. There no longer can be any delay in the other body. This is
a conference report. It is an up or down vote. I hope every Member will
vote ``aye'' overwhelmingly.
In his January State of the Union, President Clinton stood in this
Chamber and asked Congress to work with him to fix the marriage tax
penalty. There were no preconditions. There was no quid pro quo, no
wink, no nod, no demand for a trade; and I believe the American people
do not want to see a Congress operate where if you scratch my back, I
will scratch yours whether it is right or wrong. There should be no
linkage or trade on an issue this important to the families in this
country. It stands alone. In fact, there was only boisterous applause
and cheers from both sides of the aisle when the President spoke in
this Chamber and said he wanted to fix the marriage penalty. So today
we fulfill our responsibility and we finish the job, and we ask that he
fulfill his. Indeed, 25 million married couples should not be punished
any longer just because they got married.
I urge strong support for this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference
report. I am for doing something about the marriage penalty, and I very
much want us in this Congress to get rid of the marriage penalty. The
problem with this conference report is that it does a lot of other
things that do not attack the marriage penalty and in its overall it
spends too much revenue that could be needed and is needed for other
priorities like a Medicare prescription drug program or shoring up
Medicare and Social Security.
I want to say first that this conference bill is larger than either
the House version of this bill or the Senate version and that, worse
than that, it is as unfair as these earlier measures were. And we
believe, because we cannot get the official estimates, that it is as
much as $280 billion over 10 years. This bill is poorly targeted. It is
tilted in favor of wealthier couples, and it neglects those Americans
who need marriage tax penalty relief the most.
Under this bill, about two-thirds of the tax cuts go to couples in
the top 30 percent of the income scale while the vast majority of
couples, about 70 percent, would receive only one-third of the total
tax cuts. This bill gives half of the tax cut to couples who do not
even suffer from a marriage penalty. Let me say it again. Half the
benefit of this tax cut goes to couples who do not even suffer from a
marriage penalty. Now, that is a serious flaw. It is mislabeling. It is
misbranding what we are doing.
I think this bill is symptomatic, though, of a larger flaw in all of
the tax cuts that are being brought through the Congress. I have here a
chart, a chart that shows clearly the contrast between the Republican
distribution of tax cuts and the alternative proposals that have been
offered by Democrats. The contrast between the two plans is stark. If
all of the Republican cuts were to become law, Americans in the middle-
income range, those making an average of $31,000 a year, would get an
average tax cut of $131, because of all the tax cuts that you want to
pass. For the top 1 percent, they would get a tax cut of about $23,000.
So somebody making $31,000, they get $131 in total tax cuts. Somebody
at the top, the top 1 percent, they would get $23,000. Now, if you take
our tax cuts and put them together, that person making $31,000 would
get $371 and the person in the top 1 percent would get $133. We think
we ought to have these tax cuts going to the people who really need
them.
Now, I have said on all these debates, we still have a chance in this
Congress to reach a compromise, a consensus, on not only the tax cuts
that we can do but on the other issues that exist within this budget.
What are we going to do about a Medicare prescription medicine program?
What are we going to do about shoring up Medicare and Social Security
so that they have longer life out into the future? What are we going to
do about education, trying to make sure that every child in this
country gets a strong education and training so they can be productive,
law-abiding citizens?
The President sent a budget when we did the reestimates. He put about
$50 billion aside to be decided by the next Congress and the Congress
after that. He put aside a substantial amount for targeted tax cuts,
$263 billion. If you agree to that budget, and I am not saying you do,
but if we come to an agreement on a budget, the question becomes, where
does this piece, the marriage penalty piece, fit into that overall
budget? We are proceeding with the pieces of the budget rather than
coming to a consensus on the overall budget. And I say to you at the
end of the
[[Page H6611]]
day, I believe all of these tax cut measures are going to be vetoed,
because we do not have that consensus.
And then at the end of the day, the taxpayer, the citizen out in the
field, in the country, is going to say, what has this Congress done for
me? Where is my marriage penalty relief? Where is my estate tax relief?
Where is my education incentive? Where is my long-term care incentive?
Where is my child care incentive? These are the issues that people will
ask. It is not enough for us to do a weekly tax bill. It is not enough
for us to do two tax bills a week. What matters is not what we pass
here. It is what the President will sign that can actually be
experienced in the lives of America's families.
I plead with my friends in the Republican Party, I respect your views
of what you want to do in this budget. I do not know that all of my
views are right. But let us sit down in the name of common sense, let
us figure out a budget, let us get some of these things done this year.
If you are having a marriage tax penalty problem, you want a solution
this year. A veto does you no good. So I ask Members to vote down this
conference report, let us sit down at a table with everybody at the
table, let us work out a budget, let us work out tax cuts that are fair
and equitable and make sense in terms of not only the budget but make
sense in terms of Medicare, Social Security, a Medicare prescription
medicine program, and yes, ending the marriage penalty for America's
taxpayers.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As I listen to the presentation by those from the other side of the
aisle, it is always the same siren song. There is always a higher
priority than helping families, giving families tax relief, so that
they will have more in their pockets to take care of their immediate
needs. And there are always priorities that are ahead of creating
fairness in the Tax Code. They have not met a tax relief bill to let
working Americans keep more in their pockets that they liked. They
always have some reason to be against it over and over and over again.
{time} 1130
They shout out the President will veto this. We heard that in our
last debate. We heard it over and over again from their side. The
President will veto this bill; therefore, we cannot embrace it. That
was on the pension, retirement security bill. There were 25 votes
against that bill.
Are we to believe it is credible when they say the President is going
to veto these bills? I do not think so. That should not be an argument.
We should do the right thing, and that is what we are doing today.
Mr. Speaker, in the distribution tables, those charts were based on
the Treasury's distribution tables as to who gets the benefit and who
does not. They have been totally discredited, the whole basis on which
they make their determinations has been discredited over and over
again.
