[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.

                          ____________________