The nonpartisan Joint Tax Committee, that serves both Houses of this
Congress and both Democrats and Republicans, does not support that
distribution table. The American people are smart enough to know that
when we double the standard deduction, we help those people at the
lower-income end. When we double the 15 percent bracket, we help the
lower-income people, not doubling 28 percent, 31 percent, 36 percent,
39.6 percent brackets. Their arguments are so shallow that surely the
American people can see through them.
Finally, they say but wait a minute, they give part of their tax
relief to those who get a marriage bonus. Look at their own proposal,
half of their tax relief goes to people who are enjoying the marriage
bonus. They do not talk about that. This is a good bill. It provides
for the needs of American families and lets them keep more of what they
work for and creates fairness in the code.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it just seems to me if we really want to give relief
that we have to recognize that there is no Republican or Democratic
party way to do this. The only way that we can give tax relief in an
effective way is to be working together and not to test the President
as to what he would veto, but to work with him.
The partisanship just drips in the rhetoric, and we hear a lot of it
today. We find that the U.S. Treasury figures are not credible, and
they represent Democrats, Republicans, our citizens. They are being
challenged.
The statistical data that supports that this is targeted for wealthy
people, instead of coming from a nonpartisan government agency, it
comes from the Joint Taxation Committee, where the Republicans appoints
every employee that works for the Joint Tax Committee. But even worse
than that, it just seems to me that when we start adding up all of the
tax cuts that the Republican leadership has advocated on a weekly basis
on the way to the Philadelphia convention, if we include the Federal
debt, it comes close to a trillion dollars.
In a sense, the Republicans are depending on a veto in order to come
up with their next tax cut, because the figures just do not add up.
They do not mean what they are saying. They are depending on a veto for
some of these things, and to constantly talk about a surplus at a time
when the Nation has a national debt of close to $6 trillion, and we
include a mandate that that be reduced and that we do have affordable
prescription drugs and to put together a package that the President
would sign, I do not see how we can say that is scratching somebody's
back.
That is protecting our old folks' back to be able to say that if we
have access to health care, we should be at least able to buy the
prescriptions that the doctor has prescribed for us.
I think it is courageous for the President to say that if we are so
concerned about rewarding our constituents that are wealthy, we do it,
but do not forget those people that need some political power in order
to get an affordable prescription drug out of this House.
I conclude by saying, too, we have to find some way to start being
able to work together in a civil way. I have been in this House close
to 30 years; and I have been privileged, absolutely privileged, to be
appointed to many conferences to try to work out differences between
the House and the Senate. I think it goes beyond bad manners.
I think it goes to a question of testing the rules of this House when
those people in the majority can have the arrogance to have a
conference and not to have the minority represented. It is not a threat
to me. I am not a lonely guy, but it is a threat to what this
institution stands for, no matter what party has the majority.
It is a question of equity and fair play. It is a question of the
minority having an opportunity to express its views. It is a question
as to whether or not a conference between the House and the Senate just
means a conference between Republican leadership and excluding those of
us who are not.
I hope that no matter what happens in the next election, that my
party, if it is in the majority, will never stoop as low as to exclude
those people, just because they differ from the majority party, from
attending a conference so that the people, yes, indeed the people,
which the House is supposed to represent, can work its will and bring a
conference here.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barr of Georgia). Does the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Collins) claim the time of the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Archer)?
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, yes, I do.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Collins) will control the time of the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Archer).
There was no objection.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), one of the members of the Committee on Ways and
Means
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia (Mr.
Collins) for yielding me the time, and I would be remiss at the outset,
Mr. Speaker, if I did not acknowledge someone who will follow me in
this well in just a few minutes, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Weller), my good friend and seat mate who worked so hard on this
legislation, along with
[[Page H6612]]
the gentleman from Indiana on achieving marriage penalty relief for
hard-working Americans.
It is sad, but I guess not totally unexpected, that our friends on
the left again would be involved in political speeches that really,
sadly have more to do with ego than results. It is also curious to see
this almost Orwellian definition of bipartisanship.
In Arizona, and indeed, Mr. Speaker, the rest of America,
bipartisanship means understanding that there are sometimes are
philosophical differences but focusing on results, and the most
profound results, Mr. Speaker, the most profound results, my
colleagues, is making sure that American couples get to keep in their
pockets up to 1,200 a year.
I would suggest to all my friends, Mr. Speaker, that that is real
money, and with a compromised solution, stepping back bipartisan in
nature, we are inviting not only our colleagues on the left, but,
indeed, Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States to join us in
truly a civil, bipartisan approach to help that married couple in
Payson, Arizona making $36,000 a year penalized because they are
married.
We are saying to that couple, whether the couple lives in Payson,
Arizona or Peoria, Illinois or in Harlem in New York City that they can
keep that money in their pocket; that they will not be penalized for
being married. That is what we are focusing on today.
Friends, bipartisanship, Mr. Speaker, bipartisanship is not the
majority party twisting and bending its good name and ideas to the will
of the minority. It is working together. So in that sense, Mr. Speaker,
I ask our colleagues on the left to join with us in providing true
marriage penalty relief.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a Member of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I support a reduction in the marriage tax,
and we Democrats voted for that. But under this bill of the
Republicans, half of the cuts, as the minority leader said, would go to
those who pay no marriage penalty at all.
I want to say a bit about the distribution. I am sorry that the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) is not here. Look, take the chart my
colleague distributed from the so-called bipartisan Joint Tax
Committee. Here is what it says. What it says is that those earning
over $200,000, in terms of the billions of tax cuts, would receive as
much as all taxpayers who have income $50,000 and less. That is fair?
Those who are earning $75,000 to $200,000 would have a reduction in
their effective tax rate between seven or eight-tenths of 1 percent
while everybody under $50,000 would have no reduction in their
effective tax rate or at the most two-tenths of 1 percent. Take your
own figures. That is fair?
Let me emphasize a critical point. When this bill is in full effect,
and forget about the sunset which will never go away, if this bill is
passed, it would cost $280 billion over 10 years.
The total tax cuts embraced by the Republican majority in the House
and Senate come to $874 billion over 10 years. And my Republican
colleagues could not sell the $792 billion, the public said no, they
want fiscal responsibility. The Republican majority leaves no room for
prescription drugs. They leave no room for long-term care.
In the Democratic alternative, we have embraced a targeted marriage
penalty relief proposal and targeted estate tax relief. It is fiscally
responsible. Theirs is irresponsible. It is not conservative. It is
reckless. It is not compassionate. It is callous.
Their fiscal irresponsibility is bad policy. I think once again it is
going to prove to be bad politics. The bill penalizes, in the name of
removing this penalty on marriage, it penalizes fiscal responsibility.
There is no plan. They come here willy nilly. All they have is a
political plot for Philadelphia. We can do better, if we will sit down,
not in a so-called conference without any Democrats and without the
administration, and seriously talk about a fiscally responsible tax-cut
package. We can have it.
Mr. Speaker, as long as the Republican majority goes this way, we are
going to get vetoes, and we are going to get deadlock. They think they
will have a political issue. It did not work before, and it will not
work now.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Weller), who has been responsible for bringing this very
important piece of legislation to the Congress.
(Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, over the last several years, we have asked a
pretty fundamental question and that is, is it right, is it fair under
our Tax Code a married working couple, where both the husband and wife
are both in the workforce, a married working couple with a two-income
household pay higher taxes under our Tax Code than an identical couple
with identical income who choose to live together outside of marriage?
Is it right? Is it fair? Is it fair that under our Tax Code that 25
million married working couples pay on average 1,400 more in higher
taxes just because they are married? Of course not.
The goal of this legislation, I am proud to say, is to wipe out the
marriage tax penalty almost entirely for 25 million married working
couples. I think it is pretty fiscally responsible to take one-half of
1 percent of a $2.2 trillion surplus to eliminate the marriage tax
penalty. To listen to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you
think we would be breaking their piggy bank to take one-half of 1
percent of a $2.2 trillion surplus to help 25 million married working
couples who pay higher taxes jut because they are married.
{time} 1145
I, for one, and I am pleased to say that 222 Republicans and we were
joined by 48 Democrats who broke with their leadership, who believe it
is time to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, that this House has
voted to send to the Senate today, we are voting on the agreement
between the House and the Senate. We hope the President will join with
us to eliminate the marriage tax penalty.
Let me introduce a couple of constituents from the south suburbs of
Chicago which I represent, Shad and Michelle Hallihan. They are public
school teachers. Shad is at Joliet High School and Michelle is at
Manhattan Junior High School. Their combined incomes are about $62,000.
They pay just around $1,000 in marriage tax penalty just because they
are married under our Tax Code.
Now this photo was taken when they were married. It was about the
time we introduced our legislation about 2 years ago. Since then Shad
and Michelle have had a little boy, little Ben; and little Ben, of
course, is this little guy. We hope some day he does not have to pay
the marriage tax penalty. Our hope is for his parents we can eliminate
it this year.
I would point out under this legislation we provide middle-class tax
relief for middle-class couples like Shad and Michelle Hallihan this
year because our legislation is effective January 1 of 2000. So if the
President would join with us to eliminate the marriage tax penalty for
25 million married working couples, Shad and Michelle Hallihan would
see their marriage tax penalty eliminated this year.
Now under our legislation, we do several things. We double the
standard deduction for those who do not itemize to $8,800, twice that
for single filers. We also widen the 15 percent bracket to help those
who do itemize. Shad and Michelle Hallihan are also homeowners and
because they are homeowners they itemize their taxes; and the only way
to help people, middle-class families who own a home or give to church
or charity or their synagogue, is to widen the 15 percent bracket so
that they too can receive marriage tax relief.
Under our proposal, we eliminate the marriage tax penalty suffered by
Shad and Michelle Hallihan. Think about it. In Joliet, Illinois, the
marriage tax penalty of $1,400, the average marriage tax penalty, is
one year's tuition at our local community college. It is 3 months of
day care for little Ben at a local child care center in Joliet. It is
3,000 diapers for little Ben. But it is also, if we also think about
it, if Shad and Michelle had that money that they currently pay in the
marriage tax penalty, were able to set it aside in an education savings
account for little Ben,
[[Page H6613]]
by the time Ben is 18 they would have been able to set aside almost
$20,000 that they currently send to Uncle Sam, they could put in little
Ben's college fund. That is what marriage tax relief means for the
Hallihans.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of excuses from our good
friends on the other side: let us do just a little bit so we can say we
have done something; we have other priorities we want to spend it on,
but think about this. One half of 1 percent of a $2.2 trillion surplus
is being given back to middle-class working married couples like Shad
and Michelle Hallihan so they can take that marriage tax penalty that
currently goes to Washington, gets spent on other things, and use it to
take care of their families' needs, little Ben in particular.
So, Mr. Speaker, let us do the fiscally responsible thing. Let us
help middle-class working married couples who suffer the marriage tax
penalty. There are 25 million of them. That is almost 50 million
taxpayers who pay higher taxes just because they made the choice of
getting married.
My hope is the President will join with us and sign this legislation.
The President joined with us when he changed his mind on IRS reform. He
was opposed to it, decided to support it. He was opposed to balancing
the budget. Now he takes credit for it. He was opposed to welfare
reform. Now he takes credit for it. My hope is the President will join
with us and sign the elimination of the marriage tax penalty, the
legislation we are going to hopefully pass today. We will certainly
share the credit with him because it is the right thing to do.
So again, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote. I invite every Democrat
to join with Republicans. Let us vote to eliminate the marriage tax
penalty. I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
(Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, let me point out to my friends on both sides of the
aisle, I think some good points have been made here. I think there are
some facts that we should at least get on the table as to where we are.
There is a marriage penalty. Married couples pay some more taxes than
they would if they were not married. That is wrong and we should
correct it.
Fact number two, the conference report that is before us will spend a
lot of money that will not go to people who are presently paying a
penalty for being married. Let us acknowledge that. The Joint Committee
on Taxation has scored the conference report before us. It spends $292
billion over the next 10 years. Half of that relief, $145 billion, goes
to taxpayers who presently pay less taxes because they are married
rather than more taxes.
Fact number three, when $292 billion is added to the other tax bills
that have been passed by this body, we are now up to $874 billion in
tax bills that we have passed.
Now let us put that to the economic conditions in a budget that we
are trying to deal with. We have projected surpluses. We have not
realized those surpluses yet. We had demographic changes in this
country that are going to put real pressure on our Social Security and
Medicare system. We all understand that. So passing an $874 billion tax
bill is reckless. It is wrong. It jeopardizes the economic progress
that everybody is proud of in this body. Democrats and Republicans are
proud of the progress that we have made in strengthening our economy,
but our top priority should be to pay down the national debt, to make
sure that we can meet our obligations in Social Security and in
Medicare. That should be our top priority, but instead we are passing
tax bill after tax bill that in total is irresponsible.
The sad tragedy of the bill before us is that we acknowledge there is
a problem that we should deal with, but we could deal with it for one
half the cost of what we are spending in this bill. We are spending
$150 billion more than we need to spend. That $150 billion, if we could
use that we could have a prescription drug plan in Medicare that really
makes some sense, that will really help our seniors deal with the high
cost of medicines. $150 billion will help us reduce the deficit faster,
which pays off big dividends to everyone.
The national debt is a tax on all of us, every one of our
constituents, whether they are married or not married, whether they
have a marriage penalty, do not have a marriage penalty. Yes, those
that pay a penalty want relief, but all taxpayers want to see our
national debt retired. All of our citizens want to make sure that we
live up to our obligations in Social Security and Medicare.
I have heard both Democrats and Republicans talk about strengthening
Medicare with a prescription drug benefit. So let us have a budget. Let
us follow regular order. Let us have a budget that makes sense. Yes, it
should provide tax relief, but it should make sure that we are going to
pay down the debt. It should make sure that we can comply with the
other obligations, and it should target the relief that deals with the
people that really have a marriage penalty. This bill does not do it.
We can do better. We can work in a true bipartisan way so that we can
get relief to those who need it this year. There is still time that
remains. I urge my colleagues to reject this conference report and work
in a bipartisan way to produce a bill that will help those who pay the
penalty.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a member of the Committee on
Ways and Means, a very responsible Member.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Collins), for yielding me this time; and I appreciate the
opportunity to speak on the legislation today.
Mr. Speaker, our Tax Code has gotten so complex and so Byzantine, so
difficult to figure out, that it rewards and penalizes behavior in very
unusual ways. For example, at a time when I think this Congress, I
think everyone in this Congress, is concerned about promoting family
values, strengthening families, our Tax Code actually penalizes people
just because they choose to get married. That is what we are trying to
address here today. That is what the debate is all about.
The penalty is really a quirk in the tax law. It affects 25 million
couples nationally. In my own district I represent in Ohio it affects
62,000 couples. They pay more just because they are married.
Nationally, the average is $1,400. Now that may not seem like much by
Washington standards; but that $1,400 could go to a 401(k)
contribution, an IRA contribution, help for retirement security, help
for education. Regardless of what someone might do with it, the
principle here is that the Federal Government should not be keeping
that $1,400 just because people choose to get married.
At a time when our country is suffering high divorce rates, Congress
should be doing just the opposite. We should be encouraging marriage,
not slapping a penalty on it; and, of course, our tax laws should never
be written in a way to discourage people from playing by the rules.
That is what this debate is about today.
Now, we have heard some discussion about how one might address the
marriage penalty. I like the approach we have before us today. I like
it for two reasons. One, it is simple. It is very simple because what
it does is double the standard deduction. It doubles the 15 percent
income tax bracket, and it expands the earned income tax credit. All of
these are relatively simple as compared to a more complicated approach
one could take to avoid any possibility that somebody who was not now
penalized was getting some tax relief.
What would one have to do? They would probably have to have the
taxpayer make three calculations in terms of their income tax
liability.
Now, again, my friends on the other side who have expressed concern
that some stay-at-home moms may get some tax relief from this, and we
can talk about whether or not that is appropriate or not, but I would
just ask them to look at how complicated it would be. We already talked
about the complexity of our Tax Code. If there was not some spill-over
to help some of those folks who may be stay-at-home moms who do not get
a tax penalty now.
[[Page H6614]]
I would also make the obvious point that the Democrat alternative
also provides tax relief to some people who do not have a marriage
penalty. I would love to hear a response to that.
The other reason I like this legislation is because by doubling the
15 percent bracket and expanding EITC, it is going to help, despite
what we have heard today and the charts we have seen about the overall
so-called Republican tax proposals, and I am not sure what proposals
are included or not and I am not sure what analysis it is, but because
it doubles the bracket and because it expands the EITC, it will provide
relief to millions of low-income and middle-income Americans.
So my hope today is that all of us who are opposed to the marriage
penalty will come together, will vote for this legislation, send a
message down to the White House, get the President to sign it, and
provide this year relief to those millions of couples in this country
who currently bear the burden of an unfair penalty.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing from my Republican
colleagues today is true, because what they are talking about is
resolving the marriage penalty, and so half the bill does that. What my
Republican colleagues are not telling us about is the other half of the
bill. Fifty percent of the cost of this bill goes to the people that
were referred to before, Shad and his family from Illinois; and that is
the part that all of us agree with. If the bill before us did that and
solely did that, 435 Members of Congress would vote yes today; and the
President would sign the bill this evening.
What they fail to tell us about is the other half of the bill, which
has nothing to do with marriage penalty. Mr. Speaker, understand that
50 percent of the benefits of this bill go to couples who do not pay a
marriage penalty at all. So let's not call it a marriage penalty relief
bill if they are getting it and they are not paying it. Call it a tax
relief bill for the upper income, because if we look at the cost of the
bill, almost 80 percent goes to the highest income wage earners in this
country.
{time} 1200
I have no problem with them doing it that way, but then call it that
and sell it that way. But do we know why they do not? Because that bill
would not garner support of even Members on their side of the aisle,
because at that point, what we would do, Mr. Speaker, is put that
proposal here, weigh it against resolving and reducing the Federal
debt; if we looked at the two, we would say, no, the debt is more
important, get it off the backs of our children and our grandchildren.
Then we would put in the next column a drug benefit for those seniors
in our country who cannot afford it, so we would weigh a drug benefit
or a tax break for the wealthiest, and it would fail on that score. So
that is why they have tucked it into this bill and called it marriage
penalty relief.
My friends, this is only half true. The other half has nothing to do
with marriage penalty.
Why did they not invite the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) to
the conference? Because he might make that point and they would have to
think about it. Why did they not involve the President and this
administration in those negotiations? Because they might have eked out
a deal that the President would buy and a bill he would sign. But that
would totally destroy the reason we are here today.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today, the number one reason: pass this bill
to the President, he will veto it within the next 10 days, and they are
going to use this as a prop at their Republican convention in
Philadelphia. If the bill would be signed through negotiation and
inclusion of the minority party, that prop would be gone. There would
be a gaping hole in George Bush's acceptance speech.
So know what we are doing here? Yes, they are half right, but like
Paul Harvey says, let us tell the rest of the story.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), a responsible member of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
In response to the previous speaker, let me just say that those on
this side of the aisle are aware that a great deal of the benefits of
this tax bill, this tax cut go to married couples that do not incur the
marriage penalty. We think that is swell. We think that married couples
with kids that are trying to make it need a tax cut. We think married
couples without kids that are struggling to get a new car or get enough
toward a down payment on a house need a tax cut.
Look, we have passed several tax cuts since the Republicans have been
in the majority in this House, since January of 1995. The President has
signed those, even with all of those tax cuts that we have passed and
the President has signed, the American people are still paying more in
taxes to the Federal Government as a percent of our national income
than they ever have. Our total tax burden in this country is as high as
it has ever been. We would like to reduce that, my colleagues on the
other side are right, not only for couples that are incurring a
marriage penalty, which we all admit is wrong in the Tax Code, but yes,
even for those married couples that are not incurring the marriage
penalty. I do not make any apology for that.
Let us talk about this marriage penalty. Let me just explain it real
quickly so everybody knows what it is in the Tax Code. A marriage tax
penalty occurs when a married couple pays more taxes by filing jointly
than they would if each spouse could file as a single person. In other
words, they pay more in taxes as a married couple than they would if
they were not married and just living together. Now, is that the kind
of social policy we should encourage through the Tax Code? Surely, we
do not think so.
The most common marriage tax penalty happens because the standard
deduction for couples is $1,450, less than double the standard
deduction for singles. For example, an individual earning $25,500 would
be taxed at 15 percent, while a married couple with incomes of $25,500
each are taxed at 28 percent on a portion of their income. That is
wrong, and this bill fixes that.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
northern California (Mr. Herger), another responsible member of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, it is projected that the Federal Government
will take in more than $2 trillion in taxpayer overpayments over the
next decade, excluding Social Security dollars. Should we not use a
small part of this surplus to correct one of the most onerous
provisions of the U.S. Tax Code, the totally unfair marriage penalty?
The bill we are considering today will provide real tax relief for 25
million married couples, 47,000 of which are in my district in northern
California. This legislation will save taxpayers almost $90 billion
over the next 5 years. It is important to remember that these are
dollars that married taxpayers currently pay to the government for no
other reason except that they are married.
The Clinton-Gore administration claims that we cannot afford to give
back to the taxpayers a small portion of their tax overpayment. Mr.
Speaker, if we cannot afford to give the taxpayers back some of their
own money when we have record budget surpluses, when will we be able
to? When a couple stands at an altar and says, ``I do,'' they are not
agreeing to higher taxes.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I hope
that the President and the Vice President, Al Gore, would drop their
opposition and sign this much-needed measure into law.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Camp), another responsible member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding me this time.
I obviously rise in support of this conference report. I think once
again, this Congress is sending common sense legislation to the
President that will help America's working families make ends meet.
[[Page H6615]]
This Congress is doing its work and bringing fairness to the Tax Code
and helping families.
This marriage penalty relief bill is very close to the version that
the House passed twice this year with strong bipartisan support. In
fact, it is even better than the version we had earlier, because we
have accelerated the tax relief to married couples so that they can get
tax relief from the marriage penalty burden in the year 2000 this year.
The doubling of the standard deduction and the doubling of the 15
percent income tax bracket, the expansion of the earned income tax
credit limits, those will all be effective retroactive to January of
this year. That means if President Clinton signs this bill, millions of
couples will be helped next year during tax time.
Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is fiscally responsible, because it is
less than one-half of 1 percent of the $2.2 trillion non-Social
Security surplus, less than one-half of 1 percent. Second, it gives the
most help to those middle- and lower-income Americans who are hit
hardest by the marriage tax penalty, by doubling the 15 percent bracket
and the IC income thresholds.
Finally, this bill is part of an overall budget framework. For the
first time, this Congress this year passed a budget that would totally
eliminate the national debt by the year 2013, and this is part of that
budget framework that not only eliminates the debt, but also protects
Social Security and Medicare. So this maintains fiscal discipline and
balances our budget.
Because of these actions, I am hopeful the President will now see
that he has every reason to sign this bill. I hope that we can put
politics aside and help the needs of the 25 million couples, married
couples that would get relief under this bill. I urge support of this
conference report.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Largent).
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding me this time.
This is a great day. This is a great day when we have an opportunity
to vote on marriage penalty relief. Finally, 25 million couples in this
country that have been penalized simply for the fact that they have
been married will see some tax relief. This is a great day in this
country, that this Congress is sending a message to Americans that we
think you, as couples, know how to spend your money better than we know
how to spend it here in Washington, D.C. That is a great day, that is a
great thing. I fully anticipate that we will see a very significant
bipartisan vote on this bill later this afternoon, as soon as we finish
the debate on this measure. I look forward to that, to joining with my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle in passing this marriage penalty
relief bill today.
Mr. Speaker, there is really more good news, and it has been
trumpeted in Washington here quite a bit, and that is the fact that the
CBO has announced that the projected surplus, non-Social Security
surplus is going crazy. They first anticipated a $15 billion surplus,
non-Social Security surplus. This Republican Congress has pledged not
to touch the Social Security surplus, so we are talking about
everything else, non-Social Security surplus is now going to be not $15
billion but $128 billion in the year 2001 alone.
So we hear a lot of complaints from Members on the other side of the
aisle that this tax bill spends too much money. Now, I have to step
back just for a second and just remind myself that it is only in
Washington that we talk about giving taxpayers their money back as
spending money, as if that money really belongs to Washington and not
to the American taxpayers. But do not forget, the money is yours. It
does not belong to us, it does not belong to Democrats or Republicans,
it does not belong to the House or to the Senate. It belongs to you.
You worked long and hard to earn that money, and then you send it to
Washington, D.C. and now you are sending so much we do not need it all.
We want to send it back to you in the form of marriage penalty relief.
Mr. Speaker, I am here today to support the actions of this committee
and this Congress, and I urge all of my colleagues to join with me in
sending tax relief to 25 million married couples in this country.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as we conclude this discussion, we do it in an
atmosphere of partisanship, which is shameful. It is such an important
issue to the American people, and especially to married people. Had I
been invited to the conference, that is after the Speaker appointed me,
I would have been able to bring to that conference a message from the
President of the United States. Because I was authorized to say that
even though the President thought that there was a better way to target
the relief for married couples, he recognized that those in the
majority had this overwhelming compulsion to reward those people that
God has already rewarded with additional wealth. But he had authorized
me to tell the conferees, had I been told where the meeting was, that
he was willing to go along in the spirit of bipartisanship with the
Republican majority marriage penalty bill if only they would consider
and attach to that some relief for the older folks that cannot afford
to purchase their prescription drugs.
The Chairman said, that is wrong, that we should not participate in
``you-scratch-my-back-and-I-scratch-yours.'' Well, we are politicians,
and if my Republican colleagues have such an overwhelming concern for
the taxpayers that they are talking about giving back close to $1
trillion, let us be honest with the taxpayers.
The Republican majority is not giving them back anything, not 1 red
cent. What they are doing, and they should be doing with us, is
revising the tax system to give them some relief. They are not sending
Americans a refundable tax check, as every one of the speakers implied,
they are just reducing their tax burdens, and we would want to join in
that effort.
We cannot have bipartisan bills by closing up the conference and
having it from room to room so that the minority cannot participate. We
cannot have bipartisan legislation, unless my Republican colleagues
reach out and ask the White House, what can be accommodated; unless
they talk with the Democratic members on the committee and the
leadership, and then reach an agreement. That is the beautiful thing
about this great country and what used to be this great House of
Representatives, is that no one comes here with all of the answers.
Just being in the majority does not mean that they are brighter than
the rest of us.
{time} 1215
Just being elected does not mean they have all of the answers. It
means that they reach out, they discuss the problems together, and they
come up with not what is best for their convention in Philadelphia but
what is best for the people of the United States of America.
It is no great genius if they can count that they have 218 votes and
that they have some Democrats that will vote with them from time to
time to pass bills. They have passed any number of bills knowing that
they are not going to become law.
How does that make them a better legislator? How do they go to a
convention and say, ``I passed it and they did not support it?'' Where
they really have leadership is if they are able to say, ``I had some
great ideas. I was able to persuade the House and the President of the
United States to buy these ideas, and together, yes, together, we did
not just pass bills but we made law.''
We want to do it with them. There is not an issue that they brought
up that we do not want to cooperate with them, but they just cannot
give us slivers of tax relief and forget that we have a responsibility
not only to relieve the tax burden of the taxpayers, but also to make
certain that the social security system is there when they are eligible
for it.
We have a responsibility not just to give access to health care under
Medicare, but to make certain that an older person can afford to get
their prescriptions when the doctors say they need it. We have to
reduce the tax burden on our people, but we also have a responsibility
to pay down the Federal debt. That is $6 trillion. That means that
every year we are paying billions of dollars in interest. We ought to
relieve the next generation of that burden.
What I am saying is, it is no profile in courage to come here and
pass bills,
[[Page H6616]]
especially when they have been promised a veto. What is courageous is
to be able to say, ``I want to sit down with these Democrats.''
There are enough differences between our parties to fight about in
November, but tax relief for the married couples, tax relief for
estates, tax relief for couples with minimum wage, relief to be able to
get affordable drugs, protection of social security and protection of
Medicare, they are not Democratic issues, these are American issues.
We cannot tackle these problems and we cannot bring solutions to
those problems by going to Democratic caucuses or going off to our
conventions saying, ``We fought off those people,'' and the other side
cannot go to Philadelphia and talk about all the bills that they have
passed unless they can tell the voters that they have given them relief
because they have worked it out with Democrats and with the President.
So, Mr. Speaker, here we are once again. I suspect there will be
other bills on their way to Philadelphia, where they will be there
trying to say, if one is appointed to a conference, would they be kind
enough, gentle enough, courteous enough to allow the Democrats to
attend the conference? It is a part of the House rules.
Are they so afraid of a different opinion? Are they so afraid to
engage? Are they so committed not to do anything to provide decent
legislation that the President may sign? Are they so embedded with the
concept that they do not want to touch prescription drugs that even
when the President sends a national message, they want their bill:
``Take care of American old folks, take care of our sick,'' and to make
certain that when we leave here, that we can go to California, we can
go to Philadelphia, we can go to our conventions and say that we
differ, and that is what makes America great, that is what makes this
Congress great?
But do not hold the older folks hostage giving them slivers of
proposed tax give-backs, when they know that they are not talking about
anything that they intend to become law.
It is not too late for us to work together. We have had enough of the
fighting. Why can we not go to Philadelphia and say that we do not need
a mandate from the Speaker to meet, we do not need a mandate from the
leader to meet, we do not need a mandate from our candidates to meet.
We have been elected to enact law, to get it signed into law.
Why do we not start today and say that from now on we will be working
together, not as Democrats, not as Republicans, but Members and proud
Members of this great House of Representatives, and collectively we
will be in the Rose Garden seeing that these bills in a bipartisan way
are signed into law?
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is pleasing to hear Member after Member, no matter
which side of the aisle they are from, standing and saying that we do
need to give tax relief to the American taxpayer.
There has been a lot of mention about Philadelphia and what the
Republicans will do on their way to Philadelphia, upon arrival in
Philadelphia. But I believe both sides of the aisle do have a
convention coming up very shortly. I would request that the Democrat
side of the aisle join us over here, and many will. They can also go to
their convention and talk about how they did give tax relief to the
American taxpayer.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Traficant).
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
In America we have rewarded dependency, subsidized illegitimacy, and
bragged about being family-friendly, but basically, we tax the
institution of marriage.
I think this is ridiculous. This bill has been moderated some after
it has come out of the Senate. This is a good bill. The American people
deserve this bill. I stand very strongly in support of the passage of
this bill, and urge the Congress to once again incentivize marriage, to
reward marriage, reward family life, reward those that pay the bills to
get a tax break.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by commending the gentleman in his
fight, and also commending the Democrats who will join forces and pass
this bill.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of 144,000 married people in the Third
District of Georgia, I am very pleased that we are finally coming to a
conclusion on this bill. I am also very pleased that the conference
members decided to make the effective date this taxable year so that we
can give immediate relief, rather than waiting for the next taxable
year, because families needs need to be met. The more that we take from
that family budget through taxation, the less they have to meet those
needs.
Also, there are many families who would like, as the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Portman) said, put funds away for future years for family
needs.
There has been a lot said about, ``Is this fair?'' Mr. Speaker, is it
fair to give the same deductions, the same standard deduction, to every
eligible taxpayer in this country? I think so. Is it fair to increase
the 15 percent bracket for every eligible taxpayer in this country? I
say yes. Is it fair to ensure that those who have the opportunity can
take advantage of the tax credits that this Congress has passed and the
President has signed earlier, such as the child tax credit or the
tuition tax credit? When it comes to the alternative minimum tax that
they still will be eligible for, I say yes. Is it fair to expand the
area of income for the EITC? Yes.
What makes it fair, Mr. Speaker? Because there are other provisions
of the Tax Code to take up the slack when it comes to those who say
this is only going to the wealthy. Those are progressive tax rates.
Thanks, too, to the 103rd Congress, when the majority then was from the
other side of the aisle, there was an additional tax bracket added that
takes into account the income from those in higher income brackets.
Also, many of those in the higher income level lose their itemized
deductions, which increases their tax contributions or tax liabilities.
It is responsible that we do this bill.
Another area of responsibility is in the area of the budget. By
putting a 5-year sunset on this provision, on this measure, it will
then revert back and hold down the actual reduction in the cash flow of
the general funds.
Personal responsibility is at play here. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of
Congress, when I am interested in a committee or a conference or any
activity of the Congress, I feel it is my personal responsibility to
inquire when those committees are meeting. Those who complain about not
knowing, maybe they did not fulfill their responsibilities.
I urge the Members of this House to pass this measure. I feel very
confident that the President will sign it.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, the issue before us today is a simple one. It
is simply unconscionable that the federal government of the United
States would impose a tax penalty on the holy state of matrimony. Of
the many outrages contained in our federal tax system, and there are a
great many such outrages, none is greater than that of imposing an
extra tax burden on a man and a woman simply because they live together
as man and wife.
In my own 8th District outside of Chicago, over 70,000 families face
the marriage tax penalty. Over 70,000 families could enact their very
own tax relief by getting a divorce. Our tax code should at the least
be neutral with respect to marriage and the marriage penalty relief
bill before us would move us at least part way in that direction.
And so I strongly support the conference agreement which will
eliminate the marriage penalty for millions of American families and
reduce it for millions more. Many of my colleagues may not know this,
but a little over 20 years ago, I rose before the American people to
decry the tax penalty on marriage when I ran for the highest office in
the land. Then, in 1981, we addressed the marriage penalty in part
through the Economic Recovery and Tax Act by slashing tax rates and by
including in the tax law a provision reducing the taxable income of the
second earner in a two-earner family.
Over the past 20 years, however, the severity of the marriage penalty
has intensified as the Congress raised tax rates and introduced new
complexities in the law such as refundable tax credits. And so it is
now critical that we pass this bill and give American families some
relief from the marriage tax penalty.
I understand President Clinton may oppose this bill, as do some
Members of the House, on the grounds that it reduces taxes too far.
[[Page H6617]]
This is very disappointing because Republicans have tried to meet the
President halfway on this issue, to compromise, to pare back our hopes
for more significant marriage penalty relief.
To be honest, I thought the original bill was too conservative.
Especially when projections of the federal budget surplus grow by a
trillion dollars in just a few months, there can be no better way to
apply some of these surpluses than by eliminating an unfair tax penalty
on one of America's bedrock institutions--marriage. But, in the
interest of compromise, I am willing to support this bill as it has
come out of conference.
I understand some of my Democratic colleagues oppose this bill on tax
distribution grounds. Apparently, they believe it is appropriate for
some families to continue to face a marriage tax penalty. I strongly
disagree. No American family, irrespective of their level of income,
should face a tax penalty for being married. This is a matter of
principle, and on this matter I come down on the side of American
families. The one shortcoming of this bill is that it still leaves
millions of American families paying thousands of dollars a year in
marriage tax penalty.
I would also point out to opponents of this bill that the federal
income tax is today heavily skewed to taxing upper-income families. If
this bill somehow finds favor in the President's eyes and becomes law,
the federal income tax will still be heavily skewed to taxing upper-
income families. Opposition on distributional grounds compels me to ask
my colleagues if there is any level of progressivity in our tax system
that they deem to be too steep.
Finally, I would like to address an argument opponents have made
against this bill, and against other tax cuts Republicans have advanced
in recent weeks. Opponents of the Republican tax cut initiatives like
to point out that the sum of the total relief provided through bi-
partisan pension reform, bi-partisan marriage penalty relief, cutting
the excessive tax burden on Social Security benefits, the bi-partisan
repeal of the death tax, and other measures rises to a very large
figure. They accuse Republicans of being fiscally irresponsible in
proposing so much tax relief. They also like to point out, however,
that the President has threatened to veto each and every one of these
bills. Their claim of fiscal irresponsibility is, therefore, an empty
one. Republicans are looking, and will continue, to look for ways to
provide tax relief to the overtaxed American people that can escape
President Clinton's veto pen. If the President changes his mind and
begins to sign some of these bills, perhaps then we can consider
whether the amount of cumulative tax relief is something to be
concerned about.
And so I urge my colleagues, and I urge the President, when put to
the question of whether you support comprehensive marriage penalty
relief--just say, I do!
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, because of the current discussion of the
conference report for H.R. 4810, the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2000, this Member encourages his colleagues to
read the following editorial, which he highly commends, from the July
19, 2000, edition of the Norfolk Daily News. This editorial highlights
why the House of Representatives should pass the H.R. 4810 conference
report. In particular, this editorial correctly addresses the following
weak arguments of those who oppose the H.R. 4810 conference report: the
lopsided percentage of relief for one-income couples; the benefits of
this tax cut would go to couples who are already well-off; and the
projected surplus may not materialize.
Marriage Penalty Needs To Be Axed: Tax-and-Spend Proponents Have Weak
Arguments To Oppose GOP Legislation
(Daily News, July 19, 2000)
The left-of-center, tax-and-spend folks are aghast that the
Republican majority in the U.S. Senate has passed legislation
to eliminate the so-called marriage penalty. But being
largely bereft of solid arguments for their position, they
have taken to leaning on shallow arguments.
Some Democrats, for example, have pointed to an editorial
in the Washington Post that said it is no penalty at all if
two people with jobs get married and suddenly find themselves
paying a higher tax. Of course, neither the editorial nor the
Democrats explain why this isn't a penalty; they just say it
isn't and point out that two incomes considered as one income
make for a higher income and higher taxes under a graduated
system.
That's nothing new. The point is that it is, in effect, a
penalty to make people pay more when they wed--and it is
wrong, especially considering the embattled condition of the
crucial institution of marriage today.
But the tax-and-spend proponents aren't through. They note
that the Republican legislation would also lower the taxes of
a spouse who provides the only income or a lopsided
percentage of the income and who already has a tax advantage
over a single person.
The legislation does indeed accomplish this, and anyone who
has followed this issue knows why. When past bills aimed to
eradicate the marriage penalty were considered, opponents
inevitably pointed out that two-income families would then
have a tax advantage over one-income families. Such an
inequity was taken by many as sufficient grounds to keep the
penalty intact until, finally, the tax cutters figured out
they could kill the penalty and have a degree of equity in
different marital situations, too. All that was needed was to
simultaneously reduce taxes for one-income couples.
The tax-and-spend folks don't much like it, either, that
the benefits of the tax cut would go to people ``already
quite well off''--a position that should make everyone groan.
The fact is that it's people who are ``already quite well
off'' who pay most of the income tax in this country. To
oppose giving them a break is to oppose giving any income tax
reductions at all, and to make reductions sound unjust is
roughly akin to saying that it is unfair to relieve pain in
only those who happen to be experiencing it.
A final argument against reducing the penalty does have
some validity--namely, that projected budget surpluses may
never materialize and are largely spoken for by endangered
entitlement programs. The problem is that, in the absence of
tax cuts, the money could well be spent on new programs that
encroach further on American lives. History shows that while
Congress will seldom do away with programs, it is not nearly
so reluctant to raise taxes as needed. Given that, the
marriage penalty needs to be eliminated.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time for debate on the
conference report has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference
report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes 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 271,
nays 156, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 418]
YEAS--271
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
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
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
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
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
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)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mink
Moore
Moran (KS)
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
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
[[Page H6618]]
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--156
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
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
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
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
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--8
Baca
Barton
Campbell
Cooksey
Kilpatrick
Roemer
Smith (WA)
Vento
{time} 1253
Ms. CARSON and Messrs. FARR of California, GEJDENSON, DICKS, THOMPSON
of California and MINGE changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